Butler visiting Saints

[Mack Herron]

Article 9, Section 3 of the CBA:



Goodell could very well view Brandon Cooks as "consideration" if he wants. Doesn't mean he won't have a fight on his hands and/or that he'll win, etc. but he could try if he wanted to.

1. I don't think that rule was violated in the Welker deal and it would not be here as well. If you disagree, please specify the violation. Which clause?
Since no tender has been signed, there is no issue with right of first refusal. The issue it seems would be with the right to submit an offer sheet. But we would welcome their offer sheet and are doing nothing to prevent NO from submitting one. I think the conditions here are not restricted by the CBA.

Florio seems to share this interpretation:

if the Saints and Butler can strike a fair deal based on the fact that he’s currently not on the open market and wouldn’t be for a year, the Saints can then approach the Patriots and make an offer for something less than a first-round pick, subject to Butler signing the restricted free agency tender. If the Saints and Patriots reach an understanding, Butler would sign the tender, and the Patriots would trade him.

Saints, Patriots will tread lightly on Malcolm Butler deal


2. The claim I responded to was that the Welker deal was okay because of the level of compensation, but this is a different issue and there is nothing in the rule about the legality being dependent on level of compensation.

 

[jboston19]

This is so stupid, Patriots can just keep Butler and franchise him next year and it would effectively be like a 2 year $20M deal. That's fine.

I wonder if the franchise/transition tag is reserved for Jimmy G....

 

[PatriotsPimp136]

I know, and it's stupid that he is. This is a big screw up by Bill.

Cooks will add another dimension to this offense but they could have gone after other wrs. I thought kendall wright would have fit in this offense. He signed with rhe bears.

 

[Marqui]

why?

Because they paid the market rate for Cooks. Saints should not get a discount on Butler because of that completely unrelated trade.

 

[mosslost]

I wonder if the franchise/transition tag is reserved for Jimmy G....

we can't because Bill may have already committed him to the Saints

 

[jrfitz06]

Its part 2 of the Cooks deal if it happens.. Butler for Cooks is the real deal

If that was the case they would have just waited to get all of their ducks in a row and done it all in that one deal. I know cooks is scheduled for a 800k roster bonus but in the grand scheme of everything is 800k of dead cap more important than knowing that your gonna end up with what you want instead of hoping that BB will keep his word I DON'T THINK SO while they are friends they are also opponents competing for the same prize and only 1 team can win the Lombardi every year

 

[mosslost]

If that was the case they would have just waited to get all of their ducks in a row and done it all in that one deal. I know cooks is scheduled for a 800k roster bonus but in the grand scheme of everything is 800k of dead cap more important than knowing that your gonna end up with what you want instead of hoping that BB will keep his word I DON'T THINK SO while they are friends they are also opponents competing for the same prize and only 1 team can win the Lombardi every year

Cooks was about to get paid a bonus.. trade needed to happen.

 

[Marqui]

I wonder if the franchise/transition tag is reserved for Jimmy G....

Great, so we're losing an elite CB to pay Jimmy G a ton of money to warm the bench next year and then probably sign with another team the year after.

 

[VOODOOZF]

I highly doubt that is how this scenario will play out.

 

[zoostation]

Great, so we're losing an elite CB to pay Jimmy G a ton of money to warm the bench next year and then probably sign with another team the year after.

I would think if the scenario was true Jimmy would have to be down with it in advance. If not it would be an epic phuck up and the Pats don't do that often.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Article 9, Section 3 of the CBA...

I bet that's only going to come into play if the player alleges he was screwed out something by some hanky-panky between clubs or if the NFLPA doesn't like something about it.

If the player is happy with the deal it would be very odd for the NFLPA to refuse to agree to the trade unless there was something really weird about the trade that would set a precedent for screwing players in general.

 

[Joey007]

Not what I'm talking about - I've seen it posted twice here that top corners are worth more than top receivers, not team specific comments, just in general.

I get what you mean in terms of what what money each position makes in the market. And a WR simply makes a bit more in terms of value.

If I'm building a team, though, I'm taking a top CB before a top WR. I've seen us win too many SB's without a top market WR.

 

[50-yard-line]

I get what you mean in terms of what what money each position makes in the market. And a WR simply makes a bit more in terms of value.

If I'm building a team, though, I'm taking a top CB before a top WR. I've seen us win too many SB's without a top market WR.

Yeah, but a lot of that is the system and Brady. I see the positions fairly equally.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

1. I don't think that rule was violated in the Welker deal and it would not be here as well. If you disagree, please specify the violation. Which clause?
Since no tender has been signed, there is no issue with right of first refusal. The issue it seems would be with the right to submit an offer sheet. But we would welcome their offer sheet and are doing nothing to prevent NO from submitting one. I think the conditions here are not restricted by the CBA.

2. The claim I responded to was that the Welker deal was okay because of the level of compensation, but this is a different issue and there is nothing in the rule about the legality being dependent on level of compensation.

1. The same rule I mentioned above, the "consideration" clause. The Patriots' Consideration in that deal was a 7th round pick.
How Patriots grabbed wide receiver Wes Welker from Dolphins - The Boston Globe

It's a gray area as noted -- one the NFL has yet to pursue. The intent is to make sure the player is getting a fair shake in the process. Since that happened in Welker's case, no problem. It appears to be happening in Butler's case too. But this is Roger Goodell we're talking about, with his two favorite targets in sight, and a huge blockbuster trade just happened. Tennessee (for example) might complain that they didn't obtain Cooks because of this arrangement which isn't explicitly allowed.

2. Agree with you here.

 

[XLIX]

Not talking about the CBA - talking about the wink-wink side, which would meant he Pats were negotiating for a player illegally, as Butler had not signed any tender (so the Pats could not trade him).

I don't see how that is illegal. As an RFA, any team can contact Butler and express an interest in Butler. I don't think there is any violation in saying "hey, if we were to sign player so-and-so, we could trade him to you for this and that."

Nobody is screwing over Butler or behaving in dishonest manner. It goes without saying that any deal that involves Butler to NO would involve his consent because a deal with NO would have to be in place.

 

[TomPatriot]

I bet that's only going to come into play if the player alleges he was screwed out something by some hanky-panky between clubs or if the NFLPA doesn't like something about it.

If the player is happy with the deal it would be very odd for the NFLPA to refuse to agree to the trade unless there was something really weird about the trade that would set a precedent for screwing players in general.

You're right but I think Hammer was contemplating what Goodell might do on his own or as mouthpiece for the other 30 owners.

 

[Joey007]

Yeah, but a lot of that is the system and Brady. I see the positions fairly equally.

Look at other teams that won it all though i.e. 12 Ravens and 13 Seahawks. Neither had top market guys.

 

[50-yard-line]

I don't see how that is illegal. As an RFA, any team can contact Butler and express an interest in Butler. I don't think there is any violation in saying "hey, if we were to sign player so-and-so, we could trade him to you for this and that."

Nobody is screwing over Butler or behaving in dishonest manner. It goes without saying that any deal that involves Butler to NO would involve his consent because a deal with NO would have to be in place.

See Hammer's point above about other teams that were trying to trade for Cooks.

 

[TommyD4207]

Ryan is in Tennessee.
Sheard (down year still solid player) went to Indy.
Hightower looks like he's set on leaving New England and Butler is packing his bags to move to New Orleans.

But Pats added Gilmore!

I don't see how - in any capacity - fbis defense is better than last years. And I personally didn't think last year's was all that great.

Gilmore is not better than butler in my eyes. At best, he's similar in skill as a player. They still haven't made up for the loss at CB2. Combined with Brady turnin 40 I don't like the direction Bill is taking.

You're right, they suck. Sell me your tickets.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

See Hammer's point above about other teams that were trying to trade for Cooks.

But the quoted rule was all about "consideration" being involved to induce a team to offer or not offer a sheet to a RFA.