Mickey

The time to assess whether, in the end, it was worth it for him would be down the road when its all over. If you assessed Larry Johnsons situation one hour before his signed that new deal last year, you could have made the same argument about what it cost Johnson as people are making here about Peters. The same could be said about T.Owens and the Eagles. It looked pretty bad when they suspended him, even worse when they filed suit to get their SB back. A few years later and the best thing that ever happened to Owens on the field and in his wallet was what happened in Philly. Sure it looks bad for Jason Peters right now and you can count me among those who still think he might show before Sunday to save that game check. But we won't know who won this until its over and obviously, it isn't over. As high as the tide on this board is against him now, when Walker went down in that preseason game, the board was doing a 180 for about 30 minutes on Jason Peters, from "let him rot" to "sign him now, now, now". Holding out in preaseason is one thing but for the regular season? Unbeleiveable.

Can't really argue with any of that. If you are not going to redo his deal this year but are willing to next year and that is the sticking point, both sides should be talking themselves silly trying to find a fix. Maybe each side has underestimated the staying power of the other and has been taken by surprise with no plan "B" in the works other than continued hope that the other guy can't possibly keep this up.

Your entire argument depends on the assumption as fact that the team is "trying to negotiate and Peter's is ignoring them.." which is simply not true. Over and over now we have had confirmation that the team flatly refuses to negotiate a new deal, any deal, for this year. It was in the AP article, it was in Graham's ESPN article and most important of all, Brandon himself said that Peters has to honor the committment he made two year ago, ie, the contract which requires him to play this year, next year and the year after at the pay levels agreed to. There is not one shred of evidence that Parker or Peters ignored any overture, meeting request, phone call or other communication from Brandon to discuss Peters' contract as you state. Yes, Brandon did talk about a "track record of silence" but at the same time, he fessed up to having had more than one discussion with Parker. They are ingoring the press, and when you read the articles you can tell that the reporters are not happy with that but that is not the same as ignoring Brandon. Is there any proof whatsoever that the team has offered to negotiate a new deal this year? If so, please post that proof. Whenever I ask for it, I get the same response, Brandon's opening camp press conference where, he says Peters has to honor his contract and that some day, who knows, maybe, stranger things have happened, "never say never" they might give him a new contract. He wants more money, he deserves it. They don't want to pay and they don't have to. Thus, we have a holdout. The reason we have a long holdout is both sides are apprently pretty freaking serious.

Actually, he has already been paid in part for this year, his signing bonus, remember? Pretty good money for fishing and watching soaps. And he hasn't lost a game check, yet. And he can keep this up until week 10 before he risks losing an "accrued year" towards eventual free agency. When and if the Bills get any of that back, something no one involved has even mentioned, that is when it would be appropriate to measure what he lost and what he gained. If you had assessed Larry Johnson' sitution the day befor his hold out ended in a new contract, you could have spewed all the same drivel about going after bonuses, the big bad fines and so on, all BS the second the new deal is signed. With Owens, it was a new deal with another team and financially, he made out like midas.

Ummm.....we were discussing market value, which kind of assumes you are on the market. Duh. By the way, you keep referring to Peters having "tore up his groin", a sports hernia actually is a herniation of the abdominal wall. And you also keep forgetting that he was checked by team doctors after the surgery, a fact confirmed by Brandon himself. But by all means, keep playing that card. How many pro bowls has Evans been voted to? Has his good faith in coming to practice and playing been rewarded with a new contract? How long have they been working on that "nice long lucrative extension"? Since his contract is expiring, isn't it true that Evans will be either a free agent, a franchise player making the average of the top 3 at his position in the entire league or playing under a brand new contract next year no matter what? Given those facts, Evans has no need to hold out, zero. Gee, that doesn't sound very similar to Peters' situation but go ahead, pretend that it does.

Disagree. A. The slience stuff is simply not true. Brandon himself has referenced having had "brief discussions" with Parker. That means they have talked and talked more than once. Brandon also stated in response to a question about whether he spoke to Parker about Peters when negotiating Hardy's deal (Parker is Hardy's agent) and he said that "most of" their discussions were about Hardy. Note that he did not say "all of" which means some Peters did come up when Brandon and Parker were working on Hardy's deal. Parker and Peters have been silent to the media and to the fans. That is smart, respectful of the team and the right the way to do business. Compare that to T.Owens and C.Johnson. Communication is a two way street. They aren't communicating because neither has anything to say that is different from what they already have said, variations of "No new deal this year" and "I won't play without a new deal this year" followed by a mutual "call if you change your mind". This is what you call silent treatment? B. "Maning up"??? Takes far more balls to do what he is doing, what some here have hysterically referred to as ruining his career forever, than it would take to have simply been a good little boy and come in to camp. You would all be singing his praises rather than forming a lynch mob and trying to organize a surveillance team to watch his house. Which path would have been easier, accumulating fines, fan hatred and missing game checks or show up and get paid, albeit less than his worth? The point these posts were discussing is whether or not Peters has lost all or most of his market value. A point I think is laughable. What do you think?

Lots of teams wanted him as a UDFA, just as we did. He wasn't drafted but was a well known project player that plenty of teams were interested in. He signed with us because we presented the best opportunity for him. Our TE's were lousy and so were or OT's. I have posted links to predraft assessments of Peters in the past which verify same. Its not like we took in an orphan and he should be willing to take less than his market value for the 2nd or 3rd year in a row as a payback. I agree though that his initial salaries, though low, reflected his market value. I only bring it up becuase others, not me, insist on comparing him to Evans. These guys have a limited window for earning the big bucks, Evans' window was much larger as a first round pick and so he can afford to bide his time. Peters doesn't have that luxury. I can understand, from a moral standpoint, why you don't care for him or want him on the team but me, as long as the guy isn't a felon, if he is a good player, I want him on the team. Frankly, some of the best players we ever had could be and were real jerks, something no one remembers as well as the wins they produced. Even though I disagree with you on that point, your conclusion is pretty solid, that they should trade him and get picks if in the end they don't want him on the team. Makes a lot more sense than the "let him rot for 3 years" stuff.

He should take advice from the people on this board because they have his best interests at heart. Funny, people on the board want to win, Peters holding out endangers that so they are foaming at the mouth. They will be the first to want him cut if he plays poorly, the first to forget him if he has a career ending injury and the last to give a fig when age and injuries slow him down. But they aren't selfish. The team wants to get yet another pro bowl year out of him for less than they pay lesser talent on the same team, even if it means possibly losing the services of the best offensive lineman on the team and one of the best in the league. But that isn't being selfish. Grow up people, of course Peters is being selfish, so are we and so is the team. All three are pursuing their best interests and really couldn't care less about anyone else's.

Agree or disagree: if Peters were on the market right now, teams would be lining up to pay him substantially more than his current contract. So much for your argument that he has decreased his market value. When and if he reports and starts pancaking blitzing LB's, I think the cheers will more than likely drown out your boos. Evans is in the last year of his contract and was a first round pick who made a pile from the git-go and is also coming off of a very disappointing year. Newsflash Mrs. Brandon: Evans didn't make the pro bowl. Peters made the minimum his first year and not much more the next. Unlike Evans, he made the pro bowl. They do have one similarity though, they both want new contracts and with opening day 4 days away, neither of them has a new contract.

You are probably right but I am going to try to be an optimist and hope that Chambers holds the fort while Bell's education is put into hyperdrive. Not like we have any choice anyway given the great stalemate.

The Peters issue now becomes a side note as the offseason will be truly over come Sunday. The only good news I see on that front is that if he does hold out for a regular season game, the deck is going to get reshuffled which might be a good thing. Either the team is going to suffer for his absence on the field or they won't. If the former, the team might decide they need him on the field and if the latter, Peters will have lost enough leverage to hopefully reconsider.

"...screwed his entire career..."? Wanna bet? Only problem is we wouldn't be able to settle it up for 10 years. So far, this still hasn't cost him a dime nor diminished his rep as a top LT one bit. If he were released today, he would be fending off offers from half the teams in the league falling all over themselves for the right to pay him what the Bills refuse to pay him. At some point, the Bills are going to pay him or they are going to give up on him and trade him. And then Peters will rake it in and get back to being a pro bowler while we spend the money we wouldn't spend on him on the next Mike Williams. I know the popular, spite driven idea here is to have him rot forever but there is a reason why that has pretty much never happened before and they are the same reasons it won't happen here. If Ricky Williams can smoke bushels of weed, retire, unretire, retire again and still come back and make plenty of coin, I hardly think that Peters, who has yet to miss a game or game check this season, has "screwed his entire career". It has driven some fans close to crazy though. But only because he is really, really good which is his whole point on the contract issue.

I've punted the ball 48 yards. Pro bowl here I come.

...but tell us how you really feel.

Great strategy if you want to lose football games. Me, rather than indulge in a hissy fit of spite, I'd get him on the field or I'd trade him for a raft of picks. Your strategy would pretty much guarantee that no free agent of any quality would ever sign with us again. Of course, if it were me, we wouldn't be having this discussion because Peters would have been extended the day after he was named to the pro bowl. Our best lineman would be on the field after a full camp ready to make another pro bowl. So much more fun spinning wheels wondering how we could screw him over and maybe dig up a stiff to replace him "for insurance". God forbid you take the money you would willingly waste on "insurance" and use it to sign the most promising lineman on the team since Will Woolford.

Why? He would still have 2 years left on his current contract, why would the team do something they don't have to next year anymore than they have to this year? He should get paid what he is worth, now.

Is this ambiguous? "The Bills are demanding that Peters play under his current deal for this season before they will consider opening talks." Bills Refuse to Negotiate Is this ambiguous? "They also have made it known to Peters' agent, Eugene Parker, they're not willing to renegotiate 2008, insisting any additional money will be paid next year forward." Bills Refuse to Negotiate with Peters for 2008 Is this ambiguous? "The Bills are demanding that Peters play under his current deal for this season before they will consider opening talks." Bills: No new deal for Peters this year I think you are stretching the words "honor the committment he made to the team 2 years ago". His committmenet wasn't to come in to camp and only play if he got a new deal 3 years early. His committment was to play for 5 years at a certain salary with a certain signing bonuses and whatever incentives were included. The words mean what they mean. Besides, think of the logic. If they wanted to negotiate with Peters they could have done that in Februay 2007, 6 months before camp. Why didn't they? It can't be because he didn't come to training camp. The easy and simple reason they didn't is because they had and have no intention of giving him new deal this year. Why in the world, if the team really was willing to give him a new deal this year, would they not simply negotiate it out? Why is his presence in camp so critical? Does that make any sense? Isn't it true that every holdout that ever ended in a new contract (almost all of them do) was resolved by negotiations held while the player was not in camp. Apart from what you I may think this all means in the end, wouldn't you at least agree that all those swearing on a stack of Bibles that the team has "made it clear" they will give him a new deal this year if he comes in to camp are full of it? Would at least agree that the umpteen insulting responses I have received claiming that there is nothing at all to support my point that the team won't give him a new deal this year were also full of it? "...never say never..." ????? That is about as far from any kind of committmenet to ever negotiating a deal with him this year, next year, e-v-e-r, as they could get. In the end, the best proof that they have zero intention of dealing a new deal for Peters this year is their failure to do so going on 7 months now. If they wanted to, they would have. That doesn't mean that the team should give him a new deal this year, that is another question entirely. I just think it is a croc to buy the notion that the lack of a deal for Peters resulting in his rejoining the team is the result of anything other than a player wanting more money, now, than the team is willing pay him, now. Heck, that has been the story of every holdout I have ever heard of. But, oh no, this one is different, in this one the good, just, proud, honest, kind, decent, hardworking, fair, generous team wants badly to work a new deal with their good friend Jason but durn the luck, that fat, injured, hasbeen, neverwas, ungrateful, peckerheaded, greedy, selfish, lazy so-and-so won't come by and pick up his check. Its not the money. In a pigs eye it isn't the money.

The details could and have been argued endlessly but if, I say if an owner bears any responsibility at all for putting a winner on the field, Ralph has little to brag about lately.

I try never to fire the first shot but if you insult me, I think I have the right to come right back atchya. That is the difference between a gratuitous insult and self defense. And when things seem to be going to far, I will try on occasion to pull the converation back as I did recently making fun at my own expense with one poster, elaborating on his insult to me and again with Senator in the "Could we Start Again Please" post. So, no, I am not perfect but I make an effort to stay away from this kind of thing. Recently, some guy I never heard of went after me because he didn't like my position on the Peters thing and threw in some insults about the quote from Cheney I have used for years now. So I responded in kind and defended my use of Cheney's quote. Then I get a PM from him complaining that I was dragging politics on to the board. This from the guy who brought my Cheney thing up to start with. Misca.

Why would you say that? I don't know of a single post making that unfounded charge nor any proof that race has anything to do with anything when it comes to contract negotiations for this team. They don't want to pay Peters because, well because they don't want to pay a ton of money to anyone they don't have to. Right or wrong long term? Who knows? Either way the only color on the table here is green.

Lots of typical posts in this thread, like all the posts which are nothing but gratuitous personal insults. Because, why simply disagree with someone when you can hurl a snarky, 5th grade level locker room insult?

Hard? It is how every hold out that has ever ended in a new contract (and the vast majority of them do) has been handled. Why have all those countless resolved holdouts been able to overcome this seemingly insurmountable problem of it being durn near impossible to negotiate a contract with his agent if the player is not in the lockerroom? We should really talk to these other teams to see what magic solution they were able to conjure up to this gordian knot of a problem that we are simply unable to overcome on our own. If only there was some inexpensive reliable means of communicating over long distances. Perhaps some day NFL agents of the future and NFL GM's will be able to, I don't know, speak into a magic box that captures their voice and beams it through the ether into another magic box thousands of miles away. A person using that box could open it and then the voice will escape so it can be heard many leagues from where it originated. Am I a dreamer? Guilty as charged. I believe that someday these wonders shall come to pass.

Kind of picky don't you think? "Signing" this guy or that guy is a term often used as short hand for a new contract to replace the old due to it being about to expire or a variety of other reasons. I am quite sure this poster is well aware of the existing contracts. By using the term "re-sign" it is pretty clear that he is talking about hammering out the new contracts both players are seeking, one of which is in its last year.

I don't know. What I do know is that it can't possibly be due to anything the team has done or failed to do. It has to be because the player or his agent is stupid, or greedy, hiding an injury or all three. Oh, and I also know that we don't really need either because Jenkins and Chambers did a heckuva job in preseason. Or so I have been told. Seriously, I hope both situations can get resolved, and quickly. I don't really think that Ralph is trying to pinch pennies. At this stage in his life, what does a little more money mean to him? I think his motivation is winning, pure and simple. I think that the only negative with Ralph nowadays is that he thinks he knows more about personnel than the coaches and too often gets involved in those kinds of decisions. Just my opinion. I love Ralph and have defended him many times but this is the guy who insisted on getting rid of Bill Polian.

I like McNally but face it, he had mixed results here at best and the point is that Peters should get some credit for his own success. He doesn't "owe" the Bills anymore than the team "owes" a roster spot to an aging veteran past his prime, even if he once contributed mightily to the team's success. Just ask Eric Moulds, Thurman Thomas and Andre Reed about that.