Do folks think the Bills should develop a rep as harda** negotiators?

[Bmwolf21]

Didn't Schobel read the Bruce Smith handbook on skipping camp, OTA's and other activities? It seems like every year that guy is missing some offseason activity...

[PromoTheRobot]

Why did the team start negotiating with Schobel in February of 2007 even though he had 3 years left on his deal and not do that with Peters?

 

Did Schobel show respect for the team when he skipped out of the first 4 OTAs to send a message even though, at the time, the team was already in negotiations with his agents?

 

Why did the team spend 6 months dealing with Schobel's agents hammering out a new deal and not do the same with Peters?

Because Schobel's agents actually opened a dialogue with the Bills, unlike Eugene Parker who never even asked for a renegotiation. We're supposed to guess that by Peters absence. Big difference between the two, Mick.

 

PTR

[Kelly the Dog]

Because Schobel's agents actually opened a dialogue with the Bills, unlike Eugene Parker who never even asked for a renegotiation. We're supposed to guess that by Peters absence. Big difference between the two, Mick.

 

PTR

Sorry, but that's an incredibly naive stance you're taking. Do you really believe that Parker never spoke to the Bills and asked for a new contract for Peters? Really? And please don't answer, "How do we know, they haven't said anything?" Because that implies that both the player and agent have no clue what the Bills are willing to pay them, and for all they know as soon as they walk in, the Bills will open the bank for him. Jesus, the original tin can Promo, without the human inside, was smarter than that.

[Steely Dan]

The team approached Schobel to start negotiating a new deal in February of 2007 when he still had 3 years left on his contract and even though negotiations were under way, Schobel skipped out on the first OTAs in March of 2007 to send a message to the team. They had his deal done with the exception of a few details prior to camp which is why he was in camp. In contrast, the team hasn't offered to give Peters a new deal and have instead insisted that he "honor the committment he made two years ago", an issue that didn't stop them from going to Schobel. Camp has nothing to do with this. They don't want to give him a new deal this year, period. And if they had done that to Schobel, he wouldn't have missed only 4 off season practices. They could have, if they were willing to give him a new deal, started negotiating in February 2008 and would have had 6 months to get a deal done before camp ever became an issue.

 

The team did set a precedent with Schobel and then abandoned it with Peters.

 

IIRC, Schobel showed up at a OTA before his contract was renegotiated.

[Trader]

I would say unequivocally NO.

 

It has been amusing for me to see a few posts on TSW that call for that or seem to want the Bills to emphasize using the Peters situation to develop a rep as tough guys dealing with players.

 

I agree that yes, the Bills should be concerned about the potential for giving Peters a new deal setting a precedent. However, as far as the Bills developing a rep amongst players throughout the league, I actually would prefer as a fan to see us generally seen as a potential soft touch in negotiations as if that becomes a reason why players enter FA thinking of the Bills as a serious possibility I think that is good for us.

 

At most, I think the Bills want to develop a rep as being tough but fair. Certainly as the Peter's situation was one of the first times in the modern era that a Bill who is under contract for several years actually launched a holdout I think it is pretty reasonable for the Bills being tough but fair simply refusing to negotiate until Peters came to camp.

 

However, one of the things I am happiest about is that Peters and Parker actually have said nothing and not provided any fodder to the local press which folks like WGR or Jerry Sullivan would be happy to turn into a controversy which allows them to fill air minutes or column inches so they can sell some commercials.

 

However, particularly to the extent that small market Buffalo would not strike many NFLers as the city they might want to come to, i would much prefer if we had a rep as a soft touch which attracted players here or convinced UDFAs like Peters to throw their lot in with us rather than some other city.

 

I can understand why Brandon and Ralph as businessmen want to be tough in negotiations. However, as one who cares about the sport rather than the business primarily I actually like having the team develop a rep as a fair soft touch as seen in us overpaying Kelsay and paying to extend Schobel when we were under no real obligation to do this.

[Trader]

I would say unequivocally NO.

 

It has been amusing for me to see a few posts on TSW that call for that or seem to want the Bills to emphasize using the Peters situation to develop a rep as tough guys dealing with players.

 

I agree that yes, the Bills should be concerned about the potential for giving Peters a new deal setting a precedent. However, as far as the Bills developing a rep amongst players throughout the league, I actually would prefer as a fan to see us generally seen as a potential soft touch in negotiations as if that becomes a reason why players enter FA thinking of the Bills as a serious possibility I think that is good for us.

 

At most, I think the Bills want to develop a rep as being tough but fair. Certainly as the Peter's situation was one of the first times in the modern era that a Bill who is under contract for several years actually launched a holdout I think it is pretty reasonable for the Bills being tough but fair simply refusing to negotiate until Peters came to camp.

 

However, one of the things I am happiest about is that Peters and Parker actually have said nothing and not provided any fodder to the local press which folks like WGR or Jerry Sullivan would be happy to turn into a controversy which allows them to fill air minutes or column inches so they can sell some commercials.

 

However, particularly to the extent that small market Buffalo would not strike many NFLers as the city they might want to come to, i would much prefer if we had a rep as a soft touch which attracted players here or convinced UDFAs like Peters to throw their lot in with us rather than some other city.

 

I can understand why Brandon and Ralph as businessmen want to be tough in negotiations. However, as one who cares about the sport rather than the business primarily I actually like having the team develop a rep as a fair soft touch as seen in us overpaying Kelsay and paying to extend Schobel when we were under no real obligation to do this.

[Trader]

Yes. The Bills should take the lead in tough negotiations with Agents. No one else seems to have the fortitude. ( I would like to use another phrase here but I would be censored)

[PromoTheRobot]

Sorry, but that's an incredibly naive stance you're taking. Do you really believe that Parker never spoke to the Bills and asked for a new contract for Peters? Really? And please don't answer, "How do we know, they haven't said anything?" Because that implies that both the player and agent have no clue what the Bills are willing to pay them, and for all they know as soon as they walk in, the Bills will open the bank for him. Jesus, the original tin can Promo, without the human inside, was smarter than that.

We are both arguing from the same uninformed position. Neither of us knows anything for sure. You assume Parker spoke with Brandon. I assume Brandon is telling the truth when he says they haven't.

 

PTR

[Kelly the Dog]

We are both arguing from the same uninformed position. Neither of us knows anything for sure. You assume Parker spoke with Brandon. I assume Brandon is telling the truth when he says they haven't.

 

PTR

Brandon has publicly admitted talking with Parker more than once (on at least two occasions). Sorry. If you want to believe the concept of Peters contract didn't come up, feel free.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Brandon has publicly admitted talking with Parker more than once (on at least two occasions). Sorry. If you want to believe the concept of Peters contract didn't come up, feel free.

Do pigs fly through pink skies?

[bladiebla]

The points we do know:

1. Peters has 3 years left on his contract

2. Peters made the pro-bowl last year

3. Peters was injured

4. Peters didnot report for volunteer workouts

5. Peters didnot report mandatory minicap

6. Peters didnot report trainingcamp

 

What we donot know:

1. Why was the holdout started in the first place?

2. Was the new contract request done before the start of the holdout (would make sense)?

3. Did the Bills flatout deny him a new contract for this year firmly closing the door?

4. How much contact has there been during his holdout?

 

From a Bills perspective it's clear you don't want to renegotiate a player who has had only one great year which he ended in injury, you want to see one more year of performance.

 

From Peters his perspective getting injured makes you think, what if it is career ending, where is my money then, im the best OL on the team yet I dont earn most.

 

I can understand both sides but feel the Bills side is most realistic allthough they could have worked out a restructured deal where his additional pay would be purely based on performance.

 

Interesting read here btw on Bills taking hard stance http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/420505.html.

[eball]

Sorry, but that's an incredibly naive stance you're taking. Do you really believe that Parker never spoke to the Bills and asked for a new contract for Peters? Really? And please don't answer, "How do we know, they haven't said anything?" Because that implies that both the player and agent have no clue what the Bills are willing to pay them, and for all they know as soon as they walk in, the Bills will open the bank for him. Jesus, the original tin can Promo, without the human inside, was smarter than that.

Kelly, do you really believe Parker asked for a new contract for Peters and the Bills said "F**k you?"

[Mickey]

Because Schobel's agents actually opened a dialogue with the Bills, unlike Eugene Parker who never even asked for a renegotiation. We're supposed to guess that by Peters absence. Big difference between the two, Mick.

 

PTR

Please cite the information upon which you base your claim that Parker didn't ask for a new contract or stop making it. As you know, I have, on many occasions provided the links to articles showing that Brandon and Parker have in fact had discussions, however brief. I don't think they were talking about the weather, do you? Further, I posted the link where Overdorf himself said that they approached Schobel's people early and also the article where the agents were cited as having worked on the negotiations for 6 months which means February of 2007 which also means Schobel's skipping of 4 practices in March was a clear message from him that despite the good faith negotiations, they better give him a new deal or else. You keep ignoring those facts as if they don't exist and then make claims like this with no proof at all.

[Mickey]

Kelly, do you really believe Parker asked for a new contract for Peters and the Bills said "F**k you?"

Do you really believe that parker hasn't asked for a new contract for Peters? Do you really believe that the problem is not the money but Peter's current whereabouts?

 

Besides, we don't have to wonder what the team's position is, they have made it clear in public that they expect him to honor his current deal.

 

Don't be so dramatic, I am sure there were no expletives involved. A polite "No" or "we expect him to honor the commitment he made 2 years ago" is all they had to say, a position by the way, most people hereabouts support and find to be very reasonable. Why does it seem so improbable to you that they would want to make good on the bet they made on Peters two years ago?

[keepthefaith]

I would say unequivocally NO.

 

It has been amusing for me to see a few posts on TSW that call for that or seem to want the Bills to emphasize using the Peters situation to develop a rep as tough guys dealing with players.

 

I agree that yes, the Bills should be concerned about the potential for giving Peters a new deal setting a precedent. However, as far as the Bills developing a rep amongst players throughout the league, I actually would prefer as a fan to see us generally seen as a potential soft touch in negotiations as if that becomes a reason why players enter FA thinking of the Bills as a serious possibility I think that is good for us.

 

At most, I think the Bills want to develop a rep as being tough but fair. Certainly as the Peter's situation was one of the first times in the modern era that a Bill who is under contract for several years actually launched a holdout I think it is pretty reasonable for the Bills being tough but fair simply refusing to negotiate until Peters came to camp.

 

However, one of the things I am happiest about is that Peters and Parker actually have said nothing and not provided any fodder to the local press which folks like WGR or Jerry Sullivan would be happy to turn into a controversy which allows them to fill air minutes or column inches so they can sell some commercials.

 

However, particularly to the extent that small market Buffalo would not strike many NFLers as the city they might want to come to, i would much prefer if we had a rep as a soft touch which attracted players here or convinced UDFAs like Peters to throw their lot in with us rather than some other city.

 

I can understand why Brandon and Ralph as businessmen want to be tough in negotiations. However, as one who cares about the sport rather than the business primarily I actually like having the team develop a rep as a fair soft touch as seen in us overpaying Kelsay and paying to extend Schobel when we were under no real obligation to do this.

 

All the teams should adopt a firmer stance IMO. Let's see what the next round of negotiations with the players union yields. The owners overall have done a terrible job of negotiating their end of the deal in the past IMO. Rookie money ( for high draft choices) has to go down and players need to honor their contracts or not sign them in the first place. Where else can somebody sign a contract, breach it with virtually no downside?

[bladiebla]

Rookie money ( for high draft choices) has to go down and players need to honor their contracts or not sign them in the first place. Where else can somebody sign a contract, breach it with virtually no downside?

 

Rookie money should be fixed imo; 2 year contracts with salary based on overall draft position. Then teams 'own' the rights to the rookie to offer him the same deal he would get somewhere else if contract negotiations would be unresolved after the 2 years.

[cody]

Where else can somebody sign a contract, breach it with virtually no downside?

 

NFL teams can sign a contract and breach it with virtually no downside.

 

 

Before we decide that the Bills should take a hardline stance when negotiating holdouts, can anyone cite an example of when that tactic worked for the benefit of the team? Every holdout I've looked into has either ended in the player getting paid or the player being traded then paid.

 

How can we say the Bills hold all the cards when the stradegy the Bills are using has never been successful.

[Mickey]

All the teams should adopt a firmer stance IMO. Let's see what the next round of negotiations with the players union yields. The owners overall have done a terrible job of negotiating their end of the deal in the past IMO. Rookie money ( for high draft choices) has to go down and players need to honor their contracts or not sign them in the first place. Where else can somebody sign a contract, breach it with virtually no downside?

The success of the league and the teams suggests that they have done a pretty good job. The owners clearly see trouble ahead which is why they didn't extend the CBA however but up until now, they have been spectacularly successful.

[Mickey]

NFL teams can sign a contract and breach it with virtually no downside.

 

 

Before we decide that the Bills should take a hardline stance when negotiating holdouts, can anyone cite an example of when that tactic worked for the benefit of the team? Every holdout I've looked into has either ended in the player getting paid or the player being traded then paid.

 

How can we say the Bills hold all the cards when the stradegy the Bills are using has never been successful.

Shhhhh....... You are questioning the wisdom of the mob. How dare you?

[Mickey]

Rookie money should be fixed imo; 2 year contracts with salary based on overall draft position. Then teams 'own' the rights to the rookie to offer him the same deal he would get somewhere else if contract negotiations would be unresolved after the 2 years.

A rookie cap makes sense. Neither the players nor the teams can afford to waste money on draft busts while they hunt for the coin to pay the guys that deserve it and have proven it on the field.