nuklz2594 Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 Who has more leverage in the Peters fiasco? He is under contract for 2 more years right? He held out last season and performed with a less than stellar season. I don't feel he deserves his contract renegotiated until he performs on par with the upper echelon players at his position. The Bills should play hard ball with him.
The Dean Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 Who has more leverage in the Peters fiasco? He is under contract for 2 more years right? He held out last season and performed with a less than stellar season. I don't feel he deserves his contract renegotiated until he performs on par with the upper echelon players at his position. The Bills should play hard ball with him. He can also sit out for 10 games, and have it count as a season with the Bills. It sounds like you are worried about ways to screw Peters, instead of how the Bills are going to successfully fill the LT role, this season.
ddaryl Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 The Bills need to draft the best T on board at #11 (Smith or Oher) . Then the Bills will have all the leverage they will need. Peters can hold out, or he can sign the deal already offered by the Bills at 8.5 mil per season or he can play this year on his existing deal. If peters holds out we have enough personel on the roster to deal wit hit. If Peters signs his contract or decides to play on his old deal we have our LT and we would have a LG because both Smith or Oher can play G. Having a possible OL of Peters - (Smith or Oher) - Hargartner - Butler - Walker would represent an upgrade over last year.
SKOOBY Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 The Bills have to be careful about playing around with contracted players. Peters's ego gets bruised easily and obviously he is looking for alot more coin because he is a probowler, so there is a demand for those types of players. I would plan on Peters getting a big raise and coming into camp happy.
The Dean Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 The Bills need to draft the best T on board at #11 (Smith or Oher) . Then the Bills will have all the leverage they will need. Peters can hold out, or he can sign the deal already offered by the Bills at 8.5 mil per season or he can play this year on his existing deal. Or the Bills can trade him, without a gun at their heads, and maybe get good value.
nuklz2594 Posted April 2, 2009 Author Posted April 2, 2009 I understand that Peters IQ is somewhere between a beet and a cabbage, but at some point reality needs to set in. Put him at the bargaining table and have him or his agent justify how he deserves the highest paid salary at his position after the dismal season he had. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that.
The Dean Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 I understand that Peters IQ is somewhere between a beet and a cabbage, but at some point reality needs to set in. Put him at the bargaining table and have him or his agent justify how he deserves the highest paid salary at his position after the dismal season he had. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that. You understand negotiation, right? You also should understand that, typically, on a new contract, the highest paid player, at any given position, isn't usually the best player at the position. That happens for many reasons, but is usually due to when the contracts are signed. When Winfield signed his huge deal with the Vikings, was he the BEST CB in the NFL? I was, and still am, a huge Winfield fan, but the answer is "no". Same with Nate, when he went to SF. This will be Peters first Left Tackle contract. Even if the Bills make him the highest paid LT in the country (they won't) he will be the highest paid for about 20 minutes (yes, it is an exaggeration). But, by year #2 of his contract, he might not be in the top 5. By year #3, he's just another highly paid offensive lineman. So, while I don't think the Bills should (or will) make Peters the highest paid LT in the league,if they did it wouldn't be as if they are concluding he is the best LT in the league. There's a number between what the Bills are offering, and what Peters is asking for, that should make both sides very happy.
billsfreak Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 He can also sit out for 10 games, and have it count as a season with the Bills. It sounds like you are worried about ways to screw Peters, instead of how the Bills are going to successfully fill the LT role, this season. If he sits out for 10 games, he still has one more year under contract that would be the same story over again, except he would be even less likely to get any raise. I agree, the Bills have all the leverage, or at least about 95% of it. And if someone is trying to screw Peters, isn't that karma since he screwed the Bills and all of his teammates over last season? He wants to be the highest paid lineman in the NFL, imagine what he would want if he acutally had a good season last year, he might want to be paid as the highest player period in the NFL.
nuklz2594 Posted April 2, 2009 Author Posted April 2, 2009 Here are the 6 P's in life: proper preparation prevents piss poor performance. Peters is supposed to be a professional. If he acted and played like one, this fiasco would never have occurred.
billsfreak Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 You understand negotiation, right? You also should understand that, typically, on a new contract, the highest paid player, at any given position, isn't usually the best player at the position. That happens for many reasons, but is usually due to when the contracts are signed. When Winfield signed his huge deal with the Vikings, was he the BEST CB in the NFL? I was, and still am, a huge Winfield fan, but the answer is "no". Same with Nate, when he went to SF. This will be Peters first Left Tackle contract. Even if the Bills make him the highest paid LT in the country (they won't) he will be the highest paid for about 20 minutes (yes, it is an exaggeration). But, by year #2 of his contract, he might not be in the top 5. By year #3, he's just another highly paid offensive lineman. So, while I don't think the Bills should (or will) make Peters the highest paid LT in the league,if they did it wouldn't be as if they are concluding he is the best LT in the league. There's a number between what the Bills are offering, and what Peters is asking for, that should make both sides very happy. You are right, Winfield wasn't the best CB in the NFL when he got his contract, but he was available-Peters isn't he is under contract for two more years. What, because a player changes positions, he gets a raise? C'mon, please, based on last season he isn't worth what he is getting paid under his current contract. I say, let him play in 2009, and if he has a season where he plays at Pro Bowl level, not just get voted in, then pay him, otherwise leave it the way it is. Make him either play for Buffalo or not at all!
The Dean Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 If he sits out for 10 games, he still has one more year under contract that would be the same story over again That's right. So, unless the Bills trade him, sign him, or prepare for his absence by drafting (or signing) another very good LT, they can expect to suck again, this year, and go through it all again, next year. The only way the Bills have REAL leverage, and not simply contract leverage, is if they have another LT. And, in response to your question "if someone is trying to screw Peters, isn't that karma"? No, that's not Karma. Stupid people call stuff like that "karma", but purposefully screwing someone because they screwed you, couldn't be further from "Karma". Now, go study Eastern philosophy and then come back for further instructions.
The Dean Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 You are right, Winfield wasn't the best CB in the NFL when he got his contract, but he was available-Peters isn't he is under contract for two more years. What, because a player changes positions, he gets a raise? C'mon, please, based on last season he isn't worth what he is getting paid under his current contract. I say, let him play in 2009, and if he has a season where he plays at Pro Bowl level, not just get voted in, then pay him, otherwise leave it the way it is. Make him either play for Buffalo or not at all! I GUARANTEE you, that if the Bills trade Peters he will sign a huge contract that won't be based on his performance in 2008. Only a moron would consider his performance in 2008 his normal performance. So, you are suggesting the Bills shouldn't pay him, even though if they trade him he will get the money...right? Is this because the Bills are so much smarter than other teams Or simply because they have so much depth at LT?
Magox Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 We've got the better cards. We shouldn't fold and take it to the River if need be. My guess is he'll fold and by folding that means he'll get somewhere in the ballpark of $10 Million a year.
nuklz2594 Posted April 2, 2009 Author Posted April 2, 2009 I guess my point is why are we debating paying someone for not performing to the best of their capabilities. If Peters would have shown up to camp last season and performed well, this would be a non-issue. He acted like a spoiled child--a la Cutler- and wants to be rewarded. Peters has the attitude of--I'll show you, I'll hurt me.
Deadstroke Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 We've got the better cards. We shouldn't fold and take it to the River if need be. My guess is he'll fold and by folding that means he'll get somewhere in the ballpark of $10 Million a year. I agree with you.... how 'bout that!
The Dean Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 We've got the better cards. We shouldn't fold and take it to the River if need be. My guess is he'll fold and by folding that means he'll get somewhere in the ballpark of $10 Million a year. How is that folding? That's more than the Bills are offering, and less than he wants. That's called negotiation.
Magox Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 How is that folding? That's more than the Bills are offering, and less than he wants. That's called negotiation. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The Bills are still in negotiations with Peters right? The last offer we heard was somewhere just north of $8 Million. Now since we are still in Negotiations I believe we will end up bumping up his contract to approximately $10 Million a year. Now we can debate what we consider folding is, but if his demands as of right now are approximately $12 Million , then my guess is that he will take less than what he is looking for as of now, and he will have little choice other than to accept the $10 Million a year. So yes, it is negotiating, but also it isn't what he would ideally want. I think we are just disagreeing in the semantics of the wording of folding.
The Dean Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The Bills are still in negotiations with Peters right? The last offer we heard was somewhere just north of $8 Million. Now since we are still in Negotiations I believe we will end up bumping up his contract to approximately $10 Million a year. Now you we can argue what we consider folding is, but if his demands as of right now are approximately $12 Million , then my guess is that he will take less than what he is looking for as of now, and he will have little choice other than to accept the $10 Million a year. So yes, it is negotiating, but also it isn't what he would ideally want. I think we are just disagreeing in the semantics of the wording of folding. OK. Both sides "fold" a little here, although I think we've trashed this analogy pretty bad. Let's say it's a split pot. $10-ish is probably a good figure, too. I'd want to make sure some of Peters $$ is tied to incentives, based on working out, and showing up. Some for the Pro Bowl, and such, is fine, too...but mostly I'd want to see him financially tied to being at camp and playing in the preseason.
The Senator Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 He can also sit out for 10 games, and have it count as a season with the Bills. He can certainly do that. I hope he's saved up some money to get him thru ten games w/out any checks coming in.
The Dean Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 He can certainly do that. I hope he's saved up some money to get him thru ten games w/out any checks coming in. I'm guessing he has plenty to live on. I haven't heard him compared to Travis Henry, yet.
Recommended Posts