Peters Contract Question?

[Devin]

Since some here seem to think with 3 years left Peters is greedy, not a team player, suddenly a jerk....etc for holding out even though his position/talent level clearly merit a new contract.

Did Peters sign his current contract while playing RT? If so is it fair for him to report and request Langston Walker move to LT? I mean if fair is fair and we want to get another year out of him before signing a contract that will cost even more next year, shouldnt he play the position he was signed to play?

Do the rules change when you move positions? I mean if we sign a TE to a deal and he moves to WR and becomes a good/great player we dont still pay him like a TE do we?

Also is it fair to say that the UDFA TE we picked up in 04 who won the starting RT spot in 05 and 06 and became a pro bowler in 07 has every year here not only improved but been one of our better players?

[Captain gameboy]

The only thing that is fair is market value vs. signed deals.

I was stunned when Peters agreed to extend last season, and thought he was making a big mistake.

I think he is very poorly represented, and should have played out last year under his original, and renegotiated this year.

But.....Be that as it may, there is no positional adjustment for contracts.

It is all based on precedent.

[Yasgur's Farm]

The Bills speculated (twice) on an undrafted free agent... And Peters agreed to terms. So the Bills won one... Can anybody say Peters lost?

He (his agent) is going about it all wrong. A true negotiator understands the balance.

[X-Era]

Since some here seem to think with 3 years left Peters is greedy, not a team player, suddenly a jerk....etc for holding out even though his position/talent level clearly merit a new contract.

Did Peters sign his current contract while playing RT? If so is it fair for him to report and request Langston Walker move to LT? I mean if fair is fair and we want to get another year out of him before signing a contract that will cost even more next year, shouldnt he play the position he was signed to play?

Do the rules change when you move positions? I mean if we sign a TE to a deal and he moves to WR and becomes a good/great player we dont still pay him like a TE do we?

Also is it fair to say that the UDFA TE we picked up in 04 who won the starting RT spot in 05 and 06 and became a pro bowler in 07 has every year here not only improved but been one of our better players?

It was a battle for Terrel Suggs to get the Ravens to pay him DE franchise money instead of OLB franchise money. His agent was stupid for not insisting on putting something in about him moving to LT. McNally said before he signed that contract that they think he had a future at LT.

Hes not one of our better players, hes our best player IMO.

Hes a quiet performer who shows up every week, he plays at an absolutley critical position, and he has been masterful often. Furthermore, hes homegrown and represents the type of blue collar player we ought to want on this team.

[Yasgur's Farm]

Furthermore, hes homegrown and represents the type of blue collar player we ought to want on this team.Let's be real here. Blue collar can't stay home and demand more... He'd be lucky to get unemployment!

[patmoran2006]

The only thing that is fair is market value vs. signed deals.

I was stunned when Peters agreed to extend last season, and thought he was making a big mistake.

I think he is very poorly represented, and should have played out last year under his original, and renegotiated this year.

But.....Be that as it may, there is no positional adjustment for contracts.

It is all based on precedent.
I'm not saying you're riding Peters, but you caught my eye by saying fair is "market value vs signed deals"

I think that's a crock.. If so, why do teams when a player either underperforms (Opposite of Peters) or a price tag simply gets too rich they cut him.. IE- eric moulds. He had some great years, but near the end of his deal we tried to force him to take a pay cut. he wouldnt (signed deal, remebmer?) and we shipped him out.

To answer Dev's question directly, he was a right tackle when he signed the deal. I'm as pissed as the next guy he's not in camp.. But the bottom line is he's a franchise player and he should be locked up like one; not like the third-best lineman on his own team.

[Devin]

To answer Dev's question directly, he was a right tackle when he signed the deal. I'm as pissed as the next guy he's not in camp.. But the bottom line is he's a franchise player and he should be locked up like one; not like the third-best lineman on his own team.

:bf1:

[Michael82]

It's his agent's fault for not putting a clause in the contract if he were to move to LT. When he signed the contract, it was discussed that he was going to move to LT. He should have had a bonus or some trigger in there for when he moves to LT...or maybe something in there for if he goes to the Pro Bowl.

[Akhippo]

The Bills pull this guys from the skids, give him the opportunity to make something of himself, renegotiate his contract as he does show his skills, then get stiffed. I mean not having any good faith gestures is a puss move no matter if he is a pro bowler or best player on the team. He could be out there playing with a hall of fame bust already in the field house and he would be wrong.

[Tatonka]

peters is under contract.. if the bills say that want him to play to position of official ball sack massager, he should shut the **** up and do it.

[hydro]

I wonder how many people on this message board complain on a daily basis about working beyond their job description. I know I do :ill:

[patmoran2006]

peters is under contract.. if the bills say that want him to play to position of official ball sack massager, he should shut the **** up and do it.
if Peters signs a 7-year extension and by the 6th year he's no longer one of the best, yet we're paying him $8 million anyway.. Should we move him to ofifical ball sack massager, or should we just cut him?

If you're answer is cut him, then you're hypocritical. If it's not ok to get a new, better deal when you're already UNDER CONTRACT; then it shouldn't be OK for the team to cut you and not have to pay you, when you're ALREADY under contract.