Wilfork wants Seymour money

[condon84]

I'm going out on a limb and saying you said both.

Here's the qoute you qouted me on:

Wilfork wanted Seymour type of money, the Pats are balking, and that's the reason why there hasn't been much of a negotiation.

Here's the COMPLETE sentence you selectively took that qoute from:

Now, Wilfork and the Pats may agree on a contract, but I commented on the discussion that Wilfork wanted Seymour type of money, the Pats are balking, and that's the reason why there hasn't been much of a negotiation.

I was commenting on THE discussion people were having here about the supposed money Wilfork wanted and the fallout from it because the Pats didn't want to pay that type of money. Never did I say "Wilfork wants Seymour type of money."

It's like if I would to take this sentence you wrote:

No reason for the team to sign him early.

And just conveniently drop the last part of your sentence and qoute you as saying:

No reason for the team to sign him.

And base an argument off that qoute.

LOL, I went through this same crap twice in one thread. Is that what's hot in Pats fans forum now?

 

[RayClay]

Here's the qoute you qouted me on:



Here's the COMPLETE sentence you selectively took that qoute from:



I was commenting on THE discussion people were having here about the supposed money Wilfork wanted and the fallout from it because the Pats didn't want to pay that type of money. Never did I say "Wilfork wants Seymour type of money."

It's like if I would to take this sentence you wrote:



And just conveniently drop the last part of your sentence and qoute you as saying:



And base an argument off that qoute.

LOL, I went through this same crap twice in one thread. Is that what's hot in Pats fans forum now?

Well, I've tried to trace your quotes back to figure out what you mean and i admit I, as well as others are stymied.

If you made the point that all players are replaceable, it's a poor one in this case, because nose tackles are very hard to find. Young, prime Nose tackles, even harder. Probably the hardest on a 3-4 team to replace, even including Quarterback.

If that's not what you're saying I apologize. I did read a few posts back and admit i have trouble figuring your posts out.

 

[Mogamedogz]

Here's the qoute you qouted me on:



Here's the COMPLETE sentence you selectively took that qoute from:



I was commenting on THE discussion people were having here about the supposed money Wilfork wanted and the fallout from it because the Pats didn't want to pay that type of money. Never did I say "Wilfork wants Seymour type of money."

It's like if I would to take this sentence you wrote:



And just conveniently drop the last part of your sentence and qoute you as saying:



And base an argument off that qoute.

LOL, I went through this same crap twice in one thread. Is that what's hot in Pats fans forum now?

Cant we all just.... :eat3:

 

[slash83]

If Wilfork wants same as Seymours money then theres no excuse for a deal not to be reached. It would be careless for the Patriots to lose both Wilfork and Seymour either the same year or the following. People can say of Wilforks only a 2 down player but if hes gone and the run d sucks the opposing team will never face a 3rd down or a 3rd n 6 or 7. Theres likely no cap next year so fitting him under the cap is not an issue.

 

[Don_the_patfan]

Well, I've tried to trace your quotes back to figure out what you mean and i admit I, as well as others are stymied.

If you made the point that all players are replaceable, it's a poor one in this case, because nose tackles are very hard to find. Young, prime Nose tackles, even harder. Probably the hardest on a 3-4 team to replace, even including Quarterback.

If that's not what you're saying I apologize. I did read a few posts back and admit i have trouble figuring your posts out.

Let me help you out here. He stated:

Everyone is replacable

When I confronted him about this statement (check post 93) he realized what he said and now instead of admitting that he phrased it incorrectly or admitting he was wrong he is trying to get out of it. There is no misinterpretation to what he said or to his initial premise that keeps on evolving surprisingly

When you make a statement like that I am not 'missing the point' what it means is everyone on this team is replacable Brady Moss Welker Wilfork everyone according to him. Of course that is asinine but that's what you get from some posters and thats homerism to the max.

 

[reflexblue]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

I saw sports tonight with Tnaguay and Felger. I remember that Wilfork would have taken Seymour money last year,now he wants Albert Haynsworth money $100 Mill, $40 mill guaranted

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

If he refuses to show up unless we promise not to Franchise him I would trade him. I'd prefer to get good value for him now than one year and out.

See ya big boy.

 

[reflexblue]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

If he refuses to show up unless we promise not to Franchise him I would trade him. I'd prefer to get good value for him now than one year and out.

See ya big boy.

I would hold on to him. If he doesn't show up fine him like Branch would have been, then franchise him..... So he doesn't get paid all year, then gets franchised.
I think he would take 4 years at 8/9 mill per year. I don't want to start over agian

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

I would hold on to him. If he doesn't show up fine him like Branch would have been, then franchise him..... So he doesn't get paid all year, then gets franchised.

Then you get into the "sit out 6 games and show up in time to be counted for a year" crap.

I want to keep the player, don't get me wrong. And if he'll sign a reasonable (which means a bit under UFA value as he's not a UFA) deal then I'd do it. However I have little doubt his stance is "I'll play if you promise not to Franchise me, otherwise I sit out as long as I can and return to have the year count". If so I "Deion Him" and deal him for good draft choices.

 

[reflexblue]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

Then you get into the "sit out 6 games and show up in time to be counted for a year" crap.

I want to keep the player, don't get me wrong. And if he'll sign a reasonable (which means a bit under UFA value as he's not a UFA) deal then I'd do it. However I have little doubt his stance is "I'll play if you promise not to Franchise me, otherwise I sit out as long as I can and return to have the year count". If so I "Deion Him" and deal him for good draft choices.

I forgot about being able to collect after 6 games. I guess i look at it like this. As constatuted this is a SB team, who knows how long this will last like we've seen anything can happen. So i don't want to go into the season missing one
of the key cogs hoping a rookie or another player can make up for Wilfork.
I want to go into the season with all my bullets.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

I forgot about being able to collect after 6 games. I guess i look at it like this. As constatuted this is a SB team, who knows how long this will last like we've seen anything can happen. So i don't want to go into the season missing one of the key cogs hoping a rookie or another player can make up for Wilfork.

There is definitely a case to let him play it out and get a "contract year" performance out of him. No doubt. I'd trade him, assuming I could get a #1+. But the other side is a solid argument too.

 

[reflexblue]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

There is definitely a case to let him play it out and get a "contract year" performance out of him. No doubt. I'd trade him, assuming I could get a #1+. But the other side is a solid argument too.

Yeah BF it really is a dilema. I hope we can some how sign him. Hes not like Branch, he a pro bowl NT they don't grow on treesso i fine it hard to believe BB would not pay him unless he REALLY wants Haynsworth money. Then i would let him walk. In that vein people like D Shnieder are ruining the game by throwing outragious money at players, and upping the anti.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

Yeah BF it really is a dilema. I hope we can some how sign him. Hes not like Branch, he a pro bowl NT they don't grow on treesso i fine it hard to believe BB would not pay him unless he REALLY wants Haynsworth money. Then i would let him walk. In that vein people like D Shnieder are ruining the game by throwing outragious money at players, and upping the anti.

My guess is we'll keep him for this year with a promise not to Franchise. Just like Samuel. I don't like it but it gives us a Contract Year out of him plus a year for Brace to learn the new position.

Like I said with Samuel, I wouldn't promise to not Franchise him but I'd promise to only ask for a #2 pick for him as a Franchised player. It benefits us by getting us a decent pick but it's an OK deal for him as he would get huge interest if it would only cost a #2 pick to trade for him.

 

[condon84]

everyone on this team is replacable Brady Moss Welker Wilfork everyone.

Really?

(LOL, look I can do that too!)

 

[RayClay]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

If he refuses to show up unless we promise not to Franchise him I would trade him. I'd prefer to get good value for him now than one year and out.

See ya big boy.

I am so glad you are not our GM Bfan. I don't mean that on football knowledge, but i can imagine our more valuable players ready to make a deal, then having their agents storming out of the meeting cursing and belligerent, threatening to pull out every tactic in the book.

F**k that Brady. If he doesn't want to play ball, we'll just franchise him. Cassel is almost as good anyway!

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

I am so glad you are not our GM Bfan. I don't mean that on football knowledge, but i can imagine our more valuable players ready to make a deal, then having their agents storming out of the meeting cursing and belligerent, threatening to pull out every tactic in the book.

F**k that Brady. If he doesn't want to play ball, we'll just franchise him. Cassel is almost as good anyway!

Unfortunately the reality is that at this point in the contract things get tricky. We discovered that with Branch and Samuel.

 

[crowell33]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

My guess is we'll keep him for this year with a promise not to Franchise. Just like Samuel. I don't like it but it gives us a Contract Year out of him plus a year for Brace to learn the new position.

Like I said with Samuel, I wouldn't promise to not Franchise him but I'd promise to only ask for a #2 pick for him as a Franchised player. It benefits us by getting us a decent pick but it's an OK deal for him as he would get huge interest if it would only cost a #2 pick to trade for him.

Have the Patriots ever done this under BB? I know Samuel was promised not to be franchised AGAIN. But to promise to set aside the CBA and promise not to use the franchise tag ever on a certain player? Really? If BB has ever done this for a player, please correct me.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

You seem to be facing the reality of the situation. Wilfork should be extended before camp if the parties can agree. If not, his contract should be modified to include a no franchise in 2010 clause, with or without an increase in 2009.

In the end, we don't want him to sit out until Game 6. We don't want to franchise him in 2010 (he won't play).

In all these cases, Wilfork will play out his current contract and have given the patriots great value, and will have every incentive to play well in 2009.

I don't want a 2010 draft choice. I want our best shot at a Super Bowl.

And yes, I suggest more than $10M a year for the extension period. That works out to $8M - $9M a year for 2009-2014.

My guess is we'll keep him for this year with a promise not to Franchise. Just like Samuel. I don't like it but it gives us a Contract Year out of him plus a year for Brace to learn the new position.

Like I said with Samuel, I wouldn't promise to not Franchise him but I'd promise to only ask for a #2 pick for him as a Franchised player. It benefits us by getting us a decent pick but it's an OK deal for him as he would get huge interest if it would only cost a #2 pick to trade for him.

 

[RayClay]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

Unfortunately the reality is that at this point in the contract things get tricky. We discovered that with Branch and Samuel.

It really depends on the player. Branch was a flat out, dishonorable a-hole. Samuel was a fourth round pick who wanted to cash in big time.

The difference? For one, Wilfork is more valuable to the Patriots than a short receiver or a DB. they feel, with some justification, that they can find and train up defensive backs.

If you want a direct comparison to Wilfork, look at Seymour. they sure didn't get all butt sore about his holdout inviting him to that party with Kraft and making sure they let him know they wanted to deal and they didn't low ball him either.

I'm sure they were very sweet to Mr. Warren too. Good interpersonal relations can save you some money, or loss of a valuable player.

 

[mgteich]

Re: Wilfork want Seymour money

If the patriots really want to keep Wilfork, then they will be able to do so as they did with Seymour and Warren. They will do so in the same manner, cordial meetings before camp.

It really depends on the player. Branch was a flat out, dishonorable a-hole. Samuel was a fourth round pick who wanted to cash in big time.

The difference? For one, Wilfork is more valuable to the Patriots than a short receiver or a DB. they feel, with some justification, that they can find and train up defensive backs.

If you want a direct comparison to Wilfork, look at Seymour. they sure didn't get all butt sore about his holdout inviting him to that party with Kraft and making sure they let him know they wanted to deal and they didn't low ball him either.

I'm sure they were very sweet to Mr. Warren too. Good interpersonal relations can save you some money, or loss of a valuable player.