Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Disco Volante, Sep 7, 2009.
Lack of long-term deal likely holding up Seymour trade
Too funny. I just mentioned this a few minutes ago in one of the other half dozen Seymour threads.
I am putting the over/under at 10.5 on them.
It would seem that Seymour is still a patriot.
Doesn't this make sense for Oakland anyways? It's not like they traded a first for 1 year of Seymour, so you kinda had to assume that they had an extension in mind too. They don't want him to hit the FA market either...
Would make sense to me.
I'm pretty sure if they can't get an agreement with Seymour, the trade is off. It's a good move on his part because he wants to secure his future for him and his family. I'm sure he doesn't want to move across the country for a year and than move again.
It would make perfect sense for a team to want to sign him for at least 3 or 4 years. But then again, perfect sense and the Raiders rarely mix.
He's smart. He knows that organization has given out big money to far lesser players than he is.
...and this is what we would have been dealing with in a year. Seymour's trade will hurt us in the short term, but at least we got an outstanding amount of value for him.
the raiders will give him the money..they have to
Absolutely, 100 percent correct!
I believe the only way it is off, is he if doesn't show up.
Hell, if I was Seymour I would be looking for big dough to play for Oakland. With an extra mil or two a year just for living in the bay area.
Not only that, but a year in Oakland won't exactly help as much as a year in New England if he did end up hitting free agency next year...you get big contracts joining the Raiders, not leaving them.
Unsurprising if true. And he has every right to do it.
I just hope the Pats don't back off the trade value received in order to facilitate a deal. I'm hopeful that they won't.
or if he fails his physical (which he won't).
On the other hand, holding up the Raiders for a long-term contract is very much a "Be careful what you wish for ..." kind of proposition.
If what we are hearing is true, Seymour wants a new deal. And if Seymour doesn't get what he wants, he won't report and the trade will void. I don't see the Pats giving him the "5 day to report" letter because he than becomes property of the Pats and he would sit out the entire year assuming he doesn't report in 5 days. One thing is for certain, he won't be a Patriot in 2009. Wouldn't surprise me if this gets ugly.
Nope, IIRC, once the trade is signed and passes muster with the NFL, if the player doesn't show up it's the other team's problem and not New England's, unless failure to report is written as an invalidating clause. Also, IIRC, the only way that failing a physical invalidates the trade is if such a requirement is written into the contract. If Oakland didn't have that written in, it's their own darned fault.
Depends on how it's written. It may be that the Pats transferred all rights to Oakland, in which case it is now officially Oakland's problem, or it's possible that they haven't, in which case it might still be New England's problem.
I'm pretty sure that is in every contract to cover team's a****. But then again, it's the Raiders.
Yes, it is possible that the one of the oldest and experienced (and slightly touched) owners has had a bunch of incompetent lawyers writing contracts for the many, many years that Davis has owned the team. Much more likely is that standard contracts have include a requirement for physicals for many years.
QUOTE=Gwedd;1490995]Nope, IIRC, once the trade is signed and passes muster with the NFL, if the player doesn't show up it's the other team's problem and not New England's, unless failure to report is written as an invalidating clause. Also, IIRC, the only way that failing a physical invalidates the trade is if such a requirement is written into the contract. If Oakland didn't have that written in, it's their own darned fault.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I concur. It's just that we are, after all, discussing the Raiders here....
Rodney spoke to him and weighed in-
If Harrison says that it's about him being a warrior who can't stand losing. If Seymour says that it's further evidence that he's a lazy bum who's all about the money and wants to go back to playing 6 games a year as soon as possible.
Nothing against what you said HBWU but i always get a kick out hearing that a player whos made more money than this entire board will ever earn in a life time has to "secure his future". I know its all relative but just the same it always makes me laugh.
Yeah, they must be awfully hungry after Seymour only making less than ten million a year. He should quit the lousy stinking NFL and take a job at the mall. Security guard or something. And Dunkin Donuts is looking for people in Lawrence.
eugene parker strikes again !
If you were in a position to make sure that your children could live comfortably for probably the duration of your lives, you wouldn't take it?
People forget that these guys' earning potential evaporates around when they hit 35-40. Don't get why anyone blames them for making as much money as possible before then- the future is an uncertain place, bad investments happen, etc. etc.- but the more money you wake, the more you can secure your entire family's long term future. I don't blame any athlete that chooses to maximize his earning potential during his (relatively) short career.
Not to mention that there was an article recently at NFP talking about how over half of retired football players are broke.
Separate names with a comma.