Patriots Seymour will seek big money. [Archive] - The Orange Mane

HEAV

01-29-2006, 08:48 PM

Michael Parente, of the Woonsocket Call, reports New England Patriots DE Richard Seymour wants to be one of the highest-paid defensive linemen in the NFL. Judging by his resume, which includes four trips to the Pro Bowl in five years, he deserves that type of salary. The Patriots want to work out a deal that's fair to both sides, one that keeps them under the salary cap and gives them the financial flexibility to negotiate with other players on the market. Seymour has one more year remaining on his current contract. Seymour did hold out during training camp this past summer when the Patriots didn't give him the long-term deal he wanted.

---------------

Wonder what, if any, effect this could have with our own free agent lineman Mr Warren?

2KBack

01-29-2006, 09:25 PM

I would like to think Warren would still be grateful for Denver making him relevant at all again. He certainly doesn't have the resume of Seymour, so I hope he doesn't feel like he can hold out.

Atlas

01-29-2006, 09:27 PM

He is a beast. I believe we are talking Reggie White type staus here. He should be the highest paid Defensive player in NFL history....... Or at least I hope his agent feels this way!!!!

A long nasty holdout would be great.

yavoon

01-29-2006, 10:04 PM

I wanna see if new england has the balls to not sign him!

SoCalBronco

01-29-2006, 10:16 PM

I wanna see if new england has the balls to not sign him!

Worst case scenario, they will tag him. They wont let him go and check out the market. It simply doesnt make any sense to do otherwise. Either they are going to have him, or keep him another year at the franchise rate, or get big time compensation in a trade after tagging him. You dont give up something for nothing just to look like youve got a pair.

yavoon

01-29-2006, 10:19 PM

Worst case scenario, they will tag him. They wont let him go and check out the market. It simply doesnt make any sense to do otherwise. Either they are going to have him, or keep him another year at the franchise rate, or get big time compensation in a trade after tagging him. You dont give up something for nothing just to look like youve got a pair.

the NFL isnt baseball, u can't always trade things and because of the salary cap its somewhat irrelevant anyway.

SoCalBronco

01-29-2006, 10:27 PM

the NFL isnt baseball, u can't always trade things and because of the salary cap its somewhat irrelevant anyway.

Sure you can. Being the Patriots, I highly doubt they have put themselves in such a precarious position cap wise that they cannot afford to tag Seymour or sign him to a long term deal. They'll talk for a couple weeks, if nothing gets done, they'll slap the tag and wait for him to sign it so they can negotiate further and/or open trade discussions with other clubs. If he refuses to sign, he will still end up with the Patriots since by the time August rolls around and he starts thinking of that 8 million check that he is essentially going to forego, he will reverse course as close as he can to the season without missing a game check. If he signs it during the summer, they've got him or they can get a king's ransom for him. There is no way out for Seymour. The Patriots are holding all the cards. It makes ZERO sense to simply let him go for free. It's not rational in the slightest sense and it would "prove" nothing about the organization other than possibly that their success has gotten to them and that success morphed into arrogance which will cause them to come back down to earth...fast.

yavoon

01-29-2006, 10:33 PM

Sure you can. Being the Patriots, I highly doubt they have put themselves in such a precarious position cap wise that they cannot afford to tag Seymour or sign him to a long term deal. They'll talk for a couple weeks, if nothing gets done, they'll slap the tag and wait for him to sign it so they can negotiate further and/or open trade discussions with other clubs. If he refuses to sign, he will still end up with the Patriots since by the time August rolls around and he starts thinking of that 8 million check that he is essentially going to forego, he will reverse course as close as he can to the season without missing a game check. If he signs it during the summer, they've got him or they can get a king's ransom for him. There is no way out for Seymour. The Patriots are holding all the cards. It makes ZERO sense to simply let him go for free. It's not rational in the slightest sense and it would "prove" nothing about the organization other than possibly that their success has gotten to them and that success morphed into arrogance which will cause them to come back down to earth...fast.

oh they can tag him, I'm just saying "oh lets just trade and get a first" or some crap for him just doens't happen. first of all trading takes up MAJOR front office resources, imagine the other team for a second. they have to negotiate this MONSTER contract w/ seymour(which in all likelihood is as difficult as ur own negotiations) THEN give u something.

if u think u can better use the cap space elsewhere it can oftentimes be better to simply let the player go and use the cap space elsewhere. this thinking that u need to get a trade because u nominally still have the players rights is silly, especially when 90% of the time its cause the player wants some insane amt of money.

Drek

01-29-2006, 10:33 PM

the NFL isnt baseball, u can't always trade things and because of the salary cap its somewhat irrelevant anyway.

If the Pats tagged him and offered him to us for the 22nd pick, do you do it?

I'd think long and hard, and ultimately it'd depend on our cap. Thats why Seymour is tradable. He's young ,great, and can play in a 3-4 or a 4-3. A lot of teams would jump in the trade market for him.

I think they'll resign him long term though, the Pats realize how important he is to their defense as a whole.

-Slap-

01-29-2006, 10:38 PM

yavoon

01-29-2006, 10:41 PM

If the Pats tagged him and offered him to us for the 22nd pick, do you do it?

I'd think long and hard, and ultimately it'd depend on our cap. Thats why Seymour is tradable. He's young ,great, and can play in a 3-4 or a 4-3. A lot of teams would jump in the trade market for him.

I think they'll resign him long term though, the Pats realize how important he is to their defense as a whole.

well it depends on richard. I dont think the pats are unwilling to pay the guy and he's certainly worth the 22 pick several times over. the sticking point is he wants a ton of money(or so I gather), like julian peterson and his 30 mill bonus maybe? I dont know.

I think its unlikely I'd do it because if the pats can't sign him I dont see how denver could get him in a reasonable deal. especially because the entire time richard knows he is being denied FA where in theory his value is at its highest.

SoCalBronco

01-29-2006, 10:43 PM

oh they can tag him, I'm just saying "oh lets just trade and get a first" or some crap for him just doens't happen. first of all trading takes up MAJOR front office resources, imagine the other team for a second. they have to negotiate this MONSTER contract w/ seymour(which in all likelihood is as difficult as ur own negotiations) THEN give u something.

if u think u can better use the cap space elsewhere it can oftentimes be better to simply let the player go and use the cap space elsewhere. this thinking that u need to get a trade because u nominally still have the players rights is silly, especially when 90% of the time its cause the player wants some insane amt of money.

If, by your first sentence, you are contending that there wont be an intense market for Seymour's services via the trade route, than you are sorely wrong. If Belicheck sent an email to the rest of the league saying, Seymour's on the block, give us an offer, i can guarantee you that a large majority of the league will email back in minutes with very good offers. I feel comfortable saying that at the very least, New England would recieve multiple offers like: a top 10 pick plus a 2nd rounder......at least.

You are putting way too much emphasis on this whole front office resources argument. It's akin to saying, "yeah, we can have Richard Seymour, but we dont want our cap and contract guys staying up all night for a week crunching the numbers and negotiating with his agent.......lets not do it". That's absurd, yavoon. That's their job. When we traded for Bailey, he had a massive contract which we had to put in the time and effort of negotiating out after giving up Portis. That didnt seem like a problem. We were all too pleased to do it since Shanny had a hard-on at the thought of The Champ in Blue and Orange. Doing all that "work" in addition to giving up some big asset is just part of life when you are making a big trade like this.

Regarding your, "there is a better use of cap space" argument, I'd disagree there too. Yeah, its alot they will shell out, but he is an absolutely elite DE, a real cream of the crop player. Yeah, you could prolly get two good players for his salary, but his value to New England probably outweights that set of possible players. His absence (along with Harrison) this year was huge and as we found out in the Divisional Round, they were a much tougher defense with him in there. It was night and day.

yavoon

01-29-2006, 10:46 PM

If, by your first two sentences, you are contending that there wont be an intense market for Seymour's services via the trade route, than you are sorely wrong. If Belicheck sent an email to the rest of the league saying, Seymour's on the block, give us an offer, i can guarantee you that a large majority of the league will email back in minutes with very good offers. I feel comfortable saying that at the very least, New England would recieve multiple offers like: a top 10 pick plus a 2nd rounder......at least.

You are putting way too much emphasis on this whole front office resources argument. It's akin to saying, "yeah, we can have Richard Seymour, but we dont want our cap and contract guys staying up all night for a week crunching the numbers and negotiating with his agent.......lets not do it". That's absurd, yavoon. That's their job. When we traded for Bailey, he had a massive contract which we had to put in the time and effort of negotiating out after giving up Portis. That didnt seem like a problem. We were all too pleased to do it since Shanny had a hard-on at the thought of The Champ in Blue and Orange.

Regarding your, "there is a better use of cap space" argument, I'd disagree there too. Yeah, its alot they will shell out, but he is an absolutely elite DE, a real cream of the crop player. Yeah, you could prolly get two good players for his salary, but his value to New England probably outweights that set of possible players. His absence (along with Harrison) this year was huge and as we found out in the Divisional Round, they were a much tougher defense with him in there. It was night and day.

they'd all wet their pants, call richard, he'd give them their demands and then they'd huddle and think. OK we are competing against a lot of teams for the right to try and negotiate a contract that in all likelihood is more than a players worth that will take vast amts of resources just to get done THEN we have to give the patriots something all the while richard is in a place he doesn't like(not free agency).

maybe u still think this is baseball=[

also I'm pretty sure that the fact a contract isnt done yet means that richard is keeping his demands real high. orlando pace was the bst left tackle in football and he didnt get signed, same w/ walter jones. being the best doesn't make u worth an unlimited sum of money.

SoCalBronco

01-29-2006, 10:55 PM

they'd all wet their pants, call richard, he'd give them their demands and then they'd huddle and think. OK we are competing against a lot of teams for the right to try and negotiate a contract that in all likelihood is more than a players worth that will take vast amts of resources just to get done THEN we have to give the patriots something all the while richard is in a place he doesn't like(not free agency).

maybe u still think this is baseball=[

That's life, yavoon. That's just the nature of the business. You dont think the Redskins shopped Bailey like that. You think other teams simply dropped out of the bidding for those reasons. You think Denver was the only team to step forward? I seem to remember some reports at the time saying the Skins had several substantial offers from other clubs (which by implication means they all signed off on the concept of making sure Bailey got paid in addition to giving up significant asset (s)). We simply happened to give them the best offer from their viewpoint. Its a given on both sides of the arrangement that in addition to giving up something of value, your going to have to pay that player who is coming in, either in the form of a new deal, or absorbing a deal that may have an escalating set of base salaries.

If you were correct yavoon, than there would never be trades of big time tagged free agents, or big time players in general even with existing large contracts. Yet we know that it is starting to happen with increasing frequency in the wake of the Bailey-Portis trade.

yavoon

01-29-2006, 10:56 PM

its also possible that richard(or his agent more accurately) are simply keeping the demand high hoping his real value is increased w/ time and want to develop a history of their position that richard is worth a lot of money.

and that going down to the wire he will get resigned.

yavoon

01-29-2006, 10:59 PM

That's life, yavoon. That's just the nature of the business. You dont think the Redskins shopped Bailey like that. You think other teams simply dropped out of the bidding for those reasons. You think Denver was the only team to step forward? I seem to remember some reports at the time saying the Skins had several substantial offers from other clubs (which by implication means they all signed off on the concept of making sure Bailey got paid in addition to giving up significant asset (s)). We simply happened to give them the best offer from their viewpoint. Its a given on both sides of the arrangement that in addition to giving up something of value, your going to have to pay that player who is coming in, either in the form of a new deal, or absorbing a deal that may have an escalating set of base salaries.

If you were correct yavoon, than there would never be trades of big time tagged free agents, or big time players in general even with existing large contracts. Yet we know that it is starting to happen with increasing frequency in the wake of the Bailey-Portis trade.

besides bailey and portis look at all the other big free agents rumored in trades and look how many have been traded? JUST off the top of my head, edgerin james, shaun alexander, orlando pace, walter jones, julian peterson, trevor pryce. infact the two biggest I can think of both involved dan snyder. again, the bailey portis trade was pretty much the biggest trade ever. when u look at it 31 teams out there have very difficult times coming to agreements on trades.

u can say its the "nature of business" but u know what the real nature of business is? efficiency, if u redirect ur resources some place w/ a low chance of success and a high chance of overpaying instead of using them in more profitable functions u will suffer in the longrun.

SoCalBronco

01-29-2006, 11:19 PM

besides bailey and portis look at all the other big free agents rumored in trades and look how many have been traded? JUST off the top of my head, edgerin james, shaun alexander, orlando pace, walter jones, julian peterson, trevor pryce. infact the two biggest I can think of both involved dan snyder. again, the bailey portis trade was pretty much the biggest trade ever. when u look at it 31 teams out there have very difficult times coming to agreements on trades.

u can say its the "nature of business" but u know what the real nature of business is? efficiency, if u redirect ur resources some place w/ a low chance of success and a high chance of overpaying instead of using them in more profitable functions u will suffer in the longrun.

I think many of your examples above are distinguishable from the Seymour situation. Let's assume for the sake of argument that everyone of those players you cited above in addition to Seymour is trying to get paid X and X is essentially what the truly elite players deserve in salary. In the cases you cited above, there are reasons outside of your theory of "teams simply dont want to give up a huge asset plus negotiate a big salary or absorb a big salary to get a big time player" (principally various "defects" with those plaeyrs) to explain why trades havent gotten done...reasons which do not exist here. Edge and Alexander are both going to be 28 this year. So the window of big time production is going to be about 2-3 years, unlike Seymour who has a long ways to go. Peterson came off of a torn ACL. Trevor had a big time back injury and was going into the season at the dreaded age of 30. I cant name any defects with Jones or Pace, there I concede that Seattle and St. Louis apparently did not recieve the amount of compensation they thought was fair. So your viewpoint has some limited merit ( and that limited merit also depends on the shaky assumption that NO ONE offered a substantial offer but slightly less than what they wanted) , but you are making it seem like it is almost always prohibitively expensive for any team to make a substantial offer for another team's star, which we know isnt true. Sometimes it will just come down to a few million. If Bailey wanted a 75 million deal instead of 63, that would have prolly been too much for the Broncos to pay in addition to dealing Portis. That doesnt mean that they werent willing (and the rest of the league as well) to make a huge offer to Bailey in addition to giving up Portis, it just means that it was just a tad bit too much.

watermock

01-29-2006, 11:22 PM

Who the hell cares...we have our own problems..

To my knowlege noone has been raising a stink so far.

We laid an egg...so what...shiat happens...something weird just happened...

http://www.exotic-hibiscus.com/images/worldgenep2.jpg

Sometimes I have visions...not this obviously isn't it, but it's kinda close...

i like it when they are good visions...I have had bad visions...

and visions so horrible that you would know what they are.

Anyway, it was a pretty vision....

yavoon

01-29-2006, 11:22 PM

I think many of your examples above are distinguishable from the Seymour situation. Let's assume for the sake of argument that everyone of those players you cited above in addition to Seymour is trying to get paid X and X is essentially what the truly elite players deserve in salary. In the cases you cited above, there are reasons outside of your theory of "teams simply dont want to give up a huge asset plus negotiate a big salary or absorb a big salary to get a big time player" (principally various "defects" with those plaeyrs) to explain why trades havent gotten done...reasons which do not exist here. Edge and Alexander are both going to be 28 this year. So the window of big time production is going to be about 2-3 years, unlike Seymour who has a long ways to go. Peterson came off of a torn ACL. Trevor had a big time back injury and was going into the season at the dreaded age of 30. I cant name any defects with Jones or Pace, there I concede that Seattle and St. Louis apparently did not recieve the amount of compensation they thought was fair. So your viewpoint has some limited merit, but you are making it seem like it is almost always prohibitively expensive for any team to make a substantial offer for another team's star, which we know isnt true. Sometimes it will just come down to a few million. If Bailey wanted a 75 million deal instead of 63, that would have prolly been too much for the Broncos to pay in addition to dealing Portis. That doesnt mean that they werent willing (and the rest of the league as well) to make a huge offer to Bailey in addition to giving up Portis, it just means that it was just a tad bit too much.

yah well ur entire post is NOW based on the fact that the patriots are unwilling to pay seymour what he is worth. I find that unlikely.

SoCalBronco

01-29-2006, 11:29 PM

yah well ur entire post is NOW based on the fact that the patriots are unwilling to pay seymour what he is worth. I find that unlikely.

No, actually my post was explaining why your explanation of why these big time trades arent happening with some of the recent stars who have been "on the block" might not be quite on the mark.

But I dont necessarily dispute your point about the Patriots trying to low-ball people on purpose. That frequently happens. The Patriots do it, the Eagles do it, we do it, the Chiefs certainly do it, pretty much everyone (perhaps outside of Washington) does that. The Patriots were unwilling to pay Brady a Manning or Vick type of deal (100+ million in total value) despite the fact that if thats what Manning/Vick were worth, Brady was unquestionably worth more due to the things he accomplished. They agreed on a 64 million dollar deal, which means the Patriots probably started off with an offer in the 50s, well under Brady's value (as the final figure was as well). I dont see how low-balling is relevant to this discussion though, but yes, its done all the time by everyone. No one who works for these ballclubs want to pay over-market value or even market value if they can avoid it. They just want the best deal possible from the club's perspective. So I dont see what's the big deal (or how its relevant to this discussion) in saying that they want to low-ball players.

yavoon

01-29-2006, 11:33 PM

No, actually my post was explaining why your explanation of why these big time trades arent happening with some of the recent stars who have been "on the block" might not be quite on the mark.

But I dont necessarily dispute your point about the Patriots trying to low-ball people on purpose. That frequently happens. The Patriots were unwilling to pay Brady a Manning or Vick type of deal (100+ million in total value) despite the fact that if thats what Manning/Vick were worth, Brady was unquestionably worth more due to the things he accomplished. They agreed on a 64 million dollar deal, which means the Patriots probably started off with an offer in the 50s, well under Brady's value (as the final figure was as well). I dont see how low-balling is relevant to this discussion though, but yes, its done all the time by everyone. No one who works for these ballclubs want to pay over-market value or even market value if they can avoid it. They just want the best deal possible from the club's perspective. So I dont see what's the big deal (or how its relevant to this discussion) in saying that they want to low-ball players.

well just because vick got paid that dont mean he's worth that. and i actually said I think if seymour was worth whatever amt he's demanding he would be signed already. ur entire post starts w/ the premise that seymour is asking for his real value.

as for ur careful explanations about how the "other" situations were different, they aren't very relevant distinctions because it all circles around the same principle, each player is worth some amt of money, if they demand way over what a team is willing to pay AMAZINGLY its usually a lot higher than all the other teams are willing to pay too. thats why none of those big deals could get done.

yavoon

01-29-2006, 11:44 PM

anyway its getting a little off topic, if richard became available I would throw my hat into the ring, call him ask what he's looking for in terms of total money and term. I just dont think it would end up going farther than that.

Kaylore

01-29-2006, 11:48 PM

He's the man. Great rushing the pass, solid against the run, and still puts up pretty decent numbers despite playing end is a stat-reducing 3-4. I see the "So-cal" option the more likely scenario.

Drek

01-30-2006, 06:12 AM

Even if the situation became intractable, I would still be very surprised to see New England deal him to a major contender in their own Conference.
Thats not the point, there was a statement made suggesting that he'd be hard for them to trade, when really at this point its cap free on their side to tag and trade him, while every team with cap money can jump into the fray bidding for him.

I'll tell you this right now, if by some miracle he's given only a single 1st round compensation when/if he's tagged we'd be damn fools not to give up the 29th pick to sign him, even if it meant cutting payroll in other places (signing Schaffer instead of Lepsis for example).

Crowpointer

01-30-2006, 07:14 AM

he's under contract for one more year and it's unlikely that he will sit out since the contract is for big money in 2006 unlike what he was going to get in 2005 (thus the holdout) The question is for after this year. Will they tear up 2006 contract and lock him up long term. He has already turned down Stroud money and wants Kearse type money. He is as valuable to the D as Brady is to the offense so it seems likely they will try to get something worked out before he becomes a free agent in 2007. He is the best.