Mike Wallace is a restricted free agent. It will cost a first round pick if he is signed.

Here's my question. Is the #8 pick in the draft worth a 25 year old WR who has averaged 18.7 yards per catch in his career and a TD every 7 catches? Since becoming a full time player, Wallace has averaged 66 catches, over 1200 yards, and 9 TD.

I know everyone says #8 is too high a pick to give up for Wallace. And I don't necessarily disagree, because not only do you have to give up the pick, you also have to pay him a ton of money. But, if you drafted a WR at #8, wouldn't you be thrilled if he turned out to be as good as Mike Wallace?

Here's another thought, one that Armando Salguero tweeted this morning. Would you trade down from #8, pick up a later 1st round pick and an additional 2nd rd pick, and then give up the later 1st round pick for Wallace?

I don't want to spend #8 on wallace, not by a long shot.
And mark, you may know better, but I don't think you can trade down to the late first round and then make that your pick you give for signing a RFA. I think you must give your original selection, and if you no longer have that due to trade, you can't sign the player. But yeah, if we could trade down to say #20 and pick up an extra 2 and 3 and then sign wallace, I'd do it.

Pittsburgh isn't letting Wallace go period

ChambersDeepBall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pittsburgh isn't letting Wallace go period


It is extremely easy to front load a contract that Pittsburgh can't match because of their cap space issues. I threw Wallace's name out there just to see what people would be willing to give up for him. But, the fact that New England, who needs a deep threat, didn't get involved in Vincent Jackson and haven't shown any real interest in other wideouts, makes me think that Wallace is their target. They have tons of cap room, and they will wait until they are sure Pittsburgh can't match their offer, and they will scoop him up.