The Dean Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 It's certainly unusual, but some big-time clients do it that way to kind of get the best out of both agents. Ultimately he is doling out 3% to these guys. Splitting them evenly and giving each 1.5% will still net both agents a solid pay day... if I remember correctly, Moulds had a similar arrangement with two different agents. If Taylor is playing the lead, this year, I wonder if he has Peters' ear, when he makes a recommendation, or if Peters will take it to Parker to sign off on. While I don't expect it to get to that point, the Bills have the ultimate power, and don't HAVE to do anything, as Peters is under contract. They can play the game next year, too. I think a smart agent would want to get a nice big deal done, but also not let it sit until after camp, once again.
Steely Dan Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Perhaps we should just trade our entire roster and backfill with draft picks and unsigned rookie FA's .. I am getting so tired of JP posts. Losman or Peters? I am also sick of this talk. Unless Buffalo got an absurd offer like two #1 picks and two #3 picks would I even start to entertain the idea. Whether people think he deserved his pro-bowl election or not, he got it. The guy deserves a huge contract. If he wants to be the highest payed LT in the game let him. JMO this is good news, i hope we can work something out.. he's our best friggin lineman Maybe he want to play "good agent", "bad agent" with Bills? ya, I agree, but check out SI's Dr Z from the 2008 training camp and CBSSports.com looks like he's been getting advice from both for a while... I've never heard of two agents before. If one strikes a deal with Buffalo does the other agent have to approve it first? No wonder Buffalo is frustrated with Peters.
Dawgg Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 If Taylor is playing the lead, this year, I wonder if he has Peters' ear, when he makes a recommendation, or if Peters will take it to Parker to sign off on. While I don't expect it to get to that point, the Bills have the ultimate power, and don't HAVE to do anything, as Peters is under contract. They can play the game next year, too. I think a smart agent would want to get a nice big deal done, but also not let it sit until after camp, once again. I think the Bills are going to overpay. They will sign Peters to a deal that's commensurate with the top 2 or 3 offensive tackles taken in the draft. Now if, ultimately, the team decides that Peters demands are too high, I believe they will dangle him in a trade and select someone like Andre Smith in the first round. Given their need to address the defense in R1, I think they will ultimately overpay to get this deal done and include language in the contract that essentially forces Peters to participate in offseason conditioning programs (via incentives).
The Dean Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I think the Bills are going to overpay. They will sign Peters to a deal that's commensurate with the top 2 or 3 offensive tackles taken in the draft. Now if, ultimately, the team decides that Peters demands are too high, I believe they will dangle him in a trade and select someone like Andre Smith in the first round. Given their need to address the defense in R1, I think they will ultimately overpay to get this deal done and include language in the contract that essentially forces Peters to participate in offseason conditioning programs (via incentives). Overpay is a subjective analysis, but I agree with the bolded part, and is something I've been advocating. In the NFL, today's "overpayment" can be tomorrow's "bargain".
Steely Dan Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 BTW, I saw that TO wasn't at the offseason conditioning program but didn't hear if Peters has shown up or not. Anyone got the poop on dis?
C.Biscuit97 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Overpay is a subjective analysis, but I agree with the bolded part, and is something I've been advocating. In the NFL, today's "overpayment" can be tomorrow's "bargain". Great point especially facing the prospect of an uncapped season on the horizon. Peters might be a bargain in a season or two. And I highly doubt this is possible, but is there any type of contract language that can be written to say teh contract can't be re-negiotated for a certain period of time? Anyways, despite being burned by Dockery, I'd still rather overpay for a linemen than receiver or defensive back.
Steely Dan Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Great point especially facing the prospect of an uncapped season on the horizon. Peters might be a bargain in a season or two. And I highly doubt this is possible, but is there any type of contract language that can be written to say teh contract can't be re-negiotated for a certain period of time? Anyways, despite being burned by Dockery, I'd still rather overpay for a linemen than receiver or defensive back. I agree. The LT is one of the most important players on the team and pro bowl LT's aren't a dime a dozen. When a team gets one they need to keep him at all costs. JMO
The Dean Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I'd still rather overpay for a linemen than receiver or defensive back. I don't always agree with that, but most of the time it makes sense, I think. On this team, right now? Absolutely.
DazedandConfused Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Losman or Peters? If the Bills trade Peters for mere draft picks it is a pretty good sign that they have written off 2009 to make a run for the playoffs and instead are going to go with a cutrate FA at LT or wait a year (more likely two if ever) for a rookie LT to learn to become a vet. At any rate a trade will satisfy those who are so into the personalities that being sick of Peters is a strong enough motivation to deal with a journeyman whiffing on blocks or a rookie learning the game, but for those of us interested in putting the best team on the football field that they can re-signing a vet (particularly one who made the Pro Bowl 2 years in a row even if he did not deserve it the second time( show Peters the money and protect Edwards butt to the maximum extent we can. I am also sick of this talk. Unless Buffalo got an absurd offer like two #1 picks and two #3 picks would I even start to entertain the idea. Whether people think he deserved his pro-bowl election or not, he got it. The guy deserves a huge contract. If he wants to be the highest payed LT in the game let him. JMO I've never heard of two agents before. If one strikes a deal with Buffalo does the other agent have to approve it first? No wonder Buffalo is frustrated with Peters. This sounds more like good agent/bad agent is the game Peters is playing. If so, this is a good sign because this Peters move means they feel they have gotten as much as they can from cracking heads and holding out and the other agent comes in and makes the deal.
Dawgg Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Anyways, despite being burned by Dockery, I'd still rather overpay for a linemen than receiver or defensive back. If all things are equal, yes. But would you rather overpay for Clements or Dockery? If it's between those 2, I'd take Clements every day (and twice on Sunday). Bottom line: you overpay for upper echelon players, irrespective of position. You let mediocre players (like Kelsay) walk.
DazedandConfused Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 If all things are equal, yes. But would you rather overpay for Clements or Dockery? If it's between those 2, I'd take Clements every day (and twice on Sunday). Bottom line: you overpay for upper echelon players, irrespective of position. You let mediocre players (like Kelsay) walk. I think the more likely smart GM move is: 1. Yes you want to let mediocre players go, but not if it hurts the team more in terms of the accelerated cap hit. 2. You only let players go when you have (or at least have possibilities) of getting a better player. Unfortunately here in reality its a lot more than a static judgment of a players' absolute value.
Dawgg Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I think the more likely smart GM move is: 1. Yes you want to let mediocre players go, but not if it hurts the team more in terms of the accelerated cap hit. By "letting go" I meant let them walk in their free agent year when their contracts expire. But yes, I agree. 2. You only let players go when you have (or at least have possibilities) of getting a better player. Unfortunately here in reality its a lot more than a static judgment of a players' absolute value. Unfortunately here in reality, a team's resources are finite. With that in mind, you don't overpay for mediocre players. By their very definition, mediocre players can be replaced with similar/cheaper/better alternatives. (See: Patriots, New England).
d_wag Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 most interesting part of that article was "After being fined more than $600,000 for the time he missed".........that's the first time i've seen it in print that he was in fact fined and that they weren't just waived once he reported.........and that certainly shoots a hole in the arguments made by some that peters didn't lose anything from his holdout
Mickey Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-b...p&type=lgnshttp://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11543436 Speaking at the NFL owners meetings Tuesday, coach Dick Jauron said the team has been in contact with Peters’ agent and added “we’re trying to get something done.” I do not see what the use is? They could sign an extension, JP get the bonus money and STILL hold out. Yeah, 'cuz that happens all the time. In fact, I can think of...of...of...well, okay, I can't think of a single example where a player got a new contract one year, and held out that same year. Can you? They are talking and that is a good thing, you can't make a deal if you are not even talking. And as long as there are negotiations, I think Peters will come in and we can all go on with our lives. I also think it is a good thing that his agent isn't negotiating in public and that this time around, the team is doing the same thing. Brandon publicly demonizing Peters last year served no purpose unless they had decided to let him go and were just getting the fans on their side before doing so. That clearly is no their intention so I still don't know what Brandon was thinking.
Mickey Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 most interesting part of that article was "After being fined more than $600,000 for the time he missed".........that's the first time i've seen it in print that he was in fact fined and that they weren't just waived once he reported.........and that certainly shoots a hole in the arguments made by some that peters didn't lose anything from his holdout You read "fined" and concluded "paid"? We all know he was fined, this is nothing new. The full quote makes it clear they are simply recounting the situation as it was last year: "After being fined more than $600,000 for the time he missed, Peters agreed to report only after the Bills provided him an assurance—but not a guarantee— they would discuss a new contract." This simpy says that he was fined for not coming in to camp and after having been fined, ie, an event that occurred last year, he then came in to camp after some warm fuzzzies were exchanged with the team. Did you not know he had been fined from the first non-voluntary practice he missed so that this is suddenly news to you? Reading comprehension is a lost art.
VJ91 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-b...p&type=lgnshttp://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11543436 Speaking at the NFL owners meetings Tuesday, coach Dick Jauron said the team has been in contact with Peters’ agent and added “we’re trying to get something done.” I do not see what the use is? They could sign an extension, JP get the bonus money and STILL hold out. Are you drunk? If a player gets his new contract and his signing bonus, why in heaven's name does he still hold out??
d_wag Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 You read "fined" and concluded "paid"? We all know he was fined, this is nothing new. The full quote makes it clear they are simply recounting the situation as it was last year: "After being fined more than $600,000 for the time he missed, Peters agreed to report only after the Bills provided him an assurance—but not a guarantee— they would discuss a new contract." This simpy says that he was fined for not coming in to camp and after having been fined, ie, an event that occurred last year, he then came in to camp after some warm fuzzzies were exchanged with the team. Did you not know he had been fined from the first non-voluntary practice he missed so that this is suddenly news to you? Reading comprehension is a lost art. i am shocked that, with the use of your brilliant reading comprehension, you have reached this biased conclusion! i wouldn't expect anything less from jason peters' biggest apologist! if they are recounting the situation why didn't they say "these fines were later waived" or "there is some doubt as to whether these fines were ever paid"? seems strange to leave out such an important detail as they recount the entire situation, don't ya think? the article indicates the only thing the bills gave him was the assurance that his contract would be discussed once he reported.......as per the article, doesn't appear they gave him a forgiveness on the fines
Bills4154 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I read in the Philadelphia newspapers that the Eagles may be interested in Peters. The Bills need to get him signed.
billsfan_34 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Perhaps we should just trade our entire roster and backfill with draft picks and unsigned rookie FA's .. I am getting so tired of JP posts. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
davefan66 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I agree. The LT is one of the most important players on the team and pro bowl LT's aren't a dime a dozen. When a team gets one they need to keep him at all costs. JMO Pro bowl LT's don't just grow on trees. I don't care if he made the pro bowl last year after a dubious season or not. Fact is, he is young and one of the best LT's in the game, with huge amounts of potential. What we need is an anchor on the line that will be around for years to come. Don't care what it takes, sign him.
Recommended Posts