Hey Al: Stop messin' with our draft pick

[MoLewisrocks]

Just to clarify, is the rookie salary cap going to be in the 2011 draft? if it's not, I'd rather low teens (11-15) then 1-5.

There will be because it will either be part of a new CBA or there won't be one and the owners will make the rules as suits them whether football is actually played or not.

Al has a big gaping hole at QB. Thing is he also has some other holes to fill including on defense and if he trades away draft picks to land McPuke he's not going to be able to fill those. That team is set to cap implode come 2011 when the cap returns. They won't be able to afford 2 QB's and a DE and a CB all making double digits...and still field 49 other guys who can play in the league...

At the end of the day for some reason Donovan McNabb hasn't been able to make a difference in Philly where he's surrounded by talent and we're always told competent coaching and management. Going to the black hole isn't going to make him or them that much better... I've never bought in to how smart Reid is. He's really allowed himself to be set up as the fall guy here if this trade goes down and Kolb stumbles out of the gate or gets injured. Then there's the whole dynamic of how do you handle a once again pissed off McNabb if you don't pull the trigger and he's in his final season...

 

[supafly]

Just to clarify, is the rookie salary cap going to be in the 2011 draft?

if it's not, I'd rather low teens (11-15) then 1-5.

We're not sure if there will even be a season, as the negotiations are up in the air. The owners could lock the players out, or force the players association to agree to the best possible offer on the table--or even strike.

There figures to be some possible legal issues, as it may even be determined by the courts eventually, although they may continue playing while it's being determined. The rookie salary cap is one of the issues that will be looked at heavily, and some assume it'll be re-negotiated for a new CBA. If it's going to be changed, it'll likely be the best time to do it--since they'll be looking at the problem issues.

My opinion is if there's a new CBA, there will also be a rookie cap. It's too unfair for an unproven NFL player to come in and automatically have one of the league's top salaries. Where that extra money will go, owners or players, is an issue in itself.

EDIT: sorry Mo, didn't mean to re-answer, as you beat me to it.

 

[BradyManny]

Al has a big gaping hole at QB. Thing is he also has some other holes to fill including on defense and if he trades away draft picks to land McPuke he's not going to be able to fill those. That team is set to cap implode come 2011 when the cap returns. They won't be able to afford 2 QB's and a DE and a CB all making double digits...and still field 49 other guys who can play in the league...

I hope this line of thinking is correct.

But we can't underestimate one factor - and that is Al Davis & his unpredictability. The Seymour trade alone shows he is willing to go for broke and potentially do something to hurt his team long term to get a player who may end up being there just one season.

[Now, if the Raiders get more seasons out of Seymour, and we only get a mid 1st round pick, I'll say they at least had a draw, and maybe won in that exchange.]

But back to the point - Al Davis is just plain nuts and he may be the one guy who would pull a trigger on a deal such as the one mentioned for McNabb. And while, I agree, long term, it may be disastrous for their team - short term, they definitely get better, and thats bad news for us.

 

[spacecrime]

[Now, if the Raiders get more seasons out of Seymour, and we only get a mid 1st round pick, I'll say they at least had a draw, and maybe won in that exchange.]

Why would our trade be affected by whether the raiders get more seasons out of Seymour?

it was commonly acknowledged that the Pats could not afford Seymour AND Wilfork, and still be able to re-sgin guys like Bodden, Brady, etc.

So the trade was:
DO the pats get:
a) one year (2009) of Seymour, or
b) five years (2011-2015) of a first round pick?

If you (not you personally, the general 'you') think Syemour would have made the difference and would have brought us to teh superbowl in 2009, then it was a bad trade in your eyes.

If you think we wouldn't have gone to the superbowl in 2009 wven with Seymour, then if whoever we get doesn't help get us to the superbowl in 2011-2015, then it was a draw. Didn't hurt, didn't help. If we get to the superbowl with the help of this future pick, then it was a good trade in hindsight. I don't think it needs to be a top 10 pick. It just needs to be a difference maker.

 

[Nikolai]

Teams usually always at the bottom sooner or later will rise and some teams that are always at the top at some point will fall,its inevitable...So someday the Raiders could actually be better than the Pats....maybe not this year but sayin...

Point taken. I do see where you're coming from, though I also tend to see such a scenario as far-fetched for this year.

Teams usually always at the bottom sooner or later will rise

I counter with this: Detroit

 

[jmt57]

Don't forget the Pats would have received a compensatory pick for Seymour if/when he walked as a free agent had they not traded him to Oakland.

So really the trade was:
a) one year (2009) of Seymour with the Pats, traded for
b) moving up in the 2011 draft from about pick #98 (compensatory pick) to what will probably be between #5 - #20 (Raiders pick.)
There was also a relatively small cost savings in 2009 (Seymour's $3.7 million '09 salary), which will obviously be more than offset by the cost difference of those two 2011 picks.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why would our trade be affected by whether the raiders get more seasons out of Seymour?

it was commonly acknowledged that the Pats could not afford Seymour AND Wilfork, and still be able to re-sgin guys like Bodden, Brady, etc.

Who has "acknowledged" that load of drivel? The Patriots could have kept all of those players and still been financially fine.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't see the Raiders winning more than 5-6 games without McNabb. At this rate, JaMarcus Russell might have to go to Vince Wilfork for dieting advise. Russell could report to camp in big Vince's weight range if he keeps on packing on the lbs.

The Raiders have a huge hole at QB, but a huge advantage at O-line since it looks like they will have a left tackle playing QB. They have talent elsewhere, but a leadership void and a lack of desire by a lot of players.

If the Raiders add McNabb, they might win 8 games but I still wonder who he will throw to. Zach Miller seems to be the only legitimate receiver they have and he is a TE. Darrius Heyward Bey may turn it around his second year, but he seems unmotivated and lost.

 

[supafly]

Who has "acknowledged" that load of drivel? The Patriots could have kept all of those players and still been financially fine.

That's what I was thinking too, especially by taking advantage of frontloading in the uncapped year etc.

If they were going to make a possible play for Peppers etc, then they could've figured out how to afford both. They simply chose not to.

 

[Rob0729]

Who has "acknowledged" that load of drivel? The Patriots could have kept all of those players and still been financially fine.

Odds were very likely the Pats would not have kept both. Wilfork is paid as one of the top dlinemen in the league and Seymour would be looking for a similiar contract if not more. Doubtful that the Pats would have paid both players that much.

There is no guarantee that the Pats would have let either Seymour or Wilfork walk this offseason if the Pats didn't trade Seymour, but the odds that they would have are probably far greater than 50%. Seymour would have had to take a hometown discount to stay which is unlikely. It could have happened, but I wouldn't bet on it especially since the Pats were hamstrung in that they couldn't sign either guy until the start of the new football year and they could only franchise one of them.

To think the Pats could have easily kept both players is a little unrealistic. The Pats would have some decent cap issues if they had two of the top paid defensive linemen in the league with Brady due to be paid one of the highest paid QBs in the league within a year's time. If the new CBA has any stagnation in growth of the cap, the Pats might have been torn apart within a year or two of a new CBA.

Without the trade, the likely outcome this offseason would have been where the Pats are today. They would have Wilfork under contract and Seymour would be on another team. Yes, they would have had another year of Seymour, but they wouldn't have an extra first. If Seymour was the difference between what they did and a Super Bowl last year, I would be upset. But I didn't think he was.

If the Pats realistically thought they were going to resign both Seymour and Wilfork this offseason, Seymour probably doesn't get traded last offseason.

 

[Rob0729]

That's what I was thinking too, especially by taking advantage of frontloading in the uncapped year etc.

If they were going to make a possible play for Peppers etc, then they could've figured out how to afford both. They simply chose not to.

First we don't know what the Pats' interest in Peppers was and what they were willing to offer. Since Peppers never seriously considered the Patriots deal, it wasn't close to what the Bears were offering. They could have been offering him far less in hopes that the Bears get cold feet and Peppers scrambled to get a new deal. Since the Pats were looking at him as an OLB, they might have been offering him top OLB money which is far less than top DE money.

Second, there is only so much you can front load in an uncapped year. There are some rules preventing it.

Third, even if the Pats intended on trying to keep both players, they only had one franchise tag and no cap room to get either under contract before the football year. That means one guy was going to hit free agency no matter what. No guarantees that if Seymour hit free agency, that he ever would have resigned even if the Pats wanted him. They could get a deal done in principle, but it couldn't be official until the new football year meaning that other teams would have tampered with him and driven up his price or convinced him to leave. Unless of course he took a hometown discount.

Again, I still think if the Pats were seriously considering resigning Seymour and Wilfork, he would be on the team right now.

 

[Deus Irae]

Odds were very likely the Pats would not have kept both. Wilfork is paid as one of the top dlinemen in the league and Seymour would be looking for a similiar contract if not more. Doubtful that the Pats would have paid both players that much.

There is no guarantee that the Pats would have let either Seymour or Wilfork walk this offseason if the Pats didn't trade Seymour, but the odds that they would have are probably far greater than 50%. Seymour would have had to take a hometown discount to stay which is unlikely. It could have happened, but I wouldn't bet on it especially since the Pats were hamstrung in that they couldn't sign either guy until the start of the new football year and they could only franchise one of them.

To think the Pats could have easily kept both players is a little unrealistic. The Pats would have some decent cap issues if they had two of the top paid defensive linemen in the league with Brady due to be paid one of the highest paid QBs in the league within a year's time. If the new CBA has any stagnation in growth of the cap, the Pats might have been torn apart within a year or two of a new CBA.

Without the trade, the likely outcome this offseason would have been where the Pats are today. They would have Wilfork under contract and Seymour would be on another team. Yes, they would have had another year of Seymour, but they wouldn't have an extra first. If Seymour was the difference between what they did and a Super Bowl last year, I would be upset. But I didn't think he was.

If the Pats realistically thought they were going to resign both Seymour and Wilfork this offseason, Seymour probably doesn't get traded last offseason.

Would not and could not are two very different things. What the Patriots could have done was sign both Wilfork and Seymour. What the Patriots chose to do was make a bad trade instead. And, if you don't think Seymour would have made that defense significantly better than it was, you're fooling yourself.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Who has "acknowledged" that load of drivel? The Patriots could have kept all of those players and still been financially fine.

The who would be everyone but you. And the assumption you make is just your uninformed opinion. The team you love to point to that spent $150M more in payroll than NE over the last 5 seasons is really a nonsensical comparison since they take in $45M more in revenue and have managed to win exactly nothing - not even their division once in the last decade - in the process.

As for Peppers, the team reportedly kicked his tires on a one year deal only. And they didn't extend Wilfork until after they were rebuffed. Had they signed Peppers they might have not extended Wilfork or had to find some other way to construct his contract to accommodate both signings that would have possibly impacted their ability to get that deal done or get a deal done with Brady and possibly Mankins. The Krafts don't have the kind of revenue stream that allows them to hand out double digit signing bonuses and guarantees like candy. Snyder on the other hand does... If the cap comes back, that thing you love to refer to as merely an accounting tool comes back, and if there is a new CBA it will be with one, Snyder will be dumping players who have pocketed millions just to free up cap so he can spend more cash over cap foolishly. That's not good business and it's doesn't lead to good football either...

 

[VJCPatriot]

It depends on what the Raiders give up for McNabb. If it's only their high 3rd round pick, then this is a no-brainer for them. If it's their high 1st or 2nd, then I think they will hesitate to pull the trigger. And I doubt they would give up both their 2nd this year and their 2nd in 2011, because then they wouldn't have ANY picks until day 3 of the 2011 draft!!

 

[Deus Irae]

The who would be everyone but you. And the assumption you make is just your uninformed opinion. The team you love to point to that spent $150M more in payroll than NE over the last 5 seasons is really a nonsensical comparison since they take in $45M more in revenue and have managed to win exactly nothing - not even their division once in the last decade - in the process.

The team was millions under the numbers because of all the expiring contracts, money was not an issue, particularly since it ended up as an uncapped year, and my comment was not opinion, but factual based upon the previous cap numbers. But you keep spouting off if it makes you feel better.

Furthermore, as far as the Redskins go, I don't point to the money as some sort of holy grail, but to point out that the Patriots could easily have spent more than they did "under the cap". I know you like to buy into the 'hard' cap number as if it means something, but a $150 million difference shows that it really doesn't. After all, it's not as if you're talking about 1 year's worth of signing bonuses here. As for "That would be everyone but you", you're simply wrong, as this thread itself shows, without my even having to cite to outside sources.

As for Peppers, the team reportedly kicked his tires on a one year deal only. And they didn't extend Wilfork until after they were rebuffed. Had they signed Peppers they might have not extended Wilfork or had to find some other way to construct his contract to accommodate both signings that would have possibly impacted their ability to get that deal done or get a deal done with Brady and possibly Mankins. The Krafts don't have the kind of revenue stream that allows them to hand out double digit signing bonuses and guarantees like candy. Snyder on the other hand does... If the cap comes back, that thing you love to refer to as merely an accounting tool comes back, and if there is a new CBA it will be with one, Snyder will be dumping players who have pocketed millions just to free up cap so he can spend more cash over cap foolishly. That's not good business and it's doesn't lead to good football either...

I didn't mention Peppers, and you're speculating again.

As for the revenue stream that the Krafts have, you're simply wrong there. They were #5 in the NFL in revenues the last I read. They have the money to pay out the bonuses. Furthermore, Belittling the Redskins model is stupid. The problem there isn't the money being spent, it's how wisely it's spent, because the ability/willingness to spend more money can, and does, translate into better chances to win as long as you've got competent people doing the spending. We see that in Baseball with the Red Sox and Yankees, just to point to the most obvious example, and we recently saw that with the Celtics, when they went out and bought a title by taking on huge contracts with Allen and Garnett.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm going to look as the glass as half full. Raiders trade multiple draft picks/players for McNabb. McNabb blows out his knee in training camp. Team doesn't have the new draft picks, nor McNabb and finish 3 and 13. Patriots pick FIRST and LAST in Round 1. Dreaming, nothing more than dreeeeeeeeeeaming, trying to forrrrrrrget my..............la la la la.

It's Bad Karma to wish injury on another team's player in the "What goes around comes around" category...so, I'm disavowing your wish and hoping that the Karma gods hear me...

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Let's just hope that trade doesn't go through. The Raiders have a fair amount of talent, to be honest - they are just a disaster of an organization, though. McNabb would be enough to turn them into a .500 team and pretty much destroy that Seymour trade.

That might be an overstatement, especially in terms of value for dollar. Let's look at the numbers. The Raiders have won five games in each of the last two seasons with abysmal production at QB. McNabb has got to be good for at least three and probably four wins, just by virtue of his game knowledge and physical abilities.

Last year, five wins got the Raiders the number seven pick. The eight win Broncos picked at 12. The nine win Texans picked at 15. I'm not sure what the value difference among those picks actually is. The point value of the seven pick is 1,500. The 12 pick is valued at 1,200 and 15 at 1,050. Unless they're targeting someone in particular, I'm not sure that would "destroy" the Seymour trade. In fact, it's not out of the question that they might end up getting the same guy for less money.

 

[spacecrime]

Don't forget the Pats would have received a compensatory pick for Seymour if/when he walked as a free agent had they not traded him to Oakland.

So really the trade was:
a) one year (2009) of Seymour with the Pats, traded for
b) moving up in the 2011 draft from about pick #98 (compensatory pick) to what will probably be between #5 - #20 (Raiders pick.)

Excellent point. I missed that. Thanks!

 

[Rob0729]

Would not and could not are two very different things. What the Patriots could have done was sign both Wilfork and Seymour. What the Patriots chose to do was make a bad trade instead. And, if you don't think Seymour would have made that defense significantly better than it was, you're fooling yourself.

It is only a bad trade if you think the Pats were going to definitely resign both Seymour and Wilfork and that is very debatable at the very least. If Seymour wanted top dollar in a new deal like he is reportedly asking for with the Raiders, the Pats made the right decision. He is still very good, but no longer elite.

I still think long term this was a good trade for the Pats and bad short term trade. I know you said before that even if the Pats get the next Tom Brady or Lawrence Taylor with the Raiders' draft pick that you still think it was a bad trade, but I couldn't disagree more.

Yes, the defense would have been better with Seymour, potentially significantly. But woul the 2009 team been a Super Bowl team? I seriously doubt it. I also don't think the Pats could have kept Seymour without grossly overpaying for him which could hurt the team in efforts in other areas. I also don't think there was a guarantee that the Pats could have kept both Wilfork and Seymour even if they wanted to if another team tampered with Seymour before the start of free agency.

 

[Spiral]

Reid says he wants a "top 42" pick for McNabb, so we can be reasonably sure no one is giving up a #1 for him. Let's figure Oakland's #39 is enough to do the deal.

Here's a question--would you trade Seymour for McNabb? Each player has one year left on his contract.