Malcom Butler has a great attitude.

[Ross12]

To put it in another perspective, you own a house that's not in-demand at all and you decide to rent that house to a tennant for $400 a month on a 4 year lease agreement. After 3 years, the person who owns an identical house next to yours becomes available and they sign a tennant to a 5 year lease for $900 a month, because there's now high demand for that house. You know you could get $900 a month for your house too, but you still have a lease agreement with your original tennant for $400 a month. You can't go to your tennant and demand that they start paying $900 a month too because "the house is worth that." You have to honor your agreement with them. After their lease is over, you can demand $900 a month from them or anyone else interested in moving in. But you can't do it in the middle of the contract...

 

[Big Bucks]

IMO Butler is right on the edge of losing the fans in this.

 

[1960Pats]

This is a joke, correct ?

More like an exaggeration.

Without Butler what will our defensive backfield look like?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

IMO Butler is right on the edge of losing the fans in this.

Not me, and I haven't seen him running his yap all over the airwaves. He seems to know the deal and what leverage he does and does not have - or rather, his agent does. He'll play, or he'll deal with a trade, fielder's choice for the Pats. For their part, the team always has every right to shore up the secondary and not trade him. Then, when it's time to figure out his value in a year, how does he look compared with stepped-up competition at the position? If the noise about Sherman has any truth to it... how does he stack up?

Plenty of time left in the coming season to "pay the man" (horrors, even though he's still under contract!) But doing the deal now isn't the Pats' style, and he's letting it be known that he knows his present value.

All metaphors aside, his rookie deal reflects expectations from the year he was drafted. He'd be overpaid on that deal until/unless cut if he sucked. If he outperforms the deal, okay, he'll get his payday. I don't think that these basic facts escape him, or his agent.

You can ask for whatever you want. You might not get it.

Now if the Pats go out, for example, and sign Sherman, and trade Butler's rights... that's just saying "you're free! You're free!"

But I don't think that's the end game they want, given his youth and continuing value (never mind upside).

Ross, regarding your metaphor, it's the absolute reverse of the situation. The player is not the landlord with poor little Mr. Kraft in the basement hoping to scrape by on 400 bucks a month. He's the worker. The Pats are the management.

 

[Simpelton]

In some industries that's the norm.

May well be the norm, but if you're trying to use that to somehow assert that it doesn't upset the in-house options, you're simply mistaken. They may swallow it and be professional, they may not, but they're never unaffected.

 

[XLIX]

The point is, you sign a contract, and you have to honor the contract.

He did that. He signed a 3 year contract and gave the Patriots maximum effort for those 3 years.

However, he now has to lose value because of a contract You don't get to decide at the end that you want to get a new contract RIGHT NOW, and then get upset when your employer gets tired of your shenanigans and brings in someone else who DOES get paid. You can say that other person is "an outsider" but every player is an outsider until they're signed here. Butler doesn't "deserve" that money more because he has history here. He's still under the original contract he signed. He doesn't get to demand to be paid market value when he's still under contract. It doesn't work like that, in NE or elsewhere or most other industries.

He's not still under contract. He honored the deal he signed and that contract is now expired.

The problem is he is beholden to the CBA, which is a deal created several years before he even joined the league. Anyone in here saying that they wouldn't be frustrated too is full of it.

 

[Batman]

Butler has said he will play under the RFA tender, he is upset the pats are giving money to someone else at the same position. That player had 5 years in the NFL and was a UFA he is a RFA, when he becomes an UFA he has the same position where teams can bid for his services without a fee. Right now the fee is a first round pick and no one has said he is worth the cap hit and draft pick. If they did there would be an offer sheet.

Butler is hardly on bread line with his wage, the first round tender pays him very well. On the tender after 4 years butler will have made $6,128,000 across 4 years. Based on current contract Landon Collins will make $6,120,000 He was pick 33 the year after butler was undrafted. So the patriots are paying butler like a high second round pick over the course of 4 years. A better positional comparison may be Jason Verrett, a pro bowl corner back entering his 4th season however he was picked 25th overall and in 4 years will have made $7.9m.

Overall he has hardly been underpaid. That is the beauty of the current CBA with rookie deals a UDFA can make as much as a second round pick if they perform well enough to get a first round tender.

 

[neuronet]

In some industries that's the norm.

Is it the norm to like it?

 

[XLIX]

Let's compare apples to apples. At your company, you signed an exclusive contract that you agreed would pay you for a number of years but it was below market value; you still have a year to go.

That's not a good analogy to this situation. A better analogy is you signed a contract to work for a company. The contract is expired. You performed above and beyond the call of duty for the length of the deal.

BUT, because of some deal your union signed years before you even joined the company, that company gets to force you to stay with them, even though other companies would gladly pay you significantly more.

Anyone saying they wouldn't be frustrated is lying. However, this is not even remotely anything I would consider to be a contentious situation compared to ones we've seen in the past.

 

[XLIX]

To put it in another perspective, you own a house that's not in-demand at all and you decide to rent that house to a tennant for $400 a month on a 4 year lease agreement. After 3 years, the person who owns an identical house next to yours becomes available and they sign a tennant to a 5 year lease for $900 a month, because there's now high demand for that house. You know you could get $900 a month for your house too, but you still have a lease agreement with your original tennant for $400 a month. You can't go to your tennant and demand that they start paying $900 a month too because "the house is worth that." You have to honor your agreement with them. After their lease is over, you can demand $900 a month from them or anyone else interested in moving in. But you can't do it in the middle of the contract...

He's not in the middle of a contract. He signed a 3 year deal, he played 3 years.

I think that's something which clearly a lot of people in here don't realize. There are several posts in this thread alone saying "Butler is under contract" and "he should honor the deal he signed."

 

[stelfans]

Is upset at the patriots? Too bad there are rules uh?

Maybe he should be upset at the NFLPA who agreed to the rules currently in place?
Or if he doesnt like it, he can always play in Canada.

 

[farn]

More like an exaggeration.

Without Butler what will our defensive backfield look like?

I would say "awesome". The backfield looks awesome. Sure, it'd be less imposing, but if DM, Chung, Harmon, and Gilmore are out there with whomever emerges (Rowe, Jones...) we're more than fine.

 

[PatsBoy12]

IMO Butler is right on the edge of losing the fans in this.

Only because sports fans are generally a fickle bunch.

 

[Ross12]

He's not in the middle of a contract. He signed a 3 year deal, he played 3 years.

I think that's something which clearly a lot of people in here don't realize. There are several posts in this thread alone saying "Butler is under contract" and "he should honor the deal he signed."

Okay, you're technically correct, but we all know that Butler knew pretty early on that after his 3 years he would be a RFA for a year. Technically it's a "new" contract but I don't know why that really makes any difference. There's no reason to believe that at the end of last year or even the year before that Butler would be thinking "maybe the Pats won't tender me."

It's not much different than a 3 year contract with a 4th year team option. If the player plays well during the first 3 years then there's almost no reason to think his team wouldn't pick up the 4th year option. It should be expected.

 

[PlanB]

May well be the norm, but if you're trying to use that to somehow assert that it doesn't upset the in-house options, you're simply mistaken. They may swallow it and be professional, they may not, but they're never unaffected.

I was not making any assumptions about how it would be taken. That will vary by individual and other non-monetary factors (great company, walk to work, on-site child care, etc). My point was that hiring for same job at a higher wages does happen and the Butler/Gilmore situation is not unique.

 

[XLIX]

Okay, you're technically correct, but we all know that Butler knew pretty early on that after his 3 years he would be a RFA for a year. Technically it's a "new" contract but I don't know why that really makes any difference. There's no reason to believe that at the end of last year or even the year before that Butler would be thinking "maybe the Pats won't tender me."

It's not much different than a 3 year contract with a 4th year team option. If the player plays well during the first 3 years then there's almost no reason to think his team wouldn't pick up the 4th year option. It should be expected.

That's a better analogy, although he would have had to have signed the deal with the 4th year team option. In this instance, it was forced on him by a CBA which was implemented several years before he even joined the league. All this talk in this thread about him not honoring a contract he signed is an inaccurate portrayal of the situation.

Anyone saying they would not be frustrated is lying. Butler has indicated that he will honor the tender if it comes to it, and I refuse to begrudge the guy for letting off a little steam to the media.

 

[Batman]

That's not a good analogy to this situation. A better analogy is you signed a contract to work for a company. The contract is expired. You performed above and beyond the call of duty for the length of the deal.

BUT, because of some deal your union signed years before you even joined the company, that company gets to force you to stay with them, even though other companies would gladly pay you significantly more.

Anyone saying they wouldn't be frustrated is lying. However, this is not even remotely anything I would consider to be a contentious situation compared to ones we've seen in the past.

It's more like a no compete clause in our employment contract a one he agreed to when he signed originally. He is welcome to see if the CFL, AFL or Mexican league will pay him more though.

I get the frustration, I'd hate to se my bosses bring in someone younger and pay them 4 times my wage.

 

[Sicilian]

That's not a good analogy to this situation. A better analogy is you signed a contract to work for a company. The contract is expired. You performed above and beyond the call of duty for the length of the deal.

BUT, because of some deal your union signed years before you even joined the company, that company gets to force you to stay with them, even though other companies would gladly pay you significantly more.

Anyone saying they wouldn't be frustrated is lying. However, this is not even remotely anything I would consider to be a contentious situation compared to ones we've seen in the past.

Okay... but he signed up for the union, so he still has to abide by their rules. Just because he didn't consider the fact that this scenario could come up, doesn't change the fact that when he joined the player's association, he agreed to abide by the stipulations they negotiated. In exchange, he gets their protection and the benefits that come with that. It's not like he'd be better off on his own.

 

[condon84]

It's the f'n CBA. 4 years. If you want it sooner you take less per year. Not my CBA. His.

Not arguing that.

I'm arguing that it's perfectly normal for someone to feel disrespected in that situation.

 

[Ross12]

That's a better analogy, although he would have had to have signed the deal with the 4th year team option. In this instance, it was forced on him by a CBA which was implemented several years before he even joined the league. All this talk in this thread about him not honoring a contract he signed is an inaccurate portrayal of the situation.

I just don't see why that matters, though. The CBA is in place, he chose to enter and play in the NFL knowing that CBA is in place. He is part of the players' union. Whether the rules of that CBA were negotiated this year, 10 years ago, or 40 years ago, why does it matter? He signed a UDFA contract knowing he could and probably would be subject to restricted free agency after 3 years. I don't feel that he had the "rules of the CBA forced on him"... he chose to be part of a league operating under that CBA and its rules. It's not any different than a first round rookie being "forced" to play on the fifth-year option when he could've been a UFA making double the money if his team didn't pick up the option. Do any of us feel bad for players having their fifth years picked up?