Thread: RFA Mike Wallace for a First Round Pick?.....................

Originally Posted by MPBears68

I like Quick with our top-3rd pick no matter who we sign in FA. That looks like a high-ceiling/good-value situation there.

As for Wallace, I dunno....he's talented but the $ + a 1st makes him pricey.

The $$$ part of it is what creates the biggest question mark in my mind. I'd hate to give up a first and nothing says we can't offer something different but as I said if we were going with a WR in one he'd be a far better choice than a draftee albeit more expensive.

I don't think Wallace can command top dollar as a RFA. Pitt can slap a 1st round tender on him at $2.198 mil and if that need to give up a pick scares team's off then he only makes about $2 mil in 2012. If the Bears or nay other team is seriously interested I would try to work out a sign and trade deal of some kind offering a couple of 2nd round picks and something more in the range of a $30 mil/5 yrs deal with some added incentives.

Of course Wallace would have to accept but he's in somewhat the same situation as a player whose been tagged. You either negotiate a new deal that may be less than top dollar or you play for the tendered amount for one year and hope you don't have a career threatening injury. Wallace has no long term security if he plays under that tender compared to a new deal that may guarantee him $12-$14 mil.

Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by WindyCity

I do not think that you can sign and trade a RFA.

My guess is that the 49ers or New England will sign him to a 5 year 45 million dollar deal and give up the late 1st round pick.

Why not? There isn't a no trade clause in any NFL contract I've ever seen. You can trade anybody you have under contract. You can't just tender him and trade him away under the tender but once he agrees to a new deal he's fair game.

My thought on this are pretty simple. If we were going to draft a WR anyway Wallace is a safer choice and we would have used the pick anyway so that's a wash but we got a better deal since we got an established player. The negative is we pay a lot more for the finished product than the unfinished one.

Originally Posted by WindyCity

Because for the Steelers to get him to sign they will have to offer him a long term deal like 5 years 35 million/20 guaranteed. If they then trade him to us for a 2nd round pick they eat the 20 million in guaranteed money.

No, they don't. If the deal is negotiated properly the Bears will pay the whole deal. It's a simultaneous transaction where Wallace agrees to be traded subject to those terms. All parties receive fair and acceptable consideration.

It isn't done like a typical trade that would take place like it would if we traded for Marshall. In that case Miami eats the unamortized portion of Marshall's SB but the responsibility for his salaries for the next three years pass to the Bears. A deal for Wallace wouldn't work that way.

My preference still remains to draft a LT in the first round. But if Emery still insists on going along with Tice's belief that Webb is the LT of the future for the Bears, we might as well trade our first round pick away for Mike Wallace.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

My preference still remains to draft a LT in the first round. But if Emery still insists on going along with Tice's belief that Webb is the LT of the future for the Bears, we might as well trade our first round pick away for Mike Wallace.

Well let's ask ourselves a question. Do we have any assurance that Mike Adams could be so much better? He's the only one I see who may still be around. I'll play the devil's advocate for Tice here.

There were no offseason activities last year and an abbreviated training camp. That gave Tice very little time to prepare him for what he'd face at LT. It was Webb's first year and he did have some bright spots (he played well against Allen the first time but got his ass handed to him the second time) but overall he was inconsistent enough pass blocking to nearly get Cutler beheaded a few times. Both of those issues are correctable if he's bright enough to pick up on what he has to do to improve.

He and Adams are both about the same size so where not gaining anything there. Both are plenty big and strong for an OT. Tice claims he's extremely athletic for his size. Although we haven't seen that yet part of the reason may be his uncertainty and unfamiliarity with both the position and his opponents. With more experience that may disappear. Despite his poor pass blocking he's a capable run blocker who can only get better in that regard.

Conclusion: Tice seems to see potential in this kid. Big potential as in LT of the future or he wouldn't be sticking with him and touting him. The only question I have is whether he really feels that way or if he's just being stubborn about admitting he may have made a mistake. I think we'll find out this year because nothing Tice has said makes me believe we'll replace him this year. Even though some have him ranked as the second best OT in the draft others rank him as not even a top 20 pick so there's some risk.

Looking over guys whose contracts expire after this season (CWill/Spencer/Louis) if we are gonna take an Olineman in one, and in view of those expiring contracts would we not be better of if we drafted the best OC in the draft or the best or second best OG as opposed to the 4th best OT? Just a thought based on it always being better to take the top guy on your board as opposed to reaching to fill a specific position.

Originally Posted by soulman

Well let's ask ourselves a question. Do we have any assurance that Mike Adams could be so much better? He's the only one I see who may still be around. I'll play the devil's advocate for Tice here.

There were no offseason activities last year and an abbreviated training camp. That gave Tice very little time to prepare him for what he'd face at LT. It was Webb's first year and he did have some bright spots (he played well against Allen the first time but got his ass handed to him the second time) but overall he was inconsistent enough pass blocking to nearly get Cutler beheaded a few times. Both of those issues are correctable if he's bright enough to pick up on what he has to do to improve.

He and Adams are both about the same size so where not gaining anything there. Both are plenty big and strong for an OT. Tice claims he's extremely athletic for his size. Although we haven't seen that yet part of the reason may be his uncertainty and unfamiliarity with both the position and his opponents. With more experience that may disappear. Despite his poor pass blocking he's a capable run blocker who can only get better in that regard.

Conclusion: Tice seems to see potential in this kid. Big potential as in LT of the future or he wouldn't be sticking with him and touting him. The only question I have is whether he really feels that way or if he's just being stubborn about admitting he may have made a mistake. I think we'll find out this year because nothing Tice has said makes me believe we'll replace him this year. Even though some have him ranked as the second best OT in the draft others rank him as not even a top 20 pick so there's some risk.

Looking over guys whose contracts expire after this season (CWill/Spencer/Louis) if we are gonna take an Olineman in one, and in view of those expiring contracts would we not be better of if we drafted the best OC in the draft or the best or second best OG as opposed to the 4th best OT? Just a thought based on it always being better to take the top guy on your board as opposed to reaching to fill a specific position.

That could be true. But both Cordy Glenn and Peter Konz are projected to go after Mike Adams in most mock drafts. Are you making references based on the best player per position or what? I don't know if I quite understand what you're saying.