Mickey

Really, no anti-trust problems? Then why do they have an anti-trust exemption? Not a monopoly you say? In the USFL's suit against the NFL, the jury found that the NFL was "duly adjudicated illegal monopoly" Did you do any research at all before posting???? Another jury in Minnesota in 1992 ruled "unanimously...that the National Football League's Plan B free agency system is illegal, that it substantially harms the effect on competition for players' services and thus violates antitrust laws." The Radovich case and Freeman McNeil's case highlight the league's vulnerability to anti-trust cases. Congress has, on numerous occasions, threatened to repeal what legislative exemptions the league does have whenever they have wanted to influence the league. Boy, for a league with no anti-trust problems they sure do have a lot of anti-trust problems. The CBA, already set to expire in 2010, is itself subject to antitrust laws though the public policy in favor of unions makes those cases somewhat harder to make as Maurice Clarett found out. If your version of employment contract law is so solid, I wonder why it is that players hold out all the time and virtually never seem to suffer for it? You need to send your posts to the league's lawyers, you clearly know something they don't. But then again, I am sure you're an expert in the enforcement of liquidated damages and the availability of specific performance as a remedy.

Sure, an owner in his 90's desparate for a championship before he dies can afford to wait for the team to find another pro bowl left tackle.

...or getting hurt in camp like a few OT's I could mention or rookie LB's for that matter.

Oh he has leverage, the question is whether he has enough this year to get what he wants. This very well could be part of a plan to make sure he gets a new deal next year. The team hasn't committed to giving him a new deal if he comes in, but they have come close. If he has another good year, he can make the same argument next year and with 2 years on his deal still left, he will just as little leverage as he has now. This holdout might be to create some leverage for next year. Only Parker and Peter know for sure.

I assume we are talking about the Jet game? That was not only the right call, it was a pretty easy call to make under the circumstances. Prior to Greer's pick, the Jets had just driven 78 yards in 7 plays against our very much depleted defense and on their possession before that, had gone over 60 yards to our 19 before missing a chip shot FG they were forced to take only because the half ran out. We were on the one yard line. Even if we don't get the TD, they get the ball back in the hole with a loud crowd so there was at least a fair chance that we could hold them and get it right back. A FG at that time would have given us only a 6 point lead, its still a one score game and our defense was down to street free agents to fill the roster. Given how the Jets were moving the ball at that point and the condition of our defense, you didn't need a crystal ball to conclude that a FG wasn't going to be enough to win it. Sure enough, the Jets went 64 yards in 11 plays for a TD that, had we kicked the FG, would have given them the lead. They then held us without a first down and got the ball back with 1:43 left and a time out left. Plenty of time to get close enough for a FG. They had a first and 10 at our 39, arguably already close enough for a FG that would have tied it. Fortunately for us, the limp armed Pennington underthrew a sideline fade designed to be complete and out of bounds or just out of bounds which enabled McGee to make the game winning play. I give Jauron credit for making the right call but it wasn't all that much of a gamble. While you are praising his daring-do for that call, remember that we started that drive on the Jet 25 and were assisted by a 15 yard face mask call and yet still needed 4 downs to get it in. And as for the "too conservative" charge, you might note that we ran the ball up the gut with Lynch on first down, on second down and on third down which is why we needed a 4th down to get it in. Not exactly what I would call a bold play selection.

Would it make you feel better if we substituted "bad" for "conservative"?? The results were a disgrace, period. I don't think he had the "sack", he just had no choice but to take those risks if we were to score at all. A lot of those 4ths, and fakes, were situations where the choice was punt or go for it, not punt or kick a FG. Check the stats on how often we ran the ball compared to other teams. The word "conservative" will surely leap off the page. But if it bothers you, fine, lets just say he is bad. I don't think, by the way, it is fair to call those of us who have concerns about Jauron to be "haters". That is over the top, melodramatic, trite, and unjustified. The guy fielded the worst offense in the history of the franchise and believe me, as a fan since 1966, I have seen them field some pretty pathetic offenses. You would have to be basically delusional not to think there is cause for concern over whether Jauron should have a long future with this team.

If you want to talk about the law, the NFL is a monopoly, if any player challenged that in court, they would eventually win the right to be free agents signing with the highest bidder right out of college. That is why no team that I am aware of has ever taken a player to court for breach of contract. The NFL knows this, the agents know this, the union knows this and the players know this. That is why holdouts are not exactly rare despite your infantile understanding of contract law. As for Parker being a "punk", he could buy and sell you with the spare change stuck in the seats in his limo. His client list attests to his track record of success. The odds of any of us guessing what his long term strategy is for Peters is not very likely. As has been pointed out many times, this hold out is costing Peters nothing. He may report in time to avoid losing any game pay and what he will accomplish is setting the table for next year. The team will know he is serious, will not want to go through repeat of this next year. The team has carefully avoided any public committment to renegotiate if Peters shows up. For all we know, Parker's strategy is to get them to make that committment publicly so that they can force them to deal as soon as steps into the locker room, something the team is clearly not willing to do at present. We don't know. In the face or our ignorance of what is really going on, you can either assume that an experienced agent with a long track record of success and an impressive client list suddenly has turned in to an idiot or you can assume that he knows what he is doing even if we don't.

A team as desparate for points as we were last year has no choice but to go for it on 4th down whenever they have a drive that stalls just outside of FG range. It was the worst offense in the history of the franchise. That is a FACT. There is no statistic you can cite that will change that.

Words, words and more words. The results have been there on the field for all to see. The worst offense in the history of the franchise. Nothing he says will erase that.

What I, and several others have been saying. The notion that the problem is Peters not showing up for camp rather than the team refusing to renegotiate a new contract is ludicrous. The issue is the extra coin Peters wants, not a failure to show a "comittment to winning" by coming to camp. The guy went from a UDFA to a pro bowl left tackle, I think he has all the devotion to duty that is required, and then some.

Haven't you heard? We don't need Peters because, heck, Langston only gave up one sack against the Steelers. It was almost a safety but that would be rude of me to mention it.

As has been shown numerous times with quotes from Brandon himself, he didn't cut off contact with the team. Brandon and Parker had more than one discussion. Obviously, given the teams position that they are not going to give him a new contract this year, there wasn't much to say but "..call me when you change your minds..." How has Peters "dissed" the team???? Post one single quote from him, one, where he said anything negative about the team. When you can't find one, be a man and post a withdrawal and an apology. And as for the agent, find me one quote where he "dissed" the team.

And if he does, he will demand to be traded and if they don't he will sit, again. After the childish whining in the media about him that Brandon did, he will want out of here as soon as he can get out of here. After seeing how they treated Schobel, giving him a new deal before camp, he will justly wonder why he is getting shafted. "crap like this" ??? Do you mean holding out like countless players before him? Or do you mean holding out when he actually had a valid arguement that he was getting paid way below his value? Or do you mean the way we he didn't bawl and posture in public but respectfully kept his yap shut? Or do you mean the way he asked for the same treatment they gave Saint Schobel last year? If they don't pay him now, they may get him back on the field but in the long run, they will simply be guaranteeing that the majority of his hall of fame career will be spent for the benefit of some other team.

Let us know when you are done fiddling with your angels and pinheads and other meaningless distinctions so we can have a meaningful discussion about the real reason Jason Peters doesn't have a new contract: the team doesn't want to give him one because they don't have to.

Yeah, that is a logical assumption, Peters is a crybaby. He certainly played like one didn't he? Any player who goes from undrafted free agent, to surprise starter to pro bowler will, I guarantee, want a new contract. So far, in the last 10 years we have had that happen once so I can see the concern over starting a trend. Whitner held out, McCargo held out, Schobel got a new deal way in advance of his then current contract. Peters would not be the first nor the last to want a new deal based on performance. I can only hope we are fortunate enough to have that problem with other players. ....and he has a point. He is vastly underpaid given his performance. He is looking for a merit raise. Now a guy who wants a bigger check who is playing poorly and who holds a press conference every other day to mouth off about it, that is a "crybaby". If Peters is a crybaby, he is the quietest one I never heard. Bro hasn't made a peep nor has his agent. The only one to do any whining has been Brandon.

The box is already open, don't forget Schobel's contract extension. I don't really think that is the case however. What opens the "box" is good performance and an opportunity for the team to save some coin in the long run. The interests at play are basically this: a player has a great year, far better than his salary reflects but he isn't due for a new contract for quite some time. He is stuck. However, the team can see that when his current contract expires, it is going to cost them a bundle to keep him or they will lose him. The team goes to the player and offers to reward his superior performance now, ahead of schedule, in exchange for a new, longer contract. They don't pay him as much as would get in a free agent year but they do pay him sooner than would otherwise be the case. There you have it, a unity of interests that forms the basis for a new bargain. The player gets more coin now and the team gets to secure his services at a bit of a bargain. Every one is happy. The Bills did that with Peters. However, his performance jumped again, from a starter to a pro bowler. Thus they both face the same situation they did two years ago. A player whose performance exceeds his salary. The team could give him a new deal now and they will save some coin in the long run, if he agreed to one, he would get his money now and not have to wait 3 years but it would be less than he would get in a free agent year which what he gives up. The team however, clearly wants to get the benefit of the good bet they made two years ago so they are not willing to commit to a renegotiating a new deal. He isn't going to come in unless they do. The actual numbers would take quite some doing to iron out but my belief is that Peters would come in if they were at least throwing numbers back and forth but they aren't because the team just isn't willing to give him a new deal. Classic stalemate.

If the team was willing to give him a new deal, why didn't they do it in January?, in February?, in March?, in April?, in May?, in June?, in July?, today?, yesterday? The easy answer here is that the reason they haven't renegotiated Peters' contract is because A) they don't want to, and B) they don't have to.

No such message at all. Evans was signed as a first round draft pick so he has been raking it in for his entire time in the league. Peters was a nobody with a nothing contract that was made better two years ago but still isn't up to first round coin. Further, this is Evans' last year, he is a FA next year, Peters has 3 years left and that is a huge, huge difference. The Bills have stated flatly that Peters must honor the commitment he made 2 years ago, that "commitment" was to play at his current salary until 2010. As for renegotiating, all they have said is "never say never". With Evans, they have to give him a new deal, his contract is up this year. Its now or never. With Peters, they don't have to give him a new deal. Evans didn't need to hold out to get them to the table, the only option Peters has to get the team to the table is to hold out, so he is.

If you want to read all that "in between lines", fair enough. That is totally different than stating for a fact that the team would negotiate with him if he just came to camp. Peruse the boards and you will see that claim made over and over and over, that if he came to camp he would get a new deal and the only reason he doesn't have a new deal is because he is holding out. Thus, his agent is an idiot, Peters is an idiot, the team is reasonble, Peters is not, blah, blah, blah. The reason I believe that they won't give him a new contract is that they have had since January to give him one and he still doesn't have one. Here we are, a few weeks from the opener and he still doesn't have a new contract. If they wanted to give him one, they could have done so in January, in February, in March, in April, in May, in June, in July, or yesterday or today. What he has to lose is the only leverage he has, his services, even if only for the first three games or so. As many have pointed out, given the length of his current contract, he is going to have to show up sooner or later. If he shows up on the Friday before the 1st game, he doesn't miss a game pay check but he won't be playing. He might not even be playing in week two or three. Maybe, as many have pointed out, he picks up a nagging injury due to having missed so much practice. If that happens, we lose him for more games but still have to pay him his full salary. So, if what people say is true, that the Bills own him for the next 3 years, doesn't that mean his only leverage for a new deal now, this year, holding out all through camp so that the team will lose him for give or take 3 games? Who knows. Mabye this is all strategy for next year. Maybe the agent is waiting for the Bills to promise that they will give either give him a new deal or release him next year if he ends his holdout. Maybe Peters and his agent are going for it all. He simply refuses to play and at some point, it dawns on the Bills that he is never going to play for them again so they do they only thing they can do, trade him. And then he cashes in a huge FA contract now or late this year rather than 3 years from now. Two heavyweights fighting over a lot of coin.

We don't know what they have said in private so we can't really castigate or praise one side or the other based on what maybe they have said. But to speculate, which is all we can do, this could be a trick it would make sense for the team to try. If they figure he will hold out but only for so long given how much longer he is still under contract, then they know that ultimately he will come in even without a new contract. So based on that, they decide they aren't going to give him a new deal. But they want him in camp so he is ready to go in week one reather than in week three. So why not lead him on, let him think that if he comes in, maybe they will do a deal? If he bites, he comes in, gets all the practice and in the end, they stiff him on the deal. They get him ready to go for week one and do so without a new deal. Now, if you are his agent, what do you tell Jason when they waive that bait in front of him? What we complain about as far as him not being ready to play when he finally does come back is actually leverage he has on the team. Guessing, I think the team just wants to get another year out of him to capitalize on the good bet they made two years ago. They must believe that they can get away with that and then pony up enough next year to soothe his anger and get him for the long term. They may be right. I haven't wanted to argue that one side or the other is a villian here. I would rather the team make a point with some other player, not this guy but I see why they are doing what they are doing. Its not totally stupid. On the other hand, Peters and his agent are not out of bounds either. This is a well worn path many good teams and players have had to endure.

No one said you should feel sorry for him. It is people on your side of this calling him a greedy lazy bastard who should care more about the team than the financial security of his family. The only point I am making, that you still haven't addressed, is that he has just as much right to getting paid as much as he can for his services as you do. He doesn't play for a "team", he works for an employer, a business. It is no more his responsibility to take less pay than he is worth in the market than it is your responsibility to take a pay cut for the good of your employer/team. Maybe anyone who aspires to be more than a Joe Schmo is a fat greedy bastard to you but to those of us who are not socialist commies, I think he should get paid what he is worth. If you want to end this arguement, just tell me how many times you have offered to take significantly less pay for the same job for the good of the "team". Peters is no different from any other player when it comes to securing the highest pay for his services. If you don't like it, go watch an intramural bowling league where they play for the pure love of the game...and beer.

Is it really necessary for me to link to every derogatory post about Peters on this board? Do a search on "Peters" and "greedy" or "fat-ass" for that matter. The team has never unequivocally said they will renegotiate his contract if he comes in to camp and I don't understand why you keep citing them as having said done so. In reference to same, they have said that they expect him to live up to the commitment he made two years ago. As for renegotiating, they have said "never say never". How do you read "never say never" and hear "the team will give him a new contract if he just shows up to camp". Rather than calling it an assumption, please explain to me from a practical standpoint, why the issue isn't the millions more that Peters wants, its his presence at camp. Just take us through your logic. Millions and millions = no problemo but holdout = lose pro bowl left tackle. Assumption, yes, a damn good one. While your assumption, that the team would easily and swiftly renegotiate his contract despite the extra millions it would cost if he just came to camp and negotiated here rather than on the phone is just silly.

Respectfully, I think the baby whining is all this stuff about only negotiating with a guy who is in camp. Its juvenile. This is big business, not a scout troop. It is about money, not moral principles. Just about 99% of every hold out that has ended in a new contract involved negotiating with the player not in camp. Jason Peters doesn't need to show the team or young players anything about showing up and working hard. These guys are paid large sums of money to play hard. That is essentially the bargain every player makes in the NFL, the team pays them their worth, they play their butts off. That is the deal. Obviously, Jason doesn't think he is getting paid his worth. The reason Jason Peters is not getting a new contract isn't because he didn't come to camp. It is becasue the team doesn't want to pay the millions of dollars extra he wants. Think about it, what makes more sense, that the team is trying to save millions of dollars or that they are worried about their impressionable younger players? Its the money. Always is.

Yep, one preseason game. We are all set. Superbowl here we come. What more evidence could we possibly need than a handful of preseason plays upon which to dump a pro bowl left tackle? Frankly, I thought Jenkins looked great, we should cut Evans and save ourselves the trouble of that big contract he wants.

I think that if any agent gave advice based on what was best for the team rather than for his client, he should not only be fired but he should be drummed out of the business. None of this is really about what is or is not fair. If the Bills could get pro bowl performances for peanut pay, they would do it in a heart beat. If a player can get a contract worth far more than his performance justifies, he is going to get it and never look back. This is about market value and leverage. There is no question that Peters' market value is waaaaay more than his actual pay at this point. The question is leverage. The Bills have the rights to him, that is their leverage. He is a really, really good player, that is his leverage. He can hold out, that is leverage. They can fine him, that is leverage. Peters is going to be a good player long after his current contract is up and the team will want him here for a lot longer than just his current contract, that is leverage. And on it goes. Who has the most leverage? We will find out when the whole mess is over. If he has a new contract, give Peters and his agent the win. If he comes back at the same $, give the Bills a temoporary win but remember that win when he eventually bolts to another team and has a hall of fame career for someone else.