Big Ben on Wallace: Steelers will miss him, Dolphins are lucky

[Captain Lemming]

You're talking 'value for money' which is, essentially, a perspective.

Wallace's worth is several millions of dollars. The market set the number. If there had been no market for Wallace, he'd have signed for significantly less, his worth being whatever number he would have signed for.

Now, it could be argued he'd be better value for money on a significantly lower contract number..

Your Lexus/Honda example is a good one. The 'worth' of the Lexus, in real dollars, is more than the Honda. Why? It's more desirable, more popular, people are willing to pay it's worth. But the Honda might provide better bang for the buck. But it's worth will still be lower.

Yes, let's follow this thinking. The one element missing is a "budget".

Most people would need to give up other so much for a Lexus that THEY DONT DO IT.

I would liken Wallace more to a Porsche. Crazy Fast, yet too expensive for a typical family

Given the average budget, MOST PEOPLE are better served getting a Camry or Accord, which is why no Lexus or Porsche model come close to the the sales of the Camry.

Everyone in the NFL is on the same fixed "budget".

Just like a Porshe to a family with a limited fixed income the sacrifices to all other areas on life.

With sacrifices everywhere else your overall quality of life is less, but you have a fast car.

You never get to go on vacation (the SB) because your budget was blown on one fast shiny car.

[Captain Lemming]

"Fair price- It's not what you say, it's what the market will bear." - Leonard Smalls (His friends call him Lenny)

Very true.
The market sets the price of certain comic books at 1 million dollars.

[URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7320818/Batman-beats-Superman-early-comic-book-sell-for-more-than-1m.html[/URL]

Just because the "market" will bear it, doesnt mean it is the best use of funds.
Never in the 2000s has paying a receiver like a QB been worth the investment if the goal is to win a championship.

That is why Wallace got paid by the Fins not us.

[Slapstick]

"Fair price- It's not what you say, it's what the market will bear." - Leonard Smalls (His friends call him Lenny)

Exactly.

Now, whether or not you get your money's worth from that fair price is another matter entirely...

[ikestops85]

I didn't know the Vikes offered him money... thanks for the heads up. Kind of changes the whole "one team offered him money" argument I was using. Well, upon further inspection I'm gonna say the Vikes deal is bull #@$t. The only one on record is Mike's Dad... and since he signed an hour after FA started I doubt they really had a hard offer from MN.
I heard weather played a big part in his decision to head south

It was widely reported that the Vikes made the best offer but Wallace wanted the warm climate ... hence the signing with the Fins. I think I also heard there was a third team in the bidding but it was also in a cold climate so Wallace didn't really care.

I don't have a problem with what Wallace got paid. I would have loved to have kept him on the team but we couldn't afford him. What I have a problem with is so many bashing the guy's talent. He's got it ... loads of it. Why hate on the guy just because he got paid what he thought he would?

So if the question is whether Wallace was worth that much then I have to say "No". But then I don't think Troy is worth what we are paying him, or Woodley, or Timmons, or Ike, or Brown. I don't even think what they will pay Ben in his next contract will be worth it. What teams are slowly ending up with are a few superstars and the rest of the team are scrubs because that is the only way to work everything with the salary cap.

When one player ends up eating 15 - 20% of your salary cap like some of the QBs or even receivers in the league do it throws everything out of whack. The Steelers are usually pretty good about staying out of that game until the last few years. We would never make anybody the highest paid for his position then we started doing it for Troy and Harrison. That seemed to open the floodgates as we handed out big contracts to Ike, Woodley, Timmons, Brown and even Miller.

As much as I would hate it, because I like all those players I've mentioned, I think we need to start letting some of these guys go even if they are in their prime. We need to build as a team ... not as individual players. Work for signing a team full of average to above average players instead of one with some stars and the rest of them scrubs.

[Sugar]

Just like a Porshe to a family with a limited fixed income the sacrifices to all other areas on life. With sacrifices everywhere else your overall quality of life is less, but you have a fast car. You never get to go on vacation (the SB) because your budget was blown on one fast shiny car.

The family that has a Porsche has an everyday vacation.

[Captain Lemming]

Firstly, there was a few reports, or if you prefer- speculated reports- that the Steelers & Wallace were close to a deal, but the sticking point was the guarenteed money portion of the deal. If we are willing to assume the "Wallace wants top 10 money" speculated reports are potentially correct, then the reports saying Wallace was close to signing a deal must be equally as relevant.

Now, again, reports say that the money being talked about was similar to Brown's eventual contract. Most likely, it was more. But regardless- it's just a way of potentially putting a value from the Steelers on the position. Now, whatever the potential Wallace/Steelers deal was, financially, must have been somewhat acceptable if it is true Wallace was close to signing. this means- and this is the important part- that what Wallace wanted, and what the Steelers were willing to pay, were not THAT far apart. Particularly if, as Chadman said earlier, the sticking point wasn't the overall contract value, but the guarenteed money side of the deal.

Where do these "leaks" come from?
Whether it is the Steelers or Wallaces camp "leaks" serve a purpose.
To "spin" public opinion.
They are meaningless....what does "close" mean specifically?
Until a signature is on the dotted line, this means nothing.

We KNOW one thing and one thing only:
WE KNOW WHAT IT TOOK FOR WALLACE TO SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE.
It aint close to what Brown got.

So the first part of Chadman's belief/argument is this- if the two sides were close, then YES, Chadman would have been happy having Wallace sign 'for a little bit more' than what the Steelers had him valued at.

But we dont KNOW what that number is Chadman. What was the Steelers "value" for Wallace?
If that I "a little more than Brown, I'm with you. We BOTH think that DID offer a little more than Brown. But we dont know.
What I do know is what it took for him to sign, and I DONT want to pay THAT.

The 2nd part of Chadman's belief/argument is this- if Brown is worth $48m to the Steelers, Wallace is worth more than that. Why? Because he has evidence on his side. Brown is, to this point, a one year wonder. Wallace has 3 solid to very good seasons, plus 2012, to his resume.

Again you just specualated that we DID offer Wallace more so what is the problem?

So if Brown is a $48m type of guy, then Wallace is a $55m type of guy. (Just plucking numbers- don't use this as evidence against Chadman's argument). If Wallace had simply been allowed to walk, and Brown had signed a contract in keeping with his production, or Heaven forbid- been allowed to play on his RFA tender in 2013- then Chadman wouldn't have an argument outside of "wish we could have kept Wallace". But the Steelers WERE willing to pay up big for a WR. And if the choice was Brown's $48m compared to either a 'similar' deal for Wallace, or something upwards of $55m- then Chadman would take Wallace over Brown. Better player, better resume, bigger impact.

I believe this is the core flaw in your logic and my only point that MIGHT sway you.
Do you realize that Browns deal is LONGER than Wallace's?
You are looking at the total sizes of the deals, not the cost per season.
They are not close my friend.

Wallace makes 12 mil average, Brown is at 7.1

[URL]http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/miami-dolphins/mike-wallace/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/antonio-brown/[/URL]

Browns deal aint nothing special, Wallace is top three.
Unless we make a free agent splash we will pay less for ALL THE RECEIVERS ON OUR TEAM than Wallace gets in 2014.

Fact is- if they had paid Wallace instead of Brown, the WR's in 2013 would be.. wait for it... Wallace, Brown & Sanders. It would have given the Steelers an additional 2 years to evaluate Brown's level of play, and therefore his actual value as a WR. At this point- can anyone guarentee that Brown is a better WR than Sanders? Because guess what- next season, there's still not a lot of additional cap room, Sanders won't be a RFA, and Brown will be costing $9.5m or so. So the team is now tied to Brown, regardless of his level of play, and if 2013 is like 2012, Brown's value is more around a quarter of his cap hit.

Yes, and if Wallace had signed we would have that.
We can fantasize all we want about what could have been. That is what Colbert tried to do.
Wallace chose to pursue a deal that makes him a top 3 paid receiver.
Wallace wanted to get his fair market value, the market overvalues talented receiver so he went elsewhere
THAT is why we dont have what you describe. It was Wallace's choice.
Pretending he would have signed for millions less annually doesnt change that.

The structure of the Miami deal for Wallace is all over the place, and not one that Chadman would support given the Steelers roster structure. But the overall cap value of Wallace at Miami is probably not that far over where Chadman would have gone to. Particularly as the Steelers have proven they were willing to go so high for Brown.

But as I have proven Brown deal is not anywhere near Wallace so the premise is flawed.
The only thing we "know" Wallace would accept is what he got.

Now, some people seem to want to take the whole Wallace contract thing personally, and get quite upset talking about him. Not sure exactly where the level of hate is coming from, but so be it. All Chadman wants people to consider is that, if you are willing to claim Wallace's deal was unrealistic, that his demands were insane & the Dolphins screwed themselves- then consider what the Steelers have done with Brown & put it in perspective. At least Wallace is a proven deep threat that has a track record of making plays over his career. There is the very real chance that in 2014, the Steelers are left with an overpaid former 6th round possession WR, who's contract is going to be eternally restructured.

Steeler fans want what is best for the Steelers so they have no love for players who leave their beloved team for more money. Kinda easy to understand really.
For many players it's a job, period. OK by me that is reality.

This is my impression, which is fine:

But just as some fans have unrealistic expectations of players, others imagine players to be more charitable than they are because they like the player.

Nothing I have seen Wallace actually "DO" tells me that he was not gonna go for his full market value. Perhaps weather played a part too. In your 20s a single millionaire in Miami? Pretty sweet deal.

[Captain Lemming]

The family that has a Porsche has an everyday vacation.

Nice.
If The Fins goal is to be on ESPN highlights all the time.....every week is a Superbowl with Wallace.

[Chadman]

Arguing 'absolutes' against 'speculation' is giving Chadman a headache.

Yes, Wallace is overpaid by the Dolphins. Yes, Brown is overpaid by the Steelers.

I believe this is the core flaw in your logic and my only point that MIGHT sway you.
Do you realize that Browns deal is LONGER than Wallace's?
You are looking at the total sizes of the deals, not the cost per season.
They are not close my friend.

Wallace makes 12 mil average, Brown is at 7.1

This, however- was a good point.

[Sugar]

Steeler fans want what is best for the Steelers so they have no love for players who leave their beloved team for more money. Kinda easy to understand really.
For many players it's a job, period. OK by me that is reality.

You've made several good points. However, I wouldn't try to tell other fans who they love. I've been a fan of the Steelers since I was able to know what football was. I've followed the team and pulled for them during a lot of dry years as well as the good ones. I love talking about the team are reading about the latest going on. That said, it chaps me a bit to have another fan telling me in essence what players I can and cannot like. Yes, I want to see the Steelers win. I also appreciate what Mike Wallace has done here and have an affinity for him as a player whether he plays for Pittsburgh or not. It's the same with James Harrison or any of my favorite players that leave the team. I don't lose my love for those players because of the economics of the game.

[Captain Lemming]

You've made several good points. However, I wouldn't try to tell other fans who they love. I've been a fan of the Steelers since I was able to know what football was. I've followed the team and pulled for them during a lot of dry years as well as the good ones. I love talking about the team are reading about the latest going on. That said, it chaps me a bit to have another fan telling me in essence what players I can and cannot like. Yes, I want to see the Steelers win. I also appreciate what Mike Wallace has done here and have an affinity for him as a player whether he plays for Pittsburgh or not. It's the same with James Harrison or any of my favorite players that leave the team. I don't lose my love for those players because of the economics of the game.

You miss my point.
I was addressing the question about why many fans hate players who move to greener pastures.
I AGREE WITH YOU myself, as a fellow fan who doesnt hate a player for leaving.
Heck I dont blame anybody for doing that especially if they got WAY MORE money.
As I said it's their job, given the opportunity I might do the same.
I know not all fans resent players who leave, I should have been more clear.

Here is my personal POV. Not expecting agreement just my POV.

I personally dont wish departing players success either.
Not out of resentment towards them.
Even when I disagree (see the threads I posted saying we must sign Harrison) I "hope" our team made the right choice.
Just as I expect no loyalty from players who move on, I feel no feelings of loyalty toward players.

It is like when I want our team to draft someone, and they draft someone I dont like instead.
I want to be wrong, I want the guy I preferred to fail.

I HOPE that Steeler choices are vindicated whether or not I agreed with them.

I would LOVE for Miami to regret the day they signed Wallace because he did not live up to expectations.
No hate personally for Wallace.
My perfect scenario is that an underperforming Wallace makes big bank at the expense of a rival team with a HUGE smile on his face.

Heck I appreciate Santonios SB performance big time. He didnt even walk he was traded. Still I DONT want to see him excel, not out of resentment, I want the Steeler to be right.

I feel no sense of loyalty or affection for individual players. I do enjoy what individual players do to help the Steelers succeed.

When they move on, my feelings for them remain on the B&G jersey they took off.