Schefter on league reaction...

[patsox23]

Adam Schefter Blog - ESPN

The league reaction to the Seymour trade

Sunday, September 6, 2009 | Print Entry

From the moment the trade was made, reaction from league coaches and executives began streaming in.

Here is a sample of texts and e-mails that landed in my BlackBerry:

"Oakland Raiders gave up way too much."

"Why would the Raiders do that -- to win 4 games? Oh well."

"[First-round pick] not conditional on performance? Man, Seymour could be retired by then! Unreal."

But the most ominous note came from one exec who wrote, "Pats see 2011 lockout."

To see more about the Seymour trade, including its effects on the Patriots, you must be an ESPN Insider. Insider

The Patriots' defense is in transition

Lost in the hullabaloo of the Richard Seymour trade is the fact New England now is fielding a defense in a clear state of transition.

Five starters from last season's Patriots defense no longer are with the team: Seymour, linebackers Mike Vrabel and Tedy Bruschi and defensive backs Rodney Harrison and Ellis Hobbs.

Some of the team's most inspirational leaders -- Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison and Seymour -- either have been traded or have retired.

The Patriots still have Ty Warren and Vince Wilfork and some of their defensive stalwarts. But more and more, New England's defense is becoming about the new generation of young players, such as linebacker Jerod Mayo.

 

[JSn]

But the most ominous note came from one exec who wrote, "Pats see 2011 lockout."

I'd don't understand the ominousness of this statement.

 

[patsox23]

I'd don't understand the ominousness of this statement.

Well, I think it's ominous that one of the most connected teams in the NFL sees a lockout coming. I don't know that I see a direct link from the Seymour trade to that inference, but given the inference, it does seem ominous, imo.

 

[JSn]

Well, I think it's ominous that one of the most connected teams in the NFL sees a lockout coming. I don't know that I see a direct link from the Seymour trade to that inference, but given the inference, it does seem ominous, imo.

But if they're locking players out 2011, doesn't that mean they just gave Seymour away?

 

[patsox23]

But if they're locking players out 2011, doesn't that mean they just gave Seymour away?

No. I think it means they're getting an unpaid asset for a massively paid one. Who knows, though?

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Well, I think it's ominous that one of the most connected teams in the NFL sees a lockout coming. I don't know that I see a direct link from the Seymour trade to that inference, but given the inference, it does seem ominous, imo.

Agreed, but to trade into it must provide a benefit in some obscure CB rule that would cascade down if it does happen. Word out of Oakland was that the offer was for 2010 1st, but BB insisted on 2011.

With the expected Rookie caps coming that year, that makes sense, but I am puzzled about the lockout aspect.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I think that is the big concern if there will be a lockout in 2011... But again if seymour makes you better in 09, why move him....In bill we trust..

 

[Rob0729]

But if they're locking players out 2011, doesn't that mean they just gave Seymour away?

I guess you could argue that with a 2011 lockout, it could mean that when this pick actually gets on the field it could be 2012 and Brady and Moss would be 35 and the door of their careers are closing.

Or let's say the lockout goes longer than a year.

Personally, I think there is too much money to lose and teams like the Cowboys, Jets, and Giants have huge stadium mortgage payments to pay that there will never really be a lock out.

 

[JSn]

Personally, I think there is too much money to lose and teams like the Cowboys, Jets, and Giants have huge stadium mortgage payments to pay that there will never really be a lock out.

Ok, so in all likelihood, this is aimed more at the idea of a rookie cap.

There's an outside chance this pick becomes a trading chip for another big move this season, but I can't for the life of me imagine who it would be.

 

[WhiZa]

I guess you could argue that with a 2011 lockout, it could mean that when this pick actually gets on the field it could be 2012 and Brady and Moss would be 35 and the door of their careers are closing.

Or let's say the lockout goes longer than a year.

Personally, I think there is too much money to lose and teams like the Cowboys, Jets, and Giants have huge stadium mortgage payments to pay that there will never really be a lock out.

I agree. There's so much money to be made you have to expect the NFL will be able to come to an agreement. Locking out would just be idiotic on all ends. It's not similar to the NHL who was just losing money everyday. The NFL is a cash cow.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

I guess you could argue that with a 2011 lockout, it could mean that when this pick actually gets on the field it could be 2012 and Brady and Moss would be 35 and the door of their careers are closing.

Or let's say the lockout goes longer than a year.

Personally, I think there is too much money to lose and teams like the Cowboys, Jets, and Giants have huge stadium mortgage payments to pay that there will never really be a lock out.

No, the deal with DirectTV was lockout insurance, as it pays them whether the games are played or not. Without the over head of players, or games, teams would likely make out finacially, or at least hold pat.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

No, the deal with DirectTV was lockout insurance, as it pays them whether the games are played or not. Without the over head of players, or games, teams would likely make out finacially, or at least hold pat.

It just hit me that it's time to read the fine print of the DirecTV contract to see if I'm paying if they don't play the games.........If they are still paying whether the games are played or not, somebody is paying for that, either the consumer or some reinsurance company....2011 may be time to renew at the last minute....
Sorry for going OT....

 

[JoeSixPat]

The defense is "in transition?"

C'mon... I mean besides Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Hobbs, Sanders, Seau, Smith, Colvin and Izzo, who have they really lost?

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

The defense is "in transition?"

C'mon... I mean besides Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Hobbs, Sanders, Seau, Smith, Colvin and Izzo, who have they really lost?

Sometimes, looking at this years version of the Pats, a quote from "Major League" comes to mind. "What are these guys"?

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Adam Schefter Blog - ESPN

But the most ominous note came from one exec who wrote, "Pats see 2011 lockout."

Well, I think it's ominous that one of the most connected teams in the NFL sees a lockout coming. I don't know that I see a direct link from the Seymour trade to that inference, but given the inference, it does seem ominous, imo.

But if they're locking players out 2011, doesn't that mean they just gave Seymour away?

Actually, reading a PoJo analysis actually has me leaning that this actually argues the OTHER WAY (against a lock out).

** They may also be gambling that there will be a rookie wage cap in place by 2011 as part of a new collective bargaining agreement. Then, after years of teams' trying to trade out of the top few draft spots because of the crushing financial commitments that go with them, the top few picks would become extremely valuable again. It is a calculated risk.

There might not be a rookie cap, which would make a high-first-round pick unattractive for the fiscally prudent Patriots. But if there is a lockout in 2011, the Patriots will get to exercise the pick in the draft that will still be held.

We're forgetting that the Draft still happens, whether the owners lock out the players or not. The question is in whether or not a new CBA with "rookie caps" is in place.

We all know that high ones are not as valued to BB as value picks, but compared to now, High 1's in 2011 are all Value picks and the chances of getting a STUD (at least based of BB's high one records) is just about can't miss.

I'd say insisting that we push pick to 2011 means that BB is banking on a new CBA with "rookie caps" in place, as that holds much higher "value" then a 2010 with no caps in place. With a new CBA in place, obviously the lock-out becomes a moot point.

 

[maverick4]

Actually, reading a PoJo analysis actually has me leaning that this actually argues the OTHER WAY (against a lock out).



We're forgetting that the Draft still happens, whether the owners lock out the players or not. The question is in whether or not a new CBA with "rookie caps" is in place.

We all know that high ones are not as valued to BB as value picks, but compared to now, High 1's in 2011 are all Value picks and the chances of getting a STUD (at least based of BB's high one records) is just about can't miss.

I'd say insisting that we push pick to 2011 means that BB is banking on a new CBA with "rookie caps" in place, as that holds much higher "value" then a 2010 with no caps in place. With a new CBA in place, obviously the lock-out becomes a moot point.

I agree with you. That anonymous exec has it all wrong.

Belichick is banking on 2011 with a fixed salary structure for rookies, even if a lockout occurs.

Right now he's shied away from high picks because of their prohibitively expensive contracts. A high 2011 pick would be worth exponentially more if you can select an elite rookie and pay him half or a third what he would have made pre-new-CBA. This will be a HUGE competitive advantage in a salary cap league.

 

[patsfan13]

Everybody is missing the Al Davis angle, To the best of my knowledge Al doesn't have a heir to take over the franchise. Given his age and health he wants to get into the playoffs and have another run at glory. HE may not be around when the 2001 #1 pick reaches TC......


He is hoping Russel has a breakout year and Sey transform the horrible run D, not a bad bet on Sey's effect on their D. as to Russell....

 

[bigfandan]

No. I think it means they're getting an unpaid asset for a massively paid one. Who knows, though?

If 2011 is locked out,
a). would there be a draft?
b). would it delay rookie contract signing?
c). would the rookies go back to the next year's draft pool?

Any of these could happen, so maybe as much asset value either.

 

[patsfan13]

If 2007 is a lockout there would still be a draft it is in the current CBA.


b & c ???

 

[ctpatsfan77]

No, the deal with DirectTV was lockout insurance, as it pays them whether the games are played or not. Without the over head of players, or games, teams would likely make out finacially, or at least hold pat.

Actually, "lockout insurance" is being a bit generous as a description.

Yes, DirecTV pays one way or the other. That said, if there's a lockout, then the owners are actually getting money now, and paying for it later: someone (Peter King?) said on NYC radio earlier this week that for every week that DirecTV pays money for games that aren't played, they get a week later on for free.