PFT: If Seymour doesn't report, Raiders will want their pick back

[shmessy]

yeah, but he's still getting oodles of money

So was Seymour. See the difference?

 

[tanked_as_usual]

So was Seymour. See the difference?

the only difference is that randy moss is getting more money now than he would have had he remained a raider.....

 

[Patspsycho]

This is typical talk radio/messageboard thinking.

Seymour has 5 days to report. Clearly this was a surprising trade and an unhappy development for Seymour. Facts about contracts and what Seymour and teams are thinking are scarce. So we get speculation upon speculation which then becomes extreme speculation.

It happens every time. On Sports Radio on the way home last night, they were debating for over 10 minutes how the Patriots would handle Seymour's retirement. They weren't debating about whether he would retire; they had already gone beyond that and were discussing the best way for the Patriots to handle Seymour's retirement announcement. It sounded like the retirement announcement had already been made.

Of course, there was no announcement - but I didn't know that for sure until after I got home and checked this forum.

This reminds me of the Spygate hysteria.

Personally, I think it's best to wait for a few facts from reliable sources as well as wait for at least the 5 days that Seymour has under the Collective Bargaining Agreement before even having much of an opinion.

Well said! I think this hits it on the head.. We'll know tomorrow what will happen; until then it's all speculation.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Well said! I think this hits it on the head.. We'll know tomorrow what will happen; until then it's all speculation.

Actually that's not true. There is no 5 day window to report. People keep confusing that with the 5 day letter. Players are expected to report expeditiously. When they don't you can assume they are witholding services for one reason or another... If he doesn't show by Sunday he won't get a paycheck this week. Ditto the next, etc. If they send him the 5 day letter as leverage, then he has 5 days to report or the team has the right to put him on the non reporting list. Nothing is automatic.

 

[Patspsycho]

Actually that's not true. There is no 5 day window to report. People keep confusing that with the 5 day letter. Players are expected to report expeditiously. When they don't you can assume they are witholding services for one reason or another... If he doesn't show by Sunday he won't get a paycheck this week. Ditto the next, etc. If they send him the 5 day letter as leverage, then he has 5 days to report or the team has the right to put him on the non reporting list. Nothing is automatic.

Yes you're correct on that.. I was actually thinking about the fact that the Raiders start prepping for their MNF game tomorrow (turns out it's actually tonight) and if Sey is not there by then, it really increases the odds that the trade falls apart, since he is sending signals that he doesn't care about trying to help Oakland win.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

the only difference is that randy moss is getting more money now than he would have had he remained a raider.....

And Richard is free to do the same in reverse. He's only got $3.5M left due on his deal here. The Raiders want to discuss a contract extension with him even as we speak...and since he told coach he is anxious to be a Raider if only we weren't holding up the process you really gotta wonder what his real issue is...

 

[fourthandmiles]

So all through elementary school all I had to do was not show up on the days that there were math tests. Then I would not have failed? It would have never happened?

 

[NE39]

Len Pasquarelli seems to think Big Sey will report to Oakland eventually. He says the delay is just logistical:

The delay may also be for personal reasons. Len Pasquarelli said last night on ESPN AllNight Radio, "(Seymour's) got a lot of logistical stuff to take care of in Boston, he's got to take his kids out of school, and perhaps enroll them in Oakland to that area. He's got to move his family. I'm led to believe most of the stuff is of a familial nature."
And Pasquarelli summed up the situation perfectly. "Richard Seymour can be a pain in the butt sometimes. Apparently, he's being a pain right now for the Oakland Raiders."

 

[spacecrime]

If it's a business and he doesn't want to report to the new site, why should he do it just because others want him to?

After all, it's a business.

I understand your need to be a contrarian, but this doesn't make any sense.

What is your point in all this?

First you go to great lengths to try to show that the Pats need to make personnel decisions based on loyalty rather than their value on the field in the future, now this nonsense?

What business purpose could it possibly serve Seymour to follow Plummer's lead? If it is personal, sure, not be allowed to play in the NFL, have the Raiders hold his rights in case he unretires, and give back a percentage of the 2005 signing bonus. But that isn't business. Could you explain in simple terms for me?

Also, for those of us who are slow to pick up on sublety, what are you trying to say with all these posts?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

And Pasquarelli summed up the situation perfectly. "Richard Seymour can be a pain in the butt sometimes. Apparently, he's being a pain right now for the Oakland Raiders."

Truer words were never spoken...

 

[muzz]

Len Pasquarelli seems to think Big Sey will report to Oakland eventually. He says the delay is just logistical:

That's all BS

Since when do his kids need to be in a school near where he works before he shows up?
Since when does his family have to live near where he works RIGHT AWAY?

That is REALLY weak......

IDEALLY they would already have a house to move into, and the kids would already be enrolled, but PLEASE don't use that as an excuse for a guy that is probably so pissed that he MAY have even said "FU I'm not going" before the realization set in that he really doesn't have alot of choice....

WTG Lenny ......

 

[Jimke]

Actually that's not true. There is no 5 day window to report. People keep confusing that with the 5 day letter. Players are expected to report expeditiously. When they don't you can assume they are witholding services for one reason or another... If he doesn't show by Sunday he won't get a paycheck this week. Ditto the next, etc. If they send him the 5 day letter as leverage, then he has 5 days to report or the team has the right to put him on the non reporting list. Nothing is automatic.

Reporting expeditiously is the grey area in this whole affair. I have

read that there is no set time for the traded player to report. Before

the NFL office would consider voiding the trade, I would think that the

Raiders would be forced to send out the 5 day letter.

 

[Synovia]

Before

the NFL office would consider voiding the trade, I would think that the

Raiders would be forced to send out the 5 day letter.

The NFL office can not void the trade. The only thing that can void the trade is Richard Seymour failing a physical.

 

[Synovia]

Atricle 14:
Section 8. Good Faith Negotiation:
(a) In addition to complying with specific provisions in this Agreement, any Club or player engaged in negotiations for a Player Contract (including any Club extending, and any player receiving, a Required Tender) is under an obligation to negotiate in good faith.
(b) A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season. It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount. The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract, under this Agreement, or under the Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or trade is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract, this Agreement, or the Settlement Agreement.

Section B does not apply because Seymour is not being offered a Tender, IE RFA or Franchise.


As to Part A, you can negotiate in good faith and still trade the guy because negotiations aren't going well. Theres nothing dishonest in saying "You weren't willing to take what we offered you, so we traded you"

 

[SladeRider]

I won't lose any sleep if the Raiders somehow manage a way to stop this trade, either we get their 1st round pick in a couple years or we get to keep Seymour for this season.

But to be honest, I can't see a way for Oakland to stop the trade now, it seems they have Seymour's rights now and that is that.

The only problem with this trade is that we won't see the effect of it until the 2011 season so we won't have any benefit from it until then.

 

[mayoclinic]

The NFL office can not void the trade. The only thing that can void the trade is Richard Seymour failing a physical.

I think that is correct. The only cases I'm aware of where the NFL has stepped in to void or rescind trades involved NFLPA grievances and disputes over player contractural rights, such as the Terrell Owens situation. There's no doubt that the Pats held Seymour's rights, and had the right to trade him. He's Oakland's property now, barring a failed physical.

This sort of reminds me a bit of the Jay Cutler situation in Denver, where Cutler's agent essentially forced a trade of a player under contract who threatened to hold out because he was peeved about rumors that Denver had tried to trade for Matt Cassel. The whole thing was orchestrated by his agent as a way to get a big fat new contract, and the idiot media and public bought in to the story.

Seymour was under contract. The Pats had his rights. There were no restrictions on to whom the Pats could trade under his contract and the CBA. The NFL has no jurisdiction to void the trade just because Seymour's unhappy and wants to play games. Oakland has a set of options available under the CBA, and has to decide for themselves how best to deal with the situation.

 

[mgteich]

To be clear,

Do you believe that the raiders have a right to void the trade if Seymour fails to show up for a physical?

I think that is correct. The only cases I'm aware of where the NFL has stepped in to void or rescind trades involved NFLPA grievances and disputes over player contractural rights, such as the Terrell Owens situation. There's no doubt that the Pats held Seymour's rights, and had the right to trade him. He's Oakland's property now, barring a failed physical.

This sort of reminds me a bit of the Jay Cutler situation in Denver, where Cutler's agent essentially forced a trade of a player under contract who threatened to hold out because he was peeved about rumors that Denver had tried to trade for Matt Cassel. The whole thing was orchestrated by his agent as a way to get a big fat new contract, and the idiot media and public bought in to the story.

Seymour was under contract. The Pats had his rights. There were no restrictions on to whom the Pats could trade under his contract and the CBA. The NFL has no jurisdiction to void the trade just because Seymour's unhappy and wants to play games. Oakland has a set of options available under the CBA, and has to decide for themselves how best to deal with the situation.

 

[Synovia]

Chicken - Egg. If you don't show you can't fail. But then again you never passed. Yeah I'm sure that loop-hole will hold water. I understand we all want our angle in this to be the one that plays out. But if he doesn't show, it's all going to be voided, it's the only sane thing you can do and the Bill Of Rights, allows the player not to show if he chooses not to.

No, the sane thing is to tell the Raiders that they shouldn't have made a trade without negotiating with the player.

If the trade is voided, you have essentially given every player in the NFL a no trade clause. There's absolutely no way the owners let that happen. That, and the CBA doesn't allow it.

The Raiders OWN Seymour until he fails a physical, or accrues a year of credit on their roster. Period.

 

[Synovia]

Do you believe that the raiders have a right to void the trade if Seymour fails to show up for a physical?

No, they do not have that right.

The only situation that the trade can be voided is if he shows up, and fails.

 

[mgteich]

Define "fails a physical".

It seems that if Oakland schedules a physical this week and has sent the 5 day letter, there will be two four possibilities.

1) Seymour shows and passes. Then Seymour is no longer a patriot issue. Seymour could threaten a holdout as he did here and as Branch and Samuel threatened, but it would no longer be our issue.

2) Seymour could show and fail the physical. This won't happen.

3) Seymour could fail to show and Oakland can void the trade indicating to the league that Seymour did not pass a physical in a timely manner as defined by CBA rules.

4) Seymour could fail to show and Oakland can decide NOT to void within a prescribed period at which time he would no longer by the patriot's problem. Oakland could then threaten Sey with the reserve list and deal with the issue again next year with Seymour still
owing a year and being subject to franchise in the second year.
===============================================

BOTTOM LINE DECISIONS
A) Does Seymour show in the next few days?
B) If not, does Oakland choose to void the contract?

If the answers are no and yes, the patriots will ask for a roster waiver while a deal with kc or someone else is worked out.

No, the sane thing is to tell the Raiders that they shouldn't have made a trade without negotiating with the player.

If the trade is voided, you have essentially given every player in the NFL a no trade clause. There's absolutely no way the owners let that happen. That, and the CBA doesn't allow it.

The Raiders OWN Seymour until he fails a physical, or accrues a year of credit on their roster. Period.[/QUOTE