Only some positions that some people have taken.
In 2009 he said that, yes.
Correct. Nobody can find any actual rule that says that a team cannot discuss a possible trade involving a player not under contract. I can't. You can't. Nobody can. It may exist, but nobody has yet produced such a rule.
Nobody in this forum has said that "Belichick doesn't know what he is talking about." Nobody. Please stop the nonsense. I called you out the other day on crap like that and I'm going to do it again. Enough already.
Let me help you then, Andy. I'll do my best.
Malcolm Butler is a restricted free agent to whom the Patriots applied the first round tender. The following possibilities now exist:
(1) Butler can sign the tender and play for the Patriots for $3.9 million in 2017.
(2) Butler can sign the tender for $3.9 million and the Patriots and Butler can promptly renegotiate a contract worth more than that (but not less, per the rule that we keep talking about here), or they can negotiate an extension.
(3) Butler can sign the tender and the Patriots can trade him to another team.
(4) Butler can refuse to sign the tender and sign an offer sheet with another team. If that happens, the Patriots can either match the offer, at which time, Butler plays for the Patriots under the terms of that offer sheet, OR the Patriots can decline to match, at which time Butler becomes the property of that new team under the terms of that offer sheet, and the Patriots get that team's first round draft pick.
Ok, with me so far? Great. This is not controversial - this is all fact. Now, here's where it gets interesting. Butler hasn't signed the tender. So he is still a restricted free agent, which means he can negotiate with other teams. We know that he has negotiated with the Saints. The thing is, apparently the Saints want him, but don't want to give up the #11 pick (their original first rounder) for him. So they'd like to negotiate a trade with the Patriots. However, you cannot actually trade a player that you don't have under contract (he's not your property to trade, after all), so how can the Saints pull this off? Only by negotiating a contract with Butler that both sides approve of, and then make sure that the Patriots trade Butler to them. But, of course, if they are unable to actually discuss this with the Patriots - whether openly or through back channels - the Saints must wait for Butler to sign the tender with the Patriots with no guarantees that he will get traded. After all, if he signs the tender, the Patriots can simply choose to keep him.
Teams and players don't like to be in limbo, and they don't like to sign contracts with uncertainty. So the Saints, naturally, would like to work something out with Butler and the Patriots ahead of time.
So we have all kinds of reports - you've seen them, they've been all over the place - that the Saints, Butler, and the Patriots have been working on a potential deal.
Again, nothing I've said so far is controversial. This is common knowledge. Nobody disputes anything so far. It is what I am about to say that we are having problems with.
Now, those reports that the Saints, Butler, and the Patriots are working on something could be untrue. You are convinced that they are untrue. And you are convinced that they are untrue because Bill Belichick in 2009 once stated that you cannot discuss players not under contract. You claimed (see post #1114 in this thread) that "I trust that if BB quotes it the rule exists". The problem is, BB never actually quoted the rule. He may have summarized a rule. He may have offered his interpretation of the rule. But he did not *quote* the rule. Here is what Belichick said (from:
BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS):
“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.”
Nowhere does BB actually cite a rule. This does not mean that such a rule doesn't exist. Just that you are wrong that BB "quoted" the rule. He most certainly did NOT quote the rule.
Now, Florio, in that piece I cited, points out that this understanding Belichick has comes from this rule (that has been pointed out in this thread several times now):
“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.”
Nowhere does it say that a team cannot discuss trading a player that isn't signed. Nowhere. It simply does not say that. Belichick offered an INTERPRETATION of this rule. Now he knows a hell of a lot more about all this than any of us here, so it's reasonable to believe that his interpretation is correct. But, as we learned from Spygate, Belichick's interpretation of the rules is NOT always correct. He admitted himself that he interpreted the camera placement rules incorrectly. He is a human being who CAN make mistakes.
I do not know if he made a mistake on this one, and I do not know why he said what he said.
That is important, because I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you that it's against the rules. It very well may be.
But Florio in that piece points out that in fact, "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."
Moreover, "the Pats traded safety Tebucky Jones to the Saints nearly six years ago, striking the deal before Jones had signed the franchise tender."
So the Patriots struck a deal with the Saints in 2003 and effectively did a sign-and-trade.
Here (
Patriots Set To Send Jones To Saints For Draft Picks), we see how it unfolded. Clearly the Patriots and Saints negotiated all this before Jones signed his tender.
"Tebucky Jones' five-year career with the Patriots, which saw him go from bust at cornerback under Pete Carroll to big-hitting free safety under Bill Belichick, is expected to end today when the Patriots, barring a last-minute snag, trade him to the Saints.
The Patriots will receive third- and seventh-round picks in the April 26-27 draft, plus a fourth-round pick in 2004. The Patriots had been holding out for a second-round pick for Jones, a former No.1"
"ESPN.com reported that Jones has agreed to a five-year, $18.75 million contract with the Saints that includes a $5 million signing bonus. A $5 million bonus is more than what the Patriots were willing to pay Jones, even before they undercut his bargaining position by signing Chargers free agent safety Rodney Harrison in March."
"Because Jones had not yet signed the franchise tender offer, the Patriots will have to do a sign-and-trade with the Saints. Otherwise, the Patriots wouldn't be able to use the franchise tag on another player for the life of Jones' new contract."
So.....
Before Jones had actually signed the tender with the Patriots, which would have enabled him to be traded, he had already worked out a new deal with the Saints, and the Patriots and Saints had already come to terms on the trade. The press already reported on what the Saints would be giving up in order to acquire Jones.
You have to be a very special kind of stupid to believe that all this got worked out without the teams having SOME kind of conversation, without the teams having had SOME kind of negotiations.
Moreover, as Lombardi's piece points out, this is relatively common practice, and many teams do this.
So, Andy, we KNOW this happens. We KNOW that the Patriots themselves actually negotiated a trade involving their own RFA, who was not under contract with the Patriots at the time they were negotiating the deal, and that it was, ironically, to the Saints, no less.
If BB was right and that this is against the rules, everyone, INCLUDING THE PATRIOTS THEMSELVES, break this rule. It's commonplace, apparently, for teams to break this rule.
So WHY would Belichick claim what he claimed?
I HAVE NO IDEA. I offered up one possibility. Another one could be that he simply misunderstood. Another one could be that he LIED. OMG the possibility that Belichick may have lied to the media!!! God forbid. Maybe he said it for strategic reasons. Who knows. There are all kinds of possibilities.
You go on like it's LUNACY to think that there really isn't a rule about this, when, in fact, teams DO THIS ALL THE TIME. You cannot actually cite an actual NFL rule that says teams cannot discuss trading players not under contract. Nobody, apparently, can. All you do is fall back on the line that, "Well, BB said so", and falsely claim that he quoted a rule (which he did not).
But do you at least see why many of us are pretty skeptical that there's this iron clad rule against this kind of thing, despite your bewildering insistence that there obviously is (in "black and white", no less)? That we don't know why BB may have uttered those words back in 2009 doesn't mean you are correct. You might be. There might be a rule about it. But nobody has actually produced it, and if there is one, apparently many teams, including the Patriots, violate it.
