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

[Edelmania]

Flowers is a 8-12 sack per year guy and Ealy has a ceiling of a 10-12 sack per year guy. I would say both are good edge rushers. We just need backups for depth

Oh I completely agree but you need more than 2 edge guys, we usually have at least 4 and I dont know if you can rely on 3 round or later picks.

 

[Ring 6]

Thank you. This is helpful.

But that could easily be interpreted to refer to salary restructuring. In other words, Butler signs the tender at $3.9m, and BB then says, ok, now that you're our property, we need you to restructure your contract - and do it in a way that lowers Butler's salary.

The reason I say this is because if it was about that team wanting, in good faith, to EMPLOY that player, then the article would simply read, "[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". The fact that it includes the financial clause, "at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season", indicates that the emphasis on this rule is about the financial renumeration, not the team employing him.

EDIT: But I agree that there's a good chance that if the Saints and Patriots - two teams that Goodell has come down hard on recently - were talking about a trade, and Goodell found out, that Goodell probably would hammer them in violation of this rule, even if this rule was written for the financial piece and not the "employment" piece. So I could see BB being extra careful here.

I disagree that this is about RFA rules. It is about players not under contract and RFAs are a subset of that. The rule applies to all players so the citation is not the correct one.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Denver paid a big contract to sign th ward as a FA safety.

This has already been covered, with an outpouring of disagreement. Ward is an SS who is essentially a run stopper, dump pass stuffer, cheap shot artist, someone who throws glasses of alcohol at women, a POS, and a guy who flexes his muscles after his 15-yard unsportsmanlike penalty was the final dagger in his team's 2016 season.

What Ward is not is a player who can actually cover wide receivers, tight ends, or anyone who actually runs routes downfield. Chung is a better cover SS.

When we talk about a prototypical SS, like Ward, it kind of misses the whole point. Ward will certainly not be helping cornerbacks in coverage, especially over the top. McCourty is that guy.

 

[Ring 6]

This has already been covered, with an outpouring of disagreement. Ward is an SS who is essentially a run stopper, dump pass stuffer, cheap shot artist, someone who throws glasses of alcohol at women, a POS, and a guy who flexes his muscles after his 15-yard unsportsmanlike penalty was the final dagger in his team's 2016 season.

What Ward is not is a player who can actually cover wide receivers, tight ends, or anyone who actually runs routes downfield. Chung is a better cover SS.

When we talk about a prototypical SS, like Ward, it kind of misses the whole point. Ward will certainly not be helping cornerbacks in coverage, especially over the top. McCourty is that guy.

So spending on the secondary only counts when you say it does?
This has gotten ridiculous. You made an argument that is wrong. There is no sense in burying yourself deeper and deeper into it.

 

[Plunkett2Vataha]

Ithink @Plunkett2Vataha Had some very good insights into what the fan base is thinking,

Anthony has not played mentally to the physical level that he is capable of. This couple be a couching problem in my view. You don't suck this long if the coaching is even mediocre. We have a defensive coaching problem, and should have gotten phillips years ago when I said,


If as some keep saying , on and on, there is no legal wiggle room, and any other trade possibilities are impossible, and this is a strait #11 high priced deal for a eltite nice guy CB at 27. Then I say there is no way MB would have been asked to come to NO. There seems to be alot of CBA lawyers in the thread lol, and much smarter than SP and BB with their Team of lawyers.

Saints cant afford to lose a #11 with this draft, and maybe not even #32. Im sure SP has told BB this.

SP is desperate to build even a #15 defense. As someone pointed out we lost most of our games by 7pts or less or we'd be 11-5 easy, and that with Brees putting up 30pts a game. The defense is horrible.


For those that dont think SP and BB have a close relationship, Im not sure what to say.




Dont hear BB say personal to much and you can see it.


Im sure SP has talked or ranted about every guy on our roster and SP has BB's ear also. To say they are not friends is ... well.. you fill it in.


A cooks trade for #32 and lose 3 is ok but not that great. Saints could have farmed him for better or just keep him no matter what he thinks, The reports of wanting to be traded were overrated. BB knew about him because he torched your secondary in practice, and Im sure SP told BB how great Cooks is. Hes proved 2 seasons hes in the elite. We have until April 21 to farm him.

So why the move to Pats ? so soon ? I think we could have gotten a lower #1 and not lose a another pick if we sent him to another team.


SP has been a hard ass on deals and BB gives no favors , so I dont think anyone is doing anyone any favors here. But saying they never talked about MB and how to move him is SP wanted him? ... is ... fill in the blank

To say this was not part or they never talked about in the Cooks deal and including MB? ...fill in the blank


Im sorry but they talked about it and what it would take.


Most in NO don't think MB is worth a #11 and its 50/50 if hes even worth #32, because the CB draft is so good, MB is under sized, supported by a good defense that takes the pressure off being a balls out hero, and can he survive against the big WR's in the NFC south in the speed of a Dome ? We don't know. @Plunkett2Vataha is right we have some really cool decision with Pats fans that live here. They are so smart and its been great. For those that get tired of this stuff ..well if your a fan you dont. This will go on until April 21 I think so log off.


This is a very serious move for both teams. Our CAP was bown by godell and loomis trying to keep a team together. Kind of failed.

We need some help in the DS and MB could help us alot. The theory that Pats should always come out on top is not going to work here with SP and BB.


We don't want to take MB from Pats fans because we know the fans really love him there, but we need the help, and giving Pats the #32 back, a losing swap for NO is not really fare because we still lost a draft spot for a player who I think is special and elite but not better than Cooks for a number of reasons.


I think NO has some leeway in this deal though, because I really havent seen BB go after a player like Cooks since Moss this fast. BB knows what Cooks brings to the table and its because of SP and BB's talks.


so to answer your question the long way lol. Yes after the Byrd deal NO fans are very worried about spending CAP for and elite CB that will not pan out. We are worried he cant do it in a Dome. We are not worried that MB is a very smart CB that can make a DS good.


I seem to be pro deal to this I think by most, and Im not. I think we could have gotten more from a team if we farmed cooks, but as soon as SP and BB all other offers shut down, and I think we should keep the #11 and #32 pick because it gives you a better crapshoot chance to get a key defensive player.

But I love MB. Hes a great kid and story and deserves the money. Would be proud to see him come to his hometown in NO and have a great career. Its one of the few places I think he would be truly happy.
As some that dont know I am full on dyslexic so I apologies for grammer some times. but if you think your smarter than BB in this forum I disagree, he knows the rules and they are following them, so the witch hunt is silly.

Wow Pherein. That was quite the well-thought out post. Full of good analysis and good points. You really captured the Butler pros/cons versus the cost in Cap Space and the cost in draft picks. You captured the salary cap mess caused by repeated years of bloated deals to Byrd, Spiller, Browner, and lesser money deals for Kruger and Laurinaitis. To say the least, all were/are deals that have not worked out.

I haven't posted too much on this board since joining a few years ago. I mainly enjoy reading all the insightful thoughts and analysis that Patriots fans put forth, which is ably supplemented with fans of other teams, like you, that come by and make positive, worthwhile contributions that the rest of us enjoy reading and commenting on. Who knows, maybe we'll run into each other one of these days/years and we can have a good chat on football. Just be on the lookout for a grizzled-looking guy sporting a Patriots cap...

 

[The Gr8est]

Wow Pherein. That was quite the well-thought out post. Full of good analysis and good points. You really captured the Butler pros/cons versus the cost in Cap Space and the cost in draft picks. You captured the salary cap mess caused by repeated years of bloated deals to Byrd, Spiller, Browner, and lesser money deals for Kruger and Laurinaitis. To say the least, all were/are deals that have not worked out.

I haven't posted too much on this board since joining a few years ago. I mainly enjoy reading all the insightful thoughts and analysis that Patriots fans put forth, which is ably supplemented with fans of other teams, like you, that come by and make positive, worthwhile contributions that the rest of us enjoy reading and commenting on. Who knows, maybe we'll run into each other one of these days/years and we can have a good chat on football. Just be on the lookout for a grizzled-looking guy sporting a Patriots cap...

Pherein should be easy to spot too.

Now that Mardi Gras is over, there can't be too many pigs in NASA gear in New Orleans.

 

[Huckleberry1]

They past 2 years they were, and they had to elite highly paid CBs. And they won an SB with them.

Whereas the Patriots won two Super Bowls with McCourty and Ryan, two players many here say suck.

 

[jah]

What should a trade for Malcolm Butler look like to you?

I'm just going to leave this here. The Saints fan consensus is that a 3rd for Butler would be fair, or a 2nd and a swap of later picks.

We largely believe receiving the 32 for Butler would be a major ripoff in favor of NO.

If the talks between NE and NO reflect a similar disconnect, Butler sure ain't getting traded there.

 

[ivanvamp]

I disagree that this is about RFA rules. It is about players not under contract and RFAs are a subset of that. The rule applies to all players so the citation is not the correct one.

You might be right. If this isn't about RFAs, then we still don't have the actual rule that forbids coaches from discussing potential trades of RFAs. I still haven't found it. Have you?

 

[SalemPats]

Butler could also not sign the FA tender play for us and then with 3 SBs, probably a couple of all-pro's would be the hottest FA and could choose the best place for him to play.

 

[patfanken]

Here's the thing about "the rules" discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of these so called rules come into play UNLESS there is a triggering complaint from either the Pats for tampering (after he signs his tender) , or Bulter (before signing his tender) feeling his RFA status is being jeopardized or manipulated.

It's like, while deflating footballs is supposedly against the rules, the "NFL" can't do anything about it unless a team files a complaint. (see Steeler/Giants deflategate II) The same here, unless Butler files a complaint, there is nothing to see here and renders the better part of 900+ posts on"RFA rules" moot.

 

[JMC00]

You might be right. If this isn't about RFAs, then we still don't have the actual rule that forbids coaches from discussing potential trades of RFAs. I still haven't found it. Have you?

I've posted it before.It's called "Good Faith Negotiating".

They can't talk trades of a RFA because the NFLPA will make a huge stink about the Patriots not acting in good faith by slapping the RFA tender and blocking Butler from becoming an unrestricted free agent so they could trade him.

 

[ivanvamp]

I've posted it before.It's called "Good Faith Negotiating".

They can't talk trades of a RFA because the NFLPA will make a huge stink about the Patriots not acting in good faith by slapping the RFA tender and blocking Butler from becoming an unrestricted free agent so they could trade him.

Could you post it again please? I didn't see it.

 

[stealthdog]

What should a trade for Malcolm Butler look like to you?

I'm just going to leave this here. The Saints fan consensus is that a 3rd for Butler would be fair, or a 2nd and a swap of later picks.

We largely believe receiving the 32 for Butler would be a major ripoff in favor of NO.

If the talks between NE and NO reflect a similar disconnect, Butler sure ain't getting traded there.

New England gets a 3rd rounder just for letting Butler walk via free agency.

I don't know what the value of Butler should be, but I do know that 1 (or 2) year of Butler + 3rd round pick > 3rd round pick

 

[jah]

New England gets a 3rd rounder just for letting Butler walk via free agency.

I don't know what the value of Butler should be, but I do know that 1 (or 2) year of Butler + 3rd round pick > 3rd round pick

Yeah. I honestly have no idea what these Saints fans are thinking. They're basing it off a comp 3 for Collins, but the situations aren't super comparable and trade value doesn't work that way (markets change). They also don't seem to understand just how good Butler is.

 

[JMC00]

Could you post it again please? I didn't see it.

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

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

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Could you post it again please? I didn't see it.

Article XIV, Section 8(b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement states that

“[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.”

---
In other words, according to the understanding of Bill Belichick, a team can’t apply the franchise tender to a player for purposes other than using that player on their team in the upcoming season, such as to facilitate a trade, to spark a later contract renegotiation, etc.

A team trying to trade the player contingent on a Tender being signed could provide the foundation for an argument that the team doesn’t have a good-faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender.

Once the tender is signed (and thus no longer “extended”), the “good faith intention” requirement evaporates, and the player can be traded.

discussed in this archived Florio article:

BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS

 

[QuantumMechanic]

(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.

I'm quite sure that if they don't trade him the Pats do indeed have a good faith intention to employ Butler in 2017 (as opposed to, say, making him miss unrestricted free agency and then cutting him right before the season starts).

Anyhow, as Florio noted, if teams fear anything on this they fear the NFLPA rather than the NFL. If Butler is happy being traded for NO for whatever deal he works with them it would seem pretty odd for the NFLPA to interfere.

 

[ivanvamp]

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

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

Ok yes I saw you posted this. But Andy brought up the point that this isn't really about RFAs, but more generally about negotiating with players in general. And I already suggested that in the bolded part, the key seems to not be so much about which team is employing the player, but rather that once the contract is negotiated, the club will honor that salary.

The reason I say that is because if it was about the team offering a contract under the premise that it must in good faith plan to employ them, then section (b) would simply say, "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." Period. But it adds the clause, "at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season", implying that the key to this rule is that you are planning on paying the player what you negotiate for.

In other words, there doesn't seem to be an emphasis on where the player plays so much as the correct financial renumeration. My interpretation is further justified by the very next sentence, which says, "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." So the violation has nothing whatsoever to do with WHERE the player plays, but rather how much the team pays him.

I mean, obviously I could be wrong. But I could see BB saying, you know what, the last time I read the NFL rules right up to the line, I got hit with a huge fine and lost a first round draft pick (Spygate), so there's no way I'm going to cut it that close on this one. But that wouldn't necessarily mean his interpretation is the RIGHT one. It could just be him playing it safe, and understandably so.

Long story short, this rule doesn't actually say anything about whether a team can discuss the potential trade of a free agent, should that free agent sign with the team. It literally says nothing about that whatsoever.

 

[XLIX]

Article XIV, Section 8(b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement states that

“[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.”

---
In other words, according to the understanding of Bill Belichick, a team can’t apply the franchise tender to a player for purposes other than using that player on their team in the upcoming season, such as to facilitate a trade, to spark a later contract renegotiation, etc.

A team trying to trade the player contingent on a Tender being signed could provide the foundation for an argument that the team doesn’t have a good-faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender.

Once the tender is signed (and thus no longer “extended”), the “good faith intention” requirement evaporates, and the player can be traded.

discussed in this archived Florio article:

BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS

The clause means the team cannot restrict the player from free agency by tendering the player with the intent of withdrawing it or otherwise being dishonest in their intent.

The Patriots are indeed acting in good faith here. They aren't tendering Butler with the plan to cut him if they can't work out a trade. If they can't work out a deal with any team, they will certainly be keeping him at the $3.9M number.