Lombardi: Seymour's not looking for a contract, he's just pissed.

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Right but I don't think "too good to resist" can be defined without knowing both sides of the equation.

One side was Raiders' 2011 #1 pick.

What was the other side ?

I think it was "lose him after this year or give him a monster deal". If he was willing to sign for good but not crazy money that changes the other side of the equation in what is "too good to resist".

Good point. And probably the other side of the equation was Sey's history during contract years. Hell, for all we know Sey was already dropping the hints that it was time again to play hardball.

But along with that for all we know Sey was keeping mum, doing what he was asked to do, and waiting until the time the team was ready to start talking.

One thing for sure, this is getting interesting each day he fails to show. I don't think the Patriots are as removed from it as they want to think just yet.

What I wish we knew (calling the capologists) is how much the Raiders have to work with now and the next few years. If they can't even come close to a "fair" extension because of cost, how can this possibly play out well?

 

[Deus Irae]

DI, I respectfully don't at all get that mind set. We know all the examples, so I'll say it this way: The Patriots pay Player A a boatload of money. That player is not what they once were, and maybe getting slightly long in the tooth. The Patriots say we're still willing to play you a ton of money, but not as much as Team A. We think that is way too much. The player says "Hasta la vista baby", and backs up the Brinks truck for their money. Player A never again (in almost every case) plays as the high level corresponding to that money.

Please explain again to me how that is disloyalty on behalf of the team? I still haven't heard a good explanation. I'm not being a smart *****, I just am trying to see some examples/explanations. Who did they move a year early out of disloyalty? Please explain.

If you really think that ditching someone is an act of loyalty, you're welcome to do so. I understand that loyalty is in limited supply when it comes to professional sports. "It's a business" has become the only mantra that seems to matter.

Trading away Mike Vrabel was not an act of loyalty. Trading away Seymour is not an act of loyalty. Forcing Rodney to renegotiate his contract was not an act of loyalty. Ditching players who've bought houses, set their families down in the area and begun sending their kids to local schools is not an act of loyalty.

 

[Bostonian1962]

I don't get the loyalty thing. I don't want the Patriots to show any loyalty, except to long-time players who have decided to retire, or have suffered a career-ending injury. If Bruschi can't do it anymore, hello Gary Guyton. If Rodney can't run anymore, hello Brandon, or hello Patrick. I liked Seymour, but I'll probably like his replacement, especially if gets double-digit sacks this year. To paraphrase Brady, my favorite Patriots player is the next great one.

Bingo! We have bingo! According to some on here the Patriots should pay players more than they think they are worth, out of loyalty. Or, they should turn down trades offers that they like, out of loyalty. WHAT?

When asked about being loyal to the Patriots and providing a home town discount, Seymour scoffed and said "I'm from South Carolina". But somehow the Patriots are so mean and uncaring now? Enough with the friggin' Kumbaya crap.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I hear Oakland is a nice place to raise your kids.

The only time he will ever step foot in Oakland, is for the games. There are so many incredible places to live in the San Francisco Bay area. I doubt he winds up in Oakland. Three towns east, and he winds up in some of the nicest and most expensive real estate in the U.S.A. There are areas that are really scary in the Bay area (Oakland scares me more than Harlem in NYC), but most of the rest, are amazing places to live, raise children, etc. When i lived there, the city I lived in, Walnut Creek, had one shooting death in it's history, and that was the cops shooting the bad guy, lol. The difference between where I lived, and Oakland, was downright shocking. I miss the Bay area, except for Oakland.

 

[JackBauer]

Re: Typical Richard Seymour

Jarvis Green will have us saying "Richard Who?" by mid-season.

If you really believe that, you should turn off the television and find another way to pass your time.

They don't call him Big Pu-Sey for nothing. Good riddance. If ever there was a man that was born to be a Raider, it's that schlemiel!

"They" don't call him "Big Pu-Sey." YOU call him that. You coined the nickname, which is as good an indicator as any of some deep-seated toolishness on your part.

I mean, christ, that isn't even remotely funny.

 

[patman12]

I don't get the loyalty thing. I don't want the Patriots to show any loyalty, except to long-time players who have decided to retire, or have suffered a career-ending injury. If Bruschi can't do it anymore, hello Gary Guyton. If Rodney can't run anymore, hello Brandon, or hello Patrick. I liked Seymour, but I'll probably like his replacement, especially if gets double-digit sacks this year. To paraphrase Brady, my favorite Patriots player is the next great one.

Except Bru and Rodney had both lost a step or three. Sey is still a force and I don't expect any one player on the roster to equal the production that is now gone to Oakland.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Patriots demand absolute loyalty and return the favor by showing most players absolutely no loyalty at all.

Why wouldn't players look to get the money at some point?

They definitely *should* look to get the money at some point. It's hard for me to imagine anyone (though I know they exist) thinking that these guys should just play for peanuts. They have unique abilities and this is a unique field...they should maximize their potential income.

However, when you play that card and the other guy plays his, you can't really be pissed when it causes you some inconvenience.

 

[mike_usagisan]

Disputing Lombardi (and backing up the reports that the league believes the process will work itself out between the Raiders and Seymour) is Profootballcentral.com:

Seymour, is reportedly asking for more guranteed money than what the Raiders want to give him...

They seem to have some connection inside the Raiders organization.

 

[upstater1]

Never mind only being pissed about being traded to the Raiders. He just moved into a new mcmansion and his kids started school yesterday. I'd be pissed too.

He and his wife need to make some pretty big decisions very quickly. I'd assume he'll have to leave the family behind and is just using every one of the five days to take care of business at home.

I am not buying this argument at all. Yeah, it's an inconvenience, but plenty of people undergo circumstances like this. I have. I have two sets of friends commuting from new jobs to old homes right now, one is Orono, Maine to Rhode Island, the other Michigan to NYC. It happens. People deal with it.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Bingo! We have bingo! According to some on here the Patriots should pay players more than they think they are worth, out of loyalty. Or, they should turn down trades offers that they like, out of loyalty. WHAT?

When asked about being loyal to the Patriots and providing a home town discount, Seymour scoffed and said "I'm from South Carolina". But somehow the Patriots are so mean and uncaring now? Enough with the friggin' Kumbaya crap.

The only people the Patriots NEED to show loyalty to is us fans.

That means producing a competitive team that competes for Super Bowls and makes us proud to be fans of the Patriots.

Also, if you look at the Warren and Koppen deals; I don't think lack of money and future poverty are real issues.

 

[mcmurtry86]

One of the things people talk about time after time is this team moving players "a year early"... That means that they're cutting/trading players when the player is still capable of getting the job done. This team has no loyalty. You can claim otherwise, but they are lauded for their lack of loyalty. That's why we point to Troy Brown and Tedy Bruschi: they were the extremely rare exceptions to the rule.

Why would anyone WANT the Patriots to be loyal? Guys like Vrabel, Bruschi, Harrison et al. weren't getting the job done anymore (even more so when comparing some of their cap #'s).

If anything, I wish the Pats had been less loyal with Bruschi, who was clearly cooked in 2007. It would have given them an extra year to find or groom someone to take his spot.

The Pats usually know when to cut ties with someone, there have been very few players who leave New England and go on to continue playing at a high level or to become better than they were in New England.

"Loyalty" gets you a roster of guys who aren't giving you the production you need, but aw shucks we love those guys so let's keep them around.

Root for the laundry, not the player.

 

[Ring 6]

One of the things people talk about time after time is this team moving players "a year early"... That means that they're cutting/trading players when the player is still capable of getting the job done. This team has no loyalty. You can claim otherwise, but they are lauded for their lack of loyalty. That's why we point to Troy Brown and Tedy Bruschi: they were the extremely rare exceptions to the rule.

That isnt a loyalty issue, it is an issue of remaining competitive.

 

[DaBruinz]

None of this has anything to do with my noting that the Patriots don't show loyalty. But thanks for posting.

How do the Patriots not show loyalty? Robert Edwards? Tedy Bruschi? Troy Brown?

The Patriots show plenty of loyalty to players. Loyalty does not equal being business stupid by over-paying for players. Loyalty is not measured by how much more money you throw at a player. Loyalty is measured by you sticking by a player through the rough times. And there are plenty of examples where the Patriots have done that. Marquis Hill. Tedy Bruschi. Richard Seymour. Joe Andruzzi. Kevin Faulk. Even Willie Andrews until he was stupid and pulled the gun on his GF.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Disputing Lombardi (and backing up the reports that the league believes the process will work itself out between the Raiders and Seymour) is Profootballcentral.com:



They seem to have some connection inside the Raiders organization.

Thats what I commented on earlier. I am sure Sey wants something at least as good as the Asmougha deal, and his agent has leverage to ask for it.

I wish I knew how much the Raiders have to work with. Like I said, if they have no money to make a decent offer because of their overpayments to other players.....no reason for Sey to play a season and risk injury. He can just sit tight and wait for the Raiders to grow frustrated enough to trade him off elsewhere that will pay Sey, or try to get the league involved.

 

[Oswlek]

If you really think that ditching someone is an act of loyalty, you're welcome to do so. I understand that loyalty is in limited supply when it comes to professional sports. "It's a business" has become the only mantra that seems to matter.

Trading away Mike Vrabel was not an act of loyalty. Trading away Seymour is not an act of loyalty. Forcing Rodney to renegotiate his contract was not an act of loyalty. Ditching players who've bought houses, set their families down in the area and begun sending their kids to local schools is not an act of loyalty.

I'm not illusioned enough to believe that NE is run by a bunch of saints and convent workers, but how are they different from any other team in regards to this again?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If you really think that ditching someone is an act of loyalty, you're welcome to do so. I understand that loyalty is in limited supply when it comes to professional sports. "It's a business" has become the only mantra that seems to matter.

Trading away Mike Vrabel was not an act of loyalty. Trading away Seymour is not an act of loyalty. Forcing Rodney to renegotiate his contract was not an act of loyalty. Ditching players who've bought houses, set their families down in the area and begun sending their kids to local schools is not an act of loyalty.

Trading away Mike Vrabel was absolutely an act of loyalty since the alternative was proposed to him and it was his choice to get the remainder of his contract rather than hit FA and potentially land somewhere where he didn't get any bonus money and he wasn't a lock to make the roster and collect his salary... Rodney was not forced to renegotiate his contract. He agreed to (and I vaguely recall he volunteered to) after attempting to come back from a devastating and then recurring injuries most pundits predicted he would never rebound from. And that bought him good will despite increasing injury concerns in the backend of a $14.5M contract he was never expected to realize more than 3 seasons of. Rodney but saw the full term of his 6 year deal and $14M before he walked away of his own volition as a UFA. BECAUSE HE WAS LOYAL AND HE DELIVERED.

And lets not forget when TJ abruptly retired and put the team in a predicament and criticized them for their treatment of him, yet they allowed him to retain his substantial spring bonus that was recoverable at their discretion due to his retirement. Or when Tedy suffered his NFI stroke and this team placed him on PUP so he could earn his money while attempting a comeback. Because as BB stated he was the perfect player throughout his career.

Holding up a team who signed a contract with you to play for a specific time under specific terms including in Seymour's case a substantial signing bonus and escalators is not loyalty. Publicly proclaiming that Foxboro is not your hometown is not loyalty. Publicly stating your intention to honor your contract, as Deion Branch did, and then refusing to do just that 3 months later because you aren't getting your way is not loyalty. Cutting a guy who was negotiating his next deal with your departing DC before the season ended is not disloyalty.

Loyalty is a two way street, but successful football is also a meritocracy. Guys who are loyal to this franchise and who produce and work tirelessly to represent continuing value to the organization on and off the field reap what they sow. They have a place in the organization in one form or another as long as they want one. That's actually a lot more loyalty than most of us can expect from our employers over our lifetimes regardless of how loyal we are to them or how productive we have been for them.

 

[mgcolby]

Thats what I commented on earlier. I am sure Sey wants something at least as good as the Asmougha deal, and his agent has leverage to ask for it.

I wish I knew how much the Raiders have to work with. Like I said, if they have no money to make a decent offer because of their overpayments to other players.....no reason for Sey to play a season and risk injury. He can just sit tight and wait for the Raiders to grow frustrated enough to trade him off elsewhere that will pay Sey, or try to get the league involved.

The Raiders don't have any room to work with, without restructering more contracts. As it is, they redid two player contracts to free up 1.5 million in order to afford Seymour's current salary. And it is my understanding, that his salary is 3.5 million, meaning they only had 2 million in cap space. I think it will take an awful lot of negotiating with current players to free up enough space to give him a big signing bonus. I would have to believe that the majority of his bonus money would have to come next year.

 

[JD10367]

None of this has anything to do with my noting that the Patriots don't show loyalty. But thanks for posting.

That's your opinion. But thanks for being a conceited arrogant jerk.

I'm going to skip the preliminary Internet posturing and just put you on Ignore now. Since, obviously, I made the mistake of having the nads to question your Maroney-love and your Wheatley-love and your KOC-love, so now you feel the need to prod me every time I post. And I don't have the time or interest.

 

[mgcolby]

That's your opinion. But thanks for being a conceited arrogant jerk.

I'm going to skip the preliminary Internet posturing and just put you on Ignore now. Since, obviously, I made the mistake of having the nads to question your Maroney-love and your Wheatley-love and your KOC-love, so now you feel the need to prod me every time I post. And I don't have the time or interest.

Probably best to spell out the name in this situation.

 

[DaBruinz]

One of the things people talk about time after time is this team moving players "a year early"... That means that they're cutting/trading players when the player is still capable of getting the job done. This team has no loyalty. You can claim otherwise, but they are lauded for their lack of loyalty. That's why we point to Troy Brown and Tedy Bruschi: they were the extremely rare exceptions to the rule.

Sorry, but that is horsesh!t. The people who claim that the Pats have no loyalty are the ones who equate loyalty to the amount of their contract. And loyalty isn't measured by how much money a team is throwing at you.

Being loyal is defending your players through the good and the bad. How many times has Belichick gone out and said that a loss was HIS fault and not the fault of X, Y or Z, even though we fans, know that Player X dropped an interception that would have won the game. Or player Y dropped a TD pass at the end of the game that would have won it for them Or Player Z missed an assignment and allowed a WR to get loose and score the game winning TD.

Being loyal is standing by a player in a time of Turmoil. The Patriots supported Robert Edwards for 3 years after he blew his knew out. They stood by Bruschi after his stroke. They supported Joe Andruzzi during 9/11 because of his brothers. I could go on and on about the LOYALTY the Patriots show. And it will far outweight any supposed disloyalty that ex-players claim just because they didn't get an extra 3 million dollars thrown at them..