Thurman#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Still WAITING for the LINK Thurman. You see how painfully immature it looks for somebody to wear this out? Asking for a link on something once makes sense. But several times is pretty pathetic. Don't you think? I mean, you probably haven't seen my posts yet. So how sensible is it for me to ask you yet again for a LINK????????
Thurman#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 STILL WAITING for this LINK also Thurman. Let's go, I'm sure a number of Bills fans would be interested in reading them. Here's another example of how annoying and pointless it is to repeatedly ask for a LINK??????????
mabden Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Silly? You mean your response? Yup. The analogy holds up perfectly. Of course people are given extra responsibilities all the time. The understanding being that the situation will be righted when possible, or you'll get the extra money when you prove capable of doing the job. If that doesn't happen, companies are very aware that the employee who went from secretary to handling the responsibilities of a sales manager will, if still paid as a secretary for very long, go somewhere and get a much higher paid job as a sales manager. I suppose that there are jobs out there where you can't shop your services to the highest bidder because absolutely anyone can fill the job if they have basic human capacity. Burger flipper. Dishwasher. But beyond that basic level, most jobs have variations in salary. And while you don't shop yourself by waiting as you do in football, you do shop yourself. I find it hard to believe that you don't know this. It's a staple of our economy. If your boss gives you not just more responsibility but all of the responsibilities of a job that pays three times as much, yet he doesn't pay you extra, you stay long enough to prove you can do the job and then go elsewhere to get the kind of salary that goes with the new job. The exact same thing happened to me once, and that is in fact what I did. I didn't need "good luck with that job hunt." It was a piece of cake. You say that you will have a problem "especially when there is legitmate debate over whether this employee is even very good at what he does and has a questionable reputation and work ethic." Well, yes, I agree, but Jason Peters doesn't qualify as having that kind of reputation problem. Which is why he got $10 mill plus in a couple of hours of negotiation. The only place where people have doubts about the guy is on these boards. Peters has a sensational reputation all over the league. Everyone is aware that he won't stand for being underpaid, but guys with his talent will find a team that will pay market value. As happened. Peters has a reputation as a guy who handles the responsibilities of being a left tackle extremely well. Yeah, he didn't handle the negotiations all that well. But when you are one of the two or three best people in the world at a very highly-valued and extremely unusual skill, it just isn't difficult to get people interested. It just isn't. And if I don't show up for work because I think I am underpaid? Guess what, in the real world I would get fired.
Thurman#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 We are still waiting Thurman for a link that shows what Peters was willing to accept before he was traded to the Eagles. Link?????????? See how little it adds when some dweeb keeps yammering away again and again for a LINK??????? when the other guy probably hasn't bothered to come to the board yet? People who do this are grandstanding, acting like they have driven the other guy away, when it's most likely not the case. That's why I don't do it.
Thurman#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Link???????????? No Link Thurman? Why am I NOT surprised? No further comment necessary.
Thurman#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 YOU are the one calling EVERYONE else out about links & deriding them for not providing one. Can you spell HYPOCRITE? Um, you COULDN'T provide links. I DID. See the difference there? It's subtle, but if you look hard, I bet you can pick up on it.
Thurman#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 NOTHING in that article states what Peters was willing to ACCEPT prior to being traded to the Eagles. Dude, "had been seeking" and "willing to accept" mean the same thing. The article states EXACTLY what he was willing to accept. Do you really think he "had been seeking" something he was unwilling to accept? That makes absolutely no sense.
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Nobody here really challenged his talent...we challenged the way he went about his "business". Show up for work and prove you deserve your extension. He held out and sucked last year....threatened to hold out again and the Bills were supposed to pay him?!?!?! However, I still think the Bills should have paid him....I believe they would have had he handled his situation more like Lee Evans.... Are you serious? We suffered through post after post after post of that inane BS "he sucked anyways" jargon.
Like A Mofo Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 And if I don't show up for work because I think I am underpaid? Guess what, in the real world I would get fired. The NFL is NOT the real world...these people have skills that 99% of us do NOT have. Get over it.
Thurman#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 And if I don't show up for work because I think I am underpaid? Guess what, in the real world I would get fired. Yeah, but you wouldn't worry about it if that company had been treating you unfairly. It would just be an opportunity for you to join a more reasonable company, a company which would pay you market value.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Here's Mike Lombardi. It's at about 2:14. "...ultimately over $10 mill/ year..." http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-tota...ound-the-League This was getting fairly late in the process. So this link PROVES my point. Peters according to Lombardi was asking for OVER 10 Million per year.
Like A Mofo Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Yeah, but you wouldn't worry about it if that company had been treating you unfairly. It would just be an opportunity for you to join a more reasonable company, a company which would pay you market value. Or a company that wants to win and does not have a 91 year owner yearning for sellouts over 12 win teams with good management and coaching.
PDaDdy Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 And if I don't show up for work because I think I am underpaid? Guess what, in the real world I would get fired. Finish the story....and if you were a highly employable person that could expertly handle a job that only 00.000001% of the population on the planet was capable of you would find employment the next day making more money!!!! When will people understand these are highly coveted NFL players not gas station attendants, construction workers, assembly line workers or customer service reps?
PDaDdy Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 The NFL is NOT the real world...these people have skills that 99% of us do NOT have. Get over it. Make that 99.999999% of us don't have
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Here's another example of how annoying and pointless it is to repeatedly ask for a LINK?????????? I bumped the thread because it kept getting buried on page two. I posted in the morning, afternoon & late at night, that is hardly every hour. The reason I did this is because you like to call everyone else out for links then you CAN'T provide one yourself. You provided two links. One was AFTER the agreement was in place to trade Peters which is NOT the link I asked for & the other PROVED MY POINT that Peters was asking for MORE than he signed for with the Eagles.
Thurman#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 I bumped the thread because it kept getting buried on page two. I posted in the morning, afternoon & late at night, that is hardly every hour. The reason I did this is because you like to call everyone else out for links then you CAN'T provide one yourself. You provided two links. One was AFTER the agreement was in place to trade Peters which is NOT the link I asked for & the other PROVED MY POINT that Peters was asking for MORE than he signed for with the Eagles. If that was your point, then it was a pretty pathetic point. Of course he was asking for more. Again (for like the eighth time actually), that's how negotiations work. OF COURSE he asked for more. He did the same with Philly too, undoubtedly, and Philly came up and Peters came down and ... That's how negotiations work. If you look at my two articles, he was coming down even with the Bills. As for the thing about it getting buried on page two, I can see how that might have seemed reasonable. So let me apologize for misunderstanding your intentions. But don't worry about me coming back. I don't only come back to P. 1 stuff. And I hope you can see that when laid out on the page like that, even though you hadn't meant anything, it surely looks like you did.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 No idea what he asked for or was willing to accept? And you're quoting Charley Rich, but changing the context from sex to the Peters negotiations? Please. OK. I'll find a few stories with "sources." Right, here's one: March 13th: However, a source familiar with talks said Peters’ first offer was in excess of the $11.5 million-a-year deal signed by Miami’s Jake Long, who was the first pick in the draft last year. Long’s deal was for five years and $57.5 million. http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/billsnfl/story/606369.html Nobody knows. Except the Buffalo News, that is. It's a complete mystery to everyone. This Link also proves my point that at that time, Peters was asking to be paid as the best LT in the game. Thanks for helping prove my point.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 If that was your point, then it was a pretty pathetic point. Of course he was asking for more. Again (for like the eighth time actually), that's how negotiations work. OF COURSE he asked for more. He did the same with Philly too, undoubtedly, and Philly came up and Peters came down and ... That's how negotiations work. If you look at my two articles, he was coming down even with the Bills. As for the thing about it getting buried on page two, I can see how that might have seemed reasonable. So let me apologize for misunderstanding your intentions. But don't worry about me coming back. I don't only come back to P. 1 stuff. And I hope you can see that when laid out on the page like that, even though you hadn't meant anything, it surely looks like you did. I realize how negotiations work, that is why I KNEW you could not provide a link about what Peters was willing to accept prior to the trade with Philly. The point is you said you & everyone but me knew what Peters would accept which just is not true.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Finish the story....and if you were a highly employable person that could expertly handle a job that only 00.000001% of the population on the planet was capable of you would find employment the next day making more money!!!! When will people understand these are highly coveted NFL players not gas station attendants, construction workers, assembly line workers or customer service reps? but you also have personalities to be concerned with, and that's a big part of the pciture. is the guy a leader, a cancer, somewhere in-between? will he show up, do his job and be done with it? will he get his payday and lose the fire that brought him to the top of his game? there was plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that they were taking a chance re-signing peters to a huge contract at that point in time. in fairness to the bills, they have to take that into cosideration. and, the nfl is littered with high profile players who signed for big money elsewhere and said team was sitting at home, just like the Bills, come playoffs. Taking your argument to the extreme, shouldn't the pro-bowlers each year look to renegotiate their contract based on the new standard set with rookies and free agent signings? Should most of them holdout if they didn't get a new deal struck? I'm absolutely ok trashing the bills brain trust for decisions made for virtually forever, but on this issue, peters was as much the problem as anyone else.
PDaDdy Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 This Link also proves my point that at that time, Peters was asking to be paid as the best LT in the game. Thanks for helping prove my point. Man you are dense. What it PROVES is that Peters was negotiating for a better contract. Apparently you are unaware that usually you "ASK" for more than you are willing to "ACCEPT". I apologize if that concept is new to you but most of us know this already which is where our frustration comes from. What we DO know is that what he did "ACCEPT" was less than what the highest paid LT received. To allege that he wouldn't have signed in Buffalo for the money he did with Philly is ridiculous pure unsubstantiated speculation. All it does is to lamely attempt to put 100% blame on Peters and none on our tight pursed front office! The argument is getting old. The Peters can be replaced by Walker or Bell argument doesn't wash anymore. Quit with the sour grapes. Plain and simple he was a great YOUNG LT talent who was still improving as he had only been playing Tackle for what 5 years. We didn't want to pay him what he was worth. We tried to string him along at a GREAT bargain. He stood up for himself and demanded to be paid. END OF STORY.
Recommended Posts