Maybe Peters is eventually trying to force a trade

[patmoran2006]

Although I have absolutely no basis to say this; given the way he’s held out, if anything maybe he’s trying to force a trade.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
He probably knows the Bills aren’t going to pay them this year, and from what I have heard he wants to be paid amongst the highest paid OL in the NFL. Perhaps he feels the Bills will never pay him what he feels he is worth.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So by being completely unreasonable and not even speaking to the team, maybe the Bills get fed up of dealing with him (or lack of) and end up trading him to a team that will give him the long term package he wants financially.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Maybe he figures it’s OK to lose money right now short term if he ends up getting dealt to a team that’s going to give him $20-25 million upfront after trading for him once the Bills are officially fed up.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
A lot more likely than him “still being hurt”. That’s ridiculous. If anything, like NE39 said that would make him even dumber to not report, when he can at least get paid for rehabbing an injury instead of getting fined for not being here.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Regardless, I’m starting to turn the corner on this guy, and I’m getting beyond fed up with him myself.<o:p></o:p>

[gr8slayer]

Hopefully he comes home and gets traded to Dallas. Colombo is a drive killer and Flozell could move to RT. A trade might be best anyway, looks like the relationship is sour and the Bills aren't willing to talk 2008.

[Lone Stranger]

What you state makes sense. Peters attitude throughout has been bizarre. It's like he forcing the Bills to get rid of him. Now, what do the Bills do? I admire their posture to date but practical realities may force them to do what you suggest.

[RockStar36]

Can Dallas afford him?

[trapezeus]

it seems that d synder doesn't realize that a lot of players who sign the big contract with him also take a huge vacation the second they are signed on. So if this is Peters' end game solution, i would be surprised if anyone other than the redskins would bite on this.

If i was a rich owner, i would still be hesitant to pay a guy with 1 good year and was angry with a 3 year deal from another team. if he was my player to begin with, i'd be more understanding. i'm not sure i would trade picks/player and then sign a new contract with guarantees. The only guy who does that is snyder. he's the only gambler.

[gr8slayer]

Can Dallas afford him?
If Jones wants him he'll find a way to afford him. It's unlikely that he does want him though, since Flozell just got his big deal, Newman just got his, Barber just got his, and Ware is about to get his. Something is going to have to be done about Colombo though, his stupid penalties every drive get old quick.

[mysticsoto]

Aren't the Rams desperate for an Olineman? Trading a pro-bowler should mean a 1st rounder! Imagine if we could get the Rams 1st rounder next year! That would be outstanding!!! Especially since they are likely to be among the top 5 or atleast top 10 picking in next year's draft!

[OpIv37]

I said this weeks ago.

One way or the other he is going to get his money.

He will either force the Bills to pay him or make the situation uncomfortable that they will trade him to someone who will pay him.

[gr8slayer]

Aren't the Rams desperate for an Olineman? Trading a pro-bowler should mean a 1st rounder! Imagine if we could get the Rams 1st rounder next year! That would be outstanding!!! Especially since they are likely to be among the top 5 or atleast top 10 picking in next year's draft!
Yeah, if Pace goes down we're golden. If he doesn't they also have a first rounder in Barron on the right side so the trade is unlikely. Add the fact that their FO is just as cheap as ours and it's pretty unlikely.

[trapezeus]

Yeah, if Pace goes down we're golden. If he doesn't they also have a first rounder in Barron on the right side so the trade is unlikely. Add the fact that their FO is just as cheap as ours and it's pretty unlikely.

cheap, yes. but they did cave to the S. Jackson situation.

[gr8slayer]

cheap, yes. but they did cave to the S. Jackson situation.
Yeah, but they are smart enough to pay their best player what he wants. Ralph would rather pocket some extra Denny's cash.

[TigerJ]

I don't think that was necessarily his intent going into the holdout, but that may end up being the net effect. If the Bills won't renegotiate with three years left on his old deal and Peters won't play without being paid like a top five tackle, then the only way out is for Buffalo to trade him to somebody that will renegotiate. I don't really expect Buffalo to arrive at that conclusion until after the trade deadline, so the trade would end up being for a draft pick next April. Since that is most likely what another team is going to offer anyway, the Bills would probably just as soon wait and collect all the fines they can from Peters to punish him for the way he decided to handle his contract demands.

[ddaryl]

Add the fact that their FO is just as cheap as ours and it's pretty unlikely.


what a joke

Dockery,, Walker, Schobel and Kelsay all signed some pretty damn big money contracts. Evans is on deck

lets use just a tad bit of truth and common sense when we post, cause this quote is a complete joke, and a huge non-truth.

[TacklingDummy]

Hopefully he comes home and gets traded to Dallas. Colombo is a drive killer and Flozell could move to RT. A trade might be best anyway, looks like the relationship is sour and the Bills aren't willing to talk 2008.

Are you sure your not more a Dallas fan than a Bills fan?

[Oaf]

I don't know, but if you ask me, trading him just seems like caving in to his dirty tactics. Will he sit out for 3 years? We'll find out. But if he doesn't, and comes to play, he'd assuredly be better than some high prized gamble we'd get in return. Not only that, but my guess is that if we traded him, it'd be for a '10 pick. Then we have to develop him.

Sounds like a 3 year merry-go-round to me, I'd just rather hold onto the UDFA TE and make him rot or play.

[Oaf]

As an aside, I say Greer is next for a contract extension.

[Typ0]

I Talked about this in another thread and the trade scenario does make sense. You have to think something is going on since it appears the JP camp won't even answer a phone call from OBD which is why there has been no contact.

[gr8slayer]

what a joke

Dockery,, Walker, Schobel and Kelsay all signed some pretty damn big money contracts. Evans is on deck

lets use just a tad bit of truth and common sense when we post, cause this quote is a complete joke, and a huge non-truth.
clements, Windield, Williams, Fletcher; use some common sense :homer:

[patmoran2006]

what a joke

Dockery,, Walker, Schobel and Kelsay all signed some pretty damn big money contracts. Evans is on deck

lets use just a tad bit of truth and common sense when we post, cause this quote is a complete joke, and a huge non-truth.
It’s not a joke at all. Actually, it’s very legitimate.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I get a chuckle from you guys when you try to boast about how much money Ralph spent, especially on free agents like Dockery and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Walker</st1:place></st1:City>. What everyone neglects to remember is how much money <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City> actually saved last year. Don’t you think there is a reason we entered this past offseason among the most in the league in regards to cap room?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The very old man saved millions by letting Fletcher and Clements and walk and not resign them. And he dumped off millions in trades with McGahee and Spikes. I’m not debating whether any or all were good football moves, I’m stating a fact that Ralphie saved more than he spent, the only reason why the numbers don’t look even worse is because he gave that ridiculous overpriced extension to Schobel with three years left on his deal, which not coincidentally I’m sure has a lot to with Peters holding out with three years left on his underpaid deal.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
How many of our OWN free agents over the past dozen years have we retained? I can think of one key Bills free agent in recent memory that hit free agency and we brought him back, and that was Eric Moulds earlier this decade. At most, we franchise a guy for a year and have to agree not to do it again so we can have him for one more season (Clements).. Pat Williams, Antoine Winfield.. Remember some of these guys in their primes?
<o:p> </o:p>
Look at the cheap head coach’s we’ve had in recent memory. Greg Williams, Mike Mularky, Dick Jauron. Are you kidding me??<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Lastly, and by FAR most importantly—if Ralph’s stance is he doesn’t want to give Peters any new money this year, then fine. Maybe that’s “philosophy”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
But we’re how many million under the cap right now? And didn’t we do the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Toronto</st1:place></st1:City> deal to increase our revenue and make our team more “economically viable?”<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Yes, we did.. So why, less than 2 weeks before the start of the season are neither Lee Evans or Angelo Crowell extended?? Both are key core players who can be free agents next year. So why are we extending Brad Butler and Kyle Williams and NOT extending our “key” guys?? What is the excuse???? We’re supposed to contend by building a contender and retaining our core. What are we gonna do, let Crowell walk and Franchise Evans for one year so he can be even unhappier?

I don’t care what anyone says.. I love my Bills, but that’s in spite of Ralph Wilson, not because of him.. He’s an old TURD and he is a cheap piece of ****.<o:p></o:p>

[gr8slayer]

Its always funny when people try to take up for the life long loser who can't even sniff the playoffs anymore.

[RockStar36]

clements, Windield, Williams, Fletcher; use some common sense :homer:

Do you miss Fletcher? Do you miss Clements or Winfield?

The only one I can't defend is Williams. The others I don't miss a bit.

[Dr. Lecter]

Lifelong loser.

Lol!

BTW, he is not cheap with his players. This has been shown time and time and time again. But facts are optional.

[Dr. Lecter]

Do you miss Fletcher? Do you miss Clements or Winfield?

The only one I can't defend is Williams. The others I don't miss a bit.

He also ignores the fact that bringing Fletcher here cost a pretty penny.

[RockStar36]

Clements got that huge payday to rot in SF. I knew he was going to get a huge deal, I laughed when SF gave it to him, and I laughed all last season when he sucked it up in SF. To even say that the Bills were cheap for letting him go would be the same as saying the Bills should just throw money around to players who aren't worth it.

[patmoran2006]

Lifelong loser.

Lol!

BTW, he is not cheap with his players. This has been shown time and time and time again. But facts are optional.
he's not cheap with the players he wants.. He's cheap with the organization, and that's even worse.

[patmoran2006]

Why are Evans and Crowell not resigned? Are they old? Have their skills diminished? Do they not fit into the scheme of this team? Should they not be in our long term plans we try to win a championship?

HOW many million under the cap are we? Would extending them be financial “irresponsible?”. How much was that Tornoto money again? Where has that money went? Has it been sunk back into strengthening and more importantly, maintaining the core of our team?

If Evans and Crowell aren’t extended in the next 13 days, at least one if not both will be gone by next year. Which will prove we really are the Pittsburgh Pirates of the NFL; a breeding ground for developing talent so they can go get paid elsewhere.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
There isn’t a person on this board who can give me a legit excuse why both shouldn’t be extended. We have the cap room (easily by a mile) and they’re both good players who shouldn’t have to play a contract year. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Then again, this is <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Buffalo</st1:place></st1:City> and this is Old man Pukepants. And notice how I didn’t even mention Peters? I didn’t bother, because it’s about a lot more than just him.<o:p></o:p>

[Mr. Pink]

Do you miss Fletcher? Do you miss Clements or Winfield?

The only one I can't defend is Williams. The others I don't miss a bit.


I can defend all of them....

Fletcher is a tackling machine, veteran and leader.

Clements was a playmaker, who yes gave up big plays but made some too. And no I don't believe he was worth what the Niners offered him, but an average of 7 a year wouldn't have been bad. I have no idea to base that he woulda done it, so I can't blast Ralphie

Winfield was our best overall corner since Nate Odomes. Him leaving was a mistake. I don't remember the particulars of why.

Why we miss all these guys? They're better than what we replaced them with.

Clements/Winfield > McGee/Greer
Fletcher > Poz - right now, it'll take Poz at least 3 more years to get what Fletch gave in total. And that's if he ever gets there.
Stroud could finally lessen the void of when Fat Pat walked.

[Oaf]

Do you miss Fletcher? Do you miss Clements or Winfield?

The only one I can't defend is Williams. The others I don't miss a bit.
I actually do miss those guys. Clements and Winfield would still be a top 3 tandem, Fletch is still playing at a high level in Wash, and you know about Williams.

[Ed]

Blame Donahoe for Winfield and Pat Williams. He had total control at that time.

[EricStratton]

This idea of a longterm bad relationship between the player and the organization based on a holdout is dumb.

Players have held out on teams since the beginning of time (Jim Kelly and Bruce Smith) come to mind and their long terms status with the team never changed. When the check gets cut all the other issues seem to fade away.

[DraftBoy]

Losing Antoine Winfield was a huge mistake for this organization...

[RockStar36]

Fletcher was a tackling machine...5 yards down the field.

[Ebenezer]

Winfield was our best overall corner since Nate Odomes. Him leaving was a mistake. I don't remember the particulars of why.

Minnesota gave his a one time $12 million roster bonus...all counting against the cap in one year. Almost all other teams were eliminated on that one. Couldn't blame the Bills. It was a cap issue.


Clements/Winfield > McGee/Greer
Fletcher > Poz - right now, it'll take Poz at least 3 more years to get what Fletch gave in total. And that's if he ever gets there.
Stroud could finally lessen the void of when Fat Pat walked.

You forgot the most important issue of all...salary cap. There was no way to keep either Clements or Winfield. Fletcher was too old for the money it would have taken to get him...and he had outlived his usefulness. Tackling machine? Yes. Behind the line of scrimmage or close to the line? No. It is the same problem Miami is having with Zack Thomas. Thomas rarely gets a guy for little or no gain or even a loss any more. The move to Poz was meant to correct that.

Pat Williams?? Lay it at the feet of TD. Did he really think PW would sign here when you half willingly give him the same amount of money that Minnesota gladly offered him. That was bad.

Point is, you cannot blame the current FO.

[patmoran2006]

Fletcher was a tackling machine...5 yards down the field.And who were the DT's playign in front of him taking on blockers?
Oh, that would be NO ONE

[Mr. Pink]

Minnesota gave his a one time $12 million roster bonus...all counting against the cap in one year. Almost all other teams were eliminated on that one. Couldn't blame the Bills. It was a cap issue.



You forgot the most important issue of all...salary cap. There was no way to keep either Clements or Winfield. Fletcher was too old for the money it would have taken to get him...and he had outlived his usefulness. Tackling machine? Yes. Behind the line of scrimmage or close to the line? No. It is the same problem Miami is having with Zack Thomas. Thomas rarely gets a guy for little or no gain or even a loss any more. The move to Poz was meant to correct that.

Pat Williams?? Lay it at the feet of TD. Did he really think PW would sign here when you half willingly give him the same amount of money that Minnesota gladly offered him. That was bad.

Point is, you cannot blame the current FO.

Fletch making tackles 5 yards downfield is because the D-line gets no push honestly. Poz made a bunch of tackles in the few games he played too...where? also downfield.

You can't say it's a cap issue when we're at least 25 million under it still. And it's not like we were near it last year either.

I do agree that we can't blame the current FO for Pat or Antoine though. That's on TD. He coulda done more to try and keep both players.

[Ebenezer]

And who were the DT's playign in front of him taking on blockers?
Oh, that would be NO ONE
If nobody were on the OL the OL could easily blow out and block LF and he would have had no tackles. It wasn't that...he had lost his step.

[bigbub2352]

I have to say i dont think locking up Crowell is a huge priority, Evans and Peters yes, but there are outstanding LBers in the draft every year, so i think if we had to make a business decision on what player not to extend it would be Crowell

Evans should get done thou and the hold up has to be money it always is
Peters is unbelivable that it has gone this far and i hate to say it but this mite be resolved by shipping his fat ass out unfortunalty

[patmoran2006]

Fletcher was a tackling machine...5 yards down the field.
Fletcher had 146 tackles, 4 INT, 2 sacks and 2 defensive TD’s his last year in buffalo.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I love Poz, but he’s got a long way to go get to that level.<o:p></o:p>

[Mr. Pink]

Fletcher had 146 tackles, 4 INT, 2 sacks and 2 defensive TD’s his last year in buffalo.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I love Poz, but he’s got a long way to go get to that level.<o:p></o:p>

It's not just the tackling and INTS...it's the leadership and presence we lost when the organization decided to move on from Fletch.

[ddaryl]

clements, Windield, Williams, Fletcher; use some common sense :homer:


I agree with all of the releases accept Williams, which was a TD screw up...

Winfield, got over paid, don't miss him. Clements was overpaid, don't miss him, Fletcher was getting old and we were doing some rebuilding with Marv at that time, do not miss him.

The Bills IMHO are better now then they were when they had those players, so IMO the Bills are doing an excellent job at judging who needs to stay and who needs to go.


nothing cheap here, just smart moves being made...


oh and thanks for neg.... I love you to douche

[Ebenezer]

You can't say it's a cap issue when we're at least 25 million under it still. And it's not like we were near it last year either.


What does this or last year have to do with the year Winfield was signed by Minnesota?? Antonie Winfield signed with the Vikes in 2004. The Bills (or a bunch of other teams) had nowhere near enough under the cap to absorb a one time $12 million cap hit just for a roster bonus.

[Mr. Pink]

I'm talking about Fletch.

You said we couldn't resign him and mentioned cap issues.

Unless I misiinterpreted what you meant.

[Ebenezer]

I'm talking about Fletch.

You said we couldn't resign him and mentioned cap issues.

Unless I misiinterpreted what you meant.
You did. Sorry for the confusion. Fletch was not resigned because of his age. I didnt agree with the move but understand that he would have been in his mid to late 30s when the deal ended...he outplayed the usefulness.

[Mr. Pink]

You did. Sorry for the confusion. Fletch was not resigned because of his age. I didnt agree with the move but understand that he would have been in his mid to late 30s when the deal ended...he outplayed the usefulness.

See, I fully get where you're coming from...age, usefulness (matter of opinion)

I'll stick with the basically current regime on my point though...

Could Poz in 3-5 years be an improvement of what we had in Fletch yes? But why not keep Fletch for those 3-5 years so Poz could learn under him. Veteran leadership is a big deal, last year we basically had none. Having a guy like Fletch around might have helped us not go in the tank when the going got tough. Denver, Dallas, Cleveland games for example.

Onto Nate Clements...There is zero excuse as to why he isn't still here. The cap room was there, I forgot the total numbers on his deal but I know the last year or two was voidable and I believe became voided.

We did nothing to replace him, nothing. McGee moving up to replace him is a joke in and of itself and we replaced McGee at number 2 with? Jabari Greer. Woohoo.

When we were at least 20 million under the cap even if we were paying Nate 15, it wouldn't have mattered. Sure he woulda been overpaid, sure he's overpaid now. But isn't anyone in the league with talent overpaid for the most part/

You can't take that cap space with you, it just sits there and rots for literally no reason.

So we could have easily afforded to keep both Clements and Fletch and still be under the cap. And been better on the field in my estimation.

Now what does it boil down to exactly? The owner not willing to pony up the bucks upfront for a signing bonus, pure and simple.

It's maneuvers like that that make people call Ralph cheap. Being millions under the cap, not willing to fork over big signing bonus money to guys who earned it by play on this team. We never extend star players anymore, Moulds is the last one I can remember.

You all can cite we signed Dock, Walker...but we still let go guys who made just as much money...so in the end what the organization did was turn two positions that were good, turned one into a basically a complete liability - corner and made the LB core weaker while strengthening the O-line.

How does that improve the team? It's just shifting weakness. And weakness gets you beat.

Legitimately Fletch and Nate could still be on this team today, along with everyone else we have. Then we wouldn't have to care if Joe Corto or Donnie Spragan makes the team or if it's Youboty or James. Because we wouldn't need them and overall the team would be better. Isn't that the ultimate goal?

[Night Train]

I wouldn't offer Crowell big $$ at all. Clements & Winfield were waaaaaay overpaid.
Winfield was a great tackler, after the WR caught the ball.
Clements just got a dumb contract no sane team would pay.
Fletcher wouldn't fill the hole and made too many tacklers 6-7 yards downfield. Not physical enough.

Pat Williams was missed.

Peters is strange. He's going about a new contract all wrong or is pissed for some unknown reason. How is this helping the current team ?
If it goes a couple weeks into the season, trade him for a top pick/picks and reload next April. He's not helping us either way.

[Ickybaluky]

You never let the cap tail wag the dog. You sign your good players, you let go of guys who you think you can replace. The people running the team make those choices, and they are judged by how many games the team wins, not by how much cap space they have. They don't give awards for having the most cap space.

People who use the cap as an excuse are losers. The cap is something that needs to be managed, and if it is screwed up then the managers aren't doing their jobs. Wins and losses are what matters, and if the team lets players go and keeps winning they made the right decisions on who to keep. If they let good players go and don't win, then someone screwed up.

[Ebenezer]

Onto Nate Clements...There is zero excuse as to why he isn't still here. The cap room was there, I forgot the total numbers on his deal but I know the last year or two was voidable and I believe became voided.

We did nothing to replace him, nothing. McGee moving up to replace him is a joke in and of itself and we replaced McGee at number 2 with? Jabari Greer. Woohoo.

When we were at least 20 million under the cap even if we were paying Nate 15, it wouldn't have mattered. Sure he woulda been overpaid, sure he's overpaid now. But isn't anyone in the league with talent overpaid for the most part/

You can't take that cap space with you, it just sits there and rots for literally no reason.

Pay Nate $15 mil and it would have been $20 mil for McGee. Sure you have money to spend but you are also setting the market for your next signee. Spend up to the cap and you have no way to pay for McGee. Remember, McGee's contributions on the ST far outweighed Nate's. Also, NC could only INT Miami QBs. McGee is a better all around player.


We did nothing to replace him, nothing. McGee moving up to replace him is a joke in and of itself and we replaced McGee at number 2 with? Jabari Greer. Woohoo.

How many times do you replace a 4 or 5 year starter with somebody of equal talent? Please name who the Bills should have replaced him with.


Now what does it boil down to exactly? The owner not willing to pony up the bucks upfront for a signing bonus, pure and simple. It's maneuvers like that that make people call Ralph cheap. Being millions under the cap, not willing to fork over big signing bonus money to guys who earned it by play on this team. We never extend star players anymore, Moulds is the last one I can remember.

You all can cite we signed Dock, Walker...but we still let go guys who made just as much money...so in the end what the organization did was turn two positions that were good, turned one into a basically a complete liability - corner and made the LB core weaker while strengthening the O-line.

How does that improve the team? It's just shifting weakness. And weakness gets you beat.

Welcome to the era of the Salary cap. You think the Bills are the only team that goes through this? You weaken one part when you address another.


Legitimately Fletch and Nate could still be on this team today, along with everyone else we have. Then we wouldn't have to care if Joe Corto or Donnie Spragan makes the team or if it's Youboty or James. Because we wouldn't need them and overall the team would be better. Isn't that the ultimate goal?

They lost with Fletch and Nate, remember? DB would be the perfect QB with the best OL, the fastest WR, etc. etc. At some point new FOs bring in their own players. Would you fault Parcells had he been hired instead of ML and done these things. I bet few would.

This team is also not a playoff team with Fletch and stonehands...as far as I remember they do not play offense.

[Ebenezer]

You never let the cap tail wag the dog. You sign your good players, you let go of guys who you think you can replace. The people running the team make those choices, and they are judged by how many games the team wins, not by how much cap space they have. They don't give awards for having the most cap space.

People who use the cap as an excuse are losers. The cap is something that needs to be managed, and if it is screwed up then the managers aren't doing their jobs. Wins and losses are what matters, and if the team lets players go and keeps winning they made the right decisions on who to keep. If they let good players go and don't win, then someone screwed up.
Correct.

The team was 7-9 at best with Fletch and NC....they are 7-9 with an injured Poz and Greer...so I don't see the problem. They also saved money which increases their flexibility. They could have spent to the cap with those guys but you might not have been able to get somebody else under contract. Judging today the decisions of 2, 3, or even more years ago, and with different FOs, is really tough.

[tat2dmike77]

I'm with Pat on this one. I'm beyond sick of this

[OpIv37]

This idea of a longterm bad relationship between the player and the organization based on a holdout is dumb.

Players have held out on teams since the beginning of time (Jim Kelly and Bruce Smith) come to mind and their long terms status with the team never changed. When the check gets cut all the other issues seem to fade away.

This holdout is much more bitter and prolonged than most.

When was the last time that a player holding out didn't even TALK to the FO for months? The Bills just gave him a contract so they're already not happy that he's demanding a new one, and the way he's handling the situation isn't going to make them happier.

[Ebenezer]

This holdout is much more bitter and prolonged than most.

When was the last time that a player holding out didn't even TALK to the FO for months? The Bills just gave him a contract so they're already not happy that he's demanding a new one, and the way he's handling the situation isn't going to make them happier.
If you were the employer would you be happy? This basically amounts to a disgruntled, unappreciative employee, who fails to show up to work, doesn't call in and has no intention of helping all of his coworkers when they need him.

[tat2dmike77]

The problem is when a player has one good season they think they are a god of the league. Instead of showing that he (peters) can keep up this kind of performance and possiblly earning a top contract. He thinks that because of one good season he should be paid accordingly.

I appalud the Bills for standing thier ground. This is out of control and players need to realize that they do not run the team. I say let his fat ass sit at home while he continues to get fined for every day he is not there. The Bills gave him a new contract and now he wants a new one.

Besides the Bills should be a little gun shy on giving young talent a new big contract. We all remember the Mike Williams experiment don't we?

I'm not saying Peters isn't talented or that he will be a bust like Williams but i think he needs to play this season and show he can play the FULL season and perform at a high level like he did. If he performs at a high level then i say start a serious negotiation.

[OpIv37]

If you were the employer would you be happy? This basically amounts to a disgruntled, unappreciative employee, who fails to show up to work, doesn't call in and has no intention of helping all of his coworkers when they need him.

that's exactly what I'm saying.

Stratton was saying it's a routine situation- I'm trying to say this particular situation is much more bitter than the routine holdout.

He has a point that he deserves a raise but I can't blame the Bills for not wanting to work with him when he's acting like this. At the same time, I'm pissed off about the prospect that we may lose games so the FO can stand on their laurels.

[Ebenezer]

The problem is when a player has one good season they think they are a god of the league. Instead of showing that he (peters) can keep up this kind of performance and possiblly earning a top contract. He thinks that because of one good season he should be paid accordingly.

I appalud the Bills for standing thier ground. This is out of control and players need to realize that they do not run the team. I say let his fat ass sit at home while he continues to get fined for every day he is not there. The Bills gave him a new contract and now he wants a new one.

Besides the Bills should be a little gun shy on giving young talent a new big contract. We all remember the Mike Williams experiment don't we?

I'm not saying Peters isn't talented or that he will be a bust like Williams but i think he needs to play this season and show he can play the FULL season and perform at a high level like he did. If he performs at a high level then i say start a serious negotiation.
If he would have smiled, come into camp, pancaked opponents and gotten a second probowl I would have opened the flood gates. He might have become the highest paid Bill. But with the way he has handled the situation?

[Ebenezer]

that's exactly what I'm saying.

Stratton was saying it's a routine situation- I'm trying to say this particular situation is much more bitter than the routine holdout.

He has a point that he deserves a raise but I can't blame the Bills for not wanting to work with him when he's acting like this. At the same time, I'm pissed off about the prospect that we may lose games so the FO can stand on their laurels.
I don't disagree but is this really the FOs fault??

What have they done to warrant this treatment? They have rerenegotiated deals in the past. What is the difference this time?? They are not allowing the player to grab them by the balls. Sometimes it is how you deal with an issue.

[Dr. Lecter]

I don't disagree but is this really the FOs fault??

What have they done to warrant this treatment? They have rerenegotiated deals in the past. What is the difference this time?? They are not allowing the player to grab them by the balls. Sometimes it is how you deal with an issue.

I don't think he is blaming the FO.

I do see where his frustration is coming from - the likely best player on the team is not here and there is a pissing contest between the Bills and jackass agent/player.

Regardless of whom is to blame, it really sucks because there was reason for optimism for this season and not having Peters here reduces that reason.

[patmoran2006]

I wouldn't offer Crowell big $$ at all. .

Why wouldnt you? He's a great linebacker.

[Dr. Lecter]

Why wouldnt you? He's a great linebacker.

Very good? Yes.

Great? I dunno. And the knee scares the **** out of me.

I see Crowell as the classic case of a guy who will get way overpaid in FA and he likely knows it.

[Ebenezer]

Very good? Yes.

Great? I dunno. And the knee scares the **** out of me.

I see Crowell as the classic case of a guy who will get way overpaid in FA and he likely knows it.
:goodpost:

The same folks calling for the Bills to break the bank on Crowell will be the first to complain if the guy comes out and looks terrible. The guy is barely great.

[trapezeus]

fiscal responsibility aside, if i was 90+ years old, and never won the championship, and there is a plan in place that i believe could yield results in the next 2 years, i go all out to win the whole thing. sign peters, f the future. i'm not around to see it anyways. i've spent almost 50+ years coddling the league and creating stability with my team. it most likely isn't going to be in the town it started when i'm gone. i might as well do it my way and get there.

Dollars and cents, i think hanging Ralph on the Salary cap is wrong. The Cap isn't weighted properly to the spectrum of teams earnings. The bigger teams have the extra cash from being in a big market (having more fans that buy more stuff), selling more expensive suites, and having higher ticket prices. Of course they can push to $108MM a year with actual cash expenditures that are much higher that $108MM each year.

For example, though the cap is ~$108MM, it's an accounting figure. Since the bonuses and such are amortized over the life of the contract, you could sign 10 players for a cap hit of $100MM. But you may have had to pay guarantees that leaves your cash account well in excess of $100MM. The owners who have plenty of cash will play the accounting game. Owners who don't can't and won't.

Ralph is rich in our eyes because none of us are sitting on an $800MM asset. however, he's only as cash rich as the ticket sales and merchandise, parking and tv revenues provide. The team as a whole has to still turn a profit for the other owners to say, "buffalo is viable."

And that's a pathetic aspect of the new regime of owners. They forget where this game came from. It came from working class people. They are the ones who make advertisers and TV stations put up so much money. If they alienate the cities that actually are rabid for Pro football (not college) and those viewers actually walk away on Sundays, the next TV contract won't be as big. And those empty stadiums will start to make advertisers wonder, "is there a better way to get a hold of the masses."

[patmoran2006]

I’m not saying you’re a loser (Night Train) because of course your not, but this is the loser mentality that not only plagues this team, but it’s fans as well.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Angelo Crowell is a SOLID linebacker. He was 8<SUP>th</SUP> in the NFL in tackles last year. He’s athletic and a difference maker, especially now with a better DL in front of him, and most importantly he’s just entering the prime of his career.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Why wouldn’t you offer him big money? You want to start all over at OLB again with a rookie or a lesser free agent? You want to plug Keith Ellison in? Didn’t we do that last year for Spikes? We run a cover two, which for better or worse is a defense for athletic linebackers, and there isn’t another LB on this team who’s even close to him with athleticism.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
It’s absolutely asinine as far as Im concerned to not get this guy locked up. Let him leave so we have to rebuild another position on the team, meanwhile he goes to another team and ends up a Pro Bowl LB?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
WTF does Ralph do with his money if he’s going to let guys like Angelo Crowell walk? He’s not peters, he doesn’t have three years left. If we’re going to resign him, do it NOW before the season starts.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Crowell is the perfect example of why this organization is so poorly run year after year, and that comes straight from the top with the old popcorn fart.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Not resigning Crowell if f’n foolish and the epitomy of ****ty management and a cheap owner; he’s arguably the best defender on this team right now and he’ll be even better with an improved DL in front of him. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I could ALMOST understand if the Evans deal was done, but that isn’t either. <o:p></o:p>

[patmoran2006]

Very good? Yes.

Great? I dunno. And the knee scares the **** out of me.

I see Crowell as the classic case of a guy who will get way overpaid in FA and he likely knows it.
Even if he's just "very good"

Isnt that enough to resign the ****ing guy?

[Dr. Lecter]

Even if he's just "very good"

Isnt that enough to resign the ****ing guy?

In theory yes, but if he is asking for great LB money the answer is no.

Some players do not want to resign. Some want to hit FA.

I am not saying that is the case with Crowell, but don't discount it.

[Ebenezer]

Of course they can push to $108MM a year with actual cash expenditures that are much higher that $108MM each year....


...Ralph is rich in our eyes because none of us are sitting on an $800MM asset.


And therein lies the reasons they are operating the way they are...why they came up with "cash to cap". They are putting this team in the most favorable position for a new ownership to come in and pay maximum market price (i.e., $1billion) for this team. If they overdo the cap and mortgage the future it devalues the amount a prospective owner is going to pay if that owner knows they will come in and have little to no cap space to play with and that your financial future (as measured by the cap) is screwed for years.

[Ebenezer]

In theory yes, but if he is asking for great LB money the answer is no.

Some players do not want to resign. Some want to hit FA.

I am not saying that is the case with Crowell, but don't discount it.
Takes two to tango. Fans forget that. How many people these days are persistant free agents in their jobs. I know a couple of people who have changed jobs three times in two years, are basically doing the same thing, and are better paid because they bounced around.

[OpIv37]

I don't disagree but is this really the FOs fault??

What have they done to warrant this treatment? They have rerenegotiated deals in the past. What is the difference this time?? They are not allowing the player to grab them by the balls. Sometimes it is how you deal with an issue.

I can't really blame the FO in this situation- not anymore.

But that doesn't make it any less frustrating that one of our best players (arguably our best) won't be on the field.

[patmoran2006]

I’d rather “overpay” Angelo Crowell than see Ralphie Wilson “overpay” himself.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

[Ed]

I’m not saying you’re a loser (Night Train) because of course your not, but this is the loser mentality that not only plagues this team, but it’s fans as well.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Angelo Crowell is a SOLID linebacker. He was 8<SUP>th</SUP> in the NFL in tackles last year. He’s athletic and a difference maker, especially now with a better DL in front of him, and most importantly he’s just entering the prime of his career.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Why wouldn’t you offer him big money? You want to start all over at OLB again with a rookie or a lesser free agent? You want to plug Keith Ellison in? Didn’t we do that last year for Spikes? We run a cover two, which for better or worse is a defense for athletic linebackers, and there isn’t another LB on this team who’s even close to him with athleticism.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
It’s absolutely asinine as far as Im concerned to not get this guy locked up. Let him leave so we have to rebuild another position on the team, meanwhile he goes to another team and ends up a Pro Bowl LB?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
WTF does Ralph do with his money if he’s going to let guys like Angelo Crowell walk? He’s not peters, he doesn’t have three years left. If we’re going to resign him, do it NOW before the season starts.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Crowell is the perfect example of why this organization is so poorly run year after year, and that comes straight from the top with the old popcorn fart.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Not resigning Crowell if f’n foolish and the epitomy of ****ty management and a cheap owner; he’s arguably the best defender on this team right now and he’ll be even better with an improved DL in front of him. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I could ALMOST understand if the Evans deal was done, but that isn’t either. <o:p></o:p>
Pat, let things play out before getting so angry. There's no reason to be getting pissed about Evans or Crowell when there's still plenty of time to re-sign both. They're both still Bills, and they're both playing hard and not complaining. There's a good chance both players are going to be here for the long term, but it doesn't make a difference in the long run whether they re-sign today or in 6 months. I realize it gives fans peace of mind to get something done sooner, but you're getting upset about stuff that probably won't happen.

[Ebenezer]

I can't really blame the FO in this situation- not anymore.

But that doesn't make it any less frustrating that one of our best players (arguably our best) won't be on the field.
I don't disagree....

[Ebenezer]

Pat, let things play out before getting so angry. There's no reason to be getting pissed about Evans or Crowell when there's still plenty of time to re-sign both. They're both still Bills, and they're both playing hard and not complaining. There's a good chance both players are going to be here for the long term, but it doesn't make a difference in the long run whether they re-sign today or in 6 months. I realize it gives fans peace of mind to get something done sooner, but you're getting upset about stuff that probably won't happen.
That's ok Ed. He's already started another new thread about it.

[patmoran2006]

No, my thread is regarding how Good crowell is. While this thread, started by me, was about Peters forcing a trade until it went off topic.


THere ya go.. Einstein.

[Mr. Pink]

Pay Nate $15 mil and it would have been $20 mil for McGee. Sure you have money to spend but you are also setting the market for your next signee. Spend up to the cap and you have no way to pay for McGee. Remember, McGee's contributions on the ST far outweighed Nate's. Also, NC could only INT Miami QBs. McGee is a better all around player.

How many times do you replace a 4 or 5 year starter with somebody of equal talent? Please name who the Bills should have replaced him with.


They lost with Fletch and Nate, remember? DB would be the perfect QB with the best OL, the fastest WR, etc. etc. At some point new FOs bring in their own players. Would you fault Parcells had he been hired instead of ML and done these things. I bet few would.

This team is also not a playoff team with Fletch and stonehands...as far as I remember they do not play offense.

Speaking of McGee being better than Nate in any aspect is ridiculous. If your main basis for wanting to keep McGee over him is because of the return game, Nate was fairly decent at that and good returners in this league are a dime a dozen.

Oh, no way in hell McGee ever gets a contract that pays him more than Nate. Why? Nate is a number 1 corner...McGee is not, except for maybe 2 other teams.

Then we finally go out and attempt to replace Nate a full season later with a rookie. Which is fine, I have no problem with taking Leodis. Here's the problem though...What is Leodis performs up to Nate's level? In 4-5 years we're looking at a guy who's gonna want 10 mill if not more by then in money. Do we pay him? It's like a revolving door that never stops with this organization...the problem is it takes a few years most of the time for us to sign a suitable replacement to the guys we let go...if we ever find their replacement.

For the original topic of the thread to tie in...We didn't win with Fletch and Nate right? Well we haven't won with Peters either...so why not just trade him? Just using your logic on why letting Fletch and Nate go was ok.

[patmoran2006]

Then we finally go out and attempt to replace Nate a full season later with a rookie. Which is fine, I have no problem with taking Leodis. Here's the problem though...What is Leodis performs up to Nate's level? In 4-5 years we're looking at a guy who's gonna want 10 mill if not more by then in money. Do we pay him? It's like a revolving door that never stops with this organization...the problem is it takes a few years most of the time for us to sign a suitable replacement to the guys we let go...if we ever find their replacement..

It's called the Pittsburgh Pirates. Becoming a farm team for the big boys.

[X-Era]

Although I have absolutely no basis to say this; given the way he’s held out, if anything maybe he’s trying to force a trade.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
He probably knows the Bills aren’t going to pay them this year, and from what I have heard he wants to be paid amongst the highest paid OL in the NFL. Perhaps he feels the Bills will never pay him what he feels he is worth.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So by being completely unreasonable and not even speaking to the team, maybe the Bills get fed up of dealing with him (or lack of) and end up trading him to a team that will give him the long term package he wants financially.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Maybe he figures it’s OK to lose money right now short term if he ends up getting dealt to a team that’s going to give him $20-25 million upfront after trading for him once the Bills are officially fed up.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
A lot more likely than him “still being hurt”. That’s ridiculous. If anything, like NE39 said that would make him even dumber to not report, when he can at least get paid for rehabbing an injury instead of getting fined for not being here.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Regardless, I’m starting to turn the corner on this guy, and I’m getting beyond fed up with him myself.<o:p></o:p>

Ghee, almost like what Ive been saying for a few weeks now.

Hes got value to our team and right now we are not using his value to help us, either through trade or him playing on the field. Its a waste, regardless of whos fault it is. At this point the Bills are allowing one of their best values to remain a waste for us. Its bad business.

[X-Era]

And therein lies the reasons they are operating the way they are...why they came up with "cash to cap". They are putting this team in the most favorable position for a new ownership to come in and pay maximum market price (i.e., $1billion) for this team. If they overdo the cap and mortgage the future it devalues the amount a prospective owner is going to pay if that owner knows they will come in and have little to no cap space to play with and that your financial future (as measured by the cap) is screwed for years.

Well then by all means, us fans should snap up season tickets while the wallow in mediocrity, before the new owner comes and we REALLY start to compete.

[X-Era]

Takes two to tango. Fans forget that. How many people these days are persistant free agents in their jobs. I know a couple of people who have changed jobs three times in two years, are basically doing the same thing, and are better paid because they bounced around.

Not even remotely the same situation. The CBA alone makes the situation completely different.

[Ebenezer]

Not even remotely the same situation. The CBA alone makes the situation completely different.
Incorrect. The CBA has nothing to do with it. The players would love to be FA every year. The owners are just not stupid enough to offer them one year deals.

[Philagape]

Dockery,, Walker, Schobel and Kelsay all signed some pretty damn big money contracts. Evans is on deck

Like I've said before, cheapness is not defined by what you spend, but by what you don't spend. How much is left over?

[Saratoga Slim]

And therein lies the reasons they are operating the way they are...why they came up with "cash to cap". They are putting this team in the most favorable position for a new ownership to come in and pay maximum market price (i.e., $1billion) for this team. If they overdo the cap and mortgage the future it devalues the amount a prospective owner is going to pay if that owner knows they will come in and have little to no cap space to play with and that your financial future (as measured by the cap) is screwed for years.

On the other hand, it also sets the team up to be purchas-able by a local group, as it will be easier for a new purchaser to come in and start making solid profits immediately to offset their purchase investment.

they key to what happens will be how the sale is set up at the time of Ralph's death. if it's a straight up auction to the highest bidder, your scenario will be most likely.

[Ebenezer]

Like I've said before, cheapness is not defined by what you spend, but by what you don't spend. How much is left over?
don't forget they may be under this year but there are future cap years that have to be taken into consideration. they were given a positive adjustment based on last years LTBE bonuses...they may not get that next year and can't ensure that they will in the future. free cap money in the future must be considered. They would have to give somebody a huge bonus that counts all in this year...once you to that you have started a trend...and that will bite you. Minnesota did it with Winfield and few have gone near it since.

[Ebenezer]

On the other hand, it also sets the team up to be purchas-able by a local group, as it will be easier for a new purchaser to come in and start making solid profits immediately to offset their purchase investment.

they key to what happens will be how the sale is set up at the time of Ralph's death. if it's a straight up auction to the highest bidder, your scenario will be most likely.
you are correct and I meant to infer that in my post.

[Saratoga Slim]

On Peters and forcing a trade, I really don't think that was his intention. I think that his agent just grossly misread the Buffalo Bills. Peters has never given any indication that he doesn't want to be in Buffalo.

If he would just report and play out the season, I am positive that all will be forgiven and we'll pay him this offseason. It totally sucks that he/his agent are doing what they're doing, because the longer it goes on the more likely it is that personal issues will color a future renegotiation and make a trade the only option.

As much as I have totally lost my love for Peters, a trade should be a total LAST RESORT. Trading him even for a 1st round pick would not be a good deal. He's a young, elite LT. Even assuming that we used the #1 pick to straight up replace him with a rookie LT, and assuming that the rookie eventually plays at the same level as Peters (which is assuming a LOT), we're nonetheless set back several years while the rookie develops.

[X-Era]

Incorrect. The CBA has nothing to do with it. The players would love to be FA every year. The owners are just not stupid enough to offer them one year deals.

Ohh, I guess you and many Americans in fact have contracts, can holdout, be traded, be benched, be drafted, etc...

The rules are completely different. Trust me I would love to be able to holdout for more money, if I just didnt show, I would be fired. On the flip side, I would hate to have no say as to where I started my career (IE draft), that would suck.

[X-Era]

On Peters and forcing a trade, I really don't think that was his intention. I think that his agent just grossly misread the Buffalo Bills. Peters has never given any indication that he doesn't want to be in Buffalo.

If he would just report and play out the season, I am positive that all will be forgiven and we'll pay him this offseason. It totally sucks that he/his agent are doing what they're doing, because the longer it goes on the more likely it is that personal issues will color a future renegotiation and make a trade the only option.

As much as I have totally lost my love for Peters, a trade should be a total LAST RESORT. Trading him even for a 1st round pick would not be a good deal. He's a young, elite LT. Even assuming that we used the #1 pick to straight up replace him with a rookie LT, and assuming that the rookie eventually plays at the same level as Peters (which is assuming a LOT), we're nonetheless set back several years while the rookie develops.

What are we setback by having Peters sit out all year?

I dont get it.

This would be like making an investment on a multi-million dollar machine to make your product better and then leaving it unplugged because you dont want to pay for it. Millions invested, finally something we have needed for a long time, but just going to waste and collecting dust.

[Ebenezer]

Ohh, I guess you and many Americans in fact have contracts, can holdout, be traded, be benched, be drafted, etc...

The rules are completely different. Trust me I would love to be able to holdout for more money, if I just didnt show, I would be fired. On the flip side, I would hate to have no say as to where I started my career (IE draft), that would suck.

we all have contracts...those who think they don't are on perpetual one day contracts...able to be cut (fired) or waived (laid off) at any time.

[X-Era]

we all have contracts...those who think they don't are on perpetual one day contracts...able to be cut (fired) or waived (laid off) at any time.

So different is the same, red is blue, up is down. :crazed:

[Saratoga Slim]

What are we setback by having Peters sit out all year?

I dont get it.

This would be like making an investment on a multi-million dollar machine to make your product better and then leaving it unplugged because you dont want to pay for it. Millions invested, finally something we have needed for a long time, but just going to waste and collecting dust.

We're clearly being set back by having him sit out all year -- no one here disputes that.

Whether it's his fault or the Bills' is another question. I was split on this while he held out of training camp, as he does deserve more money. However, I've had it--it's really him that's being the ass now. He's not so grossly underpaid that it's a total injustice to him that he doesn't get a new contract right now. Many players play a season or two on a contract that they've out-performed, before they finally get the big contract they deserve. If he had showed up at some point in training camp, that would have shown a measure of good faith, and THEN it would be up to the Bills to return the favor.

As it stands now, it's really Peters that's the ass. Seems pretty clear to me that his agent wants a payday, and Jason isn't smart enough to see that.

[Patti120]

I just think that Peters is shacked up with More Cowbell's (I think that's the poster's name) girlfriend somewhere.

I could be wrong but this would explain why he hasn't reported yet...

[PromoTheRobot]

Although I have absolutely no basis to say this; given the way he’s held out, if anything maybe he’s trying to force a trade.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
He probably knows the Bills aren’t going to pay them this year, and from what I have heard he wants to be paid amongst the highest paid OL in the NFL. Perhaps he feels the Bills will never pay him what he feels he is worth.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
So by being completely unreasonable and not even speaking to the team, maybe the Bills get fed up of dealing with him (or lack of) and end up trading him to a team that will give him the long term package he wants financially.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Maybe he figures it’s OK to lose money right now short term if he ends up getting dealt to a team that’s going to give him $20-25 million upfront after trading for him once the Bills are officially fed up.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
A lot more likely than him “still being hurt”. That’s ridiculous. If anything, like NE39 said that would make him even dumber to not report, when he can at least get paid for rehabbing an injury instead of getting fined for not being here.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Regardless, I’m starting to turn the corner on this guy, and I’m getting beyond fed up with him myself.<o:p></o:p>
Having no basis to say things has never stopped you before, Pat. Why change now?

Jason Peters has the same amount of leverage for forcing a trade as he has for getting a new deal this year...none. He would have to literally put a gun to Ralph's head.

The only way the Bills trade him is if a team gives them two #1 picks. Otherwise there is no incentive to help another team benefit from Peters and reward Jason by letting him get a new deal with a different team. The Bills, unlike some of the whiney little girls on this board, aren't intimidated by Peters or Parker.

PTR

[X-Era]

Having no basis to say things has never stopped you before, Pat. Why change now?

Jason Peters has the same amount of leverage for forcing a trade as he has for getting a new deal this year...none. He would have to literally put a gun to Ralph's head.

The only way the Bills trade him is if a team gives them two #1 picks. Otherwise there is no incentive to help another team benefit from Peters and reward Jason by letting him get a new deal with a different team. The Bills, unlike some of the whiney little girls on this board, aren't intimidated by Peters or Parker.

PTR
I don't agree.

The incentive for the Bills is the prospect of adding a player who would help right away and this season, thats something Peters may not do, and that makes it an upgrade.

Again, we are SUPPOSED to be putting the best players on the field, we arent in this case, Peters is under contract which means the Bills are in charge. They can make a move that keeps face for them, and upgrades the team.

Its an asset thats being wasted on a non-playoff team. Thats unacceptable to me.

[Saratoga Slim]

I don't agree.

The incentive for the Bills is the prospect of adding a player who would help right away and this season, thats something Peters may not do, and that makes it an upgrade.

Again, we are SUPPOSED to be putting the best players on the field, we arent in this case, Peters is under contract which means the Bills are in charge. They can make a move that keeps face for them, and upgrades the team.

Its an asset thats being wasted on a non-playoff team. Thats unacceptable to me.

Who would you trade him for?

[PromoTheRobot]

I don't agree.

The incentive for the Bills is the prospect of adding a player who would help right away and this season, thats something Peters may not do, and that makes it an upgrade.

Again, we are SUPPOSED to be putting the best players on the field, we arent in this case, Peters is under contract which means the Bills are in charge. They can make a move that keeps face for them, and upgrades the team.

Its an asset thats being wasted on a non-playoff team. Thats unacceptable to me.
Again, as I said in my post, the Bills only make a deal if there is clear benefit to the Bills. That means a player who can contribute or enough picks that show tremendous value. There is no reason to trade Peters otherwise.

Another habit some of you nervous nellies have is making up rules that you think need to be followed. In this case it's "we are SUPPOSED to be putting the best players on the field" What number commandment is that one? What does it even mean?

Football, especially at the O-line, is a team game. Peters could show up tomorrow but because he missed all of camp, he would hurt the O-line because he isn't prepared to play. The Bills will play the players who can help them win, not based on what their Madden score is.

Think of Peters as being on IR. We move forward.

PTR

[Ebenezer]

Again, as I said in my post, the Bills only make a deal if there is clear benefit to the Bills. That means a player who can contribute or enough picks that show tremendous value. There is no reason to trade Peters otherwise.

Another habit some of you nervous nellies have is making up rules that you think need to be followed. In this case it's "we are SUPPOSED to be putting the best players on the field" What number commandment is that one? What does it even mean?

Football, especially at the O-line, is a team game. Peters could show up tomorrow but because he missed all of camp, he would hurt the O-line because he isn't prepared to play. The Bills will play the players who can help them win, not based on what their Madden score is.

Think of Peters as being on IR. We move forward.

PTR
the concept is great...however, if you can't name anybody then a realistic trade scenario is not out there.