Coach Bill Belichick has provided the clearest indication yet that, from the perspective of the Patriots, the question of whether defensive lineman Richard Seymour ever reports for duty in Oakland is Oakland’s problem.
“It’s between him and Oakland,” Belichick told WEEI radio in Boston, via our pal Zach Krantz of SportsRadioInterviews.com.
So if (when) Seymour never arrives and if (when) the Raiders ask for their 2011 first-round pick to be returned, Belichick will politely tell them to get bent.
And then Commissioner Roger Goodell will get to sort it all out. (Perhaps with the assistance of his new Special Adviser, John Madden.)
In our view, the Raiders should get their pick back if they call the thing off, especially if (as most trades do) the deal contemplates that Seymour will report and pass a physical.
“In our view, the Raiders should get their pick back if they call the thing off, especially if (as most trades do) the deal contemplates that Seymour will report and pass a physical.”
One would think this clause was in the agreement. But then again, it’s the Raiders.
How many stories are you going to dedicate to NE saying it’s Oakland’s problem now?
I appreciate the updates, but this isn’t saying anything new. At all.
Well in MY view if the league allows players to no show and nullify deals than trades will rarely happen.
Think about it.
Funny. Belichick says very little. Probably because when he does it’s something incredibly stupid like this.
“In our view, the Raiders should get their pick back if they call the thing off, especially if (as most trades do) the deal contemplates that Seymour will report and pass a physical.”
However, your view doesn’t contemplate the fact that Robert Kraft is one of a select few owners who have the commissioner in their back pocket while everyone seems to think Al Davis is a looney.
Unless the Raiders were too stupid to put that clause in the trade…
Can someone please explain this to me, I am confused. If RS does not report to the Raiders, isn’t him essentially contractually obligated to the Patriots still? BB talks as if their hands are washed off him. Isn’t that contingent upon him reporting and passing a physcical. If not, then aren’t all trades potentially “you are traded, report or not it’s bye bye.”
Obviously Belicheat can NOT have Seymour coming back, that would be a bad thing for the much press beloved Patriots.
However, I would have to agree with Mike on this one.
If Seymour does not show for his physical should that not constitute an automatic failure?
He certainly didn’t pass it.
When a player is in the substance abuse program if they do not show up for their test it is considered an automatic failure and for good reason.
They certainly didn’t pass it.
I don’t see how this could be any different.
Belicheck is such a dick
“It’s between him and Oakland”
That’s what she said!
Obviously Belicheat can NOT have Seymour coming back, that would be a bad thing for the much press beloved Patriots.
However, I would have to agree with Mike on this one.
If Seymour does not show for his physical should that not constitute an automatic failure?
He certainly didn’t pass it.
When a player is in the substance abuse program if they do not show up for their test it is considered an automatic failure and for good reason.
They certainly didn’t pass it.
I don’t see how this could be any different.
Why would the league give players the ability to void a trade?
Giving away such a valuable concession right before contract negotiations seems unlikely.
The Raiders won’t get the pick back unless Goodal is a fool.
If Seymour refuses to report he gets a 5 day letter from Oakland, no pay this year and no free agency next year.
You traded for a 30 year old top-5 DE going into the last year of his deal. How do you NOT expect him to want a new deal?? That’s the reason the Patriots traded him away, they weren’t going to give it to him.
Give him the contract extention and he’ll be there to play on Monday night. Seymour will be happy, Raiders help shore up their DL, and Patriots get their pick. Everyone wins. Just pay the man already so this can just go away.
…the question of whether defensive lineman Richard Seymour ever reports for duty in Oakland is Oakland’s problem….
I think it is really a league problem. If Seymour does not report, and Goodell screws up again and says that Seymour can be “returned” to the Pats, and the Pats must return the #1 pick, then the league is announcing that all players have no-trade clauses in their contracts. If that occurs, that is not Oakland’s or New England’s problem, that is the NFL’s problem.
Of course, a player like Seymour would still pay a significant penalty as the Pats would almost certainly shelve him without pay for this season under that scenario, and Seymour would not be UFA heading into next year’s uncapped season.
Hahaha, love the Madden comment Florio.
Florio-
refer back several years when Plummer was traded from the Bronco’s to the Buccaneers. Plummer said no and he would retire rather than report to Tampa.
The final result was the Bronco’s kept the pick from Tampa which was a second and the Buc’s got a portion of the signing bonus in return for the early retirement.
This is the precendent in this case. So in your view – you are wrong.
Allowing the player to prevent a trade by not showing up would be a horrible loophole and set a terrible president.
…The Raiders won’t get the pick back unless Goodell is a fool….
I agree with that…and since we have ample evidence that Goodell is a fool, then the Raiders will probably get their pick back if Seymour does not show, and all NFL players will have no-trade contracts.
Eli, “Belicheat” – hey that’s really funny dude, keep it coming…
There is already a precedent set for this type of scenario.
Denver traded Jake Plummer to Tampa Bay for a second round pick. Jake retired rather than play for the Bucs. Denver had to send $3.5M to TB, and retained the second round pick.
In this instance, there is no way Seymour will return to NE, and he may retire rather than face the torment of playing for Oakland. Now, the Pats would have to send the pro-rated bonus money owed to Seymour to Oakland, and Oakland would get cap relief, but NE would retain the first round pick.
First round pick! HA!
Umm, Florio, your opinion is certainly different than a lot of the media. In fact, unless there is specific language in the contract specifying otherwise, then it is indeed Oakland’s problem. The trade is done, and his contract belongs to Oakland. If he doesn’t report, it is Oakland who can then submit the 5 day letter, and it is Oakland who can keep him out of the season and hold his contract over until next year. Unless there is something in the contract that states the player must physically show up in Oakland in order for the trade to happen, then it is most likely Oakland’s problem. If the Pats say it is Oakland’s problem, it likely is. I haven’t heard much from Oakland saying otherwise.
http://www.nesn.com/2009/09/seymour-might-not-show-up-in-oakland-but-he-wont-be-back-in-new-england.html?rm
Florio and Belidick suck
I would think that Seymour’s failure to ever show up for a physical would constitute a fail which would void the whole deal. It’s a very sneaky way to give yourself a “no-trade” clause. They could get around the whole business in the new CBA by requiring traded players to show up for a physical, but creating the NFL version of the MLB 10-5 rule.
Here is the problem:
The Raiders traded for the rights to Seymour. The Patriots did not give the Raiders permission to negotiate with Seymour before the trade.
If the Raiders walk away from this – then that is in essence what they got.
The Raiders have the contract rights. The deal is done.
I think Florio needs to consult a contract lawyer.
And folks, if it comes out that the Raiders don’t want to give Seymour a new contract and that’s what’s causing this whole delay, I will be shocked. Al has never been shy about spending money, for good or ill. I have to think this is all him not wanting to play in Oakland.
You Patriots hater are so blinded by your vindictive hatred. It’s unreal. The Patriots found a willing trade partner and came to an agreement. They were not going to let Seymour walk after this year and were not going to pay the guy top dollar post-30, especially a guy like Seymour who has made it public that he would play hardball and go elsewhere.
Sorry if your team isn’t this savvy, but they are not going to voluntarily void the trade or give the pick back. If you think they should, you are kidding yourselves.
A lot of you here make some very stupid, uninformed statements. I’m looking at you Krow, Eli and Stillerz
It’s already been established that the Raiders did not include any language about passing a physical or reporting on time or at all…..so the Raiders are really in a bind.
Wild ass conspiracy theory:
The Pats knew Seymour would not be happy about being dealt to Oakland, and use that as leverage to sign him to a below market, cap and cash friendly deal, if/when the Commish reverts him back to the Pats. His alternatives would be Oakland, or the 5-day letter.
Oakland needs to get a rescind trade letter into the office; how can this hurt them?
Seymour is already in limbo and the Pats are already committed to a trade, and Oakland probably has the best offer.
So why don’t they rescind the trade but immediately contact the Pats saying, “We’ll go through with the trade if we can guarantee a long-term deal gets done.” Trade is voided, Patriots give Seymour the opportunity to discuss terms, they agree on a deal, they execute the trade. What do they have to lose from such a scenario? A second suitor isn’t going to jump in with a better deal, Seymour will know he’s screwed but can see it as a face saving offer to negotiate before he’s forced into anything, and Oakland still gets their man or don’t lose a pick and look like fools.
This is the only reason I am almost afraid they didn’t have a physical clause. Not sure if the detils I portray above are technically correct, but they can be that far off as I viable alternative. So, Oakland, rescind the trade now while you can still make a strong argument, don’t negotiate with Parker for 2 weeks and make fools of yourselves.
Wouldn’t you think BB knows the terms of the trade? RS is trying to negotiate with Oakland wouldn’t that require him to be Oakland property?
Of course Seymour is going to report.
Seymour has always maintained that he is all about the Benjamins. He does whatever is necessary to maximize his compensation (even if it means playing in Oakland). Twice before he held out to get more money. But he never pushed things so far that he lost potential earnings.
If he gets put on the Left Squad list, it kills what would have been a monster payday in 2010. It also kills his agent’s ability to convince his other clients to hold out. He also loses more than $3.5M for this season, and the club will pursue him for another $6M+ in bonus. (Until Florio started hyping this incident, he was writing articles that acknowledged that teams can recover option bonuses as long as they declare them to be signing bonuses, and not incentives [the only two categories recognized for this purpose under the CBA])
So expect him to hold out right until the Raiders tell him that he will be imminently placed on the Left Squad list, but non a moment longer.
Seymour has no options.
If he wants to get paid, which he does, he has to report.
Plain and simple.
He’s not going to sit out because that will cost him free agency in what most likely will be an ucapped year.
Also no way he just retires and blows 25-30 million of guarenteed money in his next contract.
He will ultimately show.
This is the point where Florio is missing:
The trade does not hinge on Seymour passing the physical. Florio, look at the Raiders roster. This transaction has occurred. The only thing that can VOID this transaction, is if Seymour flunks his physical. This is why the Raiders have the right to negotiate with Seymour. Seymour is currently property of the Raiders.
If Seymour does not report and sits out a year, the Raiders still own his rights for 2010 and can do what they see fit.
If Richard Seymour passes away right now, the Patriots keep the 1st round pick. What would be the difference as to him not showing up and taking a physical?
this is what will happens if the spoiled child, pouting little girl ,does not go to oakland, the contract for girlie man is owned now by oakland, he is on the 53 man roster and his money counts toward the cap… the pats keep the pick and girlie man remains the property of oakland…. not fair but thats how it will play out….they could trade his rights anytime..
Unless there is language in the trade otherwise, allowing this trade to be canceled for failure to report would be giving all players veto power or effectively having a no trade clause in their contract. This will make teams put in specific lingo saying that trade is a no go unless player reports.
If/when the Raiders cancel the deal, let’s say Seymour reports promptly at Foxboro. Is his contract then guaranteed for the year, regardless of whether the Pats let him in the building?
If so, I hope all that happens at 12:55 pm Sunday. Pats fail.
So why don’t they rescind the trade but immediately contact the Pats saying, “We’ll go through with the trade if we can guarantee a long-term deal gets done.”
Simple answer Ftomeo
The Terms of a trade can’t be changed after the trade is agreed on
Belichick is just posturing in anticipation of the litigation of this matter. It doesn’t indicate anything other than what the Patriots intend to argue in case this thing goes further.
Not sure where people are getting “details” of the trade agreement and what is in it and what is not but I haven’t heard any reliable source indicate what the agreement actually is so your speculation is worth spit.
Its possible that this whole deal was negotiated in bad faith on the part of the Pats and they knew Seymour wouldn’t show. If that is the case then the whole deal is null and void.
Until there is a real source with reliable information on the details of the agreement its all rubbish. Everyone should also know that there is no way Davis goes quietly on this if he ends up getting screwed.
The ONLY thing that can VOID this trade is if Seymour fails his physical.
Why can’t Florio understand this?
As others have pointed out, if the league allows this trade to be rescinded due to the player’s decision to not report to his new team, the league will effectively create a precedent whereby every player in the league will now have a no-trade policy. I don’t believe that will be in the best interests of the league overall, so while it’s unfortunate that the Raiders are really going to get screwed here, I don’t see a palatable alternative for the league. As they say, caveat emptor!
This is all completely pointless talk.
Reality: Seymour and the Raiders are working on a contract extension as we speak. He’ll probably sign a big-money deal and be in Oakland in the next 48 hours.
If Seymour tries to squeeze the Raiders for too much, Al will simply put him on the “did not report” list and hold onto his contract till next year, or send him back to the Pats and grab his 2011 1st-round pick back. Seymour has to report and take his physical or the deal is not truly finalized.
Look nobody held a gun to crazy Al’s head…
The Raiders need help on the D line to stop the run, which I think they were 31st in the league vs. the run! Al wants Seymour and Belichick knew he wouldn’t resign Richard or any long term deal in 2010. I believe that will be an uncapped year.
This is why Richard is being traded, too big for those britches… That’s not a team first attitude!
The Pats have depth at the D line and could afford to let him go! (Brace, Pryor, Wright, Green) Surely, 4 players can fill Seymour’s spot!
The Commish will probably be getting a copy of that 5 day letter, anytime now…Oakland needs to send that letter! Seymour will not sit out a year, come on, give up nearly 4 mil., Al you give money away on Walker, Russell, Moss, etc… Throw a few extra millions at Richard, he’ll be on the next Jet….
“Denver traded Jake Plummer to Tampa Bay for a second round pick. Jake retired rather than play for the Bucs. Denver had to send $3.5M to TB, and retained the second round pick.”
It was a seventh rounder.
Seymour is Oaklands problem, they own his rights….
the only way that Seymour lands back with the Patriots is IF he failed the physical, not showing up to take it does not constitute a failed physical!!!!
If I were the raider I’d be sending that 5 day letter pronto….currently even if he doesn’t show up & play the 1st game he’ll still get a game check for it as he’s on their 53 man roster currently…..
Ken1313, thanks, that’s interesting and kind of obvious but it didn’t occur to me at the time.
“Seymour has always maintained that he is all about the Benjamins. He does whatever is necessary to maximize his compensation (even if it means playing in Oakland). Twice before he held out to get more money.”
People have to get off this. In almost nine years the guy has had 2 contracts. The first one was a joke, he got paid peanuts. Seymour held his line when he knew the Pats were going to tag him because he decided he was worth what other players in the league were getting. The Pats caved and he got a small raise and promise they would do him right. They tried to weasel out, he threatened, they caved again. He has essentially negotiated one contract that was by no means a showstopper, “All about the Benjamins” contract. Try to contort yourselves into whatever position it takes to go from saying he was going to rebound this year and kick ass to saying he’s money-grubbing scum, but other people aren’t buying it so you might as well give up and face reality a bit. A 3 year, 30 million dollar deal in 2006 for Richard Seymour doesn’t get close to only caring about money — hold out or no.
Devils Advocate says:
September 10, 2009 4:22 PM
Florio-
refer back several years when Plummer was traded from the Bronco’s to the Buccaneers. Plummer said no and he would retire rather than report to Tampa.
The final result was the Bronco’s kept the pick from Tampa which was a second and the Buc’s got a portion of the signing bonus in return for the early retirement.
This is the precendent in this case. So in your view – you are wrong.
___________________________________
The problem with this being a precedent scenario, is Plummer decided to RETIRE than to report… Seymour has given NO indication that he plans to retire. If he so chooses, then yes, the precedent is there. If he still wants to play, then the option of rescinding the trade still has to be on the table.
There where 38 posts as I am writing this one. Roughly half (19 for the mathmatically challenged.) are relivant and add to the discusion.
First of all John Madden has a conflict of interest, having served as head coach of the Raiders under Al Davis. So he should recuse himself from this issue.
The trade has been made and reported to the league office.
Mike, look at precedent. That counts for something and we appear to have a case right on point. As I recall, Jake Plummer was traded by the Broncos to the Bucs and Jake decided that he wanted to retire (and not report) immediately after the trade was made. The league ruled that the player elected to retire after the trade was made so the Bucs had the right to collect the pro-rata share of the signing bonus remaining on Jake’s contract and also got the salary cap relief equal to the salary remaining on Jake’s contract for that year. The Broncos kept what they received in the deal as well. The trade was upheld as complete.
There is no reason to void this Pats/Raiders trade. If Seymour does not report to work for his employer, then his employer – now the Raiders – may avail themselves of all remedies permitted by law and league rules. You cannot expect the former employer – the Patriots – to take action to compel a former employee to report to his present employer – the Raiders. The Patriots simply have no standing to do so.
And Seymour is healthy enough to earn a spot on any NFL roster. So anybody thinking of setting up a failed physical better think twice about that.
I swear, Bill Bellicheat must have pixs of Al Davis with a transvestite, maybe worse. First, they give up Randy Moss for a 4th rounder, then they give away a first rounder (probably to be in the top 5 just looking at this year’s version of the Raiders) for an aging DE.
It makes no football sense, Bellicheat has proven to be pretty handy with a camera so there must be something to my theory.
If/when the Raiders cancel the deal, let’s say Seymour reports promptly at Foxboro. Is his contract then guaranteed for the year, regardless of whether the Pats let him in the building?
No, his contract for this year is only guaranteed if he reports to Oakland.
Bill can suck it. If the man doesn’t report, the Raiders get their pick back. I highly doubt it would be any other way.
Dan and Simdogga77 are correct.
The trade is done, approved by the League Sunday.
Pats own the pick, Raiders own the last year of Seymour’s contract.
Raiders fans needn’t worry, Seymour is boxed in, unless he retires outright.
I doubt he’s prepared financially for that, he’s been anticipating a last monster contract, and did not see the trade coming. He’ll be back.
Richard Seymour’s NFL playing rights are as of this moment the property of the Oakland Raiders. The fact that Seymour is sitting at home weighing his options only shows the complete lack of regard he (and probably most NFL players) has for the Raiders organization.
The New England Patriots have absolutely no legal or contractual responsibility in the matter whatsoever, so bringing their name into the conversation serves only to delude the issues and circumstances.
The assertion that “the Raiders should get their pick back if they call the thing off”, can only be defined as naive and impetuous. The trade of Seymour to the Raiders was a legal action that is set out and defined by the rules, regulations and collective bargaining agreement that governs the NFL and it’s transactions. These operational issues can not be determined or affected “willy-nilly” or on a whim. There are set standards in place to address these issues, specifically collective bargaining agreements and third party arbitration. To insist that any legal or defined course of action can or should be radically altered because of individually unfavorable circumstances is absurd.
Al Davis is waiting till the the 4th quarter of the Steelers,Titans game to announce the R.Seymour signing
Note to Al Davis: When the Patriots call, don’t answer the phone. You’ve already ruined the AFC West, leave the East be.
The Raiders will probably get screwed by NE and the league again… ala the TUCK rule!
Raiders own the contract. Seymour is their problem. He’s either a holdout and they penalize him, or he plays for the black and silver. Deal is done.
Al is not gonna send any letter any time soon (if he’s the correct person to take that action). Al is a players owner, and is willing to let Seymour think this thru. If or when Seymour says there is no way he wants to play for Oakland, now or ever, then Al will change tactics. But best case scenario is that Seymour is gonna get PAID, and it cant happen overnight. Cap room needs to be made and contract negotiated.
Yes, the Raiders could really use him on Monday night, but dont hold your breath. Whats important is getting Seymour on board with a contract that keeps him happy for the immediate future (next 2-3 yrs). Raiders arent going to the playoffs this year, but are hoping to build for the next couple years down the road, and that is when having a happy Seymour on hand will pay off.
Also, no one except the Raiders and Pats know the real terms of the deal. And neither of them are talking, nor should they be…if they want this to go thru successfully.
Raiders fans are just getting nervous and anxious, and everyone else that likes to poke fun at the Raiders are having a field day. Big deal. As much as it sucks to be a Raiders fan, were just gonna have to sit back and hope Al makes it happen.
“Deal is done” “rights were traded” Ect..ect..Blah blah.
Unless you were in on the trade then you’re just guessing.
If Seymour doesn’t have a “no trade clause”, he is powerless to do anything other than to sit out, lose his salary and get fined by the Raiders. Sucks for him..
If I had the authority in Oakland I would call Seymour, tell him to come in for a physical and make sure he fails it, then NE gets Seymour back and Oakland doesn;t lose a 1st round pick for nothing.
End of problem.
Belichick is only stating the obvious. Unless he is willing to retire, however, I would imagine Seymour will be taking the field in Oakland at some point soon.
I don’t think there is any way the Raiders will not give Seymore a lot of money to play for them. Talk about a PR disaster if they have to give up a first round draft choice and get nothing in return. They have little choice. I have a lot of respect for Seymore, as I am a big Patriot fan, but he is looking like a fool.
I feel bad for the Raider’s fans. Tough situation to be in for the fans.
Vrable was also very upset at being traded to KC. He acted like a man and accepted it.
Ever since The Cryptkeeper/Emperor Palpatine held his pc to tarnish his ex-coach, Florio has been fellating him non-stop. Rules don’t apply if you are the Raiders in Florio’s wonder world.
Eh most of these comments are ridiculous the Raiders can make this trade null and void if they want to, however they want Seymour.
If he decides he won’t show the Raiders will fail him in a physical, as any NFL player will have enough scar tissue to build a little dead baby, thus nullify the trade.
Gentlemen, Seymour is not a Raider until he reports to Oakland and passes a physical. End of story. If he doesn’t report for the physical then the deal is dead and the Raiders get their draft pick back and New England gets Seymour back. Bank on it. Let me reiterate. IF SEYMOUR IS A NO SHOW THE RAIDERS KEEP THEIR DRAFT PICK.
Here is the real deal. Either Seymore reports for his physical and plays a year for Oakland or the league has to void the deal resulting in Seymore going back to the Pats with these conditions. He is done for the year. No cap or salary hit for the Pats, they do lose the pick, but retain his rights. He sits, they save. Any other option makes the CBA useless.
4 HRs after this post, the Raiders sent “THE LETTER”. Lots of WRONG with the posters and Florio for that matter. But I will not hold my breath for a response.
What are you people not understanding?
The trade is done. Over. On file at League office.
It ain’t gonna be reversed.
Richard is on the Raiders roster.
Christ, the denial here…..
ALSO…the Raiders are the ones who initiated the trade. Belichick said it was discussed at the time of the Burgess deal and it wasn’t going to happen then. The Raiders called them back again and now it’s done.