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

[SalemPats]

I don't see NO's giving up their 12th pick and giving Butler a huge contract when they are up against the cap. My guess is that Butler signs the tender is a Patriot next year and then either re-signs a good deal with us or makes insane money as unrestricted FA.

 

[50-yard-line]

One thing here: the two arguing sides about whether or not the pats "talked" Butler trade or not are really not far apart on the reality. New Orleans would like to bring in Butler and the three parties will try to make it happen - I think everyone agrees on that.

The disagreement comes down to whether or not there was wink-wink, and that, too, would depend on how you view it. For example, New Orleans could have explicitly inquired about Butler BEFORE March 3rd, and could remark, "Too bad you don't have Butler under contract" during the Cooks' trade talks. That would be a hint that NO might make a run at him on the RFA, but would not, and could not, have anything to do with the Cooks' trade itself.

Some of the "pretend" conversations here are laughable, though. When you start talking about 7-8 figures, caution rules the day, period. SP and BB might be buddies, but there are other people involved who most certainly are not, and that includes the overseer and sole arbitrator, who has made it clear that neither NO or NE are his favorite children.

Big $$ transactions regarding competing interests simply don't happen like that.

 

[ivanvamp]

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.

Still waiting for the rule that actually says that.

You might be right. You (nor anyone else) has actually produced such a rule.

 

[JMC00]

Can't wait for people to use this as proof that Belichick and Payton are talking trade

 

[signbabybrady]

Can't wait for people to use this as proof that Belichick and Payton are talking trade

He looks closer to Harbaugh. Butler to the Ravens?

 

[fnordcircle]

Man Belichick....wearing those jeans pretty high buddy.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I have a feeling that this thread title will serve as a standing headline for another month or so

 

[patsinthesnow]

The pieces are coming together if the Revis story ends up true.

4 years of a 1st round pick on a rookie deal + 1-2 years of Revis > 1 year of Butler

The trade makes more sense because it wouldn't damage the 2017 team much (provided Revis stays on his diet). Team could arguably be better depending on who we picked at 32.

 

[ivanvamp]

Revis* + Gilmore + rookie stud > Butler + Ryan

*If Revis is healthy, slimmed down, and motivated.

 

[Ring 6]

Still waiting for the rule that actually says that.

You might be right. You (nor anyone else) has actually produced such a rule.

Belichick has.

 

[ivanvamp]

Belichick has.

What rule says it? What rule did he produce?

I've offered a COMPLETELY reasonable interpretation of BB's words - namely, that even if the rule doesn't SAY that he can't talk to another team about a trade of an RFA, given his Spygate experience, he doesn't want to tempt fate and give Goodell a chance to nail him for something that might be borderline.

You have no idea what the rule actually is that forbids it. I've tried finding it. I can't find it. It appears that nobody here can either. The one attempt that someone made to find the rule, simply does not say it at all. It literally says *nothing* about whether a team can talk to another team about a possible trade involving a current RFA. Nothing. And that one rule even explains what would constitute a violation of said rule, and that involves the money side of it, not what team he plays for.

So BB could simply be being VERY cautious, and who could blame him after the utter nonsense he dealt with from Spygate?

That's a very reasonable and possible take on what BB said. Especially since nobody can actually find a rule that actually says you can't discuss a possible trade of an RFA.

*NOTE: There might actually be a rule. I've just never seen it. I've never seen a reporter actually cite it. Nobody here has cited it. If it exists, I just don't know about it, and this is after close to a week of actually looking for it.

 

[Big Bucks]

Are we there yet!?

 

[borg]

Belichick has.

 

[Ring 6]

What rule says it? What rule did he produce?

I've offered a COMPLETELY reasonable interpretation of BB's words - namely, that even if the rule doesn't SAY that he can't talk to another team about a trade of an RFA, given his Spygate experience, he doesn't want to tempt fate and give Goodell a chance to nail him for something that might be borderline.

You have no idea what the rule actually is that forbids it. I've tried finding it. I can't find it. It appears that nobody here can either. The one attempt that someone made to find the rule, simply does not say it at all. It literally says *nothing* about whether a team can talk to another team about a possible trade involving a current RFA. Nothing. And that one rule even explains what would constitute a violation of said rule, and that involves the money side of it, not what team he plays for.

So BB could simply be being VERY cautious, and who could blame him after the utter nonsense he dealt with from Spygate?

That's a very reasonable and possible take on what BB said. Especially since nobody can actually find a rule that actually says you can't discuss a possible trade of an RFA.

*NOTE: There might actually be a rule. I've just never seen it. I've never seen a reporter actually cite it. Nobody here has cited it. If it exists, I just don't know about it, and this is after close to a week of actually looking for it.

Ok this is ridiculous.
Belichick said YOU CAN DISCUSS TRADING A PLAYER WHO IS NOT UNDER CONTRACT.
he made those comments before spygate so that explanation is in fact not reasonable.

He says nothing about being cautious. He actually said THE PANTHERS couldn't discuss trading the player they did not have under contract so how you can turn that into him making that statement because he wants to be cautious and not get in trouble is beyond me.

And once again he did not say you can't talk about trading an RFA he said you can't talk about trading a player who isn't under contract.
You can spend years looking in the RFA guidelines and not find a rule the applies to a larger dynamic.
Where have you looked? It's probably not in the cba. There are many rules that affect teams that are not in the cba.
Again I trust that if BB quotes it the rule exists. You seem to think he is wrong until you see it in writing. If so you will have to look harder or conclude that not finding what he referred to is proof he doesn't know his job.

 

[ivanvamp]

Ok this is ridiculous.
Belichick said YOU CAN DISCUSS TRADING A PLAYER WHO IS NOT UNDER CONTRACT.
he made those comments before spygate so that explanation is in fact not reasonable.

He says nothing about being cautious. He actually said THE PANTHERS couldn't discuss trading the player they did not have under contract so how you can turn that into him making that statement because he wants to be cautious and not get in trouble is beyond me.

And once again he did not say you can't talk about trading an RFA he said you can't talk about trading a player who isn't under contract.
You can spend years looking in the RFA guidelines and not find a rule the applies to a larger dynamic.
Where have you looked? It's probably not in the cba. There are many rules that affect teams that are not in the cba.
Again I trust that if BB quotes it the rule exists. You seem to think he is wrong until you see it in writing. If so you will have to look harder or conclude that not finding what he referred to is proof he doesn't know his job.

Spy gate was in 2007. Belichick made those comments following the 2008 season, Andy.

BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS

"BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS
Posted by Mike Florio on March 19, 2009, 9:51 PM EDT
In a Thursday interview with WEEI radio in Boston, Patriots coach Bill Belichick said that talks have not occurred with the Panthers regarding defensive end Julius Peppers, Carolina’s franchise player.

“There’s no trade talks going on with Carolina,” Belichick said, as transcribed by Gregg Rosenthal of NBCSports.com. “They don’t have a signed contract. They can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed.”

But there’s no rule directly prohibiting trade talks. The prohibition comes in a roundabout way via Article XIV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Specifically, Article XIV, Section 8(b) 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, a team can’t apply the franchise tender to a player solely as a vehicle for trading the player. Thus, evidence that the team is trying to trade the player 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.

The irony here is that plenty of teams have engaged in trade talks regarding franchise players before the franchise players signed their tenders, working out the terms of the transaction with the new team while the new team works out a new contract with the franchise player. Then, once the two agreements are reached, the franchise player signs the tender, signs a new deal, and promptly is traded.

Indeed, the Pats traded safety Tebucky Jones to the Saints nearly six years ago, striking the deal before Jones had signed the franchise tender.

The difference now, as we hear it, is that the teams fear a challenge from the NFLPA, if trade talks occur before the franchise tender is signed.

But is it a realistic concern? The player bearing the franchise tag benefits from trade talks that occur before the tender is signed, since the end result will include a new contract for the franchise player.

In this case, the franchise player wants a new contract and a new team. So, in our view, the union shouldn’t care.

As a result, we’re not sure why the Patriots and/or the Panthers care."

 

[fnordcircle]

Ugh, Amy Schumer memes, really?

 

[SuperStang83]

You guys just need to kiss and make up.

 

[Ring 6]

Spy gate was in 2007. Belichick made those comments following the 2008 season, Andy.

BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS

"BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS
Posted by Mike Florio on March 19, 2009, 9:51 PM EDT
In a Thursday interview with WEEI radio in Boston, Patriots coach Bill Belichick said that talks have not occurred with the Panthers regarding defensive end Julius Peppers, Carolina’s franchise player.

“There’s no trade talks going on with Carolina,” Belichick said, as transcribed by Gregg Rosenthal of NBCSports.com. “They don’t have a signed contract. They can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed.”

But there’s no rule directly prohibiting trade talks. The prohibition comes in a roundabout way via Article XIV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Specifically, Article XIV, Section 8(b) 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, a team can’t apply the franchise tender to a player solely as a vehicle for trading the player. Thus, evidence that the team is trying to trade the player 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.

The irony here is that plenty of teams have engaged in trade talks regarding franchise players before the franchise players signed their tenders, working out the terms of the transaction with the new team while the new team works out a new contract with the franchise player. Then, once the two agreements are reached, the franchise player signs the tender, signs a new deal, and promptly is traded.

Indeed, the Pats traded safety Tebucky Jones to the Saints nearly six years ago, striking the deal before Jones had signed the franchise tender.

The difference now, as we hear it, is that the teams fear a challenge from the NFLPA, if trade talks occur before the franchise tender is signed.

But is it a realistic concern? The player bearing the franchise tag benefits from trade talks that occur before the tender is signed, since the end result will include a new contract for the franchise player.

In this case, the franchise player wants a new contract and a new team. So, in our view, the union shouldn’t care.

As a result, we’re not sure why the Patriots and/or the Panthers care."

Had the year mixed up, it was after but that doesn't change anything.

These examples such as tebucky jones are not proof that TEAMS DISCUSSED TRADES of unsigned players. There is no prohibition against butlers agent shopping his services to any team, finding out that they want him but won't give up the RFA comp pick. That can easily evolve into the agent asking them what they would be willing to give up and then coming back to the team he wants to leave and telling them he was worked out a trade for his client.
This is substantially different than belichick having trade discussions with another team. Teams cannot prevent agents from doing this.
And the agent certainly can bring such a proposal to the team and threaten to not sign the tender unless they agree to take the deal the agent negotiated.
As far as this discussion, where it started and what it had turned into that is a night and day difference because it does not involve belichick breaking the rules.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

There are lots of ways discussions could have happened. Here's another (IMHO) realistic possibility...

NE has put the 1st-round tag on Butler. Negotiations with Butler haven't gone well. NE says to Butler's agent "Look, as we all know, no one has given an offer sheet to a first-round tagged player in 13 years, so it's probably not going to happen now, either. Therefore the odds are that the only way your client will get to play for something other than a 1-yr deal is either for our extension talks to get somewhere or for a sign-and-trade. We'd prefer to extend your client, but if that doesn't work out a sign-and-trade could be a win-win deal for both of us. So why don't you go talk with teams and see if anyone's interested in trading for Malcolm and what they'd offer and get back to us. As a heads-up, make sure to talk to NO. We've had some preliminary feelers with them about trading for one of their WRs so they may be more interested than other teams. And lets keep the ball rolling on extension talks. too, OK?"

 

[ivanvamp]

Had the year mixed up, it was after but that doesn't change anything.

These examples such as tebucky jones are not proof that TEAMS DISCUSSED TRADES of unsigned players. There is no prohibition against butlers agent shopping his services to any team, finding out that they want him but won't give up the RFA comp pick. That can easily evolve into the agent asking them what they would be willing to give up and then coming back to the team he wants to leave and telling them he was worked out a trade for his client.
This is substantially different than belichick having trade discussions with another team. Teams cannot prevent agents from doing this.
And the agent certainly can bring such a proposal to the team and threaten to not sign the tender unless they agree to take the deal the agent negotiated.
As far as this discussion, where it started and what it had turned into that is a night and day difference because it does not involve belichick breaking the rules.