This is how someone with class negotiates a new deal

[The Dean]

Dean,

 

I believe the point was that Peters should have shown his displeasure to the Bills through his agent regarding the contract but should have come to the Training camp instead of holding out. That is what Lee Evans did and he got an extension. May be Peters would have got his extension last year if he had shown good faith and showed up for a team.

 

I don't disagree, ganesh. I think both sides deserve plenty of blame, on this one. I was simply adding to Dibs' list. It seems many here forget to mention that, while Peters had three years left on the deal, the deal was NOT for playing Left Tackle.

[UConn James]

I don't disagree, ganesh. I think both sides deserve plenty of blame, on this one. I was simply adding to Dibs' list. It seems many here forget to mention that, while Peters had three years left on the deal, the deal was NOT for playing Left Tackle.

 

Yeah.

 

It was a deal to be a Buffalo Bill.

 

The contract that NFL players sign means they get paid to do whatever they tell you to do.

 

That is or should be the expectation, and especially for OL where it's like musical chairs in the league. If agents/players want to be compensated on a per-task basis of what they do on the field, then they should have put in a clause, or simply sign 1-year deals. They want security with a long-term contract? Well, there's a trade-off that you have to make. Instead, there's an expectation on the players' side that it's 'heads-I-win, tails-you-lose' with such deals. I'm sick of this stuff. And I'm getting sick of Peters, his sh-- attitude, and how he completely dogged it this year, for spite. And now he points to a NFLPA-collusion that got him named to the Pro Bowl --- that happened only b/c the $ tide rising for Peters will raise everybody else's boats. Don't think for a second that this wasn't what primarily (and when you look at his play this past year, singularly) got Peters this empty award.

[cåblelady]

Yeah.

 

It was a deal to be a Buffalo Bill.

 

The contract that NFL players sign means they get paid to do whatever they tell you to do.

 

That is or should be the expectation, and especially for OL where it's like musical chairs in the league. If agents/players want to be compensated on a per-task basis of what they do on the field, then they should have put in a clause, or simply sign 1-year deals. They want security with a long-term contract? Well, there's a trade-off that you have to make. Instead, there's an expectation on the players' side that it's 'heads-I-win, tails-you-lose' with such deals. I'm sick of this stuff. And I'm getting sick of Peters, his sh-- attitude, and how he completely dogged it this year, for spite. And now he points to a NFLPA-collusion that got him named to the Pro Bowl --- that happened only b/c the $ tide rising for Peters will raise everybody else's boats. Don't think for a second that this wasn't what primarily (and when you look at his play this past year, singularly) got Peters this empty award.

Right on! UConn.

[The Dean]

Yeah.

 

It was a deal to be a Buffalo Bill.

 

The contract that NFL players sign means they get paid to do whatever they tell you to do.

 

 

That's a load of BS, and I think you know it.

[BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land]

As long as the teams have the right to cut pretty much anyone at any time, I am not going to take issue with a player holding out to renegotiate. It's really their only move.

 

All it takes is 1 play for these guys to lose their career, or even possibly their lives. I can't blame them for trying to maximize their earnings.

[UConn James]

That's a load of BS, and I think you know it.

 

If you're working and charging by the hour, I would agree. Increase in responsibilities that weren't in the original description should mean an increase in pay.

 

When you agree to a salary, it's a different story. You come in and do whatever they tell you to do. And, as I wrote, this is the NFL where guys get shuffled more times than a deck of 52 at Foxwoods. When they agreed to the new contract when Peters went to RT, it was well understood that he w/could be flipped to LT.

 

I wouldn't be against Peters getting more pay.... As the focus of this thread intends, all of this has been handled by JP and his agent with just slightly more class than a pregnant nun.

[PushthePile]

As long as the teams have the right to cut pretty much anyone at any time, I am not going to take issue with a player holding out to renegotiate. It's really their only move.

 

All it takes is 1 play for these guys to lose their career, or even possibly their lives. I can't blame them for trying to maximize their earnings.

All players take the chance of losing their career when they take the field. Doesn't mean anything when negotiating a contract though. A player's ability is what determines how much they make. I feel bad for guys who lose their career prematurely but I can't sympathize with their situation in general. As far as getting cut goes, it's a privelage to play in the NFL and you get nicely compensated for that privelage. I hate this argument. In todays economic situation, a NFL player being cut is hardly a blip on the radar. When did we lose perspective as fans?

[The Dean]

If you're working and charging by the hour, I would agree. Increase in responsibilities that weren't in the original description should mean an increase in pay.

 

When you agree to a salary, it's a different story. You come in and do whatever they tell you to do. And, as I wrote, this is the NFL where guys get shuffled more times than a deck of 52 at Foxwoods. When they agreed to the new contract when Peters went to RT, it was well understood that he w/could be flipped to LT.

 

I wouldn't be against Peters getting more pay.... As the focus of this thread intends, all of this has been handled by JP and his agent with just slightly more class than a pregnant nun.

 

 

I have worked under contract, and have worked with others under contract. In every case, the scope of job responsibility was in black and white. When the VP of Sales becomes the GM/CEO, do you really believe his/her contract isn't renegotiated? If a FB with 1 carry a game, was suddenly thrust into the starting RB role and excelled, do you not think he would, and should, get a new contract to be the starting RB? Left Tackle is the most lucrative position on the line. For a team to believe the very young player, they signed long term, at the salary of a right tackle, is sufficient pay for their starting left tackle, suggest ignorance beyond belief. No agent worth his salt would stand for it. In fact, that the Bills are renegotiating the contract, and have offered significantly more money suggest they DO understand it.

 

Now, a good agent wouldn't have had Peters hold out, I will give you that. But. IMO, the Bills should have made the first move in the renegotiation last year, to set the right tone. Still, it was wrong for Peters to hold out, and hurt the team. Unfortunately, in the NFL, there is little option for players.

 

EDIT: Also, in a real contract, you get paid for the remainder of the contract, if the company lets you go (unless they can prove cause). So, the Bills let Dockery go...they owe him no more money. What kind of "contract" is that?

[PushthePile]

I have worked under contract, and have worked with others under contract. In every case, the scope of job responsibility was in black and white. When the VP of Sales becomes the GM/CEO, do you really believe his/her contract isn't renegotiated? If a FB with 1 carry a game, was suddenly thrust into the starting RB role and excelled, do you not think he would, and should, get a new contract to be the starting RB? Left Tackle is the most lucrative position on the line. For a team to believe the very young player, they signed long term, at the salary of a right tackle, is sufficient pay for their starting left tackle, suggest ignorance beyond belief. No agent worth his salt would stand for it. In fact, that the Bills are renegotiating the contract, and have offered significantly more money suggest they DO understand it.

 

Now, a good agent wouldn't have had Peters hold out, I will give you that. But. IMO, the Bills should have made the first move in the renegotiation last year, to set the right tone. Still, it was wrong for Peters to hold out, and hurt the team. Unfortunately, in the NFL, there is little option for players.

 

EDIT: Also, in a real contract, you get paid for the remainder of the contract, if the company lets you go (unless they can prove cause). So, the Bills let Dockery go...they owe him no more money. What kind of "contract" is that?

What about taking your second big fat raise, and saying thank you for tearing up another contract so I can get another 4 or 5 million a year? Then following it up with a full on effort for your team. How's that for a player option?

[spartacus]

Dean,

 

I believe the point was that Peters should have shown his displeasure to the Bills through his agent regarding the contract but should have come to the Training camp instead of holding out. That is what Lee Evans did and he got an extension. May be Peters would have got his extension last year if he had shown good faith and showed up for a team.

 

The teams that win big like the Patriots and Steelers understand the business side and know that you give some to be a good team. A couple of years ago Hines Ward held out a portion of the off season but did not dictate that he needs to be the highest paid WR. The same with Tom Brady when he negotiated a below market deal when Manning was getting 19M.

 

Peters needs to get a gut check and show that he is a team player and everything will be taken care.

 

I remember, even in his final season Jim Kelly took a handshake deal with Wilson and walked into the locker room.

 

when the team tells you point blank they are not re-doing your deal, there is a pretty slim chance of them re-doing your deal even if you show up and play good soldier.

 

If the Bills had actually been proactive and offered to extend Peters to reward him for his tremendous development from undrafted rookie to pro bowl LT, then maybe Peters would have been a bit more receptive and showed up in the off-season.

 

but- the bills know best

 

they have the contract leverage - so Brandon wants to send a message.

 

He could have sent a much stronger message by drafting Clady last year- thus being able to play his little game of hard ball.

[The Dean]

when the team tells you point blank they are not re-doing your deal, there is a pretty slim chance of them re-doing your deal even if you show up and play good soldier.

 

If the Bills had actually been proactive and offered to extend Peters to reward him for his tremendous development from undrafted rookie to pro bowl LT, then maybe Peters would have been a bit more receptive and showed up in the off-season.

 

but- the bills know best

 

they have the contract leverage - so Brandon wants to send a message.

 

He could have sent a much stronger message by drafting Clady last year- thus being able to play his little game of hard ball.

 

 

To be fair, I'm fairly certain Brandon said they wouldn't discuss a new contract until Peters reported.

[spartacus]

To be fair, I'm fairly certain Brandon said they wouldn't discuss a new contract until Peters reported.

 

I'm fairly certain Brandon told Peters in January that there would be no deal since he had 3 years left.

 

that is why Peters chose to avoid all off-season activities.

[The Dean]

I'm fairly certain Brandon told Peters in January that there would be no deal since he had 3 years left.

 

that is why Peters chose to avoid all off-season activities.

 

 

Possibly, that was said in private. But, I'm pretty sure Brandon was quoted, publicly, as saying there would be no discussions unless and until Peters reported.

[jwws9999]

an NFL contract isn't worthy of wiping my butt with. the money isn't guaranteed and the team can cut you anytime they want. sounds like a bunch of idiots who don't have a clue about how the NFL works

[jwws9999]

To be fair, I'm fairly certain Brandon said they wouldn't discuss a new contract until Peters reported.

 

 

fairly certain huh, I guess peters should have called you for advice

[BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land]

Possibly, that was said in private. But, I'm pretty sure Brandon was quoted, publicly, as saying there would be no discussions unless and until Peters reported.

I think, and I am not 100%, that he said they don't negotiate with players who are not at camp. Not naming Peters.

 

Splittling hairs, but I think he was talking in general.

[jwws9999]

I think, and I am not 100%, that he said they don't negotiate with players who are not at camp. Not naming Peters.

 

Splittling hairs, but I think he was talking in general.

 

 

Brandon should have renegotiated the contract a year ago and never let it get to this point.

[The Dean]

fairly certain huh, I guess peters should have called you for advice

 

 

Indeed. Both he, and the Bills would be better off for it.

[Dibs]

I think, and I am not 100%, that he said they don't negotiate with players who are not at camp. Not naming Peters.

 

Splittling hairs, but I think he was talking in general.

Agreed this is all splitting hairs & quite irrelevant now but.....

....why wasn't he at camp? Either he was told that he would not get an extension that year......or he was told they could work out a deal during the season & he wanted one worked out pre-season. Considering the 'effect' of a holdout......and also considering the fact he had 3 years left on a fairly recent existing contract.....I'd say it by far more likely the former rather than the later.

[Mickey]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=39...&type=story

"in constant talks" is the difference. The bills weren't willing to negotiate a new deal last year, nothing to talk about. Here, the steelers are going to give him a new deal, its just a question of agreeing on a number. Besides, who really cares about "class"?? I want him to block, not teach an ethics class or date my daughter. Last year's holdout cost Peters nothing but it cost the Bills on the field. But they saved some cash so yippee for us because aren't we all more interested in the team's bank account than we are in actually winning games? But we really taught Peters a lesson didn't we? Didn't we?