Schefter on league reaction...

[ctpatsfan77]

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


b & c ???

I believe the answer to (C) is no. I have no idea on (B).

 

[cloud34]

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....

Playoffs? The Raiders? You're joking, right???

 

[patsfan13]

When you are old and in failing health you grasp at straws. I an looking at a top 10 pick in 2011, just giving Big Al's motivation.

 

[patsox23]

I think the Raiders don't do much this year, resulting in Cable & Co. being scrapped, a new regime for the 2010 season and then...top 10 pick, maybe top 5. That's my most optimistic, but realistic imo, prediction.

 

[WelshPat]

Based on how pathetic Oaklands divison is, it's not too crazy if they went around 8-8. However, if they can't resign seymour, the D-ends are old, and i think one of their good LB's will be a free agent.... Oakland could be really really bad in 2010.

 

[patsfan13]

I think the Raiders don't do much this year, resulting in Cable & Co. being scrapped, a new regime for the 2010 season and then...top 10 pick, maybe top 5. That's my most optimistic, but realistic imo, prediction.

I agree I also think that the Chiefs and Broncos will improve in 2010, not necessarily be good just improve.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

Not at all. There will still be a draft that is binding. The draftees will just be a part of the teams and will also be locked out.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

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.

Wow. That changes everything. I can imagine some cash strapped teams folding as a result of this. I'm starting to think there are enough poison pills, that both sides will be devastated by having no CBA before the end of this year. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out, but I'll be pissed if there are any games not played, of if there is no salary cap at the end of all of this. True, this sucks for the players and owners, but it could end up sucking for fans most of all.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

I think the exec assumes there wont be a rookie cap unless a lockout forces it.

 

[signbabybrady]

could it maybe be ominous of a 2010 lockout instead and BB wanted in 2011 because of this???

 

[Deus Irae]

Wow. That changes everything. I can imagine some cash strapped teams folding as a result of this. I'm starting to think there are enough poison pills, that both sides will be devasted by having no CBA before the end of this year. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out, but I'll be pissed if there are any games not played, of if there is no salary cap at the end of all of this. True, this sucks for the players and owners, but it could end up sucking for fans most of all.

That's always the case. The players and owners are just arguing about who gets a larger piece of the fleecing that both give the public.

 

[Satchboogie3]

I keep hearing people say such things as "Oh, but the 2011 pick might not be on the field until 2012 and by then Moss and Brady will be 35 and this team will look very different, etc etc". While, yes, the team will look very different, I don't think that Belichick simply believes the team will fall apart after Brady and Moss grow old. Lets not forget that Moss wasn't a part of our 3 championship teams. Lets not forget the amazing season that we had last year when Brady went down in week 1.

I see no reason why Belichick can't keep this team a strong contender every year despite personnel changes. Brady leaving the team/retiring doesn't mean the end of dominance. Belichick is always thinking ahead and is planning out the future so that there won't be a "downfall".

 

[JD10367]

The only way this deal turns out to suck is if, next season, the Raiders finish 10-6 and that pick ends up being the 20th.

If it's 10th or better, IMO, the Pats made out.

If it's a top three pick, Belichick is golden. If there's a new rookie cap in place, that pick is like hitting the lottery. If there's no rookie cap, Belichick won't hesitate to slide out of it and exchange, say, a #3 overall for someone's #9 overall and their 2nd round picks in '11 and '12 (or whatever deal that vaunted value chart calls for).

Low pick, Pats look stupid. High pick, they look brilliant. Seymour plays great and Pats have a crappy D-line which causes them not to win this year's Super Bowl, Pats look stupid. Seymour sucks ass and Green and Wright and the rest play great and the Pats win this year's Super Bowl, Pats look brilliant. Hindsight is a glorious thing. But, from where we now stand and view the deal, it looks like it was a wise risk to make. It's all about risk/reward.

 

[captain stone]

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."

I wonder what those same execs think of our chances this season, w/o Seymour. We cert. aren't a better defense today than we were 2 days ago, and our defense was already questionable 2 days ago.

One side of my brain, the side that loves to stockpile draft picks, likes this trade because of the potential All-Pro-caliber return and because it knows that Seymour was not going to give us any hometown discount, just like his fellow travellers ***ante & Meion; the Patriots Way carries little currency for any of them.

The other side of my brain, the side that loves to acquire & keep talent, fears that this trade further weakens an already shaky defense, which BTW just lost its most productive pass-rusher from last season. I have absolutely no idea from where the sacks, or even pressure, will come: Burgess? Woods? TBC? Really? Adalius is the only one on the 53 in whom I have any confidence, and he's not exactly Peppers or Ware himself.