Steelers offer to RFA WR Mike Wallace: one-year, $2.7 million - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

WhiZa · 03-15-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmike77

They could, but again, why would Wallace accept a deal like that? He would likely rather take a small risk, make his $2.7 million this year and then get a fat 5-year, $55 million deal next year.

I guess I never thought about what Wallace wanted in this situation

I guess in the same scenario a team could try to sign him to a 1 year - 5 million dollar contract. Of course Wallace would take it, and it would force the steelers to pay more this year for him this year. Granted you won't have him next year, but if you're a team who's not spending big money you probably wouldn't of been able to sign him anyway.

satz · 03-15-2012, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiZa

I guess I never thought about what Wallace wanted in this situation

I guess in the same scenario a team could try to sign him to a 1 year - 5 million dollar contract. Of course Wallace would take it, and it would force the steelers to pay more this year for him this year. Granted you won't have him next year, but if you're a team who's not spending big money you probably wouldn't of been able to sign him anyway.

Which team i wonder will piss off the steelers ownership and get on there wrong side for years to come .

robertweathers · 03-15-2012, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Which team i wonder will piss off the steelers ownership and get on there wrong side for years to come .

Signing Wallace to an offer sheet does not mean the Steelers will issue a vendetta. They are ones who did not extend Wallace and executed on issuing the RFA tag on Wallace.

satz · 03-15-2012, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robertweathers

Signing Wallace to an offer sheet does not mean the Steelers will issue a vendetta. They are ones who did not extend Wallace and executed on issuing the RFA tag on Wallace.

does it matter ?... the owner has to sit with that owner in meeting and work with him years.

If you believe this whole we gave a 2nd and 7th for wes to the dolphins owner as not to put a poison pill or actually sign a RFA contract to keep that owner happyas a myth ,let me know. Steelers owner is the Irish ambassador and is a older respected owner. I will be suprised to see another owner take him on.

robertweathers · 03-15-2012, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

does it matter ?... the owner has to sit with that owner in meeting and work with him years.

If you believe this whole we gave a 2nd and 7th for wes to the other owner will be happy and kraft not wanting get on the wrong side of the dolphins owner as a myth ,let me know. Steelers owner is the Irish ambassador and is a older respected owner. I will be suprised to see another owner take him on.

It's happened before and Rooney and Kraft got along just fine afterwards.

Patriots get Bailey after Pittsburgh declines to match offer sheet - NFL - ESPN

Now, signing another team's drafted players to the practice squad is much worse.

madmike77 · 03-15-2012, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robertweathers

Signing Wallace to an offer sheet does not mean the Steelers will issue a vendetta. They are ones who did not extend Wallace and executed on issuing the RFA tag on Wallace.

They have talked to him about a new contract. But Wallace and his agent want to see what offers are out there first, which makes complete sense.

Signing him to an extension before last year would have been a bit risky, since he only have one year as a starter.

Their real mistake was signing him to a rookie 3-year deal instead of a 4-year deal. They did the same thing with Brown. Both Wallace and Brown were relative longshots (3rd and 6th rounders) so you can sort of justify the shorter deals, but still in hindsight it was a big mistake.

robertweathers · 03-15-2012, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madmike77

They have talked to him about a new contract. But Wallace and his agent want to see what offers are out there first, which makes complete sense.

Signing him to an extension before last year would have been a bit risky, since he only have one year as a starter.

Their real mistake was signing him to a rookie 3-year deal instead of a 4-year deal. They did the same thing with Brown. Both Wallace and Brown were relative longshots (3rd and 6th rounders) so you can sort of justify the shorter deals, but still in hindsight it was a big mistake.

Yep. I read that anything under $10m a year/$20m bonus, Wallace balked at.

Nonetheless, a massive mistake by Pitt FO.

MP-Logick · 03-15-2012, 01:48 PM

Jeff Howe of NESN is reporting that if the Patriots were to sign Wallace to an offer sheet they would have to give up the 27th overall pick, not the 31st.

mcsully · 03-15-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP-Logick

Jeff Howe of NESN is reporting that if the Patriots were to sign Wallace to an offer sheet they would have to give up the 27th overall pick, not the 31st.

He's incorrect. team gives up their own pick. In this case it would be 31.

KDPPatsfan85 · 03-15-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcsully

He's incorrect. team gives up their own pick. In this case it would be 31.

Quote:

Derek Havens ‏ @PatriotsHaven Interesting RT @jeffphowe If Pats sign Mike Wallace, NFL defines draft comp as "Its own or better." Pats would give up 27th pick, not 31st.

If we arent willing to pay welker then why should we trade for Wallace who will want over 10 mil a year!