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

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The Chargers traded the DRAFT RIGHTS TO ELI MANNING to the Giants for the DRAFT RIGHTS TO PHILLIP RIVERS.

That is how such in-draft trades involving players are ALWAYS announced.

An unsigned Manning cannot be traded for an unsigned Rivers, but their draft rights can indeed be swapped.

 

[neali]

Except the Chargers actually drafted Eli. There's film. Check it out.

 

[TheBeers]

Crap.. here we go again

 

[ATippett56]

Uhhh. Yes there is, Article 4 Section 8 in the CBA.

(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


Pat have extended a tender offer to Butler.. At this point only thing the Pats can do when it comes to Butler is talk to him about a new deal. Them giving him a tender and then talking to another team about a trade would mean they weren't acting in GOOD FAITH INTENTION TO EMPLOY him this season. Which would be a violation of Arictle 4 Section 8 of the CBA.


Straight from the horse's mouth Bill Belichick

“They don’t have a signed contract. They can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed.”

BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS


BUTLER ISN'T SIGNED.

The New England Patriots extended a qualifying offer to Malcolm Butler. The qualifying offer was a first round tender. The New England Patriots have acted in good faith. Malcolm Butler has refused to sign the tendered offer.

 

[ivanvamp]

The New England Patriots extended a qualifying offer to Malcolm Butler. The qualifying offer was a first round tender. The New England Patriots have acted in good faith. Malcolm Butler has refused to sign the tendered offer.

This is actually a really good point.

Let's say the Patriots really intended for Butler to play for the Patriots in 2017, which is why they offered him an actual contract to play for them. But he doesn't sign it. Time goes by. He doesn't sign it. And he seems to be indicating that he simply is NOT going to sign it. Time goes by and the Patriots are in a position of needing to, you know, actually make definitive plans for 2017. Finally, they lose patience and want to move in a different direction so they start negotiating trade possibilities with clubs who have at least had conversations with Butler during his RFA period, but who weren't willing to sign him to an offer sheet and lose a first round pick.

In this case, could the Patriots reasonably be accused of not acting in good faith when they offered him the tender? The language of this rule seems to imply that the Patriots need only act in good faith WHEN THEY WERE MAKING THE OFFER, but there's no reason to think that this rule binds them for all time, as if circumstances cannot change. I mean let's say that they make this offer and Butler doesn't sign and loses out on a fabulously wealthy UFA opportunity because he's still an RFA, but then he goes off all Aaron Hernandez and the Pats pull the offer. Could they be accused of not acting in good faith?

In other words: Is there a time limit set on "acting in good faith"? Or do you only need to act in good faith *when you offer the tender*?

 

[Dexter]

 

[Marqui]

Common Belichick, make those MFers sign an offer sheet and don't make any BS deal with them.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

Terron Armstead restructures contract

 

[XLIX]

This is actually a really good point.

Let's say the Patriots really intended for Butler to play for the Patriots in 2017, which is why they offered him an actual contract to play for them. But he doesn't sign it. Time goes by. He doesn't sign it. And he seems to be indicating that he simply is NOT going to sign it. Time goes by and the Patriots are in a position of needing to, you know, actually make definitive plans for 2017. Finally, they lose patience and want to move in a different direction so they start negotiating trade possibilities with clubs who have at least had conversations with Butler during his RFA period, but who weren't willing to sign him to an offer sheet and lose a first round pick.

In this case, could the Patriots reasonably be accused of not acting in good faith when they offered him the tender? The language of this rule seems to imply that the Patriots need only act in good faith WHEN THEY WERE MAKING THE OFFER, but there's no reason to think that this rule binds them for all time, as if circumstances cannot change. I mean let's say that they make this offer and Butler doesn't sign and loses out on a fabulously wealthy UFA opportunity because he's still an RFA, but then he goes off all Aaron Hernandez and the Pats pull the offer. Could they be accused of not acting in good faith?

In other words: Is there a time limit set on "acting in good faith"? Or do you only need to act in good faith *when you offer the tender*?

I think you need to act in good faith throughout the whole process, which the Patriots are doing. If no deal is worked out, they have every intention of keeping him at the $3.9M number. They are not restricting his salary or conspiring to artificially restrict it.

If circumstances change dramatically (like, as you say, Butler "goes all Aaron Hernandez" or perhaps more realistically, he suffers some sort of injury) and the Patriots pull the offer, I don't think there's an arbitrator in the world who would rule the Patriots acted in bad faith.

 

[JMC00]

The New England Patriots extended a qualifying offer to Malcolm Butler. The qualifying offer was a first round tender. The New England Patriots have acted in good faith. Malcolm Butler has refused to sign the tendered offer.

This is actually a really good point.

Let's say the Patriots really intended for Butler to play for the Patriots in 2017, which is why they offered him an actual contract to play for them. But he doesn't sign it. Time goes by. He doesn't sign it. And he seems to be indicating that he simply is NOT going to sign it. Time goes by and the Patriots are in a position of needing to, you know, actually make definitive plans for 2017. Finally, they lose patience and want to move in a different direction so they start negotiating trade possibilities with clubs who have at least had conversations with Butler during his RFA period, but who weren't willing to sign him to an offer sheet and lose a first round pick.

In this case, could the Patriots reasonably be accused of not acting in good faith when they offered him the tender? The language of this rule seems to imply that the Patriots need only act in good faith WHEN THEY WERE MAKING THE OFFER, but there's no reason to think that this rule binds them for all time, as if circumstances cannot change. I mean let's say that they make this offer and Butler doesn't sign and loses out on a fabulously wealthy UFA opportunity because he's still an RFA, but then he goes off all Aaron Hernandez and the Pats pull the offer. Could they be accused of not acting in good faith?

In other words: Is there a time limit set on "acting in good faith"? Or do you only need to act in good faith *when you offer the tender*?

ONCE AGAIN. FROM BELICHICK HIMSELF

“There's no trade talks going on with Carolina. They don’t have a signed contract. They can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed.”

BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS


Belichick wouldn't talk trade for an unsigned player 8 years ago, yet people think he's gonna do it now?

Until Butler signs the tender, he's an unsigned player.


Honestly why is it so hard for people to understand this.

 

[TomPatriot]

Terron Armstead restructures contract

I think that gives the Saints about $18m in cap space for 2017. Figuring in other signings and draft choices, I suppose that gets MB to $8-10m?

 

[DaBronxPats14]

I think that gives the Saints about $18m in cap space for 2017. Figuring in other signings and draft choices, I suppose that gets MB to $8-10m?

Sounds good. I was thinking MB would be looking close to 9-10m. I believe 7m was offered last season.

 

[Ring 6]

The New England Patriots extended a qualifying offer to Malcolm Butler. The qualifying offer was a first round tender. The New England Patriots have acted in good faith. Malcolm Butler has refused to sign the tendered offer.

He hasn't refused. He is shopping himself as an RFA. He is not required to sign until the RFA period is over.
If he signs it he relinquishes his restricted free agency.
Acting as if he is doing something wrong by not signing it is totally incorrect.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

So if MB signs his tender - is he now under obligation to play for the pats next season unless he is traded?

 

[Ring 6]

This is actually a really good point.

Let's say the Patriots really intended for Butler to play for the Patriots in 2017, which is why they offered him an actual contract to play for them. But he doesn't sign it. Time goes by. He doesn't sign it. And he seems to be indicating that he simply is NOT going to sign it. Time goes by and the Patriots are in a position of needing to, you know, actually make definitive plans for 2017. Finally, they lose patience and want to move in a different direction so they start negotiating trade possibilities with clubs who have at least had conversations with Butler during his RFA period, but who weren't willing to sign him to an offer sheet and lose a first round pick.

In this case, could the Patriots reasonably be accused of not acting in good faith when they offered him the tender? The language of this rule seems to imply that the Patriots need only act in good faith WHEN THEY WERE MAKING THE OFFER, but there's no reason to think that this rule binds them for all time, as if circumstances cannot change. I mean let's say that they make this offer and Butler doesn't sign and loses out on a fabulously wealthy UFA opportunity because he's still an RFA, but then he goes off all Aaron Hernandez and the Pats pull the offer. Could they be accused of not acting in good faith?

In other words: Is there a time limit set on "acting in good faith"? Or do you only need to act in good faith *when you offer the tender*?

Once you get through all of that you are still left with the fact that you cannot discuss trading a player who is not under contract, RFA or not.

 

[Ring 6]

So if MB signs his tender - is he now under obligation to play for the pats next season unless he is traded?

Correct

 

[Big Bucks]

 

[XLIX]

I think that gives the Saints about $18m in cap space for 2017. Figuring in other signings and draft choices, I suppose that gets MB to $8-10m?

I doubt cap issues are that much of a problem here. A player's first year cap hit is usually pretty low since his first year salary is usually pretty low. The only thing that hits the cap is the pro-rated amount of the signing bonus.

 

[fnordcircle]

Hey dudes, quick question: Can teams talk about trading players who are not under contract? Yes/No?

Maybe some CBA citations if you guys don't mind, thanks! Namaste.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

So if MB signs his tender - is he now under obligation to play for the pats next season unless he is traded?

Yes. Once he signs the tender he is an ordinary, under-contract player with a 1-year deal. Just like any other player with a 1-year deal.