Player Contracts: They can't have it both ways.

[billsfreak]

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.

 

You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.

 

When does the bubble burst?

I don't like it either, but of all the sports, if any players has the right to hold out it is in the NFL. All other major sports, the contracts are guaranteed, in the NFL, a team can sign you for 6 years and cut you after one year and don't owe you anything from the remainder of the contract. I guess what I am saying is that players should honor their contracts, but so should the teams. The NFL has one of the weakest player unions in all the major sports, otherwise it would be like all other sports and the contracts would be guaranteed.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Chris Johnson is playing under his rookie contract which he has vastly outperformed. This makes Johnson woefully underpaid.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...or-his-holdout/

 

Marshall Faulk and Eddie George, two of the all-time greats are recommending to Johnson that he hold out. Basically, our discussion in a nutshell.

 

Remember I'm only an advocate of holding out as a last result.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?showtopic=113474

 

As I posted here last week, I believe a player should report to the team and work out in good faith while attempting to renegotiate. In my view, holding out is a last resort.

[billsfreak]

Contracts will be "fair", and operate like "real contracts" when/if the NFL teams have to operate like other businesses. That is,

 

1. a.No draft. Players are free to negotiate with any team they like.

 

b. Also, no salary cap, no minimum or maximum salary rules (other than the minimum wage laws).

 

c. Players could be signed directly from High School, or junior high, or jail. Can't Dell hire anyone over the legal age to work? Well, why can't the Bills?

 

2. If player X signs a 3-year contract you have to pay him for those 3 years. You can cut him, but you still have to pay him. (Of course there are some situations that would void the contract, but you couldn't simply cut him because his play isn't as good as it was previously.)

 

3. At the end of the contract a player is free to negotiate with any team. Just like you can go to any job after your contract with one company expires. There could be a non-compete clause, I suppose, that could keep you out of the division or conference. But that would be part of the initial negotiation.

 

In other words, the NFL will never have "fair" or "real" contracts. And if they did, it would likely mean the end of the NFL in Buffalo and many other cities. The contract rules you see today are totally biased toward the owners, and many of the rules that are in place (salary cap, restricted free agency, etc) were put there by the owners to protect themselves from themselves.

 

Do NFL players make too much money? Probably. Do the owners make too much money? You be the judge. But don't cry for the NFL owners, or blame the players for the current system. If an owner doesn't like the contract he just cuts the player. What is the player to do if HE doesn't like the contract? The only option he has is to sit out, and you want to take that away too?

I like your entire post with one exception, the no draft part. Small market teams (like Buffalo) would stand no chance of winning. The NFL would turn into the way baseball was forever, where the Yankees got all the good players, because there was no draft. Also, if you did away with all the other things listed, it would also do away with any type of revenue sharing and that would bury the small market teams. Good post, but my thoughts on it.

[KD in CA]

There are thousands of companies that produce one unique product and/or very limited products, just like the NFL.

 

And how many of those companies require skills of its employees that are not in any way transferable to another company?

 

The NFL doesn't make widgets.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Contracts will be "fair", and operate like "real contracts" when/if the NFL teams have to operate like other businesses. That is,

 

1. a.No draft. Players are free to negotiate with any team they like.

 

b. Also, no salary cap, no minimum or maximum salary rules (other than the minimum wage laws).

 

c. Players could be signed directly from High School, or junior high, or jail. Can't Dell hire anyone over the legal age to work? Well, why can't the Bills?

 

2. If player X signs a 3-year contract you have to pay him for those 3 years. You can cut him, but you still have to pay him. (Of course there are some situations that would void the contract, but you couldn't simply cut him because his play isn't as good as it was previously.)

 

3. At the end of the contract a player is free to negotiate with any team. Just like you can go to any job after your contract with one company expires. There could be a non-compete clause, I suppose, that could keep you out of the division or conference. But that would be part of the initial negotiation.

 

In other words, the NFL will never have "fair" or "real" contracts. And if they did, it would likely mean the end of the NFL in Buffalo and many other cities. The contract rules you see today are totally biased toward the owners, and many of the rules that are in place (salary cap, restricted free agency, etc) were put there by the owners to protect themselves from themselves.

 

Do NFL players make too much money? Probably. Do the owners make too much money? You be the judge. But don't cry for the NFL owners, or blame the players for the current system. If an owner doesn't like the contract he just cuts the player. What is the player to do if HE doesn't like the contract? The only option he has is to sit out, and you want to take that away too?

 

deano-i read your posts and generally find your thoughts enlightening. oddly, too, i enjoy your avatar.

 

 

i think your thoughts here are laid out nicely, but i disagree with your basic premise that NFL contracts don't conform to some sort of regularly accepted standard.

 

i'm not an attorney, but i don't have to go much farther than to the end of my own desk to find a contract written on an at-will basis. i have a contract with a corporation that allows the company to terminate my relationship with 30 days notice. to paint the proper picture, i have 12 years invested with this organization, substantial sums of money invested in my business, employ between 4-6 people depending on the year, and count on my own common sense to provide for both my family and my golden years. of course, my own experience colors my view of the world, but i see this issue as much more complex than rich owner/unfair contract situation.

 

as i mentioned in my previous post, i understand the equity issue as it relates to the players. i'd be quite devastated if the company i worked with went in a different direction and left me holding the bag. emotionally, i get it. legally, i understand the terms of the relationship. and, i understand that i ahev to feed my family, too.

 

 

i'm of the mind that the deal the union has cut with ownership is legal and binding, thus to suggest inequity as to the structure of the deal belies the fact that two parties came together to structure the deal in the first place. no contract is perfect, i'd think, but it seems to me a player doesn't get "guaranteed" money if the trade off is a player gets a 3 year, no-cut clause without recognizing that the "true" value of the player really is set by the amount of guarantee he commands in any given year under the current arrangement.

 

Put another way, if player X gets a $13m guaranteed bonus, and a a $4mill annual contract under the current structure, it occurs to me the team is comfortable risking $17m or thereabouts. I'd think the downside in looking past one year with guaranteed cash in pocket is the risk of injury, player motivation, and so on. Certainly they hope for more, but who knows?

 

so, it's a deal with the devil any way you cut it. players have one perspective, agents another, ownership a third, and the union has a fourth. it's imperfect, and clearly that seems to be coming to a head.

 

by the way---i never suggested crying for the owners, never even came close to it. quite honestly, i don't cry for the players, either. if you want to talk emotion---virtually every one of these guys is living the dream of men everywhere to be among a group of elite athletes with an opportunity to play in the greatest league in the world (just my humble opinion). some get paid handsomely for their time on the field, and know the risks they face. i respect the elvel of commitment and athleticism it took to them to get there. i don't begrudge them earning millions of dollars, nor do i fault an owner for their success. here's some other things i don't do----

 

i don't refer to owners as cheap p'o's.*

i don't refer to players as lazy p'o's or tubs of goo or garbage.**

 

*i admit to badrapping ralph wilson for his inability to deliver a winning team to our fair city, but see it less of an issue as to how much he spends, more of how he spends it.

 

**i admit to badrapping jason peter's for ignoring his obligation to his team and the fans, and to badrapping vince wilfork for the shot he took at losman which i felt was designed to injure.

 

i do, however, feel badly for a guy like, say Takeo Spikes or Eric Wood or Sam Cowhart when they bust their ass on the field and end up with a major injury.

 

this was cathartic. thanks.

[agardin]

The life of an NFL contract is not guaranteed but the signing bonus is in effect the guaranteed part of the contract. The other pro sports mentioned that have guaranteed contracts do not have the level of signing bonuses attached that an NFL contract would have.

 

The system is broken for both sides. Shorter term rookie contracts on a slotted system would help, Chris Johnson should not be making 500K and Jamarcus Russel should not have been making the kind of money he did over the last couple of years of his contract. I understand a guy like Chris Johnson holding out because he ( I believe) is still working off of his rookie contract. Andre Johnson signed a new deal with guaranteed money attached and he took it. If he blew out his knee in year one of his contract he would still get the signing bonus of his contract paid. ( as a side note, players that get hurt in OTAs and camp seem to get paid their annual contracts should they be injured as it seems to be a major concern for teams with players that are on the bubble.)

 

Andre Johnson is an awesome receiver and one that I don't think Houston would trade one for one for any other receiver in the league. He signed that deal and now he has to live with it. It is a specious arguement to say that the NFL contracts aren't guaranteed and that a player should hold out when a large element of their contracts that is in fact guaranteed.

 

If you would like another example of how this works both ways see---Jake Delhomme

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

There is no doubt that the rookie salary structure has to be changed. Teams are fighting to move down instead of up on the draft board because of the necessity to pay for mega-contracts for the top picks. A primary motivation for the owners opting out of the CBA is the onerous amount of money for top picks who haven't proven that they can play in the league. I'm confident that will change with the next CBA. There are many players who are union members who believe that the rookie salary structure is out of balance with respect to how much veteran players make. This isn't an issue where both sides totally disagree. In my view this is one of the central issues that can be worked out with good faith negotiations.

 

Your position on Ralph Wilson is off-base. He is not putting up any of his money. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are using a good chunk of their cash flow to pay off stadium bonds. Ralph is not. The stadium the owner is playing in was payed for him and the rent is very low. One of the reasons the newer and more entrepreneurial owners want to reopen the CBA is they resent owners like Ralph Wilson who are subsidized by the wealthier teams and pocket a good chunk of that money instead of investing in their team as it was intended.

 

You made the point that the players are not the game. That is where I disagree with you. They are central to the game as are the owners. It is a partnership that has worked well for all sides. If Andre Johnson can negotiate a $30 millilon contract that is because the owners can afford to pay it. The owners are paying a set percentage to the players. If the revenues go up then the salaries of the players correspondingly go up. If revenues shrink then salaries will also come down.

 

As it stands I'm not aware of any owner is losing money. If there needs to be adjustments to the salary structure then it will be negotiated like any other industry.

 

jerry jones, dan snyder and ralph wilson are in different positions, though, no? if you're going to ding ralph for this issue, then go the whole way. it probably made more financial sense somewhere along the line for ralph to move the franchise, get what he can, and be done with it. and, to the point below, the game IS about the dallas cowboys organization, the washington redskins organization, and the buffalo bills organization (or the next city it lands in).

 

let me clarify my point on the players not making the game. i'm ok with andre johnson earning $30 mill. absolutely, 100%, good for him, spend it wisely, be smart and create intergenerational welath for you and your family. all i meant was....when andre johnson is done, someone else plays his spot. they scrape his name of the locker and get the next receiver in there. andre johnson is not the nfl, but i do concur the ability for a player to generate hype is a big part of it.

 

and yes----make changes to the structure, fine.

[Got_Wood]

Chris Johnson is playing under his rookie contract which he has vastly outperformed. This makes Johnson woefully underpaid.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...or-his-holdout/

 

Marshall Faulk and Eddie George, two of the all-time greats are recommending to Johnson that he hold out. Basically, our discussion in a nutshell.

 

Remember I'm only an advocate of holding out as a last result.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?showtopic=113474

 

As I posted here last week, I believe a player should report to the team and work out in good faith while attempting to renegotiate. In my view, holding out is a last resort.

 

Thank you for further reinforcing my theory that contracts should be incentive based. If a player wants more money during the course of their contract, then they need to sign something that gives them more money if they perform at a certain level (ie: probowl, +1,000 yards rushing, 10+ TDs, etc etc).

 

But once again, players don't want to sign these contracts because they're afraid they won't perform or might get injured. And my argument is, well it's a dangerous league and you're getting paid the big bucks to take these risks.

[Gabe Northern]

Chris Johnson is playing under his rookie contract which he has vastly outperformed. This makes Johnson woefully underpaid.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...or-his-holdout/

 

Marshall Faulk and Eddie George, two of the all-time greats are recommending to Johnson that he hold out. Basically, our discussion in a nutshell.

 

Remember I'm only an advocate of holding out as a last result.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?showtopic=113474

 

As I posted here last week, I believe a player should report to the team and work out in good faith while attempting to renegotiate. In my view, holding out is a last resort.

 

This is perfect example. WAY overplayed his contract. Should Tennessee fans now hate him for this? Hope he leaves and criticize him whenever he runs for no gain?

[Got_Wood]

The life of an NFL contract is not guaranteed but the signing bonus is in effect the guaranteed part of the contract. The other pro sports mentioned that have guaranteed contracts do not have the level of signing bonuses attached that an NFL contract would have.

 

The system is broken for both sides. Shorter term rookie contracts on a slotted system would help, Chris Johnson should not be making 500K and Jamarcus Russel should not have been making the kind of money he did over the last couple of years of his contract. I understand a guy like Chris Johnson holding out because he ( I believe) is still working off of his rookie contract. Andre Johnson signed a new deal with guaranteed money attached and he took it. If he blew out his knee in year one of his contract he would still get the signing bonus of his contract paid. ( as a side note, players that get hurt in OTAs and camp seem to get paid their annual contracts should they be injured as it seems to be a major concern for teams with players that are on the bubble.)

 

Andre Johnson is an awesome receiver and one that I don't think Houston would trade one for one for any other receiver in the league. He signed that deal and now he has to live with it. It is a specious arguement to say that the NFL contracts aren't guaranteed and that a player should hold out when a large element of their contracts that is in fact guaranteed.

 

If you would like another example of how this works both ways see---Jake Delhomme

 

Thank you! You're right on the money

[K Gun Special]

Thank you for further reinforcing my theory that contracts should be incentive based. If a player wants more money during the course of their contract, then they need to sign something that gives them more money if they perform at a certain level (ie: probowl, +1,000 yards rushing, 10+ TDs, etc etc).

 

But once again, players don't want to sign these contracts because they're afraid they won't perform or might get injured. And my argument is, well it's a dangerous league and you're getting paid the big bucks to take these risks.

 

 

Incentives contracts are limited in the NFL as well as NHL, they go against the basic premise of team play.... you think players complain now about not getting the ball? what about a player who reaches an incentive goal near the end of the season but gets taken out so he doesnt score the TD or make the tackle......thats why players wont agree. I know in NHL you can do those contracts for certain types of older players only.

[Gabe Northern]

Thank you for further reinforcing my theory that contracts should be incentive based. If a player wants more money during the course of their contract, then they need to sign something that gives them more money if they perform at a certain level (ie: probowl, +1,000 yards rushing, 10+ TDs, etc etc).

 

But once again, players don't want to sign these contracts because they're afraid they won't perform or might get injured. And my argument is, well it's a dangerous league and you're getting paid the big bucks to take these risks.

 

 

Incentive-based contracts don't make much sense given that it's a team game. What if, say, the team decides to trade an All Pro Left tackle and insert new players at every position on the O-line? If you were negotiating on behalf of the player you'd want protections against all of that. It would make the contract virtually unworkable because you'd be demanding veto power over major personnel decisions. The current system actually works better.

 

For whatever reason, the issue you don't wan to appreciate is that there is 2 way optionality here...the owners can renege on the contract MORE EASILY than the player. Contracts in the NFL are largely fictitious. There is a guarantee that generally is equal to the average annual payout over the first two to three years and even that generally only covers injury. (I.e. poor performance after injury can result in termination). Even signing bonuses can be recouped based on technical default triggers.

 

If the contract is fictional from the perspective of the team, why is it sacrosanct for the player?

[Adam]

What they need to do is drop the veteran minimum a lot lower- it has really hurt the league by pushing the more experienced players out of the league. They also need to develop a rookie pay scale.

 

I always hated incentive based contracts, because those are based on things that don't usually translate into wins.

[SuperKillerRobots]

Contracts will be "fair", and operate like "real contracts" when/if the NFL teams have to operate like other businesses. That is,

 

1. a.No draft. Players are free to negotiate with any team they like.

 

b. Also, no salary cap, no minimum or maximum salary rules (other than the minimum wage laws).

 

c. Players could be signed directly from High School, or junior high, or jail. Can't Dell hire anyone over the legal age to work? Well, why can't the Bills?

 

2. If player X signs a 3-year contract you have to pay him for those 3 years. You can cut him, but you still have to pay him. (Of course there are some situations that would void the contract, but you couldn't simply cut him because his play isn't as good as it was previously.)

 

3. At the end of the contract a player is free to negotiate with any team. Just like you can go to any job after your contract with one company expires. There could be a non-compete clause, I suppose, that could keep you out of the division or conference. But that would be part of the initial negotiation.

 

In other words, the NFL will never have "fair" or "real" contracts. And if they did, it would likely mean the end of the NFL in Buffalo and many other cities. The contract rules you see today are totally biased toward the owners, and many of the rules that are in place (salary cap, restricted free agency, etc) were put there by the owners to protect themselves from themselves.

 

Do NFL players make too much money? Probably. Do the owners make too much money? You be the judge. But don't cry for the NFL owners, or blame the players for the current system. If an owner doesn't like the contract he just cuts the player. What is the player to do if HE doesn't like the contract? The only option he has is to sit out, and you want to take that away too?

 

I don't think you're first point has anything to do with players holding out at all. In fact I don't think the hiring rules are that stringent. They can hire pretty much any !@#$ off the street they want to, as long as their rights aren't owned by another team. For example, we could sign any player in the CFL to a contract right away without having to draft him. Just because they have a pre-disposed talent-dispersement program doesn't make them completely different than any other company; they still select from the talent pool. Maybe I'm missing something on this and if so, pelase fill me in.

 

I also don't think that having a system where players were basically FAs after 3 or 4 years as opposed to having no restrictions does anything to players holding out with the exception of not wanting to play for a particular organization.

 

I do think that your second point is valid. That will be the only way to stop players from holding out.

 

Also, I would agree that the owners did setup the rules to favor them, but without the expectations that costs would increase so rapidly. They made a huge error when thinking that they could (or would not have to) control costs at some point.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Thank you for further reinforcing my theory that contracts should be incentive based. If a player wants more money during the course of their contract, then they need to sign something that gives them more money if they perform at a certain level (ie: probowl, +1,000 yards rushing, 10+ TDs, etc etc).

 

But once again, players don't want to sign these contracts because they're afraid they won't perform or might get injured. And my argument is, well it's a dangerous league and you're getting paid the big bucks to take these risks.

We're getting close to a point where this discussion gets quite complex and spills into other issues, political and legal.

 

But anyways, I don't believe that performance/incentive based contracts are necessarily the answer.

 

1) How do you measure performance? I'm not convinced that there is a way to fairly and accurately evaluate players to determine their compensation. Witness the debates on this board about the validity of stats and the debates about which players were worthy of the Pro Bowl, etc.

 

2) The injury risk factor, to which your answer is basically, "tough luck." Some in this discussion are contemplating what the perfect CBA should look like. Others are taking the view that "it is what it is." Again, it's much easier for an NFL player to have the plug pulled on his career for reasons beyond his control. From my view, players need a reasonable amount of protection from catastrophic injury AND they also need a way of correcting compensation inequities when they arise (as teams can do by cutting a player or forcing them to take less money). I understand that others disagree with this and that's alright.

 

3) As K-Gun pointed out, incentive-based contracts run counter to the spirit of team play. Consider this, Got_Wood. If every contract was incentive-based, what does that do to the dynamic between all the running backs and receivers on a team? What happens is that they are all competing for touches. Bad idea.

 

This concern for statistics is partly what is happening with Albert Haynesworth (who I was opposed to the Bills pursuing when he was a free agent). Haynesworth has already gotten his money…an obscene amount.

 

But he wants to play in a defense where he is getting tackles and sacks…not tying up blockers. Why is that if he's already gotten his money?

 

It's obvious to me that he's worried about his stats. Yes, he signed a 7 year $100 million dollar contract but because of a poison pill in the 5th year, the contract is really a 4 year, $48 million contract. So Albert is focusing on the contract AFTER this current one. And he thinks he won't get premium money without getting sacks and tackles.

 

This is the problem with incentive-based contracts. They divide a team and motivate players to seek individual goals instead of team goals.

[Got_Wood]

Incentive-based contracts don't make much sense given that it's a team game. What if, say, the team decides to trade an All Pro Left tackle and insert new players at every position on the O-line? If you were negotiating on behalf of the player you'd want protections against all of that. It would make the contract virtually unworkable because you'd be demanding veto power over major personnel decisions. The current system actually works better.

 

For whatever reason, the issue you don't wan to appreciate is that there is 2 way optionality here...the owners can renege on the contract MORE EASILY than the player. Contracts in the NFL are largely fictitious. There is a guarantee that generally is equal to the average annual payout over the first two to three years and even that generally only covers injury. (I.e. poor performance after injury can result in termination). Even signing bonuses can be recouped based on technical default triggers.

 

If the contract is fictional from the perspective of the team, why is it sacrosanct for the player?

 

There are always going to be loopholes. I would argue, why would a team pull a player out of a game that gives them the best chance to win?? The Titans aren't going to pull Chris Johnson out of a game because of incentive clauses if he's going to score a touchdown that gives them the lead in a game.

 

At the same time, players DON'T want guaranteed contracts. Why do I say this? Because they'll STILL hold out for more money if they feel they're underpaid halfway through their contracts.

 

There is no perfect situation, but this is getting ridiculous.

[PDaDdy]

No. He signed a deal, got guaranteed money, tough ****. if he doesn't like it, sit out and don't get paid and LOSE money from being fined.

 

I am with the owners, the salaries are out of hand. If NFL players dont' like it then go do something else.

 

 

Screw the class hatred. Players get rooked by a double standard. If you really want to make it fair let the NFL run itself like every other business in the good old US of A. If a competitor will pay me 4 times my current salary to do the same job somewhere else and with the recognition and respect that goes along with it "The Flash" couldn't beat me out the door!!!!

 

Some people are chumps and will bust their ass for years and get paid peanuts while their employer reaps the benefits of their low cost high yield work. IDIOTS. I don't advocate holding out for more than you are worth, but getting paid what you are worth is the American way. It's capitalism baby! Love it or leave it!

[PDaDdy]

As has been written already, the fact that owners can renege on their end of the "long-term contracts" by cutting the player means there is a moral equivalence here. There aren't holdouts in basketball and baseball because their contracts are guaranteed.

 

The whole issue is whether the player is worth more than the remaining guaranteed money on the contract. When he is, he often decides to hold out.

 

I feel like 95% of the animosity towards Peters on this board was based on moralizing about the supposed sanctity of the crappy, below-market contract he signed.

 

Absolutely 100% correct. All the heat is from sniveling whiners that, although repeatedly reminded, can't remember the NFL is a BUSINESS FIRST!!!! I am not a baseball fan but I am a NBA fan. Funny I don't know a darn thing about contracts and hold outs in those sports. Now I know why. Contracts are actually guaranteed. Hrmmmm...let me turn the brain on here.....why doesn't the NFL operate under the same model? Because the owners are greedy bastards that want it both ways. Contracts are guaranteed when a player wants to get the money he deserves for being great but when an owner wants to dump them contracts aren't even worth the paper they are written on.

 

Complete BS double standard.

[Got_Wood]

Consider this, Got_Wood. If every contract was incentive-based, what does that do to the dynamic between all the running backs and receivers on a team? What happens is that they are all competing for touches. Bad idea.

 

I think you should re-read your post. My god, will players have to actually "compete" to make their money? That is what incentive is all about... to force a player to maximize his play on the field in order to earn more money.

 

Take a look at the definition of Incentive: "Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates effort."

 

I like the sound of that.

 

SO, you give a player a guaranteed sum of money and a bonus to satisfy the guaranteed piece of the contract. AND, place incentives in the contract to allow players to earn more money. Win - Win.

[PDaDdy]

I could not agree more and I think this is perhaps the greatest reason why Peters was traded. If a team capitulates by literally being held hostage by the player, the message sent to the locker room is not a healthy one.

 

How does that message compare to the message the Bills have repeatedly sent the last 10 years? We are cheap. We won't pay top dollar for top talent but we will over pay for mediocre to above average talent. Do you think that players and agents are NOT getting that message. Do you think that good players who want to win a super bowl want to go to a cold weather town that refuses to pay the most talented players that have come through the organization? I think they get THAT message loud and clear.