Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Shutout

Mike Wallace to be Tendered, not tagged

453 posts in this topic

If he leaves, what does that do to his value?

Obviously depends on what team. New England it moves him to Calvin tier, 49ers and he plummets.
I dont think Brady can throw it that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point people are missing is that in a worst case scenario, the Steelers walk away with an extra first round pick and some cap space to either add a FA WR or fill some other hole.

That is exactly the point a lot of people are missing.
No, the worst case scenario is that the Steelers walk away from Wallace, whiff on the 1st round pick, and fill the WR spot with someone who is inadequate to do the job and it negatively impacts the 2012 season and beyond. Is all of that probable? Most likely not, but that would certainly be worse than what is outlined above.
What Finkle outlined is the worst-case end result. You can play that game all day - what if Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders both tear their ACLs in training camp and can't play all year? Then they'll wish they had Wallace back ! Of course.... but in regards to what we're discussing, the Steelers are either going to re-sign Wallace and he'll be with the team for at least this year, or they'll end up with somewhere between 7-11 million in additional cap space and 2 1st round picks in the upcoming draft. You can decide for yourself which of these is the "worst case scenario." From there, who knows what will happen? If they match an offer for Wallace or re-sign him for one season at $10m and he blows out his knee in the 2nd preseason game and has to be put on IR, then will they wish they'd let him go? Because IMO, THAT would be the worst-case scenario.
He's the one who said worst case "scenario" which allows for things to be played out. If you're only going to hold yourself to the two options (sign him or let him walk and take whatever benefit you could get), would you similarly describe the Saints' worst case as either signing Drew Brees or letting him go and, oh well, at least you have that $100 million that you were planning on spending on Brees available to spend on other players?
Yeah, pretty much. Those are the two possible scenarios that would result from that decision. Where it goes from there has infinite possibilities, you can sit around all day saying "what if this" and "what if that." I assume by your question, you're insinuating that letting Brees walk would be the doomsday scenario for New Orleans, but wouldn't the real worst case be signing Brees to a 6-year $125 million dollar contract with $80 million guaranteed and then having him suffer a Theismann-esque career-ending leg break on his first snap from center? Because that seemingly would hurt the franchise a lot more than his signing elsewhere and them using the cap space to grab a replacement QB and several other players as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point people are missing is that in a worst case scenario, the Steelers walk away with an extra first round pick and some cap space to either add a FA WR or fill some other hole.

That is exactly the point a lot of people are missing.
No, the worst case scenario is that the Steelers walk away from Wallace, whiff on the 1st round pick, and fill the WR spot with someone who is inadequate to do the job and it negatively impacts the 2012 season and beyond. Is all of that probable? Most likely not, but that would certainly be worse than what is outlined above.
What Finkle outlined is the worst-case end result. You can play that game all day - what if Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders both tear their ACLs in training camp and can't play all year? Then they'll wish they had Wallace back ! Of course.... but in regards to what we're discussing, the Steelers are either going to re-sign Wallace and he'll be with the team for at least this year, or they'll end up with somewhere between 7-11 million in additional cap space and 2 1st round picks in the upcoming draft. You can decide for yourself which of these is the "worst case scenario." From there, who knows what will happen? If they match an offer for Wallace or re-sign him for one season at $10m and he blows out his knee in the 2nd preseason game and has to be put on IR, then will they wish they'd let him go? Because IMO, THAT would be the worst-case scenario.
He's the one who said worst case "scenario" which allows for things to be played out. If you're only going to hold yourself to the two options (sign him or let him walk and take whatever benefit you could get), would you similarly describe the Saints' worst case as either signing Drew Brees or letting him go and, oh well, at least you have that $100 million that you were planning on spending on Brees available to spend on other players?
Yeah, pretty much. Those are the two possible scenarios that would result from that decision. Where it goes from there has infinite possibilities, you can sit around all day saying "what if this" and "what if that." I assume by your question, you're insinuating that letting Brees walk would be the doomsday scenario for New Orleans, but wouldn't the real worst case be signing Brees to a 6-year $125 million dollar contract with $80 million guaranteed and then having him suffer a Theismann-esque career-ending leg break on his first snap from center? Because that seemingly would hurt the franchise a lot more than his signing elsewhere and them using the cap space to grab a replacement QB and several other players as well.
My point was that the original statement was an overly simplistic way to look at team and asset management. Quibble if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point people are missing is that in a worst case scenario, the Steelers walk away with an extra first round pick and some cap space to either add a FA WR or fill some other hole.

That is exactly the point a lot of people are missing.
No, the worst case scenario is that the Steelers walk away from Wallace, whiff on the 1st round pick, and fill the WR spot with someone who is inadequate to do the job and it negatively impacts the 2012 season and beyond. Is all of that probable? Most likely not, but that would certainly be worse than what is outlined above.
What Finkle outlined is the worst-case end result. You can play that game all day - what if Antonio Brown and Emmanuel Sanders both tear their ACLs in training camp and can't play all year? Then they'll wish they had Wallace back ! Of course.... but in regards to what we're discussing, the Steelers are either going to re-sign Wallace and he'll be with the team for at least this year, or they'll end up with somewhere between 7-11 million in additional cap space and 2 1st round picks in the upcoming draft. You can decide for yourself which of these is the "worst case scenario." From there, who knows what will happen? If they match an offer for Wallace or re-sign him for one season at $10m and he blows out his knee in the 2nd preseason game and has to be put on IR, then will they wish they'd let him go? Because IMO, THAT would be the worst-case scenario.
He's the one who said worst case "scenario" which allows for things to be played out. If you're only going to hold yourself to the two options (sign him or let him walk and take whatever benefit you could get), would you similarly describe the Saints' worst case as either signing Drew Brees or letting him go and, oh well, at least you have that $100 million that you were planning on spending on Brees available to spend on other players?
Yeah, pretty much. Those are the two possible scenarios that would result from that decision. Where it goes from there has infinite possibilities, you can sit around all day saying "what if this" and "what if that." I assume by your question, you're insinuating that letting Brees walk would be the doomsday scenario for New Orleans, but wouldn't the real worst case be signing Brees to a 6-year $125 million dollar contract with $80 million guaranteed and then having him suffer a Theismann-esque career-ending leg break on his first snap from center? Because that seemingly would hurt the franchise a lot more than his signing elsewhere and them using the cap space to grab a replacement QB and several other players as well.
My point was that the original statement was an overly simplistic way to look at team and asset management. Quibble if you want.
I'm not quibbling. The original statement Finkle made was dead-on. People are discussing this as "the Steelers may lose Wallace" as if he's going to walk as a UFA. What Finkle was pointing out was that they're not "losing" him, the worst thing that would happen is that he leaves, but they get cap space and a 1st round pick in return. It's more like a trade than a free agent waltzing off for greener pastures. That was the point of the original statement, and it's 100% accurate. Going on about what then might result from each of these scenarios playing out like you guys are is getting into "Sliding Doors" territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point people are missing is that in a worst case scenario, the Steelers walk away with an extra first round pick and some cap space to either add a FA WR or fill some other hole.

That is exactly the point a lot of people are missing.
Yea, but what kind of quality wr (or other position player) are they going to sign for under 2 million? The RFA tender for Wallace is what, 2.7 million? Assuming only teams in the bottom 1/3 of the draft will sign Wallace, after accounting for the cap space that extra 1st round pick will eat up, the Steelers will have an additional million and change in cap space, or around a little over 1% of the expected cap. That's not enough cap space to sign any quality FA outside of a special teams player. The best type of wr they could sign with that $$$ would probably be a guy like Lee Evans.
But what if they've cleared 10+ million in cap space in order to re-sign Wallace, and then he signs elsewhere (hint : they have already done this)? They don't have 2.7M in cap space with which to sign a receiver, they have 10-11 million. They can then elect to go after a V-Jax or someone like that - or they can sign a complementary receiver, elevate Antonio Brown to the #1 role, and use the balance of that to shore up the OL or the secondary.
I know they've cleared cap space already, but I think it's clear that they didn't do it to sign Wallace to a long term deal or they would have franchised him. I'm sure they have a plan with what they're going to do with the extra cap space, but it appears it doesn't entail spending more than 2.7 million of it on Wallace. I think letting Wallace go and signing VJax or some other big ticket FA wr makes zero sense when they have a 25 yo stud in his prime who has been in the system for 3 years and has excellent chemistry with Big Ben. Also, VJax doesn't seem like the type of guy the Steelers would sign due to his dui history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point people are missing is that in a worst case scenario, the Steelers walk away with an extra first round pick and some cap space to either add a FA WR or fill some other hole.

That is exactly the point a lot of people are missing.
No, the worst case scenario is that the Steelers walk away from Wallace, whiff on the 1st round pick, and fill the WR spot with someone who is inadequate to do the job and it negatively impacts the 2012 season and beyond. Is all of that probable? Most likely not, but that would certainly be worse than what is outlined above.
Actually the worst case scenario is their first training camp meal is poisoned and the entire team dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they've cleared cap space already, but I think it's clear that they didn't do it to sign Wallace to a long term deal or they would have franchised him.

I don't think that's clear at all. The only thing that is clear from my point of view is that the Steelers don't think Wallace is worth over 9 million dollars per annum. That, IMO, is why he hasn't(and won't) be tagged. The Steelers are going to let the market set his price. You can argue over whether that is/isn't a worthy gamble, but that is precisely what it looks like they are doing to me. They are taking that angle of "Why pay him a guaranteed near 10 million when the RFA tag may scare off everybody anyway and we can then attempt to negotiate our own long-term deal, at a more agreeable salary, with the fallback being keeping him for one season at around 3 million and starting the merry-go-round next year again when he's a UFA(which I would fully expect them to then tag/watch him go if it came to that)?"GMs are miserly with first round picks, even late ones. I think for the massess to glibly state "Oh, well Team X will just flip their pick at #X for him easy!" is silly. It's not just a first rounder. It's a first rounder....and probably 10-12 million dollars. So, it's potentially a first rounder and a veteran or two that you now can't sign for one wideout, albeit a pretty good one.

My point was that the original statement was an overly simplistic way to look at team and asset management. Quibble if you want.

It isn't overly simplistic at all from where I'm sitting. Overly simplistic is the idea, that apparently many seem to share, that there are only two outcomes here: a)Wallace gets tagged at 9+ million in an attempt to keep him or b)Wallace is lost for certain.There aren't only two outcomes here and the fact that Wallace is restricted puts the Steelers front office in control off all of outcomes regardless. Again, one can easily argue whether or not the tactic they are taking here is a worthy gamble or not(and I'm not arguing for or against that), but the tactic doesn't tie their hands with Wallace in the least. They're either getting him for what they want(the RFA amount or a long-term deal that they feel good about), getting an option to match whatever offer he may receive on the open market, or choosing to not match an outside offer and be able to then have a sizable amount of FA dollars free to try and address the position with another player and get a second 1st rounder for making that choice.

He's the one who said worst case "scenario" which allows for things to be played out.

Actually, I didn't say that. I did agree with someone who did though.Upon reflection, EG's "worst case scenario" is, well, worse. :) So, I was probably wrong there. Mea culpa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize it is somewhat of a fantasy football mindset in a way, but why any team with a WR need and even a mediocre amount of cap room wouldn't offer Wallace a large front loaded contract ($12-14 million this year) is beyond me. Especially someone like San Fra,where speed WR is their biggest need, or New England, who needs a deep threat and can hurt a rival in the process, plus they have 2 1st rounders anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quibbling. The original statement Finkle made was dead-on. People are discussing this as "the Steelers may lose Wallace" as if he's going to walk as a UFA. What Finkle was pointing out was that they're not "losing" him, the worst thing that would happen is that he leaves, but they get cap space and a 1st round pick in return. It's more like a trade than a free agent waltzing off for greener pastures. That was the point of the original statement, and it's 100% accurate. Going on about what then might result from each of these scenarios playing out like you guys are is getting into "Sliding Doors" territory.

*bro hug*EG gets it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they've cleared cap space already, but I think it's clear that they didn't do it to sign Wallace to a long term deal or they would have franchised him.

I don't think that's clear at all. The only thing that is clear from my point of view is that the Steelers don't think Wallace is worth over 9 million dollars per annum. That, IMO, is why he hasn't(and won't) be tagged. The Steelers are going to let the market set his price. You can argue over whether that is/isn't a worthy gamble, but that is precisely what it looks like they are doing to me. They are taking that angle of "Why pay him a guaranteed near 10 million when the RFA tag may scare off everybody anyway and we can then attempt to negotiate our own long-term deal, at a more agreeable salary, with the fallback being keeping him for one season at around 3 million and starting the merry-go-round next year again when he's a UFA(which I would fully expect them to then tag/watch him go if it came to that)?"GMs are miserly with first round picks, even late ones. I think for the massess to glibly state "Oh, well Team X will just flip their pick at #X for him easy!" is silly. It's not just a first rounder. It's a first rounder....and probably 10-12 million dollars. So, it's potentially a first rounder and a veteran or two that you now can't sign for one wideout, albeit a pretty good one.
I agree with most of what you wrote except for the "steelers are going to let the market set his price" stuff. That's not what they're doing or why they tendered him as a RFA. I'm sure they already have a pretty good idea what the market is willing to pay him. If he was an UFA, he would be the #1 wr on most teams' boards, imo. If the Steelers were willing/able to pay that price, they would of franchised him. This seems pretty obvious to me because if any team signs him, they are almost certainly going to put together a deal for Wallace that Pittsburgh won't/can't match. What the Steelers are doing is simple - they're taking a calculated risk. If no other team bites on Wallace, then they keep him for a great value this season at 2.7 million and have the option to franchise him next season. They can also work on a long term deal in the future. If another team works out a contract with Wallace and signs him, the Steelers won't/can't match and will get a low 1st round pick as compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is almost exactly what I have been saying, over and over again. You can have a bro hug too.And they are totally "letting the market set his price", in my mind. They may already believe it is going to be "Insert X Million Here", but they aren't going to be the first team to offer it to him and start bidding against themselves.

If another team works out a contract with Wallace and signs him, the Steelers won't/can't match and will get a low 1st round pick as compensation...

A low first round pick....and probably upwards of 10 million dollars in cap space to maneuver for other players with. That is the crux of my point: They aren't losing Wallace for "just a low first round pick/nothing" if they don't match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RFA tender for Wallace is what, 2.7 million? Assuming only teams in the bottom 1/3 of the draft will sign Wallace, after accounting for the cap space that extra 1st round pick will eat up, the Steelers will have an additional million and change in cap space, or around a little over 1% of the expected cap.

A low first round pick....and probably upwards of 10 million dollars in cap space to maneuver for other players with. That is the crux of my point: They aren't losing Wallace for "just a low first round pick/nothing" if they don't match.

Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the no-lose situation logic here. Losing a really good player is not a good thing. Even for the 28th pick, or whatever they'll end up with.

People get too hung up on the magic of draft picks. He's already likely a better player than you'll ever get with that pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the no-lose situation logic here.

It certainly is not a "no lose" situation. It is about getting the best of the situation that you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be shocked if a team didn't swoop him up, not just to improve their team, but to hurt the Steelers. Hell, I REALLY wish Detroit would grab him. Calvin + Wallace? :banned:

But it won't happen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RFA tender for Wallace is what, 2.7 million? Assuming only teams in the bottom 1/3 of the draft will sign Wallace, after accounting for the cap space that extra 1st round pick will eat up, the Steelers will have an additional million and change in cap space, or around a little over 1% of the expected cap.

A low first round pick....and probably upwards of 10 million dollars in cap space to maneuver for other players with. That is the crux of my point: They aren't losing Wallace for "just a low first round pick/nothing" if they don't match.

Which is it?
It's what 5-ish says.

The 2.7 mil is irrelevant. It's merely the amount they have to tender to make sure they get the 1st rounder if he walks. They know other teams are likeiy to offer more. Can someone offer him Fitz/Megatron money? Sure, but the Steelers don't think he's worth that, so they didn't use the franchise tag which would have cost them nearly 10 mil for one year AND put them in the position of having to negotiate with him next year presumably starting at that number (while also having to deal with AB who will be an RFA). Instead, they chose to free up cap space and see what he's offered. If it's a number they can live with, they can match it. Even if it's frontloaded, so that it's 10+ mil this year with a drop off after that, it's a better deal for them than paying the 10 mil now and not having anything next year, because he's then affordable in those future years so they have money to spend on AB. If somebody offers him Fitz money for an extended period, that they can't (or won't) match, it's not the 2.7 mil they're saving, it's the franchise amount of 10 mil that it would have cost to keep him for one year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RFA tender for Wallace is what, 2.7 million? Assuming only teams in the bottom 1/3 of the draft will sign Wallace, after accounting for the cap space that extra 1st round pick will eat up, the Steelers will have an additional million and change in cap space, or around a little over 1% of the expected cap.

A low first round pick....and probably upwards of 10 million dollars in cap space to maneuver for other players with. That is the crux of my point: They aren't losing Wallace for "just a low first round pick/nothing" if they don't match.

Which is it?
It's what 5-ish says.

The 2.7 mil is irrelevant. It's merely the amount they have to tender to make sure they get the 1st rounder if he walks. They know other teams are likeiy to offer more. Can someone offer him Fitz/Megatron money? Sure, but the Steelers don't think he's worth that, so they didn't use the franchise tag which would have cost them nearly 10 mil for one year AND put them in the position of having to negotiate with him next year presumably starting at that number (while also having to deal with AB who will be an RFA). Instead, they chose to free up cap space and see what he's offered. If it's a number they can live with, they can match it. Even if it's frontloaded, so that it's 10+ mil this year with a drop off after that, it's a better deal for them than paying the 10 mil now and not having anything next year, because he's then affordable in those future years so they have money to spend on AB. If somebody offers him Fitz money for an extended period, that they can't (or won't) match, it's not the 2.7 mil they're saving, it's the franchise amount of 10 mil that it would have cost to keep him for one year.

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RFA tender for Wallace is what, 2.7 million? Assuming only teams in the bottom 1/3 of the draft will sign Wallace, after accounting for the cap space that extra 1st round pick will eat up, the Steelers will have an additional million and change in cap space, or around a little over 1% of the expected cap.

A low first round pick....and probably upwards of 10 million dollars in cap space to maneuver for other players with. That is the crux of my point: They aren't losing Wallace for "just a low first round pick/nothing" if they don't match.

Which is it?
It's what 5-ish says.

The 2.7 mil is irrelevant. It's merely the amount they have to tender to make sure they get the 1st rounder if he walks. They know other teams are likeiy to offer more. Can someone offer him Fitz/Megatron money? Sure, but the Steelers don't think he's worth that, so they didn't use the franchise tag which would have cost them nearly 10 mil for one year AND put them in the position of having to negotiate with him next year presumably starting at that number (while also having to deal with AB who will be an RFA). Instead, they chose to free up cap space and see what he's offered. If it's a number they can live with, they can match it. Even if it's frontloaded, so that it's 10+ mil this year with a drop off after that, it's a better deal for them than paying the 10 mil now and not having anything next year, because he's then affordable in those future years so they have money to spend on AB. If somebody offers him Fitz money for an extended period, that they can't (or won't) match, it's not the 2.7 mil they're saving, it's the franchise amount of 10 mil that it would have cost to keep him for one year.

Explained as though you are capologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the no-lose situation logic here. Losing a really good player is not a good thing. Even for the 28th pick, or whatever they'll end up with. People get too hung up on the magic of draft picks. He's already likely a better player than you'll ever get with that pick.

They don't just get a pick. They get a pick plus cap room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the no-lose situation logic here. Losing a really good player is not a good thing. Even for the 28th pick, or whatever they'll end up with. People get too hung up on the magic of draft picks. He's already likely a better player than you'll ever get with that pick.

They don't just get a pick. They get a pick plus cap room.
True, but there's a good chance they get a lesser talent at WR to replace Wallace, which hurts their chances at gunning for another SB. It's definitely not a "no-lose" situation. They may not lose, but if the pick busts and their WR corps is worse, then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People should face it that this is being done out of necessity, not genius and that there IS a big risk. The Steelers could very well end up in a situation where they pay him MORE than the franchise tag to keep him and then have to get back into this boat WITH Antonio Brown next year or they could just outright lose him. If they lose him, say what you want about "shaking his hand" and wishing him well and laughing all the way to picking up an additional pick, etc. If the Steelers lose Wallace, there are going to be a lot Steelers fans bemoaning the season in 2012. You WILL regret losing him.

No way this happens. Without repeating what has already been said numerous times for the most part, if teams want to get him, I think all they need to do is offer him around what the tag is longterm, and I dont think the Steelers would match it (and IMO that would be the right call). If a team offers him a deal in the $6-7M range, I would have to think they are doing know knowing the Steelers would match that. I personally think that's what he's worth. If a team offers him $8M+ per yr on a longterm deal, I think that would be enough to acquire him, not the ungodly $12M+ some people have mentioned in here.

Money is of course the biggest factor in whether Wallace stays or goes, but the team/pick that makes him an offer (if in fact a team does), would also have an impact. Sure, it is most likely for a team picking after the Steelers to be the one that makes him an offer because the pick has less value, but everyone in here seems to think that's guaranteed. I dont expect it to be the case, but I wouldnt be shocked if a team picking 16-23 made an offer for Wallace (Yes, WR isnt a top need for a few of these teams, but you never know who values Wallace the most). If that did happen, I think it would be even more likely the Steelers let him go, ie they would value the 18th pick with a $8M offer to Wallace similar to a $10M offer from 30th pick.

I feel good that the Steelers arent paying Santonio Holmes $9M right now. I will also feel good if they dont have to pay Wallace $9M and get a 1st round pick out of it. I think theyll be fine with Brown, Sanders, and either bringing Cotchery back as the #3 or an FA WR with similar value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the no-lose situation logic here. Losing a really good player is not a good thing. Even for the 28th pick, or whatever they'll end up with.

People get too hung up on the magic of draft picks. He's already likely a better player than you'll ever get with that pick.

They don't just get a pick. They get a pick plus cap room.
True, but there's a good chance they get a lesser talent at WR to replace Wallace, which hurts their chances at gunning for another SB. It's definitely not a "no-lose" situation. They may not lose, but if the pick busts and their WR corps is worse, then what?
I trust in Kevin Colbert if we lose Wallace and get a #1 pick

2000 8 Plaxico Burress WR Michigan State

2001 19 Casey Hampton DT Texas

2002 30 Kendall Simmons G Auburn

2003 16 Troy Polamalu DB USC

2004 11 Ben Roethlisberger QB Miami (OH)

2005 30 Heath Miller TE Virginia

2006 25 Santonio Holmes WR Ohio State

2007 15 Lawrence Timmons LB Florida State

2008 23 Rashard Mendenhall RB Illinois

2009 32 Evander Hood DT Missouri

2010 18 Maurkice Pouncey C/G Florida

2011 31 Cameron Heyward DE Ohio State

Im also not so sure the WR corps would be better longterm by signing Wallace at what most expect to be $9M this year but not being able to retain Brown and Sanders next year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious, do Steelers fans here think Deshawn Jackson is better than Mike Wallce? Or do they think the steelers are just more savy than the Eagles?

I do actually think DJax is a better WR, by a small but distinct margin, but considering he fits the diva mold of a WR and is somewhat of a headache, Id probably rather have Wallace.As mentioned earlier though, different situations as DJax was a UFA and Wallace is a RFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may not lose, but if the pick busts and their WR corps is worse, then what?

What if they franchise tag Wallace, pay him nearly 10 million this season, negotiate a long term-deal in the offseason that gives him what amounts to 9+million against the cap for 4-5 years to keep him around, thus eliminating them resigning Brown as RFA in '13(and maybe Sanders too)....and then Wallace blows a knee in this first week of TC next year, then what? You can play the "what if" game until the world stops turning. It's counterproductive/pointless. The Steelers have put a valuation on Mike, whether it's wholly being forced upon them by cap ramifications or otherwise, and they aren't likely to exceed it. At least they haven't done anything like that in similar situations in the past, sometimes when it has involved better players.There isn't a "no lose" situation here for Pittsburgh, but neither is there an "only lose" situation, as seems to be the commonly held opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may not lose, but if the pick busts and their WR corps is worse, then what?

What if they franchise tag Wallace, pay him nearly 10 million this season, negotiate a long term-deal in the offseason that gives him what amounts to 9+million against the cap for 4-5 years to keep him around, thus eliminating them resigning Brown as RFA in '13(and maybe Sanders too)....and then Wallace blows a knee in this first week of TC next year, then what? You can play the "what if" game until the world stops turning. It's counterproductive/pointless. The Steelers have put a valuation on Mike, whether it's wholly being forced upon them by cap ramifications or otherwise, and they aren't likely to exceed it. At least they haven't done anything like that in similar situations in the past, sometimes when it has involved better players.There isn't a "no lose" situation here for Pittsburgh, but neither is there an "only lose" situation, as seems to be the commonly held opinion.
Some people in this thread are saying it's a "no lose" situation with Wallace, with clearly isn't the case. They can lose. They could also lose if they pay Wallace. You can play the "what if" game all day long, but anyone saying it's a "can't lose" seems incredibly strange to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Losing Wallace is a loss, plain and simple, and that goes doubly so if he should happen to end up in Cincy. Pitt lost mendenhall at the end of last season and it can ill afford to lose its biggest playmaker, That however may be inevitable as Wallace wants to get paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the no-lose situation logic here. Losing a really good player is not a good thing. Even for the 28th pick, or whatever they'll end up with.

People get too hung up on the magic of draft picks. He's already likely a better player than you'll ever get with that pick.

They don't just get a pick. They get a pick plus cap room.
True, but there's a good chance they get a lesser talent at WR to replace Wallace, which hurts their chances at gunning for another SB. It's definitely not a "no-lose" situation. They may not lose, but if the pick busts and their WR corps is worse, then what?
I trust in Kevin Colbert if we lose Wallace and get a #1 pick

2000 8 Plaxico Burress WR Michigan State

2001 19 Casey Hampton DT Texas

2002 30 Kendall Simmons G Auburn

2003 16 Troy Polamalu DB USC

2004 11 Ben Roethlisberger QB Miami (OH)

2005 30 Heath Miller TE Virginia

2006 25 Santonio Holmes WR Ohio State

2007 15 Lawrence Timmons LB Florida State

2008 23 Rashard Mendenhall RB Illinois

2009 32 Evander Hood DT Missouri

2010 18 Maurkice Pouncey C/G Florida

2011 31 Cameron Heyward DE Ohio State

Im also not so sure the WR corps would be better longterm by signing Wallace at what most expect to be $9M this year but not being able to retain Brown and Sanders next year

Plax had 273 yards with no TDs his rookie year, this from a guy picked 1.08. Holmes did better with 824, but had only 2 touchdowns. Even if the pick doesn't bust, rookie wideouts often need a year to acclimate to the NFL before they truly start producing, so its a real gamble to assume that void could be filled this year simply by drafting a rookie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the no-lose situation logic here. Losing a really good player is not a good thing. Even for the 28th pick, or whatever they'll end up with.

People get too hung up on the magic of draft picks. He's already likely a better player than you'll ever get with that pick.

They don't just get a pick. They get a pick plus cap room.
True, but there's a good chance they get a lesser talent at WR to replace Wallace, which hurts their chances at gunning for another SB. It's definitely not a "no-lose" situation. They may not lose, but if the pick busts and their WR corps is worse, then what?
I trust in Kevin Colbert if we lose Wallace and get a #1 pick

2000 8 Plaxico Burress WR Michigan State

2001 19 Casey Hampton DT Texas

2002 30 Kendall Simmons G Auburn

2003 16 Troy Polamalu DB USC

2004 11 Ben Roethlisberger QB Miami (OH)

2005 30 Heath Miller TE Virginia

2006 25 Santonio Holmes WR Ohio State

2007 15 Lawrence Timmons LB Florida State

2008 23 Rashard Mendenhall RB Illinois

2009 32 Evander Hood DT Missouri

2010 18 Maurkice Pouncey C/G Florida

2011 31 Cameron Heyward DE Ohio State

Im also not so sure the WR corps would be better longterm by signing Wallace at what most expect to be $9M this year but not being able to retain Brown and Sanders next year

Plax had 273 yards with no TDs his rookie year, this from a guy picked 1.08. Holmes did better with 824, but had only 2 touchdowns. Even if the pick doesn't bust, rookie wideouts often need a year to acclimate to the NFL before they truly start producing, so its a real gamble to assume that void could be filled this year simply by drafting a rookie.
Where did I say theyre going to draft a WR with that pick? No way they use the pick on a WR. If they lose Wallace, they will almost certainly bring back Cotchery or another FA in his price range to be the #3 WR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think theyll be fine with Brown, Sanders, and either bringing Cotchery back as the #3 or an FA WR with similar value.

That would be a significant step down from Wallace, Brown, and Sanders/Cotchery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think theyll be fine with Brown, Sanders, and either bringing Cotchery back as the #3 or an FA WR with similar value.

That would be a significant step down from Wallace, Brown, and Sanders/Cotchery.
Of course, but saving $10M in cap space and getting another #1 pick is a huge gain for the rest of the team. For the Steelers, I think Wallace is more a luxury than a necessity, and they would be better off with the extra cap room (considering their situation this year and the future) and #1 pick to fill their holes/age issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the no-lose situation logic here. Losing a really good player is not a good thing. Even for the 28th pick, or whatever they'll end up with. People get too hung up on the magic of draft picks. He's already likely a better player than you'll ever get with that pick.

They don't just get a pick. They get a pick plus cap room.
True, but there's a good chance they get a lesser talent at WR to replace Wallace, which hurts their chances at gunning for another SB. It's definitely not a "no-lose" situation. They may not lose, but if the pick busts and their WR corps is worse, then what?
:confused: Not sure why you are saying "no-lose" situation. It's more like the Steelers will at least get decent compensation for losing a great player. Would prefer to keep him at a reasonable price, but if the market is willing to "over-pay" by Pittsburgh's standards, then so be it. It's called prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Stevie Johnson contract is going to color what types of offers Wallace will receive?

It should. They're really very similar players, both in age and production. I think Wallace's agent will have a hard time convincing a lot of teams that Wallace is two/three million a year better than Stevie(if that's the kind of deal he's truly going to be looking for, as rumored).

It only takes one team, I guess, but now there is at least a "comp" for teams to point at if Bus Cook comes knocking and starts demanding upwards of 9 million a season for Mike's services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may not lose, but if the pick busts and their WR corps is worse, then what?

What if they franchise tag Wallace, pay him nearly 10 million this season, negotiate a long term-deal in the offseason that gives him what amounts to 9+million against the cap for 4-5 years to keep him around, thus eliminating them resigning Brown as RFA in '13(and maybe Sanders too)....and then Wallace blows a knee in this first week of TC next year, then what? You can play the "what if" game until the world stops turning. It's counterproductive/pointless.

The Steelers have put a valuation on Mike, whether it's wholly being forced upon them by cap ramifications or otherwise, and they aren't likely to exceed it. At least they haven't done anything like that in similar situations in the past, sometimes when it has involved better players.

There isn't a "no lose" situation here for Pittsburgh, but neither is there an "only lose" situation, as seems to be the commonly held opinion.

Some people in this thread are saying it's a "no lose" situation with Wallace, with clearly isn't the case. They can lose. They could also lose if they pay Wallace. You can play the "what if" game all day long, but anyone saying it's a "can't lose" seems incredibly strange to me.
Well I was one that said "almost a no lose situation" and even that probably wasn't worded the best way that I could.

Basically w/o the crazy extrapolations some people want to apply there's basically 3 scenarios that can directly arise out of the Steelers applying the tender tag, instead of the franchise tag:

1. Best Case Scenario: No team offers Wallace a contract because they don't want to lose a first round pick and Pittsburgh retains his services at a very reasonable $2.7 MM contract.

2. Middle Scenario: A team offers a contract somewhere bewtween the $2.7 MM and the $9 MM franchise tag figure. The Steelers match and retain Wallace at a price they were willing to pay.

3. Worst Case Scenario: A teams signs Wallace to a contract beyond what Pittsburgh is willing to pay. Pitssburgh loses Wallace, but gain an extra first round pick and some cap flexibility that can be used to fill any hole they wish.

When No. 3 is a "worst case scenario" (once again this is only discussing the immediate results of the initial action and not the endless possibilities that can arise under any of the above scenarios) that isn't as bad as some people want to crack it up to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steelers arn't out of the woods yet but Welker being tagged sure helps. There is still a market though with Stevie Johnson, Welker and DJax off the market thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steelers arn't out of the woods yet but Welker being tagged sure helps. There is still a market though with Stevie Johnson, Welker and DJax off the market thus far.

Bowe was tagged also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few teams rumored as potential landing spots tagging their own players helps(NE, Baltimore).

I still feel the 49ers represent the biggest threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When No. 3 is a "worst case scenario" (once again this is only discussing the immediate results of the initial action and not the endless possibilities that can arise under any of the above scenarios) that isn't as bad as some people want to crack it up to be.

Until you realize the Steelers offense consists of Brown, Sanders, Cotchery, and Redman (or Dwyer) next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a divisional rival, say the Ravens, I would offer Wallace a contract that would be high, but yet low enough (6-9mil) to where the Steelers wouldn't be able to let him go so cheaply, and in turn end up using a lot of their cap. This would then kill them in free agency. I know they don't bring many guys in, but with all the cuts I expect them to fill some needs with some value pickups. Losing the cap would put them in a bad position going into this year. I think this would be the worst case scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a divisional rival, say the Ravens, I would offer Wallace a contract that would be high, but yet low enough (6-9mil) to where the Steelers wouldn't be able to let him go so cheaply, and in turn end up using a lot of their cap. This would then kill them in free agency. I know they don't bring many guys in, but with all the cuts I expect them to fill some needs with some value pickups. Losing the cap would put them in a bad position going into this year. I think this would be the worst case scenario.

I dont know the in and outs of the cap, but I think BAL would have to offer something over multiple years. If they did this and the Steelers didnt match, it would really strap them.

Also, I think Im the only person here saying Wallace will get an offer from elsewhere in the $6-7M range. I expect he either gets much bigger than that or nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When No. 3 is a "worst case scenario" (once again this is only discussing the immediate results of the initial action and not the endless possibilities that can arise under any of the above scenarios) that isn't as bad as some people want to crack it up to be.

Until you realize the Steelers offense consists of Brown, Sanders, Cotchery, and Redman (or Dwyer) next year.
Until you realize Ben Roethlisberger is this team's QB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.