MichaelWeston Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1329679913' post='1097242'] That's not considered a poison pill contract. A poison pill contract would read something like, "If Mike Wallace plays more than 4 games in any one season in Hienes Field, he gets a $20 million dollar bonus." That was something like the Nate Burleson deal. The Steelers would have to match the exact same contract, they can't restructure it to fit their needs. Seriously why would a player turn down a multi-year contract paying $15 million dollars in the first year, to sign a one year RFA tender? Be realistic. [/quote] Learn to read. I never once said that would happen. Why couldn't the steelers just offer him a differently structured contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1329680218' post='1097245'] Learn to read. I never once said that would happen. Why couldn't the steelers just offer him a differently structured contract? [/quote] You mentioned a poison pill which I told you the difference between what a poison pill is and what the Bengals or any other team can do. They can't restructure the contract offered to him by another team because it's in the CBA they can't. Yes, many times now you have said that he could just turn down someone else's better offer to sign back with the Steelers instead. Don't get snotty with me in this because you don't read yourself and instead are trying to argue with no weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1329680175' post='1097244'] I hate to get in the middle of this, but will anyway. Weston's point is that no matter what contract we offer, if he doesn't sign it the Steelers don't have to match. Everyone else's point is that 99 out of 100 times, no player is going to turn down a contract that is that much better than what the Steelers can give him. [/quote] No-I must need to be more clear on this. My point is that just because the Bengals structure a contract that the Steelers cannot match due to upfront money and their cap....it doesn't mean that the Steelers can't sign him to a contract for the same amount of guaranteed money structured differently. As mentioned somewhere in the abyss of this thread a signing bonus is different then a roster bonus in terms of distribution and the cap. There seems to be an assumption that just because a team structures a deal that Wallace will sign that deal, that Wallace will in effect work with the new team to get away from his old team. If there is a ton more money then I could see that occurring...I agree with everyone that he would not sign the 1 year deal and turn down millions. What I don't understand is if he wants to be a Steeler can't he sign a Steeler cap-friendly contract that still nets him the same amount of money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1329680390' post='1097246'] You mentioned a poison pill which I told you the difference between what a poison pill is and what the Bengals or any other team can do. They can't restructure the contract offered to him by another team because it's in the CBA they can't. Yes, many times now you have said that he could just turn down someone else's better offer to sign back with the Steelers instead. Don't get snotty with me in this because you don't read yourself and instead are trying to argue with no weapons. [/quote] They can't restructure the offer sheet....if he signs it. That's my point. If they hand him an offer and he doesn't sign it can't the Steelers just offer him that amount of money in a more Steeler cap-friendly contract? You tried to say that I said he would resign with the Steelers for less money...I never said that....hence learn to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.A.B. Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 Has Mike Wallace himself said anything about whats going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1329680597' post='1097250'] They can't restructure the offer sheet....if he signs it. That's my point. You tried to say that I said he would resign with the Steelers for less money...I never said that....hence learn to read. [/quote] Yes you did say that he could turn down the new contract and sign with the Steelers for less money just to stay in Pittsburgh. Then you said he could turn down the other team's contract with the understanding he could sign for less with Pittsburgh for now and then sign a bigger contract later on when it was more cap friendly available for the Steelers. Then you changed it to the Steelers taking somsone els'es contract offer and changing it to be cap friendly for them. You are being guilty of talking about something without doin g your own research and then trying to argue something with other people that have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1329680826' post='1097253'] Yes you did say that he could turn down the new contract and sign with the Steelers for less money just to stay in Pittsburgh. Then you said he could turn down the other team's contract with the understanding he could sign for less with Pittsburgh for now and then sign a bigger contract later on when it was more cap friendly available for the Steelers. Then you changed it to the Steelers taking somsone els'es contract offer and changing it to be cap friendly for them. You are being guilty of talking about something without doin g your own research and then trying to argue something with other people that have. [/quote] No way Jose. I never said he would sit on the lower contract for a year with the Lers. Never once said that. What I intended to say and clearly I have been confusing on this so I apologize is. Step 1: Team A: The Dolphins offer Wallace a contract for 5 years 35million with a Roster Bonus. Step 2: Wallace likes the numbers but wants to stay with the Steelers so even though he has the offer sheet he does not sign the contract. Step 3: Team B: He returns to the Steelers and tells them of said contract Step 4: The Steelers offer him 5years 35million with a signing bonus that is spread throughout the deal amd more cap friendly. Does that clarify things?...is that a realistic 4th option to 1181's scenario? There seems to be an assumption that Wallace will work with Team A to sign a contract that the Steelers will not be able to match. Why would he do that? More money is an interesting answer but why not just offer him more money then? Whether its a signing bonus or a roster bonus Wallace gets the same exact up front guaranteed money, so what is his motivation to sign away from the Steelers. I apologize if this was woefully unclear because it seems like it was. Again, it is very possible I may not be understanding something because this is new to everyone. Educate me please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 First, a new team wouldn't negotiate with Wallace persay, they would take a contract offer proposal to him. That proposal is public knowledge for any team to see so there is no worry of Wallace taking the terms back to Pittsburgh to let them know about it. The Steelers then would have to match the exact same contract or Wallace would go to the new team. The roster bonus would be worded something like "If Mike Wallace is still on the team's 53 man roster as of July 1, 2012, he would receive a roster bonus of X amount of dollars to count entirely towards the 2012 contract year." With the wording of the contract, the Steelers would have to do exactly the same thing, and because it would count towards the 2012 season, the Steelers would have to have the cap room to cover the entire amount up front before they even offer to match the contract. They can not change any of the terms of the contract, structure, amount, or bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spicoli Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 I'm starting to regret not breaking the database... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1329679212' post='1097237'] Sorry this has gotten carried away....to simplify and try to get back to civility..... [b]Couldn't a 4th option be a 4 yr 35Mill deal with a signing bonus (not the roster bonus) with the steelers that would not immediately affect their cap so drastically?[/b] [/quote] NO. Once they tender him, the Stealers can't offer him any other contract unless its identical to one already offered to him by another team. And realistically any team that offers him a contract is going to offer him one that would be very difficult for the stealers to match. I'm not sure why this is getting so difficult to understand. Once they tender him, the stealers can't offer him ANY OTHER CONTRACT DURING FREE AGENCY unless they are matching a contract offered by another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1329680597' post='1097250'] They can't restructure the offer sheet....if he signs it. That's my point. [b]If they hand him an offer and he doesn't sign it can't the Steelers just offer him that amount of money in a more Steeler cap-friendly contract?[/b] You tried to say that I said he would resign with the Steelers for less money...I never said that....hence learn to read. [/quote] no. We discussed this like 5 hours ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1329680518' post='1097248'] No-I must need to be more clear on this. My point is that just because the Bengals structure a contract that the Steelers cannot match due to upfront money and their cap....[b]it doesn't mean that the Steelers can't sign him to a contract for the same amount of guaranteed money structured differently.[/b] As mentioned somewhere in the abyss of this thread a signing bonus is different then a roster bonus in terms of distribution and the cap. There seems to be an assumption that just because a team structures a deal that Wallace will sign that deal, that Wallace will in effect work with the new team to get away from his old team. If there is a ton more money then I could see that occurring...I agree with everyone that he would not sign the 1 year deal and turn down millions. What I don't understand is if he wants to be a Steeler can't he sign a Steeler cap-friendly contract that still nets him the same amount of money? [/quote] yes, yes it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1329688569' post='1097284'] yes, yes it does. [/quote] What is this, Pete and Re-Pete? You are saying everything I have already said like 3 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1329688569' post='1097284'] yes, yes it does. [/quote] Thanks for explaining it. Now could he sign the tender and immediately renegotiate to the larger amount. Why does the rule state that the Steelers can't offer him more money? Thats a strange rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1329694064' post='1097300'] Thanks for explaining it. Now could he sign the tender and immediately renegotiate to the larger amount. Why does the rule state that the Steelers can't offer him more money? Thats a strange rule. [/quote] not really sure how soon they can do it. As an similar example, Kyle Cook was a RFA last year. Signed a new 5yr deal september 2nd. Obviously a different circumstance because of the lockout. Dunno if it has to be post camp, was just a coincidence or what. Regardless, a player of wallace's caliber isn't going to sign the tender without waiting to see if he gets offers from other teams, which he would. Even the likes of cook, livings and roland didn't sign their tenders right away. I believe teams have 2 weeks to make an offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 A little more help. And I appreciate your patience with me. If you are Mike Wallace and you want to go back to the Steelers why would you sign an offer sheet that would preclude you from doing that. Your answer may be money but why not just say you won't sign the offer sheet unless it uses a signing bonus? I am sure you can find a team that will oblige. Heck the Bengals can make an offer like that and be in a win win situation. They either get a nice WR or they make the Steelers pay heavily to keep one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 I still think there is an underlying assumption here that he will cooperate with fucking over the only team he ever knew and where he is presumably happy. I get that people say he will leave for money and can get paid for elsewhere. But that does not explain the upfront roster bonus element. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1329694722' post='1097304'] A little more help. And I appreciate your patience with me. If you are Mike Wallace and you want to go back to the Steelers why would you sign an offer sheet that would preclude you from doing that. Your answer may be money but why not just say you won't sign the offer sheet unless it uses a signing bonus? I am sure you can find a team that will oblige. Heck the Bengals can make an offer like that and be in a win win situation. They either get a nice WR or they make the Steelers pay heavily to keep one. [/quote] your suggestion includes a lot of hypotheticals that would never happen. 1) Wallace wouldn't pass up that much money. Sure its possible, but its not happening. 2) The offering team doesn't need to do it. Unless there are other non-stealers teams bidding similarly, the team has no reason to bend to wallace's demands. They know he's not going to pass up that kind of money, and they know that if he's asking something like that, its only so that he can help stay with the stealers. Any team in that position would stand firm and call wallace's bluff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1329695049' post='1097308'] your suggestion includes a lot of hypotheticals that would never happen. 1) Wallace wouldn't pass up that much money. Sure its possible, but its not happening. 2) The offering team doesn't need to do it. Unless there are other non-stealers teams bidding similarly, the team has no reason to bend to wallace's demands. They know he's not going to pass up that kind of money, and they know that if he's asking something like that, its only so that he can help stay with the stealers. Any team in that position would stand firm and call wallace's bluff. [/quote] But if he can sign the tender and just resign ala Cook then this might all be Moot. Anyways good discussion. I really am curious as to what the reasoning behind not allowing the team with rights to up their offer is? I don't see either the player side or the team side fighting for that rule. It seemingly hurts the money part for the players and increases movement which teams do not want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1329694881' post='1097307'] I still think there is an underlying assumption here that he will cooperate with fucking over the only team he ever knew and where he is presumably happy. I get that people say he will leave for money and can get paid for elsewhere. But that does not explain the upfront roster bonus element. [/quote] it has nothing to do with him "helping to fuck over the only team he ever knew". It's about as a player getting the most for your services as you can. If that's not the stealers, he may just move on. It's a business, and its about money. Personally I'm not a fan of that side of the sport and wish there was more loyalty, but that's not the case. If it comes down to $2.75 million guaranteed from the stealers or $20 million guaranteed from another team, he's going to take the latter, and I don't think he's going to feel bad at all that he signed a deal that the stealers couldn't match. If the stealers want him that bad, they'll clear up the space to keep him, or they'll let him walk. By tendering him and not signing him to a new deal prior to the march 5th deadline, they are taking that chance. You think justin smith or eric steinbach felt bad about the deals they took? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewdog Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1329694881' post='1097307'] I still think there is an underlying assumption here that he will cooperate with fucking over the only team he ever knew and where he is presumably happy. I get that people say he will leave for money and can get paid for elsewhere. But that does not explain the upfront roster bonus element. [/quote] Are you trying to make this difficult? I'm not saying that to be a jerk but it's been explained numerous times. There are two key factors at play here. The first factor is a team is going to offer Mike Wallace a contract amount he can't refuse. The second part of this is that the contract is going to contain a roster bonus that has to be dumped all into the first year, not prorated over the lentgth og the contract, so that the Steelers can't match unless they dump tons of players they don't want to get rid of. It's simple. The Steelers have to match the exact same contract, WORD for WORD, as the contract another team offers. So if they say in the contract they want to buy him 3 prized poodles named Mitzy, Ditzy, and Fitzy, the Steelers would have to go out and find those same poodles.Come on man you are making this so much harder than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1329695278' post='1097310'] [b]But if he can sign the tender and just resign ala Cook then this might all be Moot.[/b] Anyways good discussion. I really am curious as to what the reasoning behind not allowing the team with rights to up their offer is? I don't see either the player side or the team side fighting for that rule. It seemingly hurts the money part for the players and increases movement which teams do not want. [/quote] Kyle Cook wasn't offered contracts by other teams. Mike Wallace will be. Cook waited for his new deal because he had too. Wallace doesn't have to wait on a new deal from the stealers and risk injury. He can, and likely will, take the crapload of money offered him by another team. Teams have the right to make a better offer. BEFORE they offer the tender in the first place. Offering the tender is basically the team saying we don't want to give you more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mroby85 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1329695320' post='1097312'] Are you trying to make this difficult? I'm not saying that to be a jerk but it's been explained numerous times. There are two key factors at play here. The first factor is a team is going to offer Mike Wallace a contract amount he can't refuse. The second part of this is that the contract is going to contain a roster bonus that has to be dumped all into the first year, not prorated over the lentgth og the contract, so that the Steelers can't match unless they dump tons of players they don't want to get rid of. It's simple. The Steelers have to match the exact same contract, WORD for WORD, as the contract another team offers. So if they say in the contract they want to buy him 3 prized poodles named Mitzy, Ditzy, and Fitzy, the Steelers would have to go out and find those same poodles.Come on man you are making this so much harder than it is. [/quote] LOL nice explanation haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1329695320' post='1097312'] Are you trying to make this difficult? I'm not saying that to be a jerk but it's been explained numerous times. There are two key factors at play here. The first factor is a team is going to offer Mike Wallace a contract amount he can't refuse. The second part of this is that the contract is going to contain a roster bonus that has to be dumped all into the first year, not prorated over the lentgth og the contract, so that the Steelers can't match unless they dump tons of players they don't want to get rid of. It's simple. The Steelers have to match the exact same contract, WORD for WORD, as the contract another team offers. So if they say in the contract they want to buy him 3 prized poodles named Mitzy, Ditzy, and Fitzy, the Steelers would have to go out and find those same poodles.Come on man you are making this so much harder than it is. [/quote] I have gotten that the entire time. My issue has always been with the notion that it seemed like others thought as soon as something was offered he was gone. That's not the case. My guess is the Steelers find a creative way to keep him and we revisit this in a few weeks. I am firmly against the assumption that if he is just offered a deal he will sign. My guess is that he wants to be a Steeler and will find a way to do it. What you don't seem to get is that if someone writes in a contract that they have to get 3 prized poodles he does not have to sign that. We will see. I hope I am wrong as it fucks the Steelers. I am warming up to the idea of us going after him. Mike Wallace is surely > Kendall Wright, Micheal Floyd and Alshon Jeffery. I don't see him signing here because of Green. My guess is he is a Patriot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.