GG Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 So all that can't be disproven must be true? First class thinking as always. Suddenly, a lot of your posts begin to make sense. No just applying your logic to prove an unprovable act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 The injury speculation is just a vain attempt by some of us to find a reason for Peter's most unreasonable behavior. Before we lose sight of the crux of the issue again: The Bills have stated they will renegotiate Peter's deal if he reports to camp. Peters has not only not reported to camp, but has not attended any team OTA's, or had any contact whatsoever since the end of last season with the Bills. Further, Eugene Parker, Peter's agent, has made no attempt to contact the Bills to request a new deal for his client. In fact everything the Bills know about Peters they had to read in the press. Krazykat and his minions think Russ Brandon needs to crawl to Parker and Peters on all fours with an armored car full of cash, begging forgiveness for the insult of giving Peters a new deal 2 years ago, without knowing Peters physical condition post-surgery. This is not an issue over whether Peters deserves a raise. The Bills agree he does. This is an issue of how you conduct yourself to your team and teammates. Rewarding Peters for acting like a selfish a**hole would be slap to the rest of the team. PTR They have not stated flatly that they will give him a new contract. This is what Brandon said: “We made a commitment to Jason two years ago, we expect him to honor that commitment and we expect him to be here at camp when we go on the field tomorrow at 8:30." As for there being no contact, in fact report I read, the same one everyone read, said Brandon "...has had only brief discussions with the player’s agent, Eugene Parker." The reference being plural, they have actually had more than one discussion. No matter how brief, that doesn't exactly support your claim that everything they know about Peters is from the press. Actually, as far as I know, neither Peters nor his agent have made a public comment so I don't what you base that assertion on. That same report also indicated that "Brandon said the bulk of the discussions with Parker have centered on Hardy’s deal and not Peters’ impending holdout." Notice that Brandon said "the bulk of" not "all of". That means he has talked to Parker about Peters. Again, not exactly supportive of the notion that all the team's info comes from the press. Peters shouldn't be talking to and should not be expected to talk to the team's general manager. That is what his agent is for and Brandon and Parker have talked, and apparently on more than one occasion. Further, the team has never flatly indicated that all Peters has to do is show up and all his dreams will come true as so many posters keep claiming. Have they hinted at that? Sure. But that means nothing. If they mean that all they would have to do is phone the agent and flatly commit to that. We have no idea what has been said. Publicly though, Brandon made it clear, Peters must honor the "commitment", ie, the contract he made 2 years ago. If you are willing to renegotiate, saying publicly you won't is probably not the way to communicate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 No just applying your logic to prove an unprovable act. Not my logic, in fact there are no deductions needed. LJ Smith having had the same surgery is a fact. When he had it and when Peters had it are facts. The reports qouting what injury he had, the routine nature of the surgery and that the surgery was successful are facts. You may not accept them as dispositive, but they aren't the result of guesswork or logic. The lack of a single published report indicating a problem with his health or recovery is also a fact, not a logically based deduction. As a result, my position is that there is no proof that Peter's injury is a problem and the proof we do have indicates otherwise thus, it makes no sense to write a 5 page post declaring with certainty that the hold out is all due to this super secret injury conspiracy. But you're right, we haven't had Peters under 24 hour surveillance since the surgery in January so I guess it could be true. Maybe Peters thinks that despite being permanently crippled, he can fool the Bills just long enough to get a 60 million dollar contract before he retires due to the injury. Yeah, thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Not my logic, in fact there are no deductions needed. LJ Smith having had the same surgery is a fact. When he had it and when Peters had it are facts. The reports qouting what injury he had, the routine nature of the surgery and that the surgery was successful are facts. You may not accept them as dispositive, but they aren't the result of guesswork or logic. The lack of a single published report indicating a problem with his health or recovery is also a fact, not a logically based deduction. As a result, my position is that there is no proof that Peter's injury is a problem and the proof we do have indicates otherwise thus, it makes no sense to write a 5 page post declaring with certainty that the hold out is all due to this super secret injury conspiracy. But you're right, we haven't had Peters under 24 hour surveillance since the surgery in January so I guess it could be true. Maybe Peters thinks that despite being permanently crippled, he can fool the Bills just long enough to get a 60 million dollar contract before he retires due to the injury. Yeah, thats it. The lack of a single published report indicating a problem with his health or recovery is a fact, but is not conclusive evidence that there wasn't anything wrong, either. So, you also don't have proof of the total certainty of his recovery, no matter how probable that is. Which indicates that, the injury could be an issue in the Bills' stance, along with Peters' absence from any team activities in 2008, and his salary demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike32282 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The injury is the only reason why i wouldn't throw a ton of money at him until he comes to camp. Who knows if he's 100% yet and in great physical condition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 From Sal Maiorana... If Sal's source is correct, that would certainly explain why Jason isn't in camp. That makes a lot more sense than the injury conspiracy theory. [Team says no. Player says yes. Team says no. Player says yes.] = hold out until someone blinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 The injury is the only reason why i wouldn't throw a ton of money at him until he comes to camp. Who knows if he's 100% yet and in great physical condition? That is not how it works or has ever worked in the last 15-20 years. Teams always condition offers on health and players always accept those conditions. No team in the modern game has ever irrevocably committed to a player without proof of his physical health. I am sure the team has every medical record there is to have on him already. Any new contract would be contingent on proof of his fitness. Offer the money he wants contingent upon coming to camp to get totally checked out and he will be faster than Roscoe down the sidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 The lack of a single published report indicating a problem with his health or recovery is a fact, but is not conclusive evidence that there wasn't anything wrong, either. So, you also don't have proof of the total certainty of his recovery, no matter how probable that is. Which indicates that, the injury could be an issue in the Bills' stance, along with Peters' absence from any team activities in 2008, and his salary demands. Never said I had incontrovertible proof so what is your problem? I showed proof, not "logic" or speculation. The injury theorists have none. As far as I know, total certainty has never been the standard for an opinion around here to be free from personal attack. You can send someone to the chair based on just "reasonable certainty". Opinions based on zero proof on the other hand really aren't opinions, they are flights of fancy even if there is an embarrasingly remote chance that they could be true. At the very least, they shouldn't form the basis for trashing one of our best players. "Could be" is the most meaningless of standards. Almost anything "could be..." In court, your not allowed to ask a question that starts out with "Couldn't it be possible that...." The immediate objection, almost always sustained, is "anything is possible". There is as much proof right now that he is injured as there is that he is on a cocaine bender. If someone posts that and I point out the lack of proof are you going to chime in and say "hey, he could be on a bender?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 Honestly Kelly, I have no idea. I am unable to look into the souls of Russ Brandon or Jason Peters or Eugene Parker, and am not so good on looking into the future either. I do know that, as Promo said, negotiations can only begin when people negotiate, and I do not see how the Bills can be expected to say anything other than they have said. The Bills have stated their position: negotiations can only begin when Peters shows up. Peters and Parker need to state theirs, rather than having us all sit around guessing what they might have in mind. The rest is just noise. What they have said is they expect him to honor his the "commitment", ie, the contract he made 2 years ago. Just because Parker and Peters weren't so intemperate as to have warring press conferences doesn't mean they haven't made their position clear to the team. They have no obligation to tell us and I think it shows more respect to keep their mouths shur in public. Besides, that position makes no sense. "We will only negotiate with you if you come to camp". No sense at all. Every hold out that has ever ended with a contract entailed negotiating with the player NOT in camp. What are they worried about, the long distance bill? In post after post I keep hearing this myth that the team has offered to redo his deal this year if he simply comes to camp. "General manager Russ Brandon said Thursday that he believes Peters owes it to the Bills to live up to the deal he signed and get to camp with his teammates." That doesn't sound like a commitment to redo his deal this year, quite the opposite. "Brandon also said he wouldn't be opposed to discussing a new contract, but he wants Peters in town before he does so. You never say never, we have conversations with our guys all the time..." Okay, as for renegotiating, they would "never say never" and they "wouldn't be opposed to discussing" it. How on earth do people interpret that as the team having committed to a hefty new contract if Jason hops on a plane? I can't tell you how often usually near my birthday, my wife has said, in regard to any special gifts I might be contemplating, "never say never" ane "I wouldn't be opposed to discussing it". Either you are single or we need to trade wives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Anyone who associates football negotiations with his marriage has issues I would rather avoid.... Seriously, I am by no means saying the Bills are blameless, but how exactly does it make "no sense at all" for a team to make attendance at practice a precondition for negotiations, when there are plenty of examples in the past of not only the Bills but other teams taking such a position? As far as I see it, this is the situation: Is Brandon's current rhetoric hard line? Yes. Is Peters' decision to hold out a hard-line position? Yes. Will there be any successful re-negotiation if Peters does not come to camp? Not likely. Will a re-negotiation happen after he does come to camp? Probably, though no one can say if it will happen this preseason. Would it be a catastrophe if it happened any time within the next twelve months? No. My guess is that Peters shows up within the next couple of weeks, or after 1000 posts on the subject on TSW, whichever comes last. I don't think either side is planning Armageddon on this. Both sides are maneuvering for position, and the negotiations to follow will launch another thousand threads, but I think it unlikely that Jason Peters signs a contract with anyone other than the Bills. What they have said is they expect him to honor his the "commitment", ie, the contract he made 2 years ago. Just because Parker and Peters weren't so intemperate as to have warring press conferences doesn't mean they haven't made their position clear to the team. They have no obligation to tell us and I think it shows more respect to keep their mouths shur in public. Besides, that position makes no sense. "We will only negotiate with you if you come to camp". No sense at all. Every hold out that has ever ended with a contract entailed negotiating with the player NOT in camp. What are they worried about, the long distance bill? In post after post I keep hearing this myth that the team has offered to redo his deal this year if he simply comes to camp. "General manager Russ Brandon said Thursday that he believes Peters owes it to the Bills to live up to the deal he signed and get to camp with his teammates." That doesn't sound like a commitment to redo his deal this year, quite the opposite. "Brandon also said he wouldn't be opposed to discussing a new contract, but he wants Peters in town before he does so. You never say never, we have conversations with our guys all the time..." Okay, as for renegotiating, they would "never say never" and they "wouldn't be opposed to discussing" it. How on earth do people interpret that as the team having committed to a hefty new contract if Jason hops on a plane? I can't tell you how often usually near my birthday, my wife has said, in regard to any special gifts I might be contemplating, "never say never" ane "I wouldn't be opposed to discussing it". Either you are single or we need to trade wives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 What they have said is they expect him to honor his the "commitment", ie, the contract he made 2 years ago. Just because Parker and Peters weren't so intemperate as to have warring press conferences doesn't mean they haven't made their position clear to the team. They have no obligation to tell us and I think it shows more respect to keep their mouths shur in public. Besides, that position makes no sense. "We will only negotiate with you if you come to camp". No sense at all. Every hold out that has ever ended with a contract entailed negotiating with the player NOT in camp. What are they worried about, the long distance bill? In post after post I keep hearing this myth that the team has offered to redo his deal this year if he simply comes to camp. "General manager Russ Brandon said Thursday that he believes Peters owes it to the Bills to live up to the deal he signed and get to camp with his teammates." That doesn't sound like a commitment to redo his deal this year, quite the opposite. "Brandon also said he wouldn't be opposed to discussing a new contract, but he wants Peters in town before he does so. You never say never, we have conversations with our guys all the time..." Okay, as for renegotiating, they would "never say never" and they "wouldn't be opposed to discussing" it. How on earth do people interpret that as the team having committed to a hefty new contract if Jason hops on a plane? I can't tell you how often usually near my birthday, my wife has said, in regard to any special gifts I might be contemplating, "never say never" ane "I wouldn't be opposed to discussing it". Either you are single or we need to trade wives. Mickey - you're saying the Bills should promise a new deal before Peters even agrees to hop on a plane - or, even more absurd, we should go ahead and extend his contract and increase his pay without him agreeing to hop on a plane, without even seeing the guy in WNY? Whether you agree or not, neither one of those scenarios is gonna happen. Guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazykat Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The injury is the only reason why i wouldn't throw a ton of money at him until he comes to camp. Who knows if he's 100% yet and in great physical condition? Yeah, but you wouldn't throw a ton of money at him without knowing that first, or at least putting in print. Right now the problem isn't verification, it's talking. Brandon's unwilling to leave the confines of camp to deal and Peters/Parker aren't feeling too inclined to get out of their lazy boys. I'm sure that if Brandon just picked up the phone and said "what's it gonna take" that would get the ball rolling. Isn't that his job? Players holding out of camp is not some sort of unusual circumstance. It happens all the time around the league. A lot of people here act as if this is the first time in NFL history that anyone has not shown up in camp. It's Brandon's job to make sure all the ducks are in a row contractually. So let's see the novice get on it. It's obviously a little different than selling out luxury seating. If he goes to Peters and Peters says he wants a deal without a physical or any kind of proof that he's fine and refuses to sign a contract with built in clauses accounting for that, the Brandon can come out and state the team's position and no one of right mind will argue at that point. Until then however his job is to deal with this garbage and he's not doing a good job obviously. Right now it's two sides of enormous egos trying to prove which one is more stubborn. I still have to side with Peters though given all of the recently resigned non-impact players getting about what he's getting on this team. I mean Butler still had two years left on his contract and they redid his. To me if I'm Peters, that's a slap in the face. I'm sure you don't agree, but that's my take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Never said I had incontrovertible proof so what is your problem? I showed proof, not "logic" or speculation. The injury theorists have none. As far as I know, total certainty has never been the standard for an opinion around here to be free from personal attack. You can send someone to the chair based on just "reasonable certainty". Opinions based on zero proof on the other hand really aren't opinions, they are flights of fancy even if there is an embarrasingly remote chance that they could be true. At the very least, they shouldn't form the basis for trashing one of our best players. "Could be" is the most meaningless of standards. Almost anything "could be..." In court, your not allowed to ask a question that starts out with "Couldn't it be possible that...." The immediate objection, almost always sustained, is "anything is possible". There is as much proof right now that he is injured as there is that he is on a cocaine bender. If someone posts that and I point out the lack of proof are you going to chime in and say "hey, he could be on a bender?" Except that you built your argument on the position that there's no way that the injury is the reason that the deal isn't done and have been arguing your stance with people postulating that the injury is the only thing that's preventing the deal. Thus, when faced with arguing someone who says that the uncertainty about the injury is possibly one of the factors contributing to the "stalled" negotiations, your arguments has zero merit because you need to provide 100% proof that there is no injury concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazykat Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 What they have said is they expect him to honor his the "commitment", ie, the contract he made 2 years ago. Just because Parker and Peters weren't so intemperate as to have warring press conferences doesn't mean they haven't made their position clear to the team. They have no obligation to tell us and I think it shows more respect to keep their mouths shur in public. Besides, that position makes no sense. "We will only negotiate with you if you come to camp". No sense at all. Every hold out that has ever ended with a contract entailed negotiating with the player NOT in camp. What are they worried about, the long distance bill? In post after post I keep hearing this myth that the team has offered to redo his deal this year if he simply comes to camp. "General manager Russ Brandon said Thursday that he believes Peters owes it to the Bills to live up to the deal he signed and get to camp with his teammates." That doesn't sound like a commitment to redo his deal this year, quite the opposite. "Brandon also said he wouldn't be opposed to discussing a new contract, but he wants Peters in town before he does so. You never say never, we have conversations with our guys all the time..." Okay, as for renegotiating, they would "never say never" and they "wouldn't be opposed to discussing" it. How on earth do people interpret that as the team having committed to a hefty new contract if Jason hops on a plane? I can't tell you how often usually near my birthday, my wife has said, in regard to any special gifts I might be contemplating, "never say never" ane "I wouldn't be opposed to discussing it". Either you are single or we need to trade wives. Good post. Butler still had two years left but the team didn't take the same position there. Kyle Williams also had this year left that they didn't make him play out. Same for Schobel last year. That line of reasoning is a joke. It's a convenient excuse. All I can say is that this team better be competitive this year if Brandon's gonna play these kind of games in his first year as GM and in Jauron's do or die third year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bladiebla Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Maybe he got scared and wants to make sure he has enough money to last his live if he does get injured permanently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBoy Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Ok, given the information available, prove that it isn't a major issue. You gotta be joking...Please tell me you have "faith" that Peters is hurt, because that would really make my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 You gotta be joking...Please tell me you have "faith" that Peters is hurt, because that would really make my day. I never joke. And it's quite a reflection if my response makes your day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Except that you built your argument on the position that there's no way that the injury is the reason that the deal isn't done and have been arguing your stance with people postulating that the injury is the only thing that's preventing the deal. Thus, when faced with arguing someone who says that the uncertainty about the injury is possibly one of the factors contributing to the "stalled" negotiations, your arguments has zero merit because you need to provide 100% proof that there is no injury concern. We need to ask Schrödinger's cat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBoy Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I never joke. And it's quite a reflection if my response makes your day. So with the information that we have prove to me that Peters didn't grow a gigantic phalus and is out searching for a giant vag to stick it in...dude you should totally post your address! There, now I made my own day. *I don't really mean you personally, I just needed someone to be the brunt of the joke, but you can't disprove it, so don't ask me to disprove a negative anymore, because I got plenty more. It's actually quite simple I just make any wild claim or assertion and you won't be able to disprove it* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 So with the information that we have prove to me that Peters didn't grow a gigantic phalus and is out searching for a giant vag to stick it in...dude you should totally post your address! There, now I made my own day. *I don't really mean you personally, I just needed someone to be the brunt of the joke, but you can't disprove it, so don't ask me to disprove a negative anymore, because I got plenty more. It's actually quite simple I just make any wild claim or assertion and you won't be able to disprove it* The jerk store called, they're out of Hardy Boys books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts