To be fair, I was wanting rid of Peters back in December after the Jets game. Things were a lot different then, in a bad way.

They suspended him, it seemed to work, and now we move forward. I would think he would want to sign where the team that gave him his chance resides.

Peters will be the new Revis.

He will sign with the team that pays him (rightfully so) as a trasendant talent.

I’m going to work so I can’t link it. But it’s on their audio vault from yesterday. I’ll look for it later.

Fescoe said on 610 AM this morning that Terez said Peters is probably not going to sign here.

http://www.610sports.com/media/audio...-marcus-peters

At 4:45

The original poster talking about the segment where they actually played the audio from December said that Terez “doesn’t think” Peters wants to be here.

If it’s true, it still sounds like speculation. I just put more trust into Terez’s speculation than Florio and La Canfora.

A reporter could actually talk to Peters, but that would probably take some effort as opposed to making crap up at your desk and sending out a tweet to generate hits and retweets.

Doesn’t matter if he doesn’t want to sign here. Trading him in his prime while you still have him under a cheap contract is ****ing stupid.

Exactly my thoughts. It’s not like it will effect his play when he’s playing for a contract either way.

Who cares?

2 years left on rookie deal then franchise him.

No reason to trade a transcendent corner in today’s nfl unless you get a quality pass rusher/CB AND A PREMIUM DRAFT PICK.

Peters is probably in Oakland.

Oakland won't be in Oakland by the time he's a FA.

The fact that rumors are happening now make me wonder if Clark really does want him moved. Is he hurting the business? Is Andy done with him bc Sutton is done with him? Are they just reaching out to see what the market would be for a trade?
Grunhard also made a good point that with 2 more years paying Peters in a cheap deal, he would be more marketable. Is that a factor?

If Veach knows that Peters won’t sign here then he needs to maximize the return, which means getting at least a 2nd (1st?) for him instead of only 3rd rd comp pick for letting him walk. Ideally a trade would happen at the earliest, this time next year.

Right now these are just rumors, but if in 3 weeks we find out that this was true, or the Chiefs do trade Peters, it would clearly signal that management gave up on him.

Trading Peters now just to get rid of him would be just as stupid as trading Alex Smith was smart.

If you're getting something ridiculous for him, Ok. Let's see what offers are there.

Otherwise, keep him for the next three years and let some other team overpay for his decline years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought they had phones in Oakland.

Best way to maximize Peters value would be keeping him and franchising him one year then letting him walk and taking the third.

At the rate he’s going, that’d be 6 years of play, 50 turnovers produced and paying him not a whole he’ll of a lot