RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 The NFL is not the average work place. The rules are a bit different. Maybe this is the first holdout you have ever heard of taking place hence 1. Play this year as one of the most underpaid OT's in the league for the third year running; or 2. Holdout and hope that it works and if it doesn't report just in time for his 1st game check so he ultimately loses nothing for having made the effort. Which one of these would you have advised that he do? Mickey, you are entitled to worship Jason Peters all you want, but your comment here is flat out wrong. How can Peters be "one of the most underpaid OTs in the league for the third year running" when two years ago he only played LT half the season, and he was granted a big raise/renegotiation BEFORE he made the Pro Bowl? Of course he has the right to hold out, just as the Bills have the right to say that they will not negotiate as long as he does. Your decision to turn everything into an attack on the front office is getting tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 The NFL is not the average work place. The rules are a bit different. Maybe this is the first holdout you have ever heard of taking place hence your shock and dismay but I assure you it is standard issue in the NFL. The team told him no new deal this year, period. From the ESPN article everyone is raving about: "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." So, you agree he should get more money. The team told him no more money this year. So what should he do to get what you agree he is entitled to? What option do you suggest he should have pursued that would have resulted in the additional pay we agree he is entitled to? Coming to camp would not have done it, that much is clear unless you see some wiggle room in the phrase "not willing to renegotiate 2008". The only option a player has, the only card he has to play, is to withhold his services, to holdout, so that is what Peters is doing, playing the only card he has. It is true that the same article pointed out that the Bills won't talk to him unless he is in camp but coupled with the absolute refusal to even consider a new deal for this year, that only means that the team would talk to him about a new deal for 2009 if he came to camp. So there you have it, Peters has two choices here: 1. Play this year as one of the most underpaid OT's in the league for the third year running; or 2. Holdout and hope that it works and if it doesn't report just in time for his 1st game check so he ultimately loses nothing for having made the effort. Which one of these would you have advised that he do? Actually, when he signed for 5 years/ $18M, I thought he might have been overpaid at the time. Salaries are not going to be perfect every year. Players get raises and new contracts every year. Should Peters get a new contract every time another OL signs for more? How come every OL in the league is not holding out after Jake Long signed his deal? Yes, Peters has the right to holdout, but he has to deal with the consequences also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Radical concept isn't it? "Getting paid for what your performance indicates you are worth". You are right, I must be on crack to think performance and pay should have anything to do with one another. Pay based on merit? Perish the thought. Perish the unions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Radical concept isn't it? "Getting paid for what your performance indicates you are worth". You are right, I must be on crack to think performance and pay should have anything to do with one another. Pay based on merit? Perish the thought. So ownership should be able to renegotiate your contract down after you have a bad year then, huh? Thats merit based pay. And dont come back with the tired excuse that "teams can cut players whenever they want," because i can think of a million cases where a player is overpaid, but theres no way a team is going to cut them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy griffin Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 a million? that is a lot of cases. I mean, i bet you can't think of more than twenty (20). aft a day, you might think of 100. but one million? man, you are good... So ownership should be able to renegotiate your contract down after you have a bad year then, huh? Thats merit based pay. And dont come back with the tired excuse that "teams can cut players whenever they want," because i can think of a million cases where a player is overpaid, but theres no way a team is going to cut them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 a million? that is a lot of cases. I mean, i bet you can't think of more than twenty (20). aft a day, you might think of 100. but one million? man, you are good... My point was simply that every year in the NFL, most of the players either overplay or underplay their contract values. When they overplay their value, they all want raises equivalent to their previous seasons work. But when they underplay their contract, you dont hear a peep, and ownership cannot "negotiate down" a contract based off the prior year's poor play. And the "just cut them" excuse doesnt work, because as i said above, teams arent going to cut decent to good players who are overpaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 So ownership should be able to renegotiate your contract down after you have a bad year then, huh? Thats merit based pay. And dont come back with the tired excuse that "teams can cut players whenever they want," because i can think of a million cases where a player is overpaid, but theres no way a team is going to cut them. I agree, I made that same point a while back to someone who was lobbying for a performance based system. There are many who are overpaid and many that are underpaid (relatively speaking) and a few right on the nuts, it's the same thing every year. You'll never have a perfect system, perish the thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Please link to a post where I ever said Peters will demand to be traded. What I have said is that if Peters actually did holdout during the regular season, something I also have said is unlikley, the team would be foolish to just have him sit home forever. If they can't get him on the field, ultimately it would be better to trade him. Other than using the word "trade" in a sentence, that position has nothing to do with what you claim I have said. Yes, sir. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1099077 And if he does, he will demand to be traded and if they don't he will sit, again. After the childish whining in the media about him that Brandon did, he will want out of here as soon as he can get out of here. After seeing how they treated Schobel, giving him a new deal before camp, he will justly wonder why he is getting shafted. "crap like this" ??? Do you mean holding out like countless players before him? Or do you mean holding out when he actually had a valid arguement that he was getting paid way below his value? Or do you mean the way we he didn't bawl and posture in public but respectfully kept his yap shut? Or do you mean the way he asked for the same treatment they gave Saint Schobel last year? If they don't pay him now, they may get him back on the field but in the long run, they will simply be guaranteeing that the majority of his hall of fame career will be spent for the benefit of some other team. Now, squirm your way out of this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Yes, sir. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1099077 Now, squirm your way out of this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 ..........Now if you think a guy should play for less than half of what he is worth, if you think a guy who almost made the pro bowl in his first year as a starter and made it last year shouldn't be rewarded for superior performance, if you think its okay to make Jason Peters the most underpaid pro bowler in the league, then I am sure you're tickled pink that our best lineman isn't here............ Firstly I'll say to you that I want Peters to be a Bill as much as anyone & that I believe he is certainly worth(baring injury issues) top dollar. You however are being particularly one eyed on the situation. It seems to me that the Bills have a strategy in place in regards to new contracts with young players. They are re-signing their young players early and above what their market worth is(Peters, Butler, Williams). Why? So that if one of those young players develops into a top player then they not only can save some money(having spent more than necessary in the past) but have extra control of the situation due to contract lengths. The young players do not have to sign these deals at the time that provide them with multiple millions more than they currently earn. Overall, some of those young players will not improve(and may regress)......but they all take the extra money. Peters signed a deal in 06 which was a fair bit more than what his perceived worth was at the time......there was even a LT clause in the deal meaning he netted close to $5mil last season. As I see it the Bills are happy to pay him what he is worth but wish to keep his pay level for this season as is. Is this so wrong? He has already been payed close to $4mil more than what he would have been getting last season had the Bills not prematurely offered him a contract. I have read analysts who believe that Butler is a budding star to be. If Butler makes the probowl this season do the Bills who have just given him a massive pay rise(when they didn't need to) give him another straight after? Is it not simply fair that if this happens that the Bills should get an extra year out of him before giving him the mega dollars or do they renegotiate every players contract who improves.....and overpay their young 'potential' players.....and have to take the loss for when these players regress? If we had not re-worked Peters earlier contract there would be no issue now. We would simply sign him for top dollar and probably have spent less money overall than if he plays for his current money this season & gets $10mil per year starting next season. Peters wants his cake & to eat it too.......the problem is there is only a limited supply of cake......and 53 hungry players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Mickey, you are entitled to worship Jason Peters all you want, but your comment here is flat out wrong. How can Peters be "one of the most underpaid OTs in the league for the third year running" when two years ago he only played LT half the season, and he was granted a big raise/renegotiation BEFORE he made the Pro Bowl? Of course he has the right to hold out, just as the Bills have the right to say that they will not negotiate as long as he does. Your decision to turn everything into an attack on the front office is getting tiresome. Look, you're entitled to hate Peters and worship Brandon's accounting skills all you want but your assessment of Peters in his first year starting is flat out wrong. Peter King voted for him for the pro bowl that year and at least one NFL coach who never heard of him or saw his tape until he was prepping for the last game of the year, after he had already put in his ballot, said he wished he could change his vote. The only reason he didn't make the pro bowl that year was because he was an unknown who played two positions that year. Jason Taylor called him the best left tackle he faces, and he made that compliment prior their first game against the fins in November of last year thus his compliment was based on Peters' play from the year before. If you want to disagree that Jason was a pro bowl level player even in his firs year, fine, I have the opinion of a respected sports writer, of the NFL defensive MVP and and opposing coaches. Oh yeah, and the fact that he made it the very next year. Even if you are right and I am wrong, that just means that Peters would be, if he played this year on his current contract, the most underpaid OT in the league for two years running rather than three. Whoa, big difference. How underpaid is he? Pro Bowl starters at tackle: Flozell Adams: 25 Million, 5 years Walter Jones: 52.5 Million, 7 years Matt Light: 27.3 Million, 6 years Jason Peters: 15 Million, 5 years How about the pro bowl reserves at OT? Ogden: 50 Million, 7 years Samuels: 46 Million, 7 years Thomas: 42.5 Million, 5 years Clifton: 32.4 Million, 6 years So, how is my point that he is one of the most underpaid pro bowlers or OTs in the league flat out wrong? The guy is underpaid, that much is really not even debatable. You and others like you think he should continue to be paid less than he is worth and others, such as me, have taken the radical, looney tunes approach that he should get paid what he is worth and shouldn't be expected to be one of the most underpaid pro bowler is in the NFL, again. So there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 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. It's OK, Jason. You'll get your contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 If this rumor is true and he reports, are you going to hope that he fails this year? You mean like YOU did with JP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Firstly I'll say to you that I want Peters to be a Bill as much as anyone & that I believe he is certainly worth(baring injury issues) top dollar. You however are being particularly one eyed on the situation. It seems to me that the Bills have a strategy in place in regards to new contracts with young players. They are re-signing their young players early and above what their market worth is(Peters, Butler, Williams). Why? So that if one of those young players develops into a top player then they not only can save some money(having spent more than necessary in the past) but have extra control of the situation due to contract lengths. The young players do not have to sign these deals at the time that provide them with multiple millions more than they currently earn. Overall, some of those young players will not improve(and may regress)......but they all take the extra money. Peters signed a deal in 06 which was a fair bit more than what his perceived worth was at the time......there was even a LT clause in the deal meaning he netted close to $5mil last season. As I see it the Bills are happy to pay him what he is worth but wish to keep his pay level for this season as is. Is this so wrong? He has already been payed close to $4mil more than what he would have been getting last season had the Bills not prematurely offered him a contract. I have read analysts who believe that Butler is a budding star to be. If Butler makes the probowl this season do the Bills who have just given him a massive pay rise(when they didn't need to) give him another straight after? Is it not simply fair that if this happens that the Bills should get an extra year out of him before giving him the mega dollars or do they renegotiate every players contract who improves.....and overpay their young 'potential' players.....and have to take the loss for when these players regress? If we had not re-worked Peters earlier contract there would be no issue now. We would simply sign him for top dollar and probably have spent less money overall than if he plays for his current money this season & gets $10mil per year starting next season. Peters wants his cake & to eat it too.......the problem is there is only a limited supply of cake......and 53 hungry players. I don't understand you point, that one hand the team wants to pay him what he is worth but on the other, wants to keep his pay where it is this year. Those are, respectufully, inconsistent. Paying what he is worth means paying him a lot more than his current contract this year. That means making him one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league, something he already was last year. I am sure the team has some sort of plan or strategy they are following. I don't understand how they could do what they did for Schobel last year and stiff arm Peters this year. I could see treating them both the same but I don't get their gleeful exuberance to give one guy a new deal, so much so that they went to his agent first 6 months before camp while they flatly refuse to even consider a new deal for Peters this year. It is inconsistent so unless their strategy is to be inconsistent, don't get it. Do you agree that Peters' performance far outstripped his salary last year? Do you agree that if he plays as well this year, under his current contract, he will once again perform far above his wage level? If you think the team is justified in refusing a new deal this year, fine, but the end result is that you are supporting Peters being one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league. Whatever strategy the team is pursuing, that is the result. I can certainly understand why Peters is doing the only thing he can, holdout, to try and get the team to change their minds. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether it makes sense for the team to sign him to a new deal or not but what bothers me is that so many here just refuse to entertain for even a moment that Peters has anything close to a legitimate beef. Flash forward to next year and assume that Peters does what so many here insist that he do, play another year as one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league. He will want a new contract next year and there will still be 2 years left on his current deal. Will you be on Peters' side if the team, holding the same cards they are holding this year, does the same thing and insist that he play another year under his existing contract? If you would be, then the there is only one year's difference in our positions. If you would still support Brandon, fine, but be clear on what that position means, that Peters should get paid for what he signed for regardless of his performance, that pay should not be effected by performance. I don't really care who supports what side, I am just pointing out what I think is obvious, that every year he plays under his current contract is another year that he is one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Yes, sir. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1099077 Now, squirm your way out of this one. No need to squirm, as would be obvious if you included the post to which I was responding, ie, what would happen NEXT YEAR if he again plays at a pro bowl level and the team still refuses to renegotiate. Oh, and you didn't include any of the numerous posts I made where, just as I claimed, I have opined that the team would be better off trading him in the unlikley event he really does refuse to play for Brandon again. Is your position that Peters should continue being one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league and if so, for how long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChevyVanMiller Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 The moral is: If you want people to believe your rumor, make your rumor believable. Yeah, like work Nicole Kidman into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 So ownership should be able to renegotiate your contract down after you have a bad year then, huh? Thats merit based pay. And dont come back with the tired excuse that "teams can cut players whenever they want," because i can think of a million cases where a player is overpaid, but theres no way a team is going to cut them. I have never said that I think it is right that teams have to pay huge salaries to flops and busts. This is the system and the Bills did for Schobel last year what they refuse to even discuss with Peters this year. Its inconsistent, a Burger King assisstant manager knows that treating similary situated employees that differently is going to lead to trouble. But lets be sure of the facts first. My premise is that Peters was one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league last year and if he continues to play at that level and under his current contract, he will be one of the most underpaid OT's in the league, again. Agree or disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Actually, when he signed for 5 years/ $18M, I thought he might have been overpaid at the time. Salaries are not going to be perfect every year. Players get raises and new contracts every year. Should Peters get a new contract every time another OL signs for more? How come every OL in the league is not holding out after Jake Long signed his deal? Yes, Peters has the right to holdout, but he has to deal with the consequences also. I can play that game too: Should players never get a new contract before their old one has expired no matter how much better than their contract they perform? If the answer is "yes", show me links to posts where the board was up in arms over the raise Schobel got 3 years before his already huuuge deal was done. If the answer is "no", then we agree that under some circumastances a raise is in order. I think this is one of them. Peters didn't play a little bit better, he played a lot better. He isn't underpaid by 10% or 20%, more like 50% or more. Now, if you don't think he deserves a raise, just explain to me why and how much better he needs to play before he is. At what point under his current contract, if the level of his play continues, would you flip and support his demands for a new contract? Do you think that no matter how great he plays, he should play under this contract for the next 3 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 3. FIRE PARKER! Follow it up, what is step 4 or 5? Tell us your plan for Peters to follow to get paid what he is worth or have the stones to accept the reality of your position, that you have no problem with Peters, even he stays at a pro bowl level, being one of the most underpaid OT's in the league for another 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwws9999 Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Follow it up, what is step 4 or 5? Tell us your plan for Peters to follow to get paid what he is worth or have the stones to accept the reality of your position, that you have no problem with Peters, even he stays at a pro bowl level, being one of the most underpaid OT's in the league for another 3 years. just expect not to make the playoffs with peters out. remiinds me of to many times in the past when wilson went cheap. like when he wouldn't sign kelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts