Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace

Posted: 3/5/2013 11:16 AM

It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


Bowe moves into top three with $56 million deal

We’ve got the full breakdown of the five-year deal signed by receiver Dwayne Bowe.

Per a source with knowledge of the contract, here it is.

1. $15 million signing bonus.

2. $750,000 fully-guaranteed base salary in 2013.

3. $250,000 workout bonus in each year of the contract.

4. $8.75 million base salary in 2014, $4.25 million of which is fully guaranteed now and $4.5 million of which is guaranteed for injury only now. The $4.5 million becomes fully guaranteed on the third day of the 2014 league year.

5. $10.75 million base salary in 2015. $1.5 million is guaranteed for injury now, and it becomes fully guaranteed on the third day of the 2014 (not 2015) league year.

6. $9.75 million base salary in 2016.

7. $9.75 million base salary in 2017.

It adds up to $36 million over the first three years, and $56 million over five. Of the amount, $26 million is guaranteed. $20 million is fully guaranteed now. The other $6 million becomes fully guaranteed next year.

It puts Bowe behind only Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald and Lions receiver Calvin Johnson, and barely in front of Buccaneers receiver Vincent Jackson. (Which means that the new regime views Bowe as a top five, not top 10, receiver.)

Of course, Bowe could soon slide down the totem pole. He has provided the starting point for soon-to-be free agent Mike Wallace, and if Percy Harvin gets a new deal from the Vikings or someone else, it’ll surely top Bowe’s contract.

The real question is whether Packers receiver Greg Jennings can match or beat Bowe on the open market.

In one week, we’ll find out.


View Comments (26)
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/5/2013 4:49 PM

Re: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 



Bigjoe13 wrote: Bowe moves into top three with $56 million deal

We’ve got the full breakdown of the five-year deal signed by receiver Dwayne Bowe.

Per a source with knowledge of the contract, here it is.

1. $15 million signing bonus.

2. $750,000 fully-guaranteed base salary in 2013.

3. $250,000 workout bonus in each year of the contract.

4. $8.75 million base salary in 2014, $4.25 million of which is fully guaranteed now and $4.5 million of which is guaranteed for injury only now. The $4.5 million becomes fully guaranteed on the third day of the 2014 league year.

5. $10.75 million base salary in 2015. $1.5 million is guaranteed for injury now, and it becomes fully guaranteed on the third day of the 2014 (not 2015) league year.

6. $9.75 million base salary in 2016.

7. $9.75 million base salary in 2017.

It adds up to $36 million over the first three years, and $56 million over five. Of the amount, $26 million is guaranteed. $20 million is fully guaranteed now. The other $6 million becomes fully guaranteed next year.

It puts Bowe behind only Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald and Lions receiver Calvin Johnson, and barely in front of Buccaneers receiver Vincent Jackson. (Which means that the new regime views Bowe as a top five, not top 10, receiver.)

Of course, Bowe could soon slide down the totem pole. He has provided the starting point for soon-to-be free agent Mike Wallace, and if Percy Harvin gets a new deal from the Vikings or someone else, it’ll surely top Bowe’s contract.

The real question is whether Packers receiver Greg Jennings can match or beat Bowe on the open market.

In one week, we’ll find out.


View Comments (26)
Why would Percy Harvin's deal surely top Dwayne Bowes?  Harvin hasn't accomplished nearly as much as Bowe has on the field.  Harvin is a talent but he's brittle.  Bowe has had his injury issues too but not like Harvin. 

Why would Mike Wallace's contract pass Bowe?  Wallace can't ask for money to be the 2nd highest paid WR in the game.  He could ASK but he's not going to get.  He's not top 5.  Nor is Greg Jennings.  They are #1 guys but not top 5 WR's.  Bowe can be argued is, Jennings maybe 2 years ago, Wallace maybe in 3 years.

"Make it Rain Hell"

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/5/2013 5:28 PM

Re: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


So you think we could get Wallace for 10 or less? I hope your right but I don't think so
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/5/2013 6:47 PM

Re: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


If Lane Johnson's there @ 12, you take him. A former basketball player, Lohnson ran a 4.72 40 weighing 305 lbs and was Oklahoma's starting OLT. A physical beast. He could probably play TE also.
He's faster than Fasano.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/5/2013 7:57 PM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


Stealers were going to give Wallace 55 mil over 5 years why do you think he's a FA, he wants more... sure hope the Dolphins know what there doing... Ireland grasping at straws on the way out could set us back another 5 years.... he's not even a highly polished receiver he's just fast and can take the top off a defense, don't get me wrong not many can...

Lane Johnson a former QB, very athletic and a bit raw but smart and a worker, he looks like he locked up a top 10 spot already..
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/6/2013 8:24 AM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 



dougb123 wrote: Stealers were going to give Wallace 55 mil over 5 years why do you think he's a FA, he wants more... sure hope the Dolphins know what there doing... Ireland grasping at straws on the way out could set us back another 5 years.... he's not even a highly polished receiver he's just fast and can take the top off a defense, don't get me wrong not many can...

Lane Johnson a former QB, very athletic and a bit raw but smart and a worker, he looks like he locked up a top 10 spot already..
That's all we need is another project... the same thing was said about pat white...We need to stay away-- I mean RUN AWAY from players like this...


The trials of being a Dolphins fan .... Welcome to a new era!! Will it work??
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/6/2013 11:25 AM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


I wouldn't doubt that Johnson, Cooper, and Warmack are all on the Phins radar at #12, along with Keenan Allen.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/6/2013 2:08 PM

Re: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 



Bigjoe13 wrote: So you think we could get Wallace for 10 or less? I hope your right but I don't think so
What i'm saying is he could ask for 20 million a season but that doesn't mean Miami should pay him that.  Come in at 8 or 9 million with more guaranteed money that Pittsburgh was offering him with the 5 and 55 and he might bite.  The guy is whacked if he thinks he's worth 11 million a season.  Especially considering the contract holdout last off-season and drop off in production last year.

"Make it Rain Hell"

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/6/2013 3:46 PM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


Ok so what would you pay a 27 year old wr with an average like this the last 3 yrs

66 receptions
1,100 yds
8.6 tds
17.0 yds per catch

Dwayne Bowes last 3 yrs
70.6 catches
1,040 yds
7.6 tds
14 yds a catch

Looks like Wallace has very similar numbers if not better. I also don't want to hear that Wallace has had a better qb because Big Ben has been hurt and had suspensions the last few years. While Bowes best year came three years ago when cassell was a probowler

Last edited 3/6/2013 3:55 PM by Bigjoe13

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/6/2013 4:53 PM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


Hear New England may be looking at Mike Wallace or at least driving the price up, we should do the same with there cornerback Talib.

I believe it will cost much more than 11 to land Wallace and he'll want 6 or 7 years with a butt load of guaranteed cash..

What bothers me some is people calling him an alpha receiver when you look at him he is more of a specialist. He truly must be fast low 4.2 or even high 4.1 because he does run by a lot of guys not many can keep up, don't believe he will get a ton of work underneath he just isn't built like that, catch 10,12,15 bombs a year scoring 8,10,12 td's. Is backing the safeties and his corner off giving the running back and other receivers a bit of room to work worth 12-14 mill I don't know that's up to Ireland, Philbin and Sherman to decide. He does have value beyond his own production, maybe that's why some think of him as an alpha??? He's really not a highly polished receiver he's been getting by with speed for so long he doesn't need the moves I guess...
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/6/2013 5:50 PM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


That's why you draft a Keenan Allen to pair with Wallace and do the dirty work underneath.  5yr/65 mil should get it done.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/6/2013 9:32 PM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


Wallace, Allen, Hartline, and Bess with Marlon Moore or Risard Matthews would be 3 times better than what we had last season. If you could get Swope in there too we would have a really good young receiving core locked up for a awhile.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/7/2013 12:54 AM

Re: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


Lane Johnson is okay but it will drive me off the deep end if we do that, Surely Ireland has to be tired of drafting linemen every single year with our first or 2nd round pick..I give up i guess every year of our existence we will draft Offensive or Defensive Linemen with our Early picks.ohlord

Then next year we can draft a RG, LG  because we all know that is our most pressing need on this team... I love it spend 1st round picks on every single Offensive Linemen on the starting 5.. That way they can give tannehill 10 seconds in the pocket which may possibly be enough time for Hartline, Risard Matthews, Fasano and Bess to get open.Stupid other teams picking WR's don't the Steelers,Falcons,Cowboys, Redskins,49ers, know every year you have to pick a Lineman in the 1st round.. What are they thinking thats why they are watching us in january... oh wait

Let me put it to you this way if Lane Johnson is our pick this year at pick 12, I will never Mock the fins or even bother researching 1st round prospect WR's anymore. I will strictly mock us defensive linemen and offensive linemen for every years Intersite mock draft till Ireland is fired.

Last edited 3/7/2013 12:59 AM by Gonzorot

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/7/2013 1:11 AM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


I'd rather not draft Lane Johnson - if he's the best player on the board, I guess I'm ok with it, I just don't think he will be at #12.

Right now I'm leaning towards Xavier Rhodes (or at least that's who I expect). Also, now that we tagged Starks I see no need to draft a DE in the first. Odrick can remain at DE, also spending time at DT, giving Vernon another year to develop and show what he's got.

So our needs are WR, CB, OG, OT, TE, and S.

If we sign Wallace and Hartline, there is no reason to go WR in the 1st unless Patterson falls.

Rhodes, Johnson, Cooper, Eifert, and Vaccaro are really the only players I see in the mix right now who will realistically still be there - though I may be forgetting someone very obvious.
Somebody gave me a Hickey.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/7/2013 5:32 AM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


Chiefs released RT Eric Winston.
The move is surprising, but makes sense if the Chiefs follow through on drafting an offensive tackle at the No. 1 overall pick. Winston just signed a four-year, $22 million contract last offseason and graded out as top-nine right tackle in Pro Football Focus' 2012 ratings. The move saves $3.5 million in cap space. Winston will have plenty of options on the open market, attracting particular interest from zone-blocking teams. A reunion with the Texans would make a ton of sense after their 2012 right-tackle struggles. Miami, St. Louis, Baltimore, Washington, and Detroit all showed interest in Winston last offseason. Look for Kansas City to select Texas A&M's Luke Joeckel or Central Michigan's Eric Fisher if they can't trade out of the draft's top pick.

Maybe the 2nd time around..... doesn't make sense that they would just dump him for nothing and draft an OT even if he is better... Bring him thru camp and wait for someone willing to pay a high price for an OT when there's goes down.. Looks like piss poor team management to me if there's not a reason like he a bad locker room presents etc..... but the Dolphins sure could use him, can we pick up his contract or is he a FA again?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/7/2013 6:20 AM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 



Jschwald wrote: I'd rather not draft Lane Johnson - if he's the best player on the board, I guess I'm ok with it, I just don't think he will be at #12.

Right now I'm leaning towards Xavier Rhodes (or at least that's who I expect). Also, now that we tagged Starks I see no need to draft a DE in the first. Odrick can remain at DE, also spending time at DT, giving Vernon another year to develop and show what he's got.

So our needs are WR, CB, OG, OT, TE, and S.

If we sign Wallace and Hartline, there is no reason to go WR in the 1st unless Patterson falls.

Rhodes, Johnson, Cooper, Eifert, and Vaccaro are really the only players I see in the mix right now who will realistically still be there - though I may be forgetting someone very obvious.
I would add Keenan Allen to that list, especially if he runs 4.5 or better on 3/12 and we get Wallace.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/7/2013 7:42 AM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 



dougb123 wrote: Chiefs released RT Eric Winston.
The move is surprising, but makes sense if the Chiefs follow through on drafting an offensive tackle at the No. 1 overall pick. Winston just signed a four-year, $22 million contract last offseason and graded out as top-nine right tackle in Pro Football Focus' 2012 ratings. The move saves $3.5 million in cap space. Winston will have plenty of options on the open market, attracting particular interest from zone-blocking teams. A reunion with the Texans would make a ton of sense after their 2012 right-tackle struggles. Miami, St. Louis, Baltimore, Washington, and Detroit all showed interest in Winston last offseason. Look for Kansas City to select Texas A&M's Luke Joeckel or Central Michigan's Eric Fisher if they can't trade out of the draft's top pick.

Maybe the 2nd time around..... doesn't make sense that they would just dump him for nothing and draft an OT even if he is better... Bring him thru camp and wait for someone willing to pay a high price for an OT when there's goes down.. Looks like piss poor team management to me if there's not a reason like he a bad locker room presents etc..... but the Dolphins sure could use him, can we pick up his contract or is he a FA again?
I think he is a full blown FA. Sounds like he will generate interest, too. He is a RT, right? That would save money and keep Martin at LT.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 3/7/2013 11:26 AM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


Winston definately is a RT and definately would be a great FA pick up for Miami.  He's a big quick mobile guy who isn't necessarily a brawler but fits a zone blocknig scheme very nicely.  I would love to pick him up at 5 or 6 million a season and stick him at RT while Martin gets settled in at LT.  That would solidify 3 of your 5 line positions without paying stupid money for a LT or wasting a top draft choice on one. 

If Wallace wants 12 or 13 million per season I say good luck to you kid, but we won't be paying you that kind of stupid coin.  I'm all for bringing in Free Agents and even paying a bit more for a guy we need, but to bring in someone at that high a price when he isn't Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson is stupid to me.  If that's what Wallace wants, I say too dang bad and move on to Jennings or Devery Henderson as our field stretcher.  Henderson wouldn't cost nearly as much and I think he's an effective field stretcher though not as fast as Wallace.  If you bring in Henderson for 7 Million per season that frees up money to bring in a Cook or Davis from Washington at TE.  2 real REAL good playmakers for the price of one wouldn't tick me off one bit.

I just pray, PRAY we don't swing and miss on Wallace then bring in some guy like Ramses Bardin or Hartline Clone Amendola.

"Make it Rain Hell"

Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/7/2013 12:10 PM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


Imo,Id rather get Wallace and draft a TE like Ertz, Reed, Escobar, MacDonald than sign Henderson and Cook. Cook wants to be paid like a WR.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 3/7/2013 2:15 PM

RE: It will cost us at the very least to lock up wallace 


I would like my TE's to be able to block, play inline. So I like Marcellus Bennett, Tyler Eifert, Travis Kelce are the guy's I like. I think it's opens up so much more to your offense having the ability to run or pass out of the same set, 3 down players. I keep Fasano to because he is a good run blocker a valid red zone threat with very good hands, can play h-back and stabilize the O-line if needed or line up in a double TE set and sneak out for a 1st or a TD.

I think they make a big push for Wallace, if not this is a big smoke screen, for what to drive the price of Jennings into something reasonable???? I don't think so, it really sounds like a push for Wallace and they had to know what he would cost... None of the guy's you would want to pay that money to would ever hit FA... So were left with Wallace, he could be enough....
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >