cody Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 Peters has 3 2 was the best I could do. They are still examples of holdouts when someone is not in the last year of his contract, which is what eball asked.
The Senator Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 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 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. Clearly, KTD, we have widely differing opinions on the matter and, unfortunately, I wasn't there in the room the day you, Parker, and Jackson struck the deal with the Rams. The crux of the biscuit, IMHO, the major difference between the Peters situation and Jackson, is that the Rams already knew they were going to have to extend Jackson at the end of last season and were ready, willing, and more than predisposed to do so. They had already made an offer when Jackson switched agents and hired Parker - Parker turned down the deal, then talks broke off... "Where we stand right now is that (Thursday) evening we made Steven an offer through Eugene Parker which would put Steven literally in the top group of running backs in the NFL," Zygmunt said. "Eugene called me sometime shortly after lunch (Friday) and informed me that they weren't accepting the offer. And at that time, he told me that Steven would not be showing up. He just talked about (Friday), he didn't mention when he might be coming in or anything of that nature." Zygmunt said he reiterated to Parker the team's desire to get a new deal done with Jackson. That was the carrot; then came the stick. "I advised him that this would be considered an unexcused absence," Zygmunt said. "He would be fined. And I said that as soon as he got into camp and he does show up, we'd like to continue the negotiations. But we will not be negotiating while he is out of camp." Link Some 3 weeks into the holdout, there were rumblings and reports that Jackson was extremely unhappy with the holdout and Parker, and threatened to fire him... Is Steven Jackson unhappy with his holdout and his agent? Reconciliation in Jackson's holdout? Then, Lo, and behold!!!!! - Jackson's agent, Eugene Parker, informed the Rams on Wednesday afternoon that Jackson had agreed to report to Rams Park as a show of good faith in contract negotiations. With the nearly month-long stalemate over, Parker and Rams president of football operations-general manager Jay Zygmunt worked through the afternoon and into the evening on an extension. "We're glad he's coming in, and we look forward to him being a Ram for a long time, and getting a deal done," Zygmunt said. And after the deal got done, Jackson did his best to smooth things over by speaking of 'philosophical differences' between the 2 negotiating camps... Jackson said the original stalemate was a matter of "just philosophy." He added, "We just had two different ways — how we were thinking, where we wanted to go on a contract. And the Rams, the way they were thinking. Their philosophy. That's where it came to a standstill." Once talks broke off on July 25, the first day of training camp at Concordia University Wisconsin, Jackson said there was a long period without dialogue with the Rams. "But once things started to recommence late last week, we got it done," Jackson said. Once things reached a point, where Jackson felt a new deal was a real possibility, he decided to report. "Things really got hot and heavy (Wednesday), and that's when I booked the flight," Jackson said. "When you're talking about this kind of money, there's going to be some kind of gripes and concerns. In negotiations, no one gets 100 percent what they want, so it was just the two of us coming to an agreement on some things." Link Now you and I can both 'spin' the published reports to best support our different opinions. Did the Rams already know they were going to give Jackson an extension, a big raise, and a huge signing bonus before Parker ever entered the picture? Most certainly they did. Did Parker get Jackson a better deal than initially offered? Yes - $4M more guaranteed is a ton of dough. Was the prolonged holdout necessary? Probably not. Did Jackson's relationship with his teammates and the fans take a hit? Well, time - and winning - heals all wounds. All that said, I still don't give a crap who caved, or what goes on in St. Louis. Jackson was getting a new deal all along. Peters is not. (And I'll still owe you that Ballpark Frank if Peters reports in decent playing shape and shows no signs of rustiness or effects from the 'nagging groin tear/sports hernia' that ended his season, and possibly his career.) GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! :thumbsup:
Kelly the Dog Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 The only fact that matters, my steamed colleague from the great state of New York, is that the Rams said they weren't negotiating until he came to camp, and then they negotiated before he came to camp. And he came to camp after they agreed on an extension for a lot more money than he turned down. That is the only important part of the story as it connects to the Bills, excluding that Eugene Parker is the same agent. If anything, the Rams sequence of events strengthens Parkers and Peters resolve and proves that holdouts work when you want more money. And if anyone "caved", it was The Rams, and not Parker and Jackson.
The Senator Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 The only fact that matters, my steamed colleague from the great state of New York, is that the Rams said they weren't negotiating until he came to camp, and then they negotiated before he came to camp. And he came to camp after they agreed on an extension for a lot more money than he turned down. That is the only important part of the story as it connects to the Bills, excluding that Eugene Parker is the same agent. If anything, the Rams sequence of events strengthens Parkers and Peters resolve and proves that holdouts work when you want more money. And if anyone "caved", it was The Rams, and not Parker and Jackson. Again, I wasn't on the phone with you guys when it all happened.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 Again, I wasn't on the phone with you guys when it all happened. It's in the article you linked.
The Senator Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 The only fact that matters, my steamed colleague from the great state of New York, is that the Rams said they weren't negotiating until he came to camp, and then they negotiated before he came to camp. And he came to camp after they agreed on an extension for a lot more money than he turned down. That is the only important part of the story as it connects to the Bills, excluding that Eugene Parker is the same agent. If anything, the Rams sequence of events strengthens Parkers and Peters resolve and proves that holdouts work when you want more money. And if anyone "caved", it was The Rams, and not Parker and Jackson. Really??? It's in an article that I linked that "he came to camp after they agreed on an extension for a lot more money than he turned down"????? 'Cause I'm pouring thru the links again, and I see this... Jackson's agent, Eugene Parker, informed the Rams on Wednesday afternoon that Jackson had agreed to report to Rams Park as a show of good faith in contract negotiations. With the nearly month-long stalemate over, Parker and Rams president of football operations-general manager Jay Zygmunt worked through the afternoon and into the evening on an extension. "We're glad he's coming in, and we look forward to him being a Ram for a long time, and getting a deal done," Zygmunt said. That kinda sounds like there was no deal 'til he reported to camp, and this... Once things reached a point, where Jackson felt a new deal was a real possibility, he decided to report. "Things really got hot and heavy (Wednesday), and that's when I booked the flight," Jackson said. ....most definitely sounds like Jackson was the one who caved and reported to camp before any deal was done.
keepthefaith Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 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. And both guys had played in 2 pro bowls or more.
cody Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 And both guys had played in 2 pro bowls or more. Where is the line? Parker is looking for it. He has held out rookies, vets in the final years of thier contracts, franchise taged players, and vets with multiple years left on contracts. Feel proud that the Bills are being the only team in the NFL willing to stand up to Parker. Just remember, Patrick Kerney will be in Orchard Park in 12 days. And he's bringing his 72.5 career sacks with him.
eball Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 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. Huge differences in that both were still playing off their rookie contracts. Seymour's holdout was what, a week? Was Hester's more than a day? Apples and oranges.
cody Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 Apples and oranges. The exact circumstances of every holdout are different. But most end the same way. I do not want to be different, I just want Peters playing on Sept 7.
DrDawkinstein Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 The exact circumstances of every holdout are different.But most end the same way. I do not want to be different, I just want Peters playing on Sept 7. too late for that now. even if he showed up TODAY, he does not have the ability to pick up the new offense AND be in shape by next sunday. he's very talented, but not that talented. if he showed up today, he would be more of a liability out there on the 7th than starting Walker and Chambers.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 too late for that now. even if he showed up TODAY, he does not have the ability to pick up the new offense AND be in shape by next sunday. he's very talented, but not that talented. if he showed up today, he would be more of a liability out there on the 7th than starting Walker and Chambers. Dockery can explain to him what he needs to do on every play. I believe I read that Turk was keeping a lot of the same offense and terminology, but was just adding things of his own. If he came in with a week before the season he could easily be ready to play, and play at a high level. It depends on how good a shape he is in, and that's something none of us know, but I would be surprised, after hearing what Dockery said, that he would be in bad shape. He would be a little rusty, and be very sore, but he would very likely be able to play. Guys do it all the time.
Recommended Posts