Hey Al: Stop messin' with our draft pick

[troybrown80]

Maybe the Patriots offered their second this year and their own 1st rounder next year. If Oakland were to take this deal, it would weaken their ability to draft a high pick player, but would help their cap. Next year they would get their 1st round pick back. If another team made this offer, it would probably help the Patriots a little bit since the Raiders wouldn't be drafting as high.

 

[jmt57]

There is a rumor that a team has offered Oakland a second round pick this year and a first round pick next year for Oakland's first round pick this year (8th overall). I wonder who that team might be? Let see the Patriots own Oakland's pick next year and have a couple extra 2's available.

Look it up in the San Francisco Chronicle (3/30/2010)

A link and a quote from the article:
SFGate: Raiders Silver and Black Blog : Raiders' first pick in demand

The Raiders simply do not have a history of trading down from its first-round perch. They'll trade the spot away for a star player (Seymour, Randy Moss) but Raiders owner Al Davis doesn't have a track record of moving down the order for another pick.

So what does this have to do with Donovan McNabb?

According to reports, the Eagles would want a top-42 pick for McNabb. The Raiders currently pick 39th in the second round. Let's assume that's what it would take.

If the Raiders were to accept the aforementioned draft trade, here's what it could mean: they could give Philly their No. 39 pick, then use the other team's second-round pick in April. And, instead of picking No. 8 overall in this draft, they'd have a first-round pick in next year's draft. Nothing lost, just deferred.​

​

 

[Patjew]

I like stories.

 

[ausbacker]

Given that I haven't made that argument, why would I start making it now?

If you're going to try telling me that you don't know who the Patriots gave contracts and extensions to from the end of 2008 through the beginning of this year's free agency, I'm simply going to refer you to Google, Patriots.com, the local papers and the like. You've got to be kidding me with this.

Wow.

Just, wow.

Seymour was traded for a draft pick. He was not traded for a player, cash, or frequent flier miles. The return on the trade is a pick, somewhere from #1-#32, in 2011. It's not in a player. The player gotten is irrelevant. The deal doesn't get better or worse depending upon who's gotten with the pick. The deal will be the same whether they draft the next tom Brady or the next Ryan Leaf.

The irony of you calling my post cheating is very amusing, so thank you for that. However, given the players you assert to be better than Seymour, you'll have to forgive me for not buying into this complete load of crap. It was a lousy deal for the Patriots.

Not a problem.



And the Patriots defense was missing a run stuffing DE and inside pass rushing. Hey, what was it that Seymour provided to the team? Oh, yeah.... run stuffing from the DE position and an inside pass rush.

By no means am I confusing you with someone else. Prior to this past year, you were generally a level headed, objective poster. This season, you decided to go the way of MoLewisRocks and far too many others, who suddenly couldn't handle even the most obvious criticisms of Belichick. You may not have gone down the path as far as some others have, but you've traveled it quite a ways. We've gotten into this before, though, and I'm not going to revisit it.

Yeah, you've been reliably wrong on the issue. Congratulations.

Regarding the bold, it's beyond reasonable comment that you can say the player got with the Seymour trade pick is irrelevant. Everything that comes out of that pick is relevant.

I'm not going to pretend I was enamored with what we got for Seymour given in the short term it hurt the side, but you do need to stop whinging about something that is yet to transpire Deus Irae.

 

[Clonamery]

Maybe the Patriots offered their second this year and their own 1st rounder next year. If Oakland were to take this deal, it would weaken their ability to draft a high pick player, but would help their cap. Next year they would get their 1st round pick back. If another team made this offer, it would probably help the Patriots a little bit since the Raiders wouldn't be drafting as high.

It's obvious it's the Jest. They'll throw in another pick too if necessary. Tubby loves that Clausen pickles kid.

 

[spacecrime]

Overall, I tend to agree--but I don't think it's necessarily a 'free' pick. It came with a cost of course, the cost of losing the best 3-4 DE in the game.

for one season in which the Pats went nowhere anyway.

You can say Seymour was the best DE in the league if you want. He was very very good. He helped win two superbowls. But he wasn't the best any more. As someone pointed out, he was often pulled during obvious passing situations. What does that tell you?

Oh, yeah, that's right. It tells you that BB is the stupidest coach in the history of the NFL.

 

[scout]

for one season in which the Pats went nowhere anyway.

You can say Seymour was the best DE in the league if you want. He was very very good. He helped win two superbowls. But he wasn't the best any more. As someone pointed out, he was often pulled during obvious passing situations. What does that tell you?

Oh, yeah, that's right. It tells you that BB is the stupidest coach in the history of the NFL.

Fans/ GM's sometimes look at the Patriots as the model organization for winning championships (thread on N'Orleans Saints). When I look at the best organization for winning championships during a sustained period of time, I look at the 49er's. They had little loyalty or heartfelt pauses when it came to dumping a great player. How many more years did Lonnie Lott play? It was time, for him to go. One of the greatest qb's of all time, see ya. I believe that was before a salary cap.
We got a #1 pick from a habitually top 10 drafting team for a soon to be free agent. Yea, WTF was BB thinking?

 

[Rob0729]

Given that I haven't made that argument, why would I start making it now?

So you are conceeding that the Pats might have given up Seymour for only one year to potentially get a top 5 pick?

If you're going to try telling me that you don't know who the Patriots gave contracts and extensions to from the end of 2008 through the beginning of this year's free agency, I'm simply going to refer you to Google, Patriots.com, the local papers and the like. You've got to be kidding me with this.

I don't need to use Google to find no one. It was a rhetorical question. The Pats haven't given out a big deal since Moss until Wilfork.

Wow.


Just, wow.

People forget the disapointing seasons that Seymour had in 2006 and 2007. Granted 2007 was due to injuries and missing half the season. But I am talking who was better over that three year period, not overall. And in 2008, he was taken out on third downs quite a bit. BTW, Scout Inc. has Aaron Smith ranked higher than Richard Seymour going into the 2009 season. Not the be all and end all of players rankings, but an independent source.

Seymour was traded for a draft pick. He was not traded for a player, cash, or frequent flier miles. The return on the trade is a pick, somewhere from #1-#32, in 2011. It's not in a player. The player gotten is irrelevant. The deal doesn't get better or worse depending upon who's gotten with the pick. The deal will be the same whether they draft the next tom Brady or the next Ryan Leaf.

By this logic, if the Pats trade Adalius Thomas to the Rams for the number one overall pick, the Rams would have outsmarted the Pats. I mean the Rams got a guy who will help improve their defense for frequent flyer miles.

The irony of you calling my post cheating is very amusing, so thank you for that. However, given the players you assert to be better than Seymour, you'll have to forgive me for not buying into this complete load of crap. It was a lousy deal for the Patriots.

Way to deflect

And the Patriots defense was missing a run stuffing DE and inside pass rushing. Hey, what was it that Seymour provided to the team? Oh, yeah.... run stuffing from the DE position and an inside pass rush.

And the Pats were missing an edge rushing OLB. The Pats were missing a true #1 CB. The Pats were missing a solid starting ILB next to Mayo. Hey, what was that Seymour provided this team? Because it wasn't those.

Also, again eventhough you ignored it, Seymour was taken out a lot of the 3rd downs in 2008. How would he help on those downs from the bench.

Again, you are comparing

By no means am I confusing you with someone else. Prior to this past year, you were generally a level headed, objective poster. This season, you decided to go the way of MoLewisRocks and far too many others, who suddenly couldn't handle even the most obvious criticisms of Belichick. You may not have gone down the path as far as some others have, but you've traveled it quite a ways. We've gotten into this before, though, and I'm not going to revisit it.

BS! The only thing that has changed is you. I have not changed my style one bit. You are the one going way overboard on this issue.

Yeah, you've been reliably wrong on the issue. Congratulations.

Well, you did educate me that the Cowboys dynasty of the 90s was built on a stupid trade by the Cowboys who just got lucky that they converted frequent flyer miles for guys like Emmitt Smith and Troy Aikman.

I'm done. You can go on arguing that the Seymour trade was bad because it killed the 2009 season and beyond while whatever the Pats get in return for him is irrelevant because all they got is frequent flyer miles. Even though the world believes the Pats got the better end of the deal (there are plenty of stories on this with analysts saying as much). You just know better than anyone else and guys like Adam Schefter are just Pats homers who will go to great lengths to defend Belichick. I don't have any more time rehashing this issue at this time.

 

[Fencer]

Seymour was traded for a draft pick. He was not traded for a player, cash, or frequent flier miles. The return on the trade is a pick, somewhere from #1-#32, in 2011. It's not in a player. The player gotten is irrelevant. The deal doesn't get better or worse depending upon who's gotten with the pick. The deal will be the same whether they draft the next tom Brady or the next Ryan Leaf.

You're almost entirely correct in that.

However, part of the decision to trade for a pick is an image of who's likely to be available in the draft in question.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Regarding the bold, it's beyond reasonable comment that you can say the player got with the Seymour trade pick is irrelevant. Everything that comes out of that pick is relevant.

I'm not going to pretend I was enamored with what we got for Seymour given in the short term it hurt the side, but you do need to stop whinging about something that is yet to transpire Deus Irae.

its not relevant anymore........it is the same deal either way.......the success of the player is pretty irrelevant......or it is about as relevant as saying 'what if seymour had a career ending knee injury in week 1 of last year?' would the deal not made have been a bad deal then?

hindsight has no value

 

[BradyManny]

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?

That's the thing - it WAS commonly acknowledged, but now that we've gotten to free agency, we see that's just a complete myth. While I know there is no cap this season, it's still the best barometer we have - and the Patriots cap hit, as of now, without trimming the fat, including AD - is $114 million. Even with a Brady extension, that will put them under last year's cap, well under what the 2010 cap would have been, and well under the amount of money Kraft should be and is willing to spend.

This team could have very easily afforded to keep Seymour & Wilfork & Brady & Bodden.

And yes, I do think Seymour could have made a difference last season. While I think the #3WR position may have ultimately done us in, our run defense was questionable down the stretch, and we had no interior pass rush. Seymour was - according to football outsider metrics - our best run defender over the past several seasons, and we know he was our best interior pass rusher.

Just how good Seymour was has been tremendously undersold on this board. He is still probably the best 3-4 end in the league, he was most likely our most valuable defender, and he contributed in many packages, not just the base D. We have not replaced him, yet.

 

[BradyManny]

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

Then looking at their current cap/salary situation, they made an error in judgement. I can't see how someone can look at patscap.com, see $114 million, see that we could easily cut a few unnecessary contracts (AD, Springs, Taylor, etc.), and come to the conclusion we wouldn't have the money to sign Seymour. We most certainly do.

We spent $128 milli last year, and $118 milli the year before. The cap has steadily been rising $10 million a year, as has spending. Kraft should be prepared to spend $138 milli this offseason on the team. I know the CBA and lack of cap clouds things, but I think that's a fair assessment.

If the Patriots cut certain players, that leaves them with about $30 million to spend - even having already extended Wilfork, Bodden & TBC. Even if they put $10 of that in Brady, and another $10 in rookies & summer veteran free agents....that still leaves another $10 million to be spent, with no one to spend it on. They tried to get in on Peppers, but now what's left?

 

[Clonamery]

They tried to get in on Peppers, but now what's left?

Tears of Salt, evidently.

 

[spacecrime]

We spent $128 milli last year, and $118 milli the year before. The cap has steadily been rising $10 million a year, as has spending. Kraft should be prepared to spend $138 milli this offseason on the team.

This assumes that the reason the owners opted out of the CBA was because they were okay with the cap rising $10 a year.

A bsuiness-smart owner would be prepared for the CAP to go down after the new CBA. And a business smart owner would not look to give out too many big signing bonuses before a potential year of no football. Remember, even with a CAP spreading the money over years, in actual fact a signing bonus is paid in full at the signing.

Look at Jerry Jones? Has he spent big this off-season? Has he spent at all? Dan Snyder, the perennial big spender? What's he done?

Go back and check the archives. The talk was of hoping to extend EITHER Wilfork or Seymour. No one espected us to do both. So the Pats extend Wilfork and get a first round pick for Seymour, better than we had hoped.

Sure, it would have been nice to keep Seymour. But Wilfork is younger and a igger future upside.

 

[Rob0729]

Then looking at their current cap/salary situation, they made an error in judgement. I can't see how someone can look at patscap.com, see $114 million, see that we could easily cut a few unnecessary contracts (AD, Springs, Taylor, etc.), and come to the conclusion we wouldn't have the money to sign Seymour. We most certainly do.

We spent $128 milli last year, and $118 milli the year before. The cap has steadily been rising $10 million a year, as has spending. Kraft should be prepared to spend $138 milli this offseason on the team. I know the CBA and lack of cap clouds things, but I think that's a fair assessment.

If the Patriots cut certain players, that leaves them with about $30 million to spend - even having already extended Wilfork, Bodden & TBC. Even if they put $10 of that in Brady, and another $10 in rookies & summer veteran free agents....that still leaves another $10 million to be spent, with no one to spend it on. They tried to get in on Peppers, but now what's left?

First, Seymour could potentially get a deal as big or bigger than Wilfork got on the open market. That would mean that the Pats would have two of the highest paid d-linemen in the league and neither play much on third downs.

Second, who cares what the cap has been growing in the past? The reason why there is an uncapped year is because the league cannot substain the cap growth that it has been getting since the new CBA. To bank on the cap growing at the rate it has been growing is foolish. It isn't going to happen. If you listen to the player's union, the cap may shrink. It is doubtful, but it is pretty much guaranteed to slow in growth by quite a bit. The Pats should not approach this offseason like the there is a cap and it is $10 million more than last year. That is a dangerous risk.

Third, are you sure Seymour would accept an one year deal? Because you don't seem to be much concerned about the future. You don't factor that Brady and Mankins are due to be paid at the top of their positions within the next year. The Pats have other holes to fill in the next few years. Having two of the top paid d-limen who don't play every down doesn't help the cause.

Your argument that the Pats made an error in judgement is flawed. You are only looking at it from this year and making very general assumptions of the future. You are not looking at what another deal for Seymour could cost the Pats on other areas of the team. You can only have so many players getting paid at the top or near the top of their position before it leaves gaping holes.

Not knowing what the cap is and how much money is committed to 2011, are we sure that the Pats can afford to franchise Brady if they have to (assuming a deal isn't done by then) if there no or little increase in the cap from 2009 to 2011 and they resigned Seymour. The Pats would have to give him the exclusive tag and it might be upwards to $20 million based on all the deals for QBs in the last year plus Brees and Manning likely to have deals by then.

 

[BradyManny]

Your argument that the Pats made an error in judgement is flawed. You are only looking at it from this year and making very general assumptions of the future. You are not looking at what another deal for Seymour could cost the Pats on other areas of the team. You can only have so many players getting paid at the top or near the top of their position before it leaves gaping holes.

And how many times have we said this about the Colts [or other teams]? We've all spent the better part of a decade arguing that they were going to be in cap hell, and the only guy who said otherwise was Miguel....and he was the only one that was right.

What it comes down to is that the cap in the NFL is a bit of a red herring. Whether its $130 million or $140 million that Kraft wants to spend, if they wanted to keep Seymour, they could have. If they wanted to cut Springs, AD, Taylor, Morris, Kazcur, Sanders and replace them with youngsters making a fraction who can perform at a similar level, they could do that, too.

With a team stockpiled with draft picks over the past few seasons and going forward, you know a huge chunk of the roster is going to add up to very few dollars. That's why we have the room to spend this season, and that's why we could have probably pretty comfortably re-signed Seymour. And in terms of the future - Moss will likely come of the books, AD is a goner, Light might be gone after this year as well - already that's 3 of our top salary guys gone.

We were in the mix for another big money guy, Peppers, even knowing we were going to extend Bodden/TBC/Vince, because the FO knows we have the $$ to spend.

As for Mankins, too, I'm not worried about him. Seymour is a much better player and much more valuable player to this team than Mankins. And much harder to replace.

What happened was the Patriots were presented with a trade that seemed like such great value they could not say no, and they pulled the trigger, knowing full well it would hinder the team in 2009 & 2010. It may work out well, who knows.

 

[Clonamery]

hindsight has no value

Let us all remember these words.

 

[BradyManny]

This assumes that the reason the owners opted out of the CBA was because they were okay with the cap rising $10 a year.

A bsuiness-smart owner would be prepared for the CAP to go down after the new CBA. And a business smart owner would not look to give out too many big signing bonuses before a potential year of no football. Remember, even with a CAP spreading the money over years, in actual fact a signing bonus is paid in full at the signing.

Look at Jerry Jones? Has he spent big this off-season? Has he spent at all? Dan Snyder, the perennial big spender? What's he done?

Part of the problem is there's no one to spend it on.

All I know is Kraft has been as free with the $$ as he's ever been. He re-signed and extended guys in a manner we didn't predict - and they still made a run at Peppers.

Again, this team has a lot of players on their rookie contracts, and will have even more next season. They also have a number of veterans not performing to their contracts who they could cut and replace. So there's no excuse to not retain the core of their team. If we hadn't traded Seymour, I bet there's a good chance we can keep him and Vince.

 

[Rob0729]

And how many times have we said this about the Colts [or other teams]? We've all spent the better part of a decade arguing that they were going to be in cap hell, and the only guy who said otherwise was Miguel....and he was the only one that was right.

What it comes down to is that the cap in the NFL is a bit of a red herring. Whether its $130 million or $140 million that Kraft wants to spend, if they wanted to keep Seymour, they could have. If they wanted to cut Springs, AD, Taylor, Morris, Kazcur, Sanders and replace them with youngsters making a fraction who can perform at a similar level, they could do that, too.

With a team stockpiled with draft picks over the past few seasons and going forward, you know a huge chunk of the roster is going to add up to very few dollars. That's why we have the room to spend this season, and that's why we could have probably pretty comfortably re-signed Seymour. And in terms of the future - Moss will likely come of the books, AD is a goner, Light might be gone after this year as well - already that's 3 of our top salary guys gone.

We were in the mix for another big money guy, Peppers, even knowing we were going to extend Bodden/TBC/Vince, because the FO knows we have the $$ to spend.

As for Mankins, too, I'm not worried about him. Seymour is a much better player and much more valuable player to this team than Mankins. And much harder to replace.

What happened was the Patriots were presented with a trade that seemed like such great value they could not say no, and they pulled the trigger, knowing full well it would hinder the team in 2009 & 2010. It may work out well, who knows.

First, the Colts' reference is not relevent until we see what the new CBA is going to look like. The reason why that argument was such was because the cap was growing at a huge rate year after year, but that probably won't be the case when there is a new CBA. The league wants to slow the growth of the cap which will mean that we might go back to the way it was in the late 90s when a lot of teams were forced to cut players to get under the cap.

The rules are going to change with a CBA just like the rules changed when they signed the last CBA. The last CBA made it near impossible to get in cap hell, but the new CBA is likely to make cap hell far more likely since small market teams will go out of business if the cap continues to grow like it has.

You keep on talking about Fred Taylor, Shawn Springs, Sammy Morris as cuts. Except none of them are on the roster past 2010 (or 2011 for Springs). The Pats don't just have to worry about this year, they have to worry about future years. Again, if the Pats signed Seymour to an one year deal, you would have a point.

As for the top salary guys coming off the roster, you do realize that Seymour would likely make $10-14 million a year which is basically AD and Light or AD and Moss combined in terms of salary. But you do realize you lose Light, Moss, and AD you have to replace them? If you are going to have to replace them with rookies, better to have an extra first.

As for Peppers, the Pats were willing to make a back up offer to Peppers. We don't know what it was and it was probably less than what Seymour might be looking for. What if the Pats offered Peppers something like $8 million a year? That isn't nearly enough to get it done with Seymour.

As for Mankins, he is the Pats best o-lineman. He is young. Seymour has struggled with injuries and consistency in the last few years and is now 30. Mankins will come cheaper and be around a lot longer barring injuries.

And one last thing, maybe just maybe, the Pats didn't think Seymour was worth the money. It is hard to tell if he is still the player he was since he has a subpar year last year, but it could be the situation over the player. Or maybe the Pats just didn't think he was worth it anymore. They did limit his role in 2008 to take him out of passing downs.

 

[BradyManny]

You keep on talking about Fred Taylor, Shawn Springs, Sammy Morris as cuts. Except none of them are on the roster past 2010 (or 2011 for Springs). The Pats don't just have to worry about this year, they have to worry about future years. Again, if the Pats signed Seymour to an one year deal, you would have a point.

As for the top salary guys coming off the roster, you do realize that Seymour would likely make $10-14 million a year which is basically AD and Light or AD and Moss combined in terms of salary. But you do realize you lose Light, Moss, and AD you have to replace them? If you are going to have to replace them with rookies, better to have an extra first.

If Seymour were to get a Peppers-like deal, then I would agree with you 100%. I personally don't think that is what it would take to re-sign him. There were reports that he and the Pats were at some point "close" on the number last offseason, and that was part of the shock he had when he was traded.

As for Mankins, I don't value him as much as others on this board. I think - when healthy - Neal outplays him. He can be beat in pass protection, and he's the best run blocker on a team that is pass-first. I'm not sure I think his Pro Bowl last season was deserved, for instance. He's a good player, but if we wanted, we could spend another 1st or 2nd round pick on a guard and have a good chance at replacing his play with a manageable drop-off. I can't say the same about Seymour.