nucci Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 I read Edwards first sentence as sticking up for the guys he's playing behind right now. Perhaps I editoralized a bit, but, he is supporting the players who are there. And yes, when Peters returns all will be well and he will be welcomed into the locker room. Now...unless Peters reports this is my very last post in one of his many threads. On to Seattle!!!!! That's what I keep saying but I continue to get pulled back in!
Beerball Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 That's what I keep saying but I continue to get pulled back in! That won't happen to me. I'm through.
jimmy griffin Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 your not a war time consiglieri tom. your out. That's what I keep saying but I continue to get pulled back in!
nucci Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 your not a war time consiglieri tom. your out. Maybe I can help.
Bill from NYC Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Meantime, we'll draft his replacement in April. In the end, we'll get rid of him at some point and get value back for him, but on our timetable, not his. All b.s. aside, what in the world would make you believe this to be true? History tells us that this is totally unlikely to happen.
Mickey Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 You still don't get it, but the chick in your avatar is hot, so you have that going for you. Why do you rely so much on the notion that "Peters has shut down communications" when the proof is the exact opposite? Brandon himself has referred to "brief discussions" with Peters/Parker. What does that mean to you if not that they have talked and talked more than once? Brandon also said, in response to a question about whether Peters came up when he worked out Hardy's deal with Parker that "...most of the discussion was about Hardy...". What does that mean to you? You do understand that "most of" does not equal "all of". If Peters hadn't come up at all when they worked on Hardy, the answer to that question would have been "No", not "most of..." We also now have had numerous confirmations of the team's refusal to even discuss a new deal for this year. We have also learned that in February of 2007, Schobel didn't have to go to the team, they went to him and offered a new deal even though the one he was on was a blockbuster deal at the time it was made. Did the team go to Peters and offer to work on a new deal for THIS year in February of 2008, the same as they did with Schobel? Not hardly considering they still aren't willing to work on a new deal for this year 7 months later. All the facts aside, since they don't seem to interest you, how about logic. Do you really think its plausible that the team is willing to give him a new deal this year but they just can't get Parker to return their calls or agree to a meeting to work on that deal? What on earth could possibly lead you to believe that is what is happening? You might hate Parker, after all, he is an agent, you might even think he isn't a very good agent, but to be so blinded by anger or so painted in to a corner by your prior posts to think that a top NFL agent can get a great new deal for his client right now if he just answers the phone but still won't answer it, is bordering on the pathological. Really, step back for a second and try to explain why on earth Parker would do that? Something intelligent if you can, if you are just going to post some snarky drivel about Parker being "...stoopid, hyuk, hyuk..." don't bother. PS Shutting down communications with the press is not the equivalent of "shutting down" communications with the team. The only communications that matter right now are between Brandon & company and Parker.
Mickey Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 All b.s. aside, what in the world would make you believe this to be true? History tells us that this is totally unlikely to happen. Don't even try Bill, its the same logic used to conclude that the problem is lack of communication rather than money or that not much communication is required to say "No" and "Call us if you change your mind." You see, Brandon's principles, like my sainted mother's, demand that he be called first rather than the other way around. Its not the millions of dollars at stake that is the problem, its who owes a call to who.
nodnarb Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 You see, Brandon's principles, like my sainted mother's, demand that he be called first rather than the other way around. Its not the millions of dollars at stake that is the problem, its who owes a call to who. Again, you operate out of your own assumptions. Hey everybody! Mickey has an inside line to what's REALLY going on!
bladiebla Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Conjecture, conjecture, in the mean while it's monday and I'd like to know where is Peters? Maybe Scout.com was wrong?
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 At the time I believe the reason the Bills went to Schobel was it was in their best interest as they wanted to immediate cap relief. In Peters case that isn't needed. Peters contract over paid him at the time he signed it, now he's underpaid, so it evens out. Once he signs his new contract he likely will be over paid the next couple of years, then will again become underpaid. You keep stating that the Bills have said all along they will not give him any money at all in 2008. Since you are always digging up articles to show your point, can you produce some articles from Feb, March, or even as recent as May or June that state in no uncertain terms that is their absolute position? I know the Bills have allegedly stated that in the past couple of weeks, which personally if I were running the team, at this point makes perfect sense. I state “allegedly” because even that is subject to interpretation, yes there articles that state that, but unless you were in the room when Brandon told that to Parker, who knows what that really means and also just means that is the Bills position today. It could change once he reports and plays some. After missing some much of camp, sessions in June, etc, Peters is likely to be behind somewhat anyway so it's unlikely he will have a year that benefits the Bills more than he's being paid anyway. There also is a large history of players who miss camp finally show up and quickly have a season ending injury. So makes sense not to pay him more right now. But I never heard the Bills state that had he come into camp in June for the mandatory sessions like Schobel had, they still weren't going to give him more money in 2008. It seems your taking the Bills recent statement and assuming that meant their position was the same back in May. It's very likely there has been talk between Parker and the Bills, but from the Bills side may have been asking when is Peters showing up cause until he does there is no need for further discussion. Now it's to the point that all discussions are about next year. My OPINION is if Peters had come to camp and he showed up in shape, there would have been discussions about a new contract. Would it be worked out by now, probably not. I'd imagine the Bill's would want to see him play some real games first to make sure he is fully removed and maybe by October or November, there would have been a new deal. But that strictly is my OPINION, based on no real facts, and no inside information. I however recognize it as an opinion. Your problem is you think what you're stating is fact. That's what annoys people to no end and causes you and others to call each other morons because you both think your opinion is based on fact. (and you certainly aren't the only one on this board to do this) And if you do a history of my posts you likely will find sometimes where I certainly have traded insults too with others. You as others, show articles to support your position but conveniently forget to post the other side of the article (as you were blasted for yesterday) This is a discussion board where people can post their opinions. And granted there are a few people here that do have some inside info, but ultimately even those with inside info are forming an opinion based on that, but nowhere is it absolutely factual! We have also learned that in February of 2007, Schobel didn't have to go to the team, they went to him and offered a new deal even though the one he was on was a blockbuster deal at the time it was made. Did the team go to Peters and offer to work on a new deal for THIS year in February of 2008, the same as they did with Schobel? PS Shutting down communications with the press is not the equivalent of "shutting down" communications with the team. The only communications that matter right now are between Brandon & company and Parker.
nodnarb Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Blah blah blah here you go, Mickey. I'll simplify it into nice, neat bullets: * The Bills have all the leverage here. Even if they do lose a tackle to injury, JP is about as blind to this offense as a free agent. * The Bills can't set a dangerous precedent by yielding to an employee that fails to report or adequately communicate. (Does that modifier satisfy your need to focus on niggling points?) * I'm not at all worried about not having Peters. I'd prefer to have him, but would we panic if he had been injured with an indefinite return date? That's how the Bills are probably considering it at this point. * If you think I've "painted myself in a corner" on this issue, which is a hollow comment, then I'm fine with that. It's the right corner to be in. * The big money expense for this year is going to be Lee Evans. Gee, do ya think that's playing a role? * Speaking of Lee Evans, he's showing Peters (and you) how a professional goes about this sort of business...and he has MUCH, MUCH more of a right to the "tough lane" of the negotiation highway. Peters deserves no respect in his handling of this. NONE. Professionals show up for work, period. They don't use the silent treatment and hide behind their agent....but I'm sure your "comeback" will be that you get it and I don't.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 here you go, Mickey. I'll simplify it into nice, neat bullets: * The Bills have all the leverage here. Even if they do lose a tackle to injury, JP is about as blind to this offense as a free agent. * The Bills can't set a dangerous precedent by yielding to an employee that fails to report or adequately communicate. (Does that modifier satisfy your need to focus on niggling points?) * I'm not at all worried about not having Peters. I'd prefer to have him, but would we panic if he had been injured with an indefinite return date? That's how the Bills are probably considering it at this point. * If you think I've "painted myself in a corner" on this issue, which is a hollow comment, then I'm fine with that. It's the right corner to be in. * The big money expense for this year is going to be Lee Evans. Gee, do ya think that's playing a role? * Speaking of Lee Evans, he's showing Peters (and you) how a professional goes about this sort of business...and he has MUCH, MUCH more of a right to the "tough lane" of the negotiation highway. Peters deserves no respect in his handling of this. NONE. Professionals show up for work, period. They don't use the silent treatment and hide behind their agent. Just show up and you get your deal. EVANS EXTENSION BEFORE OPENER UNLIKELY: Any chance of seeing Lee Evans signed to a contract extension prior to the home opener Sunday seems a bit less likely in light of how negotiations were characterized by Lee Evans Sunday. By no means did Evans indicate there was a setback or a stall in negotiations, but when asked to provide a report on any progress he indicated not much is different of late. "Not really. Not really," Evans said. "We're still working forward. We still have a ways to go, but we're moving forward so it's good." Saying there's a "ways to go" likely means a new deal for Buffalo's top receiver will come during the 2008 season. --- They have been working on this over a year. It's 4x more urgent than Jason Peters, since Evans can walk at the end of this season and teams will likely pay him more than the Bills will. It's also probably an easier contract to negotiate than Peters would be, and it's not 10 million a year. I'm not saying Peters is right. But it takes at least two to tango. The team has to be willing to pay the player what he and his agent thinks he's worth, regardless of where he is, and how much he talks. They haven't been able to agree with Evans for over a year and he's about as agreeable, dedicated, and nice a guy and team player as you'll find. But if they don't pay him what he is worth, he is not going to sign. Again, this whole thing with Peters is nothing but a disagreement over when and how much, not where and how loquacious.
keepthefaith Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 1 PM, no Jason Peters. Would we settle for Tuesday? Maybe Wednesday as the players are usually off on Tuesday.
LabattBlue Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Peters silence throughout the holdout is puzzling to me. Except for a couple of reported text exchanges between Dockery and Peters, there has been no reported media contact at all. I'm not even sure there has been a statement from Parker. I'm not saying it is the right way to go, but don't the players and/or agents sometimes use the media during contract disputes in order to sway public opinion their way? I really thought he would show up after the team broke training camp...now I'm not sure when(if) he will show up.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 At the time I believe the reason the Bills went to Schobel was it was in their best interest as they wanted to immediate cap relief. In Peters case that isn't needed. Peters contract over paid him at the time he signed it, now he's underpaid, so it evens out. Once he signs his new contract he likely will be over paid the next couple of years, then will again become underpaid. You keep stating that the Bills have said all along they will not give him any money at all in 2008. Since you are always digging up articles to show your point, can you produce some articles from Feb, March, or even as recent as May or June that state in no uncertain terms that is their absolute position? I know the Bills have allegedly stated that in the past couple of weeks, which personally if I were running the team, at this point makes perfect sense. I state “allegedly” because even that is subject to interpretation, yes there articles that state that, but unless you were in the room when Brandon told that to Parker, who knows what that really means and also just means that is the Bills position today. It could change once he reports and plays some. After missing some much of camp, sessions in June, etc, Peters is likely to be behind somewhat anyway so it's unlikely he will have a year that benefits the Bills more than he's being paid anyway. There also is a large history of players who miss camp finally show up and quickly have a season ending injury. So makes sense not to pay him more right now. But I never heard the Bills state that had he come into camp in June for the mandatory sessions like Schobel had, they still weren't going to give him more money in 2008. It seems your taking the Bills recent statement and assuming that meant their position was the same back in May. It's very likely there has been talk between Parker and the Bills, but from the Bills side may have been asking when is Peters showing up cause until he does there is no need for further discussion. Now it's to the point that all discussions are about next year. My OPINION is if Peters had come to camp and he showed up in shape, there would have been discussions about a new contract. Would it be worked out by now, probably not. I'd imagine the Bill's would want to see him play some real games first to make sure he is fully removed and maybe by October or November, there would have been a new deal. But that strictly is my OPINION, based on no real facts, and no inside information. I however recognize it as an opinion. Your problem is you think what you're stating is fact. That's what annoys people to no end and causes you and others to call each other morons because you both think your opinion is based on fact. (and you certainly aren't the only one on this board to do this) And if you do a history of my posts you likely will find sometimes where I certainly have traded insults too with others. You as others, show articles to support your position but conveniently forget to post the other side of the article (as you were blasted for yesterday) This is a discussion board where people can post their opinions. And granted there are a few people here that do have some inside info, but ultimately even those with inside info are forming an opinion based on that, but nowhere is it absolutely factual! really good post, one of the best I've seen. Excellent point about the cap relief from Schoebel. I don't that has been brought up much if at all. I have asked Mickey to show us links where the Bills actually stated he wouldn't get a new deal this year. He hasn't, because they don't exist. It might be true, but it can't be proven. Personally I think the reporters are just repeating the same hearsay, and they never attribute it to anyone in the Bills organization, save for an unnamed Bills source. Also great stuff about the opinion side and coming off as fact, you hit the nail on the head.
superbowl Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 I have to believe that he doesn't want to miss a game paycheck. I knew he had a unique situation but I never thought is was so unique so as to potentially lead to a regular season hold out which is a doomsday scenario for all involved, the team, Peters, the front office and the fans. There is still time for it to get resolved before that and as a fan, you just have to hope it does. There have been several agents of other players who say that the Bill's organization is doing the right thing and I have to agree. You set a prescedent for other players not only on your team but for players on other teams as well. Even the agents who would side with Parker, being in the same fraternity, are saying this. The Bill's organization isn't saying they won't negotiate with Peters for a new contract. In fact they will. They just want him with the team before this happens. Besides they have other pressing issues such as Lee Evans and Angelo Crowell.
Saint Doug Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 The Buffalo News is indirectly (but not definitively) saying that he is not going to report and that this is going to drag into the regular season: "His absence wasn’t so much a surprise as it was confirmation that their regular season will begin without him. Their attention has turned toward the Seattle Seahawks. Peters wouldn’t have enough time to be ready to play Sunday in Ralph Wilson Stadium even if he ended his holdout today, having made his discontent clear to the organization." http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/428144.html
eball Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 All b.s. aside, what in the world would make you believe this to be true? History tells us that this is totally unlikely to happen. Riiiiiight....because the history of the Jauron/Brandon/Modrak drafting tandem is, what, three years old now? They drafted a safety (Whitner) in the 1st round because the Bills were faced with either an aging/ineffective Milloy or nothing. They then drafted a RB in the first round because they needed to replace McGahee. This year, looking at needs, the secondary lacked depth so they drafted McKelvin, the top DB prospect on the board. You're absolutely correct, Bill. The current administration has shown no propensity to draft based upon need, and they would DEFINITELY not look to draft a highly-touted LT if they know they're losing Peters. It's damn near a certainty.
Recommended Posts