Dawgg Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 The Bills signed Dockery to a 49mil dollar deal, not a 67 million dollar deal, and the money spent on Schobel and Kelsay would not have gone to paying Peters. It would have gone to the two guys they would have had to bring in to replace Kelsay and Schobel. People aren't just going to appear for free and play defensive end out of the goodness of their hearts. Should Schobel have gotten an extension. Yes. Should it have been as much as it was, no. Should Kelsay have been resigned? Yes, but as a player for veteran depth and backup behind someone they brought in as a starter at DE. That being said, Buffalo will get a deal done for Peters and they will have to overpay, but that's better than trying to bring in a first round tackle who will want a Jake Long sized deal, or trying to find a less than adequate answer in FA, as there aren't a whole lot of options available at the tackle position. Can't disagree with that. Peters is simply asking to be treated the same way as the team treated Schobel. As for extending Kelsay, that was a boneheaded move... and it's what forced the Bills to extend Schobel to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 How many sacks did Peters give up last year? Over 10 right? Sorry, he's not a solid deal to me, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand this. If you want to pay this guy 1/10 of the cap for the entire team with one good year then don't complain about Schobel's deal who has had more than 1 good year. I'm not sold on him as a player, let alone the franchise player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SABURZFAN Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 How many sacks did Peters give up last year? Over 10 right? Sorry, he's not a solid deal to me, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand this. If you want to pay this guy 1/10 of the cap for the entire team with one good year then don't complain about Schobel's deal who has had more than 1 good year. I'm not sold on him as a player, let alone the franchise player. trading him leaves a gaping hole for team needs but they can address it in the draft and fill another team need as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 The Bills signed Dockery to a 49mil dollar deal, not a 67 million dollar deal, and the money spent on Schobel and Kelsay would not have gone to paying Peters. It would have gone to the two guys they would have had to bring in to replace Kelsay and Schobel. People aren't just going to appear for free and play defensive end out of the goodness of their hearts. Should Schobel have gotten an extension. Yes. Should it have been as much as it was, no. Should Kelsay have been resigned? Yes, but as a player for veteran depth and backup behind someone they brought in as a starter at DE. That being said, Buffalo will get a deal done for Peters and they will have to overpay, but that's better than trying to bring in a first round tackle who will want a Jake Long sized deal, or trying to find a less than adequate answer in FA, as there aren't a whole lot of options available at the tackle position. PTR, I completely agree there is nothing to say that Peters won't begin whining again in another year or two if someone else on another team gets more money than him, and at that point Buffalo is screwed. You can't tell a 10M player to go ride the pine. They truly are too expensive at that point, and that means you also can't trade them. However, Buffalo could restructure the contract in such a way that he gets paid his massive money now, say for the next two years, but that the amount will dwindle down to about 8.5 mil in say year five, thus easing some of the impact. That might be a contract that Peters and his agent would be willing to do, which would save the Bills some money in the long run. Either way, both sides aren't in great positions. dawg, ax and PTR-- we're all passionate bills fans, obviously. rational thought ultimately has to prevail, especially when we're not involved in the transactions. we don't know which cards are being dealt and who's posturing and who isn't. seems pretty clear to me that the Bills want JP on the team but don't agree with paying three mill more than they see he's worth (at least for now). it seems pretty clear they didn't want to re-structure his contract last year, that he felt it should be, and he handled it accordingly. seeing TO come to Buffalo is a prime example of sometimes things happen that you don't see coming. there are so many working parts to the NFL, it's kind of dangerous to get too passionate on issues we have only the most basic knowledge on, and even that knowledge isn't verifiable. does your opinion change if the Bill offer a lower contract back-loaded with incentives? let's say they have kickers in for Pro-Bowl performance and playing x amount of game? What if JP is concerned about the number of years on the contract more than the money? of wants it up-front in case he gets hurt? i have to tell you, just like my job, it's pretty hard to judge issues of equity on what someone else got. until the day comes that the player's union can enforce a contract that once player X gets $Y, based on performance/opinion player Z automatically get's a contract restructuring at $Y plus $500,000, this kind of thing happens. o the flip side, until JP completes his contract, his hands are somewhat tied. sit and run the risk of underperforming, play at a cost you feel is below your true worth.And as for paying the man----if he was getting what he considers big-time money, and his contract was up, is he honor bound to to take a reasonable offer from the Bill's based on market value and their investment in him---or does he free lance and get what he can for his family? or free lance to a contender for a chance at the ring? what about his obligation to all the little people who clothe their kids in JP jersey's? still sounds to me they want him back. sounds to me like he can re-negotiate and find common ground, or play out his remaining contract and take his chances. there's down-side risk for him there, too. of course, they could franchise him later on, and/or trade him along the way. speaking of that, i wonder if TB demanded a restructuring when Cassel got franchised....he certainly outperformed him substantially over an extended period of time. even with the trade, you gotta figure Brady is 2 times more valuable than Cassel, and it'd be unreasonable for him to play for less. same with Rothlisberger. And Manning. Sorry for the algebra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Your perspective is a nice one and it would be nice if it were a practical one... but that's just not how this business works. Just like the Bills can cut an underperforming player without honoring his entire contract (see: Dockery), a player can hold out if he feels he needs to use that leverage to improve his compensation. Is it good for the team? No. But sometimes, it's the only way to get your point across. "Holding out" is a violation of contract. Cutting is part of the contract negotiated and agreed to by player and agent as part of upfront money. JP could have not negotiated extension and taken his chances after end of contract. It would be nice if real world worked like football is and that you could "hold out" paying taxes without penalty. It also would be nice if football commissioner enforced the rules like he should regarding players who hold out and should decertify agents who instruct their players to hold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlbillsfan1975 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Ok so you sign Peters to a 5 year 60 million dollar deal. He plays well and goes to a couple more pro bowls. In three years from now two other left tackle signs a contract paying them on average 14 million dollars a year. Are you going to honestly tell me Peters wont want another new deal with two years left on the one we sign him to now? People who dont learn from history have a funny way of haveing it repeat on them. I got laughed out of another post for saying this same thing. People said 'thats not how it goes, once you sign your big deal you play it out.' I say smart people also dont hold out with three years left on a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 Sully chat on now http://buffalonews.typepad.com/sully_on_sports/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I think Peters asking for 12+ million is just a ploy by him to hold out again so he can eat the entire country from a recession to a depression single-handedly. Sounds like he wants one million for every sack he allowed last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Ok so you sign Peters to a 5 year 60 million dollar deal. He plays well and goes to a couple more pro bowls. In three years from now two other left tackle signs a contract paying them on average 14 million dollars a year. Are you going to honestly tell me Peters wont want another new deal with two years left on the one we sign him to now? People who dont learn from history have a funny way of haveing it repeat on them. I got laughed out of another post for saying this same thing. People said 'thats not how it goes, once you sign your big deal you play it out.' I say smart people also dont hold out with three years left on a deal. Football contracts are meaningless. You get that big money upfront and that is it, I can see why Peters wants it, who doesn't? Does he deserve it? He might, but I believe that he no longer has the fire that made him a good left tackle, if he did he would have should up last year with a chip on both shoulders and carried Beast to the house, or sat out the entire season or until he got what he wanted in terms of money. Coming in at the eleventh hour so he doesn't miss a meal showed he really doesn't have the stomach for big stakes poker games. Parker is playing chicken with house money, what does he have to lose? Peters on the other hand has a lot at stake. He sits, no deal, and all of sudden the players get locked out he will be looking around and wondering what the heck happened? He needs to pick a side of the fence and stay on it. Either he wants to be a football player making nine million or he wants to be an over paid ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Thanks also to you BillsNYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts