That 12 million dollar player raises the "value" of Hartline, Bess, the new TE, and Ryan Tannehill. What he brings to the table will make all of them better at what they do.
I hope so, Lebron and Wade just giving him the tour of the city. Ireland isn't a big spender so this worries me.
You're presenting a false choice. I don't think anyone disagrees that Mike Wallace would improve the team. The question isn't whether Mike Wallace will improve the team. The question is out of all the possible ways to improve the team for $12M, is Mike Wallace alone the best option? Would he improve the team more than John Abraham and Greg Jennings?
No, I'm arguing that if Ireland & Co believes the best way for us to win a SB with this current team is to immediately boost the offensive talent, and by doing so we happen to win a SB, then the value of the SB > than the economic value of not signing Wallace.
It's all relevant when deciding his worth to our organization. His impact WILL raise the level of other key players.
Then winning a SB would be because of their economic choices, not in spite of them. Winning a SB would be a result of their economic choices. As Hurricane stated, you sign him if MB > MC.
When did anyone disagree with this? It isn't a binary choice though. How much would his impact raise the level of other players, relative to Greg Jennings, Jared Cook, Eric Winston, etc.???
to an extend. Like I said, show me a team full of 1 & 2 million dollar players performing at a 2 & 3 million dollar level and I'll show you a losing team. At some point you still need talent, and even though a chunk of players might outperform their contracts it doesn't necessarily mean they have the talent level to make us competitive. You're acting like one contract will suddenly destroy the sound economics Ireland has been employing the past few years. It's not like he's a crazy spendthrift ala Daniel Snyder. If he signs Mike Wallace, it's obviously b/c he believes his addition to the offense will give us a better chance at winning a SB over the next few years while we're in good cap space and with most of the current team still in tact. We can't ignore the window of opportunity, which might be at it's peak over the next couple years with this current team, and if that's the case, Mike Wallace could be viewed as a necessary addition.
Doesn't it speak some volume that Philbin obviously didn't endorse Jennings who could've been had cheaper? Just like with Matt Flynn, Joe knows his guys.
So what? We don't need $12 million in other players; that's what our extra draft picks are for. What we need is a boost in talent level. Signing 4 average guys for $12 million still leaves us average. Where does that get us? Cmon. SB teams don't win SBs by being littered with average and bad players. That's just silly. SB contenders are most often the teams with the greatest talent, not the team with the most amount of mediocre players performing at a level slightly above their contract cost.
No, one bad contract will not destroy anything. That doesn't change the reality that it is negative value-added. I'm not sure what Ireland's belief has to do with this debate either. We are debating what the best option is, not what Jeff Ireland believes at this point. We have no idea what Jeff Ireland thinks. I also don't really agree with any type of linear process to winning or losing. The window to win should be continuous.
You are looking at the potential value Wallace will bring over the next two seasons with his deep speed provided MASSIVE changes are made to the offensive system and are completely ignoring what this contract will do to the team in 3-4 years. Mike Wallace is going into his age 27 season. He is at his physical peak right now. In the next 2-3 years, his speed is going to start to decline. When his speed declines, he is done. That's his calling card, and he's not good enough as a receiver in other aspects of the game to be a strong player worth this contract when his speed leaves him. So now, in 2-3 years time, we are going to have a declining player on a massive contract that no other team wants, and we are going to spend a year or two eating a lot of dead money off this contract. At the same time, this contract is going to really hurt when it comes time to extend Ryan Tannehill's contract and to get young players like Lamar Miller, Jonathan Martin, and Mike Pouncey locked up long term. So basically we are putting ourselves into cap hell in 2-3 years because we are vastly overrating the impact Wallace's speed will have on the offense. This is why I say that this move will have the results that most of you are looking for (not you in particular phins), and that is Jeff Ireland will ultimately get fired because of this deal.
Indirectly maybe, at least in Mike Wallace's case. Directly winning a SB would be because the team we field outperforms the competition. Economic choices aren't always the primary factor; the choice to sign the player would be the primary factor in this case.
Man, KB, that's a whole truck load of assumptions on your part. I mean, seriously? There are so many variables that you are writing off as "concluded fact" that it hurts. 1) Mike Wallace's speed and the decline. A lot of WRs don't decline until early to mid 30s. You have no idea when he will slow down. It could be 2 years, it could be 6 years. It's not silly to speculate, but to decree... yeah. Not a fan. 2) You have no idea how the Mike Wallace contract will be structured or what length it will be. Everything up until this point is going to be speculation by people outside of the organization with no idea of the actual numbers. Now, for a personal argument, I'll disagree that this signing will finish Jeff Ireland because of the dead money after he falls off. If Wallace shows up for 2-3 years in a 1200+ yard/8+ TD way, he'll be a hero. No matter if Wallace breaks his leg in 5 places the following year and Miami has to eat the money. Wont' matter. It'll be a huge win for Ireland, and for the Dolphins, regardless.
I agree that Wallace is very unlikely to produce at a $12 million per year level, but I also think Jennings is unlikely to produce at a $8 million level. In fact, most high priced FA's won't produce at the level of their compensation and most will probably end up being cap cuts sometime in the next 3 years. I don't know that there is any FA receiver that is very likely to significantly outperform his compensation and while draftees might be able to do that, I don't think there are any WRs in the draft that are likely to significantly improve the receiving corps in the next year or two. So, if one views WR as the team's biggest weakness, it may be necessary to overpay somebody in order to significantly upgrade that unit. Since Tannehill is such a bargain for his position, I think some degree of overpaying can be justified.
That and giving Tanny a receiving TE. We do that and we got ourselves an Offense. We can't just improve at WR and go with Miller at RB. TE is a huge position if we are going to give the Phins flexibilty and scoring chances.
Right, but this is a zero-sum game. The monetary pool for NFL players is ~3,840,000,000. The amount of money available to be spent doesn't change based on the talent available. So when Player X is overpaid, Player Y will proportionately be underpaid. The challenge is in quantifying these things. Now thats not to say I'm certain of Wallace's value. My opinion should be taken as just that. But I can't support any logic that says someone improves the team, so they should be signed.
My perfect case scenario is Wallace, Winston, Chris Houston and re-sign Chris Clemons and Reggie Bush. Then we draft Cooper in the 1st after trading back for an extra 3rd, 5-6 spots, likely Dallas. Give them good enough value for them to snap up Kenny V (S) and then we can grab Cooper, shore up LG for 10 years, go after TE/DE/CB in the draft. There are a plethora of prospects I like at varying values from the 2nd and 3rd rounds. This, to me, is the maximum amount of talent + value for our resources. I'd also prefer to use either our late 2nd or upper 3rd for a future higher pick, keep the picks train going.
I feel that's a naive belief b/c the life of a player isn't continuous. I hope you're not operating under the assumption that key players like Wake & Dansby will be easily replaced by fresh guys who continue on the same level of play. If the window to win were indeed continuos we wouldn't see such a fluctuation in contending teams, and dynasty caliber teams like the 90's Cowboys wouldn't drop off to 3 straight 11 loss seasons..... nor would we see the Niners dynasty go from 4 Super Bowl wins in 11 years to 2 winning seasons in 12.
Nothing is easily done in the NFL. But every team has the same opportunity. Any time a window closes its because of a failure of that team. There is no inherent timetable. Those teams dropped off because of decisions they made, nothing else.
Tells me we weren't good at throwing the ball. That teams were over playing the run. And that when we caught them over playing the run with play action we had a much higher degree of success than we did when passing in other circumstances. Wallace would help keep defenses honest as well as improve our ability to punish teams who continue to over play the run. You can basically take what defenses did vs us last year and throw it in a lake bc it would be suicide with MW on board.
KB I love u man...but... Honestly....right now...I just want to see his speed this season..lol. Ill worry about next and there after later...
Jennings is up there age wise and other Packer WRs have stepped up regardless whether Jennings was on the field or out injured. I would have liked Jennings but only if Hartline wasn't resigned.. Im still expecting the Phins to draft a WR. I'm just wondering now if Bess is bulletproof? I'm assuming all this IF we sign Wallace.
The point is that we already have a bunch of those underpaid guys. Tannehill, LMiller, Pouncey, etc. are all underpaid and will be for a few more years. I think Wake is also probably underpaid. So with some guys we already know will be underpaid, there is some money available to overpay at a position or two. At some positions, a great value player won't necessarily help us. For example, if there was a great center who was a $5 million value that could be had for $3 million it still may not make sense to sign him because we will only play one center and he probably won't beat out Pouncey. Similarly, a very nice $6 million value DT may not be worth signing for $4 million because we already have a few good DTs. And we have 5 picks in the first 82 in the draft, all of whom will be cheap labor that should be able to outperform their contracts. So when you have a number of players who you know will be underpaid, you can afford to overpay at a few positions.
I keep seeing that SI banner on NFL Network that Miami has "no competition" in the Mike Wallace bidding. I think after today's moves they need to amend that ...
Oh, I disagree. There is a MUCH better chance that Jennings will produce a value worth $8 million per season than Wallace will produce at $12 million. Jennings's game isn't based around his speed. He's a great all around receiver, and when his speed erodes, he still has his route running ability and physicality to fall back on.
i want eifert in the draft and wallace. wallace and eifert would be soooooooo dangerous. throw in hartline and bess.
