Good trade?

[aluminum seats]

This again? Seriously?

All I care about is Super Bowls....Seymour would not have turned last year's team into a Super Bowl winner. It's nice to have another 1st round pick in the next draft.

That's it, that's all, thanks for playing.

 

[RayClay]

Just a general observation. No trade can be seen in isolation. team management over the long term means making tough decisions and taking risks that "this" team might need to cover a position this year in the interest of getting young, more talented and more efficient cap wise in the future.

Some teams feel obligated to cave to talented player demands long term, because they are important "this" year, or to grant long term contracts to every player who has had a good career, gambling they will stay healthy and playing at a high level another 5 years as contracted.

These are the teams that have the top draft picks every year and still manage to lose.

Track the top teams year after year and you'll see unpopular decisions, or positions on the field manned by UDFA or other affordable players so they can pay players they prioritize (pass rushers, receivers for the Colts for example).

I'm thinking our current team building philosophy revolves around Wilfork and better value DL, with one stud if available, hopefully. Our 3, 1st round stars line could possibly have come at the expense of LBs and DBs, positions we are starting to restock.

The sig says it all, it's on the wall in capital letters. With the cap, I think their building process is always in flux as far as position goes. I doubt they have three top DL again, but i wouldn't be surprised they are developing a much better rotation, and maybe onre more stud.

The money saved on a DL, possibly on the downhill goes to Wilfork and Bodden (tough break) and the new team, whatever it's composed of

 

[TruthSeeker]

You're missing the point. We wouldn't have had him this year. He was a free agent after last year. We would have had to seriously overpay to keep him and you know that wasn't going to happen. We would have gotten a 3rd round comp pick if he signed elsewhere.

Exactly. Not sure why people keep harping on the false premise that Seymour would have been here this year. It's not like it hasn't already been pointed out hundreds of times that he was a goner after last season. :bricks:

 

[TruthSeeker]

And I don't necessarily buy that he wouldn't still be with the team.

The fact that the Patriots traded him rather than continue contract negotiations should tell you all you need to know about whether they thought he would end up on the team after 2009.

 

[TruthSeeker]

In hindsight, obviously it would have been better to get the Raiders second round pick last year, especially in a loaded draft. But it was worth the chance of getting a top 5 pick this year. A gamble that didn't pay off.

We'll have to compare the player we get this year to the guys that went in the 2nd and 3rd last year

I definately disagree - particularly if BB trades the pick for another first rounder next year.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Yeah, Stomper's been a real peach.

There is such a thing as cutting the meat off with the fat, and Coach Bill The Mad did that when he stood off Branch AND when he jettisoned Seymour.

We probably wouldn't've won it all, last year, without Seymour.

But there's not even the slightest possibility...that we wouldnt've won it all with Branch, in 2006.

Coach Bill II The Mad is by FAR The Greatest in ALL The Land.

And I am 100% certain that when all is said and done, his Stature will eclipse that of even The Great One, Vince Lombardi.

But he flushed one (1) Championship RIGHT down the toilet, when he torqued on Deion Branch, 4 years ago.

And this notion that we HAD to trade Seymour is HILARIOUS.

If we were up against The Cap...we could've simply traded MOSS.

And we would've done one HELL of a lot better, last Autumn, than a 2011 3rd Rounder!!

Not too bitter, are we?

 

[upstater1]

I definately disagree - particularly if BB trades the pick for another first rounder next year.

I don't get you. We'll have a mid first rounder this year.

What will trading it for a 1st rounder next year accomplish?

That's a bad trade first of all.

Most teams trade second rounders for first rounders.

 

[upstater1]

No way.
The point of the 2011 pick was getting an additional 1st rounder and potentially a very high one after the rookie cap goes into place.
1st round picks will have greater value from 2011 on because they will take up substanitally less cap room.
By the way, banking on Al Davis' account of the facts is like asking Pinochio for some inside info.

On point 1, I already said that it worth the gamble.
On point 2, we were talking about a 2nd rounder in 2010, not a 1st rounder, so the premium on early 1st rounders last year doesn't even apply.
On point 3, I didn't reference Al Davis at all.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

The trade to get a 1st rounder in exchange for 1 season's worth of Seymour's services (2009 season) was a huge slam dunk for the Pats, a total no-brainer.

Seymour played this season at a huge salary that the Pats weren't willing to pay. And he wasn't the difference last year in whether we would have won a SB either.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I really don't understand those talking about how great Seymour is for purposes of analyzing this trade.

We got a first rounder for a one-year rental. We also got the benefit of having some of his 2009 contract off our books, right? Who did we use that cap space for? Isn't that part of the analysis?

I haven't really heard anyone say anything to contradict the notion this was more than a one-year rental that we gave up. I see lots of people speculating that we could have locked him up longer term. Well, if that's true, we still can. He's a FA next year (assuming he doesn't get franchised.) So, all we really lost is the right to pay him $12.5 million for 2010, which we were never going to do.

 

[upstater1]

I really don't understand those talking about how great Seymour is for purposes of analyzing this trade.

We got a first rounder for a one-year rental. We also got the benefit of having some of his 2009 contract off our books, right? Who did we use that cap space for? Isn't that part of the analysis?

I haven't really heard anyone say anything to contradict the notion this was more than a one-year rental that we gave up. I see lots of people speculating that we could have locked him up longer term. Well, if that's true, we still can. He's a FA next year (assuming he doesn't get franchised.) So, all we really lost is the right to pay him $12.5 million for 2010, which we were never going to do.

I agree with the general sentiments but you can't leave out the fact that Seymour could have been signed during an uncapped year in which lots of money could have been frontloaded.

NFL owners were a little taken aback but how much money Wilfork was guaranteed and how big his salary was for this year.

So some of the hurt of a longer term Seymour contract could have been soaked up this year.

Again, don't disagree with your general point.

 

[Kontradiction]

Yeah, if your 1st round pick isn't in the top 10 then it's worthless.

Vince Wilfork, Devin McCourty, Logan Mankins...all picked in the 1st round after pick 20 and we saw how bad they all busted.

Where in my post did I say that the pick is worthless? My contention is that the trade, which was a bad one already, is even worse without a top ten pick. I'm not sure how you could possibly argue that.

 

[sbpatfan]

All of these arguments are based off hypothetical, "well, what if Seymour stayed and..." stuff. There's no way to know if the team would've been better off, the same, or worse for keeping Seymour. In my opinion, Seymour would have not been the difference of this team making a deep playoff push. The team had much bigger problems. We won't know if the trade was good or not until we found out what happens with this draft pick. But even then, that'll probably take another year or two.

The way I look at it, there was no way the team was going to keep Seymour when they needed to lock up more important guys in Brady and Wilfork. They probably could've kept Seymour and let Wilfork walk, but big Vince is far more valuable to that line and younger.

We might see this same problem if our newer Patriots develop into stars and win some Superbowls. This is the problem teams have to overcome when they have success in the free agency / salary cap era. One day we might be discussing who is more important to keep between Patrick Chung and Devin McCourty.

 

[serifyn]

The Trade hurt them then and it isnt helping them now. whats done is done, Seymour wanted a new contract and they got a 1st rounder instead, until we see what kind of players we get out of the pick, we wont know if it was worth it.