Peters holdout lacks a cheering section

[PromoTheRobot]

If it is such a good business practice, why don't other teams follow it?

What does Russ Brandon know that Robert Kraft doesn't?

Ummm...you mean like how the Pats* handled Asante Samuals and Deion Branch?

 

PTR

[Kelly the Dog]

Ummm...you mean like how the Pats* handled Asante Samuals and Deion Branch?

 

PTR

They franchised Asante Samuel, and I think he held out and then only reported to camp when they agreed that if he played in 12 games or 60% of the snaps they couldn't franchise him again. Then they lost him and he signed a huge contract with the Eagles and the Pats are hurting at CB. Yeah, the Pats really showed him.

 

Deion Branch the Patriots handled smartly, IMO, because he was decent but not that good. He tried to ask for way too much money for his talent.

[eball]

Mickey, its always entertaining reading your responses. When tide of reality is rushing by, you still manage to swim upstream with your own alternate version. What's next? Will you be explaining how the Earth is flat and everything in the universe revolves around it?

The spin is absolutely dizzying. The agents who criticize Parker's tactics are doing so only because they want to see him fired and then snatch up Peters. The Bills "threw money" at players who showed a commitment to the team yet are "making an example" of poor Jason.

[Big Hurt]

Did anyone do the math? If Peters sit out the whole year, how much money will he be paid? If I was the Bills, I let him sit out the whole year. Then I will find a sucker to trade up for a 1st rounder pick in 2009 draft. If no such sucker can be found, I will let him sit out for the second year. This may not make sense money wise, but is a good way to build a reputation. Very soon, other teams will copy them and we will finally be able take these greed sport agents under control.

[nucci]

Did anyone do the math? If Peters sit out the whole year, how much money will he be paid? If I was the Bills, I let him sit out the whole year. Then I will find a sucker to trade up for a 1st rounder pick in 2009 draft. If no such sucker can be found, I will let him sit out for the second year. This may not make sense money wise, but is a good way to build a reputation. Very soon, other teams will copy them and we will finally be able take these greed sport agents under control.

If you don't play, you don't get paid.

[Mickey]

One, two, three....yep, that's about right. They rhyme with Dickey, WillsPet, and Jill from XYZ.

 

Seriously, it astounds me that it took this long for this article to be written. As I've been saying for days, if not weeks, this is a unique situation -- one in which it is essentially unheard of for such a position to be taken by a player/agent.

 

Get your ass to Orchard Park, Jason, and start rebuilding your integrity with your team.

Well, unheard of if you don't count Schobel last year.

 

This article says what Dicky, Willspet and Jill (you forgot Kelly) have been saying for a very long time, that his absence from camp isn't why he doesn't have a new deal, the reason is the team flatly refused to discuss a new contract this year and he refuses to play without one.

 

When this started, the mob, which I am sure you'll agree is always right, agreed that he was underpaid and should get a new deal this year but unfortunately, his crack pot agent had him hold out which is what bollixed everything up. "Oh if only, if only Peters just came to camp..." they lamented, all would be well. He would get the new contract he deserves and that would be that. But, because he and his agent are morons, they lost the deal he surely would have had if he simply had come to camp.

 

That was the point we in the always wrong minority argued against. Our point was that the whole coming to camp and "track record of silence" stuff was baloney. And all those posters that claimed that the "Bills made it clear that they would renegotiate a new deal if he came to camp..." were, in our view, wrong as rain.

 

This article states what several others have already stated and what we few, we lucky few, we band of...., have been saying for weeks, that the team insists that he play this year under his existing contract.

 

The team's decision to make him play under his existing contract had nothing to do with Peter's absence from camp, in fact, it is why he is absent from camp.

 

The always right numerical majority, ie, the mob, has skipped past their original claim about how all he has to do to get a new deal is come to camp and moved on to another one: he will get a great deal next year if just comes in this year and plays well, making the pro bowl again. And he and his agent are moronic fools for not seeing that he will get the huge pay day he deserves, next year, if only, if only he would just come back now and start playing.

 

Not to upset the mob or anything but the team has never committed to renegotiating his deal, ever, not this year and not next year either. There would be no more reason for the team to pay him next year than there is this year. He would still have 2 years under his existing contract so why wouldn't the team insist, again, that he continue playing at a salary way below his worth?

 

And when that happens, the mob will just forget again what they are saying now and lambaste Peters and his agent for not waiting another year when surely the team will give him the big payday he deserves.

 

Many have been very critical of the holdout though agreeing that he is in fact underpaid and does deserve an extension. None of them however have suggested what other strategy Peters should have used to try and get a new deal. At least not one that made any sense. Come to camp and you will get a new deal. That was the suggestion which has proved to be wrong. So now its come to camp and get a new deal next year. A claim just as unsupported as the first.

 

As for the holdout strategy, my position has been all along that good or bad, its his only option and that giving it at try doesn't really hurt him. Its a free scratch off ticket. Odds aren't good but if its free, why not?

[DrDawkinstein]

someone else read that and let me know if it says anything new or different...

[The Senator]

Hard to feel sorry for the dolt, really - he's out $460K & counting, has lost the respect of the fans and his teammates, and - unless he absolutely plays out of his cleats this season (unlikely after the injury and long holdout) - he will never see the big paydirt he was counting on.

 

Helluva a gambit there, Eugene - unfortunately your client is the big loser.

[cåblelady]

So how long do the boos/jibes last from Bills fans at the stadium if/when Jason suits up?

Ooh! Ooh! That would be FUN!

 

Wonder how long a JASON: STUFF IT sign would last on the tunnel endzone wall ?

[AJ1]

I am repeating myself again, but at least 2 prior clients of Parker's who held out with 2 years left. Hester and Seymour. Both were rewarded with new contracts.

 

The other agents probably think the holdouts are stupid because they put teams in tough situations making negotiations very adversarial. You back someone into a corner and they will try to fight their way out.

I would much rather negotiate a deal when both sides are moving towards a goal that they feel will be mutually beneficial.

 

The problem is, Parker has been very succesful with holdouts.

 

About to end, bigtime.

 

I don't know if Parker is ill-informed or just the ultimate lawyer-agent parasitic slimebag. I believe a little of one and a whole lot of 2.

[VOR]

Peters isn't stupid enough to sit-out the whole season. If he doesn't report prior to the start of this season, he'll probably sit-out until week 10 to get that year's credit towards his contract. By that time, his fine of $430K plus the Bills going after $1.5M in signing bonus, plus probably not playing him (since he'd be useless to them) and thus not earning any playing bonuses, especially at LT, will end-up making him owe the Bills money. Then next season, there ain't NO way the Bills are giving him a big new deal. So the process will repeat itself over again. And then when 3 years have passed, the Bills will franchise him and trade him (and then have to worry about a hold-out from future-Pro Bowl LT Demetrius Bell ).

 

Basically the Bills have Peters by the... The problem for him, as several have mentioned, is that his agent doesn't give a rat's Eugene Parker about him, and Peters is too dumb to figure out that sitting out is the worst thing he could do. But some people need to live and learn. The hard way.

[Ramius]

Well, unheard of if you don't count Schobel last year.

 

This article says what Dicky, Willspet and Jill (you forgot Kelly) have been saying for a very long time, that his absence from camp isn't why he doesn't have a new deal, the reason is the team flatly refused to discuss a new contract this year and he refuses to play without one.

 

When this started, the mob, which I am sure you'll agree is always right, agreed that he was underpaid and should get a new deal this year but unfortunately, his crack pot agent had him hold out which is what bollixed everything up. "Oh if only, if only Peters just came to camp..." they lamented, all would be well. He would get the new contract he deserves and that would be that. But, because he and his agent are morons, they lost the deal he surely would have had if he simply had come to camp.

 

That was the point we in the always wrong minority argued against. Our point was that the whole coming to camp and "track record of silence" stuff was baloney. And all those posters that claimed that the "Bills made it clear that they would renegotiate a new deal if he came to camp..." were, in our view, wrong as rain.

 

This article states what several others have already stated and what we few, we lucky few, we band of...., have been saying for weeks, that the team insists that he play this year under his existing contract.

 

The team's decision to make him play under his existing contract had nothing to do with Peter's absence from camp, in fact, it is why he is absent from camp.

 

The always right numerical majority, ie, the mob, has skipped past their original claim about how all he has to do to get a new deal is come to camp and moved on to another one: he will get a great deal next year if just comes in this year and plays well, making the pro bowl again. And he and his agent are moronic fools for not seeing that he will get the huge pay day he deserves, next year, if only, if only he would just come back now and start playing.

 

Not to upset the mob or anything but the team has never committed to renegotiating his deal, ever, not this year and not next year either. There would be no more reason for the team to pay him next year than there is this year. He would still have 2 years under his existing contract so why wouldn't the team insist, again, that he continue playing at a salary way below his worth?

 

And when that happens, the mob will just forget again what they are saying now and lambaste Peters and his agent for not waiting another year when surely the team will give him the big payday he deserves.

 

Many have been very critical of the holdout though agreeing that he is in fact underpaid and does deserve an extension. None of them however have suggested what other strategy Peters should have used to try and get a new deal. At least not one that made any sense. Come to camp and you will get a new deal. That was the suggestion which has proved to be wrong. So now its come to camp and get a new deal next year. A claim just as unsupported as the first.

 

As for the holdout strategy, my position has been all along that good or bad, its his only option and that giving it at try doesn't really hurt him. Its a free scratch off ticket. Odds aren't good but if its free, why not?

 

lets ignore your lunatic like rantings and focus on the topic of "the mob" claiming that Peters would get a new contract if he came to camp. That hasnt been said at all. In fact, most of the positions offered here by posters are that Theres no way the Bills would negotiate if Peters didnt show up. Plain and simple. Theres no guarantee that they will pay him more or begin talks if he steps into practice tomorrow. But i can tell you one thing for absolute certainty; if Jason Peters doesn't show up, there will be no negotiating.

 

Apparently, all of the neurons aren't firing correctly inside #71's head. If he wants a new deal, the best thing he can do is show up and practice and play. Because if he doesnt show up, there will be no negotiation. And Ralph isnt an owner to play chicken with when it comes to money. You are going to lose.

 

I'm actually a bit surprised he hasnt reported. I figured he'd throw his little hissy fit during training camp and then show up when practices moved back to orchard park. But he hasnt. And the original article is dead nuts on. Sure Peters is a hell of a player, but when you've got 75 guys that have sweated and bled through training camp and practices, they bond, and they can start to develop a "!@#$ off" mentality toward the whiny prima donna holdout that Peters has turned into. Peters has made it loud and clear that he doesnt give 2 ***** about this team, so why should the team go out of their way for him? The Bills have shown that if you put the team first and are a good player, you'll be rewarded. Peters has yet to show any of that.

[The Senator]

Peters and Parker would have trouble finding sympathy even among agents, and those guys are generally viewed as money-grubbing fiends. "I don't think this makes sense," said one agent who represents a Bills player affected by Peters' holdout. "Holding out right now is negative in a lot of ways."

Neither Taylor nor Parker returned calls to ESPN.com for this story. But, to be as fair as possible, ESPN.com phoned several agents to get their opinions on the Peters holdout. Maybe there was something we missed. Not one of the seven agents contacted Monday agreed with the holdout. The most common reasons against it were the Bills' mandate that renegotiations can't open until he reports and the fact Peters has so much time left on his current deal. "If I was running the team," said one agent with a veteran Bills client, "I can't say I would do anything differently than the Bills are doing. I wouldn't negotiate with Peters. No way."

Wow. You'd think there'd be at least a modicum of professional courtesy amongst fellow sycophants - Parker must really be a scumbag.

[AJ1]

lets ignore your lunatic like rantings and focus on the topic of "the mob" claiming that Peters would get a new contract if he came to camp. That hasnt been said at all. In fact, most of the positions offered here by posters are that Theres no way the Bills would negotiate if Peters didnt show up. Plain and simple. Theres no guarantee that they will pay him more or begin talks if he steps into practice tomorrow. But i can tell you one thing for absolute certainty; if Jason Peters doesn't show up, there will be no negotiating.

 

Apparently, all of the neurons aren't firing correctly inside #71's head. If he wants a new deal, the best thing he can do is show up and practice and play. Because if he doesnt show up, there will be no negotiation. And Ralph isnt an owner to play chicken with when it comes to money. You are going to lose.

 

I'm actually a bit surprised he hasnt reported. I figured he'd throw his little hissy fit during training camp and then show up when practices moved back to orchard park. But he hasnt. And the original article is dead nuts on. Sure Peters is a hell of a player, but when you've got 75 guys that have sweated and bled through training camp and practices, they bond, and they can start to develop a "!@#$ off" mentality toward the whiny prima donna holdout that Peters has turned into. Peters has made it loud and clear that he doesnt give 2 ***** about this team, so why should the team go out of their way for him? The Bills have shown that if you put the team first and are a good player, you'll be rewarded. Peters has yet to show any of that.

 

I'm surprised Parker, at least, has caught on yet. Perhaps Ralph could explicitly say to Peters if you don't show you care anything about being a Bill then you won't get a pay increase, ever. Furthermore, we will play on the OL any street agent we can find before we pay you to come back to the team. Plain enough?

[Fingon]

Graham actually stated that they would give Peters a "new deal" this year, it's just that all the money will be paid in future years.

 

 

He would make $3.5 mill this year then $7 or $8 mill the next years.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Graham actually stated that they would give Peters a "new deal" this year, it's just that all the money will be paid in future years.

 

 

Exactly... Mickey is too busy crusading to notice such subtle distinctions.

[bladiebla]

Hey, that is pretty good. Interesting insinuation about the mood in the locker room; I'd be VERY interested to know the source of that, because the players normally stick together on contract issues.

 

What was that writer's name again? Oh, yeah. This guy.

 

With all due respect Lori he isnt one to write pieces like this without sources, it's not an opinion piece. It sounds like he sourced it well.

[Lori]

With all due respect Lori he isnt one to write pieces like this without sources ....

I don't believe I implied that he was. Graham's a good reporter, and I'm not just saying that because he decided to show up here.

 

No, I meant precisely what I typed: if Peters' teammates are grumbling in his general direction (wherever that might be these days), I'd love to know which ones.

[Kelly the Dog]

Exactly... Mickey is too busy crusading to notice such subtle distinctions.

1] What's the difference? Peters and the agent want to renegotiate now, for this year.

2] The ONLY way that distinction means anything whatsoever is if the Bills are willing right now, to pay Peters 10+ million a year, starting next year. And I would bet you 10 million they're not or Peters would be in camp and signed already. So it's a totally meaningless distinction to Peters and his agent.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

1] What's the difference? Peters and the agent want to renegotiate now, for this year.

2] The ONLY way that distinction means anything whatsoever is if the Bills are willing right now, to pay Peters 10+ million a year, starting next year. And I would bet you 10 million they're not or Peters would be in camp and signed already. So it's a totally meaningless distinction to Peters and his agent.

 

 

To be fair and balanced, Kelly, my point is that no one knows exactly what will happen if/when Peters shows up, no matter what anyone says, and even looking at what Graham has reported, one can just as easily see that negotiations could begin right away, perhaps aiming at starting the new money in 2009, but perhaps coming earlier if both sides agree. I am not shilling for either side here, but am amazed at how one line from Brandon is being taken as a fixed reality when we all know that everything is negotiable.