I have gotten over the 'which team got the better end of the deal' thought process. A relevant discussion is that - did the Bills make the right choice given the options they had. The situation was that Peters played 'unhappily' last year and would likely do the same without a new contract. So if they wanted him to play well in 2009, they would have to pony up a lot of money. So, the ultimate decision was - do we spend over $11M per year for one player (who may likely become unhappy again in 2 years) or to get the best deal we can get for him. Doing the latter would allow allocation of those funds to more players and possibly build up an OL of personnel who may not blossom in 2009 (i.e. if a rookie) but set ourselves up for a good run after 2010.
Given the situation as I understand it, the Bills made the right call. I would have preferred that Peters stay a Bill but not for the money he required or the drama/distraction that came with him.