Skip to content

If Seymour doesn't report, Raiders will want their pick back

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.
 

Permalink 57 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New England Patriots, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
57 Responses to “If Seymour doesn't report, Raiders will want their pick back”
  1. Citizen Strange says: Sep 9, 2009 12:12 PM

    Many a trade has been cancelled because the player did not pass the physical.
    Not showing up to take the physical is the same as failing it. Just like refusing to take a DUI test.

  2. encinitasraider says: Sep 9, 2009 12:12 PM

    THEY DONT KNOW…because the pats owe Seymour 6 million dollars…..So the Raiders could send a 5 day letter and Seymour doesnt show then they Raiders get thier 2011 pick back and PATS get a pissed off seymour who just wants his money…
    took this from a PATS board about seymours 2006 contract.
    http://www.patsfans.com/ne w-england-p…ct-det ails.html
    insider.espn.go.c om/nfl/insid…len&a mp;id=2408421
    The total value for four years is $30.026 million.
    Seymour received a $5.34 million signing bonus.
    The first option bonus is for $6.66 million and is payable between Aug. 4 of this year and next March.
    The second of the option bonuses, for $12 million, is due the first week of next March.
    Failure to exercise the options means that Seymour’s base salary for 2007 goes from $600,000 to $19.26 million, all of it guaranteed, and that he becomes an unrestricted free agent after the ’07 season.
    Base Salaries:
    2006-$585,000
    2007-$600,000
    2008-$730,000
    2009-$3.685
    offseason workout bonuses of $106,720 each for 2006-2009.
    The cap charges:
    $4.42 million for 2006 (identical to pre-extension cap charge)
    $8.26 million for 2007,
    $8.391 million for 2008 and
    $11.34 million for 2009

  3. keith brodeur says: Sep 9, 2009 12:13 PM

    Unfortunately, more than likely the NFL will side with their media darlings and screw the Raiders.

  4. eeerockski says: Sep 9, 2009 12:13 PM

    So maybe it’s time for the ol’ “5 days to show up or else letter” to be sent out?

  5. 69ers says: Sep 9, 2009 12:14 PM

    The Raiders always pay and get nothing in return. What a sorry excuse for an NFL franchise.

  6. Igottz5onit says: Sep 9, 2009 12:16 PM

    I love it. Everyone was wondering when Belichick being an A-hole was gonna come back to haunt him… besides the slap in the wrist for being caught cheating of course. I really hope Seymore does not go and the Pats either have to keep him in a disgruntled state or trade him for something far less profitable to them.

  7. Wiscdave says: Sep 9, 2009 12:18 PM

    This is not ebay. I’ve had ebay purchases arrive in bad shape (usually because of poor packing) and the sellers’ attitude is invariably “not my problem–take it up with the Post Office.” That’s why you purchase insurance when the item is fragile (or has a fragile ego). If the Raiders did not include as part of the deal “contingent upon reporting and passing a physical,” Al Davis has completely lost it.

  8. Alpheratz says: Sep 9, 2009 12:18 PM

    So any player who doesn’t like his being traded can just not show up for his physical?
    I agree the Raiders shouldn’t end up on the hook, but Seymour has no way to escape the last year on his contract.
    And it won’t be played as a Patriot.
    It might be nice to hear Richard’s thoughts.

  9. Igottz5onit says: Sep 9, 2009 12:20 PM

    Thanks for the info encinitasraider

  10. CT Pats Fan says: Sep 9, 2009 12:20 PM

    But the Raiders have assumed Seymour’s contract, plain and simple. Any bonus amounts owed to him by the Patriots are now owed to him by the Raiders.
    I know Seymour and his agent think they can play chicken with Kraft on this one, but they really can’t. If there’s one team in the entire league that has the balls to sit a player like Seymour for one year without pay *and* the year tenured, it’s the Patriots.

  11. BP says: Sep 9, 2009 12:20 PM

    Oakland, welcome to the world of Richie Rich.
    And some of you were wondering why the Pats would trade such an awesome talent.
    But the ever greedy bastard will show, probably on the 5th day. He just likes to be a pain in the ass if you don’t shove a pacifier in his mouth shaped like a dollar sign.

  12. Raiderman says: Sep 9, 2009 12:24 PM

    Long live king Al

  13. sevendollarbologna says: Sep 9, 2009 12:24 PM

    New England is playing you for the bitches you are!

  14. raiders177 says: Sep 9, 2009 12:24 PM

    No offense Mike, but come on, of course they’d want their pick back.
    BB: “Hey Richard’s not gonna report, sorry man.”
    AD: “Oh ok, keep the pick as a token of my gratitude.”

  15. sevendollarbologna says: Sep 9, 2009 12:25 PM

    P.S. Thanks for breakdown dude.

  16. hayward giablommi says: Sep 9, 2009 12:28 PM

    I see both sides here, but this would set a dangerous precedent if a player throws a temper tamtrum, decides not to report and gets his way. He does not have a no trade clause norI am not aware of there being such a thing in the NFL.
    Who the hell knows what will happen, but don’t expect big Rich will get a warm welcome back to New England if this trade is somehow nullified.

  17. sim448 says: Sep 9, 2009 12:28 PM

    ENCITASRAIDER, are you retarded? here is how it works. he had a contract, that contract has been traded to the Raiders. You say the Pats owe him 6 mil? Where is your explanation for this stupid comment? Nowhere to be found. All you did was type some contract crap into your post and say the pats owed him 6 mil, which they dont. HE WANTS A NEW DEAL, AND HE IS SHOCKED THAT HE GOT TRADED. IT ISNT ROCKET SCIENCE. If he doesnt go, he becomes the Pats property again, and honestly, he will be put on the suspended list and he will lose a year of free agency. I am so sick of the stupid crap people post here. get a clue. Remember, it is a rumor chat room, but most of the rumors from Florio and the guys are legit, not some idiot saying the Pats owe 6 mil and posting of all things a fan website to back it up. Get a clue.

  18. Junior says: Sep 9, 2009 12:29 PM

    More than 3 days after the trade you are finally reporting facts. Good work Florio. Seymour only becomes the Raiders problem when he reports and passes his physical.
    And wow, can encinitasraider be correct? Maybe you should look into this Florio. You know, investigative journalism. Or you could stand pat then report it after all the others.

  19. dunkingonuts says: Sep 9, 2009 12:29 PM

    If they send the 5 day letter and he doesn’t show up the Pats loose the 2011 draft pick plus Seymour would be ineligble to play this year.

  20. manginiwithcheese says: Sep 9, 2009 12:32 PM

    Mike, with your law background, I would have assumed you would have looked into wether or not the Patroits called “no trade-backs” once the deal was made.

  21. whywerule says: Sep 9, 2009 12:32 PM

    THEY DONT KNOW…because the pats owe Seymour 6 million dollars…..
    Since Seymour is currently the property of the Raiders, the Patriots currently owe Seymour nothing. All of Seymour’s option bonuses were paid before the end of 2007. Heck, even you wrote that in your post. All that is left for Seymour to be paid out of that contract is this season’s base salary (roughly $4 million). If he plays for the Raiders, the Raiders will owe Seymour that money. If he returns to the Pats and the Pats do not shelve him for the season, the Pats will owe him that money.

  22. CapsLockKey says: Sep 9, 2009 12:36 PM

    Seriously, I bet the phrase “You better or we’ll trade you to Oakland” gets thrown around a lot on many NFL practice fields.
    Seymour pissed off the wrong guy in NE and they went through with the threat. Having Randy Moss around as a teammate the last couple years sharing stories of his “good times” there probably just makes it even more unbearable.

  23. swervinmervin says: Sep 9, 2009 12:36 PM

    Terrell Owens was traded to Baltimore several years ago. He refused to show (because he knew Ray Lewis wouldnt put up with his crap), so the NFL got involved and gave Baltimore its pick back and SF got Owens back, if I remember correctly. If Im wrong, somebody refresh my memory.

  24. Kiss Bills Rings says: Sep 9, 2009 12:36 PM

    Raiders can want in one hand & crap in the other….guess which one will fill up first….
    the Trade is a done deal & they have to send the letter…Seymoure is their responsibility….tell me how can they send Seymour the letter to report or be sat for the season & yet the Patriots would end up getting back a Seymour who can’t play for the 2009 season & lose the draft pick??!!!
    Explain that one Florio??!!

  25. BasicInstinct says: Sep 9, 2009 12:38 PM

    What a crazy contract. No wonder the Patsies want to dump him! He must be hurt. Probably playing with some stupid injury.
    How did he do in the preseason?

  26. BenRapistberger says: Sep 9, 2009 12:38 PM

    Why don’t more players exploit this loophole if they don’t like their trade? I was always under the impression that they had no leverage unless they had a no trade clause… that being the case, it shouldn’t fall back on the team that traded him away if he’s trying to avoid being traded. it should be on the team that traded for him to get him into camp. Putting it on the team that traded him away puts the leverage back in the hands of the player over who they want to play for, and that’s not how NFL contracts are supposed to work.

  27. encinitasraider says: Sep 9, 2009 12:38 PM

    sorry typo…it would be the PATS that would send the 5 day letter for Seymour to report to the Raiders which makes more sense as to why Seymour is still in NE. He wants his 6 million owed to him from the PATS before he leaves town. Leverage for Seymour against the PATS. Or the PATS get Seymour back and goes to Practice Squad then the Raiders get the 1st round pick back.

  28. Empire Jones says: Sep 9, 2009 12:41 PM

    I’ve always hated these loopholey-type of deals.
    If he doesn’t show, the Raiders shouldn’t lose their draft pick.
    The league should not allow this type of stuff to happen.
    I’m all about goofing on Oakland but this is retarded.

  29. Joe in Toronto, Canada says: Sep 9, 2009 12:41 PM

    Say what you want about Al Davis but the man knows laws and rules better than anybody out there.
    IF it were to come to this, the Raiders win it hands down.

  30. anthony says: Sep 9, 2009 12:41 PM

    Well Raiders Fans, we can’t cry over something we never had.
    Fuc#em we are the Raiders, will be alright. Now give us back our top 10 pick.
    We can get the next seymour with that pick.
    Go Raiders!

  31. PFTiswhatitis says: Sep 9, 2009 12:47 PM

    @encinitasraider: even if that was right and the Pats owed him $ it would have no effect on him now being Raiders property. He would simply file a greivance against the Pats for the $ owed and if it was truly owed then the NFL would instruct him to pay. Simple as that. No he is not showing up because he is still crying. Dont worry though he will most likely show on Saturday. Richard isnt one to lose $.

  32. Pastabelly says: Sep 9, 2009 12:49 PM

    This will make two times in a row that Seymour has gotten the better of Belichick at the negotiating table.

  33. keabu says: Sep 9, 2009 12:51 PM

    This reminds me of when Jake Plummer was traded and decided to retire instead. I say the trade is cancelled if he doesn’t show.

  34. whywerule says: Sep 9, 2009 12:51 PM

    Why don’t more players exploit this loophole if they don’t like their trade?…
    I think that, ultimately, most NFL players just want to play anywhere as long as they are getting good pay. It is not very often that you get whining little arrogant pussies like John Elway, Eli Manning and Richard Seymour and…whomever…who refuse to play somewhere.

  35. Rob0729 says: Sep 9, 2009 1:01 PM

    Both Mike Lombardi and Adam Schefter have pretty much stated that the Pats will get the first round pick in 2011 no matter if Seymour reports or not. According to Lombardi, the trade has been submitted to the league for approval and signed off by the league. I don’t think that happens until the player reports and takes his physical.

  36. whywerule says: Sep 9, 2009 1:03 PM

    This will make two times in a row that Seymour has gotten the better of Belichick at the negotiating table….
    Seymour risks forfeiting $4 million, and losing the change to become an unrestricted free agent after this season, if he does not show up in Oakland. Cutting off his nose to spite his face is certainly stupid, but I’m not sure it gets the better of Belichick.
    OTOH, if Seymour has decided he wants to retire because he has enough money, good for him.

  37. ftomeo says: Sep 9, 2009 1:03 PM

    Pastabelly, THREE TIMES. First time he held out, he got a bonus tagged on to his rookie contract and a promise not to frnachise and of a competitive contract the following year. The Pats tried to reneg on that promise and dicked him around, he threatened to hold out, and they quickly capitulated. Sometimes this threatened holdout is overlooked, but everyone including the NE front office know that it was a real threat which is why they backed down rather quickly. This will be the third.
    People who are bitching about Richard’s first two holdouts are nuts. Seymour’s rookie contract was ridiculously cheap (sometimes that happens with rookies who actually prove themselves immediately too). The second holdout was a direct result of a boldfaced lie and skinflinted shadiness.

  38. Florios-Lawyer says: Sep 9, 2009 1:07 PM

    Seymour should just pull a Favre.
    Retire, then come back.

  39. VicksPuppies says: Sep 9, 2009 1:08 PM

    Alpheratz says: September 9, 2009 12:18 PM
    So any player who doesn’t like his being traded can just not show up for his physical?
    Isn’t that exactly what TO did before landing in Philly?

  40. Rob0729 says: Sep 9, 2009 1:08 PM

    According to the San Francisco Gate, an NFL Spokesperson has pretty much stated if Seymour doesn’t report, the Raiders can suspend him and try next year. But pretty much makes it seem theRaiders can want their pick back all they want, but getting it back will not happen.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/07/SP9919JOMS.DTL#ixzz0Qd68RORz

  41. Rob0729 says: Sep 9, 2009 1:09 PM

    CORRECTION: It is unclear, but a physical and reporting are not a mandatory conditions for the trade to go through.

  42. Newguy says: Sep 9, 2009 1:11 PM

    I think Hershell Walker was the first to “refuse to report.” At least his agent said so in his book. He went but the Cowboys had to pay homage to get him to go.
    Seymour could also “pull a Farve” and retire until released then go where he wants.

  43. Facts Domino says: Sep 9, 2009 1:11 PM

    Al Davis knows Depends and catheters better than any owner out there.
    That might be it.

  44. MrSalamander says: Sep 9, 2009 1:14 PM

    Dear Pasty Fan: your team is officially worse than it was last year – regardless of how this turns out. Enjoy.
    Dear Dickard Seymour: What’s wrong, punkin? Afraid what will happen to your career once you play for a team that doesn’t get all the calls? Relax, maybe with all the bizarre Oakland/New England relations, Al can trick the fried egg of a commish into a no-harm-no-foul blessing over in Oakland, too!

  45. PFTiswhatitis says: Sep 9, 2009 1:15 PM

    The Raiders submitted the trade to the NFL and the league approved it. It is a done deal and up to the Raiders to get Seymour to report. Apparently there was nothing hinging on passing a physical or anything else.

  46. Rob0729 says: Sep 9, 2009 1:16 PM

    P.S. Adam Schefter says that league rules does not consider failure to report for a physical the same as a failed physical.

  47. whywerule says: Sep 9, 2009 1:22 PM

    This reminds me of when Jake Plummer was traded and decided to retire instead. I say the trade is cancelled if he doesn’t show.
    When Plummer decided to retire, that trade to the Bucs was not cancelled. He remained Bucs property, and they still forfeited a draft pick or two to the Broncos. However, the Bucs were able to collect millions of dollars in bonus money back from Plummer that had actually been paid to him by the Broncos because Plummer retired before the end of his contract.

  48. jimicos says: Sep 9, 2009 1:31 PM

    Brad Childress outsmarted Al Davis by not trading for Seymour.

  49. Davis1281 says: Sep 9, 2009 1:40 PM

    MrSalamander says:
    Dear Pasty Fan: your team is officially worse than it was last year – regardless of how this turns out. Enjoy
    *******************************************
    Wrong, its better b/c YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR, TB is back!

  50. PFTiswhatitis says: Sep 9, 2009 1:50 PM

    “jimicos says:
    September 9, 2009 1:31 PM
    Brad Childress outsmarted Al Davis by not trading for Seymour.”
    Best post on the subject so far.

  51. Rob0729 says: Sep 9, 2009 2:41 PM

    According to Tom Curran, a league source told him the trade is official and it is on the Raiders to get him to report although the Raiders disagree with that assessment. The source feels that at some point the league will have to get involved in this.

  52. Ken1313 says: Sep 9, 2009 2:56 PM

    The Patriots are not allowed to discuss anything with Seymour…he is no longer their property. They also owe him NOTHING. Seymour is a whiny baby…..and can not have it both ways. I enjoyed watching Seymour play….but he has proven himself to be money hungry…..and in his own words from a few years back, when he held out……”It’s only business man”. That’s right Richard, it’s only business, now get your ass to Oakland and be a man

  53. texasPHINSfan says: Sep 9, 2009 3:44 PM

    this is GOOD for the raiders. Seymour isn’t worth a first. let him sit out, the trade fall through, and they’d be better off anyway. they’re not “one player away” from the superbowl, why give up a first round pick for a 30+ year old player??

  54. texasPHINSfan says: Sep 9, 2009 3:46 PM

    this is GOOD for the raiders. Seymour isn’t worth a first. let him sit out, the trade fall through, and they’d be better off anyway. they’re not “one player away” from the superbowl, why give up a first round pick for a 30+ year old player??

  55. BUMAYE says: Sep 9, 2009 4:04 PM

    Seymour was a pro-bowler? Doesn’t the pro stand for professional? Then act like one bro. Heres a chance to get on a team that needs help and be a part of turning the defense around. Thats what a true professional does, make the best of the situation and make those around youo better.

  56. Raiders757 says: Sep 9, 2009 4:27 PM

    If the man isn’t in town by the end of the day, I say screw his greedy pansy ass.

  57. beau says: Sep 9, 2009 4:45 PM

    There is no way that the Raiders lose the pick if the prick doesnt show….If that could happen…then teams could corroborate with players to fug other teams over….
    For example….you just hurt your knee in practice and your about done….no one knows yet so we are going to trade you to the Raiders and get a No 1 pick….you don’t have to show and we will steal the Raiders pick…..
    We will pay you on the side…..
    BULLSHID! The league will sniff this out….

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!