The W
Views: 95577148
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.4.14 1339
The W - Football - Pats Trade Richard Seymour
This thread has 62 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.28
Pages: 1
(660 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (18 total)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.75
Huge swindle by the Pats who once again trade with Al Davis and the Oakland Raiders Click Here (sports.espn.go.com). The Pats score a First Round Pick in 2011 for Richard freaking Seymour who has been skating by on his name for the past two years.

Seymour will help Oakland until that stank rubs off on him and he vanishes from our memories all together.
Promote this thread!
brick
Bockwurst








Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 350 days
Last activity: 346 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.00
    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
    Huge swindle by the Pats who once again trade with Al Davis and the Oakland Raiders Click Here (sports.espn.go.com). The Pats score a First Round Pick in 2011 for Richard freaking Seymour who has been skating by on his name for the past two years.

    Seymour will help Oakland until that stank rubs off on him and he vanishes from our memories all together.


Injured 2 seasons ago, missing half of the season, came back last year and matched his career high in sacks, and according to FootballOutsiders was one of the best run defenders in the league last season.

But he is skating by on his name. Sure sounds like someone wants to spin this as bad for the Raiders.

This is bad for the Raiders if they don't lock him up to an extension. They just acquired a premier DT/DE for a pick two years down the road, who knows what either team will look like then.

(edited by brick on 6.9.09 1229)

(edited by brick on 6.9.09 1230)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.75
You obviously haven't been watching Richard Seymour play. He is good in spurts, but disapears for long periods and the defense plays just as well when he is there and when he isn't. He wasn't even the best player on the Pats line last year. He still has value in the league, but if you think he was worth a #1 pick then I need to get in a fantasy league with you down the road.

brick
Bockwurst








Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 350 days
Last activity: 346 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.10
    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
    You obviously haven't been watching Richard Seymour play.

You are wrong, but you are proving to be good at that.


    He is good in spurts, but disapears for long periods and the defense plays just as well when he is there and when he isn't.


Name me one DL who doesn't fit this description. Because you could find the same scouting report on Haynesworth.


    He wasn't even the best player on the Pats line last year.


I'd agree with this, but it doesn't make him a worse player. He and Wilfork fed off of each other, that is how it works with great players.



    He still has value in the league, but if you think he was worth a #1 pick then I need to get in a fantasy league with you down the road.




I'd happily take your money, because if your fantasy knowledge matches your RL knowledge you may want to start looking for a remedial fantasy league.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 29 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
This makes me happy. Whenever some team (the early '00s Mariners, for example) hold on to a guy too long because he used to be great and still elicits a reaction of "hey, he's great" based on his name and prior body of work, I think "Bill Belichick wouldn't do that." I'd rather the team sell to early than hang on too long.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.75
    Originally posted by brick
      Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
      You obviously haven't been watching Richard Seymour play.

    You are wrong, but you are proving to be good at that.




So, this was a bad trade? A fair trade? You haven't really stated an opinion one way or the other. A big Raiders fan? Richard Seymour's brother in-law? I'm curious as to how this was anything but a steal for the Pats. You know we are most likely talking about a top 5 pick in 2011 for a 30 year old defensive end on a deep team, right? What happens if Seymour only stays his one year, still a good move?

If the money is reinvseted in Wilfork and you still have a top 5 pick in 2011, how is that anything but good?

I'd sure like to be proven wrong by your in depth knowledge rather than told I'm wrong you're right nee-ner, nee-ner, but maybe you know something most everyone else doesn't.




(edited by BigDaddyLoco on 6.9.09 1935)
brick
Bockwurst








Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 350 days
Last activity: 346 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.10
    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco


    So, this was a bad trade? A fair trade? You haven't really stated an opinion one way or the other.


Like I said already, if the Raiders don't sign him long term it is a bad trade for the team. Otherwise, it looks like a win win for both teams.



    A big Raiders fan? Richard Seymour's brother in-law? I'm curious as to how this was anything but a steal for the Pats.


It isn't a steel for the Pats for the following reason

In a win now league, you have just given up a top 10 DE because you know you can't sign him next season. You have made your team weaker now, for the promise of a draft pick in two years. When the window of opportunity for any franchise rarely lasts much longer than what the Pats have enjoyed the past 7 years.

That draft pick looks real nice, and your fanbase will crow about getting a #1 from senile Al Davis, but as a team, you know that for every year you push the pick down the line, you go up one round. So getting a 1st round draft pick in 2011, is the same as getting a #2 in the 2010 draft. Which is funny, since the pundits are all saying how a 2nd rounder would have been fine. Funny how quickly they forget how future draft picks get valued, when it makes for better soundbites.

So your team is weaker today than it was yesterday, and you have to wait two years to see a return. Tom Brady isn't getting any younger, a pick in 2011 doesn't shore up the offensive line, doesn't make the secondary any more porous. And you essentially got what was considered fair value.

Sounds more like a concession that you aren't going to be able to get a deal done, and should just take whatever you can get, than a steel to me.



    You know we are most likely talking about a top 5 pick in 2011 for a 30 year old defensive end on a deep team, right? What happens if Seymour only stays his one year, still a good move?


I already answered your 2nd question twice in this thread. But I would love to get a glance at the crystal ball you are looking at that pegs this as a top 5 pick. I know ESPN is having fun using that line, but what are you basing that on?



    If the money is reinvseted in Wilfork and you still have a top 5 pick in 2011, how is that anything but good?




So now you've traded Seymour and put all your eggs into Wilfork's basket. You just gave up a huge piece of leverage in negotiations with Wilfork. His contract demands just got closer to Albert Haynesworth territory.

And with the way the NFL works, and with the aging Pats roster, you do know that top 5 pick you keep crowing about could just as easily be the Pat's own, right?



    I'd sure like to be proven wrong by your in depth knowledge rather than told I'm wrong you're right nee-ner, nee-ner, but maybe you know something most everyone else doesn't.




If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, try coming with something closer to correct than "Seymour has been skating by on his name" and rebuttals of "You obviously haven't been watching Richard Seymour play. " because he hasn't been, and I have been.
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.75
    Originally posted by brick

    In a win now league, you have just given up a top 10 DE because you know you can't sign him next season. You have made your team weaker now, for the promise of a draft pick in two years. When the window of opportunity for any franchise rarely lasts much longer than what the Pats have enjoyed the past 7 years.


You say they couldn't sign him next season, but it's more likely they weren't going to sign him next season. The window has stayed open for so long because of moves like this.

If there weren't guys ready to step up and fill the void I might agree with you, but if you can fill the void now why not prepare for the future?



    And with the way the NFL works, and with the aging Pats roster, you do know that top 5 pick you keep crowing about could just as easily be the Pat's own, right?


Doubtful. The aging Pats roster has largely been turned over and the vets they do bring in are mostly on one year deals. It's the type of deal that adds a Mayo to an aging Linebacker group at the right time.



    If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, try coming with something closer to correct than "Seymour has been skating by on his name" and rebuttals of "You obviously haven't been watching Richard Seymour play. " because he hasn't been, and I have been.



I can't think of one Patriot that has gone on to somewhere else and made them regret cutting ties. This reminds me of the Lawyer Milloy move. Sure, Milloy had something left in the tank, but the Patriots had guys ready to step up and fill the void. I would much rather have the pick in 2011 than Seymour for several more years. Not everything the Patriots do hits pay dirt, but they run such a tight ship that big moves like this do not bother me.

There are things about this team that worry me. The lack of a backup QB, the cornerbacks, no fullback to speak of, the TE situation, but losing Richard Seymour isn't one of them. I think Richard Seymour became overrated. You do not. When the 2011 draft rolls around I don't think anyone will be talking about how the trade for Richard Seymour changed the fortunes of the Raiders franchise. Either way I'm with JayJayDean, you can't hang on too long.

It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 day
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.55
I know it's been dead for a while, but this (along with Tedy Bruschi's retirement) is another reminder that the Patriots dynasty is gone. Adam Vinatieri, Asante Samuel, Corey Dillon, Troy Brown, Mike Vrabel, Bruschi, Seymour. Is Brady the only one left from those championship teams?




All hail the Hypno-Toad
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.64
    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
    I can't think of one Patriot that has gone on to somewhere else and made them regret cutting ties.


I'd go with Asante Samuel, and......

    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
    ......There are things about this team that worry me..... the cornerbacks


...so would you? I guess you could argue they don't regret not being lumbered with his big-ass contract but they're down to unprovens and a 34 year-old Shawn Springs who, despite a strong reputation, has been a delight for opposing receivers to play against at times over the last couple of years.

    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
    When the 2011 draft rolls around I don't think anyone will be talking about how the trade for Richard Seymour changed the fortunes of the Raiders franchise.


Well, no but on the other hand I doubt we'd have been talking about that 2011 pick being the man who saved the Raiders either. If and when they do turn the corner it'll be down to a number of roster moves. This one gives them an upgrade on a defence that is much better than they're often given credit for.

I think a lot of people are quick to say New England got a steal here because the Pats are run extremely well and Al Davis is nuts (not that this logic is inherently flawed).

Assuming they sign him to an extension, the Raiders get a DE who will give them above average to very good play for four or five years for the equivalent in today's money of a 2nd rounder. If you could guarantee (or as near as, injury permitting) every second round pick would give you strong production for 4-5 years, most teams would take that.

The Patriots do have players who can step up, but many of them are unproven. They'll also presumably be counting on Burgess to pick up some of the slack, at least as far as sacks go, and if you want to talk about guys skating by on name and reputation these past couple years then look no further.

As for a top 5 pick, New England won't have evaluated the trade on that basis unless they were suffering temporary insanity. It's statistically improbable that any individual team will be picking in the top 5 two years from now. Except maybe Detroit. Too many things can happen, and every year we see teams go from last to first. I presume you noticed the 1-and-15-in-2007 Dolphins made the playoffs in 2008 whilst the 16-and-0-in-2007 Patriots did not

I don't blame you for feeling confident. The Pats tend to let players go at the right time and Oakland have an uncanny knack for picking them up at the wrong time. Or picking up perfectly good players and turning them cruddy. Looks pretty even on paper today though, and it's certainly way too early to be talking about steals or Seymour being a spent force.

(edited by dMr on 7.9.09 1201)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.75
    Originally posted by It's False
    I know it's been dead for a while, but this (along with Tedy Bruschi's retirement) is another reminder that the Patriots dynasty is gone. Adam Vinatieri, Asante Samuel, Corey Dillon, Troy Brown, Mike Vrabel, Bruschi, Seymour. Is Brady the only one left from those championship teams?


Brady, Faulk, Light ... and yes Stephen Neal. As for coaches other than Belichick and Pepper Johnson I'm not sure if any have been on board for the whole run. Not to mention that this is the first year without Pioli

Edit: It looks like three other coaches have been there for the whole run Click Here (nfl.com)



(edited by BigDaddyLoco on 7.9.09 1113)
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 262 days
Last activity: 223 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.30
    Originally posted by brick

    That draft pick looks real nice, and your fanbase will crow about getting a #1 from senile Al Davis, but as a team, you know that for every year you push the pick down the line, you go up one round. So getting a 1st round draft pick in 2011, is the same as getting a #2 in the 2010 draft.


I want to address this. People seem to get this confused a lot. It's not one round for each future year in the draft. If this were true, you could, for instance, trade all your marginal players for 7th round picks in this years draft, and then trade those 7th round picks for 1st round picks in 2016.

The reason a pick in a future year is discounted is because of the uncertainty of it. A simple way to account for the uncertainty is to discount the pick one round in your draft value chart. That way you know that even if worse comes to worst (the team you traded with wins the Super Bowl), you'll get enough value from the pick to still come out ahead.

So the reason for the devaluation is the uncertainty of the pick. A team's 2010 picks are just as uncertain as their 2011 picks, which are just as uncertain as their 2012 picks. All future picks are equally uncertain, and therefore should be equally devalued. The Patriots have traded a year of Richard Seymour (assuming that they would have refused to pay him what he and his agent feel is his value) for a pick that at worst will be the 32nd overall pick. That is the valuation, whether it be a first round pick in 2010, 2011, or 2036 (assuming the NFL still has 32 teams in 2036).

(edited by Mr. Boffo on 7.9.09 2220)
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.64
Mr Boffo:"I want to address this. People seem to get this confused a lot. It's not one round for each future year in the draft.

Well not strictly, but it's a handy rule of thumb, especially over short time frames (pretty much one season).

If this were true, you could, for instance, trade all your marginal players for 7th round picks in this years draft, and then trade those 7th round picks for 1st round picks in 2016.

Again, it's just a rule of thumb that you shouldn't extrapolate too far from. The additional value would diminsh over longer timeframes. Besides, isn't there a limit on how far into the future one can trade (2012 I believe)?

"So the reason for the devaluation is the uncertainty of the pick. A team's 2010 picks are just as uncertain as their 2011 picks, which are just as uncertain as their 2012 picks. All future picks are equally uncertain, and therefore should be equally devalued."

?!

Whilst predicting performance from season to season can be tricky, the uncertainty is MUCH lower over shorter timeframes. I can say with some confidence that the Oakland Raiders will not win 10 games because I know exactly who's on their roster and who their coaches are. I would have much less confidence making such a prediction for 2010, 2011 or 2036. To say next season is as unpredictable as three years from now is to say nobody could use their knowledge outperform a random number generator when making picks for the upcoming season.

If all future picks were equally valued a team who figures its window is closing could just straight swap their 2011 picks for 2010 picks.

A (the) major reason for devaluing future picks is the value of having something now is higher than having the same thing at some point in the future.

Imagine two teams (A and B) both have 1st round picks in 2010 and 2011. They decide to trade A's 1st rounder in 2010 for B's in 2011. Now B has two first-rounders in 2010, A has two in 2011. Let's hold everything else equal, so assume both teams draft guys of equal ability who have careers of equal length who spend their career at the team that drafts them.

Team B will benefit over A in 2010 because they have two guys producing on the field while Team A will have nowt but a couple of draft picks up their sleeve. In 2011, Team A gets two draft picks but they'll still be at a disadvantage in the following season as Team B's picks will have more experience.

The advantage Team B has lessens over the years until their two picks from 2010 start to decline at which point Team A would hold the advantage by having players who will (on average) be a year younger. Earlier draft picks retire earlier too, so even further down the line Team A has an advantage again.

The end result of this is that Team A has given Team B an advantage for the next two or three seasons in return for an advantage of similar length many years into the future. No GM or coach in their right mind is going to trade an advantage now to get the same advantage several years from now. Chances are they'd be out a job before they even got to reap the rewards.

That's why picks future picks are devalued. And for what it's worth, ESPN were reporting that originally the Pats were happy to deal for a 2nd rounder in 2010 but Oakland wanted to keep their 2010 draft together.

StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 22 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
If Seymour continues to be a no show, does the trade get nullified?
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.74
I hope not, because it is going to be uglier if the Pats have to keep him. I would think he would have to take his physical before anything is set in stone. I can't remember the last time something like this happened. Was Owens to Baltimore a similar situation?

brick
Bockwurst








Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 350 days
Last activity: 346 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.10
Assuming this is a standard trade, it is conditional on Syemour showing up and passing a physical. If Seymour continues to no-show, the following can be done:

1 - The teams can come up with a new deal, the latest example of this I can think of is Jake Plumber to Tampa. He no showed, the compensation was reduced to a 6th round pick, and Tampa went after him to have signing bonus returned.

2 - The deal gets voided, the Raiders get their pick back, Seymour stays in NE.

3 - The Pats would send Seymour a "5-Day Letter" (the Pats would do this, as they technically hold his rights until the physical). The 5-day letter pretty much tells the player to show up in the next 5 days, or they can be put on the Reserved/ left squad list. If a player is put on that list, they cannot play this year, and they do not accrue a season against their contract. Meaning that Seymour would still have one year at 3.7 million on his deal next year.

Now the Raiders could (and who knows how the trade reads, they may have already) waive the physical requirement. At that point they would be the team issuing the 5-day letter, much like the Bucs were with Plumber.

Edit -

Owens to Baltimore was different. Owens could void the final year of his deal in San Fran and become a free agent. However his agent failed to submit the paperwork in time. Instead of putting up with more of Owen's BS, the Niners decided to trade him.

Owens and his agent protested, and somehow managed to get an arbitrator to agree that the final year of his contract should be voided, despite the fact that they failed to submit the proper paperwork in time.

(edited by brick on 9.9.09 0914)
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 19 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.64
    Originally posted by brick

    Edit -

    Owens to Baltimore was different. Owens could void the final year of his deal in San Fran and become a free agent. However his agent failed to submit the paperwork in time. Instead of putting up with more of Owen's BS, the Niners decided to trade him.

    Owens and his agent protested, and somehow managed to get an arbitrator to agree that the final year of his contract should be voided, despite the fact that they failed to submit the proper paperwork in time.


Ish. The arbitrator never got a chance to rule before the Ravens, 49ers and Eagles sorted out compensation. It went something like....

1. Ravens give San Fran a 2nd rounder for Owens.
2. In what with hindsight was a portent of things to come, Owens spits dummy out.
3. Owens expresses desire to play for a proper QB like Donovan McNabb - none of this Kyle Boller nonsense. Eagles still want TO. Both sides blame the agent and the arbitrator gets involved.
4. Before the arbitrator gave a ruling, the three parties reached a compromise, to whit:
- Ravens got their 2nd rounder back from San Fran and ship Owens back.
- 49ers got a 5th rounder along with your hero and mine, Brandon Whiting, from Philly.
- Eagles got TO.

I think the rumours at the time was that the arbitrator could have ruled either way, so all parties were relatively happy with the compromise.

On the Seymour front, I may have to withdraw any earlier praise for the Raiders. I assumed that they would have already touched base with Seymour about a contract extension given the time left on his deal and the compensation they were offering. Instead it seems they didn't even bother checking if he would tolerate going to Oakland. If that's the case, it's quite impressively stupid.



(edited by dMr on 9.9.09 1429)
brick
Bockwurst








Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 350 days
Last activity: 346 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.10
    Originally posted by dMr
      Originally posted by brick

      Edit -

      Owens to Baltimore was different. Owens could void the final year of his deal in San Fran and become a free agent. However his agent failed to submit the paperwork in time. Instead of putting up with more of Owen's BS, the Niners decided to trade him.

      Owens and his agent protested, and somehow managed to get an arbitrator to agree that the final year of his contract should be voided, despite the fact that they failed to submit the proper paperwork in time.


    Ish. The arbitrator never got a chance to rule before the Ravens, 49ers and Eagles sorted out compensation. It went something like....

    1. Ravens give San Fran a 2nd rounder for Owens.
    2. In what with hindsight was a portent of things to come, Owens spits dummy out.
    3. Owens expresses desire to play for a proper QB like Donovan McNabb - none of this Kyle Boller nonsense. Eagles still want TO. Both sides blame the agent and the arbitrator gets involved.
    4. Before the arbitrator gave a ruling, the three parties reached a compromise, to whit:
    - Ravens got their 2nd rounder back from San Fran and ship Owens back.
    - 49ers got a 5th rounder along with your hero and mine, Brandon Whiting, from Philly.
    - Eagles got TO.

    I think the rumours at the time was that the arbitrator could have ruled either way, so all parties were relatively happy with the compromise.

    On the Seymour front, I may have to withdraw any earlier praise for the Raiders. I assumed that they would have already touched base with Seymour about a contract extension given the time left on his deal and the compensation they were offering. Instead it seems they didn't even bother checking if he would tolerate going to Oakland. If that's the case, it's quite impressively stupid.



    (edited by dMr on 9.9.09 1429)


The comprimise makes more sense, than my memory of the arbitrator's ruling, thanks for clarifying that.

As for whether or not the Raiders talked to Seymour prior to the trade, there are conflicting reports there. Including one that the parameters of a 3 year extension had been agreed to prior to the trade, with the only hold up being how much is guaranteed, and how the guaranteed money is portioned out.

And before you ask, how long could it take to work out those details, that was the hold-up in the JaMarcus Russell contract which ended up with him holding out for all of training camp.
Thread rated: 4.28
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: NFL Pick-Em?
Next thread: Get all of your picks in!
Previous thread: 2009 College Football Week 1
(660 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
What's REALLY sad is that I have no counter-argument for any of that.
- JoshMann, David Boston to Dolphins (2004)
Related threads: Tedy Bruschi retires - Junior Seau Back with the Pats - Harrison done for year; possibly for good - More...
The W - Football - Pats Trade Richard SeymourRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.132 seconds.