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

[Deus Irae]

Here's the post I was responding to:

i put the blame on this on Seymour and guys like him who only care for money. the money he was making here in NE was a lot. He wanted a big pay day like Haynesworth and should have know that the pats wouldn't keep him around if he wanted that kind of dough. pats did what was best for the pats. no one seems to want to be a team player anymore and it bothers me.

Here's what I wrote:

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?

There's a whole lot of knee-jerking going around as the more homerish fans are defending their team and bashing a player who seems to be gone.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

The Raiders don't have any room to work with, without restructering more contracts. As it is they redid two player contracts to 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.

Thats scary. Most teams like to have 4-5 mil. free going into the season in the event of injury(s) and a late signing(s). That the the Raiders had to redo contracts JUST to afford Sey's 3.5 does not bode well.

What were the Raiders thinking giving up a 1st for a 5 pro-bowl, three super bowl, upper echelon DE in the league but not be able to afford him?

 

[Garbanza]

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.

You're my new favorite Patsfans.com member!

Just imagine Dues' ire when then show Maroney no loyalty! Yikes!

Anyway, I do not blame Sey for being pissed off. Although - I do find it puzzling that he was stating to Warren this summer that he thought something was up and he would not be surprised he is were gone....yet he buys a new house? Stuff does not add up....

I wish BigSey the best. He was a beast. He still is a beast. He will report to the Raiders soon enough, people.

As a side note - could you imagine a team comprised of "loyalty players?" Milloy and Eugene Wilson at Safties. Troy and Branch at wide out. Willie and Colvin. Bruschi starting. Hobbs and the 100 year old Law at DB. LOL!

 

[Bostonian1962]

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.

Very well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Deus Irae]

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..

And I disagree, particularly since you've chosen to point to a few exceptions when I noted "most players ".

 

[RobertWeathers]

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.

1000% Agree. Kazur is another example. He put himself in a legal spot, but the Pats supported him and hes been a contributing member to the team since 2005.

 

[shmessy]

Loyalty!!!!

ROFLMAO.

Hey Deus, when you imagine Richard voids the trade and walks into Gillette tomorrow, do ya think Kraft will have his favorite umbrella drink and fluffy slippers ready for him?

I admire your performance here the past few days. I haven't seen such an enjoyable contrarian since Alisonlovesbrady!!!

Much appreciated.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

My post was about Seymour. You went off about the Patriots, defending them from a non-attack. That's why it was irrelevant. Hell, I didn't even say that the Patriots were wrong to do what they do. But go ahead and put me on ignore. Please.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Man, you guys are really jacking the threads these days with the pissing matches.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's the post I was responding to:



Here's what I wrote:



There's a whole lot of knee-jerking going around as the more homerish fans are defending their team and bashing a player who seems to be gone.

Your argument would be better if you could show where Seymour exhibited loyalty.
We know about the holdout. We don't know what went on behind the scenes, and what his reaction was to his contract status.
We don't know whether the organization felt there was loyalty from Seymour to reciprocate.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The Raiders don't have any room to work with, without restructering more contracts. As it is they redid two player contracts to 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.

It's a lot easier for a team acquiring a player to give him a new monster deal since they did not inherit the amortization. Just off the top of my head they could drop his salary to $1m and give him a substantial signing bonus ($12-15M) and amortize it over 5 seasons under the present CBA and have the same cap hit in 2009. Then give him an option bonus ($15-18M) due next March before the open of FA that implicitly guarantees he either sees his money (and they retain his services for another 2-3 seasons) or he sees his freedom in 2010. Although if a lockout is looming in 2011 I'm not sure we're going to see all the big deals players and agents anticipate in the uncapped season.

 

[Bostonian1962]

And I disagree, particularly since you've chosen to point to a few exceptions when I noted "most players ".

No matter how many great examples of loyalty Da Bruinz, or Robert Weathers, or others point out, you just keep saying "I disagree", with zero explanation. When you show us some examples of Patriots' disloyalty, let us know. Sometimes it's better to say "oh wow, I didn't think of that, great points, I was wrong", and move on.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

opcorn: This Seymour thing and all the hand-ringing still going on in actually getting very funny now.

Take a page from BB........... Whatever Seymour was, be greatful, but get the **** over it. He is a Raider now. If you can't wrap you little brain around the fact that BB chose to hose some moron in the form of AL DAVIS for unreasonable compensation for a 30ish y/o player at the south end of his career here.

Do US ALL A FAVOR, go click on Raidersfans.com com and talk **** about what a meanie-wennie BB is.

Richard Seymour............ He don't play for us no more, and he certainly ain't gonna help us beat the Bills next Monday.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

It's a lot easier for a team acquiring a player to give him a new monster deal since they did not inherit the amortization. Just off the top of my head they could drop his salary to $1m and give him a substantial signing bonus ($12-15M) and amortize it over 5 seasons under the present CBA and have the same cap hit in 2009. Then give him an option bonus ($15-18M) due next March before the open of FA that implicitly guarantees he either sees his money (and they retain his services for another 2-3 seasons) or he sees his freedom in 2010. Although if a lockout is looming in 2011 I'm not sure we're going to see all the big deals players and agents anticipate in the uncapped season.

What would be a typical amortization in that scenario, Mo? If they have only 3.5 right now, and pay him 1, doesn't that only leave 2.5 for the first year amortization with the rest spread over the remaining time?

And do they have enough cap in March to pay him a 15 mil option? I mean, enough as they stand now.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

How is trading Vrabel to the Chiefs where Pioli is guaranteeing him his roster bonus and playing time not being loyal to a player?? Where as, if Vrabel had stayed with the Patriots, there was a good chance of him getting cut and losing out.

You don't seem to understand what loyalty is, Deus. Not in the case of an NFL Football player.

Sorry, but the nature of football and all professional sports for that matter, is that your job with a particular team is not guaranteed. That once you start failing to perform to expectations, you could lose your job. That another team may want you and you may get traded. As was the case with Seymour. The Raiders came to the Pats. Not the other way around.

This idea that its somehow disloyal to trade a player is mind boggling. The idea that the team somehow is supposed to take responsibility for a player's family is also mindboggling.

Please explain how it is disloyal to trade a player.

Please explain how it is disloyal to cut a player who no longer is performing up to the agreed expectations.

 

[DaBruinz]

And I disagree, particularly since you've chosen to point to a few exceptions when I noted "most players ".

Sorry, Deus, but you are wrong. The few players I noted were just a FEW examples. They sure are not the minority. I could go on and on about the loyalty that the Patriots have shown players.

 

[Bostonian1962]

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.

GREAT post by you, and by McMurtry earlier!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The good news is, New England fans tend to be very bright overall, and most understand this stuff. Only a few don't.

 

[PatsDeb]

If you want them to turn out like these guys:

This picture is too funny! The irony is, all these people probably think they look good!!

 

[Deus Irae]

Your argument would be better if you could show where Seymour exhibited loyalty.
We know about the holdout. We don't know what went on behind the scenes, and what his reaction was to his contract status.
We don't know whether the organization felt there was loyalty from Seymour to reciprocate.

Why? I wasn't claiming that Seymour had shown any loyalty.

 

[DaBruinz]

Here's the post I was responding to:



Here's what I wrote:



There's a whole lot of knee-jerking going around as the more homerish fans are defending their team and bashing a player who seems to be gone.

You're statement was false. The Patriots don't demand absolute loyalty and show none in return. That was your statement. People are showing how your statement is FALSE. And the smaller leads to the bigger.

The Pats have stood by Seymour every step of the way. Even when Seymour missed practice for his Grandfather's funeral. They told him that they understood, but that he needed to understand about the team rules and that players who don't practice, don't start. He went on bashing them and such, yet he missed ONE series. And people have tried to mention Izzo and Faulk as examples, yet, when Izzo and Faulk played the weekend after their missing practice, NEITHER one started..

The Pats stood by Seymour when his father took his own life. Even though there were plenty of people out there slandering Seymour's dad.

Even on the last contract negotiation, the Pats had agreed to let Seymour stay down in wherever with his family until they could official turn in the extension. They had re-structured Seymour's contract the August prior, so they had to wait until the 1 year was up before re-submitting the new extension.

So, I don't get this idea of yours that the Pats are somehow not loyal to their players.