Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

[TealSox]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

There's no reason to be "proud" to be a Patriots fan because the Raiders paid a great player, any more than there was reason to be "proud" to be a Seahawks fan when the Patriots made Wilfork the highest paid NT in the league.

I can appreciate any organization that builds winning teams from drafting well. I've got no problem with Seymour getting paid and remaining on the West Coast for the rest of his career. And re-signing your own guy is great until you can't tell that guy is past his prime and your paying him for his past successes.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

I can appreciate any organization that builds winning teams from drafting well. I've got no problem with Seymour getting paid and remaining on the West Coast for the rest of his career. And re-signing your own guy is great until you can't tell that guy is past his prime and your paying him for his past successes.

Seymour clearly had years to go. Being proud as a Patriots fan after the Seymour signing, when the Patriots blew that trade, is just folly.


And every team pays its players for past success.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Seymour clearly had years to go. Being proud as a Patriots fan after the Seymour signing, when the Patriots blew that trade, is just folly.


And every team pays its players for past success.

Seymour was 29 (30 a month later) when he was traded.

Wilfork was 29 in the first year of his deal.

They just didn't want to pay Seymour.

Not sure that they "blew the deal", though.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Seymour was 29 (30 a month later) when he was traded.

Wilfork was 29 in the first year of his deal.

They just didn't want to pay Seymour.

Not sure that they "blew the deal", though.

They blew the deal. I don't see how that's even questionable after watching the defense play these past 2 seasons. But I'm not going to get into it any more. At this point, if people want to delude themselves on the deal, there's nothing that's going to clear their thinking.

 

[TealSox]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

They blew the deal. I don't see how that's even questionable after watching the defense play these past 2 seasons. But I'm not going to get into it any more. At this point, if people want to delude themselves on the deal, there's nothing that's going to clear their thinking.

Wow... I didn't realize that the Patriots were on the losing end of the deal when they traded Seymour to the Raiders. In fact, I think the deal will end up to be a wash for both teams UNLESS the Patriots end up landing a superstar with the 17th pick in the draft.

I will not and have never argued that the Patriots are better off WITHOUT Seymour on gameday. He is a one of the elite defensive linemen [over the course of his career] to play the game and will prove difficult to replace, both in character and talent.

With that said, trading a player two years early seems smarter than keeping a player 2 years too long. Especially when said player is due for a huge paycheck!

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Wow... I didn't realize that the Patriots were on the losing end of the deal when they traded Seymour to the Raiders. In fact, I think the deal will end up to be a wash for both teams UNLESS the Patriots end up landing a superstar with the 17th pick in the draft.

I will not and have never argued that the Patriots are better off WITHOUT Seymour on gameday. He is a one of the elite defensive linemen [over the course of his career] to play the game and will prove difficult to replace, both in character and talent.

With that said, trading a player two years early seems smarter than keeping a player 2 years too long. Especially when said player is due for a huge paycheck!

To repeat:

They blew the deal. I don't see how that's even questionable after watching the defense play these past 2 seasons. But I'm not going to get into it any more. At this point, if people want to delude themselves on the deal, there's nothing that's going to clear their thinking.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

They blew the deal. I don't see how that's even questionable after watching the defense play these past 2 seasons. But I'm not going to get into it any more. At this point, if people want to delude themselves on the deal, there's nothing that's going to clear their thinking.

What "deal" are you referring to as there are several angles? Pats blew the negotiations? Not get a better offer for Sey? Final draft slot not commensurate with his value? We don't know what player they will get with the pick so that isn't it. As you know they couldn't use the tag on him as they did with Cassel in 09 and they used it on Wilfork last year and chose to pay him instead of Sey.

The 2009 team would have been better but not a SB team. 2010 is a different story as I think Sey would have made a huge difference.

You can argue that they made a bad roster decision but not a bad deal IMO.

 

[mgteich]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Win some, lose some. I don't know why folks can't accept that we lost this one. We could ahve extended Seymour for say $11M a year. We would had the four years of Seymour instead of the Raiders. Instead we will have a #17 draft pick.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Win some, lose some. I don't know why folks can't accept that we lost this one. We could ahve extended Seymour for say $11M a year. We would had the four years of Seymour instead of the Raiders. Instead we will have a #17 draft pick.

Where is this $11m coming from? Was that the deal on the table and he rejected it?

 

[mgteich]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

just a guess on what it would have taken for a 3-year extension

At the time, the patriots were dealing with the possibility of dealing with Mankins, Wilfork and Seymour in a potentially uncapped year. The team decided that Seymour was expendable. It was said at the time that the team couldn't possibily expect to sign both Seymour and Wilfork when their contract came due.

Where is this $11m coming from? Was that the deal on the table and he rejected it?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

just a guess on what it would have taken for a 3-year extension

At the time, the patriots were dealing with the possibility of dealing with Mankins, Wilfork and Seymour in a potentially uncapped year. The team decided that Seymour was expendable. It was said at the time that the team couldn't possibily expect to sign both Seymour and Wilfork when their contract came due.

OK.

I was going to say that if $11m for 3 years was on the table and he rejected it OR thats what he wanted and the NEP rejected it, then that would have been disappointing. Those numbers seem reasonable.

 

[FCB02062]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

The salary cap is just an excuse for owners to be cheap - it doesn't really exist...The chief owner who hides behind the cap as an excuse to make a few extra pennies is our own Krafty Bob - too cheap to pay Samuel, Seymour...the two missing ingredients from our Super Bowl last year...Krafty, too busy counting his money and shopping for pink ties....
Why do you think they never spend a first round pick on a pass rushing linebacker? Because what if he actually excels in this system and gets 12 sacks a year during the life of his rookie contract? Then that guy will command a gigantic salary, and rather than risk the PR battle because we know Krafty won't shell out the shekels, he just doesn't draft guys who can potentially win big, record setting contracts after their rookie year...Hey Krafty, how much interest have you made on my and everyone else's AFC Championship ticket????

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

The salary cap is just an excuse for owners to be cheap - it doesn't really exist...The chief owner who hides behind the cap as an excuse to make a few extra pennies is our own Krafty Bob - too cheap to pay Samuel, Seymour...the two missing ingredients from our Super Bowl last year...Krafty, too busy counting his money and shopping for pink ties....
Why do you think they never spend a first round pick on a pass rushing linebacker? Because what if he actually excels in this system and gets 12 sacks a year during the life of his rookie contract? Then that guy will command a gigantic salary, and rather than risk the PR battle because we know Krafty won't shell out the shekels, he just doesn't draft guys who can potentially win big, record setting contracts after their rookie year...Hey Krafty, how much interest have you made on my and everyone else's AFC Championship ticket????

Seems to me Seymour and Samuel were the missing ingredients in the 2007 Super Bowl.


The Raiders giving 15 mil a year to an average at best **** Seymour is further proof of Al Davis' alzheimers. The Raiders are a laughingstock.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Seems to me Seymour and Samuel were the missing ingredients in the 2007 Super Bowl.


The Raiders giving 15 mil a year to an average at best **** Seymour is further proof of Al Davis' alzheimers. The Raiders are a laughingstock.

IMO your assessment of Seymour is inaccurate. He is no longer the best D-Lineman in football as has not been since 2006 but he is still top 10 material.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

The salary cap is just an excuse for owners to be cheap - it doesn't really exist...The chief owner who hides behind the cap as an excuse to make a few extra pennies is our own Krafty Bob - too cheap to pay Samuel, Seymour...the two missing ingredients from our Super Bowl last year...Krafty, too busy counting his money and shopping for pink ties....
Why do you think they never spend a first round pick on a pass rushing linebacker? Because what if he actually excels in this system and gets 12 sacks a year during the life of his rookie contract? Then that guy will command a gigantic salary, and rather than risk the PR battle because we know Krafty won't shell out the shekels, he just doesn't draft guys who can potentially win big, record setting contracts after their rookie year...Hey Krafty, how much interest have you made on my and everyone else's AFC Championship ticket????

Steve from Fall River ......... :confused3:

 

[IcyPatriot]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

They blew the deal. I don't see how that's even questionable after watching the defense play these past 2 seasons. But I'm not going to get into it any more. At this point, if people want to delude themselves on the deal, there's nothing that's going to clear their thinking.

Some people seem to forget Seymour came into camp in horrible shape, was slower than mud and unmotivated. He missed like 15-20 practices that camp. Add what was going on behind the scene and I think the best case scenario played itself out. Seymour was in the last year of his 3.6 million a year deal. He did not want to play at that price he wanted a new deal then and not at the end of the year.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

The salary cap is just an excuse for owners to be cheap - it doesn't really exist...The chief owner who hides behind the cap as an excuse to make a few extra pennies is our own Krafty Bob - too cheap to pay Samuel, Seymour...the two missing ingredients from our Super Bowl last year...Krafty, too busy counting his money and shopping for pink ties....
Why do you think they never spend a first round pick on a pass rushing linebacker? Because what if he actually excels in this system and gets 12 sacks a year during the life of his rookie contract? Then that guy will command a gigantic salary, and rather than risk the PR battle because we know Krafty won't shell out the shekels, he just doesn't draft guys who can potentially win big, record setting contracts after their rookie year...Hey Krafty, how much interest have you made on my and everyone else's AFC Championship ticket????

First, no one can accuse the Krafts of being cheap. They may not have the highest payroll year after year, but they certainly do not have the lowest payroll either. The Pats have a history of paying good money for players. Seymour's last contract made him the highest paid d-lineman in football at the time he signed it. Until Manning signs his contract, Brady is the highest paid player in football. Vince Wilfork is the highest paid 3-4 NT in football. The Pats gave Adalius Thomas an above market contract. Randy Moss was one of the highest paid WRs with his last contract with the Pats. They offered Logan Mankins top three guard money and might end up making him the highest paid guard in football.

Second, the reason why Seymour and Samuel are not here has to do with their value vs. their demands vs. the cap itself. There is a cap and there are ways to get around it, but only to a point. Samuel wanted far more than he was worth and the Eagles haven't gotten value for their deal with him (yes, he has gawdy INT stats, but most Eagles fans think the deal was a bust because Samuel is a feast or famine type of player who gambles at times when he shouldn't). I fault the Pats for not getting a deal done with him before his stock skyrocketed, but I think by the time he left his demands far exceeded their value.

As for Seymour, the Pats already made him the highest paid d-line in football at one point. It wasn't the cap. It was his value. Seymour's last few years here were not what we came to expect out of the guy (partly because of injuries). He was about to hit 30 and looking to make top dollar again. Paying him top dollar was a risk going forward. Eventhough the Raiders are paying him elite money, he hasn't delivered elite production for them and I doubt he would have here. Losing him was a loss, but he would have hindered this team from addressing other areas and I think this team will be better for letting him go in the long run.

Besides, the Pats went 14-2 and neither Seymour nor Samuel would have stopped the Jets from shutting down the Pats' offense in the playoff game.

 

[FCB02062]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Steve from Fall River ......... :confused3:

Good call! Or Al from Everett

 

[FCB02062]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

First, no one can accuse the Krafts of being cheap. They may not have the highest payroll year after year, but they certainly do not have the lowest payroll either. The Pats have a history of paying good money for players. Seymour's last contract made him the highest paid d-lineman in football at the time he signed it. Until Manning signs his contract, Brady is the highest paid player in football. Vince Wilfork is the highest paid 3-4 NT in football. The Pats gave Adalius Thomas an above market contract. Randy Moss was one of the highest paid WRs with his last contract with the Pats. They offered Logan Mankins top three guard money and might end up making him the highest paid guard in football.

Second, the reason why Seymour and Samuel are not here has to do with their value vs. their demands vs. the cap itself. There is a cap and there are ways to get around it, but only to a point. Samuel wanted far more than he was worth and the Eagles haven't gotten value for their deal with him (yes, he has gawdy INT stats, but most Eagles fans think the deal was a bust because Samuel is a feast or famine type of player who gambles at times when he shouldn't). I fault the Pats for not getting a deal done with him before his stock skyrocketed, but I think by the time he left his demands far exceeded their value.

As for Seymour, the Pats already made him the highest paid d-line in football at one point. It wasn't the cap. It was his value. Seymour's last few years here were not what we came to expect out of the guy (partly because of injuries). He was about to hit 30 and looking to make top dollar again. Paying him top dollar was a risk going forward. Eventhough the Raiders are paying him elite money, he hasn't delivered elite production for them and I doubt he would have here. Losing him was a loss, but he would have hindered this team from addressing other areas and I think this team will be better for letting him go in the long run.

Besides, the Pats went 14-2 and neither Seymour nor Samuel would have stopped the Jets from shutting down the Pats' offense in the playoff game.

Why is sarcasm generally lost on this board? did you not see the "big grin" smiley???????

 

[IcyPatriot]

Re: OT: Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

Good call! Or Al from Everett

.... anything but Frank from "Glostuh"