Rotoworld: Seymour wants new deal from Raiders (Report)

[BradyFTW!]

Athletes are in general pretty dumb because they have been pushed through college and H.S. and dont have a real education.

More often than not, my experience has been that athletes are pretty much like anyone else intelligence-wise: it varies greatly from person to person, but the vast majority are neither geniuses nor stupid. And on average, I'd say they certainly edge you out (based on how well thought out your typical post is), so be careful who you're calling dumb

Athletes aren't stupid, in my experience. Some are, but, like with anything else, it varies pretty widely. Now, most of them lack proper money management skills, but that's not really a factor of intelligence. The last conversation that I had with an NFL-caliber prospect (Miami was recruiting him at the time, and he's the cousin of a pro bowl NFL QB and brother of an NFL RB), he was recounting his high school curriculum to me. Apparently weightlifting is two separate classes if you're a D1 high school prospect in a football factory state. Does that mean that this kid was stupid? Nope- he was actually pretty articulate, and a surprisingly quick study. Not an unintelligent guy at all. He probably lacked a couple of the learned skills that we take for granted, but the level of stupidity that I see on this forum every day surpasses anything that I saw from him. And from talking it over with acquaintances and industry contacts who have far more experience with athletes than I do, it sounds like that's actually the norm.

I kinda wish someone would conduct a huge sociological experiment where a bunch of unremarkable people were just randomly selected and were handed a bunch of money and celebrity and the expectations that it entails. I'm willing to bet that the flameout/bankruptcy rate would be remarkably high no matter what demographic you were pulling people from. Fame and fortune have interesting effects on people, to say the least.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

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.

This board has thousands of members. There's a good chance there's a few who will have MUCH more money that Sey. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if Shilling was a registered member at one time or another.

 

[Timbo717]

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.

Especially when it's the Raiders.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

More often than not, my experience has been that athletes are pretty much like anyone else intelligence-wise: it varies greatly from person to person, but the vast majority are neither geniuses nor stupid. And on average, I'd say they certainly edge you out (based on how well thought out your typical post is), so be careful who you're calling dumb

Athletes aren't stupid, in my experience. Some are, but, like with anything else, it varies pretty widely. Now, most of them lack proper money management skills, but that's not really a factor of intelligence. The last conversation that I had with an NFL-caliber prospect (Miami was recruiting him at the time, and he's the cousin of a pro bowl NFL QB and brother of an NFL RB), he was recounting his high school curriculum to me. Apparently weightlifting is two separate classes if you're a D1 high school prospect in a football factory state. Does that mean that this kid was stupid? Nope- he was actually pretty articulate, and a surprisingly quick study. Not an unintelligent guy at all. He probably lacked a couple of the learned skills that we take for granted, but the level of stupidity that I see on this forum every day surpasses anything that I saw from him. And from talking it over with acquaintances and industry contacts who have far more experience with athletes than I do, it sounds like that's actually the norm.

I kinda wish someone would conduct a huge sociological experiment where a bunch of unremarkable people were just randomly selected and were handed a bunch of money and celebrity and the expectations that it entails. I'm willing to bet that the flameout/bankruptcy rate would be remarkably high no matter what demographic you were pulling people from. Fame and fortune have interesting effects on people, to say the least.

The experiment has already been conducted- sorta.

It's called the lottery. Athletes fall with celebrities, doctors, and 95% of new business owners. They can't manage money. Remember that the vast majority of businesses fail due to financial management.

If the vast majority of people were prudent money managers, the vast majority would be millionaires.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

The experiment has already been conducted- sorta.

It's called the lottery. Athletes fall with celebrities, doctors, and 95% of new business owners. They can't manage money. Remember that the vast majority of businesses fail due to financial management.

If the vast majority of people were prudent money managers, the vast majority would be millionaires.

If everyone was smart with there money, there would be very few millionaires. Millionaires, ultimately, are making money off of those less smart with their money. It would certainly change the distribution of wealth, and there would be no poverty. The economy would be vastly different.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

my admiration for Seymour just went higher than it already was. very smart move. he has the raiders over a barrel and will never have more leverage than he has right now. if they call his bluff and he ends up back with the pats, he still gets his 3.7 and walks to another big contract next year.

my understanding, tho, is that the Pats could throw a wrench into the whole thing after five days, when they could put him in a position where he loses a year towards his FA. Can anyone clarify that?

 

[BelichickFan]

my admiration for Seymour just went higher than it already was. very smart move. he has the raiders over a barrel and will never have more leverage than he has right now. if they call his bluff and he ends up back with the pats, he still gets his 3.7 and walks to another big contract next year.

my understanding, tho, is that the Pats could throw a wrench into the whole thing after five days, when they could put him in a position where he loses a year towards his FA. Can anyone clarify that?

Yeah, he doesn't have leverage, he's just trying to make it look like he does. If he gets the 5 day letter (from the Patriots or Raiders, not sure who would send it), he has to report (again, not sure if he'd report to the Patriots or Raiders), or he it gone for the year with no salary and no accrued year to FA.

 

[patchick]

If everyone was smart with there money, there would be very few millionaires. Millionaires, ultimately, are making money off of those less smart with their money. It would certainly change the distribution of wealth, and there would be no poverty. The economy would be vastly different.

If everyone made wise financial decisions, nobody would start successful businesses that thrive by offering worthwhile products and services? Nobody would pay handsomely for the services of an expert who went through many years of expensive, specialized training, like a surgeon?

It's been shown that the typical millionaire is a self-employed entrepreneur or professional who has maintained a high annual savings rate throughout his/her career. I don't see why those folks would disappear just because others were careful about their savings.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

my admiration for Seymour just went higher than it already was. very smart move. he has the raiders over a barrel and will never have more leverage than he has right now. if they call his bluff and he ends up back with the pats, he still gets his 3.7 and walks to another big contract next year.

my understanding, tho, is that the Pats could throw a wrench into the whole thing after five days, when they could put him in a position where he loses a year towards his FA. Can anyone clarify that?

Might want to reassess in light of the facts.

 

[Pats726]

my admiration for Seymour just went higher than it already was. very smart move. he has the raiders over a barrel and will never have more leverage than he has right now. if they call his bluff and he ends up back with the pats, he still gets his 3.7 and walks to another big contract next year.

my understanding, tho, is that the Pats could throw a wrench into the whole thing after five days, when they could put him in a position where he loses a year towards his FA. Can anyone clarify that?

Seymour does not have anyone over a barrell..he could lose big time if his greed goes to his head..Frankly, I have lost a lot of respect for him and if he continues on this path..he'll be Branched. Just another greedy athlete who is out of touch with the real world. I hope the Pats stick it to him good.. Seymour wants..Go worship the money grubbers..!!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

I really see this differently (aside from the fact that I think there are more than a few folks on this board who have more than a few dollars in the bank...).

To me, "Secure his future" is just another way of saying, "Earn what his talents are worth and the market will bear." Guys like Seymour are entertainers with a unique set of talents. Why shouldn't they get every dime they can earn? Unlike Rock Stars, they risk career-ending injury every time they take the field to practice or play. For my part, I laugh when people say a particular player should take "a few million dollars" less to play in place A instead of B (unless the ancillary, off field revenue in A makes up for what he would receive in B). "A few million dollars!" That's a whole boatload of money. Why should anyone pass it up, if his talents are such as to find a market that will pay him for it? His talents are fleeting and the whole thing could go away in a nanosecond on the field when some 350 pound guy lands on a leg or shoulder.

I also laugh when people say that Tom Brady should take less from the Pats because Gisele makes a ton of money. She too is in a niche of the entertainment business with a set of talents the value of which diminish over time; she gets top dollar, according to her talents and the market. Why shouldn't her husband get the same? I'm not arguing that TB should insist on being the top paid QB in the NFL, but he has every right to insist on being in the top three. Yes, in football there can be a modest discount for staying with a Franchise that makes success more likely; but that too is a cold calculation to make, as trips to the SB are tough to get even for teams like the Pats and Steelers and Colts.

 

[shmessy]

Or get paid more money. That's the part of the equation that you seem to be missing. People offer them more money, and they take it. if I had the earning power that a Richard Seymour has, and was given the chance to sign a contract that would set up my wife, kids, and elements of my extended family for a comfortable life, I'd do it. Not because I don't care about being on the 'best team', but because family and friends matter too.

Nobody said otherwise, but keep making points up to make your rant sound more ridiculous- that always works.

.........It's easy to take the smug superiority approach and say 'I'd never do that', but if you think the equation is that simple, then there are factors at work that you clearly don't even begin to understand.

Your first paragraph is classic, since I have NEVER faulted any athlete for wanting more money. I don't begrudge Seymour at all for it. And if he doesn't want to report, I fully support his right to make his own decision in the matter. These people are not slaves. They have every right in the world to choose their own paths.

The point YOU miss is that I merely like the trade for the long-term value it presents the Patriots (fully understanding that it diminishes them - - at a very deep roster position - - in the short-term. I never characterized anything malevolent about Big Sey probably bolting for FA next year. That's his right. I might have done the same in the dsame situation. It is what it is. The Pats have to do what they have to do. Nobody's a "bad guy".


What's truly funny, I was replying to a certain poster who wrote this (caps mine):

"....Add in a comfortable-to-EXTRAVAGANT LIFESTYLE, SUPPORTING your family and even FRIENDS/EXTENDED FAMILY... yeah. It adds up."

Reminds me of the time last year when Ed MacMahon went on Larry King Live to moan (and plead for help) about his having to give up his interest only mortgage - - explaining that "Well, ya have a few divorces, ya have to show a certain style in Hollywood, ya make a few mistakes......stuff happens."

Classic.

There are plenty of pro athletes who do it the right way (without the "bling" and "cribs").

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Yeah, he doesn't have leverage, he's just trying to make it look like he does. If he gets the 5 day letter (from the Patriots or Raiders, not sure who would send it), he has to report (again, not sure if he'd report to the Patriots or Raiders), or he it gone for the year with no salary and no accrued year to FA.

thanks for the clarification. i appreciate it.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Might want to reassess in light of the facts.

thx. already have. see my response to Bfan.

 

[PittPatriot]

If everyone made wise financial decisions, nobody would start successful businesses that thrive by offering worthwhile products and services? Nobody would pay handsomely for the services of an expert who went through many years of expensive, specialized training, like a surgeon?

It's been shown that the typical millionaire is a self-employed entrepreneur or professional who has maintained a high annual savings rate throughout his/her career. I don't see why those folks would disappear just because others were careful about their savings.

Thank you sooo much for writing this post. I was not sure how to properly construct a response without sounding or being offended and you put it together perfectly.

Let me add one more thing - if we were all savvy in money-making ways, we'd be reading the WSJ and watching CNBC for all the time we spend on Patsfans. But alas, they need people to cheer for teams, not own them...and that is where we come in.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

If everyone made wise financial decisions, nobody would start successful businesses that thrive by offering worthwhile products and services? Nobody would pay handsomely for the services of an expert who went through many years of expensive, specialized training, like a surgeon?

It's been shown that the typical millionaire is a self-employed entrepreneur or professional who has maintained a high annual savings rate throughout his/her career. I don't see why those folks would disappear just because others were careful about their savings.

I didn't say no millionaires, I said very few. The bottom line, is that there is only so much to go around, and it is ultimatley based on what we produce. If everybody made intelligent financial decisions, there would be many industries that would cease to exist, many more would shrink dramatically, and many different idustries would start to boom. Yes, everybody might be very well off, but few would rise to the rediculous heights that many rise to now. Ultimately, the wealth of a people is a function of production/person working. You can not have more than you actually produce, and sound investments are still reliant on what is actually produced. Perhaps, in time, when technology and efficiency of resources reach a point where we produce enough to make everybody millionaires, we can acheive this, but that is still some way off.

The rich build their empires on the backs of the poor.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

If everyone was smart with there money, there would be very few millionaires. Millionaires, ultimately, are making money off of those less smart with their money. It would certainly change the distribution of wealth, and there would be no poverty. The economy would be vastly different.

that's just not true on the facts. most millionaires in the US are entrepreneurs who took risks and were smart about that risk taking and then were smart about what they did with the money they made in their businesses. even millionaires on wall street get that way by being smarter than the next person, who was usually plenty smart him/herself; we can reasonably argue that that particular wealth is not "productive" wealth, but it's not a result of taking candy from babies.

 

[patchick]

Let me add one more thing - if we were all savvy in money-making ways, we'd be reading the WSJ and watching CNBC for all the time we spend on Patsfans.

Nah, that's not savvy, that's obsessive.

I'm self-employed, I work hard to grow my business, I don't go in for extravagances and I save for the future. But I don't spend every free moment trying to maximize my money, because that would be a lousy investment of my precious time, energy and happiness.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

that's just not true on the facts. most millionaires in the US are entrepreneurs who took risks and were smart about that risk taking and then were smart about what they did with the money they made in their businesses. even millionaires on wall street get that way by being smarter than the next person, who was usually plenty smart him/herself; we can reasonably argue that that particular wealth is not "productive" wealth, but it's not a result of taking candy from babies.

I'm not implying that there is anything immoral about becoming a millionare. What I'm saying is that this country has something called a GDP. That's what we produce. At this time, there is a small number that have a rediculous ammount of stuff, and a very large number that have nothing. Then there is the class in the middle that is rapidly shrinking. If everyone was smart with their money, it would cause a massive redistribution of wealth. That is something I am entirely for, and I think the world would be a better place if people were all smart with their money. I would love to be wrong in this case... if you can prove me wrong, I would be eternally greatful.

I would also say that MOST millionaires were born to high-middle class or higher class families in the first place.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I didn't say no millionaires, I said very few. The bottom line, is that there is only so much to go around, and it is ultimatley based on what we produce. If everybody made intelligent financial decisions, there would be many industries that would cease to exist, many more would shrink dramatically, and many different idustries would start to boom. Yes, everybody might be very well off, but few would rise to the rediculous heights that many rise to now. Ultimately, the wealth of a people is a function of production/person working. You can not have more than you actually produce, and sound investments are still reliant on what is actually produced. Perhaps, in time, when technology and efficiency of resources reach a point where we produce enough to make everybody millionaires, we can acheive this, but that is still some way off.

The rich build their empires on the backs of the poor.

please provide an example of an "industry" that produces wealth for individuals and that would cease to exist or shrink dramatically if "everybody made intelligent financial decisions."

your statement "the wealth of a people is a function of production/person working" is jumbled; wealth can certainly be a function of production but is not necessarily a function of an individual person working.

Your statement "you can not have more than you actually produce," is prescriptive, not descriptive.

Your statement "sound investments are still reliant on what is actually produced" is not true; they are reliant on the efficiency with which that production occurs, on the competitiveness of what is produced and on the price a reasonable market will pay for it.

i have no idea what your statement beginning "Perhaps, in time..." means or could mean.

Your statement "The rich build their empires on the backs of the poor" is not true by observation, since if everyone were poor there would be no one to buy the products that enrich the rich.