Peters AND the Bills both doing a disservice to the fans

[Pyrite Gal]

The worse thing about the non-discussion currently not going on between Peters and the Bills right now is that it has become all about the business and little about the sport.

 

Peters is doing a disservice the Buffalo fans who want to see their team win and also to his teammates who he is taking a tack that may provide financial benefit to him but clearly has then put a less competitive product on the field.

 

Lest some fool jump to the conclusion that since Peters is wrong then the Bills must be right needs to think about this using a little bit more than the Bills cojones as their measure of success. The Bills clearly financially have a deal where both parties contractually agreed to a deal where they get Peters' services for 3 years by the contract (and really 5 years if the Bills judge it to be in their interest to give Peters the franchise tag for two additional years if they judge it to be a financially good deal for them). In exchange for this Peters got the biggest check he ever got in his short life.

 

Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that due to his hard work and achievements, that Peters IF this were a free market (and it ain't no free market as the NFL and NFLPA have worked together to restrain free trade) that Peter would command a much larger salary for his services and his prospects as a very young LT who copped a Pro Bowl berth.

 

I agree with Peters from a moral standpoint that in a world governed by morality he would simply be compensated for what he produces and what he is worth compared to other players. However, this is a situation which is governed by BUSINESS MORALITY (which those who have studied the philosophical presentations of the great human work Billy Madison know is just a contradiction in terms). The NFL and NFLPA have used the limited exemption from free market rules they have gotten from the government to restrain trade using the complicated rules set forth in the CBA.

 

It makes perfect sense that Peters and HIS agent Parker are not saying anything as their goal is to try to change the reality created by the CBA. There is virtually nothing they can say (if you disagree then simply say what they should say) that will change a reality where the Bills have virtually all the leverage. They could whine to the press if they want, but the Bills under the agreement can simply say so what.

 

By keeping silent Peters still generates about the same pressure on the Bills (probably more than if he said the typical player argument which is to accuse the team of taking food out of kids mouth). Ultimately, the Bills have little effective pressure to make a deal unless Chambers plays as badly as he has been playing (he ain't no LT starter), the Bills back-ups show nothing (which is where Murphy and Estes are due to injury) and the only thing that has not gone Peters way yet is that Walker has been OK (though a near sack by Harrison and a delay of game penalty in the first game mean he is OK at best as fortunately the blocking was very good last game).

 

If Fowler shows the slightest limp then Peters has the leverage to force the Bills hand.

 

However, the bottomline is that we fans are simply screwed by the actions of Peters which violates the rules (a moral as they may be the players are getting a good dime in exchange for restraining trade) but also we are getting screwed by a Bills team which is riding the CBA agreement to not pay Peters anywhere near what he would get in a freemarket.

 

The Bills braintrust can easily tell itself they are holding out for the long-term good of the team (yeah right) but the result is that in the short term we fans are not getting the team putting its best product on the field.

[tombstone56]

I CAN ONLY SAY .YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING! ..THIS IS A AGENT MAKING A MOVE FOR MONEY.. THE WHOLE IDEA OF .IM TAKING MY BALL BALL AND GOING HOMEAND NOT TALKING IS STUPID .ALMOST AS STUPID AS PETERS AGENT ..

 

normally im on players side but this is total bs>>>> i hope he sits out the frigging season at this point ... he ll be good trade bait in the draft!

 

EVEN NOW IF HE FIRES HIS AGENT HE LOOKS STUPID FOR SITTING OUT.. IM STATED BEFORE IF HE D OF PLAYED THIS SEASON SOLID ,, THEY " THE BILLS " LIKELY WOULDVE MADE HIM TOP PAID TACKLE IN THE LEAGUE...PINHEAD PARKER THOUGH THINKS HES EARNED IT ALREADY ,, ""NOT!!"

ILL TAKE A PLAYER THATS HUNGRY TO PLAY OVER HUNGRY FOR CASH HE HASNT EARNED YET ANYDAY!

GO BILLS

[kota]

This post makes me want to scream.

 

It's really simple. Peters shows up to OTA's, Minicamp, and Training camp after coming off surgery he gets a restructured deal like Aaron Shoebel did. Everyone knows that Peters is underpaid it's completely obvious.

[nucci]

This post makes me want to scream.

 

It's really simple. Peters shows up to OTA's, Minicamp, and Training camp after coming off surgery he gets a restructured deal like Aaron Shoebel did. Everyone knows that Peters is underpaid it's completely obvious.

And we needed yet another Peters thread to state this.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

The worse thing about the non-discussion currently not going on between Peters and the Bills right now is that it has become all about the business and little about the sport.

 

Peters is doing a disservice the Buffalo fans who want to see their team win and also to his teammates who he is taking a tack that may provide financial benefit to him but clearly has then put a less competitive product on the field.

 

Lest some fool jump to the conclusion that since Peters is wrong then the Bills must be right needs to think about this using a little bit more than the Bills cojones as their measure of success. The Bills clearly financially have a deal where both parties contractually agreed to a deal where they get Peters' services for 3 years by the contract (and really 5 years if the Bills judge it to be in their interest to give Peters the franchise tag for two additional years if they judge it to be a financially good deal for them). In exchange for this Peters got the biggest check he ever got in his short life.

 

Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that due to his hard work and achievements, that Peters IF this were a free market (and it ain't no free market as the NFL and NFLPA have worked together to restrain free trade) that Peter would command a much larger salary for his services and his prospects as a very young LT who copped a Pro Bowl berth.

 

I agree with Peters from a moral standpoint that in a world governed by morality he would simply be compensated for what he produces and what he is worth compared to other players. However, this is a situation which is governed by BUSINESS MORALITY (which those who have studied the philosophical presentations of the great human work Billy Madison know is just a contradiction in terms). The NFL and NFLPA have used the limited exemption from free market rules they have gotten from the government to restrain trade using the complicated rules set forth in the CBA.

 

It makes perfect sense that Peters and HIS agent Parker are not saying anything as their goal is to try to change the reality created by the CBA. There is virtually nothing they can say (if you disagree then simply say what they should say) that will change a reality where the Bills have virtually all the leverage. They could whine to the press if they want, but the Bills under the agreement can simply say so what.

 

By keeping silent Peters still generates about the same pressure on the Bills (probably more than if he said the typical player argument which is to accuse the team of taking food out of kids mouth). Ultimately, the Bills have little effective pressure to make a deal unless Chambers plays as badly as he has been playing (he ain't no LT starter), the Bills back-ups show nothing (which is where Murphy and Estes are due to injury) and the only thing that has not gone Peters way yet is that Walker has been OK (though a near sack by Harrison and a delay of game penalty in the first game mean he is OK at best as fortunately the blocking was very good last game).

 

If Fowler shows the slightest limp then Peters has the leverage to force the Bills hand.

 

However, the bottomline is that we fans are simply screwed by the actions of Peters which violates the rules (a moral as they may be the players are getting a good dime in exchange for restraining trade) but also we are getting screwed by a Bills team which is riding the CBA agreement to not pay Peters anywhere near what he would get in a freemarket.

 

The Bills braintrust can easily tell itself they are holding out for the long-term good of the team (yeah right) but the result is that in the short term we fans are not getting the team putting its best product on the field.

 

 

i disagree on multiple levels.

 

assuming there actually is some competitive desire to build a winning franchise, the people responsible for implementing a plan to do so has to recognize that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. in the understatement of the year, there has been a lot of banter back and forth amongst fans and the media on who is right and who is wrong in the peter's situation. and, you could make an argument that both sides are right in the situation, and you did that effectively above.

 

what strikes me as odd in this situation is how little attention has been paid to the upgrades the bills management made to the o-line last year, and whether or not those additions contributed to peter's high level of play last year. in fact, they went out and got dockery, walker, upgraded peter's contract, etc, and i assume all this was done to upgrade the offensive line, which implies (to me, anyway) there is a desire to build a winning franchise. did they do this to spite peters? did they pay dockery more than they shoudl have to screw with him? i think not, i think they are trying to build a line, and they did so knowing peters was being paid what he was. in fact, i bet they counted on it.

 

put another way, absent the other pieces of the line----is peter's the best player at his position in the nfl? should the best player always be assured the highest salary and if so, how do you accomplish that?

 

the way i see it, the bills believe the moves they made helped the cause, and contributed the overall greater good of the team. i think they recognize that, i think that while peters can and should acknowledge that he could go down with a career ending injury at any time and thus should get 'his', the bills also recognize the inverse---they could renegotiate on his terms and lose him 20 minutes after he walked onto the practice field. and that assumes they are convinced his most recent injury is no cause for concern at all.

 

finally---add into the mix that there are only 2----count 'em 2, holdouts in the nfl at this time, both with the same agent. i think the bills realize that the situation that peters is in is not so egregious as to justify that, especially given the steps they have taken to build the line. when he extended, they paid him based on his value, perhaps even more than he was worth, and went out and found players they felt would help his performance with the ultimate goal being to put a winning team on the field (and sell more stuff).

 

as a fan, i have issues with peters and his position because it potentially impacts my ability to enjoy the season. i really have less of an issue with the bills point of view, although i'd acknowledge it would have been awesome if they both agreed and a deal was done that worked for everyone. at this point though, if he doesn't show,he doesn't show. whether he gets 3 mill or 10 mill doesn't impact my family at all. in the end, i put it on him. he should have held out for more last time he renegotiated, but then again he didn't because he wasn't the best blah blah blah, and now he is or thinks he is the best blah blah blah, and so on. show up, play, and whine if you need to, but win some football games.

[rockpile]

The worse thing about the non-discussion currently not going on between Peters and the Bills right now is that it has become all about the business and little about the sport.

It has been all about the business for a long time. Ask Pete Metzelaars. Ask Leonard Smith.

 

Peters is doing a disservice the Buffalo fans who want to see their team win and also to his teammates who he is taking a tack that may provide financial benefit to him but clearly has then put a less competitive product on the field.

 

Lest some fool jump to the conclusion that since Peters is wrong then the Bills must be right needs to think about this using a little bit more than the Bills cojones as their measure of success. The Bills clearly financially have a deal where both parties contractually agreed to a deal where they get Peters' services for 3 years by the contract (and really 5 years if the Bills judge it to be in their interest to give Peters the franchise tag for two additional years if they judge it to be a financially good deal for them). In exchange for this Peters got the biggest check he ever got in his short life.

Would I be a fool to suggest Peters honor a contract he signed, while letting his agent work on "Mo Money"?

 

Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that due to his hard work and achievements, that Peters IF this were a free market (and it ain't no free market as the NFL and NFLPA have worked together to restrain free trade) that Peter would command a much larger salary for his services and his prospects as a very young LT who copped a Pro Bowl berth.

Who made him sign the contract? Who held the knife to his throat? Who put the "PA" in Player's Association?

 

I agree with Peters from a moral standpoint that in a world governed by morality he would simply be compensated for what he produces and what he is worth compared to other players. However, this is a situation which is governed by BUSINESS MORALITY (which those who have studied the philosophical presentations of the great human work Billy Madison know is just a contradiction in terms). The NFL and NFLPA have used the limited exemption from free market rules they have gotten from the government to restrain trade using the complicated rules set forth in the CBA.

Business morality is an oxymoron, but I agree to a point. When I go to a restaurant, I contract to pay for my meal. From a moral standpoint if the service is superb I tip accordingly. I do not get out my calculator.

 

It makes perfect sense that Peters and HIS agent Parker are not saying anything as their goal is to try to change the reality created by the CBA. There is virtually nothing they can say (if you disagree then simply say what they should say) that will change a reality where the Bills have virtually all the leverage. They could whine to the press if they want, but the Bills under the agreement can simply say so what.

 

By keeping silent Peters still generates about the same pressure on the Bills (probably more than if he said the typical player argument which is to accuse the team of taking food out of kids mouth). Ultimately, the Bills have little effective pressure to make a deal unless Chambers plays as badly as he has been playing (he ain't no LT starter), the Bills back-ups show nothing (which is where Murphy and Estes are due to injury) and the only thing that has not gone Peters way yet is that Walker has been OK (though a near sack by Harrison and a delay of game penalty in the first game mean he is OK at best as fortunately the blocking was very good last game).

 

If Fowler shows the slightest limp then Peters has the leverage to force the Bills hand.

 

However, the bottomline is that we fans are simply screwed by the actions of Peters which violates the rules (a moral as they may be the players are getting a good dime in exchange for restraining trade) but also we are getting screwed by a Bills team which is riding the CBA agreement to not pay Peters anywhere near what he would get in a freemarket.

 

The Bills braintrust can easily tell itself they are holding out for the long-term good of the team (yeah right) but the result is that in the short term we fans are not getting the team putting its best product on the field.

The bottom line is the fans are screwed. Period. It continues when fans in the local television blackout range are considered to NOT be in the local broadcast area for the NFL Network.

 

Good post, though! Knocked the rust off my brain cells.

[kota]

The fans are doing a disservice to fans if you ask me. The only people who are making a big deal out of the Peters situation are the fans and the media.

[Lurker]

the result is that in the short term we fans are not getting the team putting its best product on the field.

You realize that even if Jason had signed a new deal in April, he'd probably be playing 10-12 snaps per preseason game, right?

[marauderswr80]

Honor the contract.....plain and simple. He signed what the Bills offered him, what else is there to say?

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

1st let me say.. How many more redundant Peters threads can there be??

 

The Bills are providing a disservice to their fans? Thats quite a stretch. It's ONLY true if the Bills can't live without him.

 

If the Bills can run on teams like they did against the Steelers starters without Peters WHY pay his fat butt extra money???

[krazykat]

The worse thing about the non-discussion currently not going on between Peters and the Bills right now is that it has become all about the business and little about the sport.

 

Peters is doing a disservice the Buffalo fans who want to see their team win and also to his teammates who he is taking a tack that may provide financial benefit to him but clearly has then put a less competitive product on the field.

 

Lest some fool jump to the conclusion that since Peters is wrong then the Bills must be right needs to think about this using a little bit more than the Bills cojones as their measure of success. The Bills clearly financially have a deal where both parties contractually agreed to a deal where they get Peters' services for 3 years by the contract (and really 5 years if the Bills judge it to be in their interest to give Peters the franchise tag for two additional years if they judge it to be a financially good deal for them). In exchange for this Peters got the biggest check he ever got in his short life.

 

Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that due to his hard work and achievements, that Peters IF this were a free market (and it ain't no free market as the NFL and NFLPA have worked together to restrain free trade) that Peter would command a much larger salary for his services and his prospects as a very young LT who copped a Pro Bowl berth.

 

I agree with Peters from a moral standpoint that in a world governed by morality he would simply be compensated for what he produces and what he is worth compared to other players. However, this is a situation which is governed by BUSINESS MORALITY (which those who have studied the philosophical presentations of the great human work Billy Madison know is just a contradiction in terms). The NFL and NFLPA have used the limited exemption from free market rules they have gotten from the government to restrain trade using the complicated rules set forth in the CBA.

 

It makes perfect sense that Peters and HIS agent Parker are not saying anything as their goal is to try to change the reality created by the CBA. There is virtually nothing they can say (if you disagree then simply say what they should say) that will change a reality where the Bills have virtually all the leverage. They could whine to the press if they want, but the Bills under the agreement can simply say so what.

 

By keeping silent Peters still generates about the same pressure on the Bills (probably more than if he said the typical player argument which is to accuse the team of taking food out of kids mouth). Ultimately, the Bills have little effective pressure to make a deal unless Chambers plays as badly as he has been playing (he ain't no LT starter), the Bills back-ups show nothing (which is where Murphy and Estes are due to injury) and the only thing that has not gone Peters way yet is that Walker has been OK (though a near sack by Harrison and a delay of game penalty in the first game mean he is OK at best as fortunately the blocking was very good last game).

 

If Fowler shows the slightest limp then Peters has the leverage to force the Bills hand.

 

However, the bottomline is that we fans are simply screwed by the actions of Peters which violates the rules (a moral as they may be the players are getting a good dime in exchange for restraining trade) but also we are getting screwed by a Bills team which is riding the CBA agreement to not pay Peters anywhere near what he would get in a freemarket.

 

The Bills braintrust can easily tell itself they are holding out for the long-term good of the team (yeah right) but the result is that in the short term we fans are not getting the team putting its best product on the field.

The Bills also do a disservice to the fans by overpaying all the players we've overpaid too. Does that bother you?

[zonabb]

1st let me say.. How many more redundant Peters threads can there be??

 

The Bills are providing a disservice to their fans? Thats quite a stretch. It's ONLY true if the Bills can't live without him.

 

If the Bills can run on teams like they did against the Steelers starters without Peters WHY pay his fat butt extra money???

 

If it's redundant, why read the link and then VALIDATE it by responding with your opinion? It's either redudant and not worthy of a response given said redudancy, or it's not redundant and worthy a response?

 

What's it gonna be?

 

Typical response on what's become a more and more worthless board full of know-it-alls, dismissive flame-throwers and people only out to somehow make themselves feel better by slamming someone else.

 

We need an invite-only site like the Red Sox fans have with Sons of Sam Horn (at least last I knew it was invite only).

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

If it's redundant, why read the link and then VALIDATE it by responding with your opinion? It's either redudant and not worthy of a response given said redudancy, or it's not redundant and worthy a response?

 

What's it gonna be?

 

Typical response on what's become a more and more worthless board full of know-it-alls, dismissive flame-throwers and people only out to somehow make themselves feel better by slamming someone else.

 

We need an invite-only site like the Red Sox fans have with Sons of Sam Horn (at least last I knew it was invite only).

Typically I ignore them. Occasionally I choose to respod to one of the dozen or so.

 

What? You have something against freedom of expression?

 

My reply was WRT "the disservice" is by Peters to the Bills .. no more.

January 15 was the last time the team heard from him. They report they have tried to contact him and his manager with not response.

 

Peters is not only getting a $15 K fine per day the Bills may demand part of his signing bonus.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

I agree with Pyrate Girl.

 

The Peters situation has turned into nothing more than a battle of wills between an arogant agent attempting to prove he can hold teams hostage and a rookie GM attempting to prove that he's smarter than everyone else in the NFL.

 

As for redundant posts, I think there needs to be a new Peters topic every day. After 24 hours, the threads turn into name calling and complaints.

 

The Bills publicly said that when Peters shows up they will talk contract and strategy with him. Yet you want to imply it's the Bills fault he's MIA?

 

If you cried to your boss 1 month after a raise he'd tell you sorry, you have to wait another 9 months to get a raise. If you went MIA for 2 weeks you'd have been fired!!!

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

The Peters situation has turned into nothing more than a battle of wills between an arogant agent attempting to prove he can hold teams hostage and a rookie GM attempting to prove that he's smarter than everyone else in the NFL.

LOL, Russ Brandon isn't a GM, he's the COO, and the Bills are an organization run by group of executives, not a GM or president. He's merely the public face for a consensus of decision makers, overseen by a stubborn owner. The Bills are doing what 90+% of the other NFL teams would do, and that is not negotiate with holdouts who are under contract that refuse to show up.

[Pyrite Gal]

The Bills publicly said that when Peters shows up they will talk contract and strategy with him. Yet you want to imply it's the Bills fault he's MIA?

 

If you cried to your boss 1 month after a raise he'd tell you sorry, you have to wait another 9 months to get a raise. If you went MIA for 2 weeks you'd have been fired!!!

It depends. If my boss is actually the owner of the operation and I provide a service to the business which provides a reasonable chance that if this service will make a difference between whether the operation has a successful year or not, then my boss is likely a fool if he is willing to take the significant risk that the season will be a failure because he did not pay me resources which he has to get my service.

 

In this case, there is judgment to be made whether:

 

1. Peters provides a service that makes a reasonable difference of whether this season we produce a successful product or not.

 

-I believe he does because our plan Bs if he does not provide his service is that we move our RT to LT which means that our LT play may well be adequate (at best) but we now gave Chambers being inadequate at the RT position and depth is my big problem on the OL anyway so the loss of a starter puts me in pretty bad shape.

 

2. Whether my decision to give in to Peters and pay him a bigger contract when he just signed an extension produces such a bad precedent that I am having to deal with player after player trying to force me into redoing his contract.

 

-I think this is a real danger, but getting a Pro Bowl worthy LT as a UDFA is such a rate occurrence I think I can simply put up with the pain of players being foolish in the future. I think Peters being extended to another big contract does set a precedent, but the precedent is that if a player is a UDFA who after he extends proves worthy of being named to the Pro Bowl at the LT or some other positioned judged of high import in the NFL (QB is probably the only other position in the NFL which is generally judged to be of such high import AND is difficult to fill (the best RB in the NFL seems to me to be of greater import than the best LT, but the RB position is so much easier to get extraordinary play from compared to the LT, I value a great LT if I got one more highly than the great RB).

 

To me there is little question that the Bills have the cap room to pay Peters a deal which will satisfy him and likely make him the highest paid Bills player.

 

To me this is a question for the Bills of conflicting principles. if ones principle is to be the best sportsman around then you show him the money. If one's principle is to be the best businessman around then by all means let him rot.

 

It will make it harder for the team to make the playoffs this season after the have failed to make the playoffs this millenium. However, will make running this business much easier.

[Lurker]

The Peters situation has turned into nothing more than a battle of wills between an arogant agent attempting to prove he can hold teams hostage and a rookie GM attempting to prove that he's smarter than everyone else in the NFL.

 

As for redundant posts, I think there needs to be a new Peters topic every day. After 24 hours, the threads turn into name calling and complaints.

Usually that comes from the reasonable/sensible posters beating down the dim bulbs who post stuff like this...

[cody]

LOL, Russ Brandon isn't a GM, he's the COO, and the Bills are an organization run by group of executives, not a GM or president. He's merely the public face for a consensus of decision makers, overseen by a stubborn owner. The Bills are doing what 90+% of the other NFL teams would do, and that is not negotiate with holdouts who are under contract that refuse to show up.

 

90+% of the teams do not refuse to negotiate with holdouts. Jackson reported to Rams camp because he agreed to a deal in principle. If the Rams were not negotiating, how did they offer a deal Jackson would accept in principle. Most holdouts end in a contract or a trade. For holdouts to end in a contract, teams have to negotiate.

 

I do not agree with Eugine Parker's holdouts. But they generally end in a new contract for his clients.

 

Boldin is an example of why a player may holdout. According to Boldin, he's been attempting to re-negotiate his deal for over a year. He's been the good employee we all want Peters to be and has nothing to show for it.

[Bill from NYC]

90+% of the teams do not refuse to negotiate with holdouts. Jackson reported to Rams camp because he agreed to a deal in principle. If the Rams were not negotiating, how did they offer a deal Jackson would accept in principle. Most holdouts end in a contract or a trade. For holdouts to end in a contract, teams have to negotiate.

 

I do not agree with Eugine Parker's holdouts. But they generally end in a new contract for his clients.

 

Boldin is an example of why a player may holdout. According to Boldin, he's been attempting to re-negotiate his deal for over a year. He's been the good employee we all want Peters to be and has nothing to show for it.

 

Post more often.