Sisyphean Bills Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Sure, but the nature of any organization is, no matter what you do, you will have some unhappy people...there are too many variables. And, as you know, a bad incident, or two, can really change the situation. If you want to use "real world" (as opposed to NFL) analogies, a guy gets singled out and chastised at a meeting for a team failure, he starts griping to anyone who will listen that he is "getting screwed", he starts taking days off and shirking at his job while letting eveyone knows he isn't getting a raise he deserves, management sends the broadcast email you refer to...etc. Who is at fault? Depends on what side you are on, and really doesn't matte in the final analysis. The guy probably isn't going to be the best employee going forward and management probably isn't going to value/trust him enough going forward. The water has been too poisoned. I'm not saying the Bills are blameless here...they aren't. But, Peters and Parker made it tough for the Bills to repair any damage that may have been done...they were unavailable (psychologically and, well literally, from what I hear). We are in agreement. I specifically wrote "good management". Good management is out in front of things and it is a very difficult job. But, good management realizes that they are only as good as their people. Thus, keeping the people happy is and should be one of their primary focuses. Now, it isn't always possible to keep everyone happy all of the time. That's reality. By all accounts Peters did not start out a bad apple. He worked his way up from an UDFA nobody wanted to an All-Pro LT. That's not exactly the same as a "normal job" where the salesman who would rather drink all afternoon in the bar than sell the product. Neither side is blameless, but it is easier to blame Peters for everything because he is gone. I don't know who wouldn't call whom or who's phone wasn't working, but I know Parker said the Bills never called him. The Bills say Parker never called them. It's hard to work out problems when nobody is communicating. I find it simply unconscionable that any management would not communicate with its employee or, as is SOP in the artificial world of the NFL, his representation, though. That's just bad business. Reap what is sown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 We are in agreement. I specifically wrote "good management". Good management is out in front of things and it is a very difficult job. But, good management realizes that they are only as good as their people. Thus, keeping the people happy is and should be one of their primary focuses. Now, it isn't always possible to keep everyone happy all of the time. That's reality. By all accounts Peters did not start out a bad apple. He worked his way up from an UDFA nobody wanted to an All-Pro LT. That's not exactly the same as a "normal job" where the salesman who would rather drink all afternoon in the bar than sell the product. Neither side is blameless, but it is easier to blame Peters for everything because he is gone. I don't know who wouldn't call whom or who's phone wasn't working, but I know Parker said the Bills never called him. The Bills say Parker never called them. It's hard to work out problems when nobody is communicating. I find it simply unconscionable that any management would not communicate with its employee or, as is SOP in the artificial world of the NFL, his representation, though. That's just bad business. Reap what is sown. If you are making $X per year and think you need/should get a raise, is it prudent to just sit there and not talk to your bosses, and wait for them to contact you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 If you are making $X per year and think you need/should get a raise, is it prudent to just sit there and not talk to your bosses, and wait for them to contact you? It isn't as if Peters didn't let his bosses know he was unhappy, and wanted a raise. I think he did that pretty effectively. The more complicated question is "what do you to after that?" You can go back and forth on who started it, and who escalated it. None of us were there. Even if we were, we'd likely have some disagreements on what went down, and who was at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 It isn't as if Peters didn't let his bosses know he was unhappy, and wanted a raise. I think he did that pretty effectively. The more complicated question is "what do you to after that?" You can go back and forth on who started it, and who escalated it. None of us were there. Even if we were, we'd likely have some disagreements on what went down, and who was at fault. Couldn't agree more. It was loud and clear he wanted a new contract. In fact, he had talked to them during the season before but they put him off until the off-season. Then, it depends on who one wants to believe as to who was stonewalling whom. Holdouts are what happens when negotiations are failing; agents don't stage "surprise" holdouts for their personal amusement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willis990 Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Considering he was undrafted we got 3 picks including a first!!! Hello!!! Great point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 We are in agreement. I specifically wrote "good management". Good management is out in front of things and it is a very difficult job. But, good management realizes that they are only as good as their people. Thus, keeping the people happy is and should be one of their primary focuses. Now, it isn't always possible to keep everyone happy all of the time. That's reality. By all accounts Peters did not start out a bad apple. He worked his way up from an UDFA nobody wanted to an All-Pro LT. That's not exactly the same as a "normal job" where the salesman who would rather drink all afternoon in the bar than sell the product. Neither side is blameless, but it is easier to blame Peters for everything because he is gone. I don't know who wouldn't call whom or who's phone wasn't working, but I know Parker said the Bills never called him. The Bills say Parker never called them. It's hard to work out problems when nobody is communicating. I find it simply unconscionable that any management would not communicate with its employee or, as is SOP in the artificial world of the NFL, his representation, though. That's just bad business. Reap what is sown. I would agree; however, we can not discount that sometimes people change. Perhaps something over the last couple of years - signing Dockery and Walker - left a sour taste in his mouth and he's slowly rotted on the line, so to speak. Eventually, it all escalated into last season's holdout. If you are making $X per year and think you need/should get a raise, is it prudent to just sit there and not talk to your bosses, and wait for them to contact you? Precisely. Someone has to give a little. To bring in another real world scenario... I currently have an employee that is doing just that. He thinks he's grossly underpaid, I offered him more compensation based on what I think is fair, he doesn't like it, it's been a week and not a word from him on the offer. Result: Monday at 8am I begin interviewing replacements. It isn't as if Peters didn't let his bosses know he was unhappy, and wanted a raise. I think he did that pretty effectively. The more complicated question is "what do you to after that?" You can go back and forth on who started it, and who escalated it. None of us were there. Even if we were, we'd likely have some disagreements on what went down, and who was at fault. True he let them know he was unhappy as my employee has. However, there's a line between saying, "I'm underpaid and want/deserve a raise" and saying. "-----" as you walk out the door. Bottom line is this, the lines were drawn in the sand last summer. Peters thinks he more important than the team and they can't win without him. The FO thinks they can find (or have) a suitable replacement and don't really need him. IMO, money had little to do with this. I suppose we'll see sometime later this fall who's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Precisely. Someone has to give a little. To bring in another real world scenario... I currently have an employee that is doing just that. He thinks he's grossly underpaid, I offered him more compensation based on what I think is fair, he doesn't like it, it's been a week and not a word from him on the offer. Result: Monday at 8am I begin interviewing replacements. True he let them know he was unhappy as my employee has. However, there's a line between saying, "I'm underpaid and want/deserve a raise" and saying. "-----" as you walk out the door. Bottom line is this, the lines were drawn in the sand last summer. It is a business in both cases and while people have value, that value can change over time. And, let's face it, many people overvalue their worth in this modern over the top self-esteem world. Peters thinks he more important than the team and they can't win without him. The FO thinks they can find (or have) a suitable replacement and don't really need him. IMO, money had little to do with this. I suppose we'll see sometime later this fall who's right. Did you talk to Peters? Cause I have a hard time putting much weight behind anything that smacks of long distance mind reading. Peters clearly wanted a better contract when he saw what Dockery and Walker received in free agency. Did that stem from them telling him when they did his extension that he was their #1 guy and they'd take care of him? We don't really know all of the details. Was there really zero communication? How do the Bills value lineman? They let the Dockery contract come down to the wire and cut him in the middle of a possible trade situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Did you talk to Peters? Cause I have a hard time putting much weight behind anything that smacks of long distance mind reading. Peters clearly wanted a better contract when he saw what Dockery and Walker received in free agency. Did that stem from them telling him when they did his extension that he was their #1 guy and they'd take care of him? We don't really know all of the details. Was there really zero communication? How do the Bills value lineman? They let the Dockery contract come down to the wire and cut him in the middle of a possible trade situation. Of course, I haven't talked to Peters. I did meditate several nights, but his aura was unreceptive. But seriously, anyone that holds out until the day before the first game has clearly said, with his actions, that he doesn't care about team success and by default that implies that he thinks he's more important than the team. Perhaps, I'm reading too much into his actions. I'd acknowledge that. Regardless, the lines were drawn. Peters, by his play, appeared to go through the motions this season. And as quickly as possible, he left again with no word other than pay me. Seriously, after seeing how quickly he, himself, went to Phili to talk about a deal is it such a stretch to think that maybe he just didn't want to be here. It doesn't necessarily make him a bad guy. It does, however, imply that perhaps Brandon had fewer options than we've been thinking, i.e. paying Peters probably wasn't an option. Regarding the communication. I wouldn't say there was zero communication. However, Brandon has repeatedly said there was no communication. Tim has even said that 30 or 40 voicemails were not returned. So that's 2 independent sources saying that neither Peters nor Parker were communicating. Until I see evidence that Parker was indeed trying to call the Bills' FO, I think it safe to conclude that they were the ones not communicating - perhaps because they were hoping to force a trade. If that is the case... then I'll change my assessment on Parker. He's a great agent, becacause he got his client exactly what he wanted - out of a multi-year contract and out of Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 i think a huge part in this is how out of shape peters was last season, and how he got a little dinged so he took the last couple of games off. a big fat soft me first prima donna is not worth that much money in the FO's eyes, they prolly figure they can get an impact player at pick 28 and just sign someone to be as productive as peters was last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutmost Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 3 picks for an All-Pro Left Tackle sounds good until you parlay them into picks like Mike Williams, Erick Flowers and John McCargo....there is a reason why these guyz make the money they do..hardest position to fill in the NFL... Here's to the Bills that they hit paydirt with at least one of those picks... Giving their Draft History I wouldn't bet on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbanyBill Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I just want to say that I was right... I caught a lot of heat for saying I thought they would trade him back then http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=79517&hl= I'm thinking that the Bills signed what's his name to add some depth at OT as they get ready to move Peters. My thinking is that the Bills and Ralph "Mr Cheap" Wilson won't be willing to pay what he will demand after his contract is up.... I'm not so sure I would be too upset. He is good but he is going to want big $ and I'm not exactly sure he's worth it. If we could get a 1st round pick I'd be happy. thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quikchomp Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I just want to say that I was right... I caught a lot of heat for saying I thought they would trade him back then http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=79517&hl= Good for you, and to the many others, who thought Peters would be traded. Everyone loves a good "I told you so!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I just want to say that I was right... I caught a lot of heat for saying I thought they would trade him back then http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=79517&hl= You were right about trading Peters, but not about the reasons. The Hangartner deal (I think that's what you are referring to by "what's his name") has nothing to do with the Peters trade, as Hangartner is a C-G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybob Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 You can make it known that you are willing to listen to offers but you're not going to trade the guy for a bunch of crap- two teams who make the most sense for trade partners are Detroit and Philly- Detroit would like to use their first pick for a QB but they really need a LT too and the first tier guys will like likely be gone before they get to the Dallas pick- Philly is losing two OTs to free agency and age- they have two first round picks, theirs and the Panthers - I figure Detroit would have to offer the Dallas 1st, their 2nd and a 3rd - Philly would have to offer both their 1sts- the other part of the equation is what they think of Bell who looked very good in preseason but hasn't seen the field since- I think that Bell mirrors very well and can get beyond the line of scrimmage when run blocking but he comes in very raw and lacking pro strength and size - is he going to put on the 15-20lbs of muscle he needs not to get bull rushed? If you think Bell can come in and play the position at the very least at an average level then a Peters trade makes more sense- if you think Bell is going to get Edwards killed then you can't do it. Good for you, and to the many others, who thought Peters would be traded. Everyone loves a good "I told you so!". I was wrong on the compensation but other than that pretty good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbanyBill Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 You were right about trading Peters, but not about the reasons. The Hangartner deal (I think that's what you are referring to by "what's his name") has nothing to do with the Peters trade, as Hangartner is a C-G. Nope. I was talking about Jonathan Scott, an OT and a true "what's his name?"... And I think I was right about the reasons. Those being that the Bills didn't want to pay him the $$ he demanded. I was just saying they signed Scott to add some depth to the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts