Small Markets and Major League Sports

[Kipers Hair]

As much as all of us like to hang our hat's on Buffalo being a major league town, in the end game, ownership simply cannot compete with the big boys in major sports.

 

There is a reason why the Bills (and Sabres) loose marquise players more than they retain them. (I know people think Clements is a bust, but when he left, he was a damn good corner...and one we drafted, but could not keep). I think the Peter's situation is a case in point, he is arguably one of the best LT's in the business, (top 3?), but we cannot get to the table...or perhaps will not. I know you can argue, we kept Schobel and Kelsey (why on the latter?), but you have to agree, at no point was either considered a marquise guy at the position. That said, cities like Buffalo, Seattle, Detroit, ETAL can keep, and in free agency perhaps attract, mid level talent, but any prominent/elite players at skill positions will not be retained by the BUffalo's in today's NFL - it is simply not economically feasible.

 

We hear the argument that "we'll negotiate with Peters if he shows", but what is the excuse for Evans and his lack of a new deal? Wouldn't it speak volumes to Peter's to cash Evans out with a new deal, then at the press conference throw it in his face of what we are capable of as an organization and how we reward our guys? If Evan's plays lights out, off he goes and we get sold the fact that Hardy is an elite replacement and we lucked out to get a Kevin Johnson when we did, (maybe even he's the next TJ Hoosh...). Look I disagree with Peter's position, but let's face it, this team has a certain look of something exciting with Peters in the line-up, without, well, another 8-8 or 9-7 team. I would hope the executive braintrust recognizes this to be true, (Hell all of the National Media does), and places the team in that position. I think they recognize it, but are not willing to part with the money needed...

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

First of all, the word you seek is "marquee," referring to the advertising sign outside of a theater, which is a terrible word anyway. Nevertheless, I assume that is what you meant when you were calling Clements et al. "Marquises," since otherwise that would mean you were calling them female French aristocrats, which would be fightin' words....

 

Second, your panic is really out of place. Evans' deal is on the way, as both Evans and the Bills have said. Very different from the Sabres examples you mention. There has also been no indication from the Bills or anyone (not even from Mickey) that the Bills can't pay Peters more. They simply would rather not do it right now. A debatable point, to be sure, but hardly cause for new financial panic.

 

All of which does not mean that Buffalo faces certain disadvantages in the marketplace of pro sports. Thanks to revenue sharing and salary caps, however, the Bills' disadvantages are not necessarily any more glaring than those facing other small- to medium-market teams.

 

So, sit down, have a beer. Here, I poured one half-full for you.

 

 

 

As much as all of us like to hang our hat's on Buffalo being a major league town, in the end game, ownership simply cannot compete with the big boys in major sports.

 

There is a reason why the Bills (and Sabres) loose marquise players more than they retain them. (I know people think Clements is a bust, but when he left, he was a damn good corner...and one we drafted, but could not keep). I think the Peter's situation is a case in point, he is arguably one of the best LT's in the business, (top 3?), but we cannot get to the table...or perhaps will not. I know you can argue, we kept Schobel and Kelsey (why on the latter?), but you have to agree, at no point was either considered a marquise guy at the position. That said, cities like Buffalo, Seattle, Detroit, ETAL can keep, and in free agency perhaps attract, mid level talent, but any prominent/elite players at skill positions will not be retained by the BUffalo's in today's NFL - it is simply not economically feasible.

 

We hear the argument that "we'll negotiate with Peters if he shows", but what is the excuse for Evans and his lack of a new deal? Wouldn't it speak volumes to Peter's to cash Evans out with a new deal, then at the press conference throw it in his face of what we are capable of as an organization and how we reward our guys? If Evan's plays lights out, off he goes and we get sold the fact that Hardy is an elite replacement and we lucked out to get a Kevin Johnson when we did, (maybe even he's the next TJ Hoosh...). Look I disagree with Peter's position, but let's face it, this team has a certain look of something exciting with Peters in the line-up, without, well, another 8-8 or 9-7 team. I would hope the executive braintrust recognizes this to be true, (Hell all of the National Media does), and places the team in that position. I think they recognize it, but are not willing to part with the money needed...

[silvermike]

The Sabres are also spending over $50,000,000. Brian Campbell would have put them OVER THE SALARY CAP. The problem with the Bills and the Sabres is who they're paying, not how much they're paying. Find a better use for Kelsay and Denney's millions, and then there'd be no 'cheap' label.

[ans4e64]

Where do you get the idea that we COULDN'T keep Clements?

 

Did you forget we spent $75 million that offseason on Derrick Dockery and Langston Walker alone? We most certainly COULD have signed Clements, the problem was, we did not feel he was worth that kind of money. A significant upgrade on our offensive line was clearly more pressing, and thus, decided to take that money and invest it in the two o-lineman mentioned above.

[deep2evans]

The Sabres argument is retarded. Losing Drury, Briere, and Campbell had little to do with the Sabres not being able to compete with the Rangers/Leafs/Wings in a financial sense. The management screwed up by not have any foresight as to what their market value was. They're all 2-3 mil/year each overpaid and I'm thrilled we have younger/cheaper options in their place.