good luck with that...good talk buddy..good things..good things.

 

Why not? There are more ways to restructure than having a reduction in salary.

 

Under the table?

 

Please enlighten me. Serious question.

 

I have a hard time believing that Wallace would be open to taking less money, which is the only kind of restructure that could possibly be available, seeing as he's signed for as long as he is. He'll be here with his contract as is, or he'll be gone.

 

You can reduce his base salary in 2015 and make it up to him in bonus.

Which will reduce his salary cap number in 2015

 

Lmao. Asking Wallace to restructure while Hartline, Gibson, Finnegan, Ellerbe are still employed. I wish I was his agent so I could laugh in a real GMs face.

 

He's still a huge problem at a reduced cost. He's throwing tantrums now, what happens when you find your legitimate deep threat and/or #1 receiver?

 

Mhm. You pay a guy like that, and he repays you by throwing tantrums, you're feeding a team cancer.

I say trade this guy for some picks. In Hickey we trust. Get a speed guy with half the heart and ball skills of Jarvis Landry and we're back in business... discounted.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 4

 

You have to cut Wallace, he has been disruptive in every game he has played in Miami...not to mention he doesn't catch anything unless it's a perfect pass and the guy can't run a route. The 10tds were basically all luck, or brilliant throws by Ryan. Axe his ***, I'm ready to get the next Cole Beasley.

 

Cutting Wallace is too simple IMO. I say we literally cut him. As in cut off his legs and torso, and implant them on Hartline. Hartline is already better than him, only slower and worse. So cut Wallace's legs and torso, implant them on Hartline, throw away the remaining useless flesh. You create Brian Hartlinefrankentein, a monster receiver for the ages. Immortal too.

Problem solved.

 

If he won't take a pay cut then we cut him. I'm sorry but he's not a top 5 WR he can't take up the cap space that he takes up.

 

The only way I'm on board with straight cutting him is if we draft a receiver in the first round, AND pick up a solid FA. Of course, if we also jettison Hartline and Gibson, then you probably need to pick up a third receiver. Realistically, I don't think we get rid of Wallace this season. Get rid of Hartline and Gibson, draft WR in first round, get a solid FA to replace Hartline, and keep Wallace. You'd run next season with rookie/Wallace/FA/Landry as your main receivers. See what Wallace does next season, and decide his fate then.

 

This has the makings of being a mess, since it looks like Wallace blames external factors (Tannehill, the offense, etc.) for his lack of production, and Tannehill looks as if he's going to get a raise. I suspect Wallace will refuse to restructure and be cut when it's most cost-effective for the team. They need to find out what he's going to do now, though, so they can plan accordingly in the draft and free agency.

 

We have already paid the heavy price for Wallace, why not get at least another year out of him? And when we have a true #1 WR in place -then we cut/trade him.

Yeah, it will be interesting which direction Philbin pushes on Wallace. He NEEDS to win NOW, and it is doubtful we can replace the TD production and deep threat that Wallace brings if he is cut or traded. However, if he makes Joe queasy? Then Joe will want him gone (and getting even a third rounder would be better than nothing) and helps guarantee a losing season in 2015 leading to his (probable-but-not-certain-with-Ross-around) firing.

Wallace on the Seahawks would make that offense dangerous, the Colts already have a speed guy in Hilton. I thought the Saints were really tight on the cap, so I doubt they can trade without a new deal in place.

If it was up to me, I'd keep Wallace and grab one of the top WRs if they fall to us, or trade down a bit and grab the BPA, using the second rounder on a Guard.

 

NO doesn't need a speed guy, they drafted Cooks last year.

 

No one is going to trade for Wallace because of his contract. It appears everyone on here seems to think he is overpaid, yet they also think some other NFL team would be willing to give up a draft pick for him, while also picking up his contract.

I don't see that happening. What is more likely is that he will either end up playing for the Dolphins next season under his present contract or the Dolphins will decide to cut him and just live with the fact he will still end up being a big hit on this years cap number.

If he is eventually cut, several teams will probably have an interest in him. They will just be able to get him at a lower salary and without having to give up a draft pick.

 

If he is traded to a team he likes, he certainly can restructure with them. A team like Seattle is a good example, I'm sure if Mike had an oppurtunity to be a Seahawk and play with Russel Wilson Im pretty sure he would restructure for that situation. Who wouldn't.

 

Of course he could also refuse to restructure his contract and force the Dolphins to either pay him all the money he is due next season or cut him.

This way he could become a free agent and decide which team he wants to play for. If the Seahawks are interested in him. They would probably be even more interested in him if they could get him without having to give up a draft pick to sign him.

As a Dolphin fan, I would love to see the Dolphins get a draft pick for him if they decide to part ways with him.
If I was his agent though, I would advise him to refuse to restructure his contract and force the Dolphins to either pay him or release him.

The reality of this situation is that it is Wallace who is in a win-win position in regards to his present dealings with the Dolphins. He either makes a lot of money playing for the Dolphins this coming season or he gets the opportunity to become a free agent again and receive various offers from other NFL teams looking for a WR who can run past the opposing teams defensive backs.

 

The cap savings from cutting him is not enough to sign another WR of nearly equal talent.

 

Like someone else said, restructure does not need to mean a pay cut. Convert some base salary into a signing bonus, and you get to spread it out over a few years. He still pockets the same amount.

 

Exactly you lower his base and increase his garunteed money to soften the cap hit. This is common practice in the nfl.

 

I am not one of those who has been calling for him to be traded or cut. Even with his faults, he is still the best WR on the roster at this time and I don't think he is going to be as easy to replace as many others on here seem to think he will be.

I would be happy to see him restructure his contract, but I just don't think he is happy playing with the Dolphin.
I think if he was happy playing for Philbin and with Tannehill, he would probably be willing to restructure his contract. Especially in the way you suggest.

If word leaks out that he has no desire to restructure his contract. This would infer to me that he has no interest in remaining with the Dolphins and he wants to be cut if they don't want to pay him in accordance with his present contract.

It is going to be interesting to see how this saga turns out over the next few months.

 

Omar has been saying for months there's no chance he restructures, and for whatever u say about Omar, he actually is tight with some players. But maybe if they do it in such a way that makes financial sense for him. I absolutely don't think he will be giving us a deal.

 

Doesn't that depend on the amount another team signs him for? Meaning offset language.

 

Anyone who complains about Wallace if he restructures is nuts.

 

This type of restructure would also benefit him, because it means more guaranteed money. Helps both sides.

 

I thought that mattered only if there is a trade. Far as I know, if he's cut, the dead money, about $9 mil in his case, counts against the cap. The savings, or as far as I know, the reduction against the cap, would be like $2.5 mil. So from the team's perspective, as far as I know, would be they'd have an extra $2.5 mil with which to replace him or whatever else they wanted to use it on CK is the real brain around here on salary cap, and if he sees this he may have another way to look at it.

 

lol why in the hell would guaranteeing more money to Mike Wallace make the slightest bit of sense given the circumstances?

You do that for someone you expect to play out the length of their contract for short term relief. Not someone you are considering cutting.

 

No kidding. It makes more sense to cut Wallace at the appropriate time, guarantee someone else's money, and take the savings from both moves combined and get a new wide receiver.

 

I'd trust you on this more than me.

 

The idea that you need to fit Mike Wallace's replacement within that first year cap savings isn't even a little bit difficult. His own contract cost $3 million against the cap the first year, back loading is hardly a rarity.

 

I'd like to hear your master plan for this roster, after all...you do have 10k hours and are an expert

 

because not all of us have the extreme opinion you have. the main issue that most people have is that he is overpaid. He's a #1 WR, just not a top 10 #1 WR that justifies that salary.