ThereIsNoDog Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/seaha...ory/871309.html That would be another way to not have to give-up a 1st rounder for a player who doesn't want to report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Seymour has no way to void the deal. He's under contract to the Raiders pending successfully passing their physical. I suppose the Raiders could void the deal if they wish by failing Seymour come physical time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I don't know if this idea has been kicked around or not but I think it is very plausible. Is it possible that New England and Belicheat have had this plan all along? Did they plan on trying to steal a pick from the Raiders and get Seymore back? I think the plan was to make sure the Bills didn't game plan for him throwing a wrench into things for them on MNF. They are hoping because the paper work was filed by the Raiders before the physical ever happened that the trade is a done deal and somehow they steal a pick from the Raiders. (I know it's not legal and the Raiders would then own his rights but you now how the Pats* get away with stuff and the NFL may rule in their favor in some ridiculous way) Is this jackass just at it again trying to screw the system and make sure the Bills are ill prepared Monday night with their rookie O-line and Bell at LT? What is everyone elses thought because I feel like they are up to something and they knew Seyemore to the Raiders was never really going to happen. "Mr. cmjoyce113, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksilver Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Seymour is a free agent after 2009. If he re-signs with the Pats, they got the player and the pick Al Davis is the biggest moron in the NFL. How do you trade for a player with 1 year left and no contract extension. FOOL! the bills inner circle is a close 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Negative. Not showing up isn't grounds for termination of a trade. If it were then every single player in the NFL would have a built-in no trade clause available to them. Upon learning of a trade the player could simply refuse to show up to the new team and be sent back to the old team. That's not a precedent the league will want. Nor is it something the owners would stand for. And the CBA doesn't allow for it. So unless Seymour fails the Raiders team physical he is 100% Oakland's problem to deal with. Not according to this guy: http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest The NFL might have to get involved, and things would be up in the air. I think he's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Seymour is a free agent after 2009. If he re-signs with the Pats, they got the player and the pick They don't have the money to re-sign both Seymour and Wilfork. That's why they traded Seymour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Twisted logic. So you are suggesting that anytime a traded player wishes not to be traded he simply fails to show up for the physical? OK, if you say so. Actually, that makes total sense to me. If he doesn't show up for the physical, the trade isn't completed (the guy could have a knee made out of paper mache). Unless he can somehow be compelled to show up for the physical, I bet it might work that way. Maybe the league can demand that he at least shows up for the physical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Not according to this guy: http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest The NFL might have to get involved, and things would be up in the air. I think he's right. I suspect the writer, as is far too often the case, simply hasn't thought about the situation enough or with any amount of logic. The league would never rescind the trade and open up a Pandora's box allowing any future contracted player that was traded to dictate where he's traded too simply be refusing to show up to the teams he's not interested in playing for. Further, you can bet your last penny that the Pats wouldn't stand for this especially if the NFL rescinded the trade AFTER the Pats played their first game without the services of their supposed traded player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Sure, but that assumes he eventually reports to Oakland this year. If he waits too long to report (6 games, I think?) then Oakland gets to keep him next year as well. Ten weeks, I believe. You can show up for the last six games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Actually, that makes total sense to me. If he doesn't show up for the physical, the trade isn't completed (the guy could have a knee made out of paper mache). Unless he can somehow be compelled to show up for the physical, I bet it might work that way. Maybe the league can demand that he at least shows up for the physical? The Pats can't say anything in this situation because Seymour is now under contract to the Raiders. They'd be tampering if they did. So, it's up to the Raiders to deal with Seymour however they see fit. The CBA allows the Raiders to expedite the situation by giving them the ability to send Seymour a "5 day notice letter" which requires he show up or get placed on the "Did Not show" list meaning he's out for the season and not only doesn't get paid but which also doesn't allow Seymour to accrue his season meaning the Raider retain his rights the following season. In any event the longer this takes the worse off it's gonna be for the Raiders. The chances of the league getting involved and rescinding the deal after the first game of the season are slim I would imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 The league would never rescind the trade and open up a Pandora's box allowing any future contracted player that was traded to dictate where he's traded too simply be refusing to show up to the teams he's not interested in playing for. Hmm, I seem to remember the league getting involved in a very similar case a few years ago when a certain loudmouth receiver was traded to Baltimore, and eventually working it out so that said loudmouth receiver got his own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8-8 Forever? Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I am not saying it is what is happening or has happened but he has done stranger things. They may not be "that concerned" with the Bills but they are concerned about making sure they win and they will do it at all costs. I just wanted to put it out there to see what you guys all thought. It isn't what I think is happening just an idea. why don't our guys think of stuff like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 why don't our guys think of stuff like this? Stuff like what? trading a player who you can't re-sign next year and may not really need this year for a 1st round draft pick? Which 30+ year old multiple pro-bowler in the last year of their contract do you think we could get a first round pick for? Who do we have on our roster that fits that bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Hmm, I seem to remember the league getting involved in a very similar case a few years ago when a certain loudmouth receiver was traded to Baltimore, and eventually working it out so that said loudmouth receiver got his own way. If you are speaking of TO then the situation is different. TOs grievance, and ultimate out, was that he had a clause in his contract that made him a FA. Seymour doesn't have such a clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 If you are speaking of TO then the situation is different. TOs grievance, and ultimate out, was that he had a clause in his contract that made him a FA. Seymour doesn't have such a clause. Owens did have such a clause, but he failed to act on it in time to make him a free agent. So he was traded to the Ravens, and should have been required to report. In any case, I see your point that the league needs to walk a fine line and make sure that the inmates aren't allowed to run the asylum. But at the same time, the league will not stand for a team getting screwed royally in a trade like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Owens did have such a clause, but he failed to act on it in time to make him a free agent. So he was traded to the Ravens, and should have been required to report. In any case, I see your point that the league needs to walk a fine line and make sure that the inmates aren't allowed to run the asylum. But at the same time, the league will not stand for a team getting screwed royally in a trade like this. It's not up to the league to determine players market values and worth. The league needs to tread very carefully should they get involved in this after the Pats play their first game of the season. Surely the Pats would not be pleased if they were to have the trade rescinded meaning that they were disadvantaged in a game by not having a player as valuable as Seymour at their disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 It's not up to the league to determine players market values and worth. The league needs to tread very carefully should they get involved in this after the Pats play their first game of the season. Surely the Pats would not be pleased if they were to have the trade rescinded meaning that they were disadvantaged in a game by not having a player as valuable as Seymour at their disposal. Interesting attempt at "logic" here. The league would not be denying the Patriots the use of Seymour during the first game. They traded him. They voluntarily gave up rights to him and should have no expectation of receiving services from him ever again. It does not matter if the trade gets voided by the league today, Tuesday, or in Week 16, the Patriots are not being "disadvantaged" by the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I am shocked this thread is still going...I mean this is one of the most rediculous conspiracies I have seen on here...how can anyone even take it seriously? Bill video tapes a few things he is not supposed to (as have other teams) and you make him out like he is the greatest mastermind to ever walk the earth... Come back to reality, the weather is nice down here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I don't know if this idea has been kicked around or not but I think it is very plausible. Is it possible that New England and Belicheat have had this plan all along? Did they plan on trying to steal a pick from the Raiders and get Seymore back? I think the plan was to make sure the Bills didn't game plan for him throwing a wrench into things for them on MNF. They are hoping because the paper work was filed by the Raiders before the physical ever happened that the trade is a done deal and somehow they steal a pick from the Raiders. (I know it's not legal and the Raiders would then own his rights but you now how the Pats* get away with stuff and the NFL may rule in their favor in some ridiculous way) Is this jackass just at it again trying to screw the system and make sure the Bills are ill prepared Monday night with their rookie O-line and Bell at LT? What is everyone elses thought because I feel like they are up to something and they knew Seyemore to the Raiders was never really going to happen. Billy's probably just trying to get even with DJ for tanking the pre-season offense in an attempt to dupe the Patsie's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I suspect the writer, as is far too often the case, simply hasn't thought about the situation enough or with any amount of logic. The league would never rescind the trade and open up a Pandora's box allowing any future contracted player that was traded to dictate where he's traded too simply be refusing to show up to the teams he's not interested in playing for. Further, you can bet your last penny that the Pats wouldn't stand for this especially if the NFL rescinded the trade AFTER the Pats played their first game without the services of their supposed traded player. What do you mean the Pats* wouldn't stand for it? I know there's a lot of paranoia on these boards, but Goodell is the one in charge, not Kraft. And you go along with whatever the rules are right now. I suspect that if this is the first time it has come up, they might not have planned for it, and in that case, Davis has a case. You'd expect that in the future, contracts would be written more carefully to deal with what happens if the player doesn't show, and the NFL will put a rule in place. The first thing I wondered when I heard about this is that surely the Raiders must have insisted on "unless he doesn't show up" language in the contract. The writer hasn't thought about it? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts