Breaking Down The Richard Seymour Trade
--SportingNews
So why would a Super Bowl contender deal away a five-time Pro Bowl, three-time All-Pro defensive lineman, who's still just 29, with eight days to go until the season started?
Pretty simple, actually. The four-year, $32 million contract Seymour signed prior to the 2006 season expires in February, and it became abundantly clear that the sides weren't going to reach a deal to extend that agreement. In fact, I'm told the Patriots informed Seymour that the club had placed a freeze on such mega-deals with the uncertain labor climate (and the uncapped year in 2010) looming.
As such, Seymour saw the writing on the wall, and the team knew that they had an unhappy player on their hands. It wasn't just the money, either. Seymour had complained publicly in the past about the club's handling on injury situations, and earlier in his career had a problem with the team pulling him from the starting lineup because he hadn't practiced prior to a game against Jacksonville, in order to attend his grandfather's funeral.
In both cases, there were two sides to the story (Seymour's readiness for a game without a week of practice could be an issue, and teams often say they bury injuries, in part, to protect players), but damage had been done, and Seymour was never fully a "program guy" again. There was also a short holdout prior to 2005 training camp, which got Seymour a bump in pay.
So what does this mean going forward? Follow the jump to find out ?
1) Seymour's chance to thrive: When he was put in a rotation to save miles on his body, Seymour publicly said he wanted to play more in passing situations. With that wish granted, he was employed often as a 3-technique tackle (shading the outside shoulder of the guard) in the team's nickel and dime packages, and led the Patriots with eight sacks. Oakland's not an ideal situation for any player, because of the mess that franchise has become, but Seymour should be able to get upfield and use his athleticism more, as a full-time 3-technique tackle, instead of playing as a 5-technique end. That will help save his body, in a less-physically demanding role, and set up a big contract (if the Raiders don't give it to him now).
2) Signs that Belichick Will Be Around: With his contract situation constantly shrouded in secrecy, there's always been a question as to how long Bill Belichick will remain in New England, no matter how many times he emphasizes that there's no plan to walk away on the horizon. This should tell you that's absolutely true. If you've got an exit strategy in place, you don't deal one of your best player for a draft pick that two years away from being utilized.
3) Where's the Value?: Because of the stability in the organization, and job security of the decision-makers, the Patriots have always been aggressive in moving something from today for greater value tomorrow. Witness a 2007 draft day trade, where the Patriots dealt the 28th pick to San Francisco for a 2008 first-round that, after some moving around on the '08 board, netted them Jerod Mayo(notes). But there is risk involved. Before the 2006 season, the Patriots dealt Deion Branch(notes) to Seattle, and with Branch struggling during his time as a Seahawk, it looks, on the surface, as if the Patriots made out like bandits to get a first-round pick. But consider this: The 2006 Patriots were a furious Colts comeback away from Super Bowl XLI, and had they got their they likely would've dispatched the Bears. A big weakness was at receiver, one that showed up in that game, was at receiver. Could having Branch have meant winning that game? Sure, and that's where the real cost of dealing Branch was, in going into the season with a sizeable hole on the roster.
4) Oakland's thinking: Well, the Raiders love big interior linemen, and have to hope this one works out better than Terdell Sands(notes) and Tommy Kelley did/have. Seymour's a proven commodity, which is what the other two aren't. But the real problem is the contract situation. By dealing for a contract year player without a new agreement in place, there's the risk you're basically giving up a premium draft pick to rent a player. Yes, they could tag Seymour. No, he won't be happy about it, and sure would show his displeasure.
5) The Window: One problem with that 2011 first-round pick?Will the window of opportunity still be open for the Patriots? This move is about extending that window, but it's worth noting that Brady will be 34 when that season opens, and Moss will be inching towards 35 (if he's even re-signed after his current deal expires that offseason). And that's without considering a very possible '11 lockout. This relates to the Branch example. Sure, it's nice to have a full complement of draft picks. But if you cost yourself championship opportunities now, by trading one of the few impact defensive players you have left, and that opportunity has dwindled by the time you get to use those picks, then what good is that? I believe the Patriots will contend as long as Belichick's there, but they're contending at the highest level now, and there's a chance they won't be then.
