View Full Version : Ed: Steelers Once Resisted Restructuring

02-27-2012, 07:18 PM
Ed: Steelers Once Resisted Restructuring
Monday, 27 February 2012 08:08
Written by Ed Bouchette

Good morning,

Some weekend. Managed not to watch one 40-yarder, nor a cone drill or vertical leap, and did attend my first hockey game in 12 years. Then hit the hay long before the Oscars ended.

Onto some stuff:

--- At this point, it seems to me that Mike Wallace will remain with the Steelers for at least one year because no other team will sign him to a contract. Why would another team pay all that money in order to convince him to sign AND give their first-round pick to the Steelers. Baltimore has practically announced it won't sign him and Cincinnati needs something else. That leaves . . . New England and San Francisco? With the new rookie wage scale, those first-rounders became more valuable too.

If no team offers Wallace a contract, he can play for the Steelers at the tender price for a year and become a free agent in 2013. He also could sign a multi-year contract with the Steelers, but it likely won’t be anywhere near what he thought he might get.

--- Daytona missed an opportunity. If we have to drive in the rain, why can’t NASCAR? I might even watch that.

---Casey Hampton may play for the Steelers in 2012, but they still need to find his replacement.

---YOU: If the Steelers are able to restructure so many contracts to be more salary cap-friendly, why then aren’t those contracts structured that way from the start? Timmons and Woodley signed their contracts last year. The Steelers knew they’d be running into cap issues this year, so why not structure those contracts differently a year ago instead of making them restructure this year? Is this all just funny math and making the pieces fit? If so, what is the point of the salary cap?

ME: You can’t give a signing bonus for 2012 in 2011. And you cannot backload a contract because the player and his agent would not accept it. So you write the contract and then restructure when you have to. In a way, it is funny math. However, if you are not careful, you could be mortgaging your future. A few teams did that and paid for it. This is a loophole few recognized when the CBA introduced the salary cap in 1993. When it became popular, Dan Rooney was not in favor of it, calling it “cash over cap.’’ Now, the Steelers find themselves immersed in it.

--- YOU: I read what you wrote about letting Wallace go for a first round pick. I've been on board with that plan for a while. Consider, with two first round picks, Pittsburgh could get a starting guard (Glenn) and ILB (Hightower) in the first round. Then, ARE YOU READY FOR THIS, sign Steve Hutchinson if he gets cut. Probably could get him for 3 year 9 Million since I'm sure he wants a ring before he retires and he's not going to get it in Cleveland. That potentially gives us two starting guards for the price of Mike Wallace, plus a starting ILB.

ME: Well, you would not be getting Hutchinson for Wallace, but I get your drift. Alas, as noted I’ve come to the conclusion that no one will give up a first-rounder for him.
---onto PT

tony hipchest
02-27-2012, 11:42 PM
another thing the rooneys do not buy into is giving a great player and extension while he still has 2 seasons left on his contract.

its another way of tackling the same "problem". extend a guy early before an additional year of inflation sets in. it usually yields quite a few millions in savings in the long run if you are right with your scouting.

02-29-2012, 04:55 PM
Im not sure all the ins in outs all the time of the cap but I do know the Steelers and Omar Kann are as good as it gets when dealing with it