CJPearl2 Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 "Parker thought he had a barrel over the bills b/k they are a 500 club with only brad morman as their pro bowler. " Who the hell is Brad Morman?
The Senator Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 "Parker thought he had a barrel over the bills b/k they are a 500 club with only brad morman as their pro bowler. " Who the hell is Brad Morman? Apparently, a professional bowler who also plays for the Bills?
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Sal Maranoia's source was "A Bills official". Of course Brandon isn't going to say that in public, he's a smart guy. Ok, I never did find Adam Schefter's statement about the Bills insisting that he play this year on the existing contract, only a remark that inferred that the Bills were playing hardball on an NFLN video segment. Sal Maiorana does indeed say he heard it from a Bill's official, so that's really only 1 reporter from 1 source, since Judge doesn't say how he knows this. Also, and not sure it means anything, but Sal wrote about Peters many times after that, never mentioning it again. Don't you think it's possible that Sal's source was blowing smoke up his butt? It certainly wouldn't be the 1st time a team used the media as a negotiating tool by leaking factoids. I'm just saying it's possible...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Ok, I never did find Adam Schefter's statement about the Bills insisting that he play this year on the existing contract, only a remark that inferred that the Bills were playing hardball on an NFLN video segment. Sal Maiorana does indeed say he heard it from a Bill's official, so that's really only 1 reporter from 1 source, since Judge doesn't say how he knows this. Also, and not sure it means anything, but Sal wrote about Peters many times after that, never mentioning it again. Don't you think it's possible that Sal's source was blowing smoke up his butt? It certainly wouldn't be the 1st time a team used the media as a negotiating tool by leaking factoids. I'm just saying it's possible... It's just everyone's opinion here. I'm not trying to argue with you, obviously. My response to your post, however, is: 1] The team is never going to say publicly, and unlikely to say privately, "we're not renegotiating this year". That's bad business. It makes them look impenetrable, and unwilling to pay a pro bowl player what he is worth. I can't see where it adds anything. It may be their stance, and I'm sure it is, and it's absolutely the right stance, IMO. But they are not going to say that. So the fact there is very little direct sourcing, to me, is completely immaterial. I was shocked, in fact, that Sal said "A Bills official" said that. It surely was an off the record kind of comment, and I wouldn't doubt if the Bills official regretted saying it, or was a low ranking Bills official who just knew it but wasn't smart enough to keep his mouth shut. and... 2] Why on earth would they "leak" that particular information, using the media as a negotiating tool. That hurts them with the media, IMO. I see no advantage whatsoever of leaking the idea to the media and the general public that we're not going to re-negotiate this year under any circumstance.
The Senator Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 If you want to talk about the law, the NFL is a monopoly, if any player challenged that in court, they would eventually win the right to be free agents signing with the highest bidder right out of college. That is why no team that I am aware of has ever taken a player to court for breach of contract. The NFL knows this, the agents know this, the union knows this and the players know this. That is why holdouts are not exactly rare despite your infantile understanding of contract law. As for Parker being a "punk", he could buy and sell you with the spare change stuck in the seats in his limo. His client list attests to his track record of success. The odds of any of us guessing what his long term strategy is for Peters is not very likely. As has been pointed out many times, this hold out is costing Peters nothing. He may report in time to avoid losing any game pay and what he will accomplish is setting the table for next year. The team will know he is serious, will not want to go through repeat of this next year. The team has carefully avoided any public committment to renegotiate if Peters shows up. For all we know, Parker's strategy is to get them to make that committment publicly so that they can force them to deal as soon as steps into the locker room, something the team is clearly not willing to do at present. We don't know. In the face or our ignorance of what is really going on, you can either assume that an experienced agent with a long track record of success and an impressive client list suddenly has turned in to an idiot or you can assume that he knows what he is doing even if we don't. Wherever did you go to law school, son? (I want to be sure never to hire any attorneys or interns from there, and you should seriously consider requesting a tuition rebate.) First of all, the NFL is most definitely not a monopoly. Period. Incontrovertible statement of fact. Hic finis est. There are plenty of other professional football organizations to which a player can offer his services. The NFL may be the most elite and highest paying professional football league; that in no way whatsoever constitutes a monopoly. Second, regarding teams suing players, you are also wrong. The Philadelphia Eagles sued Terrell Owens for bonus money from 2005. The Eagles wanted $1.7M in bonus repaid for breach of contract and withheld $965K in salary (his final 5 game checks). Early this year, TO lost in arbitration; the Eagles filed suit in U.S. District Court in April to collect the remaining $770K. Which leads to your third gross misstatement - this holdout will cost Peters money. About $405K so far. More, if he continues to be an idiot. And the team is well within their rights to enforce the fines, and even go after bonus money if his holdout continues into regular season. The Bills and he entered a contract whereby he receives money for services rendered. If those services are not rendered, he is - most definitely - in breach of his contract. Finally, the inability for veteran players and college draftees to simply offer their services to the highest bidder - which they actually can do now, to any of the many other professional football organizations - is not a product of monopolies or anti-trust law exemptions. It's a result of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL owners and the NFLPA (i.e., the players' union agreed to it). Without the CBA, the owners would likely shut down the league. You could have learned all of this with a mere modicum of effort. So, in summation, it was not the late Mayor's understanding of contract law and the relative issues that was "infantile"; it is yours. Parker is a punk, and Peters is an idiot. As always, GO BILLLSSS!!!! 19 & 0 baby!!!!!
BillsVet Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 That's how the game is played. Holding out is part of the game. Ignoring a holdout who has 3 years left is part of the game. Owing a team 3 years of service and having zero leverage is also part of the game. PTR Peters' leverage has only grown since camp began. As has been mentioned earlier, Walker is no LT and as teams begin to study film more attentively, it will become more evident to even the most simple minded Bills fan. Edwards will be running for his life more frequently than we'd all like to see, something we've seen already. The problem with the LT position is fans rarely take note of how important one is to the success of a QB and an offense. Defenses usually have their best rusher line up near the LT position, and negating a team's best rusher is something Bills fans took for granted the past season and a half. If this were a RB, WR, or DE holding out, I guarantee there'd be more outrage than for a "lowly" left tackle.
Ramius Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Peters' leverage has only grown since camp began. As has been mentioned earlier, Walker is no LT and as teams begin to study film more attentively, it will become more evident to even the most simple minded Bills fan. Edwards will be running for his life more frequently than we'd all like to see, something we've seen already. The problem with the LT position is fans rarely take note of how important one is to the success of a QB and an offense. Defenses usually have their best rusher line up near the LT position, and negating a team's best rusher is something Bills fans took for granted the past season and a half. If this were a RB, WR, or DE holding out, I guarantee there'd be more outrage than for a "lowly" left tackle. get off your damn high horse with the "fans are ijits who dont understand how important a LT is." Christ, i'm guessing almost everyone who posts here understands the value of a good LT. And people would feel the same if it was a DE or RB someone else holding out with 3 years left on a new deal. And Peters leverage isnt gaining at all. He still has 3 years left on his deal, and he's losing money by the day. By moving Walker over to LT, the Bills have shown that they have a contingency plan for LT in the event that peters continues to be mentally deficient and not report. They've shown that they aren't panicking about the LT spot without peters. Let him rot on the bench for 3 seasons and we'll see what kind of deal he'll get on the market. Hint: it wont be much. Ralph isnt new to this game. Peters is only going to get a new deal when Ralph wants, not when Peters wants. As has been mentioned before on here, Peters picked the wrong owner to play chicken with, especially when he has multiple years left on his deal.
IDBillzFan Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Peters' leverage has only grown since camp began. 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.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Wherever did you go to law school, son? (I want to be sure never to hire any attorneys or interns from there, and you should seriously consider requesting a tuition rebate.) First of all, the NFL is most definitely not a monopoly. Period. Incontrovertible statement of fact. Hic finis est. There are plenty of other professional football organizations to which a player can offer his services. The NFL may be the most elite and highest paying professional football league; that in no way whatsoever constitutes a monopoly. Second, regarding teams suing players, you are also wrong. The Philadelphia Eagles sued Terrell Owens for bonus money from 2005. The Eagles wanted $1.7M in bonus repaid for breach of contract and withheld $965K in salary (his final 5 game checks). Early this year, TO lost in arbitration; the Eagles filed suit in U.S. District Court in April to collect the remaining $770K. Which leads to your third gross misstatement - this holdout will cost Peters money. About $405K so far. More, if he continues to be an idiot. And the team is well within their rights to enforce the fines, and even go after bonus money if his holdout continues into regular season. The Bills and he entered a contract whereby he receives money for services rendered. If those services are not rendered, he is - most definitely - in breach of his contract. Finally, the inability for veteran players and college draftees to simply offer their services to the highest bidder - which they actually can do now, to any of the many other professional football organizations - is not a product of monopolies or anti-trust law exemptions. It's a result of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL owners and the NFLPA (i.e., the players' union agreed to it). Without the CBA, the owners would likely shut down the league. You could have learned all of this with a mere modicum of effort. So, in summation, it was not the late Mayor's understanding of contract law and the relative issues that was "infantile"; it is yours. Parker is a punk, and Peters is an idiot. As always, GO BILLLSSS!!!! 19 & 0 baby!!!!! woot
GG Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 And as always, people ignore that in picking his fight, Parker chose the wrong owner to do it with.
The Senator Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 And as always, people ignore that in picking his fight, Parker chose the wrong owner to do it with. Excellent point, G2 - if Parker wants to go to war with Ralph, he'll not only soon be digging for all that loose change stuck in his limo seats, he'll be digging in his sofa cushions too, after his limo gets repo'd.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Peters' leverage has only grown since camp began. As has been mentioned earlier, Walker is no LT and as teams begin to study film more attentively, it will become more evident to even the most simple minded Bills fan. Edwards will be running for his life more frequently than we'd all like to see, something we've seen already. The problem with the LT position is fans rarely take note of how important one is to the success of a QB and an offense. Defenses usually have their best rusher line up near the LT position, and negating a team's best rusher is something Bills fans took for granted the past season and a half. If this were a RB, WR, or DE holding out, I guarantee there'd be more outrage than for a "lowly" left tackle. We all know how important the LT is in football. But you go way overboard stating Peters value to the team. The Bills have decided they won't be held hostage by one stupid player. So what's Peters' plan B? PTR
The Senator Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 So what's Peters' plan B? "You want fries, or chips with that burger?"
Rubes Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Peters' leverage has only grown since camp began. The only thing of Peters that has grown since camp began is his gut, for not being in camp working out.
Mickey Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 That's how the game is played. Holding out is part of the game. Ignoring a holdout who has 3 years left is part of the game. Owing a team 3 years of service and having zero leverage is also part of the game. PTR 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.
Mickey Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 The only thing of Peters that has grown since camp began is his gut, for not being in camp working out. ...or getting hurt in camp like a few OT's I could mention or rookie LB's for that matter.
Mickey Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Excellent point, G2 - if Parker wants to go to war with Ralph, he'll not only soon be digging for all that loose change stuck in his limo seats, he'll be digging in his sofa cushions too, after his limo gets repo'd. Sure, an owner in his 90's desparate for a championship before he dies can afford to wait for the team to find another pro bowl left tackle.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 I see by ESPN that Jackson is ending his holdout... so Peters is the only Parker client still holding out....
Lurker Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 This holdout might be to create some leverage for next year. Only Parker and Peter know for sure. I tend to agree. This holdout is a shot across the bow of what's to come if Peters has another Pro Bowl year....
thebug Posted August 20, 2008 Posted August 20, 2008 Wherever did you go to law school, son? (I want to be sure never to hire any attorneys or interns from there, and you should seriously consider requesting a tuition rebate.) First of all, the NFL is most definitely not a monopoly. Period. Incontrovertible statement of fact. Hic finis est. There are plenty of other professional football organizations to which a player can offer his services. The NFL may be the most elite and highest paying professional football league; that in no way whatsoever constitutes a monopoly. Second, regarding teams suing players, you are also wrong. The Philadelphia Eagles sued Terrell Owens for bonus money from 2005. The Eagles wanted $1.7M in bonus repaid for breach of contract and withheld $965K in salary (his final 5 game checks). Early this year, TO lost in arbitration; the Eagles filed suit in U.S. District Court in April to collect the remaining $770K. Which leads to your third gross misstatement - this holdout will cost Peters money. About $405K so far. More, if he continues to be an idiot. And the team is well within their rights to enforce the fines, and even go after bonus money if his holdout continues into regular season. The Bills and he entered a contract whereby he receives money for services rendered. If those services are not rendered, he is - most definitely - in breach of his contract. Finally, the inability for veteran players and college draftees to simply offer their services to the highest bidder - which they actually can do now, to any of the many other professional football organizations - is not a product of monopolies or anti-trust law exemptions. It's a result of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL owners and the NFLPA (i.e., the players' union agreed to it). Without the CBA, the owners would likely shut down the league. You could have learned all of this with a mere modicum of effort. So, in summation, it was not the late Mayor's understanding of contract law and the relative issues that was "infantile"; it is yours. Parker is a punk, and Peters is an idiot. As always, GO BILLLSSS!!!! 19 & 0 baby!!!!! I am not a lawer, if I was I would be able to spell it, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express one time so I am going to have to agree with you. GO BILLS!
Recommended Posts