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

[Ring 6]

Do the Saints really invest highly in their offense, or just evaluate talent better? Obviously Brees was a huge FA signing, but who else in recent memory has done well for them?

Cooks - 1st round pick, looked like the exception to my point until they shipped him off
Thomas - 2nd round pick, cheap rookie deal
Colston - 7th round pick
Graham - 3rd round pick, traded when he wanted a payday
Snead - picked up from the scrap heap after washing out with the Browns as a UDFA

That OL is largely homegrown as well, with Armstead developing into a top LT from the 3rd round.

Come to think of it, the biggest contract I remember them handing out to a FA recently was on defense: Byrd. It was just a bad evaluation.

Current cap spending offense 84.7 mill defense 56.7 mill and that includes birds 7.4 mill salary so once his cut is counted in that's roughly 70% more spent on offense.

 

[Ring 6]

That's the key here. The teams are negotiating in good faith. Nobody is seeking to artificially de-value Butler's contract. The Patriots are not tendering him just to keep him in reserve then cut him prior to signing it. They have every intent to keep him for 2017 and pay him that tender amount if no other deal comes into play.

You cannot discuss trading a player who is not under contract. You can make up as many explanations as you want and find as many rules that apply to other things as you want but it doesn't change that.

 

[English Patriot]

It would be the final masterstroke of this offseason if BB got the #11. Of course we would all rather keep Butler but we could pick up serious talent with such a high pick.

Some of the CB's in this draft are absolute studs. And it's no surprise too because the game has evolved around passing to such an extent that DB's at high school level most likely have to play at such an exceptional level that by the time they finish their college careers they're already more pro ready than previous classes ever before just by the nature of playing in this era.

 

[XLIX]

You cannot discuss trading a player who is not under contract. You can make up as many explanations as you want and find as many rules that apply to other things as you want but it doesn't change that.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

But yeah... sure..... you're right and eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody else is wrong about the 2 teams having "unofficial" discussions on this matter.

 

[Ring 6]

It's more than perception when Butler's own team signs the big contract with Gilmore yet doesn't sign it with Butler.


I agree. The longer things draw out, the longer it appears that NO also doesn't see MB as being a game-changing player.

Mike Reiss posted similar thoughts on the time line at 5 AM. (BSPN: New England Patriots)

Also interesting that he writes:


He didn't say no trade can be discussed, he said no trade can be executed.

Just because he didn't say that doesn't mean it's true. Lombardi and belichick have been clear on this rule. I guess people in this board believe they know the rules better than Lombardi and belichick.

 

[Ring 6]

You just can't help yourself, can you?

But yeah... sure..... you're right and eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverybody else is wrong about the 2 teams having "unofficial" discussions on this matter.

Show me someone who has confirmed that discussions have happened. You cannot. But you will keep pretending you can.
You are just a gossipy housewife.

 

[IllegalContact]

Show me someone who has confirmed that discussions have happened. You cannot. But you will keep pretending you can.
You are just a gossipy housewife.

 

[BobDigital]

The Saints would be foolish to give up #11. I'd take it cause the deal is too good to pass up and if they are determined not to sign Butler long term after this year or feel it can't be done.

#32? I'd hang on to Butler.

My fear is what if you trade Butler and don't win the super bowl? Won't you always look back and question it?

 

[IllegalContact]

The Saints would be foolish to give up #11. I'd take it cause the deal is too good to pass up and if they are determined not to sign Butler long term after this year or feel it can't be done.

#32? I'd hang on to Butler.

My fear is what if you trade Butler and don't win the super bowl? Won't you always look back and question it?

I know...but I want Zach Cunningham so I'm holding out hope

 

[XLIX]

Show me someone who has confirmed that discussions have happened. You cannot. But you will keep pretending you can.

I have said several times it is all just speculation.

I know you're still butthurt over the whole RFA thing (where I totally schooled you that signing the tender puts you under contract) but least you could do is not lie about what I have stated. Hey, I guess that's all you have to go with though.... oh well....

 

[XLIX]

Do the Saints really invest highly in their offense, or just evaluate talent better? Obviously Brees was a huge FA signing, but who else in recent memory has done well for them?

I think that's the answer right there. They have a phenomenal QB, they play indoors and their defense stinks. That creates a situation where they have to play catch-up, score a lot of points, and they have a QB who can do those things.

They may not be that good, but they do tend to play very exciting games.

 

[ausbacker]

The Saints would be foolish to give up #11. I'd take it cause the deal is too good to pass up and if they are determined not to sign Butler long term after this year or feel it can't be done.

#32? I'd hang on to Butler.

My fear is what if you trade Butler and don't win the super bowl? Won't you always look back and question it?

The Patriots have already found a replacement for Butler it's more which of Rowe and co. are ready to go as the full time #2.

 

[patchick]

Ya but that's because the Patriots were still negotiating in good faith because they were still giving them the 2nd rounder that Welker was tendered with.

I think you have this one reversed -- it was the Dolphins who were under the "good faith" obligation in the Welker case. They were the ones who tendered him.

You cannot discuss trading a player who is not under contract. You can make up as many explanations as you want and find as many rules that apply to other things as you want but it doesn't change that.

This certainly makes sense in the abstract, but how do we account for the Welker example? The Patriots and Dolphins negotiated a trade for a player who had neither signed his tender nor an offer sheet from the other team.

 

[XLIX]

I think you have this one reversed -- it was the Dolphins who were under the "good faith" obligation in the Welker case. They were the ones who tendered him.

I think the "good faith" clause applies to both teams. If the Patriots and the Dolphins conspired to artificially lower his contract value, then both teams are guilty. For example...

Suppose Miami said to NE "we will match any contract you offer up to $7 million per year". So NE replied "how about we give you an extra draft pick, and you agree not to match our offer of $6 million per year?"

If the 2 teams made such a side deal, then the player would have a solid grievance. I am not sure either club is "more guilty" than the other.

 

[makoute]

The Saints would be foolish to give up #11. I'd take it cause the deal is too good to pass up and if they are determined not to sign Butler long term after this year or feel it can't be done.

#32? I'd hang on to Butler.

My fear is what if you trade Butler and don't win the super bowl? Won't you always look back and question it?

That would depend on how they lost.

 

[patchick]

I think the "good faith" clause applies to both teams. If the Patriots and the Dolphins conspired to artificially lower his contract value, then both teams are guilty.

OK, I think we're talking about different things. Certainly, any negotiation has to be conducted in good faith without conspiring to cheat one of the parties. But when it comes to RFAs, there's an additional CBA obligation:

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.

 

[Ring 6]

I have said several times it is all just speculation.

I know you're still butthurt over the whole RFA thing (where I totally schooled you that signing the tender puts you under contract) but least you could do is not lie about what I have stated. Hey, I guess that's all you have to go with though.... oh well....

Wow. You tell me it had to be happening because eeeeeeeeveryone says so. I call you out on who actually says so and k he's and you say of course no one has because it's only speculation.
Therefore eeeeeeveryone has NOT said it is happening just some people are guessing.
Bill belichick and mike Lombardi have said it iron clad can not. But I'm sure you are right and they are wrong. After all a couple of sportswriter speculated. That has to be proof.

 

[Ivan]

The Saints would be foolish to give up #11. I'd take it cause the deal is too good to pass up and if they are determined not to sign Butler long term after this year or feel it can't be done.

#32? I'd hang on to Butler.

My fear is what if you trade Butler and don't win the super bowl? Won't you always look back and question it?

Agree that the Saints would be foolish to give up #11 but I wouldn't match if they offered Butler a deal. #32 is a tougher call and imo depends upon how they see their current corps of DB's, as well as who they really will be still available at that point in the draft.
If Belichick thinks they can fill in for Butler adequately and get a really good prospect at #32, who they will have under contract for four years, then he could very well pull the trigger on a trade with the Saints.

 

[Ring 6]

OK, I think we're talking about different things. Certainly, any negotiation has to be conducted in good faith without conspiring to cheat one of the parties. But when it comes to RFAs, there's an additional CBA obligation:

But the point at hand is that you cannot discuss trading a pkayer you do not have under contract. RFAs are just one subset that the rule applies to. You don't need to find a separate RFA rule that says you can't discuss trading them because they are part of the larger group of not being under contract that you cannot discuss trading.
Another example would be the patriots discussing trading matt forte to the eagles.

 

[JMC00]

I think you have this one reversed -- it was the Dolphins who were under the "good faith" obligation in the Welker case. They were the ones who tendered him.



This certainly makes sense in the abstract, but how do we account for the Welker example? The Patriots and Dolphins negotiated a trade for a player who had neither signed his tender nor an offer sheet from the other team.

But the point was they still gave them the 2nd round pick, they didn't negotiate out of it. Kraft threw them a 7th round pick because he didn't want any ill feelings about the whole thing

That's the point i'm trying to make, that if NO was gonna give up #11 and give the Pats a 7th round pick nothing would be said because it would still fit the parameters of giving up their 1st round pick to get Butler. But if they are sitting there negotiating a trade for say NO's 2nd and 6th round pick then teams are gonna scream collusion because they were under the impression that to get Butler they needed to give up their 1st round pick, not a 2nd and 6th.