Speculation of the Seymour Trade

[mgteich]

1) Perhaps Seymour once again threatened to sit out if he didn't get extended. Perhaps this time, Belichick was not giving in.

2) Perhaps, Belichick is fine with Wright at DE. He signed him to a long-term contract after all. He also has Green for this year as Pryor develops. If Belichick is OK with this situation, then he believed that the value of the trade was well worth it. Besides, for Belichick, this is more 2010 free agent situation solved.

3) And yes, as a bonus, money will be available this year for minor extensions, and perhaps for Gostkowski. Mankins and Wilfork are likely issues for 2010. After all, Mankins may be an RFA and Wilfork can be franchised.

 

[SVN]

if there were issues BB wouldve dealt him earlier than a week before the opener.
i think its a simple case of raiders calling the pats knowing the contracts of the players and making an offer which BB thought he would never get again.

 

[JoeSixPat]

... and perhaps Seymour holds out again, refusing to report and effectively pulling the plug on the trade

It's not a done deal til he passes the physical, which can be tough to do if you're a few thousand miles away from the team doctor.

 

[mgteich]

Perhaps, but Oakland and the pats have been talking for weeks. Perhaps Belichick could have made this trade earlier, perhaps wanted to make the deal on his timetable (one might recall Milloy). Also, perhaps there was a recent comment by Seymour.

if there were issues BB wouldve dealt him earlier than a week before the opener.
i think its a simple case of raiders calling the pats knowing the contracts of the players and making an offer which BB thought he would never get again.

 

[DarrylS]

read somewhere that Wilfork, Warren or one of those guys said they were expecting this.. so there is, as usual, more to this picture than meets the eye..

Sorry cannot be more specific, but a lot has been written on this in the last couple of days...

 

[JD10367]

Well, given Seymour's history with them, I'm sure the Pats didn't consider him a "team player". Translation: he had balls, and stood up to them, LOL.

He's almost 30. He's been slipping a bit. He's not as good in the 4-3. He's in his final year. They knew they probably weren't going to be able to keep both Wilfork and Seymour, and obviously valued Wilfork more. They're deep enough on the D-line to absorb his loss with the least impact. (Note: I'm not saying they won't miss him, or wouldn't be better with him. Of course they would. But the dropoff without him, considering the other talent on D, obviously wasn't worth his cost or losing the chance to get a 1st-rounder for him.)

The Pats are all about value. It would be nice to have A+ players at every position, with A- players backing them up. It's not realistic. Hell, most teams don't have ONE A+ player, let alone more than one, let alone backups better than a C+. On the D-line, they had a lot of A+ and A starting, and a lot of B+ backing up. That's a lot of cash. They must've figured they weren't getting value, having Seymour starting and having the backup guys ride the pine.

The problem with this trade is the injury unknown. It's like the Red Sox, every frickin' season. If I hear, in April, the words "the Sox are loaded with starting pitching" ONE MORE TIME I'm goin' postal. Every April we hear about how they have "six or seven MLB-quality starters!" And every August we're bemoaning the lack of starting pitching as it cripples their chances. Yeah, it looked good in April... until Smoltz and Penny washed out, Daisuke turned into a $50M albatross, the 78-year-old Wakefield got dinged up, and now Beckett has magically lost it. So, from where we now sit, it's easy to say th D-line is deep and can weather the Seymour-less storm... until the Bills game, if (God forbid) Green and Wright both go down with season-ending injuries, then suddenly we're screwed.

I still like the trade. They got a 1st--potentially a high 1st--for a guy who was probably walking after this season. A guy who's approaching 30 and whose best years are probably behind him. They drafted him 6th IIRC, got many Pro-Bowl years out of him, won three Super Bowls with his input, and traded him for what might be--a 6th. You can't ask for better than that. (Unless it's Randy Moss for a swindle, LOL.)

I would be willing to bet the Pats weren't LOOKING to move Seymour. But maybe the Raiders called with, to quote the great Don Corleone, an offer they couldn't refuse. Look, we love the players on the team, but no one's untouchable for the right price. Not even Brady, probably. Think about it: the way Cassel stepped in last season, with Brady coming off a bad injury... if someone had called Belichick in March and said, "We'll give you this years 1st and 2nd, next years's 1st and 2nd, and 2011's 1st and 2nd, for Tom Brady," Belichick WOULD entertain that deal. It's what he does best: putting the team first, putting them in position to be successful down the road, and making sure they're not a one-year wonder like the Bucs and Raiders in '02.

As the Pats players like to say, "It's a business."

 

[shmessy]

If the Patriots win it all this year, there WILL be an upcoming lockout. The other team owners will not want to face this franchise going forward.

 

[jbb9s]

if there were issues BB wouldve dealt him earlier than a week before the opener.
i think its a simple case of raiders calling the pats knowing the contracts of the players and making an offer which BB thought he would never get again.

do you really think Oakland initiated this? I was thinking the exact opposite. BB knows how desperate Al Davis wants to win and baits him with a Pro Bowler who was going to walk after this year anyway.

Why didn't Oakland demand a sign & trade deal - how do they know they can even retain Sey after the season?

 

[Pats726]

If the Patriots win it all this year, there WILL be an upcoming lockout. The other team owners will not want to face this franchise going forward.

I just don't think the Pats winning it would sway the owners one way or another...they look at the bottom line...MONEY and how to generate a lot...There are plenty of OTHER issues that are far more important.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Well, given Seymour's history with them, I'm sure the Pats didn't consider him a "team player". Translation: he had balls, and stood up to them, LOL."

Balls=Greed and badmouthing your coach? Too funny.

 

[shakadave]

Seymour's Real Value

Here's another way to look at it: Perhaps the Patriots got tired of being gouged @ top dollar to pay Seymour for an average of half a season per year. Some articles and posts quote stats on how many games Seymour has missed, and the number's not THAT high, but that's missing the point. There are many many more games he has played in while less than 100%.

When we put an injured Seymour on the field (which we've done lots and lots of times), yes that's nice that he's courageously fighting on, blah blah blah, but still we're getting nothing much more than a Mike Wright or Jarvis Green result for our salary dollar. In my view --- great as Seymour is when he's healthy --- due to the amount of games he's been 100% for, he's been one of our most overpaid players in recent years.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Well, given Seymour's history with them, I'm sure the Pats didn't consider him a "team player". Translation: he had balls, and stood up to them, LOL.

He's almost 30. He's been slipping a bit. He's not as good in the 4-3. He's in his final year. They knew they probably weren't going to be able to keep both Wilfork and Seymour, and obviously valued Wilfork more. They're deep enough on the D-line to absorb his loss with the least impact. (Note: I'm not saying they won't miss him, or wouldn't be better with him. Of course they would. But the dropoff without him, considering the other talent on D, obviously wasn't worth his cost or losing the chance to get a 1st-rounder for him.)

The Pats are all about value. It would be nice to have A+ players at every position, with A- players backing them up. It's not realistic. Hell, most teams don't have ONE A+ player, let alone more than one, let alone backups better than a C+. On the D-line, they had a lot of A+ and A starting, and a lot of B+ backing up. That's a lot of cash. They must've figured they weren't getting value, having Seymour starting and having the backup guys ride the pine.

The problem with this trade is the injury unknown. It's like the Red Sox, every frickin' season. If I hear, in April, the words "the Sox are loaded with starting pitching" ONE MORE TIME I'm goin' postal. Every April we hear about how they have "six or seven MLB-quality starters!" And every August we're bemoaning the lack of starting pitching as it cripples their chances. Yeah, it looked good in April... until Smoltz and Penny washed out, Daisuke turned into a $50M albatross, the 78-year-old Wakefield got dinged up, and now Beckett has magically lost it. So, from where we now sit, it's easy to say th D-line is deep and can weather the Seymour-less storm... until the Bills game, if (God forbid) Green and Wright both go down with season-ending injuries, then suddenly we're screwed.

I still like the trade. They got a 1st--potentially a high 1st--for a guy who was probably walking after this season. A guy who's approaching 30 and whose best years are probably behind him. They drafted him 6th IIRC, got many Pro-Bowl years out of him, won three Super Bowls with his input, and traded him for what might be--a 6th. You can't ask for better than that. (Unless it's Randy Moss for a swindle, LOL.)

I would be willing to bet the Pats weren't LOOKING to move Seymour. But maybe the Raiders called with, to quote the great Don Corleone, an offer they couldn't refuse. Look, we love the players on the team, but no one's untouchable for the right price. Not even Brady, probably. Think about it: the way Cassel stepped in last season, with Brady coming off a bad injury... if someone had called Belichick in March and said, "We'll give you this years 1st and 2nd, next years's 1st and 2nd, and 2011's 1st and 2nd, for Tom Brady," Belichick WOULD entertain that deal. It's what he does best: putting the team first, putting them in position to be successful down the road, and making sure they're not a one-year wonder like the Bucs and Raiders in '02.

As the Pats players like to say, "It's a business."

An excellent post! Love the analogy to the red Sox starting pitching. Spot on!

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Seymour's Real Value

Here's another way to look at it: Perhaps the Patriots got tired of being gouged @ top dollar to pay Seymour for an average of half a season per year. Some articles and posts quote stats on how many games Seymour has missed, and the number's not THAT high, but that's missing the point. There are many many more games he has played in while less than 100%.

When we put an injured Seymour on the field (which we've done lots and lots of times), yes that's nice that he's courageously fighting on, blah blah blah, but still we're getting nothing much more than a Mike Wright or Jarvis Green result for our salary dollar. In my view --- great as Seymour is when he's healthy --- due to the amount of games he's been 100% for, he's been one of our most overpaid players in recent years.

No.........

 

[Fencer]

read somewhere that Wilfork, Warren or one of those guys said they were expecting this.. so there is, as usual, more to this picture than meets the eye..

Sorry cannot be more specific, but a lot has been written on this in the last couple of days...

Wilfork (I think) said Seymour has been half-expected something for months (i.e., "... wouldn't be surprised if ... ")

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Seymour's Real Value

No.........

I think he means that, in the context that Seymour is usually either out or playing hurt, that he is overpaid. This isn't valid simply because it's difficult to predict injuries, and players a paid based on percieived talent, and the needs of the team.

 

[jeffbiologist]

While we are speculating....when was the last time the Pats spent BIG $$?? I mean there have been no big-time FA moves and no extensions for over a year now, since the Moss extension. I think with the roster turnover and movement of bigger $$ players they are in a serious cost-cutting crunch. Only 24 players remain from the 07 season! We are rebuilding like the Lions and Raiders......WHY? We put value in future draft picks yet we trade away picks for guys that dont make the team and cut guys after a year that do....WHY? This certainly diminishes the value of picks faster than we can accumulate more....

 

[ctpatsfan77]

While we are speculating....when was the last time the Pats spent BIG $$?? I mean there have been no big-time FA moves and no extensions for over a year now, since the Moss extension. I think with the roster turnover and movement of bigger $$ players they are in a serious cost-cutting crunch. Only 24 players remain from the 07 season! We are rebuilding like the Lions and Raiders......WHY? We put value in future draft picks yet we trade away picks for guys that dont make the team and cut guys after a year that do....WHY? This certainly diminishes the value of picks faster than we can accumulate more....

If you look at most teams, I don't think you'll find many where there are even 30 players the same from two years ago.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

While we are speculating....when was the last time the Pats spent BIG $$?? I mean there have been no big-time FA moves and no extensions for over a year now, since the Moss extension. I think with the roster turnover and movement of bigger $$ players they are in a serious cost-cutting crunch. Only 24 players remain from the 07 season! We are rebuilding like the Lions and Raiders......WHY? We put value in future draft picks yet we trade away picks for guys that dont make the team and cut guys after a year that do....WHY? This certainly diminishes the value of picks faster than we can accumulate more....

WHY, WHY, WHY??? Try the uncertain labor situation and our committment to sound fiscal discipline whatever circumstances arise. Kraft keeps referring to it as the rationale but no one wants to listen, apparently. BTW I'll take this teams/organizations record over the last 8 or even last 4 years to anyone else's. It's not about draft pick values, it's about constructing and maintaining a consistent contender in a shifting environment through all possible means. There are a small handful of teams who do that well. We are one of them, arguably the best of them all things considered.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If you look at most teams, I don't think you'll find many where there are even 30 players the same from two years ago.

Remember two years ago in the wake of their superbowl when Indy fielded a roster with 19 rookies and everyone was calling Polian the real genius...most of them are gone now. He did what he had to do. Same as Bill. Manning's wristband now includes not only the plays but the names of his teamates (and coaches). There is more than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Seymour's Real Value

Here's another way to look at it: Perhaps the Patriots got tired of being gouged @ top dollar to pay Seymour for an average of half a season per year. Some articles and posts quote stats on how many games Seymour has missed, and the number's not THAT high, but that's missing the point. There are many many more games he has played in while less than 100%.

2001: 13/16 games
2002: 16/16 games
2003: 15/16 games
2004: 15/16 games
2005: 12/16 games
2006: 16/16 games
2007: 9/16 games
2008: 15/16 games

That's 14 games per year. Seymour's games played is not only 'not THAT bad'- it's actually pretty good.

And every NFL player plays *most* of his games at less than 100%. Ty Warren hasn't been anywhere close to 100% for 2 solid years thanks to shoulder and groin injuries. That's just the name of the game, so at least be consistent in your criticisms. Wilfork gets dinged up just as regularly as Seymour. Whoever replaces Seymour will get hurt. All you can ask your guys to do is play hurt and stay effective, and Seymour does that.

I think you guys are all searching deeper than you need to for a reason. It was a very simple equation, and all of this miscellaneous crap on the side probably doesn't enter into it. Seymour in 2009 + 3rd in 2011 vs. no Seymour in 9 + 1st in 2011. It's that simple.