Mickey

You are the one who introduced Owens into a thread about Peters. Is there some reason its fair for you to use him to support your point but not the rest of us? The point I thought you were discussing was how "Owens LOST", your exact words as I recall. But Owens didn't lose, the Eagles did. He lost pennies and gained millions more. So if you don't think Owens' situation is relevant to Peters', then don't bring him up. Now as for Peters, neither of us know what is going to happen long term let alone the next week when he faces losing a game check. We will have to judge the end results, not the opening moves. The only assessment we can make now is this: Peters wasn't going to get a new deal this year if he had reported on time so the only possibility was to give a holdout a try. So far, holding out has cost Jason Peters nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zip. What did it cost the team? Assuming he comes in this week, they lost their best LT for the first 2-3 games. I am sure, to them it was worth it to save a year on that big contract. If we win those games, no one will care but if we don't.... This is where you babble that "Peters LOST"

Saving face?? This is an agent we are talking about here, they don't care about that, they care about $$. Peters wasn't going to get a new deal if he reported on time so he took a shot at holding out. If it doesn't work, and certainly it hasn't so far, what has the effort cost him? Nada. And it will be the same next year because he will still have 2 years left on his current contract.

I don't think embarassment, reputation, pride, etc, have anything to do with anything. I just think that Peters had nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding out, so he did. I have said it over and over that this has cost him nothing and won't cost him anything more if he comes in early enough so that he doesn't miss any game checks. We will have lost him for the first 2-3 games or 18% of the season. He hasn't paid a penny in fines and even if he does, I wouldn't be surprised if Parker agreed to reduce his cut accordingly when that big deal eventually does come. All this talk about Parker and Peters trying to save face, coming crawling back is melodramatic. It is the team that will be out a top LT for 2-3 games while Parker and Peters lose nothing. The only way you can argue that this cost Peters is if you think he would have been given a new deal if he had reported but that notion has been debunked many times over.

They play them to get a look at the rookies, get some practice in, make a little extra coin and to get people like you all googly eyed over a full dress scrimmage. It is meaningless in terms of predicting success during the regular season. The worst preseason teams the Bills ever had were their best regular season teams. The point is that it would be utterly ridiculous to make long term, critical decisions based solely on a fistful of preseason games. I am not reading much positive or negative from the preseason, the other guy was. I just pointed out that preseason doesn't mean much (a universally accepted axiom by the way) but if you are going to make a big deal out of it, you might want to take note that it wasn't all beer and skittles.

I made a general statement I think is a truism, I wasn't being critical specifically of the current, ie, 2 year old regime. Need a little more time for that. However, it has been a problem for this team which, as far as I know, has been owned by the same guy for a lot longer than 2 years. I am not sure what you mean? Are you saying that all good players gained were gained only because we let other good players go? I always thougt the idea was to keep the good players and replace the bad ones. If you see it as a gain to let good players go and replace them with good players then I can see why you seem so convinced that a team that has been as mediocre as we have been has made no mistakes. To me, it explains why hovering within a game or two of .500 is the best we have managed to accomplish. I'd mention guys like Clements, Winfield and Pat Williams but apparently you have never heard of them. Controversial though it may seem, I am going to stick to my guns that you don't get better by losing good players. Way out on a limb, I know, but there it is.

Preseason is preseason, that is to say, it is meaningless. The offense scored 14 points in the opener, 17 against the Steelers and only 13 last week. Defense and ST scores account for the rest. I am crediting them with the FG they kicked after ST's recovered a fumble on the opening kick in the opener at the Redskin 30. The offense did nothing to earn that 3 but I'll give it to them just to be generous.

Building a winning team is not an exact science but it is hard to argue with the notion that you do not get better by losing your best players.

You left part of the Owens story out. Like the part where he signed with the Cowboys for 3 years and 25 million and with a year left, was extended for another 3 and an additional 27 million. Oh yeah, he also had 2,535 yards and 28 TDs since he left Philly. Oh, and one more thing, the top receiver for the Eagles has 1470 yards and only 9 tds in the same time period. Oops, I almost forgot, one last thing, his contract with Philly was for 49 million. So what is that, about 101 million in contracts overall? Boy did those brilliant Eagles show him a thing or two. So....Philly got 965k back and might get a little more. Wow, poor Owens and poor Jason if he ends up getting the same result Owens got. Can you imagine the indignity of making all that money, paying pennies back, going on to more stardom and more money and actual playoff games? God knows, Jason Peters wants no part of that.

All depends on the fine print in his contract I guess. I think signing bonuses are usually characterized as "guaranteed" but what exactly is meant by that characterization is unknown.

"recoup some money" vs. couple high draft picks

Well, unheard of if you don't count Schobel last year. This article says what Dicky, Willspet and Jill (you forgot Kelly) have been saying for a very long time, that his absence from camp isn't why he doesn't have a new deal, the reason is the team flatly refused to discuss a new contract this year and he refuses to play without one. When this started, the mob, which I am sure you'll agree is always right, agreed that he was underpaid and should get a new deal this year but unfortunately, his crack pot agent had him hold out which is what bollixed everything up. "Oh if only, if only Peters just came to camp..." they lamented, all would be well. He would get the new contract he deserves and that would be that. But, because he and his agent are morons, they lost the deal he surely would have had if he simply had come to camp. That was the point we in the always wrong minority argued against. Our point was that the whole coming to camp and "track record of silence" stuff was baloney. And all those posters that claimed that the "Bills made it clear that they would renegotiate a new deal if he came to camp..." were, in our view, wrong as rain. This article states what several others have already stated and what we few, we lucky few, we band of...., have been saying for weeks, that the team insists that he play this year under his existing contract. The team's decision to make him play under his existing contract had nothing to do with Peter's absence from camp, in fact, it is why he is absent from camp. The always right numerical majority, ie, the mob, has skipped past their original claim about how all he has to do to get a new deal is come to camp and moved on to another one: he will get a great deal next year if just comes in this year and plays well, making the pro bowl again. And he and his agent are moronic fools for not seeing that he will get the huge pay day he deserves, next year, if only, if only he would just come back now and start playing. Not to upset the mob or anything but the team has never committed to renegotiating his deal, ever, not this year and not next year either. There would be no more reason for the team to pay him next year than there is this year. He would still have 2 years under his existing contract so why wouldn't the team insist, again, that he continue playing at a salary way below his worth? And when that happens, the mob will just forget again what they are saying now and lambaste Peters and his agent for not waiting another year when surely the team will give him the big payday he deserves. Many have been very critical of the holdout though agreeing that he is in fact underpaid and does deserve an extension. None of them however have suggested what other strategy Peters should have used to try and get a new deal. At least not one that made any sense. Come to camp and you will get a new deal. That was the suggestion which has proved to be wrong. So now its come to camp and get a new deal next year. A claim just as unsupported as the first. As for the holdout strategy, my position has been all along that good or bad, its his only option and that giving it at try doesn't really hurt him. Its a free scratch off ticket. Odds aren't good but if its free, why not?

I'm feeling it too. Think of all the late round project guys we wasted time with hoping to find a diamond in the rough in the past. Remember the norwegian weight lifter? We finally get one and bam, holdout city. I just don't get it. We paid Schobel and Kelsay like sailors drunk on shore leave trying to secure the last two prostitutes left in port. Peters is the guy they decide to make an example of? We will know soon enough if this is going to end or be a season long issue.

But if he doesn't, don't the Bills end up with a choice between trading him or having a valuable asset go to waste? I don't know how he would manage to afford to stay home all season, with his income level he must have some pretty steep bills but if he went through with it and simply refused to come back, what then? It never happens so I don't see it happening here but I don't know, he is got to be getting pretty close to the date where he will lose a game check.

She should definitely get an extension, hold out or no.

Kelly, what do you see as the possibilities if it becomes clear that the stalemate will continue past opening day?

Very good point, Parker uses holdouts because, as maddening as they are, they work. In that context, rather than being an idiot for advising a holdout, he would be an idiot to advise against one. We have had confirmation from several sources now on a key point including this most recent article, that the team refuses to give him a new deal this year regardless of whether he reported on time or not. So there was never anything to negotiate given their starting positions. The next decision point is whatever date costs Peters a game check. If he is still at home on that date, we will know that neither side is bluffing. That would be a helluva thing.

Apart from the fines, what has the hold out cost him so far? The team doctors checked him out after the surgery here in Buffalo. I agree that they shouldn't rush him back but if they don't they end up paying him his regular game check while he is sitting on the bench. Doesn't hurt him much but it could cost us on the field.

What do you think is the hold up? They have had 8 months. I wonder if maybe Evans doesn't want an extension and prefers to hit the market. He was the very definition of a frustrated player last year. It was not exactly his best year so he may be bargaining from a position of weakness. It might be better for him to test the market in February-March of 2009.

Like I have said before, Peters isn't really losing much by giving the holdout a try. In response, many have argued that had he reported he would have indeed been given that new deal but that notion has been debunked many times. This article does so one more time for old times sake: "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." All he had to lose by giving it whirl was the fines and I doubt he ever pays them or if he does, it comes out of Parker's eventual fee. Galling? Probably but definitely not stupid.

I think the favored term is "peckerhead" at the moment. You have to judge them all on the end result. So far this hasn't really cost Peters much...providing that if nothing happens soon, he comes in soon enough so that he doesn't miss a game check. If he does come in, I don't think it costs him all that much. As for the team, they get him for one more year, but he won't be very effective for 2-3 weeks and yet they will have to pay him his salary. They also have to worry about the long term effect of a now disgruntled pro bowler. I imagine Parker will have to reduce the fee he takes when Peters does get a deal to cover the fines. So Parker loses some coin sooner or later, the team loses their best OT for 2-3 games and has a headache in the making for next year and Peters ends up with a much longer vacation and none the worse for the effort. He does have some fans calling him peckerhead though, so I guess he will have to somehow live with that. It would really be something if he holds out long enough to start missing game checks. I can't recall the last time I saw that with a veteran player as opposed to a rookie like Russell. I have no idea how that would end up.

He only referred to two guys out of what, 75? I get it was JP and Edwards, its their keesters that are going to get killed if Peters doesn't play or plays out of step due to the missed time. The article confirmed what a number of us have said all along, that his absence from camp isn't the issue, the team flatly refuses to give him a new deal this year and he flatly refuses to play without one: "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." If either of them are bluffing, the team or Peters, we will know soon enough as pretty soon he is going to start missing game paychecks. Until then, this holdout just doesn't really cost Peters anything and as we saw with Walker's near injury, you never know how the deck could be reshuffled. As for the 7 other agents, they are Parker's competitors and I bet they would love to see him get fired so they can take a run at a new client. Besides, they are agents for goodness sakes, if they told the truth to anyone besides their clients they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

Extensions are less of an issue with first and second round players as their initial contracts were sizeable. Peters played for, I think a total of 300-400k his first two years. That wouldn't pay Lee's dry cleaning bill but then again, he really, really likes clean clothes.

Peters? There is a problem with Peters?? Do tell.

What it is that the team has done besides telling him no new deal? It seems to me that they have done nothing and so I don't understand what you mean by saying they have done all they can unless you mean all they can do is nothing.

Walker was hurt, we should trade him. Hardy is hurt, we should cut him today. JP hurt his thumb so I guess we should have him pack his bags today too. We will have to say good bye to roscoe too. They are all damaged goods thus any money spent on them is "a waste".