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

[XLIX]

I'm not selling anything I am providing you information.

There was an article recently relating when peppers was an RFA who had not signed a tender and BB was asked about if he was trying to trade for him. BB was adamant that you cannot discuss trading a player who is not under contract, end of story. He made it clear he won't be doing that behind the scenes as it is wholly against the rules.

Lombardi tweeted it today.

I'm sure you can find both with a google search.

Like I said, I just don't buy it. I am not talking about what the rules officially say, I am talking about the reality of 2 teams dealing with each other (such as what happened in the Welker deal).

So yeah, sure... any public statement from Belichick will be "we don't do that; it's not allowed." In reality, though? It would be incredibly foolhardy to think Butler's name did not come up in negotiations with the Saints at anytime over the past few weeks.

 

[Ring 6]

By the way this is not anything like the walker deal. The patriots signed wallet to an offer sheet. THEN in order to pursuade the dolphins not to match they offered a 7 in addition to the tender cost of a 2.
They did not negotiate a trade they signed the player to an offer sheet then upped to price to prevent them from matching.

Translated to this situation the saints would sign the offer sheet and give up their 11. There would be no reason for the patriots to take less.

Anyone taking about a trade here doesn't understand the way this works.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

So what? Do I keep my "The Butler Did It" T-Shirt? Sell? Trade? What happens to its value if we trade him?

 

[XLIX]

I don't believe that is the case but could be wrong
Do you have a link to back this up?

I'm sorry, did you honestly just ask for a link to support the fact that a player under contract with 1 team is forbidden from negotiating with other teams?

 

[Ring 6]

Like I said, I just don't buy it. I am not talking about what the rules officially say, I am talking about the reality of 2 teams dealing with each other (such as what happened in the Welker deal).

So you think BB will blatantly and obviously violate a rule?

This is NOT what happened with walker at all.
I don't care whether you want to believe or be wrong that's your choice.

So yeah, sure... any public statement from Belichick will be "we don't do that; it's not allowed." In reality, though? It would be incredibly foolhardy to think Butler's name did not come up in negotiations with the Saints at anytime over the past few weeks.

It's never been done before.
It would be incredibly foolhardy to think that BB would blatantly violate a rule and subject himself to further screwing by the league.
There is no gray area here. You simply cannot do it.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm sorry, did you honestly just ask for a link to support the fact that a player under contract with 1 team is forbidden from negotiating with other teams?

No I asked for a link saying an RFA is no longer an RFA when he signs the tender. Try to read before bloviating.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

By the way this is not anything like the walker deal. The patriots signed wallet to an offer sheet. THEN in order to pursuade the dolphins not to match they offered a 7 in addition to the tender cost of a 2.
They did not negotiate a trade they signed the player to an offer sheet then upped to price to prevent them from matching.

Translated to this situation the saints would sign the offer sheet and give up their 11. There would be no reason for the patriots to take less.

Anyone taking about a trade here doesn't understand the way this works.

You're right. You don't understand how it works. Welker went to NE via trade, not an unmatched offer sheet. NE developed a poison-pill offer to Welker. I don't recall if Welker signed it and then he and NE mutually revoked it, or if it was never signed but he told Miami he was going to sign it. In any event, to both reduce any bad blood with Miami and to eliminate any chance of any team or NFLPA grievance holding up the transaction NE decided to abandon the offer sheet route, throw in a 7th rounder, and the whole thing went into the books as a trade of Welker to NE for a 2nd and 7th.

 

[XLIX]

So you think BB will blatantly and obviously violate a rule?

No, he won't blatantly and obviously violate a rule. He will do it in private, with one other party, and in such a way that it is all hypothetical and no wrongdoing could be demonstrated.

Let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe that ALL these reports are wrong, and the Saints and Patriots have had absolutely ZERO conversations with each other about Malcolm Butler? That the topic never came up at all, and not one single word was exchanged regarding Butler?

 

[XLIX]

No I asked for a link saying an RFA is no longer an RFA when he signs the tender. Try to read before bloviating.

So you're asking for a link which proves that a free agent is no longer a free agent once he signs a 1-year, fully guaranteed contract with his original team.

That's an even more moronic question than the one I gave you credit for asking.

 

[TomPatriot]

They aren't haggling because you are not allowed to discuss trading a player who is not under contract.

If the butler signs the tender then gets immediately traded to the saints goodell will take away our entire 2018 draft for clearly and blatantly violating the rules.

This has to be rooted in a CBA clause unless it is in a NFLGC memo. Where is the clause in the CBA that says discussing the trade of an RFA who has been tendered a contract and consents to the trade discussion is nevertheless prohibited?

 

[Ring 6]

You're right. You don't understand how it works. Welker went to NE via trade, not an unmatched offer sheet. NE developed a poison-pill offer to Welker. I don't recall if Welker signed it and then he and NE mutually revoked it, or if it was never signed but he told Miami he was going to sign it. In any event, to both reduce any bad blood with Miami and to eliminate any chance of any team or NFLPA grievance holding up the transaction NE decided to abandon the offer sheet route, throw in a 7th rounder, and the whole thing went into the books as a trade of Welker to NE for a 2nd and 7th.

Welker had to sign his tender before there could be any discussions. That is a fact and a rule.
Butler has not signed his tender.

 

[Ring 6]

This has to be rooted in a CBA clause unless it is in a NFLGC memo. Where is the clause in the CBA that says discussing the trade of an RFA who has been tendered a contract and consents to the trade discussion is nevertheless prohibited?

I am basing this on bill belichick and mike Lombardi saying so not a personal study of the cba.
I trust they know it better than I or you or anyone on this board. (With apologies to Miguel who probably knows it better than Lombardi )

 

[scott99]

No I asked for a link saying an RFA is no longer an RFA when he signs the tender. Try to read before bloviating.

Stephen A Smith, is that you ?

 

[Ring 6]

No, he won't blatantly and obviously violate a rule. He will do it in private, with one other party, and in such a way that it is all hypothetical and no wrongdoing could be demonstrated.

It would be obvious at the point butler stops negotiating with NO signs the tender them gets traded.
BB is not going to break the rule. End of story.

[quoye]Let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe that ALL these reports are wrong, and the Saints and Patriots have had absolutely ZERO conversations with each other about Malcolm Butler? That the topic never came up at all, and not one single word was exchanged regarding Butler?[/QUOTE]
It cannot be.
I'm not sure what you are looking for here. There is a role that you cannot discuss trading a player who is not under contract. BB has been quoted as adamant that this rule must be followed. You want to conclude he cheated because you would. This is just ignorant.

 

[XLIX]

This has to be rooted in a CBA clause unless it is in a NFLGC memo. Where is the clause in the CBA that says discussing the trade of an RFA who has been tendered a contract and consents to the trade discussion is nevertheless prohibited?

The only thing the CBA requires in good faith negotiation. "Good faith" is a very broad term, and the player can file a grievance if he thinks he is being treated unfairly. In this case, it is clear Butler has no problem with NE discussing a trade with NO.

Here is the relevant passage from the CBA (with emphasis added my me):

Section 8. Good Faith Negotiation:
(a) In addition to complying with specific provisions in this Agreement, any Club, any player, and any player agent or contract advisor engaged in negotiations for a Player Contract (including any Club extending, and any player receiving, a Required Tender) is under an obligation to negotiate in good faith. (b) A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season. It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount. The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract or this Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or trade is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract or this Agreement.

 

[Ring 6]

So you're asking for a link which proves that a free agent is no longer a free agent once he signs a 1-year, fully guaranteed contract with his original team.

That's an even more moronic question than the one I gave you credit for asking.

Then it should be pretty easy for you to prove that RFA ends when you sign the tender. Perhaps you could actually prove you are right instead of your normal routine of telling everyone you are right because you know you are and being as arrogant as you are how could you be wrong.

 

[XLIX]

I'm not sure what you are looking for here. There is a role that you cannot discuss trading a player who is not under contract. BB has been quoted as adamant that this rule must be followed. You want to conclude he cheated because you would. This is just ignorant.

So you're right and pretty much every single member of the Boston, New Orleans and national media are wrong when they say that NE and NO have had talks involving Butler.

ohhhhhh kaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

 

[Ring 6]

The only thing the CBA requires in good faith negotiation. "Good faith" is a very broad term, and the player can file a grievance if he thinks he is being treated unfairly. In this case, it is clear Butler has no problem with NE discussing a trade with NO.

Here is the relevant passage from the CBA (with emphasis added my me):

Section 8. Good Faith Negotiation:
(a) In addition to complying with specific provisions in this Agreement, any Club, any player, and any player agent or contract advisor engaged in negotiations for a Player Contract (including any Club extending, and any player receiving, a Required Tender) is under an obligation to negotiate in good faith. (b) A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season. It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount. The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract or this Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or trade is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract or this Agreement.

That isn't even close to right section.

 

[XLIX]

Then it should be pretty easy for you to prove that RFA ends when you sign the tender. Perhaps you could actually prove you are right instead of your normal routine of telling everyone you are right because you know you are and being as arrogant as you are how could you be wrong.

Now now... no need to be all butthurt... it's not my fault you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

You made a statement. I corrected you. You should thank me for doing you a favor and teaching you something you were wrong about.

 

[Ring 6]

So you're right and pretty much every single member of the Boston, New Orleans and national media are wrong when they say that NE and NO have had talks involving Butler.

ohhhhhh kaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

I have not seen every single member of the media say they have had talks about butler. I have seen a few speculate. Please show me the ones that confirm this has happened.