Revisiting Seymour trade

[Rob0729]

Seymour could have been franchised and then franchised again. Barring that, he could have been franchised and then had a contract worked out in the uncapped year.

The trade was a terrible one.

Seymour could only be franchised if the Pats had a deal done with Wilfork. Since it seems pretty clear the Pats valued Wilfork more than Seymour, he couldn't have been franchised the way the Wilfork negotiations panned out.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Seymour could have been franchised and then franchised again. Barring that, he could have been franchised and then had a contract worked out in the uncapped year.

The trade was a terrible one.

And what kind of play would the Pats gotten out of him after franchising him...twice, no less. He was pissed off to begin with.

I liked Seymour as a player and he obviously has gas left in the tank, but if Solder becomes a fixture at LT and plays at a high level, and early returns are pretty good, then this trade was hardly terrible.

 

[Deus Irae]

And what kind of play would the Pats gotten out of him after franchising him...twice, no less. He was pissed off to begin with.

Are you really so desperate to suck up to the Patriots that you're going to keep playing the speculation game after all the 2009 homer speculation has already been exploded with regards to both Welker AND Seymour? He could have been franchised. He'd have played in New England for franchise money, or he wouldn't have played anywhere.

I liked Seymour as a player and he obviously has gas left in the tank, but if Solder becomes a fixture at LT and plays at a high level, and early returns are pretty good, then this trade was hardly terrible.

Solder can become an HOF player, or he can be out of the league by week 5. The trade will have sucked regardless, because the player chosen doesn't matter. Two seasons have been wasted, in no small part because the defensive line has been so bad since Seymour was moved, and this season is off to that same start so far. It was a lousy trade.

 

[Lowercaseg]

I saw this in the Globe today and thought it was interesting statement regarding Seymour:

"It's worth noting that the Patriots had 30 sacks as a team in 2008 with Seymour and 36 the following season, one in which the team's lack of a pass rush was consistently criticized."

The article this quote came from is found here - Light on Seymour: 'He's very disruptive' - Extra Points - Boston.com

I know that sacks are not the be all end all to determine the effectiveness of the Seymour trade but they are interesting. I would have liked the Pats to have kept Seymour but understand that there were a lot of factors that went into the decision to trade him, like the CBA, Wilfork, also Seymour's history had shown that he might likely want to test the free agent market regardless of how rich the Pats' offer would have been, the cap, what have you. I'm glad the Pats' at least got a 1st for him and did not let him just get away for a compensatory pick.

 

[condon84]

If you keep Seymour to 2010, whose contract do you want to rip up? Brady's or Wilfork's?

Find a way to keep both players. Chances are, Brady would have taken a team friendly contract in confines to whatever shape our salary cap was in. I don't like the argument that it was Vince vs Seymour because had BB really thought that our D would turn out the way it has without Seymour, he would have made it worked. We had/have scrubs in our team making more money than they should if you look at their market value. Plus with the abundance of draft picks we've accumulated, we could have supplemented our roster with draft picks.

 

[Tunescribe]

Seymour could only be franchised if the Pats had a deal done with Wilfork. Since it seems pretty clear the Pats valued Wilfork more than Seymour, he couldn't have been franchised the way the Wilfork negotiations panned out.

This pretty well sums things up. It just came down to the numbers exacerbated by secondary factors, such as Richard's spotty health and a bit of an attitude problem rearing its head. But I think the Pats still would've kept him if the numbers worked out in such a way that he could have signed a multi-year contract with no chance of him trying to shoot his way out of town for the big bucks.

So, with Wilfork taking priority and the prospect of getting a No. 1 for Richard from Crazy Al, his trade became a no-brainer. I don't see what's so hard for some folks here to understand about that. It's just an unfortunate example of financial reality in today's NFL, when a player's own perceived worth doesn't jive with the team's and he's unwilling to adjust accordingly.

 

[condon84]

Haha. Seymour wouldn't have resigned with us after 2009, so you're completely wrong. Never minding that small problem, why exactly would he have made the difference last year?? He would have tackled Cotchery on that ridiculous play in the 4th quarter? He would've played TE and caught that touchdown pass that Crumpler dropped?

Not suprised to see you jump in on this thread started by your Brother in Misery.

What makes you think we wouldn't have resigned him? Chances are, if we didn't trade him it would have been because we'd try to sign him to a long term deal.

With Seymour in the lineup, that playoff game would have played out a bit more different, not just one play, but all the plays. The Jets would not have been able to pound us through the middle and Seymour could have freed up someone else because of the constant double teams he commands. The Jets wouldn't have been able to go on long drives and our offense would have gotten more opportunities.

 

[condon84]

The league also considered Brandon Meriweather one as well with his two Pro Bowls....

Believe it or not, he's playing pretty well in Chicago. We could definitely use him right now.

 

[Sciz]

What makes you think we wouldn't have resigned him? Chances are, if we didn't trade him it would have been because we'd try to sign him to a long term deal.

The trade itself isn't enough of a sign that they didn't want him long term?

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Are you really so desperate to suck up to the Patriots that you're going to keep playing the speculation game after all the 2009 homer speculation has already been exploded with regards to both Welker AND Seymour? He could have been franchised. He'd have played in New England for franchise money, or he wouldn't have played anywhere.



Solder can become an HOF player, or he can be out of the league by week 5. The trade will have sucked regardless, because the player chosen doesn't matter. Two seasons have been wasted, in no small part because the defensive line has been so bad since Seymour was moved, and this season is off to that same start so far. It was a lousy trade.

1. Yes, you are right. I post here in the hope that Bob Kraft is reading these threads so I can suck up to the team.
2. What speculation game? YOU speculated the Pats would franchise Seymour. I didn't dispute your speculation, I merely pointed out that IF your speculation had come to pass, Seymour, who was already pissed off at the team, would have become more pissed off. Yes, I then "speculated" his play would have suffered. Not a very far limb to go out on.
3. If you judge a trade without reference to the player acquired, well, then of course its a lousy trade. We gave up Seymour for ...what...no one? By that standard, the trade the Bruins made for Esposito, Stanfield and Hodge really sucked because when the Bruins gave up Pit Martin and whoever else it was, they got no one in return. Doesn't matter that the Bruins then won two Cups a few years later.

 

[sbpatfan]

I love these hypothetical arguments. It makes everyone look like idiots, just speculation.

 

[condon84]

The trade itself isn't enough of a sign that they didn't want him long term?

I'm talking hypothetically if we should have traded him or not.

 

[Deus Irae]

1. Yes, you are right. I post here in the hope that Bob Kraft is reading these threads so I can suck up to the team.
2. What speculation game? YOU speculated the Pats would franchise Seymour. I didn't dispute your speculation, I merely pointed out that IF your speculation had come to pass, Seymour, who was already pissed off at the team, would have become more pissed off. Yes, I then "speculated" his play would have suffered. Not a very far limb to go out on.
3. If you judge a trade without reference to the player acquired, well, then of course its a lousy trade. We gave up Seymour for ...what...no one? By that standard, the trade the Bruins made for Esposito, Stanfield and Hodge really sucked because when the Bruins gave up Pit Martin and whoever else it was, they got no one in return. Doesn't matter that the Bruins then won two Cups a few years later.

I didn't speculate. I pointed out the truth. They could have franchised him. You're the one doing the speculating.

 

[Sciz]

I didn't speculate. I pointed out the truth. They could have franchised him. You're the one doing the speculating.

What happens to Wilfork if they franchise Seymour instead?

 

[Seacoast Fan]

I didn't speculate. I pointed out the truth. They could have franchised him. You're the one doing the speculating.

Oh, thanks for the clarification. I get it now...my posts are speculation. Your posts are the truth. (Are you sure you didn't mean to capitalize the "T"?)

 

[Rob0729]

I didn't speculate. I pointed out the truth. They could have franchised him. You're the one doing the speculating.

The reality of the situation they ultimately couldn't have franchised him unless they were willing to let Wilfork walk. Maybe the Pats would have rushed to get Wilfork's deal done faster if they wanted to keep Seymour too, but the reality of the situation is that they used the franchise tag on Wilfork. Unless they knew that they were definitely going to get a deal done with Wilfork before the franchise tender period, the Pats knew that there was a definitive risk that Seymour was going to be an unrestricted free agent after the 2009 season.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

What happens to Wilfork if they franchise Seymour instead?

Please, don't let your speculation get in the way of DI's truth.

 

[Deus Irae]

Oh, thanks for the clarification. I get it now...my posts are speculation. Your posts are the truth. (Are you sure you didn't mean to capitalize the "T"?)

Seymour could have been franchised and then franchised again. Barring that, he could have been franchised and then had a contract worked out in the uncapped year....

Are you really so desperate to suck up to the Patriots that you're going to keep playing the speculation game after all the 2009 homer speculation has already been exploded with regards to both Welker AND Seymour? He could have been franchised. He'd have played in New England for franchise money, or he wouldn't have played anywhere.

Pointing out that someone who could have been franchised could have been franchised is not speculation. It is, indeed, the truth. Are we really going to have to get into dictionary issues now?

 

[Deus Irae]

What happens to Wilfork if they franchise Seymour instead?

They could still have signed him.

 

[Ivan]

One of the best players to ever play here but there was no way he was ever going to sign another deal in NE. Seymour hates Belichik and wanted to max out on his next deal. I hated to see him go but don't think they had much of a choice.