If Peters doesn't show

[Bill from NYC]

Just let me state before i get blasted, I understand centers get paid less than LTs. And I have no idea what the bonus was on the current deal.

 

But, was looking at ESPN the mag this morning, and was shocked to see Saturday earns $3.5M this year as well, same number as Peters. And from all accounts, Manning would be lost without Saturday making all the line calls. I think he is considereded one of the top three centers in the game. Considering he was selected to ALL Pro team, not just the Pro Bowl, I think he would have a reason to be going ape chit over his contract as well, as I am sure it did not compare to what LeCharles Bently got from Cleveland. Plus, he is the last year of his contract, when one could resonably expect to negotiate an extension/redo.

 

What is the point of all this? I dunno, but maybe, just maybe, there are other guys in the NFL underpaid based on last season performance( or actually several years, compared to Peters 1) and all of them are not holding out.

 

Good post. You are right; there are all kinds of scenarios out there.

 

There are some players who actually do not want extensions. For instance, I think that Clements wanted out of Buffalo. Players sometimes make decisions like this for family reasons, wanting a big market for endorsements, climate, or other reasons.

 

Peters has less leverage because he is under contract for 3 more seasons. What he has going for him is that there are very few top LTs. Very few, and look where the great ones were drafted. You might never see a udfa LT make the pro bowl again in your lifetime. It is possible.

 

If we lose Peters, how does anybody suggest we go about replacing him? The Bills drafts, for the last decade, have been aimed at defensive backs and largely unsuccessful. Now, they won't pay a pro bowl LT. Do you think they will draft one early and give 60 million dollars to a kid who never played?

 

It is ugly pmd. Ugly indeed.

[eball]

Soon my man e-ball will chime in and tell us how great Demetrius Bell is.

I see the big smiley face after that comment, however if you believe it to be true then you clearly don't understand my perspective on this issue.

 

For the last time, I DO NOT blindly support the actions of the Bills' front office and coaching staff. I have taken my own positions in the past and have been both wrong and right on numerous occasions. Yet, because the Bills are my team, I DO make an effort to view things the way I imagine they might see them, in an effort to try to understand and get behind the decisions.

 

On the Jason Peters issue, my feelings are as follows:

 

1 -- I would like it very much if Peters is the Bills' starting LT for many years to come;

2 -- I agree that Peters' salary is comparatively low given his 2007 performance and future expectations;

3 -- I do not believe it is unreasonable for the team to take the position that they will discuss contract terms only with players who participate in mandatory team activities; and

4 -- I do not agree with the strategy of agents holding players out who have multiple years remaining on their contracts, regardless of the validity of the player's complaints/demands.

 

If Peters is foolish enough to sit out the regular season, then he is truly not a team player, because the bottom line is if he plays and plays well in 2008, clearly the Bills will re-do his deal and make him one of the highest paid linemen in the game. Part of the risk of signing a contract is the knowledge you might outperform it -- you take that risk because the result is something tangible you can grasp.

 

I don't care if the Bills' playoff chances are reduced because of Peters' absence, because I have a problem with the ethics of his choices in this regard.

 

Clear enough?

[plenzmd1]

Good post. You are right; there are all kinds of scenarios out there.

 

There are some players who actually do not want extensions. For instance, I think that Clements wanted out of Buffalo. Players sometimes make decisions like this for family reasons, wanting a big market for endorsements, climate, or other reasons.

 

Peters has less leverage because he is under contract for 3 more seasons. What he has going for him is that there are very few top LTs. Very few, and look where the great ones were drafted. You might never see a udfa LT make the pro bowl again in your lifetime. It is possible.

 

If we lose Peters, how does anybody suggest we go about replacing him? The Bills drafts, for the last decade, have been aimed at defensive backs and largely unsuccessful. Now, they won't pay a pro bowl LT. Do you think they will draft one early and give 60 million dollars to a kid who never played?

It is ugly pmd. Ugly indeed.

 

Thats the poopy part in the NFL. And like you said, it is ugly, and I can see both sides, and think both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

 

As you may know, I am a gambling fool, and have learned to live with both my losses as well as my winnings. The tough part of this deal is it was a gamble. Peters gambled he wasn't going to get appreciably better , but he has and he now regrets that gamble. It is costing him a lot of money, I understand that.

 

 

The Bills gambled he would continue to get better, and they were right. Now, they want to get paid on their bet. I can understand that as well. But this is like winning a bet with your brother when you know his wife will be so pissed at the two of you after he pays ya off, you are better of not collecting and still being invited to Christmas dinner.

 

Whole thing just makes me pissed

[keepthefaith]

Thats the poopy part in the NFL. And like you said, it is ugly, and I can see both sides, and think both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

 

As you may know, I am a gambling fool, and have learned to live with both my losses as well as my winnings. The tough part of this deal is it was a gamble. Peters gambled he wasn't going to get appreciably better , but he has and he now regrets that gamble. It is costing him a lot of money, I understand that.

 

 

The Bills gambled he would continue to get better, and they were right. Now, they want to get paid on their bet. I can understand that as well. But this is like winning a bet with your brother when you know his wife will be so pissed at the two of you after he pays ya off, you are better of not collecting and still being invited to Christmas dinner.

 

Whole thing just makes me pissed

 

Peters and his agent have turned this into a competition rather than a cooperation and the Bills have a history of cooperating with him. The heck with him. Let him sit.

[Kelly the Dog]

The Rams did not "cave" - Jackson was unhappy with the holdout, and worried about the damage to his image and his relationships with the team, his teammates and the fans, and ordered Parker to negotiate. Talks got started, Rams said come to camp and we'll get a deal done - Jackson showed up, a deal got done.

 

Peters could also order Parker to negotiate, but my bet is he's not physically or mentally ready to play football.

Thanks for the total distortion of the facts again. The deal was all but done before he came to camp. He only came to camp because the deal was done. They gave him significantly more money than they offered before and during the holdout. The Ram cut off negotiations when he turned down a contract and said they wouldn't start again until he reported, then caved and negotiated before he reported. He basically got a three year deal for 10 mil a year by holding out, and all they did was dot the i's and cross the t's when he came to camp, after it was "imminent". There was a week of negotiating while he was out of camp, he agreed to the deal on a Wednesday and Thursday he came to camp. The Rams had to be the ones that agreed to negotiate. Peters could do all the ordering he wanted to Parker and the Bills said they won't do it. The Rams are the ones that "caved", without question.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?prov=ap&a...n&type=lgns

 

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/R...eSportsFootball

 

Jackson told the newspaper in a story on its website that the stalemate had been about a difference in philosophy. He said talks "recommenced" late last week, and Jackson booked a flight from Las Vegas to St. Louis on Wednesday when a deal appeared imminent.

 

The Rams cut off negotiations in late July on the first day of training camp after Jackson's agent, Eugene Parker, turned down a deal the team said would have put Jackson in the top echelon at his position.

 

At that time, Jay Zygmunt, the Rams' president of football operations, said there would be no further talks until the running back reported.

 

And... The Rams offered a third of the contract in guaranteed money at the beginning of training camp. That's 16-17 mil on a 49-50 mil deal. Then agreed to 4 million more as he signed for 21 mil guaranteed. It also has language that likely makes it void after two years.

 

The contract is structured to run through 2013. As a five-year extension, it is worth $49.3 million, including $21 million in guaranteed money, according to NFL Network's Adam Schefter. Due to clauses in the final two years it will likely void, making it a three-year, $29.3 million extension.

[cody]

I don't care if the Bills' playoff chances are reduced because of Peters' absence, because I have a problem with the ethics of his choices in this regard.

 

I think this is where the differences in opinion lie.

 

I think of the NFL as a business focused on making $.

Teams do whatever it takes to win. Wins mean playoff games, free advertising and endorsements.

 

I seriously worry that a franchise that sticks to 'principles' at the expense of wins will be left behind.

 

I know people will say that not negotiating with holdouts is a business decision, made with the intent of avoiding future holdouts. I do not think it works. The very few teams who proclaim to have the 'no negotiation' policy will always be underminded by the majority that do negotiate with holdouts.

[Mickey]

Good post. You are right; there are all kinds of scenarios out there.

 

There are some players who actually do not want extensions. For instance, I think that Clements wanted out of Buffalo. Players sometimes make decisions like this for family reasons, wanting a big market for endorsements, climate, or other reasons.

 

Peters has less leverage because he is under contract for 3 more seasons. What he has going for him is that there are very few top LTs. Very few, and look where the great ones were drafted. You might never see a udfa LT make the pro bowl again in your lifetime. It is possible.

 

If we lose Peters, how does anybody suggest we go about replacing him? The Bills drafts, for the last decade, have been aimed at defensive backs and largely unsuccessful. Now, they won't pay a pro bowl LT. Do you think they will draft one early and give 60 million dollars to a kid who never played?

 

It is ugly pmd. Ugly indeed.

Extensions are less of an issue with first and second round players as their initial contracts were sizeable. Peters played for, I think a total of 300-400k his first two years. That wouldn't pay Lee's dry cleaning bill but then again, he really, really likes clean clothes.

[Bill from NYC]

Extensions are less of an issue with first and second round players as their initial contracts were sizeable. Peters played for, I think a total of 300-400k his first two years. That wouldn't pay Lee's dry cleaning bill but then again, he really, really likes clean clothes.

 

[KD in CA]

Whatever the reason -- he's still injured and can't play, he's all screwed up in the head, he borrowed Rickey's bong and can't get up -- count me among those who think there is something wrong with this guy and he is damaged goods. There is absolutely no logical reason why a rising young star would simply not show up knowing that he'll make millions of dollars this season, and if he and his agent approached the Bills in a constructive manner, he would have his extension and huge raise no later than the end of the season -- two full years before it's due.

 

And anyone thinking that he's going to show up on the eve of Week 1 and pick right up in top form will be in for a rude awakening. This isn't a 15 year vet like Strahan. There is a better chance that Peters never plays another down for the Bills than there is of him making the Pro Bowl (this year....when it counts).

[colin]

if peters misses more than 2 or 3 games i think the likely hood of him being traded starts to approach and then exceed 50%.

 

if our line and O is decent in the meantime, that likely hood really really goes up. if they put him up there for 2 firsts, it could happen.

 

atlanta would like to protect their new qb i think.

[BillsVet]

if peters misses more than 2 or 3 games i think the likely hood of him being traded starts to approach and then exceed 50%.

 

if our line and O is decent in the meantime, that likely hood really really goes up. if they put him up there for 2 firsts, it could happen.

 

atlanta would like to protect their new qb i think.

 

Peters will not be traded. Either Buffalo wants too much for him, or plain lets him sit while accumulating fines, missed game checks.

 

The OL, while not superb last season in run blocking, was quite adept at pass protection. We all know Peters was a big part of that. I hope Walker/Chambers can adapt to their new positions, especially when they take on good pass rushers.

 

Atlanta, IIRC, spent a first rounder on Sam Baker to protect their newly tabbed starter Ryan. Peters seems to be out of the question. That's not to say teams wouldn't want him, I just believe the price would be too high and the stalemate will continue.

[The Senator]

Extensions are less of an issue with first and second round players as their initial contracts were sizeable. Peters played for, I think a total of 300-400k his first two years. That wouldn't pay Lee's dry cleaning bill but then again, he really, really likes clean clothes.

Just how much higher than the rookie minimum would you have offered an undrafted TE who scored a 9 on his Wonderlic?

[cody]

Extensions are less of an issue with first and second round players as their initial contracts were sizeable. Peters played for, I think a total of 300-400k his first two years. That wouldn't pay Lee's dry cleaning bill but then again, he really, really likes clean clothes.

 

I know this is off topic but:

 

A few years ago, I was at the dry cleaners. A Hummer pulls up, stereo blasting. Travis Henry gets out, leaves the car running and door open. The dry cleaner goes back to get his clothes. The dry cleaner comes back and says that will be $40.00. Travis Henry feels his pockets, and says "I'll be right back". Then he drove away.

[The Senator]

I know this is off topic but:

 

A few years ago, I was at the dry cleaners. A Hummer pulls up, stereo blasting. Travis Henry gets out, leaves the car running and door open. The dry cleaner goes back to get his clothes. The dry cleaner comes back and says that will be $40.00. Travis Henry feels his pockets, and says "I'll be right back". Then he drove away.

BIG question - did Henry run off with his dry cleaning?

[eball]

I think this is where the differences in opinion lie.

 

I think of the NFL as a business focused on making $.

Teams do whatever it takes to win. Wins mean playoff games, free advertising and endorsements.

 

I seriously worry that a franchise that sticks to 'principles' at the expense of wins will be left behind.

 

I know people will say that not negotiating with holdouts is a business decision, made with the intent of avoiding future holdouts. I do not think it works. The very few teams who proclaim to have the 'no negotiation' policy will always be underminded by the majority that do negotiate with holdouts.

Somewhere over the past few days I posted that this is not a "typical" holdout situation. I'd like for someone to present a scenario in recent memory that is similar. This is not about dealing with a guy in the last year of his contract, or a draft pick prior to his first contract, and that's why I have a problem with it.

[cody]

BIG question - did Henry run off with his dry cleaning?

 

No, but while he was waiting, he played imaginary basketball against a potted palm tree. He dunked it pretty hard, I thought the tree would fall over.

 

I have since switched drycleaners. The place I go now doesn't take as long to get your stuff from the back and has no potted plants in the waiting area.

[cody]

Somewhere over the past few days I posted that this is not a "typical" holdout situation. I'd like for someone to present a scenario in recent memory that is similar. This is not about dealing with a guy in the last year of his contract, or a draft pick prior to his first contract, and that's why I have a problem with it.

 

When Parker pulled this with the Pats, Seymour had 2 years left on his contract. The Pats re-negotiated his deal.

 

When Parker pulled this with the Bears, Hester had 2 years left on his contract. The Bears re-negotiated his deal.

[VABills]

When Parker pulled this with the Pats, Seymour had 2 years left on his contract. The Pats re-negotiated his deal.

 

When Parker pulled this with the Bears, Hester had 2 years left on his contract. The Bears re-negotiated his deal.

Peters has 3

[The Senator]

No, but while he was waiting, he played imaginary basketball against a potted palm tree. He dunked it pretty hard, I thought the tree would fall over.

 

I have since switched drycleaners. The place I go now doesn't take as long to get your stuff from the back and has no potted plants in the waiting area.

I see. Maybe Travis ran off so quickly because he spotted a couple 15-year-olds at the 7-11 down the street?

[VABills]

I see. Maybe Travis ran off so quickly because he spotted a couple 15-year-olds at the 7-11 down the street?

 

No way. Too old.