Mickey

No, what they said is that they expect him to honor the commitment he made two years ago. That commitment is to play 3 more years at his current salary. They have not said they will make a deal "if" he comes to camp. Far from it. Look at what the team has said, they most definitely have not committed to any kind of negotiations should he come to camp. At least we are past the narrative about there being no contact. Browse through the Peters threads and see just how often that meme was stated as incontrovertible fact. I don't think they have discussed numbers. I think he wants more money, I think they want him to play at least another year under his current contract. I think they told him what they told us, that they expect him to honor the commitment he made two years ago which was to play 3 more years on his current contract. As for a new deal, all they have said is "never say never". I think his agent told them he isn't coming in unless they give him a new deal and they said no. When I said he wants more money than they want to give, I wasn't referring to nitty gritty negotiations, I was referring to the obvious fact that he wants a new deal and that deal would cost the team more money and if they were willing to do that, there would be offer sheets being faxed back and forth. It is patently ludicrous for a deal not to happen solely because he hasn't reported. That is how every hold out happens and just about every one of them gets resolved with a new contract. I think the sticking point is that the team knows how much a new deal for Jason Peters is going to cost, not exactly but close enough and it is money they most definitely don't want to pay. Do you seriously think the team execs are sitting around saying, "Its not the money that bothers me, its that he isn't in camp, the millions and millions more it will cost us? No problemo but to give it to him before he gets to camp rather than the day after, by Zeus' thunder, no way" Solve the money problem and you solve the problem.

The same yo-yo's complaining about Parker were all up and down the lousy job Lynch's attorney did. You know, the guy who got Lynch off with a virtual parking ticket and not so much as a tsk-tsk from the league. What an idiot he was.

Despite that track record, Peters should fire him and instead listen to the brilliant advice falling like pennies from heaven here at the wall. After all, the narrative is that agents are evil. How dare you suggest otherwise?

"Blame the agent." How new, how original.

My point exactly yet around here plenty are buying this notion that it makes sense not to negotiate unless the player is in camp and that Peters is somehow a major an unprecedented tool for "staying at home" (quotation marks being necessary to keep Senator from taking that reference literally) while trying to get a new deal.

Exactly. Pretty simple. Nothing bizarre, nothing unheard of, no mystery. This problem is caused by two realities, A) Peters is very good and B) the bills don't want to pay him the money he wants when he wants it.

Ultimately they don't. Remember that every year the cap goes up because the league makes more $. Revenue isn't fixed so why should salaries be forever fixed? The Bills could have let Kelsy go, they could have not burned Schobel's contract and gave him a new one. But they did. This same complaint has been made for decades regarding player contracts and yet somehow, the world has not ended and teams keep making money. The sky isn't falling. Look, no doubt it is a tough business and tough decisions have to be made, we did with Clements and have done so with others. I just don't think Peters is the guy to make a point with. I'd rather lose Evans.

When the TV contract stops getting bigger every year leading to a bigger cap leading to bigger salaries. When Peters is the best LT in the game (a wonderful problem I think we would all like to have) and he is paid more than every other LT, then it ends. As they say in the mafia, "...this is the business we chose..."

With the small exception that I have posted links to Brandon's actual statements showing they have had discussions, facts which you choose to ignore. But hey, if it helps unbunch your panties to pretend otherwise, have at it. Because it makes total sense that the Bills have no problem at all paying him millions of dollars more than they would otherwise but simply object to negotiating the terms of the deal with his agent while Peters does what every hold out has ever done, stay at home until the deal is signed. In my view, the Bills are a sharply honed business and in yours, they are a momma upset that sonny boy doesn't call home often enough. Maybe you should switch to thongs?

Link So they have had no discussions since camp started. That means, that they have had discussions before hand. So can we stop this foolish notion that there is any reason for this situation other than the blatantly obvious fact that he wants more money and we the team doesn't want to give it to him. Either that or this is the first hold out in history where being a starter or more $ wasn't the central issue and the central stumbling block. Can you name me a single holdout that ended in a contract where the player didn't stay out of camp? Peters and his agent have, to their credit, not conducted a publicity war with the team. The Bills unfortunately have not done the same. You should recognize that the team has a vested interest in getting the public on their side. Try reading some of the team's statements with as critical eye as you have used to assess Peters' actions. And there is this Bransdon has had brief discussions with Parker They used the word "discussions", ie, plural, so that means they have had more than one discussion. Brief, yes, but they have had contact and they have had discussions so can we please stop all the posts about there being nothing but silence from Parker??? As for the "small conversation", doesn't that count? I always thought that "no discussion" means no discussion as opposed to "small" discussion. How "large" does the coversation have to be to count? How long does it take for one side to say they want a new deal and the other to say no and then for each to say, "call us when you change your mind"??? Of course it is about money. Why else do you think he is holding out? More vacation time? A better dental plan? Why do you think Brandon said that they expect him to honor the committment he made 2 years ago? The "committment" he made is to play 3 more years at his current salary.

There has been no silent treatment. Parker and Brandon have discussed Peters. And every hold out that ends in a new contract involves the player not being in camp. His location is not the issue and shouldn't be. The issue is the millions more that he wants this year.

Who says? People with eyes.

His agent and Brandon have talked. It is not a communications issue. It is a money issue. Dollars. Lots of them. He wants a new deal this year and they don't want to give him one. Sooner or later, someone will give in. The idea that he would have a new deal if he just came to camp is simply not true. The team has said clearly that they expect him to honor the committment he made two years ago. It is a stalemate. Not exactly unheard of at this time of the year. I can understand the team's point but not in light of what they did for Schobel last year and the ridiculous money they are paying Kelsay. We got an all pro year out of him for relative peanuts. If they want to make a point, do it with someone other than Peters.

How is Chambers looking on the other side?

They could go 0-16 this year and I'll still be around. I have no set of expectations in terms of their record but I do want to see drastic improvement from the offense. I also think Dick's job could be at risk if they have a bad enough year.

They have had conversations: ""We haven't had any discussions with his representatives since prior to training camp." Brandon on Peters "Since camp..." that means they had discussions prior to camp doesn't it???? "While Peters’ agent, Eugene Parker is the agent for Bills’ second-round draft pick James Hardy, Brandon said the two sides barely have discussed Peters’ deal." "Barely discussed" means they "discussed" "Have not discussed does not = barely discussed Now lets look at some of Brandon's BS: "...it’s difficult to have discussions with someone who’s not here..." Brandon spreading it Not since Mr. Bell said "Watson, come here, I need you" has it been difficult to have a discussion with someone who is not physically there. Its called a phone call. I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Brandon has Parker's cell phone number. Every hold out that ever ended in a new contract had negotiations take place with the player not being in camp. That is why it is called a hold out. The past doesn't matter, motivations don't matter. What matters is performance on the field and money in the bank. The reality is that Peters is better than the money he is getting, waaay better. He performs on the field. That is why everyone is in fits over this. If, as you say and frankly, I agree, the Bills have taken the position that they won't negotiate a new deal, there is no response for Peters. There is no back up position, that is a deal ender from the get go. Peters wants a new deal this year, if they are willing to do that, fine, start bargaining. If they aren't then there is nothing for Peters to say. Really, what response would you recommend? "Okay, forget that Bills, how about a new deal next year?" How does that get him a new deal this year which is his goal? Peters is losing nothing at this point and there is always a chance that the Bills will blink. There will come a time where he has a big decision to make but he isn't at that point. That is when we will see just how serious he is.

Just more than you, which isn't saying all that much. Yeah, that is a fair assumption, Peters is dead. Brilliant. I know that if he didn't want more money, he wouldn't be holding out and if the Bills wanted to pay him that money, he wouldn't be holding out. Not exactly rocket science to conclude that what he wants, they won't give. I am sure Peters is paying Parker out of a sense of charity, not because he has the legal and business experience to negotiate a good deal. Certainly Peters would prefer to match wits with Brandon rather than to let his agent handle it. No reason to think Brandon would have an edger there. That is probably why so many athletes do their own negotiating rather than hire an agent. Oh, wait. None of that is true now is it? I also know that Parker has had more than one discussion with Brandon because Brandon told us he did. I also know that they spoke about Peters when they were working on Hardy's deal because Brandon told us he did. I also know that Brandon wants him to play another year under his existing contract because he told us he did. Yet the brain trust around her is filled with one post after another about how the team would sign him if, gollyoski, he just came to camp. As if every freaking hold out that ended with a contract didn't include negotiations with the player not at camp. That is why they call it a hold out.

Exactly. Yet all these posts, one after the other, think the problem is Peter's current zip code rather than the many millions of more dollars he wants. Gee, if he just sent us a text message, we would give him millions but he won't, *sigh* I guess people are frustrated because they know just how important this guy is so they have to find a villian to blame.

Why does he need to make it public, are we the ones calling the shots here? I think it is enough that his agent has told the team he wants a new deal, they said no and in fact, publicly declared that they expect him to honor the committment he made 2 years ago. Silence to the public is actually a very mature way to handle things. Every new contract requires proof of physical fitness, that comes after the deal is worked out otherwise, not before. If he fails the physical, the deal is void. The team needs to state that they will give him a new deal providing he is healthy. They have said the opposite. Why are you letting the team off the hook? Do you think he should get a new deal?

It would be unheard of for the player to talk about his contract with the GM, that is what the agent is for. In fact, it might even be illegal to do so. What is bizarre about this, that he isn't mouthing off in public like Chad Johnson? This is a hold out, they happen every year, all over the league.

We have no idea what they have said we just know they have talked thus, the endlessly repeated assertion that they haven't talked is simply not true. And what I said was that so far, this holdout has cost Peters nothing. "If the Bills win" is a pretty big "if". Have you seen Kirk Chambers play?? Assuming they do and he still holds out, the bills will have a choice, trading a player who won't play for them and get some good value or, out of spite, let his sit and rot. What do you think they will do? They will trade him and he will get that big deal he wants from someone else. That all gets pretty speculative. My point was so far it costs him nothing and he can end it anytime before the regular season at little or no cost for the effort.

What constitutes an "official exchange" and why do you think he hasn't asked for a new contract? Brandon and Parker have had discussions though Brandon has described them as being brief. When they talked about Hardy, they also talked about Peters. I have not read a single report stating what was said in those discussions. They have said quite clearly that they expect him to honor the committment he made two years ago. Parker and Peters have said nothing to the press so they aren't negotiating through them. The bills won't negotiate a new deal with him this year, if they would, they could tell Parker and start faxing offer sheets back and forth until they reach a deal. Clearly, the team agrees with so many around her that they have Peters by the gonads and he has no choice but to give them another year of top talent at a bargain price. There is nothing strange about this at all, it happens every year all around the league. Player wants more $, team doesn't want to give it to him, player holds out. The only thing "strange" about this is that Parker and Peters have not whined to the press or pulled a Chad Johnson. Usually, we complain about that behaviour but here we have a player who does the opposite, he keeps his mouth shut and his agent too. Still we complain. The only villian here is cold financial reality. He wants what he is worth and the team is in a position to continue getting him at a bargain. You can spell it, too bad you don't get it.

No great mystery to solve. He is underpaid and understandably wants a new deal. The Bills won't give him one. Ocam's razor. Really, what is so hard to understand?

This "not speaking" meme is getting out of hand. Go back and read the articles where Brandon says he has had "only brief discussions" with Parker on Peters, that means they talked, and did so more than once. He also said that in working with Parker on Hardy, the "bulk" of the conversations were about Hardy and since "bulk" does not equal "all", that means they did talk about Peters. Have the conversations been brief? Of course. How long does it take to say: "Jason won't play without a new contract" and "We won't give him a new one until at least next year" and finally "Okay, call us if you change your mind". You don't need a G-8 summit to say "no". This isn't a case where Peters has asked for more money than they want to give. They are not interested in renegotiating a new deal with him this year. Allen Wilson's article says just that. The question is whether the Bills are willing to take the field without him, with Chambers and Walker and how far is Peters willing to go. The hold out doesn't hurt Peters at all. He can end it any time and they will waive all the fines. As he waits, he gets a little more vacation time and there is always a chance they will blink. I have been saying for awhile now that so far, this is a no-lose proposition for Peters.