'07 offseason was expensive

The seeds of Jason Peters' desire for a new contract were set a year ago when the Buffalo Bills signed Derrick Dockery in free agency. Dockery got a $7 million-a-year deal. It was inevitable that Peters would want a raise, since he's better than the man he's lining up alongside. It was the same on the other side of the ball. The Bills gave Chris Kelsay a big contract last February, which prompted Aaron Schobel - the better player - to seek salary equity. That's the way it goes in the NFL. The Bills have plenty of cash available under the salary cap. They can afford to get some extensions done this offseason if they can settle on fair-market value for Lee Evans and Peters.

---Mark Gaughan

Comments

[J.A.K.e]

I think you've got to at least make Peters play half of his contract, or more, before another "extension". Otherwise there is no such think as locking up a player, which is what the Bills supposedly did 2 years ago. They have done right by Peters so far by taking in an undrafted FA and making him a fairly highly paid star. They gave a him a little more money than his previous contract stated early on, in anticpation of him moving good and maybe even moving him. The team needs to reap a little benefit out of that foresight, otherwise there is no really no incentive for teams to give long-term contracts at all.

[honor code]

David,

To be clear, I don't care about ethics or honesty. All I care about is winning. Go Bills! My concern is that we will reach a point where we have to let others go due to the financial constraints we encounter after giving in to the demands of too many players. Did Scobel break the bank? No. Will Jason Peters break the bank? No. But if every player who exceeds expectations or feels that the market has unexpectedly changed asks for more money despite their contract, and the bills give in to them, the team will eventually not be able to sign players it needs to win. Like I said, sign Peters, but in general, teams should negotiaite tougher and force players to make the decision to either sit out or live up to the contract more often.

[David, Amherst]

hc, the Bills brain trust has made the decision they can survive if they "keep tearing up" contracts. It's a matter of for whom, why, what conditions. That's why Ralph pays them, to stay in business. They and the NFL will be in business. What I believe you are trying to say, and are correct, is that it is a form of dishonesty and unethical. That might be, and the taxpayers and fans will be the ones paying for a "new and improved model franchise." How are you proposing to change it? I can tell you how, but no one will listen when all they want is "a winner", or really, the illusion that they might be a "winner." It's what a casino is all about. Like Trump Entertainment, and the Seneca Casino, or the thousands of women that lined up for "Sex and the City", it's about being there. What you need to worry about is plain economics and earning enough.
The Bills are in the Entertainment business, not health, education, and welfare. Contracts, EZ Come, EZ Go. Just win, baby.

[honor code]

The bills are not married to Peters, they own his rights. And they can't survive if they keep tearing up contracts to pay more money to players who demand it either. Surely there are exceptions, and Peters may very well be a good one to make, but it is a poor trend to set and a bad business model to assume all the risk associated with signing a player to a long term contract, but not recieving any of the benefits.

[David, Amherst]

I'm taking it that by the id of 'honor code' you believe things are black-and-white, in business. The essentials of contracts are honored, but they can and are "torn up" as conditions and situations dicate, by "mutual consent." Peters would have to honor his contract, but is free to pursue advanced objectives as they can be warranted and the other party sees it is also in their best interest.
In business, you would quickly be taken advantage of by competitors if you didn't adapt. When over 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, what is that original contract about? The Bills can't survive by an isolated 'honor code.'

[honor code]

David, your "case" in your first comment is that players should be smarter about business - no sh__.

your "case" in your second comment is that players should never work without an enforcable contract - again, no sh__.

My point was that your "case" is trivial and irrelevant to the Jason Peters situation.

The number one reason for this is that Jason Peters does have an enforcable contract. And this contract should not be reworked. period. By all means, sign him to a big, long extension now. But he owes us three years at the salary for which he signed a contract two years ago. If he breaks his leg tommorow, the Bills will still pay him. Peter's cost for that luxury is that he cannot demand a raise every year he improves or the market changes.

Also, It is completely ridiculous to say, as some on this blog and others have, that he deserves a raise for moving from RT to LT. Give me a break. If every player thought he could throw out his old contract every time he gained a little more resonsibility on the team, there would be even more holdouts and turmoil than there is now.

Does moving from slot reciever to wideout merit a new contract? What about 3rd string QB to 2nd string QB?

[honor code]

David, when it was just you and Steve Smith I thought my argument had a chance. But now that you have Jerry Sullivan on your side I am stepping off. I'm simply not smart enough.

[David, Amherst]

honor code, did you read Jerry Sullivan's take on the Peters contract issue? He makes the case I did. Steve Smith, and Jerry Sullivan, seem to have learned something. Keep up with the business side.

[honor code]

David, Just because Steve Smith is a "proponent" of being knowledgable doesn't mean he is. And your brilliant economic insight does not make any sense here. Past performance is the only indicator of future performance when talking about people. Jason Peters does not flip burgers (or microwave them) and the Bills are not Burger King. While that burger flipper can ask for a raise and if he doesn't get it go work at Wendy's, Jason Peters cannot just leave the Bills and go work somewhere else. He is under contract for 3 more years, so the Bills have leverage. More teams need to stick to their guns and force players to sit out if they holdout for more money like Cinci with Chad Johnson.

[David, Amherst]

In futures investing the disclaimer is "Past performance is no indication of future results." The only people taking pay cuts are employees without contracts in an at-will employment state. Oh yes, New York is an at-will employment state for those who don't know. Never work without an enforceable contract. Hamburger flippers and bank tellers have to. Pro football players have a CBA negotiated. But only until it expires. Peters is doing what Steve Smith and other knowledgeable workers do, get a contract.

[Don H]

I'm sure Peters will ask for a pay cut if his future play ever falls below all-pro standards.

[David, Amherst]

Steve Smith of the Carolina Panthers was just interviewed on CNBC, as a proponent of now studying finance and economics. More Pro players are gaining knowledge of the business process and personal value market. This is a matter of facts and practices. Jason Peters may have done his homework. As fans, we can only watch, but it should be an interesting development from here on out. And, I see Jason Taylor of the Dolphins is dancing his way to career success, David Beckham as role model? No wonder Wild Bill is wild about such 'outside distractions.' Ever wonder how New England keeps on going and going? They've got the division again this year.

[honor code]

It is not rocket science. The best way for a player to maximize his money is to sign one year contracts and continue to play at a high level. That way you get performance increases and market increases every year. Of course you risk suffering a career ending injury and getting nothing after the end of the contract.

Or you can sign a long contract to minimize risk of not getting anything in the case of a career ending injury, or decrease in value. In these cases, I have never heard an example of an NFL team not making good on their agreement.

The right answer is usually somewhere in the middle, i.e. the contract Peters (and Chad Johnson, Urlacher, and everybody else) signed. So players should have some integrity and live up to their contract just like they expect their teams to do.

That said, I have two points:

1) I don't blame the players (even a-holes like Chad Johnson), and I don't even blame their agents for the large number of holdouts. I blame the teams for letting the players get away with it. Kudos to Cinci for sticking to their guns. I hope they continue to do so.

2) It would be nice if on the rare occasions that a player does SIGNIFICANTLY outplay his contract, like in the case of Jason Peters, that the team would reward him by approaching the player unsolicited with a sweetened deal to reward them and help the team by not causing a distraction.

Obviously we are not going to fix all this today (especially not on this blog) so the bottom line is we have to give Peters what he wants. It's clearly a situation where everyone on the team and in the city and in the league knows he deserves it, so the Bills don't have a lot to lose by giving him the big money now. I am a little dissapointed in Peters for handling it this way (If in fact this is what his absence is about) but I'll get over it real quick when he puts in another all-pro performance this year.

[BlueStatePrison]

Yes, Jason Peters is good – in fact he is GREAT, but I think he needs to hold to the contract he signed.

If they are going to give him a new contract – make it FULL of performance based bonuses – we need to make sure he doesn’t take the money and get lazy. I’m not saying he will – but we have all seen it before.