Re: NY Media Working to Nullify Seymour Trade
posted at 9/10/2009 2:59 PM EDT
Though its' beginning to appear that Richard Seymour is the Raiders' problem now, watch out for Roger "Jets" Goodell, egged on by the media, to intercede on behalf of the Raiders. Oakland could will argue that since Seymour didn't report, he can't take a physical...and therefore, they can pull the plug on the trade, and get thier 1st round pick back.
But, the Pats will likely counter that Seymour reporting was not made a part of the deal...and that he's the Raiders' problem. Accordingly, if he fails to report to Oakland, its' not a deal breaker, and it is incumbent on Oakland, and not the Patriots, to send Seymour his 5 day letter to report...or sit out the season.
The Pats have precedent on their side, via the Jake Plummer case. Jake was traded from Denver to Tampa for an undisclosed draft choice, and didn't report. But, that wasn't a deal breaker. Apparently, the Tampa Bay Bucs knew it...and never pushed the issue with the league.
But, I caution you...don't be surprised if "Jets" Goodell nonetheless rules against the Patriots...even though by doing so could set a precedent whereby any player traded could nullify the deal by simply choosing not to report.
That said, here are thoughts on the Seymour deal from NFL.com's Adam Schefter:
Q: Belichick turns a top-10 pick in 2001 (his first first-round selection for the Patriots) into eight years of Pro Bowl-level defensive end play, three Super Bowl titles and a top-10 pick in 2011. It's almost not fair to the rest of the league. Has there ever been anyone better at this? -- Pete (Garden City, N.Y.)
Nobody in my mind, Pete. Belichick is the master at manipulating the draft, at thinking ahead, at running his team the exact way every fan would want his team to be run. Tell me any fan of any team hasn't said, "Why can't my team do that?" Richard Seymour
goes to five Pro Bowls and helps the Pats win three Super Bowls, and then, just before he turns 30 years old, Belichick trades Seymour to the Raiders for a potential top-10 pick and a player who can prolong the Patriots' success. Brilliant; that's all I can say. Brilliant. Q: Hey Adam, I interpreted your placing of the "Pats see 2011 lockout" comment as being relevant because if there's a lockout, (1) The Pats would be without Seymour for only one season (albeit two years) before seeing the fruits of the compensation for him; and (2) The Raiders will stink this year, and their 2010 draft position will carry over to 2011 if there's a lockout. Have I interpreted that correctly? -- Ryan (Miami)
Not really, Ryan. The way I meant it was that, with financial uncertainty coming in 2011, the Patriots would prefer not to redo some monster contract now, pay out all that bonus money and not see football in 2011. New England was staring straight at the prospect of having Seymour and Vince Wilfork
as free agents. It was going to be tough to keep both. So the Patriots traded one and held on to the other, and now, dealing with the financial uncertainty of 2011 is a little less expensive. Plus, in 2011, there may be a rookie wage scale, something NFL commissioner Roger Goodell wanted. If that's the case, the Patriots received a potential top pick without having to pay it some of these crazy salaries these other top picks have gotten.