Why keep Asante in 2007 but trade Seymour this year?

[patsfan-1982]

That Raiders pick won't be top-5 in 2011. I don't even think it will be top 10...The Raiders are becoming a better team.

im just trying to make my self feel better cause i hate the seymour trade

and yes oakland maybe a 10 or 11 win team next year,

but like MR mod pats1 said I wouldn't count on it

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

The real reason is b/c BB has started taping signals again. In 2008 we had two first round picks and one was taken away due to spygate. BB wants to make sure he's got himself covered in case he gets caught again. Hahaha.

Ok ok, joking aside.

If one of the worst teams in the league offered Belichick a 1st round pick for Asante and his expiring contract, he most likely would've done it IMO. When you can get a potential top 10 - 15 pick who should be an impact player for the next 5 to 10 years for a 30 year old DE with an expiring contract, you do it. Yes it hurt us in the short term, but it could pay huge dividends in the long run having 2 #1 picks in 2011. Imagine adding 2 guys like AJ Green and Patrick Peterson to your team. You get a gamebreaking WR to replace Moss and the #1 stud corner comparable to Revis that we've lacked since Law left.There will likely be a rookie salary scale/cap, so you get two great young talents with a ton of potential with cheaper salaries for an aging DE whose best days are behind him. If I could go back and do it again, I'd do the deal 8 days a week.

 

[Deus Irae]

The real reason is b/c BB has started taping signals again. In 2008 we had two first round picks and one was taken away due to spygate. BB wants to make sure he's got himself covered in case he gets caught again. Hahaha.

Ok ok, joking aside.

If one of the worst teams in the league offered Belichick a 1st round pick for Asante and his expiring contract, he most likely would've done it IMO. When you can get a potential top 10 - 15 pick who should be an impact player for the next 5 to 10 years for a 30 year old DE with an expiring contract, you do it. Yes it hurt us in the short term, but it could pay huge dividends in the long run having 2 #1 picks in 2011. Imagine adding 2 guys like AJ Green and Patrick Peterson to your team. You get a gamebreaking WR to replace Moss and the #1 stud corner comparable to Revis that we've lacked since Law left.There will likely be a rookie salary scale/cap, so you get two great young talents with a ton of potential with cheaper salaries for an aging DE whose best days are behind him. If I could go back and do it again, I'd do the deal 8 days a week.

You use draft picks to get players like Richard Seymour. You don't use players like Richard Seymour to get draft picks.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

You use draft picks to get players like Richard Seymour. You don't use players like Richard Seymour to get draft picks.

How many more dominant years did/do you think Seymour had left? I think he was starting to slow down to be honest the last year or so. Even if he wasn't, I don't think the Pats planned at throwing a ton of money at him. It's not their style to pay huge money to a guy, so why would they sign him to a fat contract when he's on the wrong side of 30? Yes he was an elite player for us there is no denying that. But if you are going to let him walk at the end of the year you might as well get something in return for him. A 1st round pick is a pretty good haul IMO. What would we have gotten a 3rd round compensatory if we kept him in 09 and just let him walk?

 

[Deus Irae]

How many more dominant years did/do you think Seymour had left? I think he was starting to slow down to be honest the last year or so. Even if he wasn't, I don't think the Pats planned at throwing a ton of money at him. It's not their style to pay huge money to a guy, so why would they sign him to a fat contract when he's on the wrong side of 30? Yes he was an elite player for us there is no denying that. But if you are going to let him walk at the end of the year you might as well get something in return for him. A 1st round pick is a pretty good haul IMO. What would we have gotten a 3rd round compensatory if we kept him in 09 and just let him walk?

Seymour was taken at #6. The Raiders would currently draft at #7. So, starting with Seymour:

Richard Seymour
Andre Carter

Ryan Sims
Bryant McKinnie

Jonathan Sullivan
Byron Leftwich

Kellen Winslow
Roy Williams

Pacman Jones
Troy Williamson

Vernon Davis
Michael Huff

LaRon Landry
Adrian Peterson

Vernon Gholston
Sedrick Ellis


Those spots haven't exactly been guarantees of a great player. Again, you used the picks to get the player, and not the player to get the picks. The only time you go the other way, under normal conditions, is when you're out of contention and won't be able to compete while that player is still valuable. That was not the case here.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

Seymour was taken at #6. The Raiders would currently draft at #7. So, starting with Seymour:

Richard Seymour
Andre Carter

Ryan Sims
Bryant McKinnie

Jonathan Sullivan
Byron Leftwich

Kellen Winslow
Roy Williams

Pacman Jones
Troy Williamson

Vernon Davis
Michael Huff

LaRon Landry
Adrian Peterson

Vernon Gholston
Sedrick Ellis


Those spots haven't exactly been guarantees of a great player. Again, you used the picks to get the player, and not the player to get the picks. The only time you go the other way, under normal conditions, is when you're out of contention and won't be able to compete while that player is still valuable. That was not the case here.

You make a valid point. No player taken in the draft is a guarantee.

However, you also have to take into account the teams that are drafting. The Pats have been one of the best teams over the past decade of hitting on guys in the first round. There is usually a good reason a team is picking #6 or #7, and it usually has to do with bad personnel decisions made by that team over the preceding years. For example, the Raiders and Lions have been mainstays in the top 10 over the last decade in the draft. They're personnel department is more likely to miss on a guy in the first round than the Pats personnel department is. IMO, when you have a 1st round pick, and you are getting a crack at one of the best 32 players in the nation, you should almost always be able to find a guy who can come in be a difference maker for years to come if you do your homework and have a good scouting/personnel department. Everyone the Pats have drafted in the first round since Belichick got here has played an important role in the Pats' success.

Seymour, Graham, Warren, Wilfork, Watson, Mankins, Maroney, Meriweather, Mayo.

You can't complain too much about that. The Pats haven't missed in the first round, all of those guys have been good contributors.

 

[Deus Irae]

You make a valid point. No player taken in the draft is a guarantee.

However, you also have to take into account the teams that are drafting. The Pats have been one of the best teams over the past decade of hitting on guys in the first round. There is usually a good reason a team is picking #6 or #7, and it usually has to do with bad personnel decisions made by that team over the preceding years. For example, the Raiders and Lions have been mainstays in the top 10 over the last decade in the draft. They're personnel department is more likely to miss on a guy in the first round than the Pats personnel department is. IMO, when you have a 1st round pick, and you are getting a crack at one of the best 32 players in the nation, you should almost always be able to find a guy who can come in be a difference maker for years to come if you do your homework and have a good scouting/personnel department. Everyone the Pats have drafted in the first round since Belichick got here has played an important role in the Pats' success.

Seymour, Graham, Warren, Wilfork, Watson, Mankins, Maroney, Meriweather, Mayo.

You can't complain too much about that. The Pats haven't missed in the first round, all of those guys have been good contributors.

I'm not complaining about the Patriots first round picks. I'm pointing out that teams competing for titles don't trade their best players for draft picks. They trade their draft picks for great players. The Patriots made a mistake when they went away from that, and it's hurting the defense and costing the team.

 

[Jimke]

A simple answer is that the Patriots could not franchise both

Wilfork and Seymour before free agency begins in 2010.

 

[Deus Irae]

A simple answer is that the Patriots could not franchise both

Wilfork and Seymour before free agency begins in 2010.

Except that 2010 is uncapped and the the team could have franchised Seymour and then paid what was necessary to keep Wilfork happy.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Except that 2010 is uncapped and the the team could have franchised Seymour and then paid what was necessary to keep Wilfork happy.

There's no artificial cap. Even without a salary cap, though, there are still practical limitations as to what Kraft can spend.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm not complaining about the Patriots first round picks. I'm pointing out that teams competing for titles don't trade their best players for draft picks. They trade their draft picks for great players. The Patriots made a mistake when they went away from that, and it's hurting the defense and costing the team.

Then that raises the question of why they felt it was worthwhile to make such a move.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There's no artificial cap. Even without a salary cap, though, there are still practical limitations as to what Kraft can spend.

Right, which is why you have to be extra sure to spend what money you have on game-changers who can dominate in all facets of the game... like Seymour.

 

[Synovia]

The only time you go the other way, under normal conditions, is when you're out of contention and won't be able to compete while that player is still valuable. That was not the case here.

Or when you get an offer that is too good to say no to. The Patriots have said hundreds of times that you never sacrifice the chance to win in the future to increase the chance to win now. You never try to "boom", you try to be good every year. They thought trading Seymour would improve future years more than hurting this year. I agree with them.


Do you really think Richard Seymour would fix our Pass Rush? I don't.

 

[Synovia]

]
Just how does a salary dump in these economic times fail to be relevent?
He not only saved the money but BB failed to backfill the roster.

Where does this logic fail?

The logic fails in that it comes from an incorrect starting point.

To quote Miguel:
According to my figures the Patriots' 2009 cap figure is $126,694,785 for 57 signed players (53 active, 4 IR) and a 7-man practice squad. The 2009 salary cap is $127,997,000. The Patriots' 2009 adjusted cap is $129,831,466.

They're 3.1M under the cap. Considering it costs about $750K to sign someone if a guy gets hurt, thats pretty damn close.

 

[Deus Irae]

There's no artificial cap. Even without a salary cap, though, there are still practical limitations as to what Kraft can spend.

The Patriots are top 5 in revenue. They could have afforded to keep every single player up for free agency, including Seymour.

 

[Deus Irae]

Then that raises the question of why they felt it was worthwhile to make such a move.

Indeed, it does. What possible line of thought made it seem like getting rid of the team's best defensive player would be a good idea? That is an excellent question to ask because, if the answer is "a pick years down the road", someone in that organization completely screwed the pooch. And, since that's the answer we've been given... the ASPCA should be investigating.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The Patriots are top 5 in revenue. They could have afforded to keep every single player up for free agency, including Seymour.

Gross revenue or net revenue?

What would the actual cash paid be next year if the Patriots extended Brady, Wilfork, and Seymour?

And if they franchised Seymour, would he have played under the tender, or would he have held out until week 10?

 

[Deus Irae]

Gross revenue or net revenue?

What would the actual cash paid be next year if the Patriots extended Brady, Wilfork, and Seymour?

And if they franchised Seymour, would he have played under the tender, or would he have held out until week 10?

Now you're trying a dodge. The team brings in top 5 revenue. How they spend it afterwards doesn't change that.

As for Seymour, again, that's a dodge. You'll be able to ask those same questions of Wilfork if they don't sign him to a long term deal. You might want to note, however, that Seymour showed up to play for the Raiders.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It was a bad decision to trade Seymour. Perhaps Pioli might have been able to keep Belichick from making some of the many poor decisions he's made in the past year. Instead, the team's giving up 3rds and 5ths for Burgess while giving Hobbs away for a pair of 5ths, and foolishly weakening the strongest part of the defense for a pick years down the road.

Yeah, like they didn't make bad decisions when Pioli was here and of course we can look to what he's done in KC and...oh, wait. He's been sitting on millions of cap $$$ that couldn't even be rolled over into an uncapped year. And getting his $60M QB battered and beaten and maybe destroyed his confidence.

He evaluated and signed AD and he cut Willie and Lawyer and gave Seymour a short deal and signed off on extending Moss and Dillon and letting Asante walk. Please. Stop it. This is what they've always done. Pioli was the spokesman for teambuilding and how you couldn't have too many top tier salaried players and how you judged a players will to win here in part by his willingness to make some sacrifices to remain here... PS you forgot the 3rd for Starks and the 5th for that other Oakland WR who lasted all of a month here...all on Pioli's watch. In fact I believe I read where he even signed everyone's favorite failed jag LB for a time this season in KC. He was the VP of player personnel here, responsible for draft evaluations and FA evaluations and signings and charged with finding Bill the necessary talent to fit his schemes and the system. We hadn't won a ring in his last 4 years here, either.

They kept Asante because he was a playmaker and probably because no one sniffed him under the tag and because he was, much like Ty Law before him, all about his own situation and not a club house lawyer or leader. He was actually quite a loner throughout his career. Seymour was cast off for the much same reason Vrabel was, their negatives outweighted their positives at this juncture and they were known to question or have issues with the system (although in Vrabel's defense his issues only came as his career clearly hit the back 9) while Seymour still had some trade value and Oakland topped it. Same deal with Hobbs who was going to be hard to re sign and Bill likely anticipated eventually becoming difficult to keep healthy, kinda like the twig.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, like they didn't make bad decisions when Pioli was here and of course we can look to what he's done in KC and...oh, wait. He's been sitting on millions of cap $$$ that couldn't even be rolled over into an uncapped year. And getting his $60M QB battered and beaten and maybe destroyed his confidence.

Perhaps you should have taken the time to read what I was responding to. It might have helped you grasp the context rather than posting this irrelevant paragraph.

He evaluated and signed AD and he cut Willie and Lawyer and gave Seymour a short deal and signed off on extending Moss and Dillon and letting Asante walk. Please. Stop it. This is what they've always done. Pioli was the spokesman for teambuilding and how you couldn't have too many top tier salaried players and how you judged a players will to win here in part by his willingness to make some sacrifices to remain here... PS you forgot the 3rd for Starks and the 5th for that other Oakland WR who lasted all of a month here...all on Pioli's watch. In fact I believe I read where he even signed everyone's favorite failed jag LB for a time this season in KC. He was the VP of player personnel here, responsible for draft evaluations and FA evaluations and signings and charged with finding Bill the necessary talent to fit his schemes and the system. We hadn't won a ring in his last 4 years here, either.

I didn't 'forget' anything. Again, your posting things that are irrelevant in context. I fully understand that no individual or group is perfect. That's not been the issue for me. For you, when it comes to shining Belichick's shoes, on the other hand, it's been a major problem.

They kept Asante because he was a playmaker and probably because no one sniffed him under the tag and because he was, much like Ty Law before him, all about his own situation and not a club house lawyer or leader. He was actually quite a loner throughout his career. Seymour was cast off for the much same reason Vrabel was, their negatives outweighted their positives at this juncture and they were known to question or have issues with the system (although in Vrabel's defense his issues only came as his career clearly hit the back 9) while Seymour still had some trade value and Oakland topped it. Same deal with Hobbs who was going to be hard to re sign and Bill likely anticipated eventually becoming difficult to keep healthy, kinda like the twig.

Unless Seymour was beating the hell out of other players after sleeping with their wives, or planning to organize a team-wide strike or something equally as egregious, there is no way in hell that his negatives outweighed his positives. It was an idiotic move on Belichick's part and, sadly, it was only one of many in the past 12 months.

As for Hobbs, it was a bad move, regardless of the re-signing issue. They took the best, and only starting caliber, player from their weakest position and shipped him out for a pair of 5ths.

And, lastly, since you complain about others guessing at what the Patriots are thinking, stop doing it yourself.