- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 30,681
- Reaction score
- 23,359
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Transalation: Everyone in the Oakland Front Office, except one, is trying to have the League office void this trade because of senile dementia on the part of one of the participants.
Transalation: Everyone in the Oakland Front Office, except one, is trying to have the League office void this trade because of senile dementia on the part of one of the participants.
Transalation: Everyone in the Oakland Front Office, except one, is trying to have the League office void this trade because of senile dementia on the part of one of the participants.
I think this all makes sense. Cable says Seymour wants to be a Raider and that the hold up is on the Pats end. What he doesn't say is Seymour doesn't want to be franchised and will not report unless that's guaranteed. Now Oakland wants to renegotiate the deal for a lower pick knowing they'll lose Seymour at the end of the season. Thus Cable says the hold up is on the Pats end.
Seymour's rights were traded to Oakland. They now hold his rights. If he doesn't go, then he doesn't play and he forfeits his salary and still owes them a year...
Because all trades hinge on the player showing up and passing a physical, Seymour wouldn't become a Raider unless he enters the building. Thus, it apparently would fall back to the Patriots to take action against Seymour aimed at coaxing him to honor the last year of his current contract.
NFL spokesman Michael Signora has outlined for us the procedure that would apply, if Seymour stays away.
The precise protocol is determined by the terms of the trade. "Traditionally the first condition is that the trade is contingent upon the player or players reporting and passing a physical," Signora said.
If the player doesn't report, the two teams can try to come up with a new agreement, or the trade could be called off.
If the trade conditions the transaction on Seymour reporting, the Pats would be the team sending the five-day letter. If the Pats and the Raiders re-work the deal, the Raiders could in theory acquire Seymour's rights without Seymour actually reporting, just as the Buccaneers did a couple of years ago with quarterback Jake Plummer.
I'm wondering if hearing of this trade it's difficulties has brought in a late, better offer from another team...
Does anyone know if sign-and-trade deals are allowed in the NFL per the CBA? If so, has one ever been done?
You mean......Redskins?
That's pretty much the opposite of what the article actually says...
Seymour doesn't have a lot of leverage except a threat to retire. Obviously, the Pats are already prepared to play without him.
Not sure, but I think Jared Allen might be an example of that? Not sure how that worked out specifically, but the Vikings negotiated his extension in tandem with trading for him.
uh,uh.......Seymour could simply not report to Oakland,at all.
In that case,the raiders are out of the equation,and it becomes a Patriot problem,as the deal would become null and void,until either reported or retired.
And BTW......anybody who thinks it's impossible that Seymour would refuse to report and retired is missing on his history.
Big family man,who lives here,murdered parents and he has kind of a childish,petulant side to him.
So,IMHO,it's not impossible.
I think that if he chooses not to show, we get the pick and he is the Raiders problem.
Yes, the TO situation was different, and Im pretty such the Plummer deal had that contingency in it. I am not aware of a condition that he must report in this deal.
Its dangerous to use a past example as proof when the circumstances differ.
Until Seymour takes and passes a physical with the Raiders, there is no finalized deal. The Raiders do not when that will happen.