keggerz Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) Seymour didn't sign his tender until after the Raiders wrapped up their OTA's etc...his salary for this year is now guaranteed to be $12.4 million as a FT'd DL...sure it isn't $20 million but Seymour skipped OTAs and not a peep...but Haynesworth is a POS and skips them and gets lambasted in the media for "taking the money". Edited June 22, 2010 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Maybe I am wrong but I think the situations are completely different. Isn't Seymour just signing a 1 year deal? If he doesn't sign he is not under contract, therefore would not need to be in camp. With "Fatass" he was already under contract and took the 21 mil as a bonus and did not show up. Reports are that he also agreed to show up for camp and play the position the team wanted him too. None of which he has done. In fact, he has complained, demanded a trade and cuased his own teammates to blast him. Am I wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 they're completely different, aren't they? a free agent tender (which involves a lot of uncertainty) and a blockbuster bank breaking contract signed a year ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 yes they are different but yes they are similar, imo Seymour was tendered and it was up to him to sign the tender...he waited until after OTAs to sign..essentially his way of getting out of OTAs AB took the bonus* and didn't show up to OTAs Both got the money and avoided OTAs *AB's bonus was a ROSTER bonus and has nothing to do with future years etc...fwiw, without the Bonus Seymour would make I think about $7 mill more than AB this year. AB is an easy guy to not like and the media jumped on the bash AB wagon. Seymour, from all accounts is a good team guy and there wasn't a peep from the media about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 they're completely different, aren't they? a free agent tender (which involves a lot of uncertainty) and a blockbuster bank breaking contract signed a year ago also remember that basically all NFL contracts are just 1 yr deals...you get cut you get no money...just the guaranteed money (signing bonus/roster bonus) that you negotiated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) Maybe I am wrong but I think the situations are completely different. Isn't Seymour just signing a 1 year deal? If he doesn't sign he is not under contract, therefore would not need to be in camp. With "Fatass" he was already under contract and took the 21 mil as a ROSTER bonus (which he is entitled to if the Skins opted to keep him on their roster) and did not show up. Reports are that he also agreed to show up for camp and play the position the team wanted him too. None of which he has done. In fact, he has complained, demanded a trade and cuased his own teammates to blast him. Am I wrong? Fixed and highlighted so you are saying that if AB just kept his mouth shut and took the money everything would be ok Edited June 22, 2010 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Maybe I am wrong but I think the situations are completely different. Isn't Seymour just signing a 1 year deal? If he doesn't sign he is not under contract, therefore would not need to be in camp. With "Fatass" he was already under contract and took the 21 mil as a bonus and did not show up. Reports are that he also agreed to show up for camp and play the position the team wanted him too. None of which he has done. In fact, he has complained, demanded a trade and cuased his own teammates to blast him. Am I wrong? The funny thing will be if the Redskins get their money back, Haynesworth will still be responcible for the taxes paid out on that 21 million... Love when a plan comes together!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Seymour wasn't signed for that year. If he gets hurt in camp and it ends his career - he gets just his tender. If he waits until he gets a contract and gets hurt, he is in a way better position. I can see where he is looking for security. AH has security and was paid the money he was, to be the best player he can be. He decided to not be the best player he can be. He needs the practice. He needs to learn the new system. He needs to get to know the guys around him. He is chosing to mail it in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 you get cut you get no money...just the guaranteed money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 I was talking about their signing bonus/roster bonuses that they may have already gotten vs the $x million 5 yr deal they signed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) Seymour wasn't signed for that year. If he gets hurt in camp and it ends his career - he gets just his tender. If he waits until he gets a contract and gets hurt, he is in a way better position. I can see where he is looking for security. AH has security and was paid the money he was, to be the best player he can be. He decided to not be the best player he can be. He needs the practice. He needs to learn the new system. He needs to get to know the guys around him. He is chosing to mail it in. Seymour signed his FT tender...he is guaranteed to get that money this year...he didn't negotiate anything...it is a 1 yr deal, plain and simple...he could have signed prior to OTAs and still been guaranteed that money...now if he sits out training camp demanding a long term extension/contract I wonder what people will say. Edited June 22, 2010 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Seymour signed his FT tender...he is guaranteed to get that money this year...he didn't negotiate anything...it is a 1 yr deal, plain and simple...he could have signed prior to OTAs and still been guaranteed that money...now if he sits out training camp demanding a long term extension/contract I wonder what people will say. Just like Haynesworth, he will get to enjoy a fine up to $19,000 per day for each day missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Seymour signed his FT tender...he is guaranteed to get that money this year...he didn't negotiate anything...it is a 1 yr deal, plain and simple...he could have signed prior to OTAs and still been guaranteed that money...now if he sits out training camp demanding a long term extension/contract I wonder what people will say. ...but having missed OTAs, he has less chance of having an accident. If he holds out moving forward - now that he has signed the tender - than its something to get upset over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) What makes them hard to compare is less about the contract details and more about AH's ability to get under peoples skin. He's widely regarded as a dirty player as well as a all around turd in general. The players union has spoken against AH's stance because his behavior has been so beyond the pale. more pub for Fat Albert: Bank sues Albert Haynesworth for $2.4 million Posted by Michael David Smith on June 22, 2010 11:29 AM ET A Tennessee bank is suing Redskins defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth, alleging that he has failed to make payments on a loan. The Knoxville News Sentinel reports that Clayton Bank & Trust sued Haynesworth in connection with missed payments on a $2.38 million loan. The bank is asking for more than $2.4 million, which includes the amount of the loan, unpaid interest and late charges. The bank reportedly made the loan in June of 2009, three months after Haynesworth signed a $100 million contract to leave the Titans for the Redskins. Haynesworth has already made $32 million from the Redskins. Edited June 22, 2010 by hooknladder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Seymour had not SIGNED his tender while AH was under a signed contract. The difference is night and day IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 Seymour had not SIGNED his tender while AH was under a signed contract. The difference is night and day IMO. The point is that Seymour made the decision to sign AFTER OTA's....I will give you that they situations are different but not night and day...in the end two vets get paid and missed OTAs becaue they wanted to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 The point is that Seymour made the decision to sign AFTER OTA's....I will give you that they situations are different but not night and day...in the end two vets get paid and missed OTAs becaue they wanted to. But the Raiders new that was a possibility when they offered the tender and not a longer contract. Could the Raiders have removed the tender when Seymour did not show for camp? I think so but could be wrong. The Redskins could not get their 21 mil back when AH did not show although they are trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 The point is that Seymour made the decision to sign AFTER OTA's....I will give you that they situations are different but not night and day...in the end two vets get paid and missed OTAs becaue they wanted to. Boil it down, the plain fact that DOES make them night and day, cats and dogs, pixar and dreamworks, is that Haynesworth was under contract that he just signed last year, just accepted a 21 mil bonus and THEN demanded to be traded and skipped OTAs. Seymour wasn't under contract, therefor not required to go to OTAs. Totally different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Boil it down, the plain fact that DOES make them night and day, cats and dogs, pixar and dreamworks, is that Haynesworth was under contract that he just signed last year, just accepted a 21 mil bonus and THEN demanded to be traded and skipped OTAs. Seymour wasn't under contract, therefor not required to go to OTAs. Totally different. i just don't think you can take the emotion out of it....the union did'nt condemn Seymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 (edited) i just don't think you can take the emotion out of it....the union did'nt condemn Seymore. perhaps because being able to sign your tender after ota's and get paid was part of the collective bargaining agreement. Edited June 23, 2010 by Footballjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 I was talking about their signing bonus/roster bonuses that they may have already gotten vs the $x million 5 yr deal they signed And I am talking about "got no money, just the guaranteed money" is a blatantly ridiculous statement. That "just" is more money than most people make in a lifetime, and this human poo gets it despite himself and despite all these antics. Not that he's alone. lol. Not saying it's all the players, but the NFL is such a joke. A pathetic, revolting, bloated, big money joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Boil it down, the plain fact that DOES make them night and day, cats and dogs, pixar and dreamworks, is that Haynesworth was under contract that he just signed last year, just accepted a 21 mil bonus and THEN demanded to be traded and skipped OTAs. Seymour wasn't under contract, therefor not required to go to OTAs. Totally different. and in this situation because he was traded from the best team in the league to the worst team in the league on the eve of the season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.