nuklz2594 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I am probably old fashioned here, but once a contract is signed, aren't you supposed to honor/deal with it? Is it the agent or the player who makes the decision to hold out? I find it hard to believe that Peters woke up one morning and said screw the Bills, I want more money. I think the Bills should play hard ball with Peters. He had one outstanding season, if he repeats with another outstanding season, then renegotiate with him. I sort of remember Bruce Smith pulling this kind of stuff time and time again. I think Peters should show a little bit of appreciation toward the Bills for taking a chance on him. Suck it up and drive on Peters. Your thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 It's definitely a very ugly side of the game/business. When I see how greedy the players are and how greedy the owners are and how greedy the league is, I sometimes feel like it's my turn, as a fan, to hold out for a better deal. I wouldn't mind seeing more reasonable ticket prices, easier access to games on tv, less advertising… I think the millionaires sometimes forget who's really paying for it all. It's not like we as fans can ask for a refund when, for example, our team fails to make the playoffs for a decade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I am probably old fashioned here, but once a contract is signed, aren't you supposed to honor/deal with it? Is it the agent or the player who makes the decision to hold out? I find it hard to believe that Peters woke up one morning and said screw the Bills, I want more money. I think the Bills should play hard ball with Peters. He had one outstanding season, if he repeats with another outstanding season, then renegotiate with him. I sort of remember Bruce Smith pulling this kind of stuff time and time again. I think Peters should show a little bit of appreciation toward the Bills for taking a chance on him. Suck it up and drive on Peters. Your thoughts 99% of the time I agree with your philosophy ..... but .... In Peters case his original contract was for an undrafted TE. He was converted to RT and quickly became the only bright spot on our O-line. He arguably became our best lineman, so the Bills renegotiated his contract to pay him closer to RT wages .... keep in mind, they didn't give him "premier" RT monies .... paid him well for sure, but not top tier. Shortly thereafter they covert him to LT, and while I do agree he has little experiance at the position BUT, if memory serves me right, he did go to the pro-bowl as a LT (correct me if I'm wrong). I guess what I'm trying to get to is .......... who deserves to be our highest paid O-lineman??????? If reports are correct Peters is scheduled to make in the 3.5 million range this year, what exactly IS a pro bowl LT worth????? It's not like Peters negotiated an upper tier LT contract, and now a few years later his eyes get full of the $$$$$$ the league is paying draftees and demands to a renegotiation. All he wants is for the Bills to turn his RT contract into a LT contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I am probably old fashioned here, but once a contract is signed, aren't you supposed to honor/deal with it? Is it the agent or the player who makes the decision to hold out? I find it hard to believe that Peters woke up one morning and said screw the Bills, I want more money. I think the Bills should play hard ball with Peters. He had one outstanding season, if he repeats with another outstanding season, then renegotiate with him. I sort of remember Bruce Smith pulling this kind of stuff time and time again. I think Peters should show a little bit of appreciation toward the Bills for taking a chance on him. Suck it up and drive on Peters. Your thoughts In the same vein of thought, one should say then that the owners should hold up their end of the deal and not cut players whenever they wish. The player has no guarantee they'll be on the squad tomorrow, so i dont really fault them for making the max buck today. A way to fix this would be to go the route of baseball/hockey and institute fully guaranteed contracts, where if you cut a player he's still on the books for the length of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I am probably old fashioned here, but once a contract is signed, aren't you supposed to honor/deal with it? Is it the agent or the player who makes the decision to hold out? I find it hard to believe that Peters woke up one morning and said screw the Bills, I want more money. I think the Bills should play hard ball with Peters. He had one outstanding season, if he repeats with another outstanding season, then renegotiate with him. I sort of remember Bruce Smith pulling this kind of stuff time and time again. I think Peters should show a little bit of appreciation toward the Bills for taking a chance on him. Suck it up and drive on Peters. Your thoughts My sense is that your comments are old fashioned in that they speak back to a day when a player upheld his agreement because he did not have the power to stand up to an owner even if the owner was screwing him. Now that the players are not only partners with the owners but arguably under the new CBA which guarantees 60.1% of the total gross revenues to the players they are the majority partner. The old system had its failings in my view because even though it had the benefit of players acting with greater moral responsibility, in general the golden rule which the owners operated under was that he who has the gold rules. An observer is simply fooling themselves if they want to pretend that in the good old days both the players and the owners operated by a higher moral code. The attitude was more than embodied in a Ditka quote about George Halas that he used to throw nickels around like they were manhole covers. The disappointing thing about Peters not honoring his contract is because given a little leverage the players are now acting as money grubbing as the owners always did when they mandated a rule that allows them to simply walk out on an agreement when they want to. Peters comes off as money grubbing to me on this one, but that basically strikes me as little different than how Ralph and the owners operated for years because they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts