Seymour On Reserve/Left Squad List per Lombardi

[ursa99]

You mean the 2010 season.

Yes. Sticky KB.

 

[spacecrime]

I believe he has until the 10th week to report. And then he loses the entire year..

This is not correct. That is for a holdout, not left camp.

You are confusing Seymour's situation with someone who never reported to training camp and thus never honored his contract that year.

Seymour did report to the Pats and his contract was picked up by the Raiders. So he is a left camp even though physically he never went to Raiders camp.

It is a natural mistake and one I'm surprised has not been addressed in the media.

 

[sdaniels7114]

I can't believe its that bad to be a Raider.

 

[mgteich]

Right, so Seymour needs to report by Tuesday, pass his physical (or not), and then begin his holdout.

This is not correct. That is for a holdout, not left camp.

You are confusing Seymour's situation with someone who never reported to training camp and thus never honored his contract that year.

Seymour did report to the Pats and his contract was picked up by the Raiders. So he is a left camp even though physically he never went to Raiders camp.

It is a natural mistake and one I'm surprised has not been addressed in the media.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't know. According to his tweet, Al Davis thinks Seymour will be ready to play against the Chargers:

If he think he's not going to see Richard Seymour on Sunday, Dan Fouts has got another thing coming.

Fake Al Davis (VeryFakeAlDavis) on Twitter

 

[jbb9s]

what the heck am I missing.

If he holds out, he still has the same problem next year. Plus he loses 250+k per game.

If he plays, he can leave next year - OR - he will make a cool 16M or so as a DE franchise player.

Holding out - based on the fact that he does not accrue the season towards FA - is really stupid.



Oakland must be so pissed! Maybe we can trade for him back for our 2011 3rd round pick.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

On the bright side........ I guess we know how much Seymour is about FOOTBALL, vs' himslelf, ehhhhhhh.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW Rodney has spoken to Seymour since he got his 5 day letter. I wonder if Rodney will give some insights on what Seymour is thinking on Sunday night.

From his twitter:

@Adam_Schefter I talked to Richard, he did receive the letter from the Raiders.

Rodney Harrison (Rodneyh37) on Twitter

PS Rodney compares Pat Chung to himself there:

@patriotscpfc Well, Chung reminds me of myself in a way, you can count on him in run support.

Pretty high praise. Sorry to get off topic and highjack the thread, but don't we have enough Seymour threads anyway?

 

[zoostation]

I am guessing that he cares less about the money and more about getting to another team. I would not be surprised if he never reports to the Raiders.

From what I understand....If he never reports to the Raiders he can't report anywhere else for 3 seasons if the Raiders play hard-ball. They have his rights this year, and they can franchise him for the next 2.

 

[mgteich]

If Seymour doesn't report and does report next year, and oakland franchises him twice, Seymour would be a free agent on our about March 1st, 2013.

2009 the lost year
2010 presuming he report then, this would be the last year under the contract
2011 the first franchise year
2012 the second franchise year

From what I understand....If he never reports to the Raiders he can't report anywhere else for 3 seasons if the Raiders play hard-ball. They have his rights this year, and they can franchise him for the next 2.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

From what I understand....If he never reports to the Raiders he can't report anywhere else for 3 seasons if the Raiders play hard-ball. They have his rights this year, and they can franchise him for the next 2.

It's worse than that. They have his rights UNTIL he plays for them for a season, period.

And once he does, then they can tag him for 3 consecutive seasons if they choose to...
So for example if he doesn't play this year and reports next year they can tag him in 2011, 2012, 2013 and he becomes a UFA in 2014 when he's due to turn 35 as that season opens. What that would net him is $3.8M plus three tags.

Of course if there's a lockout he loses out on any money for 2011...which would be one reason he might settle for a no tag agreement if he does play this season since there may not be any big deals getting signed in 2011...

He's really between a rock and a hard place, and has virtually no leverage short of retirement which those who know him say is not an option.

 

[shmessy]

If Seymour doesn't report and does report next year, and oakland franchises him twice, Seymour would be a free agent on our about March 1st, 2013.

2009 the lost year
2010 presuming he report then, this would be the last year under the contract
2011 the first franchise year
2012 the second franchise year

That doesn't look like a very good hand he's holding.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that Seymour has to retire or agree to play some games for the raiders.

He could show this weekend and then begin his holdout, intending the show up before the deadline for losing the year. I believe that is a few days before Game 10.

The raiders could have Seymour for $1.6M for the rest of this year and could force him to be paid only $14M or so next year. Is that really a great deal for the raiders?

It's worse than that. They have his rights UNTIL he plays for them for a season, period.

And once he does, then they can tag him for 3 consecutive seasons if they choose to...
So for example if he doesn't play this year and reports next year they can tag him in 2011, 2012, 2013 and he becomes a UFA in 2014 when he's due to turn 35 as that season opens. What that would net him is $3.8M plus three tags.

Of course if there's a lockout he loses out on any money for 2011...which would be one reason he might settle for a no tag agreement if he does play this season since there may not be any big deals getting signed in 2011...

He's really between a rock and a hard place, and has virtually no leverage short of retirement which those who know him say is not an option.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

NFL Network’s Michael Lombardi reports Richard Seymour was placed on the Raiders’ reserve-left squad list Friday.

The move indicates that the Raider consider Seymour part of their organization, essentially acknowledging that the trade with New England is official, and that Seymour has left the team without permission.

The Raiders sent a 2011 first-round pick to the Patriots for Seymour on Sept. 6, but the veteran defensive tackle has yet to report to Oakland..

Hahaha, I wonder if Lombardi is stirring the pot of his old employer?

Looks like the media is close to a square off-

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Raiders-Deny-Putting-Seymour-On-Notice-59050672.html

The Raiders insist these reports are shenanigans. As of lunchtime Friday, though, the Boston Herald reports that Seymour has the ultimatum letter in his hands.

As T.O. would say...."Get your popcorn".

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I agree that Seymour has to retire or agree to play some games for the raiders.

He could show this weekend and then begin his holdout, intending the show up before the deadline for losing the year. I believe that is a few days before Game 10.

The raiders could have Seymour for $1.6M for the rest of this year and could force him to be paid only $14M or so next year. Is that really a great deal for the raiders?

I don't think that would fly. Teams just don't let players hold out without remedy. They could suspend him and likely it would remain under the same non reporting rules. The week 10 rule is for tagged players who are not technically under contract until they sign their tag. Once they do they have to show, just like Seymour, or they will face additional consequences. You don't just get to walk out on a team once you have reported, either.

 

[Wolfpack]

If Seymour doesn't report and does report next year, and oakland franchises him twice, Seymour would be a free agent on our about March 1st, 2013.

2009 the lost year
2010 presuming he report then, this would be the last year under the contract
2011 the first franchise year
2012 the second franchise year

If he never reports, he never becomes a free agent. The contract just keeps getting pushed back a year.

Kinda like how the Lions still have the exclusive rights to Barry Sanders, who retired in the middle of a contract. Al Davis might considering giving up a #2 for him...

 

[Isaac]

...
If he plays, he can leave next year - OR - he will make a cool 16M or so as a DE franchise player.

....

I do wonder if he'd be franchised as a DT, which is a lot less $ (though Haynesworth must have helped).

 

[Reckedtrek]

I wish someone would "force" me to show up for work for $3.65 Million. At this point, I'd settle for a $36,500 job.

 

[Fencer]

If he holds out, he still has the same problem next year. Plus he loses 250+k per game.

Not really plus. I think he can offer to play for $3.7 million in 2010 after being suspended for this year, and while the Raiders could cut him instead, they would almost surely say "Fine".

 

[spacecrime]

Right, so Seymour needs to report by Tuesday, pass his physical (or not), and then begin his holdout.

No, that is not what I said. He came to training camp. He cannot hold out. He can only be left camp. He comes in, takes his physical, and if he refuses to participate gets another 5-day letter.

He has no options.

None.

Well, one. If he gets his letter and refuses it and gets suspended for the year, he could hold out next year (2010) until week 10, then report and that would take care of that last contract year. But then Davis could franchise him in 2011 and 2012.

I think I have that right?