Richard Seymour situation gets weird...

[packers11]

pft.com


Belichick monitoring Bills, not Seymour
Posted by Tom Curran on September 9, 2009 11:25 AM ET

Asked this morning if he was "monitoring" the ongoing Richard Seymour situation, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick responded by saying, "Right now, we're monitoring the Buffalo Bills very closely. There's a lot of work to do with that."

Seymour, traded to the Raiders on Sunday in exchange for a 2011 first-round pick has so far failed to report to Oakland (or maybe he's just taking a five-day weekend).

If Seymour fails to report and take a physical with the Raiders, he likely will remain the property of the Patriots, depending on the specific terms of the trade. And it then would be on them to send the dreaded "five-day letter," which says the player must report within five days or be put on the "reserve/left club" list.

The unusual aspect to this is that the Patriots would be compelling him to report not to the Patriots, but to the Raiders.

Asked if Belichick was concerned about the eventuality that Seymour remains their problem, he answered, "Right now, we're concerned about Buffalo. That's what we're concerned about. We'll deal with whatever happens when it happens whether that's next week, next month, next year."

Our money is on next week, if not sooner.

My guess is that he holds out until the trade is void and he is sent back to the Patriots... That would be such an awkward situation though, him walking right back into that locker room right after being traded... Seymour has a lot of leverage here because if he doesn't show up, the Pats will be forced to take him back (which they don't want to)...

Thoughts? I've never seen this happen before, has it?

[Lurker64]

I believe the only way he could be sent back to New England is if he fails his physical, as most trades are contingent on that.

If he's healthy and just doesn't show up to Oakland, really the only thing the Raiders can do is put him on the reserve/left squad squad list. They have to give him five days of notification before they do so, but if the Raiders do put Seymour on the reserve/left squad list he will be unable to play (for anybody) this year and this year will not count towards his contract (so he won't be a free agent after this season).

Seymour's only really good options are "retire" or "play for Oakland", but he's likely trying to finagle either some money for nothing from New England or a guarantee from Oakland that he won't be franchised.

[KYPack]

TO didn't do a great job of reporting to the Ravens when Philly traded him (Mighta been SF).

Every once in awhile, players "vote with their feet", and fail to report to the team they are traded to.

Duane Thomas did it a couple times way back when.

[Lurker64]

I forgot to mention that Oakland probably does not want to put Seymour on the reserve/left squad list, as that means they lose him for the season and they want him desperately to shore up an awful run defense. What Oakland likely wants is for Seymour to play this year and to convince him to stay longer, which is something they'll need luck to accomplish as Seymour looks to want no part of the bay area.

[packers11]

pft.com


If Seymour doesn't report, Raiders will want their pick back
Posted by Mike Florio on September 9, 2009 12:01 PM ET
Wisely, the New England Patriots are taking the "nothing to see here" approach regarding defensive lineman Richard Seymour. In their view, Seymour is now a Raider and the Raiders' first-round pick in 2011 has been tucked away into the cavernous vault beneath Gillette Stadium.

But despite reports suggesting that Seymour is now the Raiders' problem, a league source tells us that the Raiders will want to retrieve their draft pick, if Seymour doesn't show.

The trade hinges on Seymour reporting for work and passing a physical. If he doesn't show up and then pass a physical, he doesn't become the property of the Raiders.

The Patriots likely would take a different view of the situation, claiming that once the trade is accomplished getting Seymour to show up becomes the Raiders' problem.

Still, we think the Raiders are right on this one. How can they be expected to pay for something that they never get?

Meanwhile, we're told that the Raiders still don't know whether or not Seymour will show up, more than three days after the trade was announced.

[mraynrand]

pft.com: "Still, we think the Raiders are right on this one. How can they be expected to pay for something that they never get?"

Because they made the deal. Shoulda had some idea of whether the guy would play for you. Still Seymour is being an asshat, but not showing is the only leverage he has.

Meanwhile, Bill Belichick is focused on Buffalo.

[Guiness]

As mentioned above, TO got away with it, but that had something to do with paperwork...I can't remember if TO or the team forgot to file it. Anyways, it ended up being a technicality. He should've been a free agent.

I don't recall this sort of a situation before. It will be interesting.

[bobblehead]

Not sure how its Oakland's problem. He has to pass a physical or the trade is null. If he refuses to TAKE a physical the trade is null as he isn't passing one. Just my opinion.

[Freak Out]

Would he be a better fit for our D now than Kampy is?

[Lurker64]

Would he be a better fit for our D now than Kampy is?

He would play 5-technique DE in our defense, not OLB. They're not really comparable positions.

But yes, for his career, he's been one of the best 3-4 DEs in the history of the game.

[hoosier]

I forgot to mention that Oakland probably does not want to put Seymour on the reserve/left squad list, as that means they lose him for the season and they want him desperately to shore up an awful run defense. What Oakland likely wants is for Seymour to play this year and to convince him to stay longer, which is something they'll need luck to accomplish as Seymour looks to want no part of the bay area.

So they can finish 2-14 instead of 1-15. I'm not saying you're wrong about the Raiders thinking, just that the thinking doesn't impress me as being especially solid. But who am I to second-guess Al Davis....

[KYPack]

Read on PFT that Seymour thought he was getting a new deal from NE. The Pats got back to him and told him he was dealt to the Raiders. Some think his agent was puffing about the new deal and NE had very little intention of getting one done.

This one should be a first class screw-up.

[Cheesehead Craig]

See what happens when you have poor pad level, you get sent to Da Raiders.

[SkinBasket]

Al Davis can't even fuck up a trade right. Trading a 1st round (most likely top 8) pick for 1 year of service from an aging lineman seemed comically absurd. The fact that they can't even consummate the trade is nothing short of a cosmic tragedy.

If the trade goes through, I for one cannot wait to watch the Patriots enter another draft stacked with high picks.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Seymour just wants more cash. Simple as that.

[Guiness]

Read on PFT that Seymour thought he was getting a new deal from NE. The Pats got back to him and told him he was dealt to the Raiders. Some think his agent was puffing about the new deal and NE had very little intention of getting one done.

This one should be a first class screw-up.

Remarkably similar to the way Lombardi used to deal with players who wanted more money, isn't it?

I'm trying to remember the story about a player asking for more money, Vince told him to wait outside. When he came back in, he was told he'd been traded to KC or something.

[MadScientist]

Let's hope he never shows with the Raiders. I much prefer NE to have a disgruntled player than a top pick. They could use some team chemistry problems.

[Fritz]

If anyone has knowledge about the wording of trade agreements, it would be interesting to hear about that.

Might there be a clause about conditions under which the trade might be voided? One would be failing the physical, so as someone said above, the question is this: does not taking a physical constitute failing a physical?

And do teams put language in that stipulates the player must report or the trade is void?

Hmm. Anybody? Anyone? Bueller?

[swede]

I'm trying to remember the story about a player asking for more money, Vince told him to wait outside. When he came back in, he was told he'd been traded to KC or something.

As I misremember it...It wasn't an issue of asking for money. The player had brought an agent with him, a practice still quite rare in the early part of that decade. Vince excused himself, used the phone in another room, came back and told the player to go negotiate with his new team.

[vince]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Diner-morning-news-Random-thoughts-2603.html
Where’s Richard?

Richard Seymour still has not reported to the Raiders since his trade from New England.

I’m told reliably that Richard Seymour isn’t looking for a long-term contract from the Raiders, that in fact his absence centers solely on his unhappiness with the trade. The comments from coach Tom Cable are really irrelevant since the trade papers have been signed and approved by the league office. He counts on the Raiders’ 53-man roster, so how does Seymour need to clear things up with the Patriots? All that remains is for Seymour to show up and pass his physical. There’s nothing left for the Patriots to do regarding Seymour because he’s now the property of the Raiders, so many NFL observers were left shaking their heads after hearing Cable’s comments.

Seymour has no choice other than to retire, which he doesn’t want to do as he was expecting a Julius Peppers type of contract next offseason in what may be an uncapped year. The Raiders can place him on their reserve did not report list and go after the remaining portion of his pro-rated bonus. But clearly, that’s not a course of action a team that gave up a first-round pick in 2011 wants to explore. Can the Raiders now trade him? Yes, but do you think they can recoup their investment? Hardly. But again, the Raiders made this trade to improve their team, not collect draft picks, so trading Seymour isn’t an option for them.

The only positive for the Raiders is that they don’t play until Monday night, so their week of preparation for the Chargers game doesn’t start until Thursday, giving them more time to get Seymour to Oakland.

[pbmax]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Diner-morning-news-Random-thoughts-2603.html
Where’s Richard?

Richard Seymour still has not reported to the Raiders since his trade from New England.

I’m told reliably that Richard Seymour isn’t looking for a long-term contract from the Raiders, that in fact his absence centers solely on his unhappiness with the trade. The comments from coach Tom Cable are really irrelevant since the trade papers have been signed and approved by the league office.
Lombardi is just not the sharpest crayon in the box. If by not reporting and not taking the physical he doesn't think that Seymour could force at least a hearing in front of an arbitrator, he is being willfully blind. I think this has happened before and not just the TO paperwork snafu.

[KYPack]

I'm trying to remember the story about a player asking for more money, Vince told him to wait outside. When he came back in, he was told he'd been traded to KC or something.

As I misremember it...It wasn't an issue of asking for money. The player had brought an agent with him, a practice still quite rare in the early part of that decade. Vince excused himself, used the phone in another room, came back and told the player to go negotiate with his new team.

It's an old "urban legend". Check out "When Pride Mattered" Jim Ringo (All-Pro GB Center) wanted to finish his career back East. He went to Vince and told him what he wanted to finish his career back East. Lombardi engineered a trade that moved Ringo to the Eagles. Ringo did have an agent, but the guy negotiated his Eagle contract.

Somewhere, the story got started that Vince traded Ringo bc of his representation. It made for a good tale and Vince liked the way it made him look, so he never denied the legend that he traded a guy because he had an agent. The legend had a lot more legs than the truth, so it has survived.

[MOBB DEEP]

See, this is why im in favor of cats (e.g., eli, elway, lord) taking advantage when they have leverage in the not-so-player-friendly nfl...treated like pieces of meat, albeit for mad loot

talk about going from penthouse to outhouse...