Klecko73isGod Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 I am pretty sure passing a physical is not a requirement to be traded. E.g. if the Patriots wanted to trade Brandon Tate to another team they could (he is on IR) and would be incapable of passing a physical. It is the norm for teams to condition a trade on the player passing a physical, but if Crazy Al didn't do that then he is screwed not the Pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I am pretty sure passing a physical is not a requirement to be traded. E.g. if the Patriots wanted to trade Brandon Tate to another team they could (he is on IR) and would be incapable of passing a physical. Looks like someone doesn't play Madden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 You can't trade players who are on IR, at least not in Madden. Correct, you can NOT trade players on IR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Correct, you can NOT trade players on IR. Teams can't trade any players on reserve status. That includes suspended players as well. The player has to be on the active list. So, if the Jets wanted to trade Ellis they'd have to wait until after week 1 when he returns to the active list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 NFL spokesman Michael Signora has outlined for us the procedure that would apply, if Seymour stays away. The precise protocol is determined by the terms of the trade. " Traditionally the first condition is that the trade is contingent upon the player or players reporting and passing a physical," Signora said. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/07/seymour-could-eventually-get-five-day-letter/ The terms of the trade govern. Most of the time there is a condition reporting and passing a physical. That is different than the CBA requiring. Stupid on behalf of a recieving team not to inlcude that TRADITIONAL term. But if it ain't in there shame on the Raiders for being stupid. It wouldn't be the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 welcome to the signature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 NFL spokesman Michael Signora has outlined for us the procedure that would apply, if Seymour stays away. The precise protocol is determined by the terms of the trade. " Traditionally the first condition is that the trade is contingent upon the player or players reporting and passing a physical," Signora said. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/09/07/seymour-could-eventually-get-five-day-letter/ The terms of the trade govern. Most of the time there is a condition reporting and passing a physical. That is different than the CBA requiring. Stupid on behalf of a recieving team not to inlcude that TRADITIONAL term. But if it ain't in there shame on the Raiders for being stupid. It wouldn't be the first time. I love how you conveniently left this nugget from the article you linked out of your dumbass post: If the player doesn't report, the two teams can try to come up with a new agreement, or the trade could be called off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I hope seymour just retires, this way the cheaters lose a stud DE who gives brick fits, and the faiders still have a crappy run D I mean seymour kids must have a fantasy life in suburban Mass, I bet they go to an awesome private school and have a huge 30 acre spread in a posh suburb I'm thinking oakland isn't as nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 oakland > boston except in NBA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I love how you conveniently left this nugget from the article you linked out of your dumbass post: Because that nugget dumbass, is conditioned on there being a term in the contract that requires the player to show up and pass a physical. If no such term exists than there is nothing to rework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 Because that nugget dumbass, is conditioned on there being a term in the contract that requires the player to show up and pass a physical. If no such term exists than there is nothing to rework. And there is nothing in that piece that suggests that Seymour does not have to pass a physical for the trade to be completed so in other words - YOU'RE WRONG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 And there is nothing in that piece that suggests that Seymour does not have to pass a physical for the trade to be completed so in other words - YOU'RE WRONG. But there is plenty in Lombardi's peice to suggest that Seymour doesn't have to pass a physical for the trade to be complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 But there is plenty in Lombardi's peice to suggest that Seymour doesn't have to pass a physical for the trade to be complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 [quote name='Blackout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 snow vs hot weather and women Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 [quote name='Blackout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACPAC Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 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. Ya the NFL is going to start to allow players to void a trade. Can you imagine. Now if Mr Gurly pants had a no trade clause he could get away with it. He does not, he will be a Raider he will sit or he will retire. He will not change the rules of the NFL. This is the NFL dude not MLB. Seymour will report or he will sit and be out almost $8 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACPAC Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 And there is nothing in that piece that suggests that Seymour does not have to pass a physical for the trade to be completed so in other words - YOU'RE WRONG. OK I have seen it all now, you calling someone wrong. Look up wrong in the dictionary, its a picture of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 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. except i think that 5-day letter would come from the pats cause if he doesn't report and take the physical he isn't a raider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 OK I have seen it all now, you calling someone wrong. Look up wrong in the dictionary, its a picture of you. lol...this is amusing. wrong is a troll on a jets site talking smack to a jets fan and thinking it's right. you all forget....even the stupidest jets fan is still higher on the food chain here than a lousy troll like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 except i think that 5-day letter would come from the pats cause if he doesn't report and take the physical he isn't a raider. Lombardi thinks it would come from the Raiders.... Lombardi or neckdemon.....I am going with Lombardi knowing a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 The Bay area is nice but it doesn't have weather like LA or San Diego. Oakland itself is a ****hole. Whats San Fran like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Lombardi thinks it would come from the Raiders.... Lombardi or neckdemon.....I am going with Lombardi knowing a bit more. maybe you're right....but it doesn't make sense for the raiders to send the letter since he really isn't a raider until he passes the physical. but like you say....idk i'm just thinking that's the way that makes more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 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. EY Change the avatar. Its really gay. Seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 EY Change the avatar. Its really gay. Seriously PR37 You're gay. Seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 I, PR37, Should really change my avatar, because its really gay. Seriously, I am gay myself. Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACPAC Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 EY Change the avatar. Its really gay. Seriously Ya think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACPAC Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Fixed. With any luck at all you have been fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 Ya think Get banned from JI again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 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. nom'd but i will say this, should say, macpac and pr37 or klecko and DWC be on the same side of a debate, the golden rule of "two wrong's not making a right" is invoked. You can most certainly ignore any statistical analysis to the contrary and be comfortable with the opposite of their position as being accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACPAC Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Get banned from JI again? Nope, only one who ever banned me was you. Men are running the site now. No gurly's allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nope, only one who ever banned me was you. Men are running the site now. No gurly's allowed. And you believe that? How about all the times you were banned before I was a mod? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Nope, only one who ever banned me was you. Men are running the site now. No gurly's allowed. weak sauce. You are the tiger woods of annoying trolls. Saying kleckturd was the only one on to your game is actually a compliment to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 weak sauce. You are the tiger woods of annoying trolls. Saying kleckturd was the only one on to your game is actually a compliment to him Preach on brutha!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 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. Seymour will have to retire like Jake Plummer. JP was traded and refused to report hence returning the rest of his signing bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.