Do folks think the Bills should develop a rep as harda** negotiators?

[Pyrite Gal]

I would say unequivocally NO.

 

It has been amusing for me to see a few posts on TSW that call for that or seem to want the Bills to emphasize using the Peters situation to develop a rep as tough guys dealing with players.

 

I agree that yes, the Bills should be concerned about the potential for giving Peters a new deal setting a precedent. However, as far as the Bills developing a rep amongst players throughout the league, I actually would prefer as a fan to see us generally seen as a potential soft touch in negotiations as if that becomes a reason why players enter FA thinking of the Bills as a serious possibility I think that is good for us.

 

At most, I think the Bills want to develop a rep as being tough but fair. Certainly as the Peter's situation was one of the first times in the modern era that a Bill who is under contract for several years actually launched a holdout I think it is pretty reasonable for the Bills being tough but fair simply refusing to negotiate until Peters came to camp.

 

However, one of the things I am happiest about is that Peters and Parker actually have said nothing and not provided any fodder to the local press which folks like WGR or Jerry Sullivan would be happy to turn into a controversy which allows them to fill air minutes or column inches so they can sell some commercials.

 

However, particularly to the extent that small market Buffalo would not strike many NFLers as the city they might want to come to, i would much prefer if we had a rep as a soft touch which attracted players here or convinced UDFAs like Peters to throw their lot in with us rather than some other city.

 

I can understand why Brandon and Ralph as businessmen want to be tough in negotiations. However, as one who cares about the sport rather than the business primarily I actually like having the team develop a rep as a fair soft touch as seen in us overpaying Kelsay and paying to extend Schobel when we were under no real obligation to do this.

[Steely Dan]

I would say unequivocally NO.

 

It has been amusing for me to see a few posts on TSW that call for that or seem to want the Bills to emphasize using the Peters situation to develop a rep as tough guys dealing with players.

 

I agree that yes, the Bills should be concerned about the potential for giving Peters a new deal setting a precedent. However, as far as the Bills developing a rep amongst players throughout the league, I actually would prefer as a fan to see us generally seen as a potential soft touch in negotiations as if that becomes a reason why players enter FA thinking of the Bills as a serious possibility I think that is good for us.

 

At most, I think the Bills want to develop a rep as being tough but fair. Certainly as the Peter's situation was one of the first times in the modern era that a Bill who is under contract for several years actually launched a holdout I think it is pretty reasonable for the Bills being tough but fair simply refusing to negotiate until Peters came to camp.

 

However, one of the things I am happiest about is that Peters and Parker actually have said nothing and not provided any fodder to the local press which folks like WGR or Jerry Sullivan would be happy to turn into a controversy which allows them to fill air minutes or column inches so they can sell some commercials.

 

However, particularly to the extent that small market Buffalo would not strike many NFLers as the city they might want to come to, i would much prefer if we had a rep as a soft touch which attracted players here or convinced UDFAs like Peters to throw their lot in with us rather than some other city.

 

I can understand why Brandon and Ralph as businessmen want to be tough in negotiations. However, as one who cares about the sport rather than the business primarily I actually like having the team develop a rep as a fair soft touch as seen in us overpaying Kelsay and paying to extend Schobel when we were under no real obligation to do this.

 

If Peters agent had called Brandon and asked for a new contract in January and Peters showed up for all OTA's he'd probably have had a contract extension before camp started. I don't think Buffalo is doing anything to worry future FA's. Schobel and Evans are examples of players who didn't holdout for OTA's and camp and got new contracts. Giving Peters a contract extension now shows players that if they hold out they aren't going to get a new contract. They have to show up in order to get a new contract and that is as it should be.

[lets_go_bills]

Buffalo had always taken care of its guys. They are not afraid or unwilling to negotiate extensions and the like. This is simply a matter of opinion, but I feel that one should voice their concern/displeasure behind closed doors to management and then go and work your tail off. Peters opted to not show and not speak to anyone, and I frown upon this route.

 

Yes, he is underpaid. But he is under contract for three more years at an ok salary. Buffalo is not stupid enough to simply let this guy go. I am 100% certain they would have extended him soon anyway, he deserves it and has earned it.

 

Unfortunately, Peters ended the year with a groin injury and also had a sports hernia. Buffalo would want to see him healthy before they negotiate.

 

What we have here is a stalemate. Brandon has publicly said that Buffalo WILL negotiate with him, but only if he shows up. It's rather simple in my eyes, just show up to camp, work hard and show you're no slouch and not a one year wonder. Surely that would get him a fat new contract.

 

Poor behaviour should not be rewarded. Buffalo is not being a hard arse, but rather it is a smart and logical business plan.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

I would say unequivocally NO.

 

It has been amusing for me to see a few posts on TSW that call for that or seem to want the Bills to emphasize using the Peters situation to develop a rep as tough guys dealing with players.

 

I agree that yes, the Bills should be concerned about the potential for giving Peters a new deal setting a precedent. However, as far as the Bills developing a rep amongst players throughout the league, I actually would prefer as a fan to see us generally seen as a potential soft touch in negotiations as if that becomes a reason why players enter FA thinking of the Bills as a serious possibility I think that is good for us.

 

At most, I think the Bills want to develop a rep as being tough but fair. Certainly as the Peter's situation was one of the first times in the modern era that a Bill who is under contract for several years actually launched a holdout I think it is pretty reasonable for the Bills being tough but fair simply refusing to negotiate until Peters came to camp.

 

However, one of the things I am happiest about is that Peters and Parker actually have said nothing and not provided any fodder to the local press which folks like WGR or Jerry Sullivan would be happy to turn into a controversy which allows them to fill air minutes or column inches so they can sell some commercials.

 

However, particularly to the extent that small market Buffalo would not strike many NFLers as the city they might want to come to, i would much prefer if we had a rep as a soft touch which attracted players here or convinced UDFAs like Peters to throw their lot in with us rather than some other city.

 

I can understand why Brandon and Ralph as businessmen want to be tough in negotiations. However, as one who cares about the sport rather than the business primarily I actually like having the team develop a rep as a fair soft touch as seen in us overpaying Kelsay and paying to extend Schobel when we were under no real obligation to do this.

Yes, I want the Bills to develop a rep as harda** negotiators...regarding holdouts.

 

This team is willing to spend coin, and it will take care of it's players when its deserved. We all know that, and its at least as true here as it is anywhere else. There's no problem with the lucrative extensions continuing for players who have outperformed their deal. It helps morale, it gives other players a goal to work for, and most importantly its flat-out necessary to build a good roster.

 

What I (and I daresay a few others) would like to see is exactly what we've seen to date: management drawing a line in the sand when it comes to holdouts.

 

Paint a picture for players that there's only one way to get the money you want out of this team: by working your tail off for it.

 

If you want to pout in the corner, you can sit and pout your livelihood away as far as we're concerned. We own your rights until WE decide otherwise, so you can either show up and play football or retire. In a holdout situation, the team is the one with all the leverage. I wouldn't want to see the Bills give up that advantageous position.

 

Players can look at what has happened for guys like Schobel and soon-to-be Evans, and they can look at Peters, who either a) ultimately ended his holdout by reporting to the team with his tail between his legs, having gained nothing from holding out except hurting his own performance (and therefore his earning potential) by missing practice and/or game time, or b) ultimately did not end his holdout, and eventually retired. They can compare the outcome that Peters achieved to the outcome Evans/Schobel achieved, and from that hopefully take the course of action we all want them to take.

 

Other than holdouts, we're completely in agreement. Nobody wants to root for a team thats percieved as "cheap." But ask Derrick Dockery, Langston Walker, Ryan Denney, Chris Kelsay, Aaron Schobel and others: this team is perfectly willing to pay players who deserve it.

[bladiebla]

We have a saying in Dutch that fits here really well, I'll do my best to translate it:

 

Gentle (soft, weak) Doctors create stinking wounds.

 

For those interest; here's the Dutch original (since I think my translation of it sucks).

Zachte heelmeesters maken stinkende wonden.

 

Edit: I just realized the saying could apply both to the Bills camp and Peters camp... ow well. My personal opinion (don't know if it would have been possible at all) is that Peters should have reported from day 1 made his demands known and if no progress was made then and only then start a holdout, however I'm not even sure if that is possible if he allready reported say for the OTA's to start a holdout midcamp.

[billybob]

Buffalo had always taken care of its White guys. They are not afraid or unwilling to negotiate extensions and the like. This is simply a matter of opinion, but I feel that one should voice their concern/displeasure behind closed doors to management and then go and work your tail off. Peters opted to not show and not speak to anyone, and I frown upon this route.

 

Yes, he is underpaid. But he is under contract for three more years at an ok salary. Buffalo is not stupid enough to simply let this guy go. I am 100% certain they would have extended him soon anyway, he deserves it and has earned it.

 

Unfortunately, Peters ended the year with a groin injury and also had a sports hernia. Buffalo would want to see him healthy before they negotiate.

 

What we have here is a stalemate. Brandon has publicly said that Buffalo WILL negotiate with him, but only if he shows up. It's rather simple in my eyes, just show up to camp, work hard and show you're no slouch and not a one year wonder. Surely that would get him a fat new contract.

 

Poor behaviour should not be rewarded. Buffalo is not being a hard arse, but rather it is a smart and logical business plan.

fixed

[Bmwolf21]

Yes, I want the Bills to develop a rep as harda** negotiators...regarding holdouts.

 

This team is willing to spend coin, and it will take care of it's players when its deserved. We all know that, and its at least as true here as it is anywhere else. There's no problem with the lucrative extensions continuing for players who have outperformed their deal. It helps morale, it gives other players a goal to work for, and most importantly its flat-out necessary to build a good roster.

 

What I (and I daresay a few others) would like to see is exactly what we've seen to date: management drawing a line in the sand when it comes to holdouts.

 

Paint a picture for players that there's only one way to get the money you want out of this team: by working your tail off for it.

 

If you want to pout in the corner, you can sit and pout your livelihood away as far as we're concerned. We own your rights until WE decide otherwise, so you can either show up and play football or retire. In a holdout situation, the team is the one with all the leverage. I wouldn't want to see the Bills give up that advantageous position.

 

Players can look at what has happened for guys like Schobel and soon-to-be Evans, and they can look at Peters, who either a) ultimately ended his holdout by reporting to the team with his tail between his legs, having gained nothing from holding out except hurting his own performance (and therefore his earning potential) by missing practice and/or game time, or b) ultimately did not end his holdout, and eventually retired. They can compare the outcome that Peters achieved to the outcome Evans/Schobel achieved, and from that hopefully take the course of action we all want them to take.

 

Other than holdouts, we're completely in agreement. Nobody wants to root for a team thats percieved as "cheap." But ask Derrick Dockery, Langston Walker, Ryan Denney, Chris Kelsay, Aaron Schobel and others: this team is perfectly willing to pay players who deserve it.

Bingo. I want them to be perceived as tough but fair. That they'll take care of you if you show loyalty to the team and show a willingness to work with the FO, but if you holdout when you have three years left on the deal you just renegotiated, then you'll be sitting for a while.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Absolutely. When you've been one of a handful of bottom feeders the last decade, it is highly productive and a good tool to attract and retain top-tier talent by going out of one's way to claim abject poverty and insist on paying below market value. It only makes sense.

[Steely Dan]

fixed

 

Do you follow this team?

[tombstone56]

I would say unequivocally NO.

 

It has been amusing for me to see a few posts on TSW that call for that or seem to want the Bills to emphasize using the Peters situation to develop a rep as tough guys dealing with players.

 

I agree that yes, the Bills should be concerned about the potential for giving Peters a new deal setting a precedent. However, as far as the Bills developing a rep amongst players throughout the league, I actually would prefer as a fan to see us generally seen as a potential soft touch in negotiations as if that becomes a reason why players enter FA thinking of the Bills as a serious possibility I think that is good for us.

 

At most, I think the Bills want to develop a rep as being tough but fair. Certainly as the Peter's situation was one of the first times in the modern era that a Bill who is under contract for several years actually launched a holdout I think it is pretty reasonable for the Bills being tough but fair simply refusing to negotiate until Peters came to camp.

 

However, one of the things I am happiest about is that Peters and Parker actually have said nothing and not provided any fodder to the local press which folks like WGR or Jerry Sullivan would be happy to turn into a controversy which allows them to fill air minutes or column inches so they can sell some commercials.

 

However, particularly to the extent that small market Buffalo would not strike many NFLers as the city they might want to come to, i would much prefer if we had a rep as a soft touch which attracted players here or convinced UDFAs like Peters to throw their lot in with us rather than some other city.

 

I can understand why Brandon and Ralph as businessmen want to be tough in negotiations. However, as one who cares about the sport rather than the business primarily I actually like having the team develop a rep as a fair soft touch as seen in us overpaying Kelsay and paying to extend Schobel when we were under no real obligation to do this.

 

 

typical woman ,always willing to spend someone else's money // lol

[shibuya]

the Bills are not being hardasses... Evans is getitng a deal done.

 

Schobel Kelsay and others have recieved extension.

 

Peters is a douche, and the FO is 100% correct in the way they are handling Peters. Peters is the only one who gets any blame here

[ricojes]

Every situation is different, I really don't think you can just lump everything together. Are they tough with players signed for 3 years, who want to re-negotiate and will not report to camp? Yes. Will they negotiate with players that are in camp who's contracts are about to expire? Yes. Will they try to be pro-active and extend players contracts? Maybe. Are they just tough to deal with under any circumstance? I don't know. Too many variables to intelligently discuss this topic (of course that's never stopped any one here before)...

[Kelly the Dog]

Personally, I think "setting precedent" is total nonsense and agents, because they are egomaniacal louses, could care less about precedents that were set before, unless it helps their argument. If it doesn't help their argument, they say "this situation is different" and they're usually right. All situations are different.

 

Teams pay players what they believe the player is worth, combined with how much money they wish to spend, and how much they have already spent on that position. That's pretty much it. IF the Bills caved for Peters and paid him what he was asking for even though he didn't come to camp, it would not help other players holding out one bit, IMO. And the Bills would laugh at any agent who held their client out because Jason Peters held out and it worked. The Bills would just say, you can hold out too when you outplay your deal by three years and be named Pro Bowl Starter at one of the most important positions in the game in your first year playing it."

 

Whether or not they take a hardline stance on Jason Peters or not (which I think they should be) it has no affect whatsoever on how much they will pay other players. Most players, 99% of them, it's to their advantage to be in camp while their deal is being worked out. Most of the players the Bills have re-signed to deals they have overpaid for, so it was easy for their agents to make those deals. There was no reason to use a holdout as a threat.

 

The Peters situation is very unique. There aren't a huge number of holdouts around the league each year because it's usually not a good idea, and usually only works when you are a bona fide star. There also seems to be no link whatsover to the amount of holdouts a team has to any former policy they have had, unless you are the Cardinals or The Bengals, who mess up coin flips.

[Hazed and Amuzed]

fixed

 

 

That's a retarded stance and a moronic statement. You should grow up.

[Steely Dan]

Personally, I think "setting precedent" is total nonsense and agents, because they are egomaniacal louses, could care less about precedents that were set before, unless it helps their argument. If it doesn't help their argument, they say "this situation is different" and they're usually right. All situations are different.

 

Teams pay players what they believe the player is worth, combined with how much money they wish to spend, and how much they have already spent on that position. That's pretty much it. IF the Bills caved for Peters and paid him what he was asking for even though he didn't come to camp, it would not help other players holding out one bit, IMO. And the Bills would laugh at any agent who held their client out because Jason Peters held out and it worked. The Bills would just say, you can hold out too when you outplay your deal by three years and be named Pro Bowl Starter at one of the most important positions in the game in your first year playing it."

 

Whether or not they take a hardline stance on Jason Peters or not (which I think they should be) it has no affect whatsoever on how much they will pay other players. Most players, 99% of them, it's to their advantage to be in camp while their deal is being worked out. Most of the players the Bills have re-signed to deals they have overpaid for, so it was easy for their agents to make those deals. There was no reason to use a holdout as a threat.

 

The Peters situation is very unique. There aren't a huge number of holdouts around the league each year because it's usually not a good idea, and usually only works when you are a bona fide star. There also seems to be no link whatsover to the amount of holdouts a team has to any former policy they have had, unless you are the Cardinals or The Bengals, who mess up coin flips.

 

I disagree. They have to treat each situation the same or there is going to be problems with players thinking it's some kind of favoritism. I say don't renegotiate unless a player is in camp.

[John from Riverside]

To me this is not about being labelled as a hard@ss.....

 

This is about drawing a line that the team will not be held ransom when a player signs a contract. Players AND AGENTS are watching the bills moves very carefully you can be assured of that....and if they buckle we will have players doing this every fricken year.

[devldog131]

fixed

 

 

You're effing kidding right? You just made yourself look like an absolute moron.

[PromoTheRobot]

I say no. The Bills, if anything, have shown to be very willing to extend deals for players, PROVIDING they show up and play. I think the Bills are showing respect to the players who show respect to the Bills. Be selfish, disrespect your teammates, and the Bills have nothing to say to you, even if you are a (one-time barely) Pro Bowler.

 

PTR

[Mickey]

If Peters agent had called Brandon and asked for a new contract in January and Peters showed up for all OTA's he'd probably have had a contract extension before camp started. I don't think Buffalo is doing anything to worry future FA's. Schobel and Evans are examples of players who didn't holdout for OTA's and camp and got new contracts. Giving Peters a contract extension now shows players that if they hold out they aren't going to get a new contract. They have to show up in order to get a new contract and that is as it should be.

The team approached Schobel to start negotiating a new deal in February of 2007 when he still had 3 years left on his contract and even though negotiations were under way, Schobel skipped out on the first OTAs in March of 2007 to send a message to the team. They had his deal done with the exception of a few details prior to camp which is why he was in camp. In contrast, the team hasn't offered to give Peters a new deal and have instead insisted that he "honor the committment he made two years ago", an issue that didn't stop them from going to Schobel. Camp has nothing to do with this. They don't want to give him a new deal this year, period. And if they had done that to Schobel, he wouldn't have missed only 4 off season practices. They could have, if they were willing to give him a new deal, started negotiating in February 2008 and would have had 6 months to get a deal done before camp ever became an issue.

 

The team did set a precedent with Schobel and then abandoned it with Peters.

[Mickey]

the Bills are not being hardasses... Evans is getitng a deal done.

 

Schobel Kelsay and others have recieved extension.

 

Peters is a douche, and the FO is 100% correct in the way they are handling Peters. Peters is the only one who gets any blame here

Why did the team start negotiating with Schobel in February of 2007 even though he had 3 years left on his deal and not do that with Peters?

 

Did Schobel show respect for the team when he skipped out of the first 4 OTAs to send a message even though, at the time, the team was already in negotiations with his agents?

 

Why did the team spend 6 months dealing with Schobel's agents hammering out a new deal and not do the same with Peters?