** The Official Mike Wallace Drama Thread **

Dodens Grav wrote:

OMG WALLACE IS LYK MA FAVERITE!! SO LOYAL

LOL!

Mike Wallace, Steelers WR, is most underpaid in NFL

By Brian McIntyre

If Mike Wallace plays the 2012 season under the "first-round" restricted free agent tender, he could be looking at $2.742 million in non-guaranteed base salary. Wallace ranked in the top 25 in terms of receptions last season and was tied for 11th in both receiving yards (1,193) and touchdowns (eight). With Todd Haley replacing Bruce Arians as offensive coordinator, there is no reason to think that the Steelers are going to throw the ball less. Yet Wallace's RFA tender currently ranks 46th among NFL wideouts in terms of cash compensation in 2012.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a75f6a/article/mike-wallace-steelers-wr-is-most-underpaid-in-nfl
-----------------------------------------------------------------


We can all agree that Wallace doesn't deserve the same money as the top 2 or 3 receivers. But I think we can also agree that he doesn't deserve less than 45 other receivers in the league.

Wallace108 wrote:

Mike Wallace, Steelers WR, is most underpaid in NFL

By Brian McIntyre

If Mike Wallace plays the 2012 season under the "first-round" restricted free agent tender, he could be looking at $2.742 million in non-guaranteed base salary. Wallace ranked in the top 25 in terms of receptions last season and was tied for 11th in both receiving yards (1,193) and touchdowns (eight). With Todd Haley replacing Bruce Arians as offensive coordinator, there is no reason to think that the Steelers are going to throw the ball less. Yet Wallace's RFA tender currently ranks 46th among NFL wideouts in terms of cash compensation in 2012.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a75f6a/article/mike-wallace-steelers-wr-is-most-underpaid-in-nfl
-----------------------------------------------------------------


We can all agree that Wallace doesn't deserve the same money as the top 2 or 3 receivers. But I think we can also agree that he doesn't deserve less than 45 other receivers in the league.

No doubt. He deserves a fair paycheck for the contributions he's given this team thus far which is far above what he is currently making. We just can't "break the bank" for him and hurt the team's competitive chances going forward in the process.

Whyant5 wrote:

Is Wallace REALLY worth all of this? Even his teammates are saying "come on man, get it together". If he isn't into it now, how can we count on him for the season?

He's worried about dollar bills (or at least his agent is), instead of scoring TDs and making himself more valuable to the Steelers. Right now, as much as the FO says Wallace is in their long term plans, Wallace isn't endearing himself to anyone within the Steelers organization. It may be his agent's fault, but the bottom line is when the season starts the staff, as well as the fans, will focus on the group of men that are on the field. PERIOD!

Wallace is no where near the status Hines was at his hold out. When he gets there, then people will be concerned for him. Until then, get ready for the statement, "Wallace who?"

I'm all for Wallace and I have been giving him the benefit of the doubt. However, my opinion (not that anyone gives a rats ass) will be formed based on whether or not he shows up to training camp.

Maybe he should take a page from Woodley's book:

On the field, Woodley’s strongest asset is what pundits like to call his “motor.” Or, in non-gridiron speak, his heart. A first-time Pro Bowler in 2009, Woodley racked up 25 sacks in the past two seasons. Only four NFL players have more in that span. Yet the second-round draft pick from the University of Michigan makes less money than the backup goaltender of the Pittsburgh Penguins

Currently in the final year of his rookie contract, worth $550K this season, Woodley had every right to join in on the NFL’s hottest summer trend—holding out of training camp for a raise. The Tennessee Titans’ stud running back Chris Johnson did it. Even $100 million man Albert Haynesworth was a no-show at the Washington Redskins’ mini-camp because of hurt feelings over trade rumors.

But when the Steelers opened the doors of their South Side training facility for optional team workouts in May, there was Woodley, crushing tackling dummies in the pouring rain when he could have been at home relaxing on a “Dora the Explorer” marathon with his 2-year-old daughter, Gabrielle.

“If I miss workouts and training camp, I not only hurt myself, but I hurt the team,” he says. “I don’t want to fall behind because I’m worried about dollar signs.”http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Pittsburgh-Magazine/July-2010/Wood-Be-Gentleman/

Gingerchip wrote:

I'm all for Wallace and I have been giving him the benefit of the doubt. However, my opinion (not that anyone gives a rats ass) will be formed based on whether or not he shows up to training camp.

Maybe he should take a page from Woodley's book:

On the field, Woodley’s strongest asset is what pundits like to call his “motor.” Or, in non-gridiron speak, his heart. A first-time Pro Bowler in 2009, Woodley racked up 25 sacks in the past two seasons. Only four NFL players have more in that span. Yet the second-round draft pick from the University of Michigan makes less money than the backup goaltender of the Pittsburgh Penguins

Currently in the final year of his rookie contract, worth $550K this season, Woodley had every right to join in on the NFL’s hottest summer trend—holding out of training camp for a raise. The Tennessee Titans’ stud running back Chris Johnson did it. Even $100 million man Albert Haynesworth was a no-show at the Washington Redskins’ mini-camp because of hurt feelings over trade rumors.

But when the Steelers opened the doors of their South Side training facility for optional team workouts in May, there was Woodley, crushing tackling dummies in the pouring rain when he could have been at home relaxing on a “Dora the Explorer” marathon with his 2-year-old daughter, Gabrielle.

“If I miss workouts and training camp, I not only hurt myself, but I hurt the team,” he says. “I don’t want to fall behind because I’m worried about dollar signs.”http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Pittsburgh-Magazine/July-2010/Wood-Be-Gentleman/

Awesome post! Thanks for sharing, and I agree. He should participate in training camp, and if he doesn't, i'll be glad to see him on his way next year.

Gingerchip wrote:

I'm all for Wallace and I have been giving him the benefit of the doubt. However, my opinion (not that anyone gives a rats ass) will be formed based on whether or not he shows up to training camp.

Maybe he should take a page from Woodley's book:

On the field, Woodley’s strongest asset is what pundits like to call his “motor.” Or, in non-gridiron speak, his heart. A first-time Pro Bowler in 2009, Woodley racked up 25 sacks in the past two seasons. Only four NFL players have more in that span. Yet the second-round draft pick from the University of Michigan makes less money than the backup goaltender of the Pittsburgh Penguins

Currently in the final year of his rookie contract, worth $550K this season, Woodley had every right to join in on the NFL’s hottest summer trend—holding out of training camp for a raise. The Tennessee Titans’ stud running back Chris Johnson did it. Even $100 million man Albert Haynesworth was a no-show at the Washington Redskins’ mini-camp because of hurt feelings over trade rumors.

But when the Steelers opened the doors of their South Side training facility for optional team workouts in May, there was Woodley, crushing tackling dummies in the pouring rain when he could have been at home relaxing on a “Dora the Explorer” marathon with his 2-year-old daughter, Gabrielle.

“If I miss workouts and training camp, I not only hurt myself, but I hurt the team,” he says. “I don’t want to fall behind because I’m worried about dollar signs.”http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Pittsburgh-Magazine/July-2010/Wood-Be-Gentleman/

Woodley's situation was different than Wallace's situation. If Wallace signs the tender, 45 receivers will make more than him next year. Woodley received the franchise tag, which means the Steelers would have had to pay him an average salary of the top 5 players at his position. Before signing a long-term deal, Woodley already got his big pay day. There was no reason for him to hold out. But I agree that Wallace needs to be in camp, regardless of what he's getting paid. I'll give him until two weeks after camp starts. After that, I withdraw my support.

Wallace108 wrote:

Gingerchip wrote:

I'm all for Wallace and I have been giving him the benefit of the doubt. However, my opinion (not that anyone gives a rats ass) will be formed based on whether or not he shows up to training camp.

Maybe he should take a page from Woodley's book:

On the field, Woodley’s strongest asset is what pundits like to call his “motor.” Or, in non-gridiron speak, his heart. A first-time Pro Bowler in 2009, Woodley racked up 25 sacks in the past two seasons. Only four NFL players have more in that span. Yet the second-round draft pick from the University of Michigan makes less money than the backup goaltender of the Pittsburgh Penguins

Currently in the final year of his rookie contract, worth $550K this season, Woodley had every right to join in on the NFL’s hottest summer trend—holding out of training camp for a raise. The Tennessee Titans’ stud running back Chris Johnson did it. Even $100 million man Albert Haynesworth was a no-show at the Washington Redskins’ mini-camp because of hurt feelings over trade rumors.

But when the Steelers opened the doors of their South Side training facility for optional team workouts in May, there was Woodley, crushing tackling dummies in the pouring rain when he could have been at home relaxing on a “Dora the Explorer” marathon with his 2-year-old daughter, Gabrielle.

“If I miss workouts and training camp, I not only hurt myself, but I hurt the team,” he says. “I don’t want to fall behind because I’m worried about dollar signs.”http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Pittsburgh-Magazine/July-2010/Wood-Be-Gentleman/

Woodley's situation was different than Wallace's situation. If Wallace signs the tender, 45 receivers will make more than him next year. Woodley received the franchise tag, which means the Steelers would have had to pay him an average salary of the top 5 players at his position. Before signing a long-term deal, Woodley already got his big pay day. There was no reason for him to hold out. But I agree that Wallace needs to be in camp, regardless of what he's getting paid. I'll give him until two weeks after camp starts. After that, I withdraw my support.

Really? I'd expect him to be their five minutes early and warming up.

It's a business. I think it's unfair to get down on guys when they treat it like a business. It is their livelihood, after all, and they may not be starving, but they're entitled to get what they can. Missing a couple weeks of training camp, to avoid risking injury, is also not a big deal. That is, IF a deal isn't worked out by then and IF he decides to wait to show up. Let's keep in mind that Wallace has yet to say anything publicly. It's pretty amazing how poorly the media is able to paint him using everybody's words but his own.

Dodens Grav wrote:

Let's keep in mind that Wallace has yet to say anything publicly. It's pretty amazing how poorly the media is able to paint him using everybody's words but his own.

This is why I'm still on his side. I really respect how he's handled himself throughout all this. Since he's handled it very professionally in public (by not running his mouth), that leads me to believe that he's also handling it professionally in private.

Quote :

Since he's handled it very professionally in public (by not running his mouth),

I really don't think the Rooney's would stand for him or anyone else running their mouth or whining about contracts to the media.

At this point, I honestly don't care if he goes or stays. I am looking forward to watching AB, Ben, the revamped O-line, Woodley and Company, and Steeler Football in general.

Quote :

Before signing a long-term deal, Woodley already got his big pay day.

Whaaaaat? The way I understood the situation was that Woodley had not gotten anything -- there was just talks (just like the Wallace situation) but he showed up for the optional training anyway.

Gingerchip wrote:

Quote :

Before signing a long-term deal, Woodley already got his big pay day.

Whaaaaat? The way I understood the situation was that Woodley had not gotten anything -- there was just talks (just like the Wallace situation) but he showed up for the optional training anyway.

They gave him the franchise tag, which means if they didn't work out a deal, they would have had to pay him the average salary of the 5 highest-paid linebackers in the league. I don't mean this to sound negative toward Woodley, but it didn't matter what happened during negotiations ... he knew he was getting paid. A lot. From there, it was just a matter of working out a long-term deal. There was no reason for him NOT to show up.

Wallace's situation is much different. His production in his first three years combined was more than what he was getting paid. Wallace made $310,000 his rookie year, followed by $360,000 his second, and 525,000 last season. And he was a Pro Bowl receiver last season. Heck, Shaun Suisham made 810,000 last season and will make $1.3 million this season.

Whereas Woodley was guaranteed to get paid the average of the 5 highest-paid linebackers, if Wallace signs the tender, 45 receivers in the league will be getting paid more than him. There's certainly not 45 receivers in the league who are better than Wallace.

Wallace108 wrote:

Dodens Grav wrote:

Let's keep in mind that Wallace has yet to say anything publicly. It's pretty amazing how poorly the media is able to paint him using everybody's words but his own.

This is why I'm still on his side. I really respect how he's handled himself throughout all this. Since he's handled it very professionally in public (by not running his mouth), that leads me to believe that he's also handling it professionally in private.

I agree with all of this, except I slightly disagree with the running his mouth part. Although Ike spoke for him on two different occasions, Wallace never denied he said any of that. He's been smart about not mentioning any of it himself, though.

Well, shame on Ike then, as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't need to run his mouth off with private conversations just because he has air space to fill on his radio show.

Dodens Grav wrote:

Well, shame on Ike then, as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't need to run his mouth off with private conversations just because he has air space to fill on his radio show.

I've been thinking the same thing. I'll have more to say on this later when I'm not at work.

It is what it is. The standard is the standard.

Can we afford to pay him more than 5 mil a year? Brown's contract is up next year and if he plays like he did last year and if we pay Wallace more than 5 mil(and I'm just throwing a number)then Brown would ask(or his agent)for more money and if I had to pick from one of the 2 I'd keep Brown but that's just me

I don't think Brown would have the same demands as Wallace. Chances are, Wallace will once again have a better season than Brown, and maybe Sanders and Cotchery will even come closer to Brown than Brown does to Wallace. He will not be the number 1 guy, asking for number 1 money. And he also has a different disposition. So I'm pretty confident that, if necessary, Brown would play under a 1st round tender.

And the Steelers could EASILY afford to pay Wallace $5M right now if they wanted to. That wouldn't even be an issue. He's already counting $2.7M on the books right now, and they have over $3M in cap space. And if they release Scott, which is likely, they stand to save another $2M. There's a lot of things they can do to come up with the money, it's just a matter of coming to terms with a number both parties are comfortable with, which I think will happen within the next 3 to 4 weeks.

Edit: You'll all be excited to know that I'm working on an article that attempts to explain why and how the Steelers would be able to afford to pay Wallace. I'll post it here once it's done obviously.

I wrote an article trying to make sense of the Starks and Wallace situation and how they intertwine, trying to disentangle various threads. Sorry for posting it in both threads, but it's equally applicable to both.

Steelers' re-signing of Max Starks may also help to retain Mike Wallace

Quote :

Yesterday, knowledgeable members of Steeler Nation were pleased to hear the news that veteran tackle Max Starks had re-signed with the team on a one year deal. Though it is not the ideal scenario that he start (the hope is that rookie second round left tackle Mike Adams out of Ohio State will be ready to start week 1), it is a valuable option. In addition, the return of Starks shores up the weakest link in an otherwise very promising rebuilt offensive line that includes 4 picks in the top 2 rounds of the draft over the past 3 seasons: depth at the tackle position.

When looking at the opening day starting lineup in 2011, it is projected that there will be only one starter returning to his position when this season gets under way: All-Pro center Maurkice Pouncey. Right tackle Marcus Gilbert, a rookie 2nd round pick last year, did start 13 games, but Willie Colon was the starting right tackle on opening day before being lost for the season due to injury.

Quote :

The Steelers are likely approximately $3 million under the 2012 salary cap after factoring in Starks’ speculated veteran minimum contract. The team also has the opportunity to exercise 3 $500,000 veteran salary cap credits, which, in essence, would shift $1.5 million against the 2012 salary cap to 2013. That would theoretically place the team somewhere around $4.5 million under the salary cap.

Add in the fact that Mike Wallace’s $2.7 million 1st round tender that he has not signed is already factored into the salary cap total, and that leaves the team with over $7 million against the salary cap to donate to signing Wallace. If you then consider the hypothetical release of Jonathan Scott, which seems likely with the return of Max Starks regardless of the Wallace decision, and it now approaches somewhere around the $9.5 million figure.

Nice! Just got the email notifying me of the article, and was about to post this myself. Completely forgot it was you.

Dodens Grav wrote:

Well, shame on Ike then, as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't need to run his mouth off with private conversations just because he has air space to fill on his radio show.

OK, I didn't have as much to say about this as I thought I did ...

I've just been wondering why Ike brought any of it up? Was everything he said accurate? If it was, a lot of what he said put Wallace in a bad light. If I was Wallace, I wouldn't have been too happy with Ike repeating that stuff. It's one thing to say something privately to a friend. But If Wallace wanted that stuff out in public, he would have said it to reporters, not privately.

Dodens Grav wrote:

I wrote an article trying to make sense of the Starks and Wallace situation and how they intertwine, trying to disentangle various threads. Sorry for posting it in both threads, but it's equally applicable to both.

Steelers' re-signing of Max Starks may also help to retain Mike Wallace

The Steelers have said they want to sign Wallace to a long-term deal. Everything they've done (including not reducing the tender) says they want to keep him and not have him leave after this season. So I tend to agree with your line of thinking, Dodens. Signing Starks allows for Scott to be released, which would free up more money for Wallace. If that was the plan and it works out that way, this has to go down as one of the most successful offseasons I can ever remember. Heck, it's been rather successful even without signing Wallace.

Wallace108 wrote:

Dodens Grav wrote:

I wrote an article trying to make sense of the Starks and Wallace situation and how they intertwine, trying to disentangle various threads. Sorry for posting it in both threads, but it's equally applicable to both.

Steelers' re-signing of Max Starks may also help to retain Mike Wallace

The Steelers have said they want to sign Wallace to a long-term deal. Everything they've done (including not reducing the tender) says they want to keep him and not have him leave after this season. So I tend to agree with your line of thinking, Dodens. Signing Starks allows for Scott to be released, which would free up more money for Wallace. If that was the plan and it works out that way, this has to go down as one of the most successful offseasons I can ever remember. Heck, it's been rather successful even without signing Wallace.

I hope the Steelers don't over pay for Wallace at this point. I still don't think he's worth Fitz' money. And I'm sure the Steelers are also looking at future cap money too when thinking about how much to sign Wallace. I think the problem now for Steelers WRs, as it was for Steelers QBs, is the standard for a WR is much different in the B-n-G, than it was pre-Hines.