We discussed the Patriots' side of the Richard Seymour deal on Tuesday, so let's flip things over to the Raiders' perspective — and Seymour's perspective as well.

There's nothing new on the Seymour trade as far as, you know, him showing up and whatnot. But he will. I guarantee it. Why would be forfeit $3.7 million in salary this season plus lose an accrued year towards free agency, which he is supposed to hit after this season.

And that reason alone is why the Raiders must — absolutely have to — get a long-term deal worked out with him. Sooner would be better than later, too.

The team that has drafted in the top seven picks — and not very well, I might add — the past six years (they traded down in 2005 from the No. 7 pick to get Randy Moss, whom they gave away a few years later) has given up a potentially big draft pick for a proven commodity.

On the one hand, you can see why:

• Robert Gallery, the No. 2 pick in the 2004 draft, has become an average or above-average left guard. And he's one of their better first-round picks up that high. They could have had Larry Fitzgerald, Philip Rivers or Sean Taylor, who were the next three picks in order.
• You can't blame the Raiders for making the Moss trade, but they could have had DeMarcus Ware or Shawne Merriman if they stayed at seven. Instead, the took Fabian Washington at No. 23, and he's now an ex-Raider. Instead, they could have picked Aaron Rodgers, the next pick, or Roddy White, who went four picks later.
• In 2006, they took Michael Huff, who now is a backup safety on the team. Other guys they could have had: Jay Cutler, Haloti Ngata, Matt Leinart, Ernie Sims … heck, even Donte Whitner would have been a better pick. It's bad when we're saying the Lions did a better job of drafting that year.
• With JaMarcus Russell, it's hard to tell if he'll be anything, but wouldn't they feel better about having Adrian Peterson? Calvin Johnson? I am more convinced that second-rounder, TE Zach Miller, has a better chance of lasting longer with the team than Russell.
• I like Darren McFadden and think he'll make it, but we haven't seen it yet.

But even with this horrendous draft record with first-round picks, you can't give away picks. Certainly not picks in a year in which there might be a rookie wage scale that makes top-10 choices that much more valuable. The Raiders wished they could have traded the No. 1 pick in '07, but economics made it nearly impossible. The Patriots almost certainly can move a discounted top-10 pick that year with new rules likely to be in place.

If Seymour reports, plays well and leaves, the Raiders again will have been fleeced by the Patriots. For all the deals these two teams have made, the only one I can think of that went explicitly in Oakland's favor was the Doug Gabriel trade. Whoop-di-do.

Signing Seymour also would send a message to fans and prospective free agents (again, heading towards an uncapped year) that they are serious. And they have spent major money to keep their guys, such as Nnamdi Asomugha, Tommy Kelly, Shane Lechler and so on.

This is a crucial deal for the Raiders. They must get Seymour (a.) on the team and (b.) signed long term. Otherwise, the deal blows up in their face, no matter where the 2011 pick ends up being.