Rotoworld: Seymour wants new deal from Raiders (Report)

[Disco Volante]

Lack of long-term deal likely holding up Seymour trade

NFL.com's Jason La Canfora writes that he'd be "very surprised" if Richard Seymour reports to the Raiders without a new contract.

Seymour only has one year left on his old deal. La Canfora says he "gets the strong sense" that Seymour is willing to sacrifice weekly game checks as negotiations go on. It's unclear if the Raiders even approached Seymour about a mega contract, however. After surrendering a future first-round pick, Oakland risks not having the defensive end for Week 1 and beyond.

Sep. 7 - 8:42 pm et

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Lack of long-term deal likely holding up Seymour trade

Too funny. I just mentioned this a few minutes ago in one of the other half dozen Seymour threads.

I am putting the over/under at 10.5 on them.

 

[mgteich]

It would seem that Seymour is still a patriot.

Lack of long-term deal likely holding up Seymour trade

 

[BradyFTW!]

Doesn't this make sense for Oakland anyways? It's not like they traded a first for 1 year of Seymour, so you kinda had to assume that they had an extension in mind too. They don't want him to hit the FA market either...

 

[Disco Volante]

Would make sense to me.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I'm pretty sure if they can't get an agreement with Seymour, the trade is off. It's a good move on his part because he wants to secure his future for him and his family. I'm sure he doesn't want to move across the country for a year and than move again.

 

[Reckedtrek]

It would make perfect sense for a team to want to sign him for at least 3 or 4 years. But then again, perfect sense and the Raiders rarely mix.

 

[WhiskeyBreath]

He's smart. He knows that organization has given out big money to far lesser players than he is.

 

[Kontradiction]

...and this is what we would have been dealing with in a year. Seymour's trade will hurt us in the short term, but at least we got an outstanding amount of value for him.

 

[billdog3484]

the raiders will give him the money..they have to

 

[Reckedtrek]

...and this is what we would have been dealing with in a year. Seymour's trade will hurt us in the short term, but at least we got an outstanding amount of value for him.

Absolutely, 100 percent correct!

 

[Patsrock]

I'm pretty sure if they can't get an agreement with Seymour, the trade is off. It a good move on his part because he wants to secure his future for him and his family. I'm sure he doesn't want to move across the country for a year and than move again.

I believe the only way it is off, is he if doesn't show up.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

the raiders will give him the money..they have to

Hell, if I was Seymour I would be looking for big dough to play for Oakland. With an extra mil or two a year just for living in the bay area.

 

[wahwho]

He's smart. He knows that organization has given out big money to far lesser players than he is.

Not only that, but a year in Oakland won't exactly help as much as a year in New England if he did end up hitting free agency next year...you get big contracts joining the Raiders, not leaving them.

 

[Fencer]

Unsurprising if true. And he has every right to do it.

I just hope the Pats don't back off the trade value received in order to facilitate a deal. I'm hopeful that they won't.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I believe the only way it is off, is he if doesn't show up.

or if he fails his physical (which he won't).

 

[Fencer]

On the other hand, holding up the Raiders for a long-term contract is very much a "Be careful what you wish for ..." kind of proposition.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I believe the only way it is off, is he if doesn't show up.

If what we are hearing is true, Seymour wants a new deal. And if Seymour doesn't get what he wants, he won't report and the trade will void. I don't see the Pats giving him the "5 day to report" letter because he than becomes property of the Pats and he would sit out the entire year assuming he doesn't report in 5 days. One thing is for certain, he won't be a Patriot in 2009. Wouldn't surprise me if this gets ugly.

 

[Gwedd]

I believe the only way it is off, is he if doesn't show up.

Nope, IIRC, once the trade is signed and passes muster with the NFL, if the player doesn't show up it's the other team's problem and not New England's, unless failure to report is written as an invalidating clause. Also, IIRC, the only way that failing a physical invalidates the trade is if such a requirement is written into the contract. If Oakland didn't have that written in, it's their own darned fault.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Nope, IIRC, once the trade is signed and passes muster with the NFL, if the player doesn't show up it's the other team's problem and not New England's, unless failure to report is written as an invalidating clause. Also, IIRC, the only way that failing a physical invalidates the trade is if such a requirement is written into the contract. If Oakland didn't have that written in, it's their own darned fault.

Depends on how it's written. It may be that the Pats transferred all rights to Oakland, in which case it is now officially Oakland's problem, or it's possible that they haven't, in which case it might still be New England's problem.