When does Goodell step in on Seymour trade

[fgssand]

NOt sure if this was posted (sorry for reposting if it was - mods, please merge if it was).

This article really puts things in perspective for me........

"Mark Lepselter -- whose firm, Maxx Sports and Entertainment, represents former Patriots wide receiver David Patten -- said this is a valid trade but could be a landmark situation for the league. "

"“I can’t recall a situation like this ever before when a veteran player refused a trade or refused to report to his new team,” Lepselter said. “Eventually, if he just refuses to go, the commissioner is going to have to get involved.”


Seymour Might Not Show Up in Oakland, But He Won't Be Back in New England - New England Patriots - NESN.com

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Jake Plummer against Tampa Bay.

It already set prescident.

 

[mayoclinic]

I don't see any way that Goodell can just "step in". The trade is valid under the CBA, and has been deemed valid by the NFL. There's no basis for a grievance from Seymour and/or the NFLPA, just because Seymour was traded to the Raiders. There's no question that the sides operated in good faith, with the Pats fully expecting Seymour to report to Oakland. The Commissioner can't just jump in because Seymour is being a baby and is creating a mess.

Goodell was hired by and reports to the owners, and to undermine a valid trade with no basis would likely result in a mutiny. Such a move would open the door for players to exert much more control over where they play. This is already probably a bit of a sore spot after the Jay Cutler fiasco in Denver, where the player was able to make things miserable enough for the organization to effectively force a trade.

It's Seymour's right to hold out on Oakland if he is unhappy. Oakland has some remedies available, and there are repercussions for Seymour. But the Commissioner can't just ad hoc change the system because it has resulted in a god-awful mess in this case.

 

[alvinnf]

Hey Richard playing in the NFL is a privilege not a right.

 

[BelichickFan]

Jake Plummer against Tampa Bay.

It already set prescident.

Only a precedent for players willing to retire. I doubt that's Seymour's plan.

To answer the original question, this is already a total clusterf*ck, Jolly Roger needs to (if he hasn't in private) make the parties understand that the Raiders need to send the 5 day letter to Seymour and his agent.

 

[BelichickFan]

It's Seymour's right to hold out on Oakland if he is unhappy. Oakland has some remedies available, and there are repercussions for Seymour. But the Commissioner can't just ad hoc change the system because it has resulted in a god-awful mess in this case.

No, but Jolly Roger can make it clear that he is Oakland's property and there's so much misinformation in the media.

 

[mayoclinic]

No, but Jolly Roger can make it clear that he is Oakland's property and there's so much misinformation in the media.

That would be a good thing. As far as I can tell, the league office has already said that it is a valid trade pending a physical.

 

[Jimke]

If Goodell steps into this situation and nullifies the trade , he will put an

irrrevocable crimp in the trading process. Players would refuse to be

traded from good teams to bad teams or from rich teams to poor teams.

All they would have to do is refuse to report for their physicals.

Player's agents would love to see this happen.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

If Goodell steps into this situation and nullifies the trade , he will put an

irrrevocable crimp in the trading process. Players would refuse to be

traded from good teams to bad teams or from rich teams to poor teams.

All they would have to do is refuse to report for their physicals.

Player's agents would love to see this happen.

you just made the case for why it will never happen.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I don't see any way that Goodell can just "step in". The trade is valid under the CBA, and has been deemed valid by the NFL. There's no basis for a grievance from Seymour and/or the NFLPA, just because Seymour was traded to the Raiders. There's no question that the sides operated in good faith, with the Pats fully expecting Seymour to report to Oakland. The Commissioner can't just jump in because Seymour is being a baby and is creating a mess.

Goodell was hired by and reports to the owners, and to undermine a valid trade with no basis would likely result in a mutiny. Such a move would open the door for players to exert much more control over where they play. This is already probably a bit of a sore spot after the Jay Cutler fiasco in Denver, where the player was able to make things miserable enough for the organization to effectively force a trade.

It's Seymour's right to hold out on Oakland if he is unhappy. Oakland has some remedies available, and there are repercussions for Seymour. But the Commissioner can't just ad hoc change the system because it has resulted in a god-awful mess in this case.

well said. nothing to add.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Only a precedent for players willing to retire. I doubt that's Seymour's plan.

To answer the original question, this is already a total clusterf*ck, Jolly Roger needs to (if he hasn't in private) make the parties understand that the Raiders need to send the 5 day letter to Seymour and his agent.

Thats my point though BF.

 

[BelichickFan]

Thats my point though BF.

Got it. Indirect sarcasm is lost on my slow mind today

 

[DaBruinz]

Jake Plummer against Tampa Bay.

It already set prescident.

Different set of circumstances.. There was no precedent set.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

If Goodell steps into this situation and nullifies the trade , he will put an

irrrevocable crimp in the trading process. Players would refuse to be

traded from good teams to bad teams or from rich teams to poor teams.

All they would have to do is refuse to report for their physicals.

Player's agents would love to see this happen.

Seymour is already in violation of his agreement. The NFL players contracts have the stipulation that states all players are to report ASAP to their new team in the event of a trade. Read it at the website last night.

The monkey wrench is Al Davis. Is he going to be happy giving up a 1st round pick for the sake of filing a grievance against Sey for a couple mil. bucks?

Or is he the type that brings some heat to the league that since he never got to see if Seymour was even physically fit enough to play the game, he shouldn't be held to his agreement?

Plummers case is similar but different. The trade happened before camp, he retired, after he retired the Bucs and Broncos redid the trade agreement and made it a 7th rounder, then eventually joined in filing a grievance against Plummer.

 

[Jimke]

well said. nothing to add.

The trouble is that the media is showering us with speculation.

Mike Florio is the worst offender. Oakland is probably sitting

tight and hoping not to exacerbate the situation by having to send

out the 5 day letter and rile up Seymour even more.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I am assuming it is the Raiders who have to give Seymour his 5 day letter. If so, does anyone know what the time frame is for this letter? Can the Raiders wait for weeks, or months, to do so?

 

[Jimke]

I am assuming it is the Raiders who have to give Seymour his 5 day letter. If so, does anyone know what the time frame is for this letter? Can the Raiders wait for weeks, or months, to do so?

The Raiders can wait as long as they wish sending out the letter.

I assume they are hoping not to rile Seymour further by sending

the letter.

The thing that is amusing in this situation is that only four days

have gone by since the trade. Sometimes, players hold out six games

to prove their point.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

The Raiders can wait as long as they wish sending out the letter.

I assume they are hoping not to rile Seymour further by sending

the letter.

The thing that is amusing in this situation is that only four days

have gone by since the trade. Sometimes, players hold out six games

to prove their point.

If so it would really suck if the Raiders no longer wish to employ Seymour and are in no hurry to issue to him the letter.

 

[mayoclinic]

If so it would really suck if the Raiders no longer wish to employ Seymour and are in no hurry to issue to him the letter.

There's nothing to stop one team from filing a grievance with the NFL league office against another. Suppose Oakland stalls on Seymour, and he doesn't report until week 6, and then they flunk his physical, voiding the trade. Under the CBA the Pats don't have the right to contest the results of Oakland's physical. But they can file a grievance if they believe Oakland has acted in bad faith, depriving them of Seymour for 6 weeks.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

There's nothing to stop one team from filing a grievance with the NFL league office against another. Suppose Oakland stalls on Seymour, and he doesn't report until week 6, and then they flunk his physical, voiding the trade. Under the CBA the Pats don't have the right to contest the results of Oakland's physical. But they can file a grievance if they believe Oakland has acted in bad faith, depriving them of Seymour for 6 weeks.

I would suspect that Al would simply argue that he didn't want to jeopardize any possible long term relationship with Seymour by sending him the nasty letter!

It's not costing Al anything while Seymour stays away correct?