scribo Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 http://www.buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?post_id=3671 I think this a complete overreaction from Peters' people; although, it is likely a bluff. I also don't think such threats will do Peters no good. The Bills seems ready for a battle, but I so very much hope it doesn't come to that. By the way, I started a new thread on this because I think this report elevates the situation to where the ongoing discussions needed a new title.
silvermike Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 I mean, it would hurt our performance on the field, but Peters can sit out indefinitely and never become a free agent if the Bills are willing to play hardball.
Realist Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 He has 3 years left on his contract. He can sit out all season, all of next season, and all of the season after that. In fact, if he sits out, that season doesn't count, so he can sit out for however long he wants. Maybe he should pick up the fuggin phone and call Brandon to tell him exactly what he's pissed about first, before making all of these threats.
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 I mean, it would hurt our performance on the field, but Peters can sit out indefinitely and never become a free agent if the Bills are willing to play hardball. Yeah, and then we could go another 15 or so years with a second rate left tackle and draft defensive backs with our best picks. This situation is mind boggling.
elegantelliotoffen Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Has anyone ever followed through with the full season or "until week 10" holdout?
obie_wan Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Has anyone ever followed through with the full season or "until week 10" holdout? Joey Galloway - in his prime then traded for #1 pick (or 2)
scribo Posted July 25, 2008 Author Posted July 25, 2008 Has anyone ever followed through with the full season or "until week 10" holdout? I'm researching that now, but I know much bigger stars than Peters have threatened it and caved in after losing a boat load of cash in fines and losts salaries.
elegantelliotoffen Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Joey Galloway - in his prime then traded for #1 pick (or 2) Did he last the whole season?
elegantelliotoffen Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Did he last the whole season? Never mind, he played 8 games that year.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Sean Gilbert sat out a whole year. The key to Peters situation is that he has three years left. There is zero chance he sits out the whole year. He may threaten it but it is nearly impossible. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp...&id=2116504
obie_wan Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Yeah, and then we could go another 15 or so years with a second rate left tackle and draft defensive backs with our best picks. This situation is mind boggling. Mind boggling to most NFL organization, but not to Bills fans saddled with a front office that has no respect for the importance of the OL (especially LT) The galling thing is the Bills should have known from the lack of contact with Peters since January that his desire for a new contract was coming. However, the Bills in their typically arrogant way chose to ignore the situation and not reach out to their best player. 1. to determine his contract demands 2. to determine his health Peters is either still injured and the Bills are justified in waiting on a new deal or he is healthy and deserves a new deal. Either way, the front office put the team at a huge competitive disadvanatage by not obtaining a bona fide backup at LT to fill in while this situation plays out. The stated plan to move Wlaker to LT is a joke. He can barely pass block the right side without TE help on every down. Moviong him to LT will be a joke and again hamstring the offense by needing to keep TE in on both sides. After moving Walker, they have no one capable of taking his place on the right side
PromoTheRobot Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Mind boggling to most NFL organization, but not to Bills fans saddled with a front office that has no respect for the importance of the OL (especially LT) The galling thing is the Bills should have known from the lack of contact with Peters since January that his desire for a new contract was coming. However, the Bills in their typically arrogant way chose to ignore the situation and not reach out to their best player. 1. to determine his contract demands 2. to determine his health Peters is either still injured and the Bills are justified in waiting on a new deal or he is healthy and deserves a new deal. Either way, the front office put the team at a huge competitive disadvanatage by not obtaining a bona fide backup at LT to fill in while this situation plays out. The stated plan to move Wlaker to LT is a joke. He can barely pass block the right side without TE help on every down. Moviong him to LT will be a joke and again hamstring the offense by needing to keep TE in on both sides. After moving Walker, they have no one capable of taking his place on the right side So you are saying a proper front office caves to any demand made by a player? Get a grip here. This holdout is a bit unexpected since they just gave Peters a new deal 2 years ago. But even if he wanted a new contract, can't the guy say so instead of acting like he has PMS? I mean I can see this if he went to the Bills and they told him to go jump in the lake. But he or his agent never said word one to the Bills. They went right to skipping OTA's, skipping camp, and threatening a hold out, all without ever making an official contact with the Bills. Does this hurt the team? No question. But blame the guilty party here: Peters, not the Bills. They are trying to do right by their players, but they can't be held liable when a player and his agent decide to act like babies. PTR
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Does this hurt the team? No question. But blame the guilty party here: Peters, not the Bills. They are trying to do right by their players, but they can't be held liable when a player and his agent decide to act like babies. But Promo, if he got (or gets) hurt, or if his play suffers for other reasons, would the Bills "honor" his contract? Obviously not. They would cut him in an instant, and I have a feeling that Peters will not find a job as an Ivy League Professor. The owners want it this way. This is the downside of their own system.
d_wag Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 But Promo, if he got (or gets) hurt, or if his play suffers for other reasons, would the Bills "honor" his contract? Obviously not. They would cut him in an instant, and I have a feeling that Peters will not find a job as an Ivy League Professor. The owners want it this way. This is the downside of their own system. what a load of crap.......the system hinges on one key element which you ignore - signing bonuses.........regardless of how a player performs, they keep ALL of the signing bonus and that is the risk the owners take when they throw around extensions.......what do they get for that risk? i hope it's not nothing cause then it would be a pretty bad business decision.......they get years on the contract for their financial risk........the players want their cake and to eat it too, and that is what is screwing up the system.........by ignoring the years on a deal and demanding more money they are making extensions a no risk proposition if peters didn't want to be locked in he shouldn't have signed his deal and taken his signing bonus - it is that simple......if he didn't do that he wouldn't have a problem, but he made a choice, no one forced him to sign two years ago.......he should live with it and honor his word, just like an owner has to live with a signing bonus down the drain if a player tanks it after getting a big deal
Lurker Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 http://www.buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?post_id=3671By the way, I started a new thread on this because I think this report elevates the situation to where the ongoing discussions needed a new title. Well, at least it's football related and better than another "Hardy's gonna shoot someone" or "it's the fat Canadian chick's own fault" stuff that clogged the bowl the past few months...
ndmanley Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 http://www.buffalobills.com/blog/index.jsp?post_id=3671 I think this a complete overreaction from Peters' people; although, it is likely a bluff. I also don't think such threats will do Peters no good. The Bills seems ready for a battle, but I so very much hope it doesn't come to that. By the way, I started a new thread on this because I think this report elevates the situation to where the ongoing discussions needed a new title. That is really the only leverage Peters and his agent have. This is just posturing. Another Parker client, Devin Hester, also made the EXACT same threat. As a veteran, Peters really doesn't need that much camp. So, as worrisome as this may be, he'll be there in September.
LynchMob23 Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 You're right about the owners liking parts of this system - which include the exorbitant fines and such that can occur. Look, both sides (players and management) enjoy the system, as players realize that they're not going to get 100% guaranteed contracts like Baseball or basketball, but 60% is darn close depending on the contract. Jason Peters and his agent are in the wrong here Bill. When other players have griped about their contract, at least they voiced their opinion. In the case of a guy like Schobel, he griped, he showed up, he got paid. If they give in to Peters' demands now without any discussions or a show of good faith on his end, what are we going to do when Mitchell declares he's underpaid? Or heavens forbid, Poszluszny? Brandon, Levy, Donahoe, Butler, whomever. You're the GM, you draw lines in the sand and cannot allow the kids to run the playground.
PastaJoe Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 But Promo, if he got (or gets) hurt, or if his play suffers for other reasons, would the Bills "honor" his contract? Obviously not. They would cut him in an instant, and I have a feeling that Peters will not find a job as an Ivy League Professor. The owners want it this way. This is the downside of their own system. If someone is making $4 million a year and doesn't take the financial steps to ensure a revenue stream for the rest of his life, then that's his problem. He's making more in one year than most people make in a lifetime. Pretty good for a marginal tight end who was given the chance and mentoring to learn a new position. So I don't have any sympathy for players making that much. I could see if he was in the last year of his contract, but he has 3 years left.
BuffaloRebound Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 So you are saying a proper front office caves to any demand made by a player? Get a grip here. This holdout is a bit unexpected since they just gave Peters a new deal 2 years ago. But even if he wanted a new contract, can't the guy say so instead of acting like he has PMS? I mean I can see this if he went to the Bills and they told him to go jump in the lake. But he or his agent never said word one to the Bills. They went right to skipping OTA's, skipping camp, and threatening a hold out, all without ever making an official contact with the Bills. Does this hurt the team? No question. But blame the guilty party here: Peters, not the Bills. They are trying to do right by their players, but they can't be held liable when a player and his agent decide to act like babies. PTR Well said. It's not like the Bills made him him play at the vet minimum his 1st 3-4 years, which they could have like the Bears are doing with Hester. On top of that, he hasn't been around since his hernia surgery. Peters' actions don't reflect someone who is serious about wanting to play for the Bills.
Bill from NYC Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 what a load of crap.......the system hinges on one key element which you ignore - signing bonuses.........regardless of how a player performs, they keep ALL of the signing bonus and that is the risk the owners take when they throw around extensions.......what do they get for that risk? i hope it's not nothing cause then it would be a pretty bad business decision.......they get years on the contract for their financial risk........the players want their cake and to eat it too, and that is what is screwing up the system.........by ignoring the years on a deal and demanding more money they are making extensions a no risk proposition if peters didn't want to be locked in he shouldn't have signed his deal and taken his signing bonus - it is that simple......if he didn't do that he wouldn't have a problem, but he made a choice, no one forced him to sign two years ago.......he should live with it and honor his word, just like an owner has to live with a signing bonus down the drain if a player tanks it after getting a big deal Not so simple. Peters did take a bonus and re-sign because he was probably playing for the NFL minimum, or close to it. In this instance, the Bills had all the leverage. Now, the tables have turned. You have a probowl LT making less than Dockery, let alone Fowler who is average at best. Any sane person can see the inequity of this equation. Can you? Yes or no?
Recommended Posts