The Senator Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 I sincerely doubt that he is worth 4 wins........... I know for a fact he is not. GO BILLSSS!!!!
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 As a fan, I only care about winning. I dont understand why people on this board would rather "make a point" by not wanting the bills to give Peters the money. Now i know you have a list of reasons, but at the cost of not having all the pieces in place on sunday? If you knew for fact, that not having Peters play this year would be the difference between a 6 win season and a 10 win playoff season, you would not want the bills to sign him to the contract he wants TODAY? We dont know what him not being here is gonna mean until the season unfolds...but i do know our chances of that playoff season increase if Peters is playing. I can't speak for others, but I would No, absolutely not give him what he wants today. You cannot let star athletes hold a professional sports team for ransom like that. Players sign contracts and fulfill their obligations by showing up and playing their butts off. If the player's current contract is not adequate, then have your agent negotiate a new one. Winning is key, but not at any cost, especially in a small market team.
Cugalabanza Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 (Maybe this was answered somewhere already, but it's hard for me to keep up with all the Peters posts)… At what point does Peters miss out on the first game check? Can he show up on Sunday morning in street clothes and still get the first $191k check? I'm thinking whatever that cutoff is--that's the moment of truth for him and his season.
cody Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 (Maybe this was answered somewhere already, but it's hard for me to keep up with all the Peters posts)… At what point does Peters miss out on the first game check? Can he show up on Sunday morning in street clothes and still get the first $191k check? I'm thinking whatever that cutoff is--that's the moment of truth for him and his season. My best guess is that the Bills have 24 hours (or one calander day) to activate him from the reserve/did not report list once he reports. I would say the last possible moment for Peters to show and get paid for the 7th is sometime between 11:59 pm on Fri. and 12:59 pm on Sat.
Montana Mike Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 As a fan, I only care about winning. I dont understand why people on this board would rather "make a point" by not wanting the bills to give Peters the money. Now i know you have a list of reasons, but at the cost of not having all the pieces in place on sunday? If you knew for fact, that not having Peters play this year would be the difference between a 6 win season and a 10 win playoff season, you would not want the bills to sign him to the contract he wants TODAY? We dont know what him not being here is gonna mean until the season unfolds...but i do know our chances of that playoff season increase if Peters is playing. I too would like to see Peters playing. However you have to look ahead to future contacts. TE, ML, Poz, and others. Don't think they are not watching to see if the Bills blink. But if Peters comes in and gets an updated contract at the end of the year (if his play maintains a high standard), it sets the table for the others and the Bills.
julian Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 I can't speak for others, but I would No, absolutely not give him what he wants today. You cannot let star athletes hold a professional sports team for ransom like that. Players sign contracts and fulfill their obligations by showing up and playing their butts off. If the player's current contract is not adequate, then have your agent negotiate a new one. Winning is key, but not at any cost, especially in a small market team. thanks for the being the only one to honestly answer my question...i respect your opinion and i think you make good points. I'm just so starved for a winner im hurting and i hope we play well while he's not here. I do think if Edwards makes a big leap on the field this year, then that can makes up for a little less pass protection...fingers crossed!!!
BillsVet Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 I can't speak for others, but I would No, absolutely not give him what he wants today. You cannot let star athletes hold a professional sports team for ransom like that. Players sign contracts and fulfill their obligations by showing up and playing their butts off. If the player's current contract is not adequate, then have your agent negotiate a new one. Winning is key, but not at any cost, especially in a small market team. It's obvious that the NFL, and pro sports in general, are now players leagues. They have more control over their personal situations, i.e. renegotiating contracts, than ever before. The genesis was free agency, when players weren't obligated to play for one team, unless of course they were traded. No owner will admit this is the case, but it is. Whether he wants to admit it or not, Ralph Wilson knows there is a lot at stake this season. The Bills have their highest figure of season ticket holders in 15 years, made a lucrative deal with Ted Rogers that brings another 78M, and revenue sharing. If, and it's a giant if, the Bills aren't a playoff team this season, the fanfare over the Bills will decrease markedly into 2009. Signing your own players goes a long way toward showing the fans you're serious about being a winner.
Pyrite Gal Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 It's obvious that the NFL, and pro sports in general, are now players leagues. They have more control over their personal situations, i.e. renegotiating contracts, than ever before. The genesis was free agency, when players weren't obligated to play for one team, unless of course they were traded. No owner will admit this is the case, but it is. Whether he wants to admit it or not, Ralph Wilson knows there is a lot at stake this season. The Bills have their highest figure of season ticket holders in 15 years, made a lucrative deal with Ted Rogers that brings another 78M, and revenue sharing. If, and it's a giant if, the Bills aren't a playoff team this season, the fanfare over the Bills will decrease markedly into 2009. Signing your own players goes a long way toward showing the fans you're serious about being a winner. The NFL teams (and thus the Bills) have already made their choice regarding what their relative relationship is to the players (NFLPA) when the players guided by a bunch of smart NYC lawyers responded to getting their head handed to them in the mid-80s replacement player fight. The team owners completely beat the NFLP to a pulp in that dispute but the response from the NFLPA was to threaten to decertify itself and force NFL owners to have free-market negotiations with individual players (rather than restraining trade with the draft and other non-free market un-American rules). Rather than compete in a free-market (which likely would have destroyed the NFL as an entertainment product), the team owners (NFL) agreed to the CBA which provided a form of free agency and made the NFLPA partners with the NFL rather than simply employees. The most recent CBA arguably set the NFLPA as majority partners with Upshaw declaring the final deal needed to have players get a portion of the total revenues which started at 60%. The NFL over the minimal objections of Ralph and the Packers agreed to this deal because 40.5% of an NFL which got huge amounts of cash from the TV networks was gonna be a ton more $ than the team owners got from the old pre-replacement player deal and even from the old CBA with its designated gross. My sense is that if there is some way to entirely cut out the middle man of team owners as these dinosaurs really are redundant these days that is probably the most economically efficient way of operating. The bad thing for this as a Bills fan is that even though Ralph has been a meddling idiot who has mismanaged team building since the great early 90s teams, he has kept the franchise here. However, the best solution if one were god (or the football economics equivalent) would be an NFL which kept the Bills here and had a team owner that did not stoop to Jason Peters level when it came to negotiating with Jason Peters (or producing the same bad results with his management of John Butler, hiring of TD, handshake agreement with Jimbo or other Ralph fiscal debacles). The Packers model would seem to be a potential good one for small market control of a team. We will see.
Jerry Jabber Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Just in, John Clayton admits to be suffering from shrunkenhead and bug-eyed syndrome. More news to come.
Mickey Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 The problem is, that quote can be interpreted a few different ways. Of course the Bills would love it if he showed up and played out the rest of his contract, I'm also sure that they would like him and many other players to come in and play for free. Maybe the Bills won't re-negotiate with him at all this season and want him to play for what his contract states, thats a possible interpretation of "Honoring his Contract". They could also be saying that as to not give away any leverage like they would lose if they just came out and said "Come to camp and you will get a new deal". Another possible interpretation could be that by saying they expect him to "honor his contract" they want him to show up to camp, cause since he has not, he is not honoring his contract since showing up is mandatory and a part of his contract. But no where has brandon or the Buffalo Bills actually come out and said that they will not negotiate with him this year at all, they have only said that if he does not report, they will not renegotiate. Is this ambiguous? "The Bills are demanding that Peters play under his current deal for this season before they will consider opening talks." Bills Refuse to Negotiate Is this ambiguous? "They also have made it known to Peters' agent, Eugene Parker, they're not willing to renegotiate 2008, insisting any additional money will be paid next year forward." Bills Refuse to Negotiate with Peters for 2008 Is this ambiguous? "The Bills are demanding that Peters play under his current deal for this season before they will consider opening talks." Bills: No new deal for Peters this year I think you are stretching the words "honor the committment he made to the team 2 years ago". His committmenet wasn't to come in to camp and only play if he got a new deal 3 years early. His committment was to play for 5 years at a certain salary with a certain signing bonuses and whatever incentives were included. The words mean what they mean. Besides, think of the logic. If they wanted to negotiate with Peters they could have done that in Februay 2007, 6 months before camp. Why didn't they? It can't be because he didn't come to training camp. The easy and simple reason they didn't is because they had and have no intention of giving him new deal this year. Why in the world, if the team really was willing to give him a new deal this year, would they not simply negotiate it out? Why is his presence in camp so critical? Does that make any sense? Isn't it true that every holdout that ever ended in a new contract (almost all of them do) was resolved by negotiations held while the player was not in camp. Apart from what you I may think this all means in the end, wouldn't you at least agree that all those swearing on a stack of Bibles that the team has "made it clear" they will give him a new deal this year if he comes in to camp are full of it? Would at least agree that the umpteen insulting responses I have received claiming that there is nothing at all to support my point that the team won't give him a new deal this year were also full of it? "...never say never..." ????? That is about as far from any kind of committmenet to ever negotiating a deal with him this year, next year, e-v-e-r, as they could get. In the end, the best proof that they have zero intention of dealing a new deal for Peters this year is their failure to do so going on 7 months now. If they wanted to, they would have. That doesn't mean that the team should give him a new deal this year, that is another question entirely. I just think it is a croc to buy the notion that the lack of a deal for Peters resulting in his rejoining the team is the result of anything other than a player wanting more money, now, than the team is willing pay him, now. Heck, that has been the story of every holdout I have ever heard of. But, oh no, this one is different, in this one the good, just, proud, honest, kind, decent, hardworking, fair, generous team wants badly to work a new deal with their good friend Jason but durn the luck, that fat, injured, hasbeen, neverwas, ungrateful, peckerheaded, greedy, selfish, lazy so-and-so won't come by and pick up his check. Its not the money. In a pigs eye it isn't the money.
GG Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 In a pigs eye it isn't the money. Never is. Especially, when it's not your own.
The Senator Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Mickey, your posts are becoming increasingly apoplectic; in short, you've 'lost it'. No one cares about Peters any more - season's about to start without him. Deal with it. GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!!
yall Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Is this ambiguous? "The Bills are demanding that Peters play under his current deal for this season before they will consider opening talks." Bills Refuse to Negotiate Is this ambiguous? "They also have made it known to Peters' agent, Eugene Parker, they're not willing to renegotiate 2008, insisting any additional money will be paid next year forward." Bills Refuse to Negotiate with Peters for 2008 Is this ambiguous? "The Bills are demanding that Peters play under his current deal for this season before they will consider opening talks." Bills: No new deal for Peters this year I think you are stretching the words "honor the committment he made to the team 2 years ago". His committmenet wasn't to come in to camp and only play if he got a new deal 3 years early. His committment was to play for 5 years at a certain salary with a certain signing bonuses and whatever incentives were included. The words mean what they mean. Besides, think of the logic. If they wanted to negotiate with Peters they could have done that in Februay 2007, 6 months before camp. Why didn't they? It can't be because he didn't come to training camp. The easy and simple reason they didn't is because they had and have no intention of giving him new deal this year. Why in the world, if the team really was willing to give him a new deal this year, would they not simply negotiate it out? Why is his presence in camp so critical? Does that make any sense? Isn't it true that every holdout that ever ended in a new contract (almost all of them do) was resolved by negotiations held while the player was not in camp. Apart from what you I may think this all means in the end, wouldn't you at least agree that all those swearing on a stack of Bibles that the team has "made it clear" they will give him a new deal this year if he comes in to camp are full of it? Would at least agree that the umpteen insulting responses I have received claiming that there is nothing at all to support my point that the team won't give him a new deal this year were also full of it? "...never say never..." ????? That is about as far from any kind of committmenet to ever negotiating a deal with him this year, next year, e-v-e-r, as they could get. In the end, the best proof that they have zero intention of dealing a new deal for Peters this year is their failure to do so going on 7 months now. If they wanted to, they would have. That doesn't mean that the team should give him a new deal this year, that is another question entirely. I just think it is a croc to buy the notion that the lack of a deal for Peters resulting in his rejoining the team is the result of anything other than a player wanting more money, now, than the team is willing pay him, now. Heck, that has been the story of every holdout I have ever heard of. But, oh no, this one is different, in this one the good, just, proud, honest, kind, decent, hardworking, fair, generous team wants badly to work a new deal with their good friend Jason but durn the luck, that fat, injured, hasbeen, neverwas, ungrateful, peckerheaded, greedy, selfish, lazy so-and-so won't come by and pick up his check. Its not the money. In a pigs eye it isn't the money. Actually, in every link you provided, the authors state the Bills won't negotiate this years contract, but don't cite the source or quote any of the Bills front office as having uttered such words. So, yeah. It's pretty fckin ambiguous.
apuszczalowski Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Actually, in every link you provided, the authors state the Bills won't negotiate this years contract, but don't cite the source or quote any of the Bills front office as having uttered such words. So, yeah. It's pretty fckin ambiguous. You mean, they are the interpretations of the author in those comments and not words that were quoted from Brandon or from the Bills front office????? There have been no direct quotes from the Bills front office that says that they will not re-negotiate with him if he does report to the team. My point is, that saying that they expect him to honor his contract does not mean they won't negotiate. They said Honor the contract, which does not necessarily mean they expect him to play the entire contract out before they discuss a new one. At this point, honoring it would be just showing up to camp and being ready to play on Sunday. At this point, if he did that, he would currently be honoring his contract, something they expect him to do. So at this point the Bills expect him to be with the team playing with them, honoring his contract. He never came out and said directly that they expect him to play out his contract and won't discuss a better deal with him. If the Bills were to actually have said that they will not negotiate with him and expect him to play out his deal, then I think many more would be on Peters side and agree that the Bills are in the wrong, and being hypocritical. Maybe even Racist as one poster had said in the past seeing as how they reworked a deal with Schoebel after he had recently signed a new deal, and now they are saying they won't do the same with Peters. "Never Say Never" makes me lean on the side of "If you come in and open the discussions with us first, we are all ears and willing to work out a new deal. We just can't come out and say it because we have to stick to our guns and not fold"
FLFan Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Mickey, your posts are becoming increasingly apoplectic; in short, you've 'lost it'. No one cares about Peters any more - season's about to start without him. Deal with it. GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! Could not agree more. Peters is not on the team at this point. Get ready to enjoy some Bills football and accept the fact that neither you nor anyone else on this board has the slightest idea what is really being said or thought of by the Bills, and you can not control it in any case. I wish he were here, but oh well, he is not.
Koufax Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 It is Thursday. Peters is the same as if he had suffered a season ending knee surgery. He isn't here, the Bills can't expect him any time soon, and they have to try to win without him. I think he officially can kiss the Bills Fan Love goodbye, and I will remember and boo and now look forward to him no longer being a Bill. I might be in a minority, but he has moved from a power play of trying to get more millions by skipping some meaningless practices in the summer heat to hurting his 52 teammates (and helping one 53rd person who now gets to suit up!) and everybody who roots for them in real and significant ways. So long Jason, let us know if you feel like playing football for us at some point in the future and we will see what we can do, but you are in Ricky Williams territory right now, so enjoy your bongs across Asia or your bar-b-que across Texas, or whatever it is that your 340lb butt does when not on the football field.
keepthefaith Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Just in, John Clayton admits to be suffering from shrunkenhead and bug-eyed syndrome. More news to come. Didn't Clayton have a cameo in the movie "Beetlejuice"?
Bleed Bills Blue Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Didn't Clayton have a cameo in the movie "Beetlejuice"? The resemblance is uncanny: http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff140/d...nkenHeadGuy.jpg
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 In the end, the best proof that they have zero intention of dealing a new deal for Peters this year is their failure to do so going on 7 months now. If they wanted to, they would have. That doesn't mean that the team should give him a new deal this year, that is another question entirely. I just think it is a croc to buy the notion that the lack of a deal for Peters resulting in his rejoining the team is the result of anything other than a player wanting more money, now, than the team is willing pay him, now. Heck, that has been the story of every holdout I have ever heard of. But, oh no, this one is different, in this one the good, just, proud, honest, kind, decent, hardworking, fair, generous team wants badly to work a new deal with their good friend Jason but durn the luck, that fat, injured, hasbeen, neverwas, ungrateful, peckerheaded, greedy, selfish, lazy so-and-so won't come by and pick up his check. Its not the money. i've read a number of your posts on this issue and it really boils right down to the hi-lited points. i'd love to see jp in there as part of the o-line they started working on last year, the line that helped, in part, to bring him to his pro-bowl form. i'd love to see him play, happy, and love for the bills to re-sign him, have him play the next several years here and beyond, and everyone be happy. but in the end, he isn't getting a new deal because the people he signed the old deal with don't want to give him a new deal. would they negotiate if he was there? never know, because some aspects of negotiation are public, some are private. some is posturing, some involves little read-between-the-lines comments made to reporters. in the end, all other things being equal, he has a contract, he doesn't like it, but he has a contract. the fact that ownership holds the cards (the money cards here, anyway) is just sh*t he's got to deal with. i got sh*t i got to deal with, too. in the end, he could be part of a great season, but he's choosing to not partake. i long ago realized it's not about "the fans", and i try not to personalize this stuff, so i hope he'll not personalize my message to him....show up and play under the contract you signed. spare me the part about being underpaid. it was a good deal for you, and that was fine, now it's a good deal for them, and you don't like. tough buggers.
BADOLBILZ Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Agreed about the trade. Do you really think the Bills will stick it out for a year or even two? Of course, Brandon has no track record at all on these things and I rather think Ralph and/or Littmann is the man behind the curtain again (this has deja vu all over again written all over it), so you may be right. Still, I'm not sure how it benefits the Bills to play hard ball and let Peters talent atrophy for a couple of years. His value to the Bills diminishes greatly, either as a player or as a trade, if this thing becomes that protracted. As far as uncompromising "tough negotiators," I doubt many agents will be any more afraid of the Bills after seeing them throw Peters away in a demonstration of futile stubbornness if it goes down like that. I could even see agents steering their clients away like in the bad ol' days, simply telling anybody that the Bills draft to flip the team the bird, and re-enter the draft the next year. (FWIW, I'm not saying the Bills are not trying to work a deal with Peters, but the public perception of a situation that amounts to "letting their best player rot for 2 seasons at home" will not be that the Bills are masterful at working out their problems.) Don't worry about agents or their free agents. Money talks in free agency. That is a complete non-issue. As for letting Peters rot, I'm not saying that. I'm saying put him on the back burner and go on as if he were too injured to play. If he shows up and is ready to play and he represents an upgrade, which he surely would, then play him. No questions asked. No vindication. When you are dealing with people like Parker, you've got to play it cold. Kindness and weakness are the same thing in this case, and if the Bills have been all too guilty of being Mr. Nice/Mr.Punkass since Marv took over. Not that Marv was doing a terrible job with personnel, but this isn't 1990 anymore. Free agency has taken a lot of the innocence out of the game. That's fine, but Marv still thought that giving players everything they wanted was a way to make the team better. It's not. In some cases it actually manufactures dissatisfaction and turns otherwised focused workers into greedy opportunists.
Recommended Posts