Patriots Rumor Butler & Saints working towards finalizing a deal (Thread now UFC Pats Fans Event)

[Danger Zone]

Utterly delusional. He's a slightly above average cb.

This might be one of those times you should ask yourself "Why is my opinion sooo much in the minority, like Robert Parker kind of minority."

If you want to argue Butler isn't top ten, I have would kind of see where you are coming from. This though? Not so much.

 

[supafly]

Lombardi is a Bleichick mouthpiece so...

That would explain why he's still around to tell these tales.

 

[patfanken]

Interesting last couple of pages:

1. Question: If the Saints sign Butler to an offer sheet that gives him anyting close to a market type deal ($11MM+/yr), they will need to back load it and give him a big ($10MM+) signing bonus to make it work, and the Pats get their pick at #11, which is too much by all accounts.

So the only way to do this is through a sign and trade. The Pats give Butler the Saints deal with Butler and then TRADE that contract along with the player to the Saints for the agreed upon compensation. I think we all agree with that.

Here's the rub and my question (finally) If its true that in order for the deal to work there would have to be a big signing bonus. WOULD the Pats be contractually reponsible to play that bonus??? It is my understanding that when a team trades a player all the up front money stays with the original team. So in this case the Pats not only lose the player, they still get charged the $11MM+ signing bonus.

So in the end the deal would essentially be the Pats wind up with the 32nd pick, Cooks, AND a $11+MM cap charge, in exchange for Butler. If those are the rules, I can't see that deal happening.

2. I think Lombardi's podcast is being vastly taken out of context. IMO, he was trying to say that if he were the Saints, he wouldn't be trying for Butler because he really doesn't fit what the Saints are trying to do on defense, which is emulate the Seattle/Atlanta defense, which relies on a great front seven and big CB's. The point was that Sherman is more of what they should be looking for, and given Seattle's cap issues, might be easier to get. He also pointed out that if they simply keep the picks they would likely be able to get exactly what they DO need in the draft this season without giving up picks or pay market prices.

Of course now the narrative is going to be that "Lombardi thinks the Saints should trade for Sherman" or "Sherman on the trading block, according to Lombardi". I know I didn't hear that.

3. Someone pointed this out earlier, but it bears repeating. The NFCS is literally the land of the giant WR's, which is exactly the wrong environment to put a CB with Butler's size and skills. Which brings into question why the Saints would want him that badly AND why Butler would want to go there?????? They can't be looking to pay this high a price just to get a slot CB?

4. I think that a fitting result to a thread that is 15 pages long with over 300 posts is the depressing fact that we know nothing more than we did when it started.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This might be one of those times you should ask yourself "Why is my opinion sooo much in the minority, like Robert Parker kind of minority."

If you want to argue Butler isn't top ten, I have would kind of see where you are coming from. This though? Not so much.

I just jumped into this thread, but I'd suggest you just stop arguing with whoever called Butler a slightly better than average QB. Use the old adage: you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into to begin with.

Anyone who thinks Butler is not a very good, or even great CB, clearly is not going to change their mind...or if they do, electroshock therapy may be a more effective solution than rational discourse.

I'm sure Hightower would have been an overrated injury waiting to happen had he signed elsewhere, too, but now that he's back, he is the top ILB in football!

 

[MainePatsFan26]

This guy....

Bill Belichick: What did you do for me lately?

Let's not become the mid-90s Cowboys and start overpaying players for what they've done rather than what they'll do.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Interesting last couple of pages:

1. Question: If the Saints sign Butler to an offer sheet that gives him anyting close to a market type deal ($11MM+/yr), they will need to back load it and give him a big ($10MM+) signing bonus to make it work, and the Pats get their pick at #11, which is too much by all accounts.

So the only way to do this is through a sign and trade. The Pats give Butler the Saints deal with Butler and then TRADE that contract along with the player to the Saints for the agreed upon compensation. I think we all agree with that.

Here's the rub and my question (finally) If its true that in order for the deal to work there would have to be a big signing bonus. WOULD the Pats be contractually reponsible to play that bonus??? It is my understanding that when a team trades a player all the up front money stays with the original team. So in this case the Pats not only lose the player, they still get charged the $11MM+ signing bonus.

So in the end the deal would essentially be the Pats wind up with the 32nd pick, Cooks, AND a $11+MM cap charge, in exchange for Butler. If those are the rules, I can't see that deal happening.

2. I think Lombardi's podcast is being vastly taken out of context. IMO, he was trying to say that if he were the Saints, he wouldn't be trying for Butler because he really doesn't fit what the Saints are trying to do on defense, which is emulate the Seattle/Atlanta defense, which relies on a great front seven and big CB's. The point was that Sherman is more of what they should be looking for, and given Seattle's cap issues, might be easier to get. He also pointed out that if they simply keep the picks they would likely be able to get exactly what they DO need in the draft this season without giving up picks or pay market prices.

Of course now the narrative is going to be that "Lombardi thinks the Saints should trade for Sherman" or "Sherman on the trading block, according to Lombardi". I know I didn't hear that.

3. Someone pointed this out earlier, but it bears repeating. The NFCS is literally the land of the giant WR's, which is exactly the wrong environment to put a CB with Butler's size and skills. Which brings into question why the Saints would want him that badly AND why Butler would want to go there?????? They can't be looking to pay this high a price just to get a slot CB?

4. I think that a fitting result to a thread that is 15 pages long with over 300 posts is the depressing fact that we know nothing more than we did when it started.

Excellent question about the signing bonus. Since teams have been able to work through these situations in the past, I am quite certain that there is a sure fire way to put all of that signing bonus on the Saints, rightfully so. How that would be carried out I personally don't know for sure. It may be that the Patriots trade Butler to the Saints before an official long-term deal is signed, Butler then signs the contract with the Saints, rather than having the Patriots handle the contract before trading him.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I get that players want respect and that, even when talking about a $10M versus $12M contract, that is a lot of money, even if it seems like a relatively small difference in comparison to both deals.

Still, Butler is being given the opportunity to be set for life. For a guy who worked at Popeye's three years ago, he sets himself up as a potential poster child for a greedily athlete, whether that reputation is deserved or not. Most RFAs are not even offered any type of long-term extension, and two teams have now expressed interest at one point but both reasonably have required him to take a discount considering his contract and status as a non UFA. Many guys have gladly taken the money, and I don't think they regret taking a certain $20-30 million deal and regret not holding out another year for $35 million.

Just saying, if he rejects the Saints offer and insists (stubbornly) on getting UFA money a year before he is traditionally entitled to it, and he suffers a major injury, that would be some story for a guy who made $8 an hour at Popeyes who was not satisfied with a tremendous sum of money and ended up back in the financial rat race of most of society. He has made some good money now, but how could he look back at himself, should he suffer a major injury, and badly regret how greedy he was in hindsight?

Take the offer, Malcolm. You've earned it. Don't play with fire and embrace your opportunity for an early pay day. Invest your money wisely and there will be no difference in your lifestyle till death do you part.

 

[patfanken]

Excellent question about the signing bonus. Since teams have been able to work through these situations in the past, I am quite certain that there is a sure fire way to put all of that signing bonus on the Saints, rightfully so. How that would be carried out I personally don't know for sure. It may be that the Patriots trade Butler to the Saints before an official long-term deal is signed, Butler then signs the contract with the Saints, rather than having the Patriots handle the contract before trading him.

Actually it just occured to me that my issue could be easily resolved by making the Bonus payable after the trade. ie bonus is payable 4/1/17. That would make sure no money changed hands until AFTER the trade was consumated.

I could have saved myself a lot of time if I had just thought of that a half hour ago. (AND my post would have been a lot shorter. )

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Actually it just occured to me that my issue could be easily resolved by making the Bonus payable after the trade. ie bonus is payable 4/1/17. That would make sure no money changed hands until AFTER the trade was consumated.

I could have saved myself a lot of time if I had just thought of that a half hour ago. (AND my post would have been a lot shorter. )

That would mesh with the idea that the trade has been described as complicated and a Patriots source urged "patience" when asked about a timeframe.

 

[jah]

Its not like we had consecutive 6-10 seasons...

I think we would have been better with Talib over Revis, too. It's true that since 2013, NE has won half the Super Bowls, and perhaps 2 players wouldn't have increased that number, but the team may have been better, which is never a bad thing and could have been the difference one of those years the Broncos (where both players ended up) knocked us out.

Would have been nice if he at least stayed in Kansas City. I wouldn't change anything since we brought two Lombardis home but, Sanders is a literally perfect fit for everything we do.

He actually started in Pittsburgh, which is better than Denver, but I don't want to see them winning anything either. Although it seemed like they had no idea how to use him whatsoever.

Edelman wouldn't be on the team.

Not necessarily. Sanders signed for 5M/year with Denver originally. Not at all hard to move money around for that (perhaps not even necessary). Amendola has been clutch but I might just have preferred a legit #1 for that contract. I think, though, that if Sanders signed here, he'd already be gone elsewhere for a big contract.

 

[50-yard-line]

3. Someone pointed this out earlier, but it bears repeating. The NFCS is literally the land of the giant WR's, which is exactly the wrong environment to put a CB with Butler's size and skills.

Oh, and look! The Patriots happen to be playing the NFCS this year and will line up Rowe and Gilmore at outside CB...

Funny how it always seems to work out that way.

 

[luuked]

I'm not saying that he doesn't have insider sources, but it seems like he makes a lot of noise about the inner workings of the organization just about every single week.

It's not just that he has insider sources all around the league but he is actually one of the most insightful media talking heads out there. Most people judge him on headlines alone but if you actually listen to his iviews/podcast appearances you actually always learn something about whatever topic they discuss. Whether it's locker room related stuff, what to look out when drafting specific positions, the tendencies of how specific teams approach FA or some other historical anecdotes.

 

[luuked]

Actually it just occured to me that my issue could be easily resolved by making the Bonus payable after the trade. ie bonus is payable 4/1/17. That would make sure no money changed hands until AFTER the trade was consumated.

I could have saved myself a lot of time if I had just thought of that a half hour ago. (AND my post would have been a lot shorter. )

To be fair I don't understand your entire question. Butler wouldn't sign an extension with the Saints until after his rights are traded to them so the Pats would have to do zilch with anything that comes with that new contract.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Butler's agent shouldn't settle for anything less than what Gilmore received.

Which he would get next year in free agency.

Not sure what they are negoating about right now. It's all about that guaranteed $$$ . Gilmore got $40m and Boyue got $26m. He should be shooting for somewhere in between.

I think we would have been better with Talib over Revis, too. It's true that since 2013, NE has won half the Super Bowls, and perhaps 2 players wouldn't have increased that number, but the team may have been better, which is never a bad thing and could have been the difference one of those years the Broncos (where both players ended up) knocked us out.



He actually started in Pittsburgh, which is better than Denver, but I don't want to see them winning anything either. Although it seemed like they had no idea how to use him whatsoever.



Not necessarily. Sanders signed for 5M/year with Denver originally. Not at all hard to move money around for that (perhaps not even necessary). Amendola has been clutch but I might just have preferred a legit #1 for that contract. I think, though, that if Sanders signed here, he'd already be gone elsewhere for a big contract.

Talib over Revis in 2014? Kinda splitting hairs friend.

 

[KCSVEN]

To be fair I don't understand your entire question. Butler wouldn't sign an extension with the Saints until after his rights are traded to them so the Pats would have to do zilch with anything that comes with that new contract.

That is correct Butler would just sign the tender, get traded and then sign a new deal, the tender has no dead money associated with it.

 

[DarrylS]

The umpteenth thread speculating about Butler.. whole lot of drama, that all could have been avoided if Butler had a competent agent instead of an ambulance chaser from Alabama..

Somebody knew a guy, and that guy aka "the agent" is an idiot to have let this whole mess gotten this far..

Two days of negotiation and no deal, something is quite odd about this whole mess.. if the Saints wanted him that bad, he probably would not have left the building yesterday without a contract.

 

[jah]

The

Talib over Revis in 2014? Kinda splitting hairs friend.

Well, yeah. I'm perfectly fine with how things turned out but I think there's always room for improvement and there's no harm in pointing it out. Perhaps I could be using my time better. Won't argue that.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Interesting last couple of pages:
So the only way to do this is through a sign and trade. The Pats give Butler the Saints deal with Butler and then TRADE that contract along with the player to the Saints for the agreed upon compensation. I think we all agree with that.

Here's the rub and my question (finally) If its true that in order for the deal to work there would have to be a big signing bonus. WOULD the Pats be contractually reponsible to play that bonus??? It is my understanding that when a team trades a player all the up front money stays with the original team. So in this case the Pats not only lose the player, they still get charged the $11MM+ signing bonus

It has to be a sign & trade but it doesn't have to that way. Several reasons.

1. NE does not have to sign Butler to the deal he worked out with NO. Butler can sign NE's tender offer, be traded, and then he and NO can tear up the contract and sign the deal they previously arranged.
2. Even if they go the "NE signs Butler to contract worked out with NO" they can write the contract so Butler is not entitled to the bonus until, say, a week after signing. Since NE will immediately trade Butler to NO after signing the bonus will go on NO's books.

If for some reason NE really is stuck with paying a signing bonus, I don't see there's any way NE will do any trade if the signing bonus is anything like what you're wondering about.

 

[Froob]

I think we would have been better with Talib over Revis, too. It's true that since 2013, NE has won half the Super Bowls, and perhaps 2 players wouldn't have increased that number, but the team may have been better, which is never a bad thing and could have been the difference one of those years the Broncos (where both players ended up) knocked us out.



He actually started in Pittsburgh, which is better than Denver, but I don't want to see them winning anything either. Although it seemed like they had no idea how to use him whatsoever.



Not necessarily. Sanders signed for 5M/year with Denver originally. Not at all hard to move money around for that (perhaps not even necessary). Amendola has been clutch but I might just have preferred a legit #1 for that contract. I think, though, that if Sanders signed here, he'd already be gone elsewhere for a big contract.

He had a verbal agreement with KC that he backed out of.

Emmanuel Sanders' agent blasted for negotiating tactics in signing with Broncos

 

[Ring 6]

He was very, very right about the Collins trade. He was one of the first to say Jimmy G would very likely not be traded.

Has been right about a lot of things. He's been right way more than he's been wrong since going the media route.

I don't remember him calling the Collins trade.
No one is right about Jimmy g yet. And Lombardi was talking comp before schefter was the first to say he wasn't being traded.