Seymour, Raiders strike 2-year deal

[Ring 6]

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

Too expensive based on what? Relative players who play 3-4 DE? His performance? The cost of winning? The team will never know what the outcome would have been in 2010 w/ Sey. Lets say in the uncapped year they break the bank on Sey and Wilfork and find a way to keep both. If there is one thing the 2010 team needed more then anything was a stronger defense- particularly the short-yardage run defense and the pass rush. Those happen to be two areas in which Sey could provide great value.

The smart, solid financial decision was to trade Sey.

The decision to put to best team on the field and win was to keep Sey.

Hindsight is 20/20.
The best decision to put the best team on the field is not obvious and clear, there are too many other factors. PAying Seymour $11 mill a year affects an awful lot more than the DE position.
Yes, if the world ended after 2010, then they should have given one or the other whatever they wanted and tagged the other one. What would that do long term?

 

[RobertWeathers]

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

Hindsight is 20/20.
The best decision to put the best team on the field is not obvious and clear, there are too many other factors. PAying Seymour $11 mill a year affects an awful lot more than the DE position.

In theory, no argument. Its all in hindsight and impossible to argue one way or the other. However seeing that the team had an uncapped year to play with in 2010 and knowing the 2009 financials make things a bit hazy....

-Salary went down $13m from 2008, but still 2nd highest in team history
-Revenues increased $20m from 2008, highest in team history
-Operating income went down $4m from 2008, but was still the 2nd highest in team history.

My assumption is what I had stated earlier. Knowing that they needed to extend Brady, and faced with the decision to extend Wilfork, they felt that they could not afford (or want) to pay Sey as well. But, what I do not want to find out is that they chose NOT to pay Sey even though their financial model would have allowed them to pay Brady, Sey and Wilfork and still bring in decent "middle class" players.

Yes, if the world ended after 2010, then they should have given one or the other whatever they wanted and tagged the other one. What would that do long term?

Of course, if the NEP knew that 2010 was their 2007, they would have made it work. However, I contend BB viewed 2009-2010 as stepping stone years and views 2011 (if he drafted well) would be the "go for it" year.

 

[Sciz]

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

My assumption is what I stated earlier. Knowing that they needed to extend Brady, and faced with the decision to extend Wilfork, they felt that they could not afford to pay Sey as well. But, what I do not want to find out is that they chose NOT to pay Sey even though their financial model would have allowed them to pay Brady, Sey and Wilfork.

Don't forget about Mankins. Going into that offseason, there was a lot of talk about which 2 of the big 3 would get paid out of Wilfork, Seymour, and Mankins. Apparently they picked Wilfork and Mankins, but then signing Mankins didn't work out. It makes sense, considering Seymour was the oldest and most injury prone.

 

[IcyPatriot]

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

So how many (major) players in the Bill Belichick era have received new contracts before or near the beginning of the last year of their current contract?

 

[Deus Irae]

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

Hindsight is 20/20.
The best decision to put the best team on the field is not obvious and clear, there are too many other factors. PAying Seymour $11 mill a year affects an awful lot more than the DE position.
Yes, if the world ended after 2010, then they should have given one or the other whatever they wanted and tagged the other one. What would that do long term?

I'm trying to stay out of this, but some of your comments are just too much:

1.) As I believe Miguel has noted multiple times in the past, salary cap has not been an issue for NFL teams in years. It certainly wasn't an issue for the Patriots. The team had the money to keep both Seymour and Wilfork, particularly with the 2010 season being uncapped.

2.) Hindsight has nothing to do with this. Some of us were saying it was a bad trade right from the beginning, and taking a ridiculous amount of crap from people such as yourself. If "hindsight is 20/20", apparently for some, even hindsight isn't enough to give them good vision when it comes to the Patriots making bad moves.

3.) The team didn't need to tag both players. The Patriots could have done something known as "working out a deal" with one and then franchised the other. The world didn't need to end after 2010 for that to be the case.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

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

I'm trying to stay out of this, but some of your comments are just too much:

1.) As I believe Miguel has noted multiple times in the past, salary cap has not been an issue for NFL teams in years. It certainly wasn't an issue for the Patriots. The team had the money to keep both Seymour and Wilfork, particularly with the 2010 season being uncapped.

That's not entirely fair or accurate. We traded Seymour before the 2009 season started. At the time, we knew 2010 could be uncapped, but a new agreement could also have been put in place prior to that. To bet one way or another with that much money would have been irresponsible.

As for 2009, the Pats were less than $200K under the cap including the cap hit for trading Seymour. With plans for new deals for Brady, Wilfork, and Mankins upcoming, money was absolutely an issue.

Without Seymour, the 2010 team's cap was around $135M. That figure does include money from Moss's trade, but doesn't include the potential extension for Mankins or the franchise tag number we'll have to carry going into the next season.

And even with the uncapped 2010, the expectation was that a cap would be put back in, and that it would be less than 2009. With that in mind, not sure how we could have fit in the $12-$15M per season Seymour got from the Raiders.

3.) The team didn't need to tag both players. The Patriots could have done something known as "working out a deal" with one and then franchised the other. The world didn't need to end after 2010 for that to be the case.

I disagree. The Patriots already had experience with Seymour about his contract several times, and probably didn't expect negotiations to run smoothly. Let's also not forget that he was unable to reach a deal with Oakland either in his first season, so the Raiders had to tag him.

As for Vince, it took a long time to work out that deal. Vince and Bianca were looking at the Haynesworth deal, but it wasn't until Casey Hampton signed his deal in late February that the reality check happened and the deal got done a week and a half later. So the tag was necessary for both unless they were willing to overpay dramatically for one of them.

It sucked to lose Seymour. We still haven't adequately replaced him. But I don't see how we would have been able to keep him much longer than we did.

 

[Deus Irae]

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

That's not entirely fair or accurate. We traded Seymour before the 2009 season started. At the time, we knew 2010 could be uncapped, but a new agreement could also have been put in place prior to that. To bet one way or another with that much money would have been irresponsible.

You must be kidding.

As for 2009, the Pats were less than $200K under the cap including the cap hit for trading Seymour. With plans for new deals for Brady, Wilfork, and Mankins upcoming, money was absolutely an issue.

No, sorry. Money was not an issue. Salary cap money hasn't been an issue since the new CBA took effect. Feel free to talk to Miguel about it.

Without Seymour, the 2010 team's cap was around $135M. That figure does include money from Moss's trade, but doesn't include the potential extension for Mankins or the franchise tag number we'll have to carry going into the next season.

And even with the uncapped 2010, the expectation was that a cap would be put back in, and that it would be less than 2009. With that in mind, not sure how we could have fit in the $12-$15M per season Seymour got from the Raiders.

This supposition was clearly not something universal. And, again, the money was available

I disagree. The Patriots already had experience with Seymour about his contract several times, and probably didn't expect negotiations to run smoothly. Let's also not forget that he was unable to reach a deal with Oakland either in his first season, so the Raiders had to tag him.

Could have tagged him. End of issue.

As for Vince, it took a long time to work out that deal. Vince and Bianca were looking at the Haynesworth deal, but it wasn't until Casey Hampton signed his deal in late February that the reality check happened and the deal got done a week and a half later. So the tag was necessary for both unless they were willing to overpay dramatically for one of them.

It didn't take a long time to work out the deal. Wilfork noted repeatedly that the Patriots weren't even discussing the deal. They were apparently too busy making sure the Kaczurs of the world were getting new deals. Once the Patriots finally got serious, the deal was done fairly quickly.

It sucked to lose Seymour. We still haven't adequately replaced him. But I don't see how we would have been able to keep him much longer than we did.

Easily, as has been discussed probably more than a dozen times. The Patriots made a choice. Like many choices they've made in the past few seasons, it was the wrong one. They didn't learn from the Samuel screw up, and that's something that should be a concern for Patriots fans moving forward.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

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

No, sorry. Money was not an issue. Salary cap money hasn't been an issue since the new CBA took effect. Feel free to talk to Miguel about it.

Not sure exactly what Miguel said on the subject, as I wasn't able to find the post you're referring to. I know some contracts have been adjusted mid-season to take advantage of remaining room so taking the final salary cap numbers isn't the best way of doing things. But would be interested to hear Miguel's take on it.

This supposition was clearly not something universal. And, again, the money was available

What exactly do you mean the money was available? Are we talking about actual bonus money paid out? I know there was no cap in 2010, but would $12-$15M work into our cap structure in 2011+?

Could have tagged him. End of issue.

We would have had to tag him, and I think that would have put us at risk of losing Wilfork.

It didn't take a long time to work out the deal. Wilfork noted repeatedly that the Patriots weren't even discussing the deal. They were apparently too busy making sure the Kaczurs of the world were getting new deals. Once the Patriots finally got serious, the deal was done fairly quickly.

The Patriots did offer a long term deal, though contract details are unknown. It was below what Wilfork thought was market value though. Talks were described as ongoing since 2009, a bit slow but part of that was due to the uncertain future. It's no coincidence Wilfork signed his deal the day after the 2010 uncapped year was made official.

Easily, as has been discussed probably more than a dozen times. The Patriots made a choice. Like many choices they've made in the past few seasons, it was the wrong one. They didn't learn from the Samuel screw up, and that's something that should be a concern for Patriots fans moving forward.

In hindsight, we could have carried Seymour to 2010 with a big payment to take advantage of the uncapped year. We could have managed if we knew Mankins wouldn't be extended at that point and McCourty would be a star so we wouldn't have to give Bodden a nice deal only to get injured, and if we knew Moss would be so flakey in his last season we could get rid of his salary without taking a cap hit. But I still don't see how we fit Seymour under a $135M cap in 2011, especially with the $15M+ he's getting from the Raiders.

You are right that it is a choice though. We chose not to pay $10M+ per season for Seymour, just as we chose not to pay $9M+ for Asante. Both have played well since they left, but I wouldn't say either have played up to their contracts either.

 

[mgteich]

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

Do you think that we can afford to pay Mankins $11M this year? If so, then we could have afforded Seymour instead.

Last year, there simply was no issue. Wilfork would have signed without the tag, It was just a matter of timing.

Not sure exactly what Miguel said on the subject, as I wasn't able to find the post you're referring to. I know some contracts have been adjusted mid-season to take advantage of remaining room so taking the final salary cap numbers isn't the best way of doing things. But would be interested to hear Miguel's take on it.



What exactly do you mean the money was available? Are we talking about actual bonus money paid out? I know there was no cap in 2010, but would $12-$15M work into our cap structure in 2011+?



We would have had to tag him, and I think that would have put us at risk of losing Wilfork.



The Patriots did offer a long term deal, though contract details are unknown. It was below what Wilfork thought was market value though. Talks were described as ongoing since 2009, a bit slow but part of that was due to the uncertain future. It's no coincidence Wilfork signed his deal the day after the 2010 uncapped year was made official.



In hindsight, we could have carried Seymour to 2010 with a big payment to take advantage of the uncapped year. We could have managed if we knew Mankins wouldn't be extended at that point and McCourty would be a star so we wouldn't have to give Bodden a nice deal only to get injured, and if we knew Moss would be so flakey in his last season we could get rid of his salary without taking a cap hit. But I still don't see how we fit Seymour under a $135M cap in 2011, especially with the $15M+ he's getting from the Raiders.

You are right that it is a choice though. We chose not to pay $10M+ per season for Seymour, just as we chose not to pay $9M+ for Asante. Both have played well since they left, but I wouldn't say either have played up to their contracts either.

 

[folamzz]

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

Tom Brady is the only one who makes big money on this team currently (above 10 million a year). Even vince Wilfork so called big contract is only approximately $8mil/year. Moss average was 9mil per year, and Mayo has a top 10 pick contract, so i assume its about 9mil a year. Brady and Adalius Thomas contracts were front loaded, so they were making under 10 million in the last two seasons. So, this idea that paying Seymour big money would have brought cap hell is laughable. 2007, with Seymour, Brady, Colvin and Adalius Thomas is the highest number of players we have had making big money in the last of couple years. Three of those guys are gone, so Kraft cannot use the cap as an excuse not to sign Mankins long term.

If mankins leaves this year or next, that would be the 3rd all pro player under the age of 30 to leave the patriots in 4 seasons because we won't pay them.

 

[supafly]

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

Tom Brady is the only one who makes big money on this team currently (above 10 million a year). Even vince Wilfork so called big contract is only approximately $8mil/year. Moss average was 9mil per year, and Mayo has a top 10 pick contract, so i assume its about 9mil a year. Brady and Adalius Thomas contracts were front loaded, so they were making under 10 million in the last two seasons. So, this idea that paying Seymour big money would have brought cap hell is laughable. 2007, with Seymour, Brady, Colvin and Adalius Thomas is the highest number of players we have had making big money in the last of couple years. Three of those guys are gone, so Kraft cannot use the cap as an excuse not to sign Mankins long term.

If mankins leaves this year or next, that would be the 3rd all pro player under the age of 30 to leave the patriots in 4 seasons because we won't pay them.

Mayo made 2.7 million last year, and will make 3.1 million in 2011--according to Miguel's cap page.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

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

Do you think that we can afford to pay Mankins $11M this year? If so, then we could have afforded Seymour instead.

Last year, there simply was no issue. Wilfork would have signed without the tag, It was just a matter of timing.

The media reported it as a Seymour vs. Wilfork decision, but you're right, it was really about 2 of the 3 including Mankins.

I don't know how we'll pay for Mankins at $11M+. The long-term offer the Pats put on the table was around $7M+, and Mankins probably wanted $8 or $9M, so $11 is more than either side expected. Moss's $6M+ is off the books now, as is the $2M for Fred Taylor, so that could go towards a Mankins deal. But Miguel had us at $135M last season (I know there was no cap, but just using it as a basis point when moving forward), the 2009 cap was $128M, and I expect it to go down from that if the owners have their way.

Which is a long way of saying it will not be easy to squeeze in Mankins, even at a long-term rate, and Seymour would have cost another $2-$6M on top of that. Technically anything is possible though, just depends how much we'd be willing to cut to make it happen.

The Wilfork deal may or may not have required the tag. I think the uncertainty of 2010 impacted things to the point that the tag was necessary. And with more teams moving to a 3-4, there was a definite risk that one might make a crazy offer to him if they didn't have to worry about the two 1sts penalty.

But from talking to you and Deus, I see where you're both coming from and I see that we might have made it work. Maybe we didn't try as hard as we could or should have. But at the time of the trade, we didn't know 2010 would be uncapped for sure. We also didn't know Mankins would be restricted and could be tagged for considerably less. Had we known that, we could have kept Seymour for 2009 and 2010, though keeping him beyond would have been much tougher, even if we gave up on keeping Mankins.

Would two years more plus a potential 3rd round comp pick be worth more than two years without and the #17? I think so. But that's a much easier decision to make today than it was two years ago with all the uncertainty surrounding the situation.

 

[Froob]

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

Too expensive based on what? Relative players who play 3-4 DE? His performance? The cost of winning? The team will never know what the outcome would have been in 2010 w/ Sey. Lets say in the uncapped year they break the bank on Sey and Wilfork and find a way to keep both. If there is one thing the 2010 team needed more then anything was a stronger defense- particularly the short-yardage run defense and the pass rush. Those happen to be two areas in which Sey could provide great value.

The smart, solid financial decision was to trade Sey.

The decision to put to best team on the field and win was to keep Sey.

I mean they could of kept him for last year if Kraft was willing to spend the $ cuz it was uncapped. Seymour would not be back in '11 imo, he's looking at the highest bidder. If I understand the tag right it would increase to a ridiculous amount. I don't think seymour would still get a 1st in a trade. I think he's getting a little old. Could be wrong, since seymour isn't a speed guy. And some of those d-linemen can play at a high level for a long time. I understand your point though.

 

[Ring 6]

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

I'm trying to stay out of this, but some of your comments are just too much:

Id like to introduce you to the middle ground between staying out of something and being combative. It does exist.

1.) As I believe Miguel has noted multiple times in the past, salary cap has not been an issue for NFL teams in years. It certainly wasn't an issue for the Patriots. The team had the money to keep both Seymour and Wilfork, particularly with the 2010 season being uncapped.

You should have stayed out of it if your best contribution is to pretend the salary cap isnt a factor in contract decisions.
Please show me where Miguel has said teams can ignore salary cap considerations.

2.) Hindsight has nothing to do with this. Some of us were saying it was a bad trade right from the beginning, and taking a ridiculous amount of crap from people such as yourself. If "hindsight is 20/20", apparently for some, even hindsight isn't enough to give them good vision when it comes to the Patriots making bad moves.

Viewing a decision 2 seasons later and discussing it based upon what happened in those 2 seasons is, by definition, hindsight.
When, how and where have I given anyone any amount, much less a ridiculous amount of 'crap' over this decision? Thats ridiculous.

3.) The team didn't need to tag both players. The Patriots could have done something known as "working out a deal" with one and then franchised the other. The world didn't need to end after 2010 for that to be the case.

We do not know that. As of the time free agency started in 2010, they did NEED to tag Wilfork. Given the contentious history of negotiations with Seymour it wouldn't be prudent to not expect trouble.
It would seem that you are now endorsing that the team change its fiscal approach and put itself in a position to have to give a player whatever he asks for. I certainly hope BB doesnt adopt your position that we must pay players whatever they want and that the salary cap has nothing to do with contract decisions, or we are in for some very lean years.

 

[Ring 6]

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

Tom Brady is the only one who makes big money on this team currently (above 10 million a year). Even vince Wilfork so called big contract is only approximately $8mil/year. Moss average was 9mil per year, and Mayo has a top 10 pick contract, so i assume its about 9mil a year. Brady and Adalius Thomas contracts were front loaded, so they were making under 10 million in the last two seasons. So, this idea that paying Seymour big money would have brought cap hell is laughable. 2007, with Seymour, Brady, Colvin and Adalius Thomas is the highest number of players we have had making big money in the last of couple years. Three of those guys are gone, so Kraft cannot use the cap as an excuse not to sign Mankins long term.

If mankins leaves this year or next, that would be the 3rd all pro player under the age of 30 to leave the patriots in 4 seasons because we won't pay them.

Its not a matter of being able to spend a large share of the cap on one or a few players, its a matter of whether its the right approach.
Your comment that 'we wont pay them' is simply wrong, because the money gets spent. The organization has a philiosophy that it feels they can field a better team by spreading some of those big money contracts across more slots on the roster than to have a team of stars and scrubs.

If you wish to argue we would be a better team by using a majority of the cap on a handful of guys and skimping on the rest of the roster, thats your prerogative, but to say the money just isnt being spent is wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

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

In theory, no argument. Its all in hindsight and impossible to argue one way or the other. However seeing that the team had an uncapped year to play with in 2010 and knowing the 2009 financials make things a bit hazy....

-Salary went down $13m from 2008, but still 2nd highest in team history
-Revenues increased $20m from 2008, highest in team history
-Operating income went down $4m from 2008, but was still the 2nd highest in team history.

My assumption is what I had stated earlier. Knowing that they needed to extend Brady, and faced with the decision to extend Wilfork, they felt that they could not afford (or want) to pay Sey as well. But, what I do not want to find out is that they chose NOT to pay Sey even though their financial model would have allowed them to pay Brady, Sey and Wilfork and still bring in decent "middle class" players.



Of course, if the NEP knew that 2010 was their 2007, they would have made it work. However, I contend BB viewed 2009-2010 as stepping stone years and views 2011 (if he drafted well) would be the "go for it" year.

Its not a matter of payng Seymour or pocketing the money. Its pay Seymour or pay more to (many) others.
Of course you could argue that in the uncapped season they could have signed everyone, but that would have destroyed the future, something I would hope they could contain themselves from doing.

 

[jmt57]

Interesting addendum to Seymour's contract with the Raiders.

Mac's Football Blog: Breaking Down the Seymour, Routt Deals

According to a league source, Seymour's entire contract is potentially guaranteed.

Seymour's $15 million base salary this season is fully guaranteed, as is the $7.5 million roster bonus due on the 5th day of the 2012 league year. Seymour's $7.5 million base salary in 2012 is guaranteed for injury at the time of the signing, but will become fully guaranteed if he's on the roster five days after the 2012 waiver period begins.

Davis did not use a signing bonus in any of his recent deals, including Seymour's - although a roster bonus does get treated like a signing bonus for cap purposes. I guess he doesn't like giving out signing bonuses any more, ever since he got hosed on the Javon Walker contract a few years ago.

I suppose that with the contracts the Raiders gave Seymour, CB Routt, and the franchise tag on Wimbley that Oakland may have to offset that with league-high number of minimum contracts to fit under whatever the new cap will be.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Seymour is the 5th highest paid this season ...

Peyton Manning is highest paid player in NFL: report | Reuters

 

[randomk1]

Seymour is the 5th highest paid this season ...

Peyton Manning is highest paid player in NFL: report | Reuters

He's no longer a Patriot so good for him. He's earned it.

 

[DarrylS]

He's no longer a Patriot so good for him. He's earned it.

It is funny you say that, because when he was here he was continually criticized for lackluster performances... hindsight is always 20-20.