FINALLY PETERS MIGHT REPORT

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

I highly doubt Peters will actually stay home all season. However, if he did, and promised to do it again next year, what do you think the Bills will do? Just let him sit there for spite? No way. They will trade him. And he will get he pay day he wants. His leverage is that they can't make him play and at some point, he is worth more to them in a trade then he is sitting home. "let him rot" might sound fun and certainly would appeal to the authoritarian apparatchiks around here but it would be pretty pointless for the team to let an asset like that, whether he is on the field or traded, go to waste.

 

Peters is a very unique situation. You don't often have a UDFA make it to the pro bowl after you already extended him once. Its a B word for him and the team.

If it were this fan's call (and thank god it isn't, cause what do I know), I'd absolutely let him sit out and ruin his career. If he doesn't play for the Bills, we shouldn't give him what he wants and let him play elsewhere. You don't reward this kind of behavior because it sets a poor precedent. Make it seem to other players that there's only one avenue to getting the money you want: working for it.

 

If Peters continues to sit out (which I doubt he will) he should be made an example of. "This is what happens when you sit out: you either ultimately end your holdout without accomplishing anything other than hurting your own performance- and therefore your earning potential- by missing practice time, or you ultimately don't end your holdout, and your career is over. And you all saw what happened to Jason Peters, so you know it doesn't even matter how good you are."

 

The Bills own Peters' rights until he plays three seasons for us. The team holds all the cards. He can play football for the Buffalo Bills, or he can retire. Once Jason understands that reality, there's really only one choice he can make...

[Mickey]

Schobel had a much larger body of work behind him when they extended him. It was also done after a training camp that Schobel attended. Schobel attended all the off season stuff, too last year.

 

The guy was hurt the last time the Bills saw Peters. They're supposed to bend over when he hasn't shown up to even demonstrate he is healthy?

Schobel held out by skipping some off season stuff. They let him know they were going to give him a new deal so he came in. The numbers were all worked out before training camp though some details delayed the signing of it for a few weeks. I am sure that if they committed to a new deal for Peters in February, with the numbers and all to be negotiated, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The team has made it clear, he isn't going to get a new deal this year.

 

If you want to look at it closely enough, there are differences that work in Peters' favor. What differences there are, don't justify the radically different treatment. One guy gets a spectacular new deal shortly after already getting a spectaculary good deal, the other guy gets bupkus. The situations are certainly close enough for Peters to argue he is getting shafted compared to how they treated Schobel. Frankly, no one thinks Schobel is the best DE in the league and never will. There are some who already think Peters is the best in the league. I don't agree but I do think he is in the top 3 and may end up the best before he is done. We have likely already seen the best of Schobel. Peters made the pro bowl earlier in his career. Like I said, you could find many reasons to favor Peters. Overall, the situations are close enough.

[The Senator]

Oh he has leverage, the question is whether he has enough this year to get what he wants. This very well could be part of a plan to make sure he gets a new deal next year. The team hasn't committed to giving him a new deal if he comes in, but they have come close. If he has another good year, he can make the same argument next year and with 2 years on his deal still left, he will just as little leverage as he has now. This holdout might be to create some leverage for next year. Only Parker and Peter know for sure.

The imagination is a wonderful thing. And I, too, am in total wonder as I read your bizarrely imaginative account of how PeePee's (that's short for Parker/Peters) brilliant strategy is actually working.

 

Parker made an incredibly stupid gambit, and lost. Big time. Unfortunately, his client - the one with a BA in football from Arkansas and a 9 on his Wonderlic - is paying the price. Peters will report by week's end - with egg on his face, and nothing but his dick in his hand to show for his 4-week display of petulance and futile greed. Oh, and $400K+ in fines, too.

 

But you just keep telling yourself it worked out great. Brilliantly, even. PeePee = genius!

[Mickey]

If it were this fan's call (and thank god it isn't, cause what do I know), I'd absolutely let him sit out and ruin his career. If he doesn't play for the Bills, we shouldn't give him what he wants and let him play elsewhere. You don't reward this kind of behavior because it sets a poor precedent. Make it seem to other players that there's only one avenue to getting the money you want: working for it.

 

If Peters continues to sit out (which I doubt he will) he should be made an example of. "This is what happens when you sit out: you either ultimately end your holdout without accomplishing anything other than hurting your own performance- and therefore your earning potential- by missing practice time, or you ultimately don't end your holdout, and your career is over. And you all saw what happened to Jason Peters, so you know it doesn't even matter how good you are."

 

The Bills own Peters' rights until he plays three seasons for us. The team holds all the cards. He can play football for the Buffalo Bills, or he can retire.

If you want to make ethical points, fine, great idea. If you want to win games and you have a choice between trading a guy for a high pick or two in the draft or getting nothing, zero, nada, zip, you trade the guy. Whatever happens to Peters is not going to end the practice of holding out.

 

The guy is worth more than he is being paid. That is what is at the heart of this and despite all the rancor on the board over the issue, everyone pretty much agrees on that.

[Mickey]

The imagination is a wonderful thing. And I, too, am in total wonder as I read your bizarrely imaginative account of how PeePee's (that's short for Parker/Peters) brilliant strategy is actually working.

 

Parker made an incredibly stupid gambit, and lost. Big time. Unfortunately, his client - the one with a BA in football from Arkansas and a 9 on his Wonderlic - is paying the price. Peters will report by week's end - with egg on his face, and nothing but his dick in his hand to show for his 4-week display of petulance and futile greed. Oh, and $400K+ in fines, too.

 

But you just keep telling yourself it worked out great. Brilliantly, even. PeePee = genius!

Why do you hate Peters so much? Is it because he makes more than you'll ever dream of making despite his low wonderlic? So far, how much has he paid in fines? Try zero. How many injuries has he incurred in camp? Oh yeah, none. Larry Johnson's hold out cost him 357k in fines but since his new deal was 43 million, 19 million guaranteed, he and his coach actually cracked up laughing when the press brought up the fines. There was probably some angry, envious little man in KC posting about what an idiot Johnson and his agent were all during his 25 day hold out just like you.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

If you want to make ethical points, fine, great idea. If you want to win games and you have a choice between trading a guy for a high pick or two in the draft or getting nothing, zero, nada, zip, you trade the guy. Whatever happens to Peters is not going to end the practice of holding out.

Ending the practice of holding out leaguewide isn't my goal. But this hardball stance in this administration's first dealings with a true holdout, paired with the numerous lucrative extensions they've given to players who used opposite tacts, can cause a reputation to spread around the league.

The guy is worth more than he is being paid. That is what is at the heart of this and despite all the rancor on the board over the issue, everyone pretty much agrees on that.

He's clearly worth more than he's due to make now, no question. But my guess is he's asking to be paid as the top LT in the league, and very possibly one of the top overall players in the league. Is he worth that now, after a year and a half of high calibre play? I think that is the crux of the debate.

 

If he had come in and worked his tail off, had a season similar to last year and made another Pro Bowl, I'd be open to giving him the mega deal he's likely asking for. Some of us feel he needs another year of quality play under his belt to be given one of the richest deals leaguewide.

 

Keep in mind, he's likely not just asking for a raise, he's probably asking for a landmark, blockbuster-type deal. My guess is top-5 in the league in annual salary, and one of the biggest 'guaranteed' figures the league has ever seen.

[KnightRider]

Ummm....... I never said countless others have held out with 3 years left, I said countless others have held out. Can't you read?

 

But the point being argued, as opposed to your childish game of gotcha, is whether Peters is a pos for trying to get what he is worth. I don't think he is. I do think that a lot of fans around here seem to feel personally betrayed at the notion of a pro bowler wanting to be paid like one and have been bitching and crying about it for weeks. Your fantasies to the contrary little boy, the NFL is about money. The players want all they can get their hands on and the teams want to keep all they can. But if it helps you, go ahead and paint one side as villainous and the other as heroic.

 

It's hardly childish and it is a important to point out that you are glossing over the fact that this is anything but a typical holdout.

 

You are right though about the NFL being money driven. That may eventually drive me away from the NFL, though.

 

"To be the highest-paid, or anything like that, is not going to make me feel any better,'' he told me. "That's not what makes me happy. In this game, the more one player gets, the more he takes away from what others can get. Is it going to make me feel any better to make an extra million, which, after taxes, is about $500,000? That million might be more important to the team.''

 

My fantasy is that Peters were a little more like Tom Brady. I only played HS ball, and I never thought I would make a dime on it. But damn did I love to play the game. I wish these guys did, too, and most simply don't.

[Rubes]

I'm not being a wiseass, I'm serious.

 

My goodness, there really is a first time for everything.

 

 

Please, Jason, for the love of God. Report to camp so threads like these go away forever.

[KnightRider]

Schobel held out by skipping some off season stuff. They let him know they were going to give him a new deal so he came in. The numbers were all worked out before training camp though some details delayed the signing of it for a few weeks. I am sure that if they committed to a new deal for Peters in February, with the numbers and all to be negotiated, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The team has made it clear, he isn't going to get a new deal this year.

 

If you want to look at it closely enough, there are differences that work in Peters' favor. What differences there are, don't justify the radically different treatment. One guy gets a spectacular new deal shortly after already getting a spectaculary good deal, the other guy gets bupkus. The situations are certainly close enough for Peters to argue he is getting shafted compared to how they treated Schobel. Frankly, no one thinks Schobel is the best DE in the league and never will. There are some who already think Peters is the best in the league. I don't agree but I do think he is in the top 3 and may end up the best before he is done. We have likely already seen the best of Schobel. Peters made the pro bowl earlier in his career. Like I said, you could find many reasons to favor Peters. Overall, the situations are close enough.

 

Schobel did show up to the stuff he was contractually obligated to...

 

I think one of the main goals of the FO since Levy replaced TD has been to repair the image of the Bills franchise. Redoing Schobel's deal is an example. This thing with Peters puts them in a very difficult position.

 

BTW, I agree Peters is a special talent and that he should get a huge raise. I just don't think holdouts are usually good for the player or the team.

[Mickey]

The only leverage Peters had revolved around the truth that our offense will suffer without him. Unfortunately for Peters, the front office is willing to accept that fact before they let a guy with three years left on his contract get a dime without doing the one simple thing they ask: show up at camp.

 

Consequently, Peters has no leverage. None.

Being at camp has nothing to do with it. Its the money, not his current zip code. All they have said about renegotiating is "never say never" and they expect him to honor the commitment he made two years ago. If they were willing to give him a new deal, this would have been done in January, or February, or March, or April, or May, or June. Long before camp was an issue. They want to reap the benefit of the good bet they made two years ago. He wants what he is worth. That is the problem, not all this whining about him not coming to camp. That happens with every hold out that ultimately was resolved with the player not in camp.

[Kelly the Dog]

You're talking about ONE F*CKING PLAYER.

 

Just a friendly reminder, one player (especially someone who most likely isn't hall-of-fame calibre) won't be the difference between a good team and a bad team. Walker isn't Peters, but he's functional. Chambers isn't Walker, but he will get by.

 

Again: you're talking about ONE GOD DAMN PLAYER.

 

I'm surprised you're taking this 'SKY IS FALLING!!!!!11' stance here, Kelly. You're smarter than this.

I'm not talking about the sky is falling. I do think the Bills are a borderline playoff team, and should get a wildcard this year. Without Peters, I don't think that's very likely at all. Because, like I posted before, I think he has an affect on a LOT of other players. Getting by is what we have been doing for a decade and I'm sick of being on the outside looking in. If you don't believe a Pro Bowl starter at LT is important to this team, with the back-ups this team has. That's your right as a fan.

 

This is, of course, a hypothetical. Because I am 99.9% convinced that Peters is going to be starting at LT on this team barring injury. I am just amazed at the posts that we don't need him.

[Lori]

Please, Jason, for the love of God. Report to camp so threads like these go away forever.

 

I'll second that ...

[KnightRider]

That's interesting. Who was that player? How'd it turn out for him? I'm not being a wiseass, I'm serious. I had no idea.

 

 

Based on a google search on holdout "three years" left on contract and came up with a lot of threats to hold out. Though they had three years (Marshall Faulk and Plaxico Burress) left, but no one else has actually gone through with it except GB CB Mike McKenzie, and his agent quit when he did. He eventually reported to the Packers and faked an injury. A few weeks later he was traded to the Saints.

[Mickey]

Schobel did show up to the stuff he was contractually obligated to...

 

I think one of the main goals of the FO since Levy replaced TD has been to repair the image of the Bills franchise. Redoing Schobel's deal is an example. This thing with Peters puts them in a very difficult position.

 

BTW, I agree Peters is a special talent and that he should get a huge raise. I just don't think holdouts are usually good for the player or the team.

Hold outs suck. But Peters is not going to get a huge raise. If they wanted to give him one, they could have negotiated one in January or February, or March, or Apil, or May, or June, etc. They didn't because they have no intention of doing so. Peters has two options, play another year on his current contract or gamble on a hold out. Smart move? We'll know that when all the dust settles. Larry Johnson's hold out lasted 25 days he went from $2M per year to a 5 year, 42M deal with 19 guaranteed.

[RayFinkle]

You're talking about ONE F*CKING PLAYER.

Are you happy now Clark? She's deaf...

[KnightRider]

Please, Jason, for the love of God. Report to camp so threads like these go away forever.

 

I'll second that ...

 

Sorry, I've avoided this subject for the most part, but got sucked in a little...

[SwampD]

I'll second that ...

 

 

Sorry, I've avoided this subject for the most part, but got sucked in a little...

Personal attacks aside, I've been pretty entertained reading this thread all night.

 

The only thing I would add is that I'm not sure Peters is worth more money...Yet. If you add his signing bonus and his salary for the last two years I think it would work out to 5.5mil a year...for a Right taclke for 8 games and a left tackle that didn't finish the season. I think he was overpayed

[The Senator]

Really, no anti-trust problems? Then why do they have an anti-trust exemption? Not a monopoly you say? In the USFL's suit against the NFL, the jury found that the NFL was "duly adjudicated illegal monopoly" Did you do any research at all before posting???? Another jury in Minnesota in 1992 ruled "unanimously...that the National Football League's Plan B free agency system is illegal, that it substantially harms the effect on competition for players' services and thus violates antitrust laws." The Radovich case and Freeman McNeil's case highlight the league's vulnerability to anti-trust cases. Congress has, on numerous occasions, threatened to repeal what legislative exemptions the league does have whenever they have wanted to influence the league. Boy, for a league with no anti-trust problems they sure do have a lot of anti-trust problems.

 

The CBA, already set to expire in 2010, is itself subject to antitrust laws though the public policy in favor of unions makes those cases somewhat harder to make as Maurice Clarett found out.

 

If your version of employment contract law is so solid, I wonder why it is that players hold out all the time and virtually never seem to suffer for it? You need to send your posts to the league's lawyers, you clearly know something they don't. But then again, I am sure you're an expert in the enforcement of liquidated damages and the availability of specific performance as a remedy.

I take it Clarett v. National Football League must have showed up in your search results up as you scrambled onto Google.com. Looks like you even read some of it. And all those jury rulings against the NFL - it's truly a wonder they are still in business, no?

 

But what of this reference to "antitrust problems"? Did I say anything about the league having, or not having, anti-trust problems? Please help me out - can you quote where I used those words, because I just can't find them in any of my posts.

 

Regarding anti-trust exemptions which, as you correctly state, are routinely threatened when Sen. Specter has his period, there are 3, one of which has relevance - namely the antitrust exemptions stemming from the CBA, to which the NFLPA agreed, and without which the owners will shut the league down. (But that's OK, 'cause then Jason Peters could go peddle his services to the highest bidder - I can just see WalMart & McDonald's getting into a bidding war! )

 

(The other two anti-trust exemptions involve allowing the league to negotiate TV contracts for all 32 teams & regionalize broadcasts - that's the one Arlen gets all hot & bothered with when he can't watch the Eagles on free TV - and protect the league from lawsuits stemming from the 1970 NFL-AFL merger.)

 

But your reference to the USFL jury ruling (the jury found that the NFL was a "duly adjudicated illegal monopoly"), is absolutely hysterical - thanks for the chuckle! You should have also stated that the jury found the plaintiffs so aggrieved that they actually awarded the USFL a whole dollar, which - by statute - resulted in treble damages (!!!) in the amount of 3 bucks!!!!!

[Guest dog14787]

I'm not talking about the sky is falling. I do think the Bills are a borderline playoff team, and should get a wildcard this year. Without Peters, I don't think that's very likely at all. Because, like I posted before, I think he has an affect on a LOT of other players. Getting by is what we have been doing for a decade and I'm sick of being on the outside looking in. If you don't believe a Pro Bowl starter at LT is important to this team, with the back-ups this team has. That's your right as a fan.

 

This is, of course, a hypothetical. Because I am 99.9% convinced that Peters is going to be starting at LT on this team barring injury. I am just amazed at the posts that we don't need him.

 

but then again, some of these folks may have lost their marbles.

 

WAM!!! doggonit!!! where are all my marbles!!!!, as TE gets broadsided and slammed to the turf

[BillsVet]

Schobel held out by skipping some off season stuff. They let him know they were going to give him a new deal so he came in. The numbers were all worked out before training camp though some details delayed the signing of it for a few weeks. I am sure that if they committed to a new deal for Peters in February, with the numbers and all to be negotiated, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The team has made it clear, he isn't going to get a new deal this year.

 

Don't forget Schobel angled for a deal after Kelsay got his just before UFA in early 2007. I can still remember reading how Schobel called Kelsay to ask him, "how did we do?"

 

The Bills handed out a big contract to Dockery and a decent sized one to Walker when UFA opened that same year. Did they not realize other players would be paying close attention? It's the definition of naivety to think at some point Peters wouldn't come calling, especially after being moves to OLT for the second half of 2006.

 

The two situations are too similar, and it's clear the Bills have prioritized other players before the guys who become the best at their position. No wonder the front office in place is 0-8 in playoff appearances since 2000.