Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Badluck, Mar 15, 2010.
i think ol' Al just hustled us
I think we all would undo the Burgess trade if we could although it looked OK at the time. Seymour I would do over again, he'd be gone right now IMO had we not traded him.
And you can't start a thread about "trades with the Raiders" without listing Randy Moss in the "Patriots Receive" column. He's still pretty good, you know.
yea i think this only went as far back as last offseason
as far as gabriel he was playing with the raiders again by the end of the season so a wasted 5th
I guess the Seymour debate will go on forever or at least until we use the pick (only 13 months now ). But I doubt we'd have signed him long term or paid him the Franchise number (and that's assuming we could Franchise him as we'd have had to sign Wilfork sooner) as the DE number is sky high. The fact that we'd have only had one year of Seymour needs to be factored in.
I think we'd all trade Burgess for Wimbley right now though.
BTW, I assume you did this right but how does Ron Brace factor into this ?
When did Kamerion Wimbley become a prize. Yes, he looked awesome in his rookie season, but he has been a major disapointment since. In fact, he only had 1.5 sacks more than Burgess last year (which was Wimbley's second best season in terms of sack totals).
As for Louis Murphy or Michael Mitchell, I don't know how they are included in the trade. Neither were drafted or traded for with picks from either the Seymour or the Burgess trade. Both were drafted by the Raiders long before either trade.
As for the Seymour trade, it is unlikely Seymour would be a Patriot today if they made the trade happen. He was just above average last year for the Raiders and not an impact player. The Pats could draft a HOFer next year with the Raiders pick who plays with the Pats for a decade or longer. If the Pats draft the next Lawrence Taylor or Tom Brady with that pick, Davis is the one who got fleeced big time.
yea, i agree trading seymour was probably the best thing for our team in the long run, he would be on another team right now(and we wouldnt have that extra 1st) if we didnt
i didnt type it out but BB actually traded up to grab brace
Patriots received: pick #40 (Ron Brace)
Raiders received: picks #47(Michael Mitchell) #124(louis Murphy) and #199(Stryker Sulak)
I think this sequence would look better if you put in a late #3 as a comp pick for Seymour. Some disagree with me but I don't think Seymour would have made the difference between winning the SB and not last year so the one year of him we lost is almost moot to me although we would have been at least somewhat better with him, obviously. But as long as the Raiders don't suddenly become good and win 11 games next year I think this thread will look a lot different as the 2011 pick actually approaches.
I never understood the FLAT statement we would not be able to sign SEYMOUR back
Never will no one even mentions a offer being made so how do we know he would not sign.
then we go FA look at like 35 yr old DE and hope they sign lol.
Technically in that trade, they got Louis Murphy and Stryker Sulak since they would have draft Michael Mitchell anyway at 40. Of the three, only Murphy has really done much so far. But it was only one year and the DTs tend to take time to develop (neither Wilfork nor Ty Warren were very good their rookie seasons).
Also, back to the first rounder. If the Pats end up with a top 5 pick next year and there is a new CBA with a hard rookie cap that lowers salaries of the top 10 picks exponentially, the Pats probably win the trade wars big time.
Seymour is still looking for ridiculous money based on most of the reports. He wants to be paid like a top DE and he just isn't that good. He is still a great player, but he is not one of the top d-linemen in the league. Seymour knows that someone would pay him that and the Pats only had one franchise tag. Seymour isn't a guy you want to give Peppers money to anymore.
We don't but as he's going to be looking for a huge, last contract and the Patriots don't usually do that for players on the wrong side of their career it's a very good assumption in my mind.
Again he was 29 so i do not see know about a last contract. when 3-4 ends are cut like stark who were at 35 we brought them in for a look see.
at 29 he could have been signed for a 4 yr contract.33 is not that old for a 3-4 end.actually warren and vince be that old towards end of there contract.do you think warren will be cut as he turns say 30
He'll be 31 a year into this coming season and this will also be his 10th season, he has a lot of wear and tear on his body regardless of the age not to mention looking for absolute top dollar especially with a $10M franchise tag for DE. I can't prove it, obviously, but I think he'd be gone - and I think the fact that the Patriots traded him when they did suggests, not proves, that they did too.
I think it is safe to assume that if Seymour was willing to stay here for the right money he would still be here.
Either they couldn't agree on a contract or they didn't want to agree on a contract and the Pats felt it was best to move him a year early when they found a potential top ten pick for him. The franchise tag is moot as it turned out we needed that in the Wilfork negotiations and it can only be used once.
As to the OPs point when you break down the trades between the two teams I think it is pretty fair to say that neither team got the better of the other.
We got the better of the Moss deal
they got the better of the Burgess deal.
The Seymour deal is pretty fair
and the Gabriel deal was a win for the Raiders but as we only gave up a 5 it is hard to complain there. Worth the shot.
Any swaps of draft picks are fair based on chart value and not fair to compare who is actually selected as that is valueing the drafting and not the trades.
It looks even worse now that Burgess is not on the team. It all comes down to Brace stepping up, and that 1st round pick producing right away. In 3 years the trades will look a lot better.
The Pats had picks 40 and 41 back to back and drafter Brace and Butler. So technically, if they hadn't made this trade, they probably would have picked Brace at 41 (since he's the first guy they picked). So you could argue that it's Butler, not Brace who should be listed.
But in any case, that trade is minor compared to the other 2. I thought Al offered the 2010 pick and I don't understand why BB didn't take it. Having the 8th pick in this year's draft would have been pretty sweet.
I doubt Al offered this year's one. Belichick probably would have gotten more than just the 2011 one if that was the case. Al probably offered a package for this year that fell short of this year's one.
Besides, if there is a hard rookie cap with a new CBA in 2011 and the Raiders finish in the top ten, it will be a far better pick since the Pats will get the same quality of player and pay him much less.
it was reported, and i even think al davis himself said he offered this years 1st but BB said he wanted the 2011 1st
This is all I could find in the matter. It's not completely clear....
According to Al ... - Extra Points - Boston.com
"So, he said he had to go to Kraft and he came back to me. They changed the deal a little bit, and then they gave me the opportunity to make my choice on draft choices.
"As you well know in 2010 we have a first, second, two thirds, a fourth and two fifths. We have a lot of choices. I said I'll go with the 1 in 2011. I'll stick with that. That's what you can have. I just wanted to get it done."
o ok, my mistake
Separate names with a comma.