Felger on Seymour's Contract extension

[ctpatsfan77]

Franchising for 8 mill would add up to 65.756 mill over 5 years, because you would increase 20% per year.
Even 7 mill would turn into 58 mill.

Actually, it would cost even more than that: once a team franchises a player a third time, the team automatically has to pay them at the top 5 average for quarterbacks.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Franchising for 8 mill would add up to 65.756 mill over 5 years, because you would increase 20% per year.
Even 7 mill would turn into 58 mill.

And don;t forget - after year 2, any player, regardless of position (even Adam V. had we franchised him) converts to the QB franchise rate - followed by its own 20% bump each year.

We can use the franchise to eek another year or two out of a tough to sign player, ensuring that we're not on the hook for any more than a year at a time - but if we hope to keep a player long term one must reach a long-term agreement.

Don't forget too that players don't often take kindly to being franchised - they'd prefer the long term security that goes with a signing bonus rather than playing a season risking their career to injury. That would certainly play into your ability to attain an agreement with a player post-franchise tag.

 

[Miguel]

Actually, it would cost even more than that: once a team franchises a player a third time, the team automatically has to pay them at the top 5 average for quarterbacks.

FWIW- very minor nitpick - the 3rd year the player has to be paid at top 5 average of the highest position. While the quarterback position is usually the highest paid position, there have been some years in which other positions were higher.

 

[arrellbee]

Like, I think it was t-shirt in another thread, I have gracefully given up trying to guess what the Pats will do. But it is interesting to think about the tradeoffs and see how they make them.

As F.B.N. mentioned, it will be interesting to see how the issue of whether Seymour "is" a DE or DT plays out. Officially (all web sites: Pats, NFL, CBS, ESPN, SI) Seymour is listed as a DT. You can guess that the Pats will try to leverage that, but I can't see it really having any effect - Seymour will be considered by ALL other teams as in the DE contract level and so the Pats really don't have a choice, either.

While, as I say, I won't be surprised at much of anything, I actually will be more than a little surprised if the Pats can do an extension with Seymour this year.

Considering that this is a funny money year, any contract that Seymour and his agent would insist on relative to this year's money has to be out of sight for the Pats. I really don't think they will overpay for anyone, even Seymour.

And the temptation for Seymour's agent, not to mention probably Seymour, to test the open market seems irresistable. I really don't think Seymour will settle for a hometown discount of any amount.

From the Patriots standpoint, while this is a funny money year, next year has all the earmarks of being a much tighter year in terms of free agent money available, so the Pats will be slightly more likely to get a better deal for Seymour next year. However, it only takes ONE team to pay huge bucks and there is likely to be at least one team with the money to do so.

The one leverage that the Pats have is to use, or say they will use, the franchise tag - ESPECIALLY if they can make it stick as a DT franchise amount. If they do that as a DT, I'm sure that will end up in arbitration with even a real possibility that, if he doesn't win, Seymour would refuse to sign the franchise offer and just sit out a year.

 

[BionicPatriot]

As long as we can still breathe, pay him. When we let go of players, we never let go of young studs who go out and dominate somwhere. Givens is the only one, but that's because Branch/Seymour need new deals. We CANNOT let this man walk. The defense is a whole nother level when he is on the field. bruschi and the LBs are only as good as the rock infront of them. Get it done, PLEASE. I can live with losing old vets because that never came back to bite us. Losing a young HOF like this will.

 

[Dirtywater]

Based off nothing but his recent actions, I have the feeling he wants to and will test Free Agency.

Looking back, though I don't think he harbors a grudge, all he had to do was take the funeral of his father (or was it his grandfather?) and the way he then had to sit instead of start as proof of that. Combine that with all the Pats who are leaving and getting paid and I just have a hunch he will test the waters.

And we all know the waters are far richer outside of NE. He's already won his rings, now it's time for the contract, and to be honest, I can't fault him for that. You only have a small window in professional sports. Considering how it is a business, I have to say he walks.

With that said, he'll always have a place in our hearts as the monster player he is.

 

[jct]

Seymour

We just have to hope that he can stay healthy in the future.
(He didn't in the past)
And also that he will honor his contract.
(He didn't in the past)

 

[Miguel]

As F.B.N. mentioned, it will be interesting to see how the issue of whether Seymour "is" a DE or DT plays out. Officially (all web sites: Pats, NFL, CBS, ESPN, SI) Seymour is listed as a DT. You can guess that the Pats will try to leverage that, but I can't see it really having any effect - Seymour will be considered by ALL other teams as in the DE contract level and so the Pats really don't have a choice, either.

Those sites do not matter. What matters is what position the CBA says that Seymour play. If the Pats try to classify Seymour as a DT, they will lose based on what I know.

 

[Miguel]

http://www.patscap.com/seymour.htm

is my latest prediction for seymour's contract.

 

[arrellbee]

Those sites do not matter. What matters is what position the CBA says that Seymour play. If the Pats try to classify Seymour as a DT, they will lose based on what I know.

YES !!

CBA: "at the position at which he played the most games during the prior League Year"

I presume that in a 3-4 set that the 'outside' D linemen are regarded as ends - regardless of which gap they line up in. ... ? Or could it be argued that there are two tackles and an end ??

 

[BBelichicken]

I saw in the Steve Hutchinson deal there was a clause that guranteed him to be the highest paid lineman on the team, and also i've heard of other players demanding such clauses as "must be one of the five highest paid defensive players in the leauge throughout the length of the contract." Do you guys know which players in the NFL have those kind of clauses in their deals? And do you think the pats would ever give Seymour a deal like that? Seems unlikely to me given the injuries in his past

 

[Miguel]

Do you guys know which players in the NFL have those kind of clauses in their deals?

I never heard of a player having such a clause.