PFT: If Seymour doesn't report, Raiders will want their pick back

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

I found this on another board. it relates to the failed Suggs trade thewaylifeshouldbe has been referencing. It is from a legal blog about the NFL trade policy. I apologoize if this has already been posted here.

Link

Good find, Texan. I couldn't get the link to work for me though.

I think this possibility is pretty slim of happening. But this trade thing is getting worrisome with nothing coming out of the Seymour camp.

If he was willing to play for big money, you would think there would be some movement on his part by way of agent statement to the effect, or being in the Bay area by now. You don't get big money when you act like you don't want to be there. Crabtree is still holding out, but he is in San Fran working out.

Al Davis is not going to quietly slip into the night and let Sey just sit home in Mass. with his 5 day letter sans his first round pick.

The league is not going to make teams accept a trade when they can't even get the player in for a physical. They will reverse this deal. Those that think that would be the wrong precedent should think about the precedent set if the league were to allow for it.

The longer Sey stays here and does not get to Oakland, the more this thing starts showing signs of messiness. I don't think he ever plays another down for the Patriots, but if we find ourselves having to trade him elsewhere because of our mess we don't have much leverage doing it.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Good find, Texan. I couldn't get the link to work for me though.

try this... Sports Law Blog

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I found this on another board. it relates to the failed Suggs trade thewaylifeshouldbe has been referencing. It is from a legal blog about the NFL trade policy. I apologoize if this has already been posted here.

Link

Maybe ole Al is still crafty and figured Seymour would never think about joining his pathetic Raider organization thereby sticking it to the Pats for the Moss deal in the process ......

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Maybe ole Al is still crafty and figured Seymour would never think about joining his pathetic Raider organization thereby sticking it to the Pats for the Moss deal in the process ......

You may have a point. Al is an old bahstid but he's a a vindictive old bahstid for sure.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Hell, the Pats and Raiders may go the way the Broncos and Buccaneers did with Plummer;

Rework the deal to a 7th rounder if Sey retires or never shows, then file a joint grievance against Sey and recoup some money.

 

[furley]

I wonder if Seymour reacts in this manner if the trade didn't involve a future first round pick.

In my opinion, Seymour is under contract and the Patriots did a business move in the best interest of the team. NFL players know that no one player is above their team and can be subject to a trade or cut at any time as long as it doesn't prohibit the team moving forward in any way financially in the dramatic sense. If feelings get hurt or the new destination is undesirable. Tough. You take the good with the bad in the sport's world. That's life. As a fan or an observer, you've to draw into question the player's character and who's in fact advising (the agent) them on important decisions. Personally, if I were a player, I could speak bias and one-sided in my viewpoint. But it's better to try to speak objectively as possible. And I see this as business as usual. Seymour might dislike getting traded to Oakland, but he could look at it also from New England's point of view. It isn't (I don't think) as if the Patriots had in their minds to stick it to Seymour. Has anyone thought that perhaps Oakland offered New England the best offer (first round pick) right now. This is a windfall for the Patriots. Conversely, I'm of the opinion that Seymour is going to delay this trade as long as he's able to. Because it makes no sense to me why a player would not comply to a trade. Especially, if the Patriots presumingly informed him of the trade prior to officially accepting it from Oakland. No, Seymour is behaving like a diva as oppose to a professional. He's under contract... However, if Seymour and agent weren't notified in a prompt manner of the trade being in the works. Then I don't want to entirely condemn Seymour on this. Any trade should have to be done in good faith between all parties involved.

 

[patfanken]

I'll try this again.There are only 2 ways that this trade unravels. One if Seymour fails his physical, the other is if he retires. THAT'S IT. Other than those 2 reasons this trade is COMPLETE, if not finalized, from the Pats point of view. If Seymour refuses to report, and doesn't retire, then his is subject to the much talked about 5 day letter, which comes from the team that owns his rights, and at this moment, THAT team is the Oakland Raiders.

But like BB has stated, and I paraphrase, "Seymour is Oakland's problem, not ours." The trade has been COMPLETED and recognized as a legitimate transaction by the NFL. The ONLY caveat, is if Seymour fails his physical. THAT'S IT. By not reporting he is in violation of his contract, and Oakland has to handle it just like they would with any other player of THEIRS, that refused to work.

Lets not make this into more than it is. The Suggs case doesn't apply. Its two different things. The Suggs trade was rescinded because he was damaged goods. That is NOT the case with Seymour....to our knowledge

 

[Metaphors]

The league is not going to make teams accept a trade when they can't even get the player in for a physical. They will reverse this deal. Those that think that would be the wrong precedent should think about the precedent set if the league were to allow for it.

If the deal is reversed, this gives every player in the league an implicit no-trade clause. Just don't show up and the league has to reverse the trade. Can't do it for Seymour and not do it for the next guy.

The league steps in when one of the parties does not act in good faith. I've heard nothing to suggest that the Pats did anything less than proper. Seymour not reporting to Oakland now is no different than a 1st round draft pick signing a contract but then deciding not to show up. Does the league invalidate the draft selection, give the team an extra 1st round pick and make the player a free agent or put him back in the draft the next year? Nope, because the player has a legal obligation to play for the team that selected him or be declared in violation of his contract. Could the team lose a valuable asset and get nothing in return? Yep (paging Mr. Crabtree).

And that is the situation with Seymour. He is in violation of his contract. With Oakland. Unless the Patriots did something wrong (didn't disclose an injury, some other hanky-panky), they are out of this equation.

Invalidating a trade because the player is unhappy and decides to pout? What's next? Forcing a team to pay a player more just because their family is hungry?

 

[patfanken]

If the deal is reversed, this gives every player in the league an implicit no-trade clause. Just don't show up and the league has to reverse the trade. Can't do it for Seymour and not do it for the next guy.

The league steps in when one of the parties does not act in good faith. I've heard nothing to suggest that the Pats did anything less than proper. Seymour not reporting to Oakland now is no different than a 1st round draft pick signing a contract but then deciding not to show up. Does the league invalidate the draft selection, give the team an extra 1st round pick and make the player a free agent or put him back in the draft the next year? Nope, because the player has a legal obligation to play for the team that selected him or be declared in violation of his contract. Could the team lose a valuable asset and get nothing in return? Yep (paging Mr. Crabtree).

And that is the situation with Seymour. He is in violation of his contract. With Oakland. Unless the Patriots did something wrong (didn't disclose an injury, some other hanky-panky), they are out of this equation.

Invalidating a trade because the player is unhappy and decides to pout? What's next? Forcing a team to pay a player more just because their family is hungry?

Exactly!!!!!

 

[Metaphors]

Exactly!!!!!

Sorry. If I saw your post, all I needed to do was :ditto::agree::yeahthat:

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I'll try this again.There are only 2 ways that this trade unravels. One if Seymour fails his physical, the other is if he retires. THAT'S IT. Other than those 2 reasons this trade is COMPLETE, if not finalized, from the Pats point of view. If Seymour refuses to report, and doesn't retire, then his is subject to the much talked about 5 day letter, which comes from the team that owns his rights, and at this moment, THAT team is the Oakland Raiders.

But like BB has stated, and I paraphrase, "Seymour is Oakland's problem, not ours." The trade has been COMPLETED and recognized as a legitimate transaction by the NFL. The ONLY caveat, is if Seymour fails his physical. THAT'S IT. By not reporting he is in violation of his contract, and Oakland has to handle it just like they would with any other player of THEIRS, that refused to work.

Lets not make this into more than it is. The Suggs case doesn't apply. Its two different things. The Suggs trade was rescinded because he was damaged goods. That is NOT the case with Seymour....to our knowledge

Seymour might still be the Pats problem if Oakland fails him once he reports for his physical.

Anyone know how long before the Raiders have to issue the 5 day letter?

 

[slash83]

According to ESPN.com's John Clayton, the Richard Seymour trade has been riddled with communication issues.
No surprise here with the Raiders involved. Seymour was never contacted by Oakland during trade talks to gauge his position on the Raiders. Now the Raiders and Patriots are in a stalemate over which team should send Seymour a letter ordering him to report to Oakland. There's still a chance that the league will have to intervene if Seymour stays home.
Source: ESPN.com

Fantasy Football, Baseball and Basketball - news, projections, rankings, draft guide - Rotoworld.com

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

If the deal is reversed, this gives every player in the league an implicit no-trade clause. Just don't show up and the league has to reverse the trade. Can't do it for Seymour and not do it for the next guy.

The league steps in when one of the parties does not act in good faith. I've heard nothing to suggest that the Pats did anything less than proper. Seymour not reporting to Oakland now is no different than a 1st round draft pick signing a contract but then deciding not to show up. Does the league invalidate the draft selection, give the team an extra 1st round pick and make the player a free agent or put him back in the draft the next year? Nope, because the player has a legal obligation to play for the team that selected him or be declared in violation of his contract. Could the team lose a valuable asset and get nothing in return? Yep (paging Mr. Crabtree).

And that is the situation with Seymour. He is in violation of his contract. With Oakland. Unless the Patriots did something wrong (didn't disclose an injury, some other hanky-panky), they are out of this equation.

Invalidating a trade because the player is unhappy and decides to pout? What's next? Forcing a team to pay a player more just because their family is hungry?

I could see the league reversing this trade and making sure future trade rules are adopted in the future CBA or NFL bylaws.

The argument being made here is that the Raiders may try to take the avenue of not being able to perform a physical, which is tantamount to any trade being final.

Look at it this way. If we send our first to Carolina for Peppers, and he never shows and sits home....do you think the Patriots are just going to sit him for the year and try to get some bonus money out of him? Or do you think they get a legal team down to the NFL offices saying "Hey, we have no approved physical, trade never finalized"?

There is no history of this situation that the league ever needed to rule on. Plummer was different because he retired.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Lets not make this into more than it is. The Suggs case doesn't apply. Its two different things. The Suggs trade was rescinded because he was damaged goods. That is NOT the case with Seymour....to our knowledge

Did you read this Ken? It is from a legal blog on the NFL's trade policy. See link above in post #242. The Suggs deal may be different but as far as any of us can tell the policy for these physicals and what is required of the receiving team has not changed. How does this not put the deal in jeopary from the Pats perspective IF Al Davis sours on it and decides RS isn't passing the physical?

Two teams negotiate for the terms of a player’s reassignment, and once terms are “final,” the traded player reports to his new team. Only at that point does the new team conduct a medical examination of the traded player. The team gaining the player then faces a dichotomous choice: either declare the player has “failed” the physical, invalidating the trade, or declare that he has “passed,” such that the terms of the trade become finalized. Notably, the team conducting the physical does not have the option to renegotiate terms of the trade based on troubling, but not necessarily fatal medical discoveries. In addition, the team giving up the player has limited or no right to challenge the medical determination made by the acquiring team.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I could see the league reversing this trade and making sure future trade rules are adopted in the future CBA or NFL bylaws.

The argument being made here is that the Raiders may try to take the avenue of not being able to perform a physical, which is tantamount to any trade being final.

Look at it this way. If we send our first to Carolina for Peppers, and he never shows and sits home....do you think the Patriots are just going to sit him for the year and try to get some bonus money out of him? Or do you think they get a legal team down to the NFL offices saying "Hey, we have no approved physical, trade never finalized"?

There is no history of this situation that the league ever needed to rule on. Plummer was different because he retired.

I agree and would hope that the Pats are being very proactive with the league suggesting that they intervene and make a decision on how to handle this impasse quickly and with fairness so that the Pats don't end up losing the services of Seymour for any longer than need be should the league believe their is any chance the trade might be nullified.

 

[moosekill]

According to ESPN.com's John Clayton, the Richard Seymour trade has been riddled with communication issues.
No surprise here with the Raiders involved. Seymour was never contacted by Oakland during trade talks to gauge his position on the Raiders. Now the Raiders and Patriots are in a stalemate over which team should send Seymour a letter ordering him to report to Oakland. There's still a chance that the league will have to intervene if Seymour stays home.
Source: ESPN.com

Fantasy Football, Baseball and Basketball - news, projections, rankings, draft guide - Rotoworld.com

I believe that the team who wants to get the player can not talk to the prospective player, it is called tampering. Remember back when Bledsoe was being traded. The Pats didn't let him talk to the Bills, and there was much speculation that the Bills gave a lower pick because of it.

Then again ESPN is always right, especially Clayton.

 

[pao]

Th

4) The trade can only be voided if Seymour fails a physical.

Sounds like Oakland may be having cold feet regarding a seemingly idiotic trade. What's to keep them from simply telling their doctors to fail Seymour?

 

[pao]

This better get resolved soon.

Contrary to what some think, Davis and the Raiders can easily void this deal if they grow disenchanted and their medical team gets its hands on Seymour.

Each team has it's own medical guidelines apparently, and all the Raiders neeed to establish is that Seymours physical condition does not meet their needs.

See Lee Suggs:

Yes, exactly. This assumes that the Raiders realised what a crappy deal this is/was.

 

[pao]

I found this on another board. it relates to the failed Suggs trade thewaylifeshouldbe has been referencing. It is from a legal blog about the NFL trade policy. I apologoize if this has already been posted here.

Link

Interesting.

 

[Ring 6]

Is it possible that if Seymour somehow fails his physical in Oakland that he would not want to play for BB again and the Pats will end up with no draft pick AND no Seymour? Perhaps BB will have to try to trade him somewhere else. Hopefully this does not happen and he reports to Oakland and passes his physical.

You almost sound like you are rooting against Belichick. Am I misunderstanding?