FanPost

Jason Peters, Buffalo's front office and the power of choice

"There is always choice.  We say there is no choice only to comfort ourselves with the decisions we have already made." - B5

 

Mistakes made

There has been a lot of discussion of late about Jason Peters and a potential trade within the next few weeks that would end his contentious tenure in Buffalo.  The line has been drawn and sides have been taken.  Some say "trade him!"  Others yell "pay him!"  One of the two camps will apparently get their wish in the next couple of weeks.    

Some, who are privy to knowledge of the situation at One Bills Drive, say that a resolution is imminent.  Either Buffalo caves into Peters demands and makes him the highest paid left tackle in football or Peters is traded.  That's it; those are the only two remaining options.  Valid arguments have been made to support this position.  Buffalo is in "win now" mode, everyone's job is on the line this year.  The signing of T.O. was a public acknowledgement by the front office and coaching staff that anything short of a playoff appearance will not suffice.  They do not want another distraction caused by a lengthy holdout - nor do they want Peter's absence to hinder the performance of the offensive line.  They simply can not afford to play 2009 with a short-deck.  

It has also been hinted that Peter's hard-line position - he refuses to negotiate down from his demand to be the highest paid left tackle - forces Buffalo to make a decision:  Pay him, trade him, or suffer the consequences of a holdout.  Because it is evident that Buffalo will not tolerate a holdout, their choice has been reduced to the two options that have already been enumerated:  Trade him or pay him.

I am here to argue that there are, or at the very least, should be, more than those two options.   Buffalo should not put itself in position to be forced to make a false choice between unfavorable outcomes.  The circumstances surrounding the negotiations do not dictate a need to be forced into such a position.  In poker terms, at the beginning of the off-season, the Bills held all of the cards.  They had a 27-year old, two-time Pro Bowl left tackle under contract for two more seasons.  They would have the exclusive option of keeping him for a third season, thanks to the franchise tag.  By then, Peters would be a disgruntled lineman on the wrong side of 30.  In contrast, the only real card Peters held was the threat of a holdout.  But Peters had to know that, ultimately, that was not a good option.  The Bills, if they were patient (and maybe slightly vindictive) could make him play out the remaining 3 years in Buffalo and he couldn't do much about it.  Financially, Peters couldn't afford another pedestrian season or two. 

Unfortunately, in poker terms - and in negotiations - Buffalo has done something that it should never have done, they showed their hand.  Peters now knows pretty definitively that Buffalo will do everything in their power to avoid a holdout.  He knows that the front office and coaching staff must win now and that they are unwilling to ride out the effects of a holdout.   All of a sudden, Peter's sole card went from a three of diamonds to an ace of spades.  If he knows Buffalo will do everything in their power to avoid a holdout (including trading their Pro Bowl, 27 year old franchise left tackle), than a holdout he will give them.  Peters is playing his card.  He up'd the ante.

Changing the game

Buffalo committed the ultimate mistake in negotiations 101:  They voluntarily gave up something they were not required to.  By taking the hard-line approach off the table (not giving in to the potential of a holdout), they kicked the door wide open for Peters to play his card and force Buffalo into a decision they ultimately did not want to have to make:  Pay him the money he is demanding or trade him to avoid the holdout. 

Unfortunately, for Buffalo, they can not pick up their cards after they put them on the table.  They are out there.  They have already been seen.  The damage has already been done.  But, I'm here to tell you something:  Although the Bills are not in the position they would like to be in, they are not restricted to the two self-imposed options. 

The quote at the beginning of this piece is something I heard years ago and it has been something that has affected every aspect of my life.  Sometimes we say there is no choice, not because there really isn't, but because we refuse to acknowledge the other choices out there.  We have made our decision and we look to justify it by saying that there is no choice.   But we always have other choices, even if we don't see them or refuse to recognize them. 

The Bills have other choices, aside from trading Peters or paying him.  They can call Peter's bluff.  They can up the ante.  They can go all-in.  Peters knows Buffalo is not willing for a holdout because losing him would harm the team's performance.  Quite frankly, the team does not have someone that could step in Peter's shoes and play at a high-level.

But what if Buffalo did?  What if Buffalo drafted an offensive tackle in one of the first two rounds of this year's draft and did not trade Peters.  Almost instantly, Peter's value to the team that he is committed to for the next three years has been drastically reduced.  Peters can still hold out, and in the mean time, his replacement can get all the reps he desires during mini-camp, training camp, pre-season and, if it comes to it, the regular season.  The better the rookie performs, the more Peter's value diminishes.  Peters will have a decision to make, continue the hold out and lose millions of dollars each game he misses, or get into camp, play good solider and hopefully put together a dominate season on his resume for future negotiations. 

Will it work?

Now, of course there are a lot of potential pitfalls.  I tried to briefly address a few of the more common questions that would arise. 

What if the rookie doesn't pan out? 

If the rookie fails, Peters would likely have even more power in negotiations than he does now.  But the same "urgency" that has forced the coaching staff to rule out the hard-line approach can be used to justify it.  The rookie fails and Peters is in a better position, so what.  If the Bills trade Peters, they'd likely have a rookie starting in his place anyways.  If that rookie failed, the coaching staff is likely gone anyways.  Why not do something that will help you immediately (keeping Peters on the roster) and long term (getting him signed long-term at less than what he's asking for now - or alternatively, find his replacement).

Can the Bills afford to use a high pick on an offensive tackle with Peters still on the roster?

Maybe not, but there are ways to get creative.  The Bills coaching staff values offensive linemen with versatility.  They also have a hole at left guard.  Why not draft a guy (someone like Michael Oher) that can play guard and left tackle.  If Peters doesn't show up to camp, Oher is your left tackle.  If Peters sees that Buffalo has called his bluff and shows up, then Oher is your left guard.  Either way, the Bills front-line is all the better.

Are the Bills willing to put up with the "distraction" caused by a potentially contentious hold out? 

Therein lies the question.  They have not shown that they are willing to and that's what got them into this mess.  But the good thing about life is that it gives you opportunities to correct the mistakes of your past.  Will Buffalo take advantage of their opportunity? 

Conclusion

The organization has been aggressive this off-season, something that has been lacking in years past.  They have shown a spine, and for that, I salute them.  I implore them to use that new-found backbone.  Call Peter's bluff.  Go all in.  

Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.