Ross Tucker on Peters trade

[Tsaikotic]

I think the reason most are saying Bills will/should/might take a OT at #11 is due to the fact that its looking like there's going to be a huge run on OT in the top 10...normally OT's don't go that fast, and most teams would have a chance to grab one in round 2 or 3...This year it looks different...with so many teams needing OT's this year, if you don't grab one on day one, you might be left behind.

[crazyDingo]

Nice to see Ross occasionally hit something besides the ground.

[Sisyphean Bills]

It really depends on what Peters/Parker goals were in determining whether they did the right thing (btw is it just me but I have never seen Peters/Parker and Spiderman together at the same time- I wonder about secret identities).

Hey Mr. Smub,

His goal was to get paid as the highest lineman in the game. He switched agents and held out. One strategy is to hold out of all the non-mandatory things to show the team your dissatisfaction but still show up for the mandatory stuff so the team can't fine you (and possibly sit in the hot tub and whine about your contract). A second strategy is to hold out and take the fines in a Walter Jones fashion. Walter Jones would show up after the last pre-season game and then start putting a whipping on people to show he was The Man. I wouldn't have advised the Walter Jones tactic to Jason with 3 years on his bargain bin deal and after he had limped off the scene the year before. Peters/Parker went the Jones route but Peters hurt himself by showing up unprepared. The Bills were lucky to get a 1st round pick at all, and Peters/Parker were lucky the Eagles were desperate enough to cough up $60M.

[DazedandConfused]

Hey Mr. Smub,

His goal was to get paid as the highest lineman in the game. He switched agents and held out. One strategy is to hold out of all the non-mandatory things to show the team your dissatisfaction but still show up for the mandatory stuff so the team can't fine you (and possibly sit in the hot tub and whine about your contract). A second strategy is to hold out and take the fines in a Walter Jones fashion. Walter Jones would show up after the last pre-season game and then start putting a whipping on people to show he was The Man. I wouldn't have advised the Walter Jones tactic to Jason with 3 years on his bargain bin deal and after he had limped off the scene the year before. Peters/Parker went the Jones route but Peters hurt himself by showing up unprepared. The Bills were lucky to get a 1st round pick at all, and Peters/Parker were lucky the Eagles were desperate enough to cough up $60M.

I think one of the big bottomlines in this though that the Peters/Parker strategy worked.

 

My understanding is the current franchise tag salary for OL players (an average of the top 5 salaries) is $8.4 million. Peters comes in at an annual salary of about $10 million so for all intents and purposes the Peters/Parker strategy simply worked.

 

My guess is the Bills FO will come to rue the day when they caved to Peters demands by trading him so he could achieve his goal. As Fred Jackson is already going down this path with his missing voluntary practices, the Peters example almost certainly has him thinking if the Bills FO will cave to a player under contract to get $4 million by creating a market for his services then perhaps Jackson who is an EFA can get the Bills to cave for him as well if he throws a hissy fit.

 

Jackson has far less leverage than the two time Pro Bowler Peters and less so since the signing of Rhodes, but Jackson is one twinge in Rhodes hammy from being in the drivers seat and with the Bills FO failing to sign Peters for what likely could have been $8 million a year or so back the Bills may regret that they have demonstrated they can be rolled.

[Steely Dan]

"Take Buffalo for example. Most people expected them to take a pass rusher with the 11th overall pick to aid Aaron Schobel and allow the Bills to get pressure on the thinking man's quarterbacks that reside in the AFC East like Tom Brady and Chad Pennington. The Bills' controversial trade of Peters, which I will delve into in-depth below, now more than likely puts the onus on the Bills to select a tackle with the first of their first-round picks if either Alabama tackle Andre Smith or Mississippi tackle Michael Oher are still on the board even though they are high on last year's sleeper seventh-rounder, Demetrius Bell."

 

I don't get the logic here. Just because LT is a top need doesn't mean you go top pick with it. Had we used that logic we would have taken Devin Thomas at #11 last year. What a disaster that would have been.

 

But thanks for the article.

 

I know you're not saying that Leonidas, but when you take into account that one of those picks didn't exist for Buffalo before the trade it doesn't seem that bad does it?

 

You apparently missed this part, "Unless of course the Bills are high on Connecticut tackle William Beatty and think he will be available at No. 28, then they may indeed take Maybin or Brown at 11."

 

You apparently misssed this part, "Unless of course the Bills are high on Connecticut tackle William Beatty and think he will be available at No. 28, then they may indeed take Maybin or Brown at 11. "

 

As far as your comment that "the Bills made out no matter how you look at it", well you're certainly speaking for yourself and about half the board as far as I can tell. You should state that stuff as your opinion because...that's what it is.

 

Isn't the fact that it's in one of his posts make it his opinion? It's not like he's saying that 4+4=9. Saying the Bills made out no matter how you look at it is obviously just an opinion.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Isn't the fact that it's in one of his posts make it his opinion? It's not like he's saying that 4+4=9. Saying the Bills made out no matter how you look at it is obviously just an opinion.

Maybe I'm being overly critical of the writing. How about "the Bills made out no matter how I look at it?" I guess it's one of my pet peeves when people present their opinion as if it's some sort of consensus. It's like saying, "you have to admit." I don't have to admit to anything I don't agree with.

 

Okay, I've gotten it off my chest. Sincere apologies. Really. I thought I was doing really well not correcting people's spelling. Now I have a new challenge to conquer.

[DazedandConfused]

I know you're not saying that Leonidas, but when you take into account that one of those picks didn't exist for Buffalo before the trade it doesn't seem that bad does it?

 

 

[/url]

 

I think a trade of a vet (particularly your starting LT on an OL which needs an LG and will change Cs) for a rookie is a bad move for those who want to reverse the 0 for the millineum streak.

 

It's only 50/50 that a first round pick is gonna be 1st on the depth chart at his position even after a full year (some folks seem to buy the conventional wisdom that a 1st round pick will start at some point his rookie year, though this does happen it is far from guaranted and there is a strong bias to starters being elite players who draw top 10 pivks.

 

Even if the Bills decide to use the #11 on an LT then 09 is likely to be a learning year for him doing this experiment may waste the only year we are assured TO's presence and we need to protect Edwards.

 

Likely I think Walker flips to LT but this creates a likelihood of the rookie or a journeyman like Chambers getting the RT slot. Since I believe the future is now we are weaker ditching a vet for a rookie we are reduced to hoping for a couple of Ryan Clady lightening strikes.

 

It is not likely to happen once that we get an LT from the draft and pretty impossible it will happen twice with our late first round pick turning out not to be a mcCargo or Losman.

 

The 09 surrender of trading our starting LT for mere draft choices may be a good trade if you live in Mel Kiper land but I think it sets a bad precedent that even if you lack leverage like Peters hang tough and the Bills will let you achieve your demands by trading you. Add into that TO probably realizing he is on his own as the Bills are not willing to invest in putting their best options on the field in 09 and we will see what will happen.

[May Day 10]

the fun thing about the Peters situation is I havent heard one standpoint I can really disagree with.

[VOR]

Maybe I'm being overly critical of the writing. How about "the Bills made out no matter how I look at it?" I guess it's one of my pet peeves when people present their opinion as if it's some sort of consensus. It's like saying, "you have to admit." I don't have to admit to anything I don't agree with.

 

Okay, I've gotten it off my chest. Sincere apologies. Really. I thought I was doing really well not correcting people's spelling. Now I have a new challenge to conquer.

Let me save you some angst and tell you that it wasn't an opinion, for the reasons I mentioned. The only way the Bills lose-out is if Peters regains his 2007 form AND the Bills don't have a viable plan to replace him. While I don't see that happening, it could, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I think one of the big bottomlines in this though that the Peters/Parker strategy worked.

 

My understanding is the current franchise tag salary for OL players (an average of the top 5 salaries) is $8.4 million. Peters comes in at an annual salary of about $10 million so for all intents and purposes the Peters/Parker strategy simply worked.

 

My guess is the Bills FO will come to rue the day when they caved to Peters demands by trading him so he could achieve his goal. As Fred Jackson is already going down this path with his missing voluntary practices, the Peters example almost certainly has him thinking if the Bills FO will cave to a player under contract to get $4 million by creating a market for his services then perhaps Jackson who is an EFA can get the Bills to cave for him as well if he throws a hissy fit.

 

Jackson has far less leverage than the two time Pro Bowler Peters and less so since the signing of Rhodes, but Jackson is one twinge in Rhodes hammy from being in the drivers seat and with the Bills FO failing to sign Peters for what likely could have been $8 million a year or so back the Bills may regret that they have demonstrated they can be rolled.

They pulled it off in spite of themselves, yes. But, "worked" can be relative. If Peters had totally dominated last year and laid down multiple flawless games, he'd probably have a $80-90M contract right now and the Bills might have gotten 2 1st rounders.

[DazedandConfused]

They pulled it off in spite of themselves, yes. But, "worked" can be relative. If Peters had totally dominated last year and laid down multiple flawless games, he'd probably have a $80-90M contract right now and the Bills might have gotten 2 1st rounders.

Maybe this could be true.

 

However, back in reality it is a fact Peters is laughing all the way to the bank about that because the Bills caved and traded him he now has what may well be the highest salary of any LT in the league (at worst one which exceeds the avg, of the top 5 OL players by a couple a mil a year. Though it is tough for many to admit it, Parker honestly gets to sale the fact that he got a player with two years left under contract and a team reluctant to pay him more a new contract at unprecedented levels.

 

Thats simply the reality.

[DazedandConfused]

Let me save you some angst and tell you that it wasn't an opinion, for the reasons I mentioned. The only way the Bills lose-out is if Peters regains his 2007 form AND the Bills don't have a viable plan to replace him. While I don't see that happening, it could, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

In addition to the possibilities that you lay out that all Bills fans hope is not the way it turns out, there are some real hits in 09 that will almost certainly be the case:

 

1. The best option at LT for the Bills seems to be to flip Walker to LT even though this now creates an OL hole at RT, to go along with the hole at LG, and testing and breaking in a new C. As bad as anyone wants to judge Peters as being in 08, most felt he deserved the Pro Bowl nod in 07, at 26 he is still a young player with likely upside and the he has won the contract dispute which led to him missing last pre-season and almost certainly distracted him. In return for the benefit of not having the malcontent Peters, the Bills are going to likely go with a rookie at RT (maybe #11 but likely in the 20s as we have pass rush holes to fill or a journeyman FA. Almost certainly the OL will be worse in 09 than the troubled 08 crew unless they have chemistry immediately (wished for but pretty doubtful) or lightening strikes several times with acquisition and development of the OL.

 

2, The OL hit comes at a particularly bad time in a year where we very much want to make the playoffs due to our 0 for the millennium record, we likely will not put out as good an OL with TO only around guaranteed for a year, with protecting Edwards blindside of extraordinary importance, and with Ralph not getting any younger.

 

3. It is far from certain but a good guess is that the mental outcome of this for players is that now that the FO has proven they will cave and send a player off to a good payday, other players may decide to throw a hissy fit even with little leverage such as Peters. In fact we already see Fred Jackson going down this road with his sit out of "voluntary" practices just like Peters did. We will see if he also skips the first couple of mandatory workouts even though this may bring him fines in the hope that there is some twinge in Rhodes' hammy forcing the Bills to run and not walk to give Jackson the huge raise he want.

 

4. It is also far from certain how TO will play it but the FO has demonstrated that they will not pay a wad to put the best OL possible on the field in front of him. My guess is that we will see TO go everyman for themselves because the Bills are not making the maximum possible effort in 09. I hope this is not the case but I do not think anyone is betting on TO's maturity.

 

The bottomline I think is that this trade may work out to be a good one, but the Bills will almost certainly take some immediate hits which end writing off the 09 season. We might not have had much of a chance anyway if Peters pulled the same shanangans as last year this year, but even if he did my sense is that unless Ryan Clady once every couple of decades lightening hit that this team is worse with a rookie learning to become a vet than we would be with a malcontent Peters.

 

In a perfect world, the Bills would have given Peters a market rate extension after his 07 Pro Bowl nod when he was at the top of his game. Instead the FO proved to be pennywise and pound foolish as Peters caused plenty of media and fan dissension with his poorer performance in 08.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Maybe this could be true.

 

However, back in reality it is a fact Peters is laughing all the way to the bank about that because the Bills caved and traded him he now has what may well be the highest salary of any LT in the league (at worst one which exceeds the avg, of the top 5 OL players by a couple a mil a year. Though it is tough for many to admit it, Parker honestly gets to sale the fact that he got a player with two years left under contract and a team reluctant to pay him more a new contract at unprecedented levels.

 

Thats simply the reality.

So, you deny the reality that Tim Graham talked to various NFL sources at the NFL meetings and they said he wasn't worth a 1st round pick? You deny the reality that Philadelphia's offer was almost certainly the best offer the Bills received? You deny the reality that franchise LTs in their prime are among the most coveted position in the sport and are routinely among the highest paid positions on NFL teams? You deny the reality that refusing to communicate affects a negotiation?

 

It's not saying anything to point out that what didn't happen is conjecture. But, that conjecture is based on reality and the facts known about the situation and human nature.

[DazedandConfused]

So, you deny the reality that Tim Graham talked to various NFL sources at the NFL meetings and they said he wasn't worth a 1st round pick? You deny the reality that Philadelphia's offer was almost certainly the best offer the Bills received? You deny the reality that franchise LTs in their prime are among the most coveted position in the sport and are routinely among the highest paid positions on NFL teams? You deny the reality that refusing to communicate affects a negotiation?

 

It's not saying anything to point out that what didn't happen is conjecture. But, that conjecture is based on reality and the facts known about the situation and human nature.

No I embrace the reality that most teams are not telling Graham the truth about how they see the situation. If the are normal people and if they have even half a brain they are saying things to him which will benefit the team's mission of winning the game and will not let their personal credibility to heck because they obviously lied.

 

I view the whole dynamic here as one of truth being an important basis of life, but I hope like heck that the Bills are lying to me if it helps them fool other teams.

 

I think that is reality and this football fan embraces it!

[Sisyphean Bills]

No I embrace the reality that most teams are not telling Graham the truth about how they see the situation. If the are normal people and if they have even half a brain they are saying things to him which will benefit the team's mission of winning the game and will not let their personal credibility to heck because they obviously lied.

 

I view the whole dynamic here as one of truth being an important basis of life, but I hope like heck that the Bills are lying to me if it helps them fool other teams.

 

I think that is reality and this football fan embraces it!

 

So, the same poster that posted for years about how it was a major gaffe for the Bills to have traded for Rob Johnson and then sign him to an extension for the going rate for starting QBs at the time, which was the reality and what happened (Hasselbeck signed the same contract the year before), is now trying to imply that I am being "unrealistic" to apply the basic principles of economics in that creating more demand would drive up a player's value and thus put more money in his pocket and in spite of the fact that I never said nor implied that Peters didn't get what he wanted.

 

Delicious irony.

[DazedandConfused]

 

So, the same poster that posted for years about how it was a major gaffe for the Bills to have traded for Rob Johnson and then sign him to an extension for the going rate for starting QBs at the time, which was the reality and what happened (Hasselbeck signed the same contract the year before), is now trying to imply that I am being "unrealistic" to apply the basic principles of economics in that creating more demand would drive up a player's value and thus put more money in his pocket and in spite of the fact that I never said nor implied that Peters didn't get what he wanted.

 

Delicious irony.

No. Actually I think the key to sorting through this is to understand that Graham and the Bills FO have two different goals on the same issue and that they can and actually are doing two contradictory things which accomplish their two different goals. Its really apples and oranges to approach the situation with an assumption they are the same thing.

 

I think the key here is a slavish devotion to basic economic principles as though when reality and principles diverge one must choose principles. One needs to take care as you travel along the slippery slope doing the realistic thing. Eventually (and quite quickly in times of high stress such as the 911 attack one can get into a world where the ends justifies the means and you are torturing folks to get unreliable information if you want a stark example).

 

The Bills decision to sign RJ to a huge guaranteed contract differs in several significant ways that the foolishness of this signing is pretty apparent IMHO

 

1. The Bills made a major faux pas in guaranteeing RJ money because they had also signed a deal which delivered massive money and a cap hit elevation to Flutie if he did what some Bills hoped he would do if they needed him. RJ got hurt, they needed DF, he did what AJ thought he could do and hit his targets. Because the Bills also agreed to roll his targets achieved into his base salary (DF said he was surprised they did this but also some say because of CBA rules they had to do this- I do not know the intricacies of the old CBA to say which is right- but either way the Bills did not simply do the market rate thing in the RJ extension as they could have avoided their being a market at all if they had simply waited half a season before extending him. This was their foolishness.

 

2. The foolishness was based on a dumb player assessment of RJ. Even an outsider like me could see from RJs record of great achievement when he played and not playing as much as he could due to injury before the Bills guaranteed him a huge cap hit that he was an earlier version of Jonas Jennings in terms of being a player who was very good when he played but he had trouble staying on the field.

 

Add to this insult the injury of the Bills both guaranteeing big money to RJ whether he played or not AND guaranteeing big money to Flutie if he played like our scouts felt he could play this is the forseeable recipe for disaster.

 

I am not even sure why you somehow find irony in comparing one's assessment of the media blather and this contract situation as revealing some irony. These are not only apples and oranges, but a floor wax and a desert topping. Maybe you want to claim they are the same thing because they both are creamy white stuff from a spray can, but these strike me as such different things any sense of irony is lost to me.