Magox Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 They could. I am thinking that the deal with Stroud, because it is extended over 4 years, will not use a significant amount of cap space, but I don't reall understand the "cash to cap" thing, except that cutting Dockery was good for this. Unless speculation is true that Peters demands a trade (something never at all confirmed), I still cannot even begin to understand the concept of wanting to trade him, but that's just me. I agree. It is all speculation, and nothing more until proven otherwise. I believe if he did want out of Buffalo, he would do what every other player who wants to get traded, and that is announce it. That way teams can start figuring out their draft strategies, but my guess is that he hasn't garnished enough interest as of yet to make that demand, if he did, then I think he would of by now. I really don't think that Peters cares where he plays, I believe that Eugene parker only cares about the $ and wherever will pay him the most is where he will advise his client to play. In regards to the Stroud deal not taking up much cap space, I hope you're right, and I think that is a real possibility. Also, I loved Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog's question If you HAD to guess, do you believe that the Bills, at the last minute of the self-imposed game of chicken before the draft, decide to offer six years for 60-65 mil and that Parker/Vincent/Peters agrees to it? I absolutely believe this is the strategy that the Bills need to make. Play that game of chicken. They will accept, I feel fairly confident about that, if they decide to go about it this way.
TimGraham Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Tim-- I just IM'd you the trade parameters we have in place with the Patriots for Moss. Did you get them? Russ I did not. You might have typed my screen name incorrectly. If so, then Jim Graham from Angola is about to start a thread.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 This probably is too vague of an answer. I'm familiar with the market values and expectations, but I don't have a sense of how the Bills intend to play this out strategically. That information is too sensitive for anybody in the front office to share because it might, you know, end up in a Yahoo IM. But what you theorize is possible. I'm not sure how likely, but it's possible. I actually wasn't looking for any insider information because I totally agree with you that no one in the Bills office that knows the real skinny is going to give that information up. I was really just wondering about your professional opinion. To me, sure, they know he's a little different and quirky, but I also truly believe they think he is a great player, and they very much want to sign him and are willing to. What they don't want to do is make him the highest paid player in the league and give him 12 million a year. I also think there are numerous other factors, not the least of which is TO. Why the hell would the team put 6.5 million into TO for one season and then go into that season with not ONE proven offensive lineman, unless you count Langston Walker, who is pretty good at best. Butler is unproven, Hangartner is unproven, we don't even have a LG yet and without Peters we have no LT. Oh, and we have one reserve in Chambers and one complete wildcard in Bell. To me, that is reason alone to overpay Peters a million or so a year. (Granted, the TO thing will pay for itself in ticket sales but still, it's inviting an implosion if the offense can't get a pass off) I also think that they have somewhat made a self-imposed deadline of the draft to try to get a deal done, which is why both sides are holding their ground right now and "seem" to be at a stalemate. That is highly likely to change in the week leading up to the draft as the Bills will likely sweeten their offer. I doubt that Parker makes the first move because he knows the Bills don't want to go into another off season with a disgruntled LT. I also think that Jauron is positive this is his make or break year, and his job may well depend on how explosive our offense is. That is something that hasn't been brought up a lot here. I would bet anything that Jauron REALLY wants Peters signed, and it may have some influence on Ralph and Overdorf and Brandon. But the biggest reason I don't think they trade him is they are not going to get a great offer for him because the team that trades for him would have to give up more than a #1 AND pay him 10-11 million a season. And if another team is willing to do that, and give up their #1 and more, why wouldn't the Bills pay him that. To me, he wants respect and he wants money and he wants to play for the Bills. 6-60 or a little more gives him bragging rights and a ton of cash and security and he would no longer be disgruntled. I'm sure that Edwards and Evans and TO and Lynch etc want him signed.
The Dean Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Clearly, you have not seen the $1M+ Lamborghini Reventon... Reventon 1 Reventon 2 Very nice, but totally different aesthetic from the Veyron. Which is better looking? I guess it depends if you like curves or angles. I'd have to drive both for a while, to make up my mind.
pimp on da' net Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Another day, another person talking about having a "source from deep within". Ahhhhh, you gotta love TSW nana:
DazedandConfused Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 If you HAD to guess, do you believe that the Bills, at the last minute of the self-imposed game of chicken before the draft, decide to offer six years for 60-65 mil and that Parker/Vincent/Peters agrees to it? I do, but it's just one man's opinion. I think this is a good guess. Not because this is such a great option but because the other options are so bad> A. Do as you suggest and show him the $: Downside- it gives a player under contract what he wants which is a new deal which the Bills are not contractually required to give him. Further, it risks a chunk of change on a player who granted is one of the most talented players ever to be acquired (even for those who hate him now and say so, being a UDFA TE who somehow morphs into an OL player who in his third tear as a pro deserved his Pro Bowl LT nod is quite impressive- even if you agree with me that his play last year did not deserve the Pro Bowl recognition he received, its way too early to declare this 26 year old as done) and risks that he will play in 09 like he did in 07. Upside- even if you agree with me that he did not deserve the Pro Bowl nod last year, given he won this honor with coaches and his peers supplying 2/3 of the vote total the Pro Bowl nod does not seal the case but is an impressive reality that speaks to his market value. All things in life are risks but the risks of giving a boatload of # to Peters is substantially less than the risk of giving a boatload to some rookie #11 )Ryan Cladys do happen but so do Mike Williams, McKinnie in his rookie year, Harrington or a ton of busts from the crapshoot known as the draft. It is a fact that Peters achieved what he achieved so far in his brief career and worked hard to do it. There is a real upside which in the real world may not play out well but to simply dismiss brings deserved laughter at someone who claims Peters will be horrendous. B. Trade him for draft picks: Perhaps easily the worse option suggested. Not only would this route set a horrible precedent for other Bills who feel they deserve a new contract, but by trading him you give Peters exactly what he wants and send a message to young Bills that if they simply act like idiots the FO will trade them to someplace where they can get the contract they want. What makes this worse is that it consigns the Bills to replace their starting LT with either one of the remaining journeymen in FA or a rookie who if lightening strikes he is Ryan Clady but far more likely is either one of the above mentioned busts or at best learns the game as a rookie before he becomes a vet. Even worse, the Bills needs for solid LT play are so skewed toward a credible 09 performance (Edwards blindside must be guarded, we only are guaranteed T.O. for 09, Ralph is not gonna last forever so 09 is a priority) that drafting a player to start at LT credibly might happen but is such a remote possibility is does not even deserve the phrase upside. C. Trade him for a solid vet LT Fine but doubtful. What do you think the deal is and why would anyone want to trade a solid LT for Peters if you also claim he is so unsolid we should trade him. I do not think showing him the money is a good option but it is by far the best option and I think that the Bills will take it.
cåblelady Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 I want a 1st in 2009, pick in 2010, and a player for Jason Peters I want chocolate.
robkmil Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Well, thanks for illustrating that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. His point makes a lot of sense, what are you thinking a top 10 pick and starting Defensive end?
stuckincincy Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 I want chocolate. I buy those bags of Hershey's and Ghiradelli's (sp) dark chocolate squares. On the cheap, too - they always seem to rain dollar-off or two for one coupons my way.
The Senator Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Very nice, but totally different aesthetic from the Veyron. Which is better looking? I guess it depends if you like curves or angles. I'd have to drive both for a while, to make up my mind. So to me, the best way to judge is to see them parked in the same spot... Veyron Reventon
cåblelady Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 I buy those bags of Hershey's and Ghiradelli's (sp) dark chocolate squares. On the cheap, too - they always seem to rain dollar-off or two for one coupons my way. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
BuffaloBill Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 I want chocolate. Chocolate .... women have a one track mind ... all they think about is chocolate
cåblelady Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Chocolate .... women have a one track mind ... all they think about is chocolate Hehe. Chocolate is a much higher priority than Jason Peters.
The Dean Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 So to me, the best way to judge is to see them parked in the same spot... Veyron Reventon What a horrible color combo on that Bugatti. The wheels on the Reventon are awesome. But, the car looks a little to much like a DeLorean, for me. It's almost like a cross between the Batmobile and the DeLorean. Color aside, the Bugatti is a pretty class looking car. Nice interior, too. I still need to drive each of these, for a while, to decide.
The Dean Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Hehe. Chocolate is a much higher priority than Jason Peters. Oh, I've got chocolate, that's for sure.
BillsNYC Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Hmmm....Tim posting on this thread...could this mean Peters WILL be traded by Friday? Conspiracy...
VanCity Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Why bother with this OP? I can drop heresay and made up BS from a text message and tell you that we just traded Edwards for Brady...but I know it's a lie so I don't. Peters may be traded, but I hope not. He can be an invaluable asset for this year with Edwards in his third season playing pivot needing some protection so he stays there instead of on the back of a cart pulling him off the field. He needs a smack upside the head for his unreasonable demands and his second contract holdout in as many years, but that doesn't negate the fact that he is a top flight LT in this league. DazedandConfused has it right.
GG Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 To me, he wants respect and he wants money and he wants to play for the Bills. 6-60 or a little more gives him bragging rights and a ton of cash and security and he would no longer be disgruntled. I haven't seen a shred of evidence supporting the first and third points of your supposition. He wants money. If he equates respect with the money, that's his prerogative. But more importantly to the guy who may be signing that paycheck, there's nothing in Peters' actions that indicates that he wants to play for the Bills, which is the minimum commitment that Ralph Wilson historically needed before he signed the big paychecks.
Haven Moses Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Jim Graham from Angola just IMed me. He has it from an excellent source that the Bills are about to trade for Randy Moss.
Recommended Posts