Skip to content

Uncertainty surfaces regarding Seymour's "five-day letter"

Last night, a report surfaced from Greg Papa of CSN Bay Area that the Raiders have sent the so-called “five-day letter” to erstwhile defensive lineman Richard Seymour.  The purpose of such a letter is to place the player on notice of the possibility that, if he doesn’t show up in five days, he could be placed on the reserve/left club list, which would prevent him from playing for anyone for the remainder of the current year.

Withing a couple of hours thereafter, Adam Schefter of ESPN reported the same thing.

But now the situation is far less clear.

David White of the San Francisco Chronicle says that Papa made no such report, and that the story appearing on the CSN Bay Area web site arose from a miscommunication between Papa and a co-worker, who apparently misinterpreted a discussion of the team’s options as an expression by Papa that the team had decided to pursue the five-day letter route.

And now Schefter has backed off on his report, too.  (Hey, it happens to everyone at one point or another.  Terry Bradshaw probably would agree, especially since he’s still, you know, alive.) 

Schefter reports that the five-day letter was written and signed, that is was supposed to be sent at some point on Thursday, that it possibly was, that it possibly wasn’t, and that if it wasn’t sent Thursday it might be sent soon.  Per Schefter, the problem is that various sources has offered differing accounts of the true state of affairs.  (Hey, it happens to everyone at one point or another.  Roy Williams
probably would agree
, especially since his collarbone is still, you know, not broken.)

The uncertainty might be arising from the reality that, if/when the Raiders send the letter, the Raiders will bolster the argument that they’re behaving as if Seymour is their property, and that they can’t get their 2011 first-round pick back from the Patriots if he doesn’t show.  Then again, it’s possible that the Raiders have chosen that they’d rather have the player than the pick (as evidenced by the fact that they’ve already sent the pick for the player), and so they’ll risk forever losing the pick if it means that they’ll finally get the player.

If/when the five-day letter is sent, the stakes will increase dramatically.  And if Seymour doesn’t show up after the five days expires, then the team and the player will be engaged in what will appear to be a high-stakes game of chicken but that will in reality be more like a game of mutually-assured destruction, since placing Seymour on the reserve/left club prevents the player from taking the field at all in 2009.

But it would hurt the Raiders less.  If Seymour lands on the reserve/left club list, his contract would toll, and the Raiders would hold his rights for the entire 2010 season.

So stay tuned for more.  The only thing that seems reasonable certain at this point is that, when the Raiders take the field Monday night, eight days after trading for Seymour, he most likely won’t be among the men wearing silver and black.

Permalink 34 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New England Patriots, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
34 Responses to “Uncertainty surfaces regarding Seymour's "five-day letter"”
  1. Milhouse says: Sep 11, 2009 10:57 AM

    Wait. Terry Bradshaw is NOT dead?
    What’s next, Brett Favre never had swine flu and/or polio, either!?!?!

  2. Hap says: Sep 11, 2009 10:57 AM

    WTF ? This article is a whole lotta nuthin. Anybody else hear Florio’s promo on the pre-game last night ?

  3. raybin says: Sep 11, 2009 11:03 AM

    There’s no uncertainty. The story has been flatly denied by Papa and if Schefter is backing off, that tells you all you need to know.
    My opinion: Seymour wants an extension, the Raiders want to give him one and they’re haggling over details. Seymour has shown no hesitation to hold out before and we all know about his agent at this point. My guess is after LT and Sproles destroy the Raiders’ run defense on Monday night, you’ll see the team more willing to cave to whatever it is Seymour wants.

  4. east96st says: Sep 11, 2009 11:08 AM

    I’m still amazed that a professional team would send a draft pick that does NOT automatically revert back to them if the player does not show or does not pass his physical. How is it that it is not a standard clause in every trade?

  5. bleedsoe9mm says: Sep 11, 2009 11:11 AM

    davis is probably amazed the pony express can get a letter from oakland to boston in 5 days

  6. Zaggs says: Sep 11, 2009 11:12 AM

    Dont all trades require a physical? Being that Seymour hasnt showed no physical would have been done. If not something for teams to think about.

  7. JollyRoger says: Sep 11, 2009 11:12 AM

    Papa don’t preach.

  8. Bird Man says: Sep 11, 2009 11:13 AM

    So it’s “reasonably certain” that he “most likely” won’t play on Monday…way to go out on a limb…

  9. Alpheratz says: Sep 11, 2009 11:13 AM

    Seymour is listed on the team roster.
    Doesn’t that count as behaving as if he’s their property?
    And is everyone finally convinced that the trade can’t be “canceled” ?

  10. thumper/ says: Sep 11, 2009 11:13 AM

    this is embarasing, the NFL needs to step in now and bring this to an end….the one looking like the big Idiot is seymour, how will the league and fans take this guy seriously now………

  11. STLRDR says: Sep 11, 2009 11:14 AM

    i.e. a bunch of pencil pushing (or keyboard pecking) goons keep trying to advance a story with nothing but speculation – not facts – so they can attempt to justify their jobs, when in actuality, they are reinforcing their miserable reporting skills.

  12. homercles82 says: Sep 11, 2009 11:14 AM

    Seymour is a piece of crap. So many people would love to have his ability and play the game for a living. I actually feel sorry for the Raiders for having to deal with him.

  13. Rick in DC says: Sep 11, 2009 11:18 AM

    ESPN is still reporting the story as the letter was sent. But…they’ll just tell everyone they have their own source, they don’t make mistakes.
    BTW….I thought this wasn’t a “complete” trade until he passes a physical in Oakland? I mean, if he shows up with a broken arm…Oakland still can choose givesbacksies.

  14. darth_vincent says: Sep 11, 2009 11:19 AM

    my question on all this is… Have the Raiders told Seymour’s agent that because Aug 5th has gone by, the bonus money is owed to Seymour by the Patriots and the Raiders have no intention on paying it.
    It’s one thing to say the bonus in the contract is paid sometime from Aug 5th as the earliest date to sometime next year as the latest date… being traded after the start of this time period makes me wonder who has to pay the huge bonus and if both the Raiders and Patriots are playing games with Seymour over this.

  15. whywerule says: Sep 11, 2009 11:37 AM

    …being traded after the start of this time period makes me wonder who has to pay the huge bonus and if both the Raiders and Patriots are playing games with Seymour over this.
    This is an entirely moot point because there is no “huge bonus” attached to Seymour’s contract for any time this season. Seymour gets a base salary of $3.75 million this season…period. Of course, for real people just that salary is a huge bonus, but for Seymour it is not enough. And he may get none of that salary if he refuses to report to the Raiders. Even if the NFL screws up (a likely scenario) and “returns” him to the Pats, the Pats can make him sit and collect nothing this season under the current NFL rules.

  16. JSpicoli says: Sep 11, 2009 11:38 AM

    I like pizza

  17. whywerule says: Sep 11, 2009 11:43 AM

    BTW….I thought this wasn’t a “complete” trade until he passes a physical in Oakland? I mean, if he shows up with a broken arm…Oakland still can choose givesbacksies.
    That is an interesting thought, although Seymour will still be screwed unless he can prove his arm was broken while playing or practicing with the Pats because, under that scenario, neither the Pats nor the Raiders would have to pay him this season. However, breaking his own arm for the hell of it may allow him to become a UFA after the season.

  18. radrntn says: Sep 11, 2009 11:45 AM

    GREED

  19. Hordak says: Sep 11, 2009 11:49 AM

    “And is everyone finally convinced that the trade can’t be “canceled” ?”
    Two words: Duane Thomas.

  20. VicksPuppies says: Sep 11, 2009 11:52 AM

    Who says it isn’t a complete trade unless there is a physical? The trade was reported on the NFL transaction list, so why would people believe it isn’t a done deal?
    Oh, actually I know why. Many of the BB haters would love for it to blow up in his face. The fact that the Pats may end up with a free 2011 1st round pick (and probably a high one at that) has to be driving some people crazier than Tila.

  21. madbillsfan says: Sep 11, 2009 11:53 AM

    He’s coming to Buffalo…..

  22. Ron Dayne's Strict Diet says: Sep 11, 2009 12:01 PM

    What a train wreck. Why is everything that touches the Raiders instantly turned into a mess?

  23. Alpheratz says: Sep 11, 2009 12:19 PM

    Don’t know, or care, who Duane Thomas is.
    What I do know, and have known for 3 days, is that New England isn’t and won’t be on the hook for Richard Seymour no matter how many people wish it were so.
    Seymour’s actions just drive home to me that Belichick made the right decision.

  24. Florios-Lawyer says: Sep 11, 2009 12:34 PM

    BeliDick and Seymour probably orchestrated the whole thing.
    - Pats ream Oakland for a draft pick
    - Seymour doesn’t show
    - Al says “deals off”
    - BB keeps his pick and the NFL sides with him
    - BB welcomes Seymour back into the fold.
    Once a cheating scumbag…

  25. storkshots says: Sep 11, 2009 1:53 PM

    “In a contract dispute with Cowboys management, Thomas was traded before the 1971 season to the New England Patriots. Thomas immediately got into a dispute with Patriots coach John Mazur, and after a few days, the NFL granted the Patriots’ request to void the trade, sending the disgruntled player back to the Cowboys. Thomas refused to speak with any of the Cowboys players, coaches or management for the entire season.”
    Perhaps karma will be coming back the Patriots way.

  26. soundmind says: Sep 11, 2009 2:04 PM

    Skeletor and the Suckhole (aka “the Faid”) are hands-down the most inept run frachise in professional sports. And I say that watching the Royals game…

  27. Tdk24 says: Sep 11, 2009 2:05 PM

    All of this is just a ploy to distract the Chargers. He will play for the patsies this year. Think about it, gives SD something else to prepare for. If it affects their performance monday night, it’s a win win for Raiders and cheatriots.

  28. Kevin from Philly says: Sep 11, 2009 2:11 PM

    His contract will “toll”? What, is it written on a bell?

  29. descendency says: Sep 11, 2009 2:12 PM

    The fact that the Raiders are the one sending this letter implies that they are indeed the “owner” of Richard Seymour’s contract and therefore he is now officially a Raider, whether he wants to be or not, which is great news for the Patriots.
    Honestly, it’s going to suck for the Raiders if he doesn’t want to show, but I think that’s a great precedent for the league. If a player doesn’t cooperate with a team’s desire to trade him, then the receiving team can just suspend him for the year. While it sounds bad at first, most people won’t pull a richard seymour and quit a year or more. They’ll just show. If they reverse the trade, then anyone who doesn’t want to go to a certain team can just threaten to not show.
    That would be bad.

  30. ernie cohen says: Sep 11, 2009 3:02 PM

    I don’t understand the stupid “who sends the 5-day letter” nonsense. Sending him a letter doesn’t weaken anybody’s “case”. This is not American law; this is a dictatorship. All they have to do is call Goodell and put forward the relevant hypotheticals. I assume they have done this and he has told them what the situation is. If they haven’t, one or more people should lose their jobs yesterday.
    Assuming that they have, it probably is basically a renegotiation situation.

  31. Clark says: Sep 11, 2009 3:02 PM

    This is in fact a very unusual event. But it does look as if it’s all on the Raiders at this point. Karma, indeed, has a way of working it’s self out. This is the Karma redemtion for the pick we lost out on from spygate. And we will get it from the francies that made cheating part of it’s team motto,”Just Win Baby!” Watch “Americas Game” on the NFL Network that covered John Maddens Raiders back in the 70′s. The locker room had a sign that said:
    Rule #1 Cheating is encouraged.
    Rule #2 See Rule #1.
    I’m not trying to be cute or snarky. Watch the show and you can see it for yourself. Karma Police indeed. Thank you AL. Someone finally stands up for Bill Belicheck.

  32. storkshots says: Sep 11, 2009 3:35 PM

    Karma for losing your draft pick from Spygate?
    No, that already happened when you guys pulled an epic choke job in the Super Bowl then Brady blew his knee out last year. One can only imagine what else the football gods have in store for the Patriots blatant cheating.

  33. darth_vincent says: Sep 11, 2009 3:47 PM

    I was asking about this in his contract:
    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.
    I know this is from someone else’s comment… but it was about Seymour wanting 6 million from the Pats this year and the Raiders it seems obvious would have to pay the 12 million option bonus next year in March…
    So my phreakin’ question is are the Raiders agreeing to pay the 6 million for this year. He’s on the salary cap books for a helluva lot more his base salary of 3.5 million and that must be for bonus money not yet paid. Al Davis won’t pay his coaches after he fires them, why would he pay a bonus to a player if he feels that the Pats should have paid it… he did give up a number 1 pick afterall.

  34. Alpheratz says: Sep 11, 2009 6:08 PM

    storkshots
    The only 16-0 season in the history of the League?
    I’ll take that karma.

Leave a Reply

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