Bill from NYC Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 Assuming that he has a big year, I would think that it will be Lynch. Running backs are said to have the shortest shelf life, and if they lose just a little bit of speed or agility, that could be enough to push a great rb right back into the middle of the pack. Orlando Pace is not what he once was. He got banged up with injuries, but he is still great when compared to most other LTs. If Lynch holds out, it will have nothing to do with Peters, just as Evans has nothing to do with Peters imo. Btw, if Trent has a great year, he won't have to hold out. The Bills will approach him with truckloads of cash. Jmo.
Captain Hindsight Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 Lynch loves the game to much to hold out. Plus between Fred jackson and omen and wright the bills would be ok, better with lynch but ok
nucci Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 I think if Lynch has a monster year, they might offer an extension. Agree on Edwards. If he has the year we hope, I think a new contract will come.
RayFinkle Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 If Trent has a solid year, they have to re-do his contract. He was a 3rd round draft pick, he is being paid peanuts.
The Senator Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 Assuming that he has a big year, I would think that it will be Lynch. Running backs are said to have the shortest shelf life, and if they lose just a little bit of speed or agility, that could be enough to push a great rb right back into the middle of the pack. Orlando Pace is not what he once was. He got banged up with injuries, but he is still great when compared to most other LTs. If Lynch holds out, it will have nothing to do with Peters, just as Evans has nothing to do with Peters imo. Btw, if Trent has a great year, he won't have to hold out. The Bills will approach him with truckloads of cash. Jmo. Interesting concept, Bill - should everyone demand more money after a good season? Conversely, if a player had a bad season, can the Bills ask for some of that money back? Because I think you're spot-on regarding TE & ML having great seasons and, if they reward Peters for his petulance, our front office opens Pandora's Box when it comes to hold-outs and contract renegotiations.
Bill from NYC Posted August 19, 2008 Author Posted August 19, 2008 Interesting concept, Bill - should everyone demand more money after a good season? Conversely, if a player had a bad season, can the Bills ask for some of that money back? No, but they can ask them to renegotiate for less salary, or even cut them.
The Senator Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 No, but they can ask them to renegotiate for less salary, or even cut them. True enough - the team can certainly cut the player & their losses - that's kinda what they did with Moulds when he refused to renegotiate his $$$ down, but were at least able to get a draft pick for him. But I'll go out on a limb here and say that not too many players would renegotiate their salary downward - and, if they cut the player, the team can just kiss that hefty guaranteed signing bonus $$$ good-bye.
Bill from NYC Posted August 19, 2008 Author Posted August 19, 2008 True enough - the team can certainly cut the player & their losses - that's kinda what they did with Moulds when he refused to renegotiate his $$$ down, but were at least able to get a draft pick for him. But I'll go out on a limb here and say that not to many players would renegotiate their salary downward - and, if they cut the player, the team can just kiss that hefty guaranteed signing bonus $$$ good-bye. This used to happen much more of this before the new CBA. Remember, most teams were really up against it in terms of the salary cap, so there was less of a market for a players services. Even the Bills were in cap hell, much of it due to cutting Fina and Ostroski. Now, fewer teams are in cap trouble because they can spend more. This was probably huge wrt Ralph not liking the new CBA.
Ramius Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 This used to happen much more of this before the new CBA. Remember, most teams were really up against it in terms of the salary cap, so there was less of a market for a players services. Even the Bills were in cap hell, much of it due to cutting Fina and Ostroski. Now, fewer teams are in cap trouble because they can spend more. This was probably huge wrt Ralph not liking the new CBA. No player actually negotiated their contract down, even under the old CBA. They would "re-structure", meaning that some of their salary would be converted to signing bonus. The player would still get the same amount of money, but they team could spread out the cap hit over more years, thereby lowering that years cap number.
Mickey Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 Interesting concept, Bill - should everyone demand more money after a good season? Conversely, if a player had a bad season, can the Bills ask for some of that money back? Because I think you're spot-on regarding TE & ML having great seasons and, if they reward Peters for his petulance, our front office opens Pandora's Box when it comes to hold-outs and contract renegotiations. The box is already open, don't forget Schobel's contract extension. I don't really think that is the case however. What opens the "box" is good performance and an opportunity for the team to save some coin in the long run. The interests at play are basically this: a player has a great year, far better than his salary reflects but he isn't due for a new contract for quite some time. He is stuck. However, the team can see that when his current contract expires, it is going to cost them a bundle to keep him or they will lose him. The team goes to the player and offers to reward his superior performance now, ahead of schedule, in exchange for a new, longer contract. They don't pay him as much as would get in a free agent year but they do pay him sooner than would otherwise be the case. There you have it, a unity of interests that forms the basis for a new bargain. The player gets more coin now and the team gets to secure his services at a bit of a bargain. Every one is happy. The Bills did that with Peters. However, his performance jumped again, from a starter to a pro bowler. Thus they both face the same situation they did two years ago. A player whose performance exceeds his salary. The team could give him a new deal now and they will save some coin in the long run, if he agreed to one, he would get his money now and not have to wait 3 years but it would be less than he would get in a free agent year which what he gives up. The team however, clearly wants to get the benefit of the good bet they made two years ago so they are not willing to commit to a renegotiating a new deal. He isn't going to come in unless they do. The actual numbers would take quite some doing to iron out but my belief is that Peters would come in if they were at least throwing numbers back and forth but they aren't because the team just isn't willing to give him a new deal. Classic stalemate.
Bill from NYC Posted August 19, 2008 Author Posted August 19, 2008 No player actually negotiated their contract down, even under the old CBA. They would "re-structure", meaning that some of their salary would be converted to signing bonus. The player would still get the same amount of money, but they team could spread out the cap hit over more years, thereby lowering that years cap number. Some players actually had to take cuts. I am even fairly sure that there is a limit in the CBA as to exactly how much a salary can be lessened. But, you are generally correct. Many were re-structures.
devldog131 Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 <snip>The team however, clearly wants to get the benefit of the good bet they made two years ago so they are not willing to commit to a renegotiating a new deal. He isn't going to come in unless they do. The actual numbers would take quite some doing to iron out but my belief is that Peters would come in if they were at least throwing numbers back and forth but they aren't because the team just isn't willing to give him a new deal. Classic stalemate. Where do you get the idea the team is unwilling to negotiate a new deal? Russ Brandon has clearly stated that they would be happy to have talks with Peters... as soon as he shows up and starts doing his job.
eball Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 I haven't read this entire thread, but I disagree it would be Lynch. He's a first rounder. You don't generally see first rounders hold out after two seasons, because their pay is artificially inflated to begin with (and they are expected to be stars).
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 I don't think anyone will hold out. Peters's situation is rare. He went from a nobody to one of the best LT's in the league overnight. The other hold-out possibility is if a player is a recognized star, but isn't getting paid his due (e.g., Bruce Smith or, more recently, Hines Ward and Stephen Jackson). Unless Edwards and Lynch are consistently great over the next 2-3+ years, they won't be in that group.
Lurker Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 I vote for Chuck Lester being the next holdout....
marauderswr80 Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 I dont think Lynch or Edwards would hold out. Being its their 3rd year, I wouldnt worry about it, maybe in the 4th year.
BillsVet Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 I believe Edwards has two seasons left on his rookie contract. Lynch, OTOH, has three years left on his initial deal. I suspect the Bills would lock up Edwards first, provided he plays well this season. Buffalo will see a marked increase in player salaries and they won't be able to re-sign all of their guys with their C2C plan. They've budgeted so much for each year, and I'm not sure after they re-up Peters down the road that they'll have the funds for guys like Crowell (signed throuh 08) and McGee (09)
flomoe Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 I'm not sure the Bills will deal with any holdouts in the coming years. The only possibility would be Whitner but that's doubtful. As a previous poster noted, they are more likely to lose the likes of McGee and Crowell than actually have someone holdout. If I had to pick one player though, I would say it would be Whitner, but I really think he's become a leader on this team and knows that he would only set back the team regardless of personal gain.
Ramius Posted August 19, 2008 Posted August 19, 2008 I believe Edwards has two seasons left on his rookie contract. Lynch, OTOH, has three years left on his initial deal. I suspect the Bills would lock up Edwards first, provided he plays well this season. Buffalo will see a marked increase in player salaries and they won't be able to re-sign all of their guys with their C2C plan. They've budgeted so much for each year, and I'm not sure after they re-up Peters down the road that they'll have the funds for guys like Crowell (signed throuh 08) and McGee (09) To me, you need to identify "indispensible" players going forward, players that you are going to keep no matter what. This means letting go of good, but not great talent in order to afford the premium talent on this team. For example, regarding next offseason, i see peters as an elite talent that needs to be locked up. I also see Evans as an irreplaceable talent that needs to be locked up. With Crowell and Greer, while i like they and think these guys are good, i dont think they are worth (to the bills) the big bucks they will command on the open market. i think both of their caliber of players can be easily replaced. Greer can be replaced by McKelvin/Corner, and Crowell can be easily replaced through FA or a 1st round LB.
Bill from NYC Posted August 19, 2008 Author Posted August 19, 2008 To me, you need to identify "indispensible" players going forward, players that you are going to keep no matter what. This means letting go of good, but not great talent in order to afford the premium talent on this team. For example, regarding next offseason, i see peters as an elite talent that needs to be locked up. I also see Evans as an irreplaceable talent that needs to be locked up. With Crowell and Greer, while i like they and think these guys are good, i dont think they are worth (to the bills) the big bucks they will command on the open market. i think both of their caliber of players can be easily replaced. Greer can be replaced by McKelvin/Corner, and Crowell can be easily replaced through FA or a 1st round LB. Great post, and I am sorry to split hairs, but I don't think a 1st is necessary to replace Crowell, who was the #30 selection in round 3. Cowart was a 2nd. My point is that LBs are not going as early as they used to. A team can get lucky and grab a very good LB without using a 1st. You know me....I want to keep other 1st round options open. For example, if he is not mentally ill or a criminal, the TE from Oklahoma St. looks like a literal superstar.
Recommended Posts