Max997 Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 thats exactly how teams should handle holdouts, dont negotiate with them until they report
Steely Dan Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 The Rams told Jackson they are willing to talk about a new deal but not while Jackson is holding out. As already mentioned here, the Bear's Hester held out the first couple of days of Chicago's camp. Hester has the same agent as Peters, too. Hester reported without a new contract after losing more than $30,000 in fines. Am I the only one thinking this agent (Eugene Parker) just might be giving his clients bad advice? Linky to Chris Brown's report on this... No, I agree with you. Peters deserves a new contract but this is not the way to handle it. My point is that I don't believe there is another agent out there who has/has three holdouts this season. The Bills, and now the Rams, are saying this agent's tactic is not the way to do business. Agreed. There are very good reasons why star players sign with high profile agents. They get them the best contracts. You as a fan may hate Drew Rosenhaus, but he's extremely good at his job. That's why he has the most stars and makes the most money for them and himself. I don't like him, or agents as a whole for that matter, and I have to deal with them all the time. But that doesn't mean that the best aren't good at their jobs. I would bet you that sometime within now and a year from now, Steven Jackson, Devin Hester and Jason Peters are going to have huge contracts, and be thrilled with their agent, and their teams will be thrilled to have those three players locked up long term. I wouldn't even doubt if Jason Peters came into camp soon, and this whole thing was simply to make him look like he was making a sacrifice he didn't want to make and it was all just laying the groundwork for a threatened holdout next year if he doesn't get a new deal late in this season or early next year. I hope Peters is in soon. The missing info for both holdouts is that in both cases teh teams were negotiating with the player for an extension. The Rams did offer a new deal to Jackson BEFORE camp started. W Hester came to camp on the premise that progress was being made on a new deal. Why absolutely no discussions of any sort by the Bills with regard to Peters. Regardless if he has contract in place, the team should have been pro-active and opened discussions to take care of Peters far earlier in the off-season so training camp would not have been a problem. Just because they can hide behind his contract, does not mean they should. It's taken 15 years to find a bona fide LT, it is a poor choice to make Peters an example of hard lining on contracts, while extending Williams and Butler BEFORE required to report at camp. They had time left on their deals as well. When Schoebel was extended, I seem to recall that he skipped all the off-season stuff as well - but still got a new deal BEFORE camp. Why the double standard? The Bills should have contacted Peters agent the day after he made the pro-bowl.
stuckincincy Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 The Bills should have contacted Peters agent the day after he made the pro-bowl. Why? Some sports fans are quick to decry real or perceived unfairness, then turn around and stuff ballot boxes for Pro Bowl berths, Players of the Week and so on. My guess is that teams take into account, that these things are to some extent, a popularity contest.
eball Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 link? ...asks the guy known primarily for posting unsubstantiated and un-linked scenarios and rumors. Classic.
Nanker Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 This isn't hardball. It's simply a little pas-de-deux. Hardball would be him reporting to camp and all the ya da dah sessions to date, going through the entire training camp and four preseason games and then resigning (not re-signing) on the Monday after the last preseason game. You've got to respect him for not playing hardball. He's just pissed that he never got the initial jack a 1st rounder gets and they hired two guys last year and gave them more money than he's getting. Anybody think his play was a bit off in the first part of the year last year? I think he's been pushing an attitude for some time. It'll sort itself out - he'll get less than he thinks he should, The Bills will pay more than they think they should.
keepthefaith Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 You give these agents way too much credit for what they do. Peters reputation with the fans of our great team has gone down the tubes. I strongly believe that Parker and Peters have totally misjudged Brandon's resolve with doing things the "Bills" way. Peters is only going to come out of this looking like a fool. He either will sit out and not play this year, or come back with his tail between his legs alienating his teammates and fans alike. He ain't getting a new contract as long as he doesn't report. And how does that make Eugene Parker a great agent? Not so fast. These things always appear ugly before they get resolved. Let it play out. We're just into the ugly stage now and it might look worse before it gets better. Really it's all very typical so far. Player wants new deal. Team says no. Player decides to hold out. Team says get in here and we'll talk. Player says no. Team let's him sit. Player gets frustrated and says he'll never play for XX team again. Fans cry foul. Sooner or later one side moves a bit and the other will too.
Paup 1995MVP Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 Not so fast. These things always appear ugly before they get resolved. Let it play out. We're just into the ugly stage now and it might look worse before it gets better. Really it's all very typical so far. Player wants new deal. Team says no. Player decides to hold out. Team says get in here and we'll talk. Player says no. Team let's him sit. Player gets frustrated and says he'll never play for XX team again. Fans cry foul. Sooner or later one side moves a bit and the other will too. That is a pretty reasonable view of what will hopefully end up happening. But Peters has to report before any movement whatsoever will come from the Bills. He just has to show some good faith to the organization before Brandon will give any type of olive branch. Remember, he is still due to make $3.25 mill this year, and he has played left tackle for all of a year and a half with 3 years to go on his contract. Given all of those numbers, I would not say he has dramatically outplayed his current contract as Devin Hester has.
Mike32282 Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 thats exactly how teams should handle holdouts, dont negotiate with them until they report I couldn't agree more! Good post!
WellDressed Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 At this point, I'd just as soon trade him and his bad attitude for a first rounder and change. And pick a tackle who can score more than 5 on the wonderlic. this guy-- Made in Medellin.
Lurker Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 he has played left tackle for all of a year and a half with 3 years to go on his contract. Therein lies salient point of this whole situation. Even Peters must realize he's not helping his cause with his absense, given his limited starting experience at the position. I wouldn't be surprised if Jason shows up this week and his failure to report is just a 'shot across the bow' signaling the potential for a major holdout next year if he continues to play well.
AJ1 Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 Not so fast. These things always appear ugly before they get resolved. Let it play out. We're just into the ugly stage now and it might look worse before it gets better. Really it's all very typical so far. Player wants new deal. Team says no. Player decides to hold out. Team says get in here and we'll talk. Player says no. Team let's him sit. Player gets frustrated and says he'll never play for XX team again. Fans cry foul. Sooner or later one side moves a bit and the other will too. Not going to happen in this case. Any of you make a study of Ralph's history in this area? The number one thing he despises is a player attempting to hold him up for more money when he has a signed contract. The compromise will be 100% on Peter's side or he will never play another game for the Bills. Ralph won't let go the principle even it means 4 superbowls lost.
eball Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 Not going to happen in this case. Any of you make a study of Ralph's history in this area? The number one thing he despises is a player attempting to hold him up for more money when he has a signed contract. The compromise will be 100% on Peter's side or he will never play another game for the Bills. Ralph won't let go the principle even it means 4 superbowls lost. It's amusing when people presume to know exactly what Ralph is thinking, making comments like the one above. Ralph is far more intelligent and shrewd than folks give him credit for. He understands business, and he understands that even when there's a signed contract circumstances can change that necessitate revisiting the terms. It's pretty ridiculous to presume Ralph is "angry" about Peters holding out, or that he'll hold a grudge.
WellDressed Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 It's amusing when people presume to know exactly what Ralph is thinking, making comments like the one above. Ralph is far more intelligent and shrewd than folks give him credit for. He understands business, and he understands that even when there's a signed contract circumstances can change that necessitate revisiting the terms. It's pretty ridiculous to presume Ralph is "angry" about Peters holding out, or that he'll hold a grudge. I really think Peters should contact Bruce, and ask just how he was able to dog a holdout into an entire preseason. How many years did 78 do this?? How many years did he play??
AJ1 Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 It's amusing when people presume to know exactly what Ralph is thinking, making comments like the one above. Ralph is far more intelligent and shrewd than folks give him credit for. He understands business, and he understands that even when there's a signed contract circumstances can change that necessitate revisiting the terms. It's pretty ridiculous to presume Ralph is "angry" about Peters holding out, or that he'll hold a grudge. Ok, smartguy show an example where Ralph has caved in a case like this. I've been watching him for 40 years and don't recall one.
eball Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 Ok, smartguy show an example where Ralph has caved in a case like this. I've been watching him for 40 years and don't recall one. Not the point of my post. "Ralph despises this" or "Peters has to compromise 100% or he'll never play for the Bills again" are pretty silly statements for a fan to make.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 Ok, smartguy show an example where Ralph has caved in a case like this. I've been watching him for 40 years and don't recall one. Now you are digging a deeper hole. Plenty of players have held out for more money, including one Orenthal James Simpson, yet there is no evidence of Ralph holding grudges or cutting players out of spite. Just back away, man... go get worked up about something else.
Cotton Fitzsimmons Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 I really think Peters should contact Bruce, and ask just how he was able to dog a holdout into an entire preseason. How many years did 78 do this?? How many years did he play?? Bruce would always get a new deal and that would cause him to be "overwhelmed with joy" Was Bruce always a team player in this regard? No, but those 90's teams wouldn't have been able to accomplish what they did without him. The current version of the Bills don't have a tackle that can play on that side at nearly the level Jason Peters can, so from that we can also assume that whatever success the current Bills will experience also hinges a good deal on Peters being there. It's a crucial position that he plays, and he's one of the best in the game at it. Is Peters being a total team player here in the way he's handling it? No. But, get him signed anyway. That's just Ole Cotton's two cents. Lets get Peters "overwhelmed with joy" so we can start winning some games! Now that all of that hogwash is sorted out, lets have a dance off... but a word of caution, Ole Cotton runs a pretty mean ELECTRIC SLIDE!
MikeInABQ Posted July 27, 2008 Posted July 27, 2008 If Rosenhaus was Peters Agent He would be in Camp, new Contract or not...He's on record a million times saying He's a FIRM believer in not holding out...Not to say He won't do it if He has to...But it goes against His personal theory about how to get a deal done...That's why He's the best...He works WITH Teams and usually gets exactly what He wants for his Clients...Now I'm not sure how Jim Overdorf would feel about Rosenhaus sleeping on the Sofa in His Office ...Drew's theory seems to be cooperate and hound the living hell out of the Team until He gets what He wants for His Client...But at least Peters would be in Camp and the new deal would be all but done by now if Rosenhaus was JP's Agent... Is it just me, or is your capitalization of "He" and "His" when referring to Drew Rosenhaus and tad disconcerting? Or, in your opinion, is He really the second-coming of Christ? Just freaked me out a little there.
Recommended Posts