1. Hi Guest, Registrations are now open. See you on the inside.
    Dismiss Notice

Why it was a mistake to not reduce Mike's tender.

Discussion in 'Steelers Talk' started by NickSteel, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. NickSteel

    NickSteel Well-Known Member

    160
    12
    Dec 4, 2011
    While I am certainly not a Wallace hater I am very unhappy with his decisions leading us into this mess. I am also very unhappy with the front office for not reducing his tender when they had the chance. This whole situation is about money, so what is a better motivator than making Mike face the prospect of losing money. I am not just talking losing money for one year, I am talking about a cut in the earnings he will bring in over his entire career.

    The Steelers have reportedly offered him 5 yr 50 mill. There is a recent report I saw on rotoworld that Mike now wants "V-jax money" which is 5 yr 55 mill. While these are unsubstantiated media reports, I think most of us agree these numbers seem within the realm of likelihood (unlike "Fitz money"). Say he reports and signs his 2.7 mill tender, playing out the season then moving on to what he thinks will be "greener pastures." He then gets his 55, making 57.7 mill over 6 years, after which he will be 32. I think we can all agree that another large contract is not likely at this point, and he is going to take a large pay cut, especially considering how heavily his game relies on his speed. Now comparing to the Steelers' offer of 50 over 5 he will end up on the plus side if he gets 2.7 this year and 55 from some other team, UNLESS he somehow manages to get some suckers (won't be us) to pay a 32 year old speed receiver 7.7 million after sticking with us for 5. I say the chances of that are about as close to zero as you can get.

    Now, If the Steelers had cut his tender to the 570k when they had the chance then the number Wallace needs to pull in the sixth year to break even is a much more reasonable 5.6 million. The Steelers gave Hines a 5.4 million a year extension in his age 33 season.

    If they wanted to wrap him up long-term, why not give him every incentive to sign on the dotted line? After all, as all of his supporters continuously bring up, this is "just business."
     
  2. Blast Furnace

    Blast Furnace Staff Member Mod Team

    30,971
    3,285
    Oct 16, 2011
    Because they want to wrap him up long term and reducing his tender would have all but killed any chance of that happening. It's obvious that Wallace has a sizable ego, he wouldn't have handled having his tender reduced very well. Also, the Steelers were operating in good faith, something Wallace is failing to show on his side. But, they got his attention now I bet.
     
  3. strummerfan

    strummerfan Well-Known Member

    7,671
    482
    May 9, 2012
    THat would all but guarantee that Wallace never wears the black and gold again. Thank dog you're not our GM.
     
  4. NickSteel

    NickSteel Well-Known Member

    160
    12
    Dec 4, 2011
    If it's "just business" for Wallace why can't it be "just business" for the Steelers? You can't hold the organization to different standards. It's clear that personal loyalty is playing no role in this situation on his end, so why did we put ourselves in a weaker position in a "good faith" negotiation?
     
  5. strummerfan

    strummerfan Well-Known Member

    7,671
    482
    May 9, 2012
    The team is not in a weaker position, they hold all of the cards.
     
  6. HinesWardHOF

    HinesWardHOF Well-Known Member

    2,075
    0
    Oct 24, 2011
     
  7. D0bre Shunka

    D0bre Shunka Well-Known Member

    2,429
    122
    Jan 24, 2012
    In order for something positive to happen in the whole mess someone has to act in good faith. Our FO said they would and did act in good faith from the start, thus allowing the player room to negotiate with them. If they had not done so the situation would be even worse than it is now.
     
  8. NickSteel

    NickSteel Well-Known Member

    160
    12
    Dec 4, 2011
    You misunderstand me. Not a weaker position relative to Wallace. A weaker position relative to what it could have been. We left him with a card or two, and now we will pay for it one way or another.
     
  9. strummerfan

    strummerfan Well-Known Member

    7,671
    482
    May 9, 2012

    Wallace doesn't hold any cards. THe only option that makes any financial sense for Wallace is too play at least one more SEASON with the Steelers.
     
  10. NickSteel

    NickSteel Well-Known Member

    160
    12
    Dec 4, 2011
    Just the fact that he has the option to get a decent salary next year on a one year tender is all the cards he needs. I'm not interested in an grumpy, under-motivated Wallace for one more year. The real game is playing for his long term contract, and we gave up strength in that regard.
     
  11. strummerfan

    strummerfan Well-Known Member

    7,671
    482
    May 9, 2012
    In order to get the BIG contract next year he has to perform. Wallace we know you fell off in 2012 and then slacked off in 2013, but here's a bunch of money anyway. :roflmao:
     
  12. CaBurghfan

    CaBurghfan Well-Known Member

    193
    0
    Oct 17, 2011
    Well, AJ Smith took that tone out here in SD and did it with both VJ and Marcus McNeil. There were 2 different results too. McNeil reported the last day prior to the tender being slashed, and signed. He was rewarded with a long term deal. VJ did not report, had his tender slashed, and when he finally did report mid-season, he was never even offered a decent contract.

    IMO, San Diego wanted to see if they (McNeil and VJ) were committed to the team, and only one stepped forward to say "yes". So, the Chargers committed to him. Now with the Steelers, I feel it's the same thing. If Wallace signs and reports, then I think, or at least I did prior to AB signing, that the Steelers would offer him a fair deal.

    Not sure now. Especially if he wants to stick to the $55 Mil range that VJ got.
     
  13. winggin

    winggin Well-Blitzed Member

    1,070
    112
    Oct 23, 2011
    Someone said it first but I'm to lazy to reread everything. I can't imagine us committing 100 mill to 2 wr. Just don't see it. I think Wallace is gone for the right offer.
     
  14. Da Stellars

    Da Stellars Well-Known Member

    5,576
    315
    Oct 22, 2011
    Wallace deserves getting paid. He is not even making close to million a year. He has out performed is original contract and then some.
     

Share This Page

Welcome to the ultimate resource for Steelers fans. Sign Up Here!