Mike Wallace could he leave if Pitt doesn't step up? (1 Viewer)

[treat88]

How he steelers cap situation? Can they afford Wallace?

they can't even afford the franchise tag dollars. They can't afford to keep him. They'll tender him a 1st just to save face.Losing him and waiving Ward and Cotchery, I'm rolling the dice on Derrick Williams, who becomes the #3 by default. I think he'll get the chance on keeping the gig and maybe even challenge Sanders.

Hoodie better get this done. NE has a pair of late 1st rounders and they have cap space too.

Why fill one of your team's biggest needs when you can use that first round pick to acquire countless mid-round picks.

Tough for me to envision BB tagging Welker, paying Wallace, and giving up a 1st even if it is #31. That's the bulk of the $25 mil ish cap space they've got spent on 2 players who don't play on the side of the ball they really need the help.

Let Welker hit the road?

interesting . . .

If they don't tag Welker, that makes it a different story. If they don't, then I start to sweat it if I'm the Steelers FO.

 

[duaneok66]

I can't see them not tagging Welker, but I like your thinking outside the box. After all, Wallace is cheaper (slightly) and younger, and the Pats have an extra 1st roud pick. Edelman could also move into that slot role if Welker left.

Very interesting . . .

 

[cstu]

I can't see them not tagging Welker, but I like your thinking outside the box. After all, Wallace is cheaper (slightly) and younger, and the Pats have an extra 1st roud pick. Edelman could also move into that slot role if Welker left. Very interesting . . .

I don't really think they'd do it considering Brady is nearing the end of his prime. Wallace would open things up for Welker and the combination of Welker, Wallace, Gronk and Hernandez seems almost unstoppable.

 

[David Yudkin]

As far as the Pats go, Welker isn't going anywhere. I do not think they think Edelman is the next Welker. For one, I doubt he could take the pounding Welker does. He's basically had two Welker-esque games (as a rookie) and on occasion had a few catches here and there. Not sure that translates into a 120+ catch a year guy. He's had a total of 11 catches the past two seasons.

I believe that it is in the best interest for the Pats to franchise Welker this year and next year. It will end up costing them less money ($9.4 million this year and $11.4 million next year). If that happened, two years from now, Welker (in theory) would be hitting the open market as a 33 year old slot receiver. I would think the interest in his services at that point would be lower (as would his potential earnings power).

At this point, Welker would probably ask for a 5 year, $50 million contract with $20+ million guaranteed. If Welker signed a deal for that much, he would probably get paid $32 million in real money over the first 2 years compared to the $20 million and change by franchising him twice.

The other issue is, I doubt the Pats would want to sign Welker for that many years and that kind of bonus money. IMO, the Pats will make a run at signing Brandon Lloyd. If the Pats also traded a first to get Wallace, they could average nearly 40 ppg given the rest of their offensive talent. That might be fun to watch, but as others have mentioned, NE really needs to upgrade their defense way more than their offense.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Why give up a first-round draft pick to sign Wallace when you can sign DeSean Jackson, Wes Welker, Stevie Johnson, Dwayne Bowe or Marques Colston instead?

Because the bolded are expected to be franchised and Johnson may be signed up before he hits the market.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Why give up a first-round draft pick to sign Wallace when you can sign DeSean Jackson, Wes Welker, Stevie Johnson, Dwayne Bowe or Marques Colston instead?

Because the bolded are expected to be franchised and Johnson may be signed up before he hits the market.

Ok, so throw in Vincent Jackson, Reggie Wayne and Brandon Lloyd. My point was it's a great year to shop for a WR...why spend a 1st rounder when teams can find similar talent and still keep their 1st pick.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'm a firm believer that spending a first round pick is a sure way to cement yourself as a team that will not be a playoff contender.

There are so many Wrs you can pick up that can do the job. The game is won and lost in the trenches.

Protect your Qb and you'll be good.

Get to the opposing Qb and you'll be good.

 

[Grahamburn]

I'm a firm believer that spending a first round pick is a sure way to cement yourself as a team that will not be a playoff contender.

There are so many Wrs you can pick up that can do the job. The game is won and lost in the trenches.

Protect your Qb and you'll be good.

Get to the opposing Qb and you'll be good.

Got to disagree here. If you're trading picks for a known commodity and that player helps you win in the coming season(s) do you really remember the picks given up?For example, as a Buc fan I hated what Tampa Bay gave up to get Jon Gruden in 2002. I thought they were absolutely nuts to give up two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, and $8 million dollars. Granted, Gruden isn't a player, but the same concept applies.

The Bucs won the Super Bowl. The Raiders?

2002:

1st round - Traded Tampa's 1st with Raiders 3rd and 5th pick to move up for CB Phillip Buchanon

2nd round - OT Langston Walker

2003:

1st round - DE Tyler Brayton

2004:

2nd round - C Jake Grove

 

[GregR]

Steelers can't afford him as they are currently structured. You have to ask yourself, why wouldn't a team (NE, Bal) with a mid to low 1st rounder and cap space sign him to a contract that requires a balloon payment on the front, say $25 million due at signing? The Steelers would lose him and get that mid to low 1st if they don't match.BTW, Emmanual Sanders becomes a very intriguing player in this situation.

I don't think it matters how much of a signing bonus you give as I think it's prorated over the life of the contract. And poison pills are no longer allowed either. I think any reasonably good offer will knock PIT out of contention.

According to Adam Schefter, any signing bonus would fully apply to the cap this year. He gave the example that a $20 million signing bonus would make it nearly impossible for the Steelers to match without major cuts and changes to contracts. He said Pats, Bengals, and Ravens are front runners.

I didn't hear whatever statement Schefter made, but I don't imagine he said it as worded here because that isn't correct. A signing bonus would be prorated over the life of the contract.I'm guessing what Schefter said is they would give Wallace a big ROSTER bonus for 2012. Unlike a signing bonus, a roster bonus is not prorated so the entire hit for one paid in 2012 would apply this year.

 

[jacobo_moses]

My main point in bringing all this up. Is the Steelers can't really afford to Franchise Tag him. And they have a lot of shuffling to do of other contracts and make releases to make room to sign him to a big contract. So bascially they will probably stick the 1st Rnd Tender on him. And hold their breath that no one tries to snatch him away. Now granted there are a lot of pretty good WR on the FA market. But in all honesty. I see most of them being Franchise Tagged. So its not as deep as some on this forum are claiming it to be for true #1 WR's.

This a pretty good list. I will put a FT by the ones I really think will be Franchise Tagged and you will see the list isn't as deep for top tier WR's as much as you'd think.

Position Player Name Status 2011 Team 2012 Team

Wide Receiver Arnaz Battle ufa Pittsburgh Street Free Agent

FT Wide Receiver Wes Welker ufa New England

FT Wide Receiver Vincent Jackson ufa San Diego

FT Wide Receiver DeSean Jackson ufa Philadelphia

Wide Receiver Marques Colston ufa New Orleans

FT Wide Receiver Dwanye Bowe ufa Kansas City

Wide Receiver Reggie Wayne ufa Indianapolis

Wide Receiver Steve Johnson ufa Buffalo

Wide Receiver Mike Wallace rfa Pittsburgh

Wide Receiver Brandon Lloyd ufa St. Louis

Wide Receiver Pierre Garcon ufa Indianapolis

Wide Receiver Danny Amendola rfa St. Louis

Wide Receiver Terrell Owens ufa Street Free Agent

Wide Receiver Braylon Edwards ufa Street Free Agent

Wide Receiver Eddie Royal ufa Denver

Wide Receiver Robert Meachem ufa New Orleans

Wide Receiver Mario Manningham ufa New York Giants

Wide Receiver Deion Branch ufa New England

Wide Receiver Laurent Robinson ufa Dallas

Wide Receiver Plaxico Burress ufa New York Jets

Wide Receiver Mark Clayton ufa St. Louis

Wide Receiver Roy Williams ufa Chicago

Wide Receiver Jerricho Cotchery ufa Pittsburgh

Wide Receiver Steve Smith ufa Philadelphia

Wide Receiver Josh Morgan ufa San Francisco

Wide Receiver T.J. Houshmandzadeh ufa Oakland

Wide Receiver Roscoe Parrish ufa Buffalo

Wide Receiver Early Doucet ufa Arizona

Wide Receiver Harry Douglas ufa Atlanta

Wide Receiver Jerome Simpson ufa Cincinnati

Wide Receiver Mike-Sims Walker ufa Street Free Agent

Wide Receiver Brandon Gibson rfa St. Louis

Wide Receiver Chaz Schilens ufa Oakland

Wide Receiver Donnie Avery ufa Tennessee

Wide Receiver Eric Weems ufa Atlanta

Wide Receiver Andre Caldwell ufa Cincinnati

Wide Receiver Legedu Naanee ufa Carolina

Wide Receiver Anthony Gonzalez ufa Indianapolis

Wide Receiver Ted Ginn ufa San Francisco

Wide Receiver Lavelle Hawkins ufa Tennessee Tennessee

Wide Receiver Bernard Berrian ufa Street Free Agent

Wide Receiver Patrick Crayton ufa San Diego

Wide Receiver Greg Camarillo ufa Minnesota

Wide Receiver David Anderson ufa Washington

Wide Receiver Kevin Ogletree rfa Dallas

Wide Receiver Devin Aromashodu ufa Minnesota

Wide Receiver Bryant Johnson ufa Houston

Wide Receiver Donte' Stallworth ufa Washington

Wide Receiver Jerheme Urban ufa Kansas City

Wide Receiver Ruvell Martin ufa Buffalo

Wide Receiver Domenik Hixon ufa New York Giants

Wide Receiver Derek Hagan ufa Buffalo

Wide Receiver Devin Thomas ufa New York Giants

Wide Receiver Micheal Spurlock ufa Tampa Bay

Wide Receiver Matthew Willis rfa Denver

Wide Receiver Courtney Roby ufa New Orleans

Wide Receiver Matthew Slater ufa New England

Wide Receiver Rashied Davis ufa Detroit

Wide Receiver Michael Clayton ufa New York Giants

Wide Receiver Maurice Stovall ufa Detroit

Wide Receiver Brett Swain rfa San Francisco

Wide Receiver Patrick Turner rfa New York Jets

 

[jacobo_moses]

So unless the Pats think they can snag Colston, Reggie Wayne or Steve Johnson its going to be slim pickings. And we all know how confident the Patriots are in drafting WRs??!!!

In fact the best WR's I can think of for the Patriots in the past 5-10 yrs the got from other teams. (Welker they snatched from the Dolphins) And Randy Moss came over from the Raiders.

Well I guess we will see what all shakes out.

 

[David Yudkin]

So unless the Pats think they can snag Colston, Reggie Wayne or Steve Johnson its going to be slim pickings. And we all know how confident the Patriots are in drafting WRs??!!! In fact the best WR's I can think of for the Patriots in the past 5-10 yrs the got from other teams. (Welker they snatched from the Dolphins) And Randy Moss came over from the Raiders. Well I guess we will see what all shakes out.

Anything wrong with Brandon Lloyd? McDaniels made him into a receiving asset in Denver and St. Louis.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

How does a 1st round pick and a 4 year deal to land Mike Wallace compare to what Blackmon might make as a rookie?

Anyone know what the rookie wage scale is for, say, the 20th player taken in the draft (I'm not buying the top-10 hype yet)?

 

[Tackling Dummies]

How does a 1st round pick and a 4 year deal to land Mike Wallace compare to what Blackmon might make as a rookie?

Anyone know what the rookie wage scale is for, say, the 20th player taken in the draft (I'm not buying the top-10 hype yet)?

2011 rookie salaries

 

[jacobo_moses]

I really doubt that Blackmon makes it to the Patriots pick in the 1st Rnd. I mean really either of the 1st Rnd Picks they have are too low for Blackmon to make it there.

Yudkin

Yeah I did forget about Brandon LLoyd. But I wouldn't be suprised if the Rams make a strong play for him as well.

 

[cstu]

Steelers can't afford him as they are currently structured. You have to ask yourself, why wouldn't a team (NE, Bal) with a mid to low 1st rounder and cap space sign him to a contract that requires a balloon payment on the front, say $25 million due at signing? The Steelers would lose him and get that mid to low 1st if they don't match.

BTW, Emmanual Sanders becomes a very intriguing player in this situation.

I don't think it matters how much of a signing bonus you give as I think it's prorated over the life of the contract. And poison pills are no longer allowed either. I think any reasonably good offer will knock PIT out of contention.

According to Adam Schefter, any signing bonus would fully apply to the cap this year. He gave the example that a $20 million signing bonus would make it nearly impossible for the Steelers to match without major cuts and changes to contracts. He said Pats, Bengals, and Ravens are front runners.

I didn't hear whatever statement Schefter made, but I don't imagine he said it as worded here because that isn't correct. A signing bonus would be prorated over the life of the contract.

I'm guessing what Schefter said is they would give Wallace a big ROSTER bonus for 2012. Unlike a signing bonus, a roster bonus is not prorated so the entire hit for one paid in 2012 would apply this year.

 

[cstu]

As far as the Pats go, Welker isn't going anywhere. I do not think they think Edelman is the next Welker. For one, I doubt he could take the pounding Welker does. He's basically had two Welker-esque games (as a rookie) and on occasion had a few catches here and there. Not sure that translates into a 120+ catch a year guy. He's had a total of 11 catches the past two seasons.I believe that it is in the best interest for the Pats to franchise Welker this year and next year. It will end up costing them less money ($9.4 million this year and $11.4 million next year). If that happened, two years from now, Welker (in theory) would be hitting the open market as a 33 year old slot receiver. I would think the interest in his services at that point would be lower (as would his potential earnings power).At this point, Welker would probably ask for a 5 year, $50 million contract with $20+ million guaranteed. If Welker signed a deal for that much, he would probably get paid $32 million in real money over the first 2 years compared to the $20 million and change by franchising him twice.The other issue is, I doubt the Pats would want to sign Welker for that many years and that kind of bonus money. IMO, the Pats will make a run at signing Brandon Lloyd. If the Pats also traded a first to get Wallace, they could average nearly 40 ppg given the rest of their offensive talent. That might be fun to watch, but as others have mentioned, NE really needs to upgrade their defense way more than their offense.

Is Welker ok with being franchised two years in a row knowing the Pats will then let him go? Or is it a case of there not being any better options for him?

 

[David Yudkin]

As far as the Pats go, Welker isn't going anywhere. I do not think they think Edelman is the next Welker. For one, I doubt he could take the pounding Welker does. He's basically had two Welker-esque games (as a rookie) and on occasion had a few catches here and there. Not sure that translates into a 120+ catch a year guy. He's had a total of 11 catches the past two seasons.I believe that it is in the best interest for the Pats to franchise Welker this year and next year. It will end up costing them less money ($9.4 million this year and $11.4 million next year). If that happened, two years from now, Welker (in theory) would be hitting the open market as a 33 year old slot receiver. I would think the interest in his services at that point would be lower (as would his potential earnings power).At this point, Welker would probably ask for a 5 year, $50 million contract with $20+ million guaranteed. If Welker signed a deal for that much, he would probably get paid $32 million in real money over the first 2 years compared to the $20 million and change by franchising him twice.The other issue is, I doubt the Pats would want to sign Welker for that many years and that kind of bonus money. IMO, the Pats will make a run at signing Brandon Lloyd. If the Pats also traded a first to get Wallace, they could average nearly 40 ppg given the rest of their offensive talent. That might be fun to watch, but as others have mentioned, NE really needs to upgrade their defense way more than their offense.

Is Welker ok with being franchised two years in a row knowing the Pats will then let him go? Or is it a case of there not being any better options for him?

I doubt Welker is "ok" with being franchised, but he may not have much choice. Both teams will go through the motions to get a new deal done, but I think both sides are far apart on years, salary, and bonus money. I suspect Welker will want twice what the Pats will offer him on all three fronts.

 

[Steelfan7]

Steelers can't afford him as they are currently structured. You have to ask yourself, why wouldn't a team (NE, Bal) with a mid to low 1st rounder and cap space sign him to a contract that requires a balloon payment on the front, say $25 million due at signing? The Steelers would lose him and get that mid to low 1st if they don't match.

BTW, Emmanual Sanders becomes a very intriguing player in this situation.

I don't think it matters how much of a signing bonus you give as I think it's prorated over the life of the contract. And poison pills are no longer allowed either. I think any reasonably good offer will knock PIT out of contention.

According to Adam Schefter, any signing bonus would fully apply to the cap this year. He gave the example that a $20 million signing bonus would make it nearly impossible for the Steelers to match without major cuts and changes to contracts. He said Pats, Bengals, and Ravens are front runners.

I didn't hear whatever statement Schefter made, but I don't imagine he said it as worded here because that isn't correct. A signing bonus would be prorated over the life of the contract.

I'm guessing what Schefter said is they would give Wallace a big ROSTER bonus for 2012. Unlike a signing bonus, a roster bonus is not prorated so the entire hit for one paid in 2012 would apply this year.

I doubt teams can circumvent the signing bonus rules by calling it a roster bonus in the 1st yr of a contract.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I doubt teams can circumvent the signing bonus rules by calling it a roster bonus in the 1st yr of a contract.

Roster bonus info, but I'm not certain that it applies after the most recent CBA/poison pill clauses.

 

[GregR]

I doubt teams can circumvent the signing bonus rules by calling it a roster bonus in the 1st yr of a contract.

Roster bonus info, but I'm not certain that it applies after the most recent CBA/poison pill clauses.

I don't get the comment about "circumventing" the signing bonus rules. It's sort of like saying I'm circumventing the rules for my credit card by paying cash. The team is doing something entirely different than a signing bonus, and something which has it's own set of CBA rules to cover it. There is nothing that requires you to give a signing bonus, nor to put some percentage of cash into one.The only times a roster bonus is treated as a signing bonus is if it is guaranteed, or if it is a contract signed after the last preseason game then any year 1 roster bonus would be a signing bonus.

The poison pill clause just says that you can't make a contract where terms would be different for one team than for another. So no "fully guaranteed contract if the player plays more than 4 games in Minnesota in any given year" type things like was done with Steve Hutchinson.

CBA:

(iii) Notwithstanding Subsections (i) and (ii) above, no Offer Sheet may contain a Principal Term that would create rights or obligations for the Old Club that differ in any way (including but not limited to the amount of compensation that would be paid, the circumstances in which compensation would be guaranteed, or the circumstances in which other contractual rights would or would not vest) from the rights or obligations that such Principal Term would create for the Club extending the Offer Sheet (i.e., no “poison pills”).

 

[menobrown]

As far as the Pats go, Welker isn't going anywhere. I do not think they think Edelman is the next Welker. For one, I doubt he could take the pounding Welker does. He's basically had two Welker-esque games (as a rookie) and on occasion had a few catches here and there. Not sure that translates into a 120+ catch a year guy. He's had a total of 11 catches the past two seasons.I believe that it is in the best interest for the Pats to franchise Welker this year and next year. It will end up costing them less money ($9.4 million this year and $11.4 million next year). If that happened, two years from now, Welker (in theory) would be hitting the open market as a 33 year old slot receiver. I would think the interest in his services at that point would be lower (as would his potential earnings power).At this point, Welker would probably ask for a 5 year, $50 million contract with $20+ million guaranteed. If Welker signed a deal for that much, he would probably get paid $32 million in real money over the first 2 years compared to the $20 million and change by franchising him twice.The other issue is, I doubt the Pats would want to sign Welker for that many years and that kind of bonus money. IMO, the Pats will make a run at signing Brandon Lloyd. If the Pats also traded a first to get Wallace, they could average nearly 40 ppg given the rest of their offensive talent. That might be fun to watch, but as others have mentioned, NE really needs to upgrade their defense way more than their offense.

Is Welker ok with being franchised two years in a row knowing the Pats will then let him go? Or is it a case of there not being any better options for him?

I doubt Welker is "ok" with being franchised, but he may not have much choice. Both teams will go through the motions to get a new deal done, but I think both sides are far apart on years, salary, and bonus money. I suspect Welker will want twice what the Pats will offer him on all three fronts.

Greg Bedard speculated a few weeks ago that the Pats will franchise Welker and once they do the situation will turn antagonistic and he could envision a situation similar to Mankins were Welker would hold out until week 8.Now if you think Welker is going to be unhappy getting franchised how do you think it's going to play out for Welker and the locker room chemistry if they choose to franchise Welker, who's been underpaid for years, and bring in a guy like Wallace and give him the kind of contract Welker is seeking? Besides the fact I don't see the Pat's sacrificing a #1 pick, committing major money to 2 WR's especially when they utilize their TE's like no other team has ever before. Keeping in mind they have needs on the other side of the ball and finally I think the locker room environment Bellichick has fostered with that team could potentially get punctured if the Pat's "broke the bank" for another big time WR and simply franchised an unhappy Welker. Also keep in mind the cost to franchise Welker is going to jump up for the 2013 season. At a minimum he'll get a 20% raise but with Calvin likely to re-do his deal and the slew of FA WR's it's possible the average of the top 5 takes a spike up making the cost to franchise him in 2013 not as easy a call it is to franchise him this season.Add it all up and think the Pat's will of course franchise Welker now and seek a low to middle cost WR. It's possible a player like Brandon Lloyd fit's this criteria but not a player like Mike Wallace. I more or less see the Pat's bargain shopping for some WR help, not leading the FA pack.

 

[David Yudkin]

- Greg Bedard speculated a few weeks ago that the Pats will franchise Welker

AGREE.

- and once they do the situation will turn antagonistic and he could envision a situation similar to Mankins were Welker would hold out until week 8.

DISAGREE. WELKER GETTING FRANCHISED WOULD MEAN HE WOULD GET PAID ALMOST AS MUCH AS HE'S BEEN PAID OVER HIS ENTIRE CAREER. I DOUBT HE WOULD WALK AWAY FROM $9.4 MILLION.

- Now if you think Welker is going to be unhappy getting franchised how do you think it's going to play out for Welker

I THINK HE WILL GET TAGGED, THEY WILL TRY TO WORK OUT A DEAL (BUT WON'T) AND HE WILL PLAY ALL 16 GAMES IF HEALTHY.

- and the locker room chemistry if they choose to franchise Welker, who's been underpaid for years, and bring in a guy like Wallace and give him the kind of contract Welker is seeking?

I DON'T SEE THEM SIGNING WALLACE. I THINK THAT IS TOTAL SPECULATION BY SOMEONE IN THE MEDIA. ALL I SAID WAS IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF THEIR WRs WERE WELKER, WALLACE, AND LLOYD. OCHOCINCO MADE THREE TIMES WHAT WELKER MADE THIS YEAR (IN REAL $$$). THE PATS ARE NOT ADVERSE TO MAKING SOME MOVES THAT DON'T ALIGN WITH GUYS ON THEIR TEAM.

Besides the fact I don't see the Pat's sacrificing a #1 pick, committing major money to 2 WR's especially when they utilize their TE's like no other team has ever before.

- I THINK THEY WILL SIGN MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO SIGN LLOYD.

Keeping in mind they have needs on the other side of the ball and finally I think the locker room environment Bellichick has fostered with that team could potentially get punctured if the Pat's "broke the bank" for another big time WR and simply franchised an unhappy Welker.

- WHICH IS WWHY I DON'T SEE THE PATS TRADING FOR WALLACE AND INSTEAD WILL LOOK TO UPGRADE THEIR DEFENSE.

- Also keep in mind the cost to franchise Welker is going to jump up for the 2013 season. At a minimum he'll get a 20% raise but with Calvin likely to re-do his deal and the slew of FA WR's it's possible the average of the top 5 takes a spike up making the cost to franchise him in 2013 not as easy a call it is to franchise him this season.

THEY CHANGED THE RULES FOR FRANCHISE TAGS. IT IS NO LONGER THE AVERAGE OF THE TOP 5 AT A POSITION IN THAT SEASON. IIRC, IT'S THE AVERAGE OF ONLY THE HIGHEST PAID AT THAT POSITION FROM THE PREVIOUS 5 SEASONS (THUS MAKING THE TOTAL AMOUNT SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS LOWER THAN IN THE PAST. THE LOWEST TOTAL WOULD BE $9.4 MILLION + 20%. EITHER WAY, IF TAGGED 2 YEARS, THE PATS WOULD LIKELY PAY HIM LESS TOTAL MONEY THAN JUST THE SIGNING BONUS OF A NEW DEAL.

- Add it all up and think the Pat's will of course franchise Welker now and seek a low to middle cost WR. It's possible a player like Brandon Lloyd fit's this criteria but not a player like Mike Wallace. I more or less see the Pat's bargain shopping for some WR help, not leading the FA pack.

IN GENERAL< THE PATS RARELY MAKE A BIG SPLASH IN FREE AGENCY BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE PAYING BIG MONEY IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO. THEIR MODEL OBVIOUSLY HAS WORKED PRETTY WELL< AS THEY ARE ALWAYS IN THE HUNT AND ALMOST ALWAYD HAVE A VERY GOOD RECORD.

 

[GregR]

- Also keep in mind the cost to franchise Welker is going to jump up for the 2013 season. At a minimum he'll get a 20% raise but with Calvin likely to re-do his deal and the slew of FA WR's it's possible the average of the top 5 takes a spike up making the cost to franchise him in 2013 not as easy a call it is to franchise him this season.

THEY CHANGED THE RULES FOR FRANCHISE TAGS. IT IS NO LONGER THE AVERAGE OF THE TOP 5 AT A POSITION IN THAT SEASON. IIRC, IT'S THE AVERAGE OF ONLY THE HIGHEST PAID AT THAT POSITION FROM THE PREVIOUS 5 SEASONS (THUS MAKING THE TOTAL AMOUNT SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS LOWER THAN IN THE PAST. THE LOWEST TOTAL WOULD BE $9.4 MILLION + 20%. EITHER WAY, IF TAGGED 2 YEARS, THE PATS WOULD LIKELY PAY HIM LESS TOTAL MONEY THAN JUST THE SIGNING BONUS OF A NEW DEAL.

They use the tag number and the salary cap from the previous seasons. They don't use player salaries directly anymore. Edit to add: For the non-exclusive which I assume we're talking about here. For exclusive they are still used but they are all the current year... greater of the non-exclusive or average of top 5 paid players at the position this year as of the end of the RFA signing period.

The non-exclusive tag number is:

2007 WR tag + 2008 WR tag + 2009 WR tag + 2010 WR tag + 2011 WR Tag --------------------------------------------------------------------- * (2012 cap) 2007 cap + 2008 cap + 2009 cap + 2010 cap + 2011 capPlayer salaries going forward no longer play a role in the calculations. The 2013 franchise tag for WRs is unaffected whether 5 WRs get paid double in 2012 what last year's top 5 did. Or half as much.A close (but not quite) way to think of it is that they almost said, "let's take the tag number for the position the last 5 years... find what percentage of the cap that was for each year... average those... and that's what percent of the cap the position will get every year going forward".

The formula they use doesn't do that exactly, but it's close. The formula actually looks like the kind of mistake you'd find on a 4th grade math test... where someone thinks that:

2007 tag 2008 tag 2007 tag + 2008 tag-------- + ----------- is the same as: -----------------------2007 cap 2008 cap 2007 cap + 2008 capNot saying they actually screwed it up. The text description they have matches the formula. But darn if it doesn't look odd the way it is.

 

[menobrown]

- Greg Bedard speculated a few weeks ago that the Pats will franchise WelkerAGREE.- and once they do the situation will turn antagonistic and he could envision a situation similar to Mankins were Welker would hold out until week 8.DISAGREE. WELKER GETTING FRANCHISED WOULD MEAN HE WOULD GET PAID ALMOST AS MUCH AS HE'S BEEN PAID OVER HIS ENTIRE CAREER. I DOUBT HE WOULD WALK AWAY FROM $9.4 MILLION.- Now if you think Welker is going to be unhappy getting franchised how do you think it's going to play out for Welker I THINK HE WILL GET TAGGED, THEY WILL TRY TO WORK OUT A DEAL (BUT WON'T) AND HE WILL PLAY ALL 16 GAMES IF HEALTHY.- and the locker room chemistry if they choose to franchise Welker, who's been underpaid for years, and bring in a guy like Wallace and give him the kind of contract Welker is seeking?I DON'T SEE THEM SIGNING WALLACE. I THINK THAT IS TOTAL SPECULATION BY SOMEONE IN THE MEDIA. ALL I SAID WAS IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF THEIR WRs WERE WELKER, WALLACE, AND LLOYD. OCHOCINCO MADE THREE TIMES WHAT WELKER MADE THIS YEAR (IN REAL $$$). THE PATS ARE NOT ADVERSE TO MAKING SOME MOVES THAT DON'T ALIGN WITH GUYS ON THEIR TEAM.Besides the fact I don't see the Pat's sacrificing a #1 pick, committing major money to 2 WR's especially when they utilize their TE's like no other team has ever before. - I THINK THEY WILL SIGN MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO SIGN LLOYD. Keeping in mind they have needs on the other side of the ball and finally I think the locker room environment Bellichick has fostered with that team could potentially get punctured if the Pat's "broke the bank" for another big time WR and simply franchised an unhappy Welker.- WHICH IS WWHY I DON'T SEE THE PATS TRADING FOR WALLACE AND INSTEAD WILL LOOK TO UPGRADE THEIR DEFENSE.- Also keep in mind the cost to franchise Welker is going to jump up for the 2013 season. At a minimum he'll get a 20% raise but with Calvin likely to re-do his deal and the slew of FA WR's it's possible the average of the top 5 takes a spike up making the cost to franchise him in 2013 not as easy a call it is to franchise him this season.THEY CHANGED THE RULES FOR FRANCHISE TAGS. IT IS NO LONGER THE AVERAGE OF THE TOP 5 AT A POSITION IN THAT SEASON. IIRC, IT'S THE AVERAGE OF ONLY THE HIGHEST PAID AT THAT POSITION FROM THE PREVIOUS 5 SEASONS (THUS MAKING THE TOTAL AMOUNT SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS LOWER THAN IN THE PAST. THE LOWEST TOTAL WOULD BE $9.4 MILLION + 20%. EITHER WAY, IF TAGGED 2 YEARS, THE PATS WOULD LIKELY PAY HIM LESS TOTAL MONEY THAN JUST THE SIGNING BONUS OF A NEW DEAL.- Add it all up and think the Pat's will of course franchise Welker now and seek a low to middle cost WR. It's possible a player like Brandon Lloyd fit's this criteria but not a player like Mike Wallace. I more or less see the Pat's bargain shopping for some WR help, not leading the FA pack.IN GENERAL< THE PATS RARELY MAKE A BIG SPLASH IN FREE AGENCY BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE PAYING BIG MONEY IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO. THEIR MODEL OBVIOUSLY HAS WORKED PRETTY WELL< AS THEY ARE ALWAYS IN THE HUNT AND ALMOST ALWAYD HAVE A VERY GOOD RECORD.

FWIW Greg Bedard is the one who said he felt the situation would be become antagonstic and that the Pats could be be looking at a Mankins situations with a possible Welker holdout. So not sure if my post was clear before but that's not my opinion, it's his and like you I'd have a hard time seeing him hold out for half the season and piss half of that money away.Now I agree with almost everything you stated except the following:I don't agree that Welker is going to be pleased getting franchised and even more off for the reasoning behind it that it will equal the pay he's got throughout his career. I think just the opposite in fact, he's someone who generally speaking could really use a big payday and by big payday I'm talking $20+ million not $9.5. Huge difference between getting franchise tagged when you are 26 or so like Wallace versus soon to be 32 year old Welker. A guy like Wallace can get tagged and still be in this prime next year in a position to negotiate a long term deal. A guy like Welker gets tagged and he's looking at a situation were at best he hits FA as a soon to be 33 year old. Ocho's contract was a different set of circumstances than pursuing a FA. They not only inherited his contract but had him take a pay cut and to me and I'm guessing to a guy like Welker that's not a slap in the face. Now not giving Welker a long term big contract but giving one to another WR is something I think Welker would view as "insulting".While I agree they will kick the tires on Lloyd I only see them signing him at a very friendly contract. I don't see them getting into much of a bidding war for his services but more of a situation where they allow Lloyd to see what's available first. If they sign Lloyd it's going to be at a bargain and Lloyd is only going to sign a bargain contract if he can't do better on the open market because he also could use a big payday. Only reason I tend to think Lloyd might become a Patriot is the lack of interest in him when he was available for trade. That being said teams are a lot quicker to bring someone in during the off season as opposed to trying to work them in mid-season and sacrifice draft picks so I'm not entirely convinced the lack or interest in Lloyd at the trade deadline means teams are simply not that interested in him.

 

[David Yudkin]

FWIW Greg Bedard is the one who said he felt the situation would be become antagonstic and that the Pats could be be looking at a Mankins situations with a possible Welker holdout. So not sure if my post was clear before but that's not my opinion, it's his and like you I'd have a hard time seeing him hold out for half the season and piss half of that money away.Now I agree with almost everything you stated except the following:I don't agree that Welker is going to be pleased getting franchised and even more off for the reasoning behind it that it will equal the pay he's got throughout his career. I think just the opposite in fact, he's someone who generally speaking could really use a big payday and by big payday I'm talking $20+ million not $9.5. Huge difference between getting franchise tagged when you are 26 or so like Wallace versus soon to be 32 year old Welker. A guy like Wallace can get tagged and still be in this prime next year in a position to negotiate a long term deal. A guy like Welker gets tagged and he's looking at a situation were at best he hits FA as a soon to be 33 year old. Ocho's contract was a different set of circumstances than pursuing a FA. They not only inherited his contract but had him take a pay cut and to me and I'm guessing to a guy like Welker that's not a slap in the face. Now not giving Welker a long term big contract but giving one to another WR is something I think Welker would view as "insulting".While I agree they will kick the tires on Lloyd I only see them signing him at a very friendly contract. I don't see them getting into much of a bidding war for his services but more of a situation where they allow Lloyd to see what's available first. If they sign Lloyd it's going to be at a bargain and Lloyd is only going to sign a bargain contract if he can't do better on the open market because he also could use a big payday. Only reason I tend to think Lloyd might become a Patriot is the lack of interest in him when he was available for trade. That being said teams are a lot quicker to bring someone in during the off season as opposed to trying to work them in mid-season and sacrifice draft picks so I'm not entirely convinced the lack or interest in Lloyd at the trade deadline means teams are simply not that interested in him.

I think there are some differences between Mankins and Welker. For one, Welker is not suggesting that the owner is a bold faced liar. Second, Welker is not saying that the owner is demanding a public apology for insulting the owner. Third, unlike Mankins, there are no other comparible players to Welker. There were other contracts for elite guards that Mankins could use as a barometer for his contract. In Welker's case, slot receivers historically don't get paid a ton of money and that will be one of the issues in determining his contract. Welker is clearly more valuable to NE than any other franchise, and it's unlikely another team would offer him the contract he will want either. As you mentioned, his age, size, and style of play all point to him potentially not being worth his salary on the back end of a deal. That should all drive Welker's value down, but his agent certainly won't see it that way.The talking media heads around here think that Welker is only worth $5 or $6 million a year. They also think that if the Pats offer a 3 year, $20 million deal with half guaranteed that should be enough to get him signed. I think they are WAY off on that one, as Welker will likely ask for 5 years, $50 million with $20+ million guaranteed. Those starting points are so far removed that I am not sure either side would even want to meet in the middle.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

I'd heard Schefter's talk about a team signing Wallace with a huge first year roster bonus to ensure the Steelers wouldn't match. Whether Wallace agrees to a signing bonus or roster bonus doesn't affect him, he'll have the money upfront. Now if he really has no interest in allowing the Steelers to match his agent would agree to the roster bonus over a signing bonus. My guess would be that if Wallace gets an offer it will have a signing bonus so that he gives the Steelers every chance to match if they can.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'd heard Schefter's talk about a team signing Wallace with a huge first year roster bonus to ensure the Steelers wouldn't match. Whether Wallace agrees to a signing bonus or roster bonus doesn't affect him, he'll have the money upfront. Now if he really has no interest in allowing the Steelers to match his agent would agree to the roster bonus over a signing bonus. My guess would be that if Wallace gets an offer it will have a signing bonus so that he gives the Steelers every chance to match if they can.

Is there any player the Steelers are using the franchise tag on?

 

[jacobo_moses]

Mike Wallace WR - PIT: Feb 20, 7:30PM

According to NFL Network's Jason La Canfora, there is "real concern" in the Steelers' front office that they may lose restricted free agent Mike Wallace. The Steelers are in a tough spot because they're so tight up against the salary cap. They'll place a first-round tender on Wallace, but a franchise tag isn't financially doable, and the tender would leave Pittsburgh vulnerable to teams willing to surrender a first-round pick. La Canfora mentioned the division-rival Ravens and Patriots as teams potentially interested in Wallace. Baltimore drafts at No. 29, and New England has two first-round picks.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

If New England signs him, they would forfeit their own pick, is this correct ?

 

[jacobo_moses]

Yeah when it comes to a 1st Round Tender you lose your own pick in the 1st Round not any teams picks you acquire via Trade. So Yes Pats would lose their pick.

 

[GregR]

Yeah when it comes to a 1st Round Tender you lose your own pick in the 1st Round not any teams picks you acquire via Trade. So Yes Pats would lose their pick.

Yep, and bit of NFL trivia... it wasn't specific originally, but Al Davis exploited the loophole to trade for one of the last picks in a round so he could give that pick up instead of his own.

 

[Hoosier16]

Yeah when it comes to a 1st Round Tender you lose your own pick in the 1st Round not any teams picks you acquire via Trade. So Yes Pats would lose their pick.

Yep, and bit of NFL trivia... it wasn't specific originally, but Al Davis exploited the loophole to trade for one of the last picks in a round so he could give that pick up instead of his own.

It's odd they keep it the way it is. It really favors the good teams. A bad team can't afford to give up an early 1st and is virtually eliminated from participating in the system. With the new change to the CBA (eliminating the 1st/3rd tender), we might see this situation come up more in the future.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

A bad team can't afford to give up an early 1st and is virtually eliminated from participating in the system.

I just don't see why. It's like you're drafting a proven player. Blackmon is expected to go in the top-5 and he hasn't put together back-to-back ~1200 yard seasons in the NFL.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

A bad team can't afford to give up an early 1st and is virtually eliminated from participating in the system.

I just don't see why. It's like you're drafting a proven player. Blackmon is expected to go in the top-5 and he hasn't put together back-to-back ~1200 yard seasons in the NFL.

And if you were intent on it, the team with the RFA would likely be willing to talk trade for him, ala Wes Welker.

 

[Touchdown There]

A bad team can't afford to give up an early 1st and is virtually eliminated from participating in the system.

I just don't see why. It's like you're drafting a proven player. Blackmon is expected to go in the top-5 and he hasn't put together back-to-back ~1200 yard seasons in the NFL.

And if you were intent on it, the team with the RFA would likely be willing to talk trade for him, ala Wes Welker.

1: They do not play the same position, even though they are both WRs and;2: Welker is a UFA who may get the franchise tag. The Steelers cannot afford a franchise tag right now without significant cuts.

 

[David Yudkin]

A bad team can't afford to give up an early 1st and is virtually eliminated from participating in the system.

I just don't see why. It's like you're drafting a proven player. Blackmon is expected to go in the top-5 and he hasn't put together back-to-back ~1200 yard seasons in the NFL.

And if you were intent on it, the team with the RFA would likely be willing to talk trade for him, ala Wes Welker.

1: They do not play the same position, even though they are both WRs and;2: Welker is a UFA who may get the franchise tag. The Steelers cannot afford a franchise tag right now without significant cuts.

I believe he was referring to how the Pats obtained Welker. They brokered a trade rather than going through the RFA signing process.

 

[icehacka]

From Roto:

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Steelers are willing to let restricted free agent Mike Wallace test the open market.The Steelers will reportedly place a first-round restricted tender on Wallace and "see what develops." If he "signs a contract and they deem it too high," they will apparently take the first-round compensation instead of matching. Once unthinkable, it's now very possible the Steelers will let their 25-year-old No. 1 receiver walk instead of digging themselves into an even deeper salary-cap hole.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Ed: What Is Mike Wallace Worth?

Tuesday, 21 February 2012 06:14

Written by Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Good morning,

Mike Wallace is back in the news this week because franchise tags were first permitted to be issued by teams Monday. No surprise the Steelers did not tag Wallace, although they can still do that until March 3.

Kevin Colbert pretty much acknowledged on 93.7 The Fan the other day that the Steelers were in no position to franchise Wallace because they had salary cap problems. The Steelers are about $10 million over the cap now. Franchising Wallace at more than $9 million for 2012 would put them close to $20 million over the cap.

Here is another issue that is more important -- Does anyone think Wallace should get more than $9 million in 2012. And, once they do that, the Steelers would have to start there if they wanted to negotiate a longer-term deal. Wallace is good, but not $10 million annually good. So, they will make him the more reasonable restricted free agent one-year tender and see what develops. Other teams can sign Wallace to a contract after free agency begins . The Steelers would then have two options -- do nothing and receive a first-round 2012 draft choice in return from the team that signed him, or they could match the contract he signed with the other team and keep him.

The Steelers are willing to have Wallace test the market, and if indeed he signs a contract and they deem it too high, they'll take a first-round draft choice in return and have two first-round picks for only the second time since the 1970s NFL merger (the other was 1989). So what is Mike Wallace worth? His first three seasons have been rocket-like, with him climbing higher and higher. However, in the middle of what seemed to be his best and record-setting season, Wallace fizzled.

Through the first eight games, Wallace caught 43 passes for 800 yards, on pace for a 1,600-yard season that would have obliterated the team record by more than 200 yards. However, in the final eight games he caught 29 passes for only 393 yards. He averaged 18.6 yards a catch in the first half of the season, just 13.6 in the second half to finish with a career low average of 16.6 yards per catch.

He topped it off with a miserable playoff game in Denver, where he caught three passes for 26 yards.

Here's the question the Steelers and other prospective suitors in free agency must determine: Did defenses figure out Mike Wallace finally as the one-trick pony that Mike Tomlin long declared he was? Wallace is at his best running the "go" routes and outside flag patterns, where he has a chance to outrun someone. However, when faced with cover two defenses and safeties hanging deep, he's not as effective. He does not seem to fight for the ball at times and even gives up on some when covered.

During this slump by Wallace in the second half of the season, Antonio Brown emerged like a Jeremy Lin. He clearly was the team's best receiver in the second half of the season. Curiously, Brown's rise should have helped Wallace because Brown's best asset is taking a short to medium range pass and running with it.

Maybe all the final eight games and one playoff game merely was a slump for Wallace and he will return to the kind of production he had in the first half of 2011. But as teams turn on the tape, they have to be surprised at the difference between the first half Wallace and the second half Wallace of 2011.

Onto some stuff:

-- YOU: Just wondering, never looked at it this way until now... if Wallace was offered a contract by another team, which he does not want to play for, does he have a choice to reject the contract and work something out with the Steelers? Or do the Steelers have to match that offer regardless? If they can't match the offer, would Wallace be forced to play for that team even if he did not want to accept the offer, kindof like a trade?

ME: Wallace would have to sign a contract before it goes into effect. The large majority of RFAs are never offered contracts, but if they are they certainly do not have to sign them. They can ignore offers and simply return to the Steelers, accept their one-year RFA tender or negotiate a multi-year deal.

--YOU: Worst case scenario on Mike Wallace – the Steelers can’t sign him to a long-term contract, do the appropriate RFA tender, and he gets some outrageous payday offer from a team like the 49ers or Patriots (both of which are in dire need of a deep threat) that the Steelers just cannot match. That would give the Steelers a very late 1st round pick (#30 or 31), which would appear to be poor value for Wallace. Do you know if the Steelers think this is a real concern?

ME: The Steelers are aware that scenario is possible.

 

[Hoosier16]

A bad team can't afford to give up an early 1st and is virtually eliminated from participating in the system.

I just don't see why. It's like you're drafting a proven player. Blackmon is expected to go in the top-5 and he hasn't put together back-to-back ~1200 yard seasons in the NFL.

And if you were intent on it, the team with the RFA would likely be willing to talk trade for him, ala Wes Welker.

I don't see how either of those statements mitigates the inequity of the process. The bad teams are still required to give up significantly more than the good teams. A more fair system would be to give up next year's 1st.

 

[Louisville Slugger]

I can't see the Patriots being serious players for Mike Wallace at the price he is going to command on the open market. I've heard that he is looking at around $11 million per season. I don't think they would be able to pay him and Welker (who may be tagged for around $9 million per season) going forward unless they sign Wallace and tag Welker for this one season and let him walk at the end of 2012...This is a longshot at best, but could you imagine trying to stop a Patriots offense with Wallace, Welker, Gronk, Hernandez and Tom Brady. The Patriots would nearly be unstopable for the coming season.

I think the Pat's resign Welker and look to a far less expensive option to open the field up a bit and spend their f/a money on the defensive side of the ball. I'd much prefer to see them pick up a dominant pass rusher or help in the secondary than spend $20 million per year at wr.

 

[JohnnyU]

could you imagine trying to stop a Patriots offense with Wallace, Welker, Gronk, Hernandez and Tom Brady. The Patriots would nearly be unstopable for the coming season.

They still have defensive issues and any team that can rush Tom Brady can beat the Patriots.

 

[David Yudkin]

They still have defensive issues and any team that can rush Tom Brady can beat the Patriots.

Couldn't it be said that any team that can consistently rush a QB could beat most teams? I don't think the Pats are any more fundamentally challenged in stopping a pass rush than other teams are. The Pats are one or two playmakers on defensive from being serious contenders to go on another multiple year SB run. But we've been saiying that for several years now and it hasn't happened.I doubt the Pats will try very hard to acquire Wallace (if at all), but the media seems to think they might be interested in pursuing him.

 

[Marvelous]

Would love to see the Bucs trade up to the late 1st with their early 2nd (they have another 2nd).....then offer that for Wallace....and still keep the 5th overall pick.

The old rules were that a team had to use its own pick or a higher pick to sign restricted free agents. So the Giants are the only team that can use the 32nd pick for a 1st round RFA. They cannot trade it so another team can use it.

 

[Jail]

[i doubt Welker is "ok" with being franchised, but he may not have much choice. Both teams will go through the motions to get a new deal done, but I think both sides are far apart on years, salary, and bonus money. I suspect Welker will want twice what the Pats will offer him on all three fronts.

I agree on the tag for Welker this year, but I think you mentioned in a post before, 2 years in a row? Won't Hernandez be playing on the last of his rookie deal this year? I don't know if he signed a 3 or 4 rookie deal. No other players coming up near the end for them?

 

[B-Deep]

How pissed would Big Ben be if Wallace walks after all the OC drama?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I doubt teams can circumvent the signing bonus rules by calling it a roster bonus in the 1st yr of a contract.

Roster bonus info, but I'm not certain that it applies after the most recent CBA/poison pill clauses.

I don't get the comment about "circumventing" the signing bonus rules. It's sort of like saying I'm circumventing the rules for my credit card by paying cash. The team is doing something entirely different than a signing bonus, and something which has it's own set of CBA rules to cover it. There is nothing that requires you to give a signing bonus, nor to put some percentage of cash into one.The only times a roster bonus is treated as a signing bonus is if it is guaranteed, or if it is a contract signed after the last preseason game then any year 1 roster bonus would be a signing bonus.

The poison pill clause just says that you can't make a contract where terms would be different for one team than for another. So no "fully guaranteed contract if the player plays more than 4 games in Minnesota in any given year" type things like was done with Steve Hutchinson.

CBA:

(iii) Notwithstanding Subsections (i) and (ii) above, no Offer Sheet may contain a Principal Term that would create rights or obligations for the Old Club that differ in any way (including but not limited to the amount of compensation that would be paid, the circumstances in which compensation would be guaranteed, or the circumstances in which other contractual rights would or would not vest) from the rights or obligations that such Principal Term would create for the Club extending the Offer Sheet (i.e., no poison pills).

It would be very much the same as a poison pill. A poison pill is essentially wording in a contract to prevent the other team from being able to match. If the Pats gave Wallace a huge roster bonus instead of a signing bonus, it would be with the intention so that the Steelers could not match it, so how is that any different?Regardless whether it is a poison pill or not, I would be curious to know if the Steelers can go to arbitration to remedy this situation.

For Example

-Pats offer a $10 million ROSTER bonus which does not allow the Steelers to match

-The Steelers could offer a $10 million SIGNING bonus so the cap hit is spread evenly over the contract.

If the guranteed money is the same in Wallace's pocket, and the contracts are similar in every other way, then would the contracts be defined as different and have to let Wallace go over a difference of semantics.

I realize a lot of that depends on Mike Wallace's thoughts on what team he rather play for because if he wanted to play for the Steelers, then he wouldn't sign the Pats contract and instead use it to allow the Steelers to match.

 

[Touchdown There]

How pissed would Big Ben be if Wallace walks after all the OC drama?

Mike Wallace is just dying to get yelled at by Haley. He can't wait.

 

[David Yudkin]

[i doubt Welker is "ok" with being franchised, but he may not have much choice. Both teams will go through the motions to get a new deal done, but I think both sides are far apart on years, salary, and bonus money. I suspect Welker will want twice what the Pats will offer him on all three fronts.

I agree on the tag for Welker this year, but I think you mentioned in a post before, 2 years in a row? Won't Hernandez be playing on the last of his rookie deal this year? I don't know if he signed a 3 or 4 rookie deal. No other players coming up near the end for them?

Gronk and Hernandez are both signed through 2013. From a total $$$ paid out perspective, I still think the Pats would rather pay Welker one year at a time, as it will save them money in total dollars. That way they would not have to shell out a big lump sum signing bonus. Better stated, franchising Welker for 2 years would likely cost LESS than the signing bonus Welker would ask for.

 

[GregR]

...

I don't get the comment about "circumventing" the signing bonus rules. It's sort of like saying I'm circumventing the rules for my credit card by paying cash. The team is doing something entirely different than a signing bonus, and something which has it's own set of CBA rules to cover it. There is nothing that requires you to give a signing bonus, nor to put some percentage of cash into one.

The only times a roster bonus is treated as a signing bonus is if it is guaranteed, or if it is a contract signed after the last preseason game then any year 1 roster bonus would be a signing bonus.

The poison pill clause just says that you can't make a contract where terms would be different for one team than for another. So no "fully guaranteed contract if the player plays more than 4 games in Minnesota in any given year" type things like was done with Steve Hutchinson.

CBA:

(iii) Notwithstanding Subsections (i) and (ii) above, no Offer Sheet may contain a Principal Term that would create rights or obligations for the Old Club that differ in any way (including but not limited to the amount of compensation that would be paid, the circumstances in which compensation would be guaranteed, or the circumstances in which other contractual rights would or would not vest) from the rights or obligations that such Principal Term would create for the Club extending the Offer Sheet (i.e., no “poison pills”).

It would be very much the same as a poison pill. A poison pill is essentially wording in a contract to prevent the other team from being able to match. If the Pats gave Wallace a huge roster bonus instead of a signing bonus, it would be with the intention so that the Steelers could not match it, so how is that any different?Regardless whether it is a poison pill or not, I would be curious to know if the Steelers can go to arbitration to remedy this situation.

For Example

-Pats offer a $10 million ROSTER bonus which does not allow the Steelers to match

-The Steelers could offer a $10 million SIGNING bonus so the cap hit is spread evenly over the contract.

If the guranteed money is the same in Wallace's pocket, and the contracts are similar in every other way, then would the contracts be defined as different and have to let Wallace go over a difference of semantics.

I realize a lot of that depends on Mike Wallace's thoughts on what team he rather play for because if he wanted to play for the Steelers, then he wouldn't sign the Pats contract and instead use it to allow the Steelers to match.

No, they cannot go to arbitration for a situation like that. Or at least, they can try but they would lose because this is exactly how the system is supposed to work. The players want teams to have to supply competitive contracts to maximize their gain, and the NFL agreed to do it this way (I'm sure in exchange for other concessions).This scenario and the poison pill are not the same in the sense that matters - whether the terms are the same for both teams. This situation, the contract the Steelers have to live with has the exact same terms as the hypothetical contract the Pats have to live with. Both make payments in the same amounts at the same times, with the same level of guarantees.

In the Hutchinson scenario, the original team would have had a fully guaranteed contract while the new team would have had a non-guaranteed contract. Those are different terms, that's what the poison pill is about preventing.

The situation is simple for the Steelers... if they want to keep Wallace then offer him a better a contract. A $10m signing bonus is better than a $10m roster bonus, as the latter is not guaranteed. If they are willing to pay that much, then they should negotiate the contract themselves. If they let another team structure the deal he ultimately signs, that's on the Steelers.