To Extend Peters or Not to Extend Peters

by sireric on Feb 11, 2008 2:14 PM EST

Peters is underpaid compared to his peers (BuffaloBills.com)

[editor's note, by Brian Galliford] Branching off of this morning's discussions, sireric takes a look at the idea of extending Jason Peters. Great work, and a compelling argument. End Note

That is the question. Recently, the Rumblings community has debated the question about whether or not it is a good idea to give Jason Peters a contract extension now, or wait a few years and extend him later. First, we must review a few facts:

1. Jason Peters just signed a new deal two years ago. He currently has three years left and will earn $2.2 million next season, $2.95 million in '09, and $3.4 million in '10. After that he is available to hit free agency in 2011.

2. When it comes to the salary of offensive linemen in the NFL, Peters ranks pretty low. Last year, Walter Jones of the Seahawks earned $ 5,000,960, Willie Anderson of the Bengals earned $ 6,452,040, Orlando Pace of the Rams earned $ 6,452,040, and Chris Samuels of the Redskins earned $ 5,450,000. That is just the tackle position - forget the guards.

3. Where team salary is considered, Peters ranks third behind Derrick Dockery and Langston Walker.

4. This year Peters was named to his first Pro Bowl, and was named second team All-Pro. Both Walker and Dockery have nary a Pro Bowl or All-Pro between them.

Jason Peters is not a character issue kind of guy; I doubt highly that he would complain openly about a contract that he signed just two years ago. That said, is it wise to give him a raise now and put him more in line with what other franchise-type left tackles are making? Everyone likes to complain that Ralph Wilson doesn’t spend any money; neglecting to pay Peters a salary comparable to those of his peers would only serve to bolster those arguments.

I have argued that I wouldn’t give Corey Williams a big "Dockery" sized contract, mainly because he hasn’t proven that he can be a starter for a full year. It would be hypocritical of me to now say that I would give Peters a huge raise, because he’s had one good year. I would be more willing to pay him like a perennial Pro Bowl player when he proves he is a perennial Pro Bowl player.

Could Peters ask for a raise? Sure. It wouldn’t be motivated by greed or selfishness either. Put yourself in his position: you work for a multi-million dollar company, you work with four other guys, who combined with you make up a very critical part of that company. You handle the most important position in your group - and have received accolades from your peers as being one of the best in the business - yet you aren’t paid like it. In fact, you are third in pay in your department, despite the accolades and the more difficult position you play. It’s human nature to want to be acknowledged, both in respect and in monetary compensation, for your efforts.

I like Peters, and I would try to hold off at least a year before giving him an extension. However if he asks for one in the mean time, it might be difficult for me to say no.

This FanPost written by a registered user of Buffalo Rumblings.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

not right now

I think everyone in Buffalo would be happy if the Bills extended Peters, but the Bills have too much work this offseason to worry about it now. I would approach Peters and his agent during the season to talk extension. If you can't work anything out during the 2008 season, no big deal. You can always try again during the 2009 season before Peters enters the final year of his contract.

by kaisertown on Feb 11, 2008 4:19 PM EST 0 recs

Easy for you to say

We're not talking about your salary.
What if he asks for a raise?

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Feb 11, 2008 5:05 PM EST up 0 recs

Well

Most people who ask their bosses for raises get laughed at. I said the Bills should approach him during this season about an extension. If he can't wait until then, he can sit at home and watch his team play on TV for the next three years while he doesn't earn a penny.

by kaisertown on Feb 11, 2008 11:52 PM EST up 0 recs

Let me get this right

If the teams best player,(arguably) who is vastly under paid for the position he plays, comes to the the Bills front office and says, "hey, I would like an extension before the season starts."
you would tell him "No, you just signed a deal and you should honer it. Maybe we will talk with you in the middle of the season, and if you don't like it go home and make nothing."
thats asking for trouble.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Feb 12, 2008 9:30 AM EST up 0 recs

Absolutely

I certainly wouldn't word it like I did though. i would just tell him that he is an important part of the team and that we want him to be here for a long time. I would tell him that free agency is coming and the draft isn't too long after that. We have players without any contract at all that we want to bring in or bring back and they have to come first. I would tell him that an extension is coming, just not right now and that we will be in touch with his agent once training camp starts.

If he responds to that by saying that he will hold out if he doesn't get a new contract then I will say that I'm sorry to hear that, but fines start the first day of training camp.

My whole point is that the Bills have as much (probably more) leverage than Peters does.

by kaisertown on Feb 12, 2008 11:31 AM EST up 0 recs

Do you remember London Fletcher?

He didn't complain one bit about his contract, he played, and played well for this franchise for several years. When his contract expired he was quite angry that the Bills never approached him about an extension. He felt that he was under paid and the Bills took advantage of that, which they did. Any chance that the Bills could resign him went out the window, (of course they didn't want to, so it didn't hurt.)

I know Peters isn't Fletcher, but if the Bills ride this contract too long, it could come back to bite them.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Feb 12, 2008 11:44 AM EST up 0 recs

Peters has three years left

If the Bills wait until Peters' contract expires, I will be more pissed than Peters himself. I am just saying that the Bills should be in no rush. They should try to extend him during the season when the front office has less pressing things to take care of. Even if they can't come to an agreement this year(2008), then they still have an entire year(2009) to work something out before Peters even enters the last year of his current contract(2010). An Extension might not give Peters a raise soon anyways. Depending on what the Bills offer, it might only add years to his current contract (albeit at a hefty price) and Peters will get a big bonus for agreeing to the deal. I don't see why this is such a big deal (or even being discussed) right now.

by kaisertown on Feb 12, 2008 1:12 PM EST up 0 recs

I get what you're saying

All I'm saying is that, it would be beneficial to all parties involved (Team, Player, and Fans) to get Peters locked up long term as soon as possible.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Feb 12, 2008 1:51 PM EST up 0 recs

probably

I basically agree with your point. I just think the Bills have plenty of more important things they can spend their time doing.

Offering an extension can be a risky idea. Sending too low of an offer would do more damage than not offering anything at all. Thats why I think you ease into talks when you have less things on your plate. The Bills can give Crowell's and Peters' agents much more time and energy to discuss extension once training camp is in full swing. The players know they are playing for an extension early in the season too. Added motivation is always a good thing.

My memory may be wrong here, but how often are players extended during the offseason? It feels like most extensions occur late in training camp right before the preseason starts, or while the season is in full swing. Justin Tuck just got one during the playoffs. The offseason simply isn't the time to talk extension, there is too much other stuff going on.

by kaisertown on Feb 12, 2008 3:17 PM EST up 0 recs

Those last few points are good ones.

But, I think you're not seeing the "forest for the trees" or "forest through the trees" or however that expression goes.

Buy extending him now, in this offseason, you're beating a year of "inflation," which starts with the upcoming FA period in a few weeks. It's always, always, always cheaper to pay now rather than later.

Also, you'd be sending a message to all that Buffalo isn't some two bit, makeshift organization. Pair that up with Jauron's stellar reputation, and it might be the deciding factor on a player or two in FA.

by krytime on Feb 12, 2008 5:15 PM EST up 0 recs

about Peters' contract

(NOTE: as usual, pardon my english, it's not my mother tongue)

The Bills made a huge gamble a couple of years ago signing Peters for 5 years. He was still learning the new position, he has about a year of experience as OL. He has still to show his full potential. AND he was an undrafted FA.
Imagine if Peters would have regressed in 2006, instead of emerging as a possible Pro Bowler: the Bills would end up paying more than $2 million a player that is neither a TE nor an OL.

I imagine that Peters is well aware of the gamble the Bills made with him, so I would be surprised if he asks for a new contract anytime soon.

by patamunzo on Feb 11, 2008 5:29 PM EST 0 recs

Extension Talk

I would say that the Bills approach his representatives this Nov. after he has played half the season and they are sure he is healthy after the groin injury and that he is playing at the same level he did this year.

I wouldn't be surprised if they end up extending his deal to the length of Dockery's and take on an additional bonus that puts his yearly salary over the remainder of the contract somewhere below Walter Jones, but better than most guys playing his position.

So how done was Pat Williams when we let him go Tommie boy??? Stick a fork in him level right?

by WABillsfan on Feb 11, 2008 6:24 PM EST 0 recs

Extensions aren't always beneficial

Extending a player who has a good number of years left on his contract comes with a number of risks.

The biggest risk is time. Three years is a long time in the NFL and the turnover is great. Some players age a lot quicker then others (Eric Moulds comes to mind) and some suffer career changing injuries (Takeo Spikes). Players become disgruntled (McGahee anyone?), coaches change, schemes change (e.g. switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4), players rapidly lose production (e.g. Shaun Alexander, Dante Culpepper, etc...), or nagging injuries build up (see Dan Morgan from Carolina or Jason Webster with the Falcons and Bills).

Ideally it would be great to lock up all your key players way before they hit free agency, but realistically it may not be the smartest move. Could you imagine if they gave Peters a huge new contract today and tomorrow he suffers an injury like Spikes? Or he goes from a Top 11 rated player at his position to a total bust the next year? (yes that was a JP comment - not that I think he is a bust, but for the sake of making a point, lets assume that he is). Or what if he gets a new contract and then pulls a McGahee and wants out? It would be a lot harder to trade a player that has a high cap number and a long term contract then it is to trade a guy that only has one or two years left on a modest deal.

I'm not saying that any of this would happen to Peters (or Peters would do any of this), but the simple fact is, there are a lot of uncontrollable variables out there.

The other reason - oddly - is money. Many argue that teams should lock up their own players early before they get close to free agency and want the big bucks - the idea is to give them more now to pay less later. Well that's exactly what the Bills did a few years ago with Peters: They saw a star in the making and they wisely (how often can we say that?!) signed him to a contract extension. Now we have a perennial pro-bowler signed for three more seasons at a modest salary and we want to throw away that smart managerial move with giving him a new fat contract? Kind of defies one of the primary benefits of extending a player doesn't it?

Now I'm not saying extending a player is bad, or shouldn't be done. Quite the contrary, I'm all for it. I was against giving Schobel a new deal (because he had just gotten one), but I understood the reason why he had to get a new one. I liked that TD extended McGee a while back and wish the Bills could have done that to a number of other players over the years. I hope Crowell gets extended this season and even though Evans has a few years left, because he had a down year, it may be a wise choice to extend him while his star isn't at his highest potential point. I love Peters, but I think this team has a lot more to worry about then rewarding a player who has three years left on his previous extension with a fat new contract. Next off-season would be the earliest I would talk about it, and even then I may be inclined to wait until 2010. If he pushes the issue (which I don't think he would do in this position) then I would tell him that he's in the Bills long-term plans and next off-season may be a more appropriate time to talk about it. Bottom line, extend Crowell and Evans this off-season (and maybe Greer and Jackson sometime before or during the season) and worry about the other extensions down the road. Be aggressive in free agency, have another good draft and good things will come!

John I.

by jri111 on Feb 12, 2008 12:37 AM EST 0 recs

Thats a duel edged sword my freind

If the Bills don't even acknowledge that Peters should get more money, and treat him poorly (in Peters eyes) he then becomes disgruntled. It's like I said in my example, he's easily the best lineman and paid not much more then Fowler, and way less than Dockery and Walker. That would make me pretty mad, if they ignore him and say sorry kid honer your deal and live with it, it may be the last one he signs with the Bills.

Man do I miss #78

by sireric on Feb 12, 2008 6:55 AM EST up 0 recs

Sireric is in my head.

You have taken the words out of my mouth. Well done.

This is the line that says it all, and if anyone disagrees with it, they're lying:

/It's human nature to want to be acknowledged, both in respect and in monetary compensation, for your efforts. /

OTs are different than other positions. It's generally not a postion of prima-donnas. And when you have a great one, you know it early in their career. And the great ones last a long time.

Many, many football people are saying Peters can be a great one. I mean, he made 2nd team All Pro after playing what, twenty some games at the position? And the All Pro team isn't a fan stuffing ballot box. It's the real deal.

As to the injury argument, that's ridiculous. Anyone can get hurt, anytime.

Why is there some sense of begrudgement towards Peters getting more money? He's young, he's really good, he's getting better, and he is underpaid. Lock him up for a long time. And then see if he has any other relatives who are a freakishly gifted and want a try-out with the Bills.

Here's a question for ya all - of all the Bills on the current roster, who has the greatest chance of getting in to the Hall of Fame? My guess is Peters.

(Note - please do not take this as to me saying Peters should be in Canton on Tuesday morning. I'm just saying...)

by krytime on Feb 12, 2008 1:13 AM EST 0 recs