Scout.com says Peters may be back monday

[VOR]

If he reports tomorrow, they waive the fines. If he reports in week 10, he has to pay the fines, they go after his signing bonus, and he gets no new deal in 2009. Hopefully they left a message no his answering machine and made that abundantly clear.

[Mickey]

its going to cost him about 3 game checks to pay off the fines for skipping camp...

As I said, "so far" it has cost him nothing. Do you have information indicating he has paid a fine already? It will cost him when and if he ever has to pay them. They are often waived as condition of coming back to camp, as part of new deal if one is reached or incorporated into the higher salary demand. I personally wouldn't be shocked if his agent agreed to knock it off his fee. So, not having paid a thin dime in fines, my point holds, this has cost him nothing. As to whether it ever does, we'll have to see. Clearly, the fines are not exactly a shock to Peters or Parker, they knew that risk going in.

 

Even if he paid them tommorow and came in to camp, he would still miss 2-3 games, maybe more. So he would be out some coin and maybe the team is out a few wins. What do you think the team would rather have, the fines or the wins? So this has definitely cost the team something, we just don't know how much as that will depend on what happens the next few Sundays. Maybe it costs Peters some coin, maybe not. Since a hold out by a player like Peters can cost the team in the win-loss column, Peters does have some cards to play. Not many mind you but there is a reason why lots of holdouts work.

[PromoTheRobot]

As I said, "so far" it has cost him nothing. Do you have information indicating he has paid a fine already? It will cost him when and if he ever has to pay them. They are often waived as condition of coming back to camp, as part of new deal if one is reached or incorporated into the higher salary demand. I personally wouldn't be shocked if his agent agreed to knock it off his fee. So, not having paid a thin dime in fines, my point holds, this has cost him nothing. As to whether it ever does, we'll have to see. Clearly, the fines are not exactly a shock to Peters or Parker, they knew that risk going in.

 

Even if he paid them tommorow and came in to camp, he would still miss 2-3 games, maybe more. So he would be out some coin and maybe the team is out a few wins. What do you think the team would rather have, the fines or the wins? So this has definitely cost the team something, we just don't know how much as that will depend on what happens the next few Sundays. Maybe it costs Peters some coin, maybe not. Since a hold out by a player like Peters can cost the team in the win-loss column, Peters does have some cards to play. Not many mind you but there is a reason why lots of holdouts work.

Mickey, do you ever notice how much you assume? You assume the Bills will forgive Peters his fines. You assume Peters can force a trade. You assume the Bills will lose without him. The fact is you don't know anything.

 

PTR

[Mickey]

If he reports tomorrow, they waive the fines. If he reports in week 10, he has to pay the fines, they go after his signing bonus, and he gets no new deal in 2009. Hopefully they left a message no his answering machine and made that abundantly clear.

No doubt they did. And if the team would rather have a juicy lawsuit than a pro bowl left tackle, then good for them. If they want him on the field, at least talking to him back in February of 2008 regarding a new deal for this year as they did with Schobel in February of 2007 was worth a shot.

 

Clearly the Bills think that he will cave and play another year as one of the most underpaid OT's in the league which is why they have refused to negotiate with him in February, March, April, May, June, July and August. It is a game of chicken and so far no one has blinked. This coming week may see the finish of this saga. All those who have been predicting for the last 60 days that Peters will come crawling back tommorow may finally be right.

[PromoTheRobot]

No doubt they did. And if the team would rather have a juicy lawsuit than a pro bowl left tackle, then good for them. If they want him on the field, at least talking to him back in February of 2008 regarding a new deal for this year as they did with Schobel in February of 2007 was worth a shot.

 

Clearly the Bills think that he will cave and play another year as one of the most underpaid OT's in the league which is why they have refused to negotiate with him in February, March, April, May, June, July and August. It is a game of chicken and so far no one has blinked. This coming week may see the finish of this saga. All those who have been predicting for the last 60 days that Peters will come crawling back tommorow may finally be right.

Did you see the salary comparisons of Pro Bowl Tackles? Did you know the starters all were paid less than the 2nd stringers? Did you know Peters was only a little less than his fellow starters?

 

Oh, but please go on playing that sad little tune for Peters. Don't let the facts spoil your sob story of how grossly underpaid Peters is. You're breaking my heart. You know what I think? The Bills will be 4-1 going into the bye and no one will notice Peters missing.

 

PTR

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't think anyone, including Jason Peters and Dick Jauron have any idea how long it would be before Jason Peters plays if he comes to camp tomorrow.

 

It depends on what kind of shape he is in (unknown to everyone but him and maybe even him)...

What he shows to the Bills on Monday and Tuesday (complete unknown to everyone)...

How quickly he picks up the wrinkles of the new offense that would allow him to play before mastering it (unknown to everyone)...

The condition of Walker's arm and how it affects his mobility (unknown to us fans and even to the Bills until later in the week)...

How much time they would need to spend on him getting him ready versus how much they would lose not spending 100% of the time on everyone else (unknown till they see how much he knows and what shape he is in)

The REAL opinion of Bills coaches on the prospect of a 100% Chambers versus a, say, 80% Peters (unknown to us fans)...

The gameplan installed for the Seahawks (are there plays and formations where Chambers can do well or are the Seahawks defenders too skilled and veteran for him)...

The health of our TEs (does this drastically affect our gameplan so we are much more likely to go three and four wide which may affect our pass blocking formations and reliance on a LT left out on an island), etc.

What kind of punishment the Bills really want to show, if any, to other players versus what they may lose if Peters is indeed ready to play.

[Mickey]

Mickey, do you ever notice how much you assume? You assume the Bills will forgive Peters his fines. You assume Peters can force a trade. You assume the Bills will lose without him. The fact is you don't know anything.

 

PTR

No PTR, I have acutally discussed what will happen either way. I have also made the point that "so far" (you do understand what that means don't you??) it hasn't cost Peters a dime. If that statement is not true, please, by all means show me the proof that it is not and I will stop saying it. Otherwise, concede the point and move on to the future speculation regarding those fines. Maybe they will be paid and maybe they won't, I listed many possibilities and having to pay them is certainly a risk which is why I wrote "Clearly, the fines are not exactly a shock to Peters or Parker, they knew that risk going in."

 

A few posts earlier you will find this statement by me:

 

"He will very likely be back this week so in the end, it will cost him very little but it will cost the team. How much? Only time will tell. If we win the first three, no one will care. If we lose them.... "

 

So no, I am not assuming they will lose without him, I instead discuss both possibilities.

 

Sure, I have discussed the possibility of a trade. Do you think it is not a possibility? What is wrong with discussing the possibility? Is it not a possibility that they team could lose their first couple games? I really wish that were not true but this is the NFL, there is a chance they could lose. Mostly however, I have simply referred to the "cost to the Bills" side of the equation as not having a pro bowl left tackle on the field for 2-3 weeks or however long it takes for him to be ready. Other than knowing exactly how many games DJ will keep him out, how is that not an accurate assessment of a "cost" to the team of not giving him a new deal this year? If they win, it won't make a difference, but if they lose... There I go again, "assuming" that one of the only two possibilities will occur, that they will win or they will lose.

 

You know, you might try discussing the issue instead of your every reply to my posts being a personal attack on me. YOu might see that my point wasn't all that radical or even very far from your own:

 

Hold out cost to Peters thus far = Zero $ but Senator thinks he is a "peckerhead".

future hold out cost to Peters = we'll see

Cost to team = no pro bowl LT on the field for x number of games

Future cost to team = zip if we win, more if we lose

 

Yeah, I can see why you want to jump all over those crazy notions.

[BuffaloBob]

Hey Mickey,

 

I think Jason's nutsack is getting a little dry and chapped now. Perhaps you should get him some aloe vera gel so that you can continue your ball-washing crusade without causing him too much irritation.

[WellDressed]

cost nothing.

 

Hi Mickey, did you realize your left tit was a little on the loose side>>

[bills7834]

No PTR, I have acutally discussed what will happen either way. I have also made the point that "so far" (you do understand what that means don't you??) it hasn't cost Peters a dime. If that statement is not true, please, by all means show me the proof that it is not and I will stop saying it. Otherwise, concede the point and move on to the future speculation regarding those fines. Maybe they will be paid and maybe they won't, I listed many possibilities and having to pay them is certainly a risk which is why I wrote "Clearly, the fines are not exactly a shock to Peters or Parker, they knew that risk going in."

 

A few posts earlier you will find this statement by me:

 

"He will very likely be back this week so in the end, it will cost him very little but it will cost the team. How much? Only time will tell. If we win the first three, no one will care. If we lose them.... "

 

So no, I am not assuming they will lose without him, I instead discuss both possibilities.

 

Sure, I have discussed the possibility of a trade. Do you think it is not a possibility? What is wrong with discussing the possibility? Is it not a possibility that they team could lose their first couple games? I really wish that were not true but this is the NFL, there is a chance they could lose. Mostly however, I have simply referred to the "cost to the Bills" side of the equation as not having a pro bowl left tackle on the field for 2-3 weeks or however long it takes for him to be ready. Other than knowing exactly how many games DJ will keep him out, how is that not an accurate assessment of a "cost" to the team of not giving him a new deal this year? If they win, it won't make a difference, but if they lose... There I go again, "assuming" that one of the only two possibilities will occur, that they will win or they will lose.

 

You know, you might try discussing the issue instead of your every reply to my posts being a personal attack on me. YOu might see that my point wasn't all that radical or even very far from your own:

 

Hold out cost to Peters thus far = Zero $ but Senator thinks he is a "peckerhead".

future hold out cost to Peters = we'll see

Cost to team = no pro bowl LT on the field for x number of games

Future cost to team = zip if we win, more if we lose

 

Yeah, I can see why you want to jump all over those crazy notions.

Mickey,

I think every Bills fan wants Peters to play for the Bills. Will you admit that he is a complete idiot for not talking to the team? How in the hell do you work on a new contract when you don't talk to anyone. How will this ever get resolved? He is the one that wants a new contract, we are assuming, even though we have not heard that. Why would he not talk to the Bills? I really think you are so dillusional that it has clouded your judgement. Then I read you signature and I realized you only believe what you want.

[Mickey]

Did you see the salary comparisons of Pro Bowl Tackles? Did you know the starters all were paid less than the 2nd stringers? Did you know Peters was only a little less than his fellow starters?

 

Oh, but please go on playing that sad little tune for Peters. Don't let the facts spoil your sob story of how grossly underpaid Peters is. You're breaking my heart. You know what I think? The Bills will be 4-1 going into the bye and no one will notice Peters missing.

 

PTR

Define little, didn't look like a "little" to me. Funny, when all this started, I recall very few posts at all challenging the notion that Peters is seriously underpaid. That has come about recently as so many other justifications for stiffing Peters have fallen away.

 

Not to rain on your "fact parade" but what the heck. First, lets take a trip down memory lane:

 

...no one is faulting Peters for wanting a fair contract..."Yourself

 

This would seem to imply that you feel, or at least felt before your vaginal dryness got the better of you, that Peters' contract is in fact, unfair.

 

I'm not against giving Peters a few more bucks You

 

And why would that be, could it be because you recognize that *gasp* he is underpaid, the very point I and many, many others have argued?

 

Referring to Peters' hold out, you stated:

 

I mean I can see this if he went to the Bills and they told him to go jump in the lake. yourself again

We now know that "The Bills are demanding that Peters play under his current deal for this season before they will consider opening talks." Times Union and "They also have made it known to Peters' agent, Eugene Parker, they're not willing to renegotiate 2008, insisting any additional money will be paid next year forward." Grahams ESPN article. As Kelly and I have argued for weeks, the team did tell them "no" or as you would have it, to jump in the lake. So now do you see why Peters went with a holdout?

 

And the Bills never said they wouldn't renegotiate." You

 

But they have as the articles above indicate. So much for your command of the facts. But putting that aside, are ready to recognize that there is at least a smidgeon of a chance that the team has been just as big a jerk as Peters?

 

As for whether and by how much Peters is underpaid:

 

 

A big challenge in the Peters talks will be the fact that the top two veteran left tackles in the NFL have outdated contracts, so it’s a little more difficult to precisely peg Peters’ market value.

 

St. Louis’ Orlando Pace makes an average of $7.55 million. Seattle’s Walter Jones is at $7.5 million a year. Both of those deals, however, were signed in 2005.

 

The NFL salary cap was just $85.5 million in 2005. It has gone up 36 percent, or $31 million, since then to its current level of $116.7 million.

 

Peters’ Indiana-based representative, Eugene Parker, is one of the most influential agents in the game. He declined to comment on Peters’ situation when contacted by The News.

 

However, Parker is going to want Peters’ deal to reflect the current market. Pace’s deal, increased by 36 percent, would be worth $10.2 million a year.

 

The highest paid free-agent contract given to an offensive lineman was the $8 million-a-year deal the New York Jets gave to Alan Faneca in March. Buff News

 

The dispute involving Peters resolves around one fundamental question. Is he underpaid?

 

The answer: Yes.

 

So what are the Bills going to do about it other than hunker down in the corporate office and pretend that Langston Walker is a feasible stopgap? Peters’ beef is legit. He’s scheduled to make $3.25 million plus incentives this year, decent money for sure for your average left tackle. But Peters is more than that. He’s the force responsible for protecting the blind side of the quarterback, which makes him 1-B when ranking the players most important to the success of the offense. Yet he’s being paid less than Walker ($5 million), less than Derrick Dockery ($7 million). As much as this is about money it’s also about respect. Your best offensive lineman ought to be paid accordingly. Buff News

 

I'm no fan of renegotiated contracts, but Peters is an exception. He signed his current deal before he was converted to left tackle, where he quickly established himself as one of the best in the NFL.

 

It's no surprise that he feels underpaid when two other starters on the offensive line are being paid much more as imported free agents. The front office recently signed several other veteran players to nice long-term deals and announced that season-ticket sales have topped 54,200.

 

The Bills clearly have money to spend, and the longer Peters sits things out, the more fans have to wonder how serious the Bills are about ending their eight-year playoff drought.

 

Jason Peters is the sort of young player an NFL team should build around - not tick off. Roch D&C

 

I won't bother with links to all the many posts on the wall, from both sides of the holdout debate, that Peters is underpaid. I'll let you try to win that ridiculous argument against yourself.

[Mickey]

Mickey,

I think every Bills fan wants Peters to play for the Bills. Will you admit that he is a complete idiot for not talking to the team? How in the hell do you work on a new contract when you don't talk to anyone. How will this ever get resolved? He is the one that wants a new contract, we are assuming, even though we have not heard that. Why would he not talk to the Bills? I really think you are so dillusional that it has clouded your judgement. Then I read you signature and I realized you only believe what you want.

I quoted Dick Cheney, accurately, how is that "delusional"?? The deluded are those who would ever believe anything he has ever said.

 

Peters' agent has talked to the team. Brandon has said so. I have posted the links many times. He referred to having "brief discussions" with Parker which means A) they talked and B) they talked more than once. You can't possibly be so monumentally thickheaded, so barely able to control your own drool that you honestly think that Parker has not talked to the team, at least long enough for them to say "No" to a new deal for this year and for Parker to say "call us when you change your mind". If it sounds too stupid to be true, it isn't. The idea that anyone would be so moronic as to think that a successful agent is waiting for a deal to drop from the sky is scary.

 

Try to get the few functioning brain cells you have around this simple idea: Peters wants a new deal this year and the team, as has been repeatedly reported as well as being logically obvious, refuses to negotiate a new deal for this year. Thus, Peters has nothing to say to them and they have nothing to say to him or his agent. Stalemate until someone changes their minds on this initial blockage.

 

Or, you could imagine that the problem isn't money and timing of the money, millions and millions, the problem is that no one can find anyone's cell phone number. Yeah, that makes sense Einstein.

 

Sorry about the personal insults but you went there first.

[Spiderweb]

Mickey,

I think every Bills fan wants Peters to play for the Bills. Will you admit that he is a complete idiot for not talking to the team? How in the hell do you work on a new contract when you don't talk to anyone. How will this ever get resolved? He is the one that wants a new contract, we are assuming, even though we have not heard that. Why would he not talk to the Bills? I really think you are so dillusional that it has clouded your judgement. Then I read you signature and I realized you only believe what you want.

 

Mickey's views on the Bills may be a bit unsubstantiated at times, and may simply may be opinions.....whoa, bizzare concept there, let's see.....a message board on the internet......

 

As for his signature line, that is a quote. As for Chaney, there is a good percentage of Americans who see Chaney as a vile, war hungry, oil baron elitist, who cares not a wit for the country as a whole, or the majority of its citizens. However, oil interests and his rich cronies.........

[Dibs]

.......

Nice rec room Spiderweb(link in sig)......I'm jealous

The only thing missing is a Poker table

[GG]

I won't bother with links to all the many posts on the wall, from both sides of the holdout debate, that Peters is underpaid. I'll let you try to win that ridiculous argument against yourself.

 

Usually, when people use the following logic:

The dispute involving Peters resolves around one fundamental question. Is he underpaid?

 

The answer: Yes.

 

So what are the Bills going to do about it other than hunker down in the corporate office and pretend that Langston Walker is a feasible stopgap? Peters’ beef is legit.

 

is an indication that they probably have a hard time balancing their own checkbook, or are still living off the parents' teet. I wonder if the author considered the possibility that the main reason the Bills are holding firm is the Buffalo Bills Corporation?

 

Yet, again, Parker picked his fight with the wrong owner. If you don't like it, find another team.

[nodnarb]

They "want to keep him for a long time"??? How have they demonstrated that? By making him one of the lowest paid pro bowlers in the league? Its a little late to worry about damaging their relationship with Peters.

 

 

Do you have a unibrow? Big underbite? Carry a wooden club? Recently discovered flint?

 

They didn't "Make him one of the lowest paid pro bowlers". They signed him to a long term extension, which he was happy with, and THEN HE MADE THE PROBOWL. What part of this don't you get?

 

Peters is an EMPLOYEE of the Buffalo Bills. He didn't show up for work, didn't call in, and has NO RIGHT to do what he's doing. He has two a-hole agents who want to make a bigger name for themselves, period.

 

Jason Peters should have NOBODY's respect at this moment.

 

is this really so hard for you to grasp, Mickey?

[nodnarb]

This is what the front office has done to Peters, the team and to itself.

 

 

You live in another world - a clueless one.

 

Peters has done all of this to himself. The Bills are handling this perfectly.

[VOR]

I have a feeling he won't report tomorrow. If any day, it would have been today, i.e. the first practice the day after the roster was set, with a week left before the first game. My next guess would be Saturday, the last day to report and have your contract guaranteed for the season, but late enough to make him useless for at least the first game. And if not then, then week 10.

[PromoTheRobot]

Do you have a unibrow? Big underbite? Carry a wooden club? Recently discovered flint?

is this really so hard for you to grasp, Mickey?

Apparently it is.

 

PTR

[VOR]

This is how it is Mickey. Peters can report, make his $4.5M for the season and then cash-in next year, or he can sit out the first 10 games, end up playing this year for free because of the fines, loss of playing bonuses and loss of a portion of his signing bonus, have no shot at a new deal next year, and have to look forward to 2 more years of this. All because he couldn't wait a year for his blockbuster deal, while "only" making $4.5M.