Let's Be Real About Seymour's Situation

[patchick]

I was originally under this same impression, but read a pretty convincing post that said it was a players option to do such things, and not a violation of their contract. Now I don't know what to think.

OK...my head is spinning then. Wake me up when it's Monday night.

 

[klinefan]

If the pats send him the 5 day letter and he doesn't report, then the pats have teh option of inactivating him for the year and retaining his rights for the following year (basically this year didn't happen).

He'd be in the same situation next year and it'd be harder for him to get any big money with this on his resume.

The pats putting him on inactive means they are playing hardball and will not be the patsies in this.

As for "footbal players miss more family time in a year than most people miss in a lifetime" are you kidding me? What about after the season? THey are home every day to see their kids home from school...no work pressures, etc.
During the season they are gone 8 weekends of the year...big deal. Some parents live in different CITIES than their kids as they have had to do that to find work. They see their kids on weekends, maybe.

 

[italia44]

If the pats send him the 5 day letter and he doesn't report, then the pats have teh option of inactivating him for the year and retaining his rights for the following year (basically this year didn't happen).

He'd be in the same situation next year and it'd be harder for him to get any big money with this on his resume.

The pats putting him on inactive means they are playing hardball and will not be the patsies in this.

As for "footbal players miss more family time in a year than most people miss in a lifetime" are you kidding me? What about after the season? THey are home every day to see their kids home from school...no work pressures, etc.
During the season they are gone 8 weekends of the year...big deal. Some parents live in different CITIES than their kids as they have had to do that to find work. They see their kids on weekends, maybe.

.....my neurons and synapses are firing and my head just exploded.

 

[mgteich]

Let's take on step at a time. If Seymour doesn't report and the raiders void the contract, then the patriots can indicate their intent to suspend. Seymour can then simply report to the team who has his right, the patriots.

I don't see how a team can suspend a player for not showing up at another team's practice.

If the pats send him the 5 day letter and he doesn't report, then the pats have teh option of inactivating him for the year and retaining his rights for the following year (basically this year didn't happen).

He'd be in the same situation next year and it'd be harder for him to get any big money with this on his resume.

The pats putting him on inactive means they are playing hardball and will not be the patsies in this.

As for "footbal players miss more family time in a year than most people miss in a lifetime" are you kidding me? What about after the season? THey are home every day to see their kids home from school...no work pressures, etc.
During the season they are gone 8 weekends of the year...big deal. Some parents live in different CITIES than their kids as they have had to do that to find work. They see their kids on weekends, maybe.

 

[klinefan]

Let's take on step at a time. If Seymour doesn't report and the raiders void the contract, then the patriots can indicate their intent to suspend. Seymour can then simply report to the team who has his right, the patriots.

I don't see how a team can suspend a player for not showing up at another team's practice.

From what I've read, Seymour has to report to the Raiders or the pats put him on the AWOL list.

Otherwise it would be meaningless. A player could void the trade by simply showing up at his original team? "Hi guys!". Kind of like Costanza when he pretended he wasn't fired?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Players have no problems saying it's a business when they change teams and go to the highest bidder or when they hold out for more money.

With the good (big $$$) comes the not so good. Their bodies are used roughly and they are subject to being cut or traded. If they are not willing to accept the not so good, they had no business accepting the good.

The rights and opportunities do not flow one way.

His kids have to change schools. Lots of people making twenty thousand are laid off and have to move. It is very hard to feel sorry for a many making $10 million to do the same.

His kids can change schools. Does it really matter that it happens a week ahead of time (like you make it a big deal to be) or three months? Either way, they were in one school last year and will be in a different school the next. How horrible. Very few kids go to one school all their lives, kids who are far less fortunate than Seymour's kids.

....

great quote in your sig...and i especially appreciate your reminding us of the snow bowl play...

in principle, yeah, with the bucks come the risks, and, yeah, people with money can have an easier time with the emotional and logistical headaches associated with unexpected job changes...but it's still tough on kids and a family, whether you're rich or poor...and the Boston area schools where Seymour lived or had his kids were no doubt pretty good...wonder if the same can be said for the Oakland public schools and whether he can get his kids somewhere else on short notice...don't be too hard on the guy...they might decide to keep the family in Massachusetts pending another move next year...and spending the next few months 3,000 miles from his kids would be as tough on a rich guy as a poor guy...

 

[patchick]

Let's take on step at a time. If Seymour doesn't report and the raiders void the contract, then the patriots can indicate their intent to suspend. Seymour can then simply report to the team who has his right, the patriots.

I don't see how a team can suspend a player for not showing up at another team's practice.

OK...so a key point seems to be, at what point would the Raiders have the right to void the trade? Suppose they announce that they intend to void, the Pats send the letter, and Seymours reports on day 5. Which team does he report to?

 

[klinefan]

OK...so a key point seems to be, at what point would the Raiders have the right to void the trade? Suppose they announce that they intend to void, the Pats send the letter, and Seymours reports on day 5. Which team does he report to?

The raiders would be intending to void IF HE DOESN'T SHOW UP.

The 5 day letter says show up at the Raiders or get your season voided and the pats will retain his rights.

Otherwise you are proposign a situation where players have a veto on all trades. Worst case, they just show up to the original team.

 

[mgteich]

If they announce, then the raiders would still have his rights and oakland would be sending any letter. They can put him on the reserve list, lose their first, and have Seymour's services for the 2010 season.

I think that in order for the patriots to threaten anything, the patriots have to be the team with rights to the player which cannot happen until oakland voids the deal.give the assurance of no franchise in writing.

It seems that the raiders need to decide whether one year of Seymour's service is worth the draft choice. If not, void; if yes

OK...so a key point seems to be, at what point would the Raiders have the right to void the trade? Suppose they announce that they intend to void, the Pats send the letter, and Seymours reports on day 5. Which team does he report to?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

great quote in your sig...and i especially appreciate your reminding us of the snow bowl play...

in principle, yeah, with the bucks come the risks, and, yeah, people with money can have an easier time with the emotional and logistical headaches associated with unexpected job changes...but it's still tough on kids and a family, whether you're rich or poor...and the Boston area schools where Seymour lived or had his kids were no doubt pretty good...wonder if the same can be said for the Oakland public schools and whether he can get his kids somewhere else on short notice...don't be too hard on the guy...they might decide to keep the family in Massachusetts pending another move next year...and spending the next few months 3,000 miles from his kids would be as tough on a rich guy as a poor guy...

Sey didn't live in the Boston area. He lived in Attleboro recently. But his home, where he spent his off seasons, is in SC and if the family didn't follow him to Oakland that is where they would retreat to. And there are some really nice neighborhoods and school systems within commuter distance of Oakland... It's not like these players live in the inner city... And his kids are pretty young (and adaptable), oldest is probably a first grader, youngest is a pre schooler.

 

[klinefan]

If they announce, then the raiders would still have his rights and oakland would be sending any letter. They can put him on the reserve list, lose their first, and have Seymour's services for the 2010 season.

I think that in order for the patriots to threaten anything, the patriots have to be the team with rights to the player which cannot happen until oakland voids the deal.give the assurance of no franchise in writing.

It seems that the raiders need to decide whether one year of Seymour's service is worth the draft choice. If not, void; if yes

Raider can't 'void' anything unless he doesn't show up.

Oakland isn't the team sending the letter according to the league office.

 

[Spiral]

My guess is that the player's contract is officially assigned from NE to Oak as soon as the league approves the transaction. The terms of the assignment probably include a contingency that Seymour pass Oakland's physical. It's probably not necessary to include reporting as a contingency, since he can't take Oakland's physical until he reports. It would be Oakland's responsibility to send him the 5-day letter, and if he didn't report (and pass the physical) within the required time period, Oakland would have the option to void the trade.

 

[klinefan]

My guess is that the player's contract is officially assigned from NE to Oak as soon as the league approves the transaction. The terms of the assignment probably include a contingency that Seymour pass Oakland's physical. It's probably not necessary to include reporting as a contingency, since he can't take Oakland's physical until he reports. It would be Oakland's responsibility to send him the 5-day letter, and if he didn't report (and pass the physical) within the required time period, Oakland would have the option to void the trade.

According to PFT, NE sends the letter and if he doesn't report to Oakland, then NE still has his rights, so it isn't Oakland's option.

 

[Spiral]

So, if what Florio is saying is true, then Oakland cannot negotiate any kind of contract extension with Seymour, since he's still a Patriot. Oakland also can't put him on their roster, and the Patriots have to keep him on their 53-man roster, or on one of the NFL's "lists." Florio is a lawyer and I'm not, but I'm not sure he's right on this one.