Seymour still hasn't reported to the Raiders

[Klecko73isGod]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-raiders-seymour&prov=ap&type=lgns

At what point do you pull back the pick if you're the Raiders?

[Jbro22]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-raiders-seymour&prov=ap&type=lgns

At what point do you pull back the pick if you're the Raiders?

It would be excellent if he just retires because he doesn't want to play for the Raiders. Win Win for everyone.

[hoping4ASuperBowl]

good thing the Raiders already gave the Pats a first round pick.

[Klecko73isGod]

good thing the Raiders already gave the Pats a first round pick.

?????

If he doesn't report, the Raiders can pull the pick back and there is no trade.

Seymour becomes a major headache for the Pats as they would have a pissed off player who doesn't want to play for them and no one is going to hand them a high draft pick for.

Seymour can just walk away. A couple of years ago he was the highest paid player in the league, taking home more than 30 million in real dollars.

[hoping4ASuperBowl]

i thought the Raiders already gave the Pats their first round pick. I thought the holdup right now wouldn't affect the pick they gave up. I'm not sure but I guess I'm wrong here.

[RutgersJetFan]

i thought the Raiders already gave the Pats their first round pick.

You know, it wouldn't be unbecoming of Belichick to do something like demand that the Raiders give the Patriots a sheet of paper that said "this is our first round pick," and then call no-backsies when Seymour didn't show.

[Alk]

?????

If he doesn't report, the Raiders can pull the pick back and there is no trade.

Seymour becomes a major headache for the Pats as they would have a pissed off player who doesn't want to play for them and no one is going to hand them a high draft pick for.

Seymour can just walk away. A couple of years ago he was the highest paid player in the league, taking home more than 30 million in real dollars.

It's a done deal. The league has already approved the trade and signed all the papers. He's the Raiders' "major headache" now.

[Garb]

?????

If he doesn't report, the Raiders can pull the pick back and there is no trade.

Seymour becomes a major headache for the Pats as they would have a pissed off player who doesn't want to play for them and no one is going to hand them a high draft pick for.

Seymour can just walk away. A couple of years ago he was the highest paid player in the league, taking home more than 30 million in real dollars.

Raiders already signed the trade papers and filed them with Corporate. This, of course, was done without talking contract or performing a physical. Raiders is just another word for stoopid. Kind of like what your doing now. Talking out of your a@@ and all.

Seymour is a tremendous player. Seymour likes money. No way he walks away from a lot of money. This is him showing his displeasure at the trade. Can't say that I blame him. He'll be in a Raiders uniform soon. Take that to the bank.

[Alk]

i thought the Raiders already gave the Pats their first round pick. I thought the holdup right now wouldn't affect the pick they gave up. I'm not sure but I guess I'm wrong here.

They did. It's just wishful thinking on Klecko's part at this point.

[SMC]

i thought the Raiders already gave the Pats their first round pick. I thought the holdup right now wouldn't affect the pick they gave up. I'm not sure but I guess I'm wrong here.

No.

He has to actually report and pass the physical for the trade to go down.

If he fails to take the physical and pass it the trade is automatically rescinded.

[neckdemon]

It's a done deal. The league has already approved the trade and signed all the papers. He's the Raiders' "major headache" now.

he does have to report and pass a physical y'know.....

[SMC]

It's a done deal. The league has already approved the trade and signed all the papers. He's the Raiders' "major headache" now.

Raiders already signed the trade papers and filed them with Corporate. This, of course, was done without talking contract or performing a physical. Raiders is just another word for stoopid. Kind of like what your doing now. Talking out of your a@@ and all.

Seymour is a tremendous player. Seymour likes money. No way he walks away from a lot of money. This is him showing his displeasure at the trade. Can't say that I blame him. He'll be in a Raiders uniform soon. Take that to the bank.

They did. It's just wishful thinking on Klecko's part at this point.

No.

It's part of the CBA. The player has to report and pass the physical for the trade to be consumated.

It doesn't matter that the Raiders signed the trade papers and filed them. The reporting and passing the physical is a contingency which has to be satisfied.

This is CBA 101.

[Klecko73isGod]

No.

He has to actually report and pass the physical for the trade to go down.

If he fails to take the physical and pass it the trade is automatically rescinded.

Thank you. As usual, our resident trolls are WRONG (I know, big shocker, right? )

All trades are pending the player reporting AND passing a physical. If Seymour doesn't report, all bets are off and Belichick looks like a jackass but of course the NFL spin machine will go into overdrive and everyone will be blaming Seymour, especially Pats fans, who 96 hours ago would have lined up for the opportunity to fellate him.

[ZachEY]

It's a done deal. The league has already approved the trade and signed all the papers. He's the Raiders' "major headache" now.

If I'm not mistaken, all trades are contingent on a physical, which he's yet to show up for.

If he doesn't show up, he's the Pats problem.

[SMC]

Thank you. As usual, our resident trolls are WRONG (I know, big shocker, right? )

All trades are pending the player reporting AND passing a physical. If Seymour doesn't report, all bets are off and Belichick looks like a jackass but of course the NFL spin machine will go into overdrive and everyone will be blaming Seymour, especially Pats fans, who 96 hours ago would have lined up for the opportunity to fellate him.

If I'm not mistaken, all trades are contingent on a physical, which he's yet to show up for.

If he doesn't show up, he's the Pats problem.

It's one of the major differences between trades in the NFL and MLB.

The NFL has always had the reporting & passing the physical requirement. The MLB didn't and in 1996 the Yanks got burned by it.

The Yanks had traded for a pitcher and only after the trade was consumated did the Yanks discover that the pitcher had a bad elbow. But it was too late. They had to put him on the 60 day DL and he was lost for the remainder of the season. Now, teams can waive the physical requirement in MLB because they know of pre-existing conditions (like what happened with the Padres trade).

But in the NFL the physical must happen and the player must pass. If they don't, the trade is "rescinded" which means it's voided like it never happened.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

If I'm not mistaken, all trades are contingent on a physical, which he's yet to show up for.

If he doesn't show up, he's the Pats problem.

Yeah, if he doesn't show up it he is the Pats problem, but not as huge of a problem as Klecko would like it to be. The Patriots would likely wind up with 2010 high 2nd or low 1st instead of the Raiders 2011 1st, that's it.

If he doesn't show up, he will not be back in the Patriots locker room causing trouble. He will be on the do not report list. He will lose all of his salary and his contract will toll.

At the end of the season the Patriots will trade him again (don't think nobody will take him, he is no more of a problem child for the Pats than Marshall is for Denver and many Jet fans have a hard on at the idea of for trading for Marshall.) this time for a high second or low 1st.

The biggest loser in the deal if he doesn't show will be Seymour, not the Pats not the Raiders. That is why he will show.

[SMC]

Yeah, if he doesn't show up it he is the Pats problem, but not as huge of a problem as Klecko would like it to be. The Patriots would likely wind up with 2010 high 2nd or low 1st instead of the Raiders 2011 1st, that's it.

If he doesn't show up, he will not be back in the Patriots locker room causing trouble. He will be on the do not report list. He will lose all of his salary and his contract will toll.

At the end of the season the Patriots will trade him again (don't think nobody will take him, he is no more of a problem child for the Pats than Marshall is for Denver and many Jet fans have a hard on at the idea of for trading for Marshall.) this time for a high second or low 1st.

The biggest loser in the deal if he doesn't show will be Seymour, not the Pats not the Raiders. That is why he will show.

You're forgetting about the ability to report by the 10th week and, thus, maintain his opportunity to become a UFA at the end of the year.

Plus, the Pats get no draft pick if Seymour fails to report.

[ZachEY]

Yeah, if he doesn't show up it he is the Pats problem, but not as huge of a problem as Klecko would like it to be. The Patriots would likely wind up with 2010 high 2nd or low 1st instead of the Raiders 2011 1st, that's it.

If he doesn't show up, he will not be back in the Patriots locker room causing trouble. He will be on the do not report list. He will lose all of his salary and his contract will toll.

At the end of the season the Patriots will trade him again (don't think nobody will take him, he is no more of a problem child for the Pats than Marshall is for Denver and many Jet fans have a hard on at the idea of for trading for Marshall.) this time for a high second or low 1st.

The biggest loser in the deal if he doesn't show will be Seymour, not the Pats not the Raiders. That is why he will show.

Listen, in statistical analysis, you often remove the outliers to get to the meat of the numbers. Thusly, you ignore both PR37 and Klecko in any debate.

I don't know why you think the Pats would get a pick at all if Seymour fails to report? The NFL isn't going to give them a free pick, nor will they steal one from the Raiders. The trade, as ridiculous as it may be, was made in good faith, and the player acted against that, the Raiders certainly wont be penalized, and I don't see how the Pats can be rewarded.

I agree, it wont be a huge deal for the Pats, I just think they'll come out of it with no picks and a pissed off player. How they choose to handle him is irrelevent. You're dead on with regard to Seymour being the biggest loser in all of this, but, the guy's made a lot of money in this league, if he's been smart about that money, then he can afford to stick to his guns if he'd rather retire than play in Oakland.

[Klecko73isGod]

Yeah, if he doesn't show up it he is the Pats problem, but not as huge of a problem as Klecko would like it to be. The Patriots would likely wind up with 2010 high 2nd or low 1st instead of the Raiders 2011 1st, that's it.

If he doesn't show up, he will not be back in the Patriots locker room causing trouble. He will be on the do not report list. He will lose all of his salary and his contract will toll.

At the end of the season the Patriots will trade him again (don't think nobody will take him, he is no more of a problem child for the Pats than Marshall is for Denver and many Jet fans have a hard on at the idea of for trading for Marshall.) this time for a high second or low 1st.

The biggest loser in the deal if he doesn't show will be Seymour, not the Pats not the Raiders. That is why he will show.

Keep on spinnin' like good Belichickian soldier - that Joshy McDaniels got nothin' on you boy.

Actually its a huge problem for the Pats because they then have no leverage in trade negotiations with other teams. They'd be lucky to get a second-rounder at that point and the fact still remains that the trade HURT THE PATS FOR THE 2009 SEASON.

[SouthernJet]

What happens if Seymour doesn't show?

It's not completely out of the question. Seymour held out not once but twice from the Patriots during his time there, and Seymour's agent is -- you guessed it -- Eugene Parker, who currently is embroiled in one of the nastiest rookie holdouts in recent memory, as the agent for 49ers receiver Michael Crabtree.

So, if Seymour refuses to report to the Raiders, either because he doesn't want to play for the Raiders or because they're not offering him the kind of contract he wants, what happens?

Because all trades hinge on the player showing up and passing a physical, Seymour wouldn't become a Raider unless he enters the building. Thus, it apparently would fall back to the Patriots to take action against Seymour aimed at coaxing him to honor the last year of his current contract.

Under that contract, he's due to earn $3.685 million this year. That's more than $216,000 per game he'll lose if he doesn't accept the trade, in addition to any other potential fines that could be imposed.

If he stays out past Week Ten his contract will toll for a year, keeping him from becoming an unrestricted free agent in what looks to be an uncapped year. But this situation can't linger for two months. At some point, the Raiders will reel in that first-round pick, and the Pats will be forced to slay the fatted calf for a son who was made involuntarily prodigal.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

You're forgetting about the ability to report by the 10th week and, thus, maintain his opportunity to become a UFA at the end of the year.

Plus, the Pats get no draft pick if Seymour fails to report.

Nope. He can't report by week 10. If get the 5 day letter to report to the Raiders and then doesn't report to the Raiders. He is done for the year. He can't play for any team in the NFL including the Patriots and Raiders even if all three parties agree.

[SouthernJet]

Nope. He can't report by week 10. If get the 5 day letter to report to the Raiders and then doesn't report to the Raiders. He is done for the year. He can't play for any team in the NFL including the Patriots and Raiders even if all three parties agree.

thats right, and its Pats problem then,cause trade is voided and in Past best interest to change his mind

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

I don't know why you think the Pats would get a pick at all if Seymour fails to report? The NFL isn't going to give them a free pick, nor will they steal one from the Raiders. The trade, as ridiculous as it may be, was made in good faith, and the player acted against that, the Raiders certainly wont be penalized, and I don't see how the Pats can be rewarded.

Not from the NFL, and probably not from the Raiders. But if he doesn't play this year. He will still have a one year contract with the Patriots for next year. He will still be a top 3-4 DE (although maybe a bit out of shape). Patriots will put his right to the 2010 season on the block. Someone will trade for it. Not a top 10 pick, but something in the 20-40 range.

[SouthernJet]

N Patriots will put his right to the 2010 season on the block. Someone will trade for it. Not a top 10 pick, but something in the 20-40 range.

agree , thats the most likely scenario

[Garb]

Newsflash dooshies - this would be unchartered territory, therefore most of what is being written here are very good guesses - unless, of course, your messageboard name in Kelcko73isGod - then your just a moron.

Anyway, trust me - NO WAY SEYMOUR LOSES OUT ON MONEY THIS YEAR AND LOSES A YEAR OF ELIGIBILITY. Want to know what I think? I think he wants the Raiders to promise they will NOT tag him next year. He's thinking ONE MORE BIG CONTRACT/FAT CONTRACT. I also think he and his agent beleive the Raiders are stupid enough to do it. They may be right.

[Klecko73isGod]

Newsflash dooshies - this would be unchartered territory, therefore most of what is being written here are very good guesses - unless, of course, your messageboard name in Kelcko73isGod - then your just a moron.

Anyway, trust me - NO WAY SEYMOUR LOSES OUT ON MONEY THIS YEAR AND LOSES A YEAR OF ELIGIBILITY. Want to know what I think? I think he wants the Raiders to promise they will NOT tag him next year. He's thinking ONE MORE BIG CONTRACT/FAT CONTRACT. I also think he and his agent beleive the Raiders are stupid enough to do it. They may be right.

Who's messageboard name is Kelcko73isGod?

You might want to learn to check your spelling before you start calling people morons sweetie.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

agree , thats the most likely scenario

Which is what I said in the first place. The only real difference for the Patriots if Seymour doesn't show in Oakland is instead of having Oakland's 1st round 2011 pick, they will get a 2010 low 1st or high 2nd. It won't affect this year's roster or salary cap.

[slats]

Nope. He can't report by week 10. If get the 5 day letter to report to the Raiders and then doesn't report to the Raiders. He is done for the year. He can't play for any team in the NFL including the Patriots and Raiders even if all three parties agree.

Has that letter been sent? That's the last card the Pats/Raiders have to play. I'm not sure it will work, either. Depends on how seriously Seymour doesn't want to play for the Raiders. I'm sure he's got enough money lying around to get himself thru this year if he wants to play hardball in return. It's a gamble for both sides.

The Pats would be much better off, IMHO, taking him back than sending him that letter. Once the player has a year off, his trade value will decrease.

In the meantime... the Pats could've handled the player better, but it's the Raiders that are getting slapped in the face here. Seems like all parties would've been wiser to talk to Seymour first, and gauge his response to this deal. They had to know he'd be pissed. Who wouldn't be?

[Garb]

Who's messageboard name is Kelcko73isGod?

You might want to learn to check your spelling before you start calling people morons sweetie.

Ah, yes, when all else fails, either:

1) ask why a Pats fan posts on a Jest (on purpose ) board or

2) make fun of spelling errors.

Anyway, you are incapable of an unbaised thought. I'm not exactly Austrailia either - but jeez, you take the cake.

[ZachEY]

but jeez, you take the cake.

I wont.

[GodWearsAGrayHoodie]

The Pats would be much better off, IMHO, taking him back than sending him that letter. Once the player has a year off, his trade value will decrease.

In the meantime... the Pats could've handled the player better, but it's the Raiders that are getting slapped in the face here. Seems like all parties would've been wiser to talk to Seymour first, and gauge his response to this deal. They had to know he'd be pissed. Who wouldn't be?

I can not imagine BB allowing a player to set a precident that if you get traded and fail to show up for the physical we will welcome you back to the team.

Seymour has held out on the Patriots twice over money. Don't think BB or Kraft have forgotten that. So, I don't think BB cared that Seymour would be pissed about the traded. As Seymour has said, "it isn't personnal, its business." He has said he is willing to put Seymour's interests before the team's and has no loyality to Patriots but to the paycheck. This may be the best example of the adage "Be careful about what you wish for, you just might get it" that I have seen in a long time.

Seymour is great player, don't get me wrong. I loved him as a Patriot and appreaciated all he has done. We wouldn't have the rings without him. But he doesn't exactly exemplify the concept of "team player."

Being traded to the Raiders, along with getting great compensation might have been in part been punishement. You don't like working for the Patriots. You don't like our pay structure. You don't like BB. Okay, we can find you a new home.

[Klecko73isGod]

Ah, yes, when all else fails, either:

1) ask why a Pats fan posts on a Jest (on purpose ) board or

2) make fun of spelling errors.

Anyway, you are incapable of an unbaised thought. I'm not exactly Austrailia either - but jeez, you take the cake.

Of course I am when I am being attacked, especially by nincompoops who can't spell.

[Kleckineau]

What a shock, Garb is calling people names again. Must be having her period. Its a good excuse for making a fool of oneself I guess.

Kinda like when Alk says he drank before typing.

Cue the predictable insult troll response.................

[SMC]

Which is what I said in the first place. The only real difference for the Patriots if Seymour doesn't show in Oakland is instead of having Oakland's 1st round 2011 pick, they will get a 2010 low 1st or high 2nd. It won't affect this year's roster or salary cap.

There's no way the Pats are getting a pick for Seymour if he doesn't show.

What's wrong with you???

If he fails to show and take the physical the trade is rescinded. As such, the Pats get no pick. How hard is that to understand?

[Bugg]

Raiders already signed the trade papers and filed them with Corporate. This, of course, was done without talking contract or performing a physical. Raiders is just another word for stoopid. Kind of like what your doing now. Talking out of your a@@ and all.

Seymour is a tremendous player. Seymour likes money. No way he walks away from a lot of money. This is him showing his displeasure at the trade. Can't say that I blame him. He'll be in a Raiders uniform soon. Take that to the bank.

Don't doubt it.

Still, if the Raiders wanted to do this idiocy, it was incumbent on them to speak to Seymour and make sure he was willing to report ASAP. The Cable snippet on ESPN was that Seymour was simply straigthening out some personal issues before reporting, not that he wouldn't report.

But it speaks volumes how badly the Raiders are run that they make this trade now with game 1 days away without apparently ever speaking to Seymour nor getting permission to him before the trade, nor considered a veteran of his status looking at his last big contract come February might not be overjoyed to join their sorry outfit. Suspect he will report looking at said big ass FA contract at season's end, but not happily.