General "holdout" question

[macaroni]

All of this holdout talk has got me wondering ......

 

Wouldn't the player have more "leverage" if he shows up at all the OTAs, and has perfect attendance at all of the mandatory workouts, mini camps, and training camp (all the while telling the front office how he wants a new contract of course). Then a week before the opening game declare that he was at an impass and was sitting out until he gets a new contract.

 

It seems to me by boycotting OTAs and work outs etc just gives the team time to come up with a plan "B" to get a player in my spot.

 

Can anybody with more knowledge than I enlighten me why we play this dance before training camp????

[stuckincincy]

All of this holdout talk has got me wondering ......

 

Wouldn't the player have more "leverage" if he shows up at all the OTAs, and has perfect attendance at all of the mandatory workouts, mini camps, and training camp (all the while telling the front office how he wants a new contract of course). Then a week before the opening game declare that he was at an impass and was sitting out until he gets a new contract.

 

It seems to me by boycotting OTAs and work outs etc just gives the team time to come up with a plan "B" to get a player in my spot.

 

Can anybody with more knowledge than I enlighten me why we play this dance before training camp????

 

Excellent point. As you imply, it's the opportunity for the future "holdoutee" to demonstrate just how valuable he is.

[obie_wan]

All of this holdout talk has got me wondering ......

 

Wouldn't the player have more "leverage" if he shows up at all the OTAs, and has perfect attendance at all of the mandatory workouts, mini camps, and training camp (all the while telling the front office how he wants a new contract of course). Then a week before the opening game declare that he was at an impass and was sitting out until he gets a new contract.

 

It seems to me by boycotting OTAs and work outs etc just gives the team time to come up with a plan "B" to get a player in my spot.

 

Can anybody with more knowledge than I enlighten me why we play this dance before training camp????

 

in this case, Peters' agent has determined that the Bills are delusional in their assessment of the alternatives at LT. To the Bills, it seems Peters is not much better than Matt Murphy and Kirk Chambers, so big money raise is not in order. By holding out now, the Bills will get a longer time to see how the error of their ways

[Pyrite Gal]

All of this holdout talk has got me wondering ......

 

Wouldn't the player have more "leverage" if he shows up at all the OTAs, and has perfect attendance at all of the mandatory workouts, mini camps, and training camp (all the while telling the front office how he wants a new contract of course). Then a week before the opening game declare that he was at an impass and was sitting out until he gets a new contract.

 

It seems to me by boycotting OTAs and work outs etc just gives the team time to come up with a plan "B" to get a player in my spot.

 

Can anybody with more knowledge than I enlighten me why we play this dance before training camp????

However, in the end, neither the holdout nor the team really can "win" this dispute if the other party in the negotiation feels he has "lost."

 

The final deal is afterall an "agreement".

 

Both parties need to end up satisfied with the outcome or at best it is an agreement in name only with neither party happy with the outcome.

 

Peters has clearly demonstrated he is not happy with an outcome which results in him being paid less than the market rate for a Pro Bowl achieving LT. This means he is rejecting a number of societal norms

 

(specifically violating the contract he agreed to in order to have the Bill negotiate with him more like what a free market would give him).

 

However, in American society the norm of the day has become to take care of the individual first and the societal norms of teamwork and team spirit have been consigned to a poor second by not only the society that produces a Windows ME, MY Space, and is a demand based economy but also by NFL ownership which for years operated on the Golden Rule (he who has the gold rules).

 

The contract which Peters agreed to actually gave away his leverage to demand his contract be set in a free market. He is trying to not simply create leverage but to force a free market adjustment of his contract. The old contract does not allow his pay to be set by a free market for three years and now he is trying to end that contract to create a free market.

 

He is not giving up any leverage given to him the contract because the contract is what takes away his leverage.

 

While it is a theory that the Bills would see his displeasure as a large enough impetus to give him a more market based payement, the fact simply is that they have not reached agreement to give him a new contract.

 

He seems to give up little leverage through his acts as the current situation has not produced a new contract for him as he has no leverage to get one under his current contract.

[macaroni]

in this case, Peters' agent has determined that the Bills are delusional in their assessment of the alternatives at LT. To the Bills, it seems Peters is not much better than Matt Murphy and Kirk Chambers, so big money raise is not in order. By holding out now, the Bills will get a longer time to see how the error of their ways

 

But it's not just this case ....... it seems to happen more times than not.

 

Maybe it has to do with how much money a team can fine or dock a players salary for missing a workout/training camp verses missing a game.

 

 

anybody know the rules????????

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

in this case, Peters' agent has determined that the Bills are delusional in their assessment of the alternatives at LT. To the Bills, it seems Peters is not much better than Matt Murphy and Kirk Chambers, so big money raise is not in order. By holding out now, the Bills will get a longer time to see how the error of their ways

 

 

it's all business, so it just is what it is. i read somewhere yesterday, via link from 2BD I believe, that the maximum a player can be fined for holding out of the madatory workout is $8000. Given that JP, even underpaid at $3.3 mil, makes roughly $9000 a day based on a 365 day year (and porbably double that figuring the actual workload is half that), tactically it's smart play form his perspective. he doesn't hold all the cards, he doesn't have morality on his side, he's just got the market and the system he plays in on his side. So, to him, he skips the workout, makes his point, and it's like deciding to take a non-paid day off to hang out at the lake for a long weekend.

 

i also understand the fine goes to $14000 later on in the year. That'd be like taking Thursday and Friday off to hang out at said lake..and you'd have to be plum crazy to do that.

[macaroni]

However, in the end, neither the holdout nor the team really can "win" this dispute if the other party in the negotiation feels he has "lost."

 

The final deal is afterall an "agreement".

 

Both parties need to end up satisfied with the outcome or at best it is an agreement in name only with neither party happy with the outcome.

 

Peters has clearly demonstrated he is not happy with an outcome which results in him being paid less than the market rate for a Pro Bowl achieving LT. This means he is rejecting a number of societal norms

 

(specifically violating the contract he agreed to in order to have the Bill negotiate with him more like what a free market would give him).

 

However, in American society the norm of the day has become to take care of the individual first and the societal norms of teamwork and team spirit have been consigned to a poor second by not only the society that produces a Windows ME, MY Space, and is a demand based economy but also by NFL ownership which for years operated on the Golden Rule (he who has the gold rules).

 

The contract which Peters agreed to actually gave away his leverage to demand his contract be set in a free market. He is trying to not simply create leverage but to force a free market adjustment of his contract. The old contract does not allow his pay to be set by a free market for three years and now he is trying to end that contract to create a free market.

 

He is not giving up any leverage given to him the contract because the contract is what takes away his leverage.

 

While it is a theory that the Bills would see his displeasure as a large enough impetus to give him a more market based payement, the fact simply is that they have not reached agreement to give him a new contract.

 

He seems to give up little leverage through his acts as the current situation has not produced a new contract for him as he has no leverage to get one under his current contract.

 

 

Huh???

 

All I want to know is

 

does sitting out a few OTAs put the fear in the heart of a team ........... or does the implied threat to sit out a game when the team hasn't had literally months to groom a replacement "plan "B" player to take my spot make them pee their pants more.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

However, in the end, neither the holdout nor the team really can "win" this dispute if the other party in the negotiation feels he has "lost."

 

The final deal is afterall an "agreement".

 

Both parties need to end up satisfied with the outcome or at best it is an agreement in name only with neither party happy with the outcome.

 

Peters has clearly demonstrated he is not happy with an outcome which results in him being paid less than the market rate for a Pro Bowl achieving LT. This means he is rejecting a number of societal norms

 

(specifically violating the contract he agreed to in order to have the Bill negotiate with him more like what a free market would give him).

 

However, in American society the norm of the day has become to take care of the individual first and the societal norms of teamwork and team spirit have been consigned to a poor second by not only the society that produces a Windows ME, MY Space, and is a demand based economy but also by NFL ownership which for years operated on the Golden Rule (he who has the gold rules).

 

The contract which Peters agreed to actually gave away his leverage to demand his contract be set in a free market. He is trying to not simply create leverage but to force a free market adjustment of his contract. The old contract does not allow his pay to be set by a free market for three years and now he is trying to end that contract to create a free market.

 

He is not giving up any leverage given to him the contract because the contract is what takes away his leverage.

 

While it is a theory that the Bills would see his displeasure as a large enough impetus to give him a more market based payement, the fact simply is that they have not reached agreement to give him a new contract.

 

He seems to give up little leverage through his acts as the current situation has not produced a new contract for him as he has no leverage to get one under his current contract.

 

 

or, put another way...

 

player wants to sign. player signs a good contract for the day. now today is tomorrow, and yesterday's good contract doesn't look so good because today, yesterday seems like a long time ago. and, since you still have yesterday's money coming in anyways, though admittedly not as good as today's money, you figure it's still GOOD money you have BUT you're getting the short end of the stick because somebody else, somebody everyone says plays a position that's less valuable than yours, well, you can't go and let yourself get screwed, right? so, you got yesterday's money, you want today's money, and probably know that tomorrow's money is really going to be where you want to be.

 

 

when i do get pissed off about all this, understanding it's all business that has little to do with what i think, i say aloud to myself and so others around me can hear----how about you get your team to the playoff's before you renegotiate a contract that has more life expectancy remaining on it than the average lief span of an nfl player?

[apuszczalowski]

But it's not just this case ....... it seems to happen more times than not.

 

Maybe it has to do with how much money a team can fine or dock a players salary for missing a workout/training camp verses missing a game.

 

 

anybody know the rules????????

Obie is just on a crusade because, like Bill, they don't like that the Bills draft anyone that is not a linemen because you have to have a Pro Bowler (or future Pro Bowler) at every spot on the line to win in th NFL. He's mad that the Bills didn't take a LT in the 1st to back up Peters in case he goes down, cause the backups should be starting caliber too.

[Pyrite Gal]

Huh???

 

All I want to know is

 

does sitting out a few OTAs put the fear in the heart of a team ........... or does the implied threat to sit out a game when the team hasn't had literally months to groom a replacement "plan "B" player to take my spot make them pee their pants more.

The amount of money involved in any fine are such mere chump change as to not make anyone have any bowel disturbances whatsoever.

 

What can cause heartburn though and put the fear in the opposing partner is the demonstration by the player that he is serious enough about this problem to put himself in a fineable situation.

 

The Bills will not groom some player to be a plan B in any reasonable timeline (if LTs were easy to find why did we go for virtually a decade with no one really taking ownership of the LT slot?).

 

The only fear either side can bring to bear is a seeming willingness to go a long a path of mutually assured destruction with the player mortgaging his career and the team mortgaging its record in the next year by essentially playing without adequate LT work.

 

The leverage is not found in the action but in who blinks first. Peters has simply announced that the game is on.

[obie_wan]

Obie is just on a crusade because, like Bill, they don't like that the Bills draft anyone that is not a linemen because you have to have a Pro Bowler (or future Pro Bowler) at every spot on the line to win in th NFL. He's mad that the Bills didn't take a LT in the 1st to back up Peters in case he goes down, cause the backups should be starting caliber too.

 

it does not have to be a 1st rounder

 

The Bils have spent all of 3 picks in the top 4 rounds over the last 10 years (44 picks) on OL. The current administration has spent NONE.

 

sure would help to have a young OL that has an expectation of starting inthe NFL at some point be on the roster to cushion against holdouts like this.

 

But hey, LT is only the 2nd most important position on the team - why spend any resources on it.

[apuszczalowski]

it does not have to be a 1st rounder

 

The Bils have spent all of 3 picks in the top 4 rounds over the last 10 years (44 picks) on OL. The current administration has spent NONE.

 

sure would help to have a young OL that has an expectation of starting inthe NFL at some point be on the roster to cushion against holdouts like this.

 

But hey, LT is only the 2nd most important position on the team - why spend any resources on it.

Who says its the second most important position on the team?

 

And why should they spend money and resources on it, apparently they have one of the best playing it right now who is young and playing under a very affordable salary. And why should they spend all of these high draft picks on the offensive line? They just spent a huge chunk of salary to upgrade the LG spot and the RT spot, and have a pretty good young RG in Butler, one of their draft picks

 

What more do you want from them? Draft a linemen early doesn't guarantee anything. There have been plenty of linemen that get drafted early and don't work out, Mike Williams was one of the top rated o-linemen in the draft the year he was draft and look at what happened to him. The Bills have decided to spend their draft picks heavily on the defence, probably cause theres the belief that defence wins championships and have used FA to build the offence.

[eball]

in this case, Peters' agent has determined that the Bills are delusional in their assessment of the alternatives at LT. To the Bills, it seems Peters is not much better than Matt Murphy and Kirk Chambers, so big money raise is not in order. By holding out now, the Bills will get a longer time to see how the error of their ways

It is truly amazing the schitt you'll spew. Where is the evidence the Bills don't believe Peters is much better than Murphy or Chambers? The Bills, ridiculously, believe Peters is under contract for a decent sum and that as a professional he'll show up to work. If he doesn't, then they'll play with who does.

 

I'm sorry, but it's not up to the Bills to track down Peters and beg him to accept a new contract and come back to play. Do you know of any employers who would act that way?

 

To the contrary, the onus is upon Peters and his representative to approach the Bills in good faith, as adults, and present their case as to why they want the contract re-negotiated.

 

There is NO WAY Peters sits out. He's under contract for three more stinking years. Sooner or later his agent will get his foot out of his ass and approach this the right way.

 

If I'm running the Bills, at this point I don't do a thing until the player and his agent come to me to explain their actions.

[obie_wan]

Who says its the second most important position on the team?

 

2nd most important after CB, at least in Bills land

[obie_wan]

T

 

The Bills will not groom some player to be a plan B in any reasonable timeline (if LTs were easy to find why did we go for virtually a decade with no one really taking ownership of the LT slot?).

 

 

The Bills did not have a LT because they did not spend the resources to acquire one, either thru the draft or free agency.

 

Since Polian left, they have not put any priority on building any part of the OL, content to rely on stiffs like Jerry Ostrosky, Bennie anderson and the like.

 

The highest pick in teh last 10 years at LT was the 3rd on Jonas Jennings and he played well except for the injuries.

 

The failure to build the line directly impacted the revolving door at QB by not providing a running game or pass protection

[colin]

the leverage is:

 

greater for the player the fewer years left on his contract

greater for the player the closer to opening day

greater for the player if he's in a skill position (team practice needs the player more, more specific skills to practice)

 

if we push this to the end game, peters could simply not sit out 3 years. because of that i think the bills have the greater position.

 

i think when he has 2 years left on his contract (perhaps even during this season) he will be extended with a giant bunch of money.

 

lots of guys hold out and then play, it isn't necessarily the biggest deal.

[bobinaz]

It is truly amazing the schitt you'll spew. Where is the evidence the Bills don't believe Peters is much better than Murphy or Chambers? The Bills, ridiculously, believe Peters is under contract for a decent sum and that as a professional he'll show up to work. If he doesn't, then they'll play with who does.

 

I'm sorry, but it's not up to the Bills to track down Peters and beg him to accept a new contract and come back to play. Do you know of any employers who would act that way?

 

To the contrary, the onus is upon Peters and his representative to approach the Bills in good faith, as adults, and present their case as to why they want the contract re-negotiated.

 

There is NO WAY Peters sits out. He's under contract for three more stinking years. Sooner or later his agent will get his foot out of his ass and approach this the right way.

 

If I'm running the Bills, at this point I don't do a thing until the player and his agent come to me to explain their actions.

 

I agree with Eball. I think Peters' agent should be grateful the Bills even gave Peters an invite and a job to boot. If I were Peters, I'd have my a$$ in camp, proving my worth even more so, and look to renegotiate later on. Right now this O-Line needs to pick up where it left off and build on last season. Playing this game of maybe moving Walker over to fill for Peters and disrupt the continuity is horsecrap. Be a man Peters and play your contract.

[Pyrite Gal]

The Bills did not have a LT because they did not spend the resources to acquire one, either thru the draft or free agency.

 

Since Polian left, they have not put any priority on building any part of the OL, content to rely on stiffs like Jerry Ostrosky, Bennie anderson and the like.

 

The highest pick in teh last 10 years at LT was the 3rd on Jonas Jennings and he played well except for the injuries.

 

The failure to build the line directly impacted the revolving door at QB by not providing a running game or pass protection

I think folks are right on target when they say you do not draft and RT with a #4 pick. However, rather than simply faulting the Bills for spending a high pick for their RT, what I think this perspective actually means is that the Bills plan was they hope that Williams would show so much that they could quickly move him to play LT and protect the QBs blindside as he did with a lefty QB in college.

 

I think the Bills deserve more to be faulted for trying things which did not work (like MW being an at a least adequate player which he was not, like trying a plethora of talented players who had proved unable to perform due to health problems elsewhere, or trying continually to turn sows ears into silk purses.

 

They never used high round draft picks for OL (this can be faulted mostly because it did not work though it is certainly possible to build an SB capable OL through FA as JMac did in NY).

 

Actually, during the TD reign of error, OL was one of two units where they drafted s player each and every year.

 

I think the bigger problem for the Bills was not so much how they tried to build the OL but the fact that their efforts did not work including devoting attention to late OL picks each and every draft.

[I 90]

I think the Bills deserve more to be faulted for trying things which did not work ...

 

They try and try, every which way.

 

If any approach had worked... Mike Williams high/ Sobieski, McFarland and the like, low and undeveloped/ dodgy free agents (hey, Aaron Gibson !)...

 

Peters would still be holding out. He's that good and they know it. Doesn't do anything for him to wait.

[Pyrite Gal]

They try and try, every which way.

 

If any approach had worked... Mike Williams high/ Sobieski, McFarland and the like, low and undeveloped/ dodgy free agents (hey, Aaron Gibson !)...

 

Peters would still be holding out. He's that good and they know it. Doesn't do anything for him to wait.

I generally agree. I have no idea what calculus Peters (and or whatever crew he has which could be a Schwengali agent, his family, a smart agent operating in his best interests, hangers on and sycophants, or whatever I do not think any of us outsiders can reasonably judge) is making to drive this holdout.

 

I can see however, a set of circumstances which make the approach he is taking a rational one.

 

1. His market value is extremely high right now and unlikely to get much higher even if he plays at a Pro Bowl level again in 08.

 

Let's say that Peters continues to improve his play as many youngsters do and once again makes the Pro Bowl. Upon making it two years in a row and still being pretty young for an OL player he will be on his way to achieving consistent Walter Jones like status as a parennial Pro Bowl level player.

 

However, has that bought Jones the lifetime huge contract he has wanted? No. He has gotten huge bucks but it has come in annual chunks with him being tagged year after year. Peters has 3 years committed even before he gets the short-term windfall of the tag if he continues to develop.

 

Even worse, folks generally thought to be stud LTs like an Orlando Pace were not even given the Pro Bowl props by the market last year. There is no guarantee and actually a very good chance that Peters is near the top of his market value right now.

 

In this market calculus it makes sense for Peters to draw a line in the sand right now. He gets a king's ransom in pay at roughly $3 mill a year (but his market value may well be more than twice that right now). If he chooses to do the moral thing and honor his agreement it would be a stand-up thing to do, but the fiscal cost of doing this would be about $10 million over the life of the current contract.

 

Add to this that if he continues to play well, the Bills decide to tag him in the ways Jones has been handled for a couple of years as the CBA allows and though Peters at least finally would get the market value for his play. He ends up doing this without achieving the fiscal benefit of a long-term deal.

 

With this calculus, Peters would benefit from forcing a long-term deal right now to the tune of:

 

1. If he gets a deal which pays him the current market value for an LT for the rest of his current contract it means about $10 million in his pocket right now versus $3 million right now plus whatever escalations he agreed to in the past but he would not see the money until the future (if ever since Ralph retains the right to cut him whenever he wants with a cap hit charge but no money to Peters).

 

2. If he gets a deal right now when his market value is quite likely to be at its highest as a youngster coming off a Pro Bowl year, he also will get money in his pocket right now for the out-years of the deal (those years beyond 3 years) at whatever bonus rate he can wrangle (or at least he can make the payout in the future guaranteed even if he does not see the money now).

 

3. The downsides on not making a deal right now are likely substantial (even though he stupidly himself agreed to these terms without some escalators) as even if he continues to play well and develop, he has sold these years to the Bills for substantially less than the current market value. If he continues to play well he does so for amount roughly $10 million less than his market value under his current contract. Add to that under the current CBA rules even after the 3 years the Bills still have the significant advantage of the tag where even if they pay him franchise tag market value, they got his play for two years and the chances of him cutting a long-term deal as an FA 5 years from now are not a likely (though not impossible) occurrence.

 

4. Even worse, if Peters should get hurt or his play go south, then by not forcing a deal right now he gets nothing in the out years. He would of course deserve nothing if reality strikes him a cruel blow, but reality now is reality now and he would through this course of bad luck or bad play actually forgo a substantial amount of money. An injury without a new contract right now could be the difference between the huge money he will get under his current contract ($ 3 million in salary this year and a million bucks in amortized bonus) or an even larger amount he likely would get if the Bills signed him to a new contract remotely based on the current market.

 

McFadden got a 6 year contract for $60 million from the Raiders with roughly $26 million guaranteed. I proven Pro Bowler LT Peters worth that much?

 

Well honestly if someone suggested the difference between holding out and not was over $20 million then a holdout starts looking like a pretty good idea.

 

I guess its a question of how much is my word worth. Well, when the price is about $20 million my morality might be bought.