See, these are the kind of lines I have a problem with. The fact that something makes your team better doesn't automatically make it the right move.
I present the case of one Clements, Nate. Are the Buffalo Bills a better football team with Nate Clements than they are without him? Of course they are. Even if someone somehow thought both McGee and Greer were better than Clements, he'd still make quite the nickel back. Obviously, given the choice of having Clements on your roster and not having Clements on your roster, you're taking the former.
Does that at all mean the Bills should have paid $80 million (I know the last year of that deal is only there to make the agent look good, but even so, its an enormous contract) to keep him aboard? No, it doesn't. He isn't the best defensive player in the league, and even though this team is better with him than it is without him, its still detrimental to this team to give him the money he was asking for.
Its the same thing with Peters. Is this team better with Peters than they are without him? Yes. Same with Clements.
Has Peters earned a contract that will make him one of the highest paid players in the National Football League? No, he hasn't. You don't get paid like that after one standout season. He's not worth that money (yet), just like Clements.
If Peters would get in here and work his tail off and duplicate the high level of play he was at last season, I'd be completely on board with you and bash team management if they still wouldn't give him the mega-bucks after a 2nd Pro Bowl. But he still has something to prove in this league before the Bills will give him one of the biggest contracts in the NFL.