Prices contract numbers aren't bad at all.

[ICE74129]

Bills | Contract update: P. Price
Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:44:09 -0700

Buffalo Bills WR Peerless Price signed a four-year contract with base salaries of $800,000 (2006), $1.6 million (2007), $2 million (2008) and $2.8 million (2009). <!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_659203-->

[The_Philster]

makes his signing/roster bonuses total $2.8M

[Michael82]

That makes me feel so much better. this is a pretty good signing by Marv, especially if he is anything like what he used to be the last time he was here. :bf1:

[BillsNick]

I read that it is heavily incentive laiden.

[ICE74129]

makes his signing/roster bonuses total $2.8M

If his SB was 2 mill that means 500K this year plus the 800K = 1.3 mill. that is NOTHING. Both this year and next aren't spit.

I tell ya Overdorf is a friggin genius!

[Michael82]

I read that it is heavily incentive laiden.
i heard the same thing. There is a $1.6 million bonus if he becomes the #1 WR and a bunch of other incentives.

[ICE74129]

I read that it is heavily incentive laiden. From those numbers there are about 2.8 mill in makeable incentives.

[Bill Brasky]

Marv better be prepared to pony up that 2.8 because Peerless is going to catch upwards of 90 passes this year. I can feel it.

Does anybody know if he has an incentive in his contract for leading the team in pancake blocks?

[BAM]

Not bad at all. Looks reasonable to me.

[Michael82]

Marv better be prepared to pony up that 2.8 because Peerless is going to catch upwards of 90 passes this year. I can feel it.

Does anybody know if he has an incentive in his contract for leading the team in pancake blocks?
I hope you are right. :pray:

[DraftBoy]

The contract number is good, but it depends on the incentives 1.6 for just becoming the #1 on this team is not a big tast and thats a big bonus, im sure he has a roster bonus, a 16 ame bonus, 40 or 50 catch bonus. But then again if he hits those plateus he's worth the money imo.

[Nublar7]

From PFT:

PRICE IS WRONG FOR BUFFALO

The immediate reaction around the league to the decision of the Bills to give a four-year contract worth more than $10 million to receiver Peerless Price is negative.

How negative? Well, maybe "negative" isn't the right word. We say that because it seems that the move is providing plenty of entertainment.
"People are laughing their ***** off," said one league source.

Sure, Price had his best seasons with the Bills. But the only real similarities between the team that Price last played for in Buffalo and the organization that plays there now are the colors of the helmets, shirts, and pants.
Everything else is different.

Different coaching staff. Different quarterback. Different running back. Different receivers.

The biggest difference is that Price no longer will be operating across from Eric Moulds, a guy who constantly drew double coverage during Price's prior time with the team. And this means that Price more likely will be the guy that he was in Atlanta and Dallas.

Which means that he's not worth a contract averaging in excess of $2.5 million a year.

The move seems ever more curious in light of owner Ralph Wilson's ongoing gloom-and-doom routine regarding the financial viability of the franchise. On one hand, Wilson is concerned that the team might not be profitable. On the other hand, his front office gives an eight-figure contract to a guy no one else wanted.

So maybe the current monetary woes facing the Bills have a little less to do with the size of the market in which the team plays, and more to do with the quality of the folks who are calling the shots there.

BILLS GIVE PRICE $1.8 MILLION TO SIGN

As further proof that the people running the Buffalo Bills are clueless as to what they are doing, a league source tells us that the contract recently signed by receiver Peerless Price pays out a $1.8 million signing bonus.

The deal also includes a base salary of $800,000 in 2006, pushing his first-year compensation to $2.6 million.

In 2007, Price is due to receive a $500,000 roster bonus and a salary of $1.6 million. In 2008, Price is scheduled to receive a $500,000 roster bonus and a salary of $2 million. In 2009, Price gets a $500,000 roster bonus and a salary of $2.6 million.

Even if the Bills cut the cord after one season, Price still gets $2.6 million in cash. Not bad for a guy that no one -- and we mean no one -- wanted.
But very bad for a team that suddenly seems to have the wheels coming off.

Good move Marv. :up:

[dplus47]

Does anybody know if he has an incentive in his contract for leading the team in pancake blocks?

LOL!

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Criticism of the Price signing seem to be based on the notion that Price would be replacing Moulds as the Bills' # 1 WR---which he was not able to handle in Atlanta. But, Price is not going to be the # 1 WR with the Bills---Lee Evans is going to be the Bills' # 1 WR.

If the Bills have a QB who can get him the ball, Evans will make teams that don't double him pay. But, if they double him, then Price will get single covered and be in the same position that he was in when he was the # 2 guy with Moulds.

Price's contract has a clause that will pay him more IF he becomes the Bills' # 1 WR, but that does not mean that he is going to be the Bills # 1 WR or that they are going to be expecting him to be their # 1 WR this season. If you read the comments of S.Fairchild after the recent mini-camp, it is quite apparent that Price was brought in to compete for the # 2 job--a job that he was able to do quite well before he left Buffalo to go to Atlanta. And, at this point, there's no guarantee that he will even win that job right now.

[Don't Panic]

My biggest concern is that the guy had a chance to be the #2 with the same QB with whom he had the most success in Dallas and it never materialized. I understand the Atlanta situation, but Dallas? That is a red flag if I ever saw one. I'm OK with taking a gamble on him, but this is a LOT of money to be giving a guy who hasn't performed in three years. The only real justification is that we weren't spending our money elsewhere, so we might as well gamble on someone like Price.

[ddaryl]

makes his signing/roster bonuses total $2.8M

I don't think that is true. There are probably incentives in some of those years that will have the potential to drive up the contract to full 10 mil.

[Ickybaluky]

From PFT

Since you hold so much belief in what PFT says, you must be worried now that they are reporting Culpepper might miss most of the season.

[HAMMER]

Since you hold so much belief in what PFT says, you must be worried now that they are reporting Culpepper might miss most of the season.

I don't understand how anyone could have thought Culpepper would have been back before the mid point of the season at the earliest. He was injured in October, recovery time is a minimum of one year. Even if he could get on the field, the Dolphins would be incredibly stupid to use him in a compromised state.

[Gunzlingr]

... Even if he could get on the field, the Dolphins would be incredibly stupid to use him in a compromised state.

That is the dolphins for ya. :D

[Typ0]

My biggest concern is that the guy had a chance to be the #2 with the same QB with whom he had the most success in Dallas and it never materialized. I understand the Atlanta situation, but Dallas? That is a red flag if I ever saw one. I'm OK with taking a gamble on him, but this is a LOT of money to be giving a guy who hasn't performed in three years. The only real justification is that we weren't spending our money elsewhere, so we might as well gamble on someone like Price.

I think Price signed in Dallas right as the season was starting if I'm correct...I don't think he ever really found a place in their offense. Not sure how I feel about him comming back here...he's probably going to be paid too much and we don't even know if we have a QB that can get a receiver the ball.

[Billsrock4life]

i agree contract numbers aren't looking to bad

[Mr. Pink]

I've asked this before, but no one has responded. So I shall ask again in the spirit of fun and stuff. An answer would be lovely and/or appreciated.

Why are we stuck being hopeful on "ifs" If Price reverts back to 02 form, if Davis doesn't get injured, if Reed can catch the ball. Instead of paying on average 2.5 mill a year on a bunch of question marks, why didn't we go out and sign say David Givens? Sure he woulda cost more than 2.5 on average BUT we'd know exactly what we are getting, someone who is proven in this league. And if he signed with the Titans who are as pathetic if not more so than us, he woulda been willing to come here if given around on average 4 million a year.

Am I the only one who doesn't get any of this?

And no I do not disagree with the Price signing, based on what else we had available. He could pan out, he could not. Who knows.

[dplus47]

valid quesion, funtimesyay! as a fan of the dolphins, i can tell you that most fans are left hoping to some degree this offseason. the phins are an easy example, hoping culpepper's knee is okay, hoping the revamped secondary is better than last year (it would be hard to make it worse, IMO), hoping they come up with a valid #3 WR, hoping ricky doesn't get suspended for a whole year, hoping they find a backup QB... the titans, even with the signing of givens, are apparently hoping they can get by without a legitimate #1 WR. they have a pair of #2's. they're also hoping that mawae isn't done. etc...

granted, the bills might be relying on "hope" more than some others, but your browns are the rare team that doesn't appear to need a lot of hope for their acquisitions.

[TigerJ]

If he were cut after one year, it would mean roughly 2.1 million in dead cap dollars carried in the 2007 season. That's not too bad. It gets less onerous after that of course.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

I've asked this before, but no one has responded. So I shall ask again in the spirit of fun and stuff. An answer would be lovely and/or appreciated.

Why are we stuck being hopeful on "ifs" If Price reverts back to 02 form, if Davis doesn't get injured, if Reed can catch the ball. Instead of paying on average 2.5 mill a year on a bunch of question marks, why didn't we go out and sign say David Givens? Sure he woulda cost more than 2.5 on average BUT we'd know exactly what we are getting, someone who is proven in this league. And if he signed with the Titans who are as pathetic if not more so than us, he woulda been willing to come here if given around on average 4 million a year.

Am I the only one who doesn't get any of this?

And no I do not disagree with the Price signing, based on what else we had available. He could pan out, he could not. Who knows.

I agree that you are asking a valid question FunTimesYay! and dplus gave you a pretty good answer from the perspective of a fan of another team.

I would just like to add to his answer that IMHO, because teams have gotten smarter about managing the salary cap and their own potential free agents, the big increase in the salary cap this year meant that a lot of teams were able to keep the top free agent players that really weren't determined to go elsewhere. I think, if you look at it objectively, it was a pretty thin market at the top this year.

Of the top players who were available, some, it seemed, were absolutely determined to sign with certain clubs: Bentley and Jurevicious both said that they wanted to go to Cleveland and didn't even really negotiate with anyone else (Jurevicious actually said that he knew he could go elsewhere probably for more but didn't want to) and Hutchinson's contract was written so that he wouldn't go back to Seattle even for $ 49 million (which Seattle was willing to match except for the poison-pill clause). Hutchinson's contract wasn't the only one that had a "poison-pill" clause that either.

More importantly, though, almost all of the top free agent contracts contained very large signing bonuses--including many of those where the player resigned with his own team. Even a number of players who could be considered "question-marks" seemed to get big bonuses. And, as I have explained in previous posts, it was apparent that the Bills did not want to tie up a lot of money this off-season in one or two big bonuses. Without a big bonus, I seriously doubt that any team is going to get a player that can be labeled a "sure-thing" to sign as a free agent unless that player is absolutely committed to playing for that franchise--and even then they are probably still going to have to cough up a big bonus (as Cleveland did with Bentley).

Now, you can argue that the Bills' reluctance to give big bonuses to one or two of the top free agents that they might have been able to entice is a sign of the team or Ralph Wilson being "cheap". But, with the Bills having signed 14 free agents so far this off-season, it is less a case of "being cheap" than of the team taking a different approach to free agency this off-season based on the assessment that there were a lot of holes to fill on the roster if they were going to turn the team that went 5-11 last year into a team that could be competitive anytime soon. (Now, you can disagree with that assessment if you like, but that appears to be the conclusion that Marv Levy and Dick Jauron came to when they took over the club.)

Based on that assessment, their approach seems to be that, if they sign a number of young players who seem to be just coming into their own or have potential, but who have been "question-marks" (if they weren't "question-marks" they probably would not be available or would cost a lot more to sign), they may be able to find players who will be able to fill more of the holes than they would be able to fill if they put all of their money into one or two "sure-thing" free agents. But, that means that you end up signing a lot of guys who are "question-marks". Which also means that the odds are that some of them are not going to end up working out as that well. But, it also means that the odds are also that you will end up finding more guys who will work out and fill those holes in the roster.

The thinking is: if 2 of the 14 free agents that the Bills have signed this off-season end up being very good, 4 of them end up being solid, and 3 end up being good back-ups or rotation players (which would mean that 5 end up being flops or non-contributors), the team will be better off than if it were to sign 2 top free agents and then take their chances that they will get 2 solid players out of the handful of older or less promising free agents (who would all be even bigger "question-marks") that they could sign with whatever money they had left. They would be in a better position because: 1.) the roster would have been purged of the older, less productive players (like Adams and Milloy), guys who didn't want to be with the team (Moulds) and lesser talents at their position (Teague and Bannan); 2.) even with some of the new free agents failing, more of the teams holes would have been filled with younger veteran players; 3.) the team would be in a better position to identify and address the lesser number of holes that it would have to concentrate on filling next year. (Now, again, you could disagree with this and dispute whether it will put the team in that much better of a position.)

Yes, FTY, the Bills have signed a lot of "question-marks" this off-season. And, undoubtedly, some of them are not going to work out well--just as some of them will. But, what the new management of the team is really trying to do is turn-over a large portion of the roster of a bad, 5-11 team in an effort to create younger team with a different mind-set in the lockerroom that will allow them try to build a team that is capable of contending in the shortest time possible. Signing one or two "sure-thing" free agents would not help them to accomplish that this season. They are gambling that bringing in a number of guys--some of whom have known failure, some of them who seem to have just begun to figure out how to play well in the NFL--who may be hungry to prove themselves, will help them to put together a better team than the sad-sack group that went 5-11 last year, even if some of the new guys fail.

One last note: For all of the talent that the older guys like Adams, Moulds, Teague, Vincent, Spikes, Fletcher and even Campbell and Teague have as individuals, the fact of the matter is that anyone who watched the Bills play last year could not help but notice that that was a team without character that quit more than once during the course of the season. Of those older players, only Fletcher and Spikes stood up and talked about the need for each player to "look in the mirror" and play better and with more character. And, both times that Spikes addressed the team about this after his injury, he was ignored and the team lost. With the exception of Vincent, who the Bills tried to move out of the lockerroom by offering him a FO job that he turned down, Marv Levy has gotten rid of all of them, except the two who addressed this problem. The Bills may have less talent and more "question-marks" after letting those guys go, but that talent was wasted by the lack of character and mental toughness that those players demonstrated last season. If even a few of the "question-marks" and "lesser talented" players that they have brought in this off-season show more character and toughness than that group, IMHO the Bills will be in a better position than they were at the end of last season. They may not end up being better on the field, but they will be better in the lockerroom and be in a better position to become a winning team in the future.