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

BTW the Cowboy link has more validity than most of the crap we see.

They have a crying need for a quality CB. They have a low enough first rounder to have THAT make some sense (28). The sticking point could be their cap situation,. According to "over the cap" they currently only have $5.4MM left. They would get $6MM back if they release Romo, plus more than that next year, so theoreticly they COULD be able to make him a back loaded offer at least close to the market rate as still be under the cap.

Again, as with NO, we have two needy teams who are not in great cap shape. So while both CAN create a deal that would get them under the cap, there WOULD be future consequences that just add to the cost of acquiring the player.

In the end the question becomes IS Butler worth puting your team under "cap stress" if not cap hell, AND give up your #1 pick in a draft full of quality CB's. On one hand, Butler is proven quality NFL CB. On the other hand, you have a reasnonable chance to pick up a CB who might develop into someone who is a starter and control him relatively cheaply for 5 years. No easy answer to that in a league where "what have you done for me lately" is the league mantra

Im not feeling it on seeing butler in a dallas uniform. The whole idea is bad.

lusdawg said:

Ivan and Andy, can you two PM each other your arguments, please? I know it's the off-season and all, but this really has become a bit silly, no? You're starting to sound like a bitter, old married couple..[/QUOTE toilet seat being left up.

Click to expand...

War of 2803

So, if Dallas is truly interested and the Saints still want him, I'm thinking this puts #11 possibly in play. Maybe we kick back a 4-5th rounder to NO in this case?

patfanken said:

BTW the Cowboy link has more validity than most of the crap we see.

They have a crying need for a quality CB. They have a low enough first rounder to have THAT make some sense (28). The sticking point could be their cap situation,. According to "over the cap" they currently only have $5.4MM left. They would get $6MM back if they release Romo, plus more than that next year, so theoreticly they COULD be able to make him a back loaded offer at least close to the market rate as still be under the cap.

Again, as with NO, we have two needy teams who are not in great cap shape. So while both CAN create a deal that would get them under the cap, there WOULD be future consequences that just add to the cost of acquiring the player.

In the end the question becomes IS Butler worth puting your team under "cap stress" if not cap hell, AND give up your #1 pick in a draft full of quality CB's. On one hand, Butler is proven quality NFL CB. On the other hand, you have a reasnonable chance to pick up a CB who might develop into someone who is a starter and control him relatively cheaply for 5 years. No easy answer to that in a league where "what have you done for me lately" is the league mantra

Click to expand...

Another point to you case: Dallas makes more sense for this move just by the fact they are a better team. You could argue a CB could help put Dallas over the top not so much for the Saints though.

For the record I think Dallas needs more than a corner and there problems are more internal and some talent here or there won't cover there true identity.

Jerry Jones' ego wouldn't let him sit out the publicity of the 1st round of the draft. Seriously.

lusdawg said:

So, if Dallas is truly interested and the Saints still want him, I'm thinking this puts #11 possibly in play. Maybe we kick back a 4-5th rounder to NO in this case?

Click to expand...

This is exactly why the patriots are barred from trying to trade butler before he signs the tender. It inhibits his free agency if the patriots control where he goes by discussing trades.

AndyJohnson said:

This is exactly why the patriots are barred from trying to trade butler before he signs the tender. It inhibits his free agency if the patriots control where he goes by discussing trades.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. Does anyone else here have an opinion or information source on this topic?

AndyJohnson said:

This is exactly why the patriots are barred from trying to trade butler before he signs the tender. It inhibits his free agency if the patriots control where he goes by discussing trades.

Click to expand...

In a previous post, I pointed out that, indeed, Butler can't be traded before he signs his tender. So that's a given, I'm not arguing that.

But your argument makes no sense. In what way exactly would the Pats discussing trades would inhibits Butler's free agency exactly ? If his RFA rights are held by the Pats, the Saints or the Cowboys, he could still sign with any team in the NFL, for the same compensation (1er rounder).

Before Welker signed the tender with the Dolphins, trade discussion with the Pats had already happened :

How Patriots grabbed wide receiver Wes Welker from Dolphins - The Boston Globe

Another proof that trade discussion for RFA players happens, this time according to Miguel :

Q: How would a trade with another team work?

A: The Patriots and the other team agree on the terms of the trade (be it Butler for a player or Butler for draft picks or some combination of the three). Butler and other team agree to a deal. The NFLPA then approves trade. Butler signs tender. Trade is then executed. Butler and other team then executes long-term deal.

Click to expand...

If you want to argue that the RFA player can play for the team of his choosing (because of his free agent status) without having received a contract from another team, well, you'd be wrong again. The minutes he signs his tender with the Pats, they can trade him anywhere in the league. If he doesn't sign his tender at all, and doesn't play this year, he would be in the same RFA situation next year, because he wouldn't be credited with another accrued season.

lusdawg said:

So, if Dallas is truly interested and the Saints still want him, I'm thinking this puts #11 possibly in play. Maybe we kick back a 4-5th rounder to NO in this case?

Click to expand...

Thats a possibility if BB pushes back and if MB makes a trip to Dallas Ill believe it.

That leaves the Saints with north of $9.9M in space for 2017. That’s not counting the $7.6M their due when Jairus Byrd’s release hits the books. Together, that makes $17.5M.

Click to expand...

Armstead Restructures Contract, Clearing Way For Butler?

RDS11 said:

In a previous post, I pointed out that, indeed, Butler can't be traded before he signs his tender. So that's a given, I'm not arguing that.

But your argument makes no sense. In what way exactly would the Pats discussing trades would inhibits Butler's free agency exactly ? If his RFA rights are held by the Pats, the Saints or the Cowboys, he could still sign with any team in the NFL, for the same compensation (1er rounder).

Click to expand...

If no team wants to give their 1st round pick the only way butler moves is by trade.
If the patriots negotiate a trade butler could end up with the team willing to give the patriots more but butler less. It impedes his free agent rights.

Before Welker signed the tender with the Dolphins, trade discussion with the Pats had already happened :

How Patriots grabbed wide receiver Wes Welker from Dolphins - The Boston Globe

Click to expand...

I am if the belief that the trade was suggested by the agent as a way to keep Miami from matching in order to not have to create bad will with a poison pill. I don't accept that an article written by a sportswriter is proof of how the talks went down.

Another proof that trade discussion for RFA players happens, this time according to Miguel :

Click to expand...

The order is the question. Miguel would have to say for himself if he believes the teams negotiate a trade before or after a tender, and if that means belichick and Lombardi are wrong.

If you want to argue that the RFA player can play for the team of his choosing (because of his free agent status) without having received a contract from another team, well, you'd be wrong again.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean here.

The minutes he signs his tender with the Pats, they can trade him anywhere in the league. If he doesn't sign his tender at all, and doesn't play this year, he would be in the same RFA situation next year, because he wouldn't be credited with another accrued season.

Click to expand...

The patriots if they were allowed to discuss trading a player who is not under contract would choose butlers destination.
Because they cannot butlers agent makes comp part of the contract negotiation.
He goes and gets his best deal then comes to the patriots and says my guy will sign your tender but only if you trade him to New Orleans for the 34th pick.
Butler holds the cards. He chooses his team and contract and can not sign the tender and hold out (whether that is stupid or not it's still leverage).

By discussing trading a player not under contract the patriots impede his free agency by finding out if they can get a better offer than what he and his agent find.
This is why agents negotiate trades like this. They are allowed to.

AndyJohnson said:

This is exactly why the patriots are barred from trying to trade butler before he signs the tender. It inhibits his free agency if the patriots control where he goes by discussing trades.

Click to expand...

It doesn't inhibit his (restricted) free agency in the slightest because Butler doesn't have to just agree to any new deal with any team the Patriots potentially work out. If Butler wants to go to Dallas, and Dallas is willing to sign him to an offer sheet (meaning, of course, they have to surrender their #1), he can tell NO to screw. Even if NO was willing to give up their #11, the Patriots can't stop him from choosing Dallas instead. At that point, all they can do is choose to match Dallas' offer sheet or "settle" for Pick #28.

I don't believe the Dallas rumors but if they are true, what do you think would happen? Dallas would say "gee we want to sign Butler to an offer sheet and Butler wants to be here, but we can't because NE is currently dealing with NO...."?

The above post is just another one of your long line of epic fails.....

XLIX said:

It doesn't inhibit his (restricted) free agency in the slightest because Butler doesn't have to just agree to any new deal with any team the Patriots potentially work out. If Butler wants to go to Dallas, and Dallas is willing to sign him to an offer sheet (meaning, of course, they have to surrender their #1), he can tell NO to screw. Even if NO was willing to give up their #11, the Patriots can't stop him from choosing Dallas instead. At that point, all they can do is choose to match Dallas' offer sheet or "settle" for Pick #28.

I don't believe the Dallas rumors but if they are true, what do you think would happen? Dallas would say "gee we want to sign Butler to an offer sheet and Butler wants to be here, but we can't because NE is currently dealing with NO...."?

The above post is just another one of your long line of epic fails.....

Click to expand...

Since no player has even signed an offer sheet with a team that gave up a first rounder in recent history you have to look deeper.
The impediment is to his free agency when no one is willing to give up a first round pick.
If the patriots are allowed to ship him without a contract they can shop him to all 31 teams and agree to only trade him to the one that offered THEM the most. He is stuck with that team regardless of who offers the must or where he wants to go. Of course that impedes his free agency. This is why it is not allowed.
To conclude that being put into a situation where the team controls his free agency is not impeding his free agency is wrong.

If butler and his agent are the only ones who can speak to other teams he maintains control and bring the patriots his best offfer. If the patriots can negotiate trades they are controlling where he goes and his only recourse is to sit out and be in the same boat next year.

AndyJohnson said:

Since no player has even signed an offer sheet with a team that gave up a first rounder in recent history you have to look deeper.
The impediment is to his free agency when no one is willing to give up a first round pick.

Click to expand...

Well no ****, Sherlock, obviously the fact that any team that wants to sign Butler to an offer sheet has to give up a 1st rounder restricts his free agency. That's kinda the whole point of restricted free agency.

AndyJohnson said:

If the patriots are allowed to ship him without a contract they can shop him to all 31 teams and agree to only trade him to the one that offered THEM the most. He is stuck with that team regardless of who offers the must or where he wants to go. Of course that impedes his free agency. This is why it is not allowed.

Click to expand...

Again, no ****. But you seem to erroneously think Butler has to accept any offer from any team the Patriots ship him to. He is a part of these negotiations as well.

The Patriots have to act in good faith, but they are most certainly NOT obligated (either legally or morally) to trade Butler to the team offering Butler the most money. If the Cowboys say "we will offer a 2nd round pick and give Butler $15M per year" and the Saints say "we will offer a 1st round pick and give Butler $10M per year" then the Patriots are not even remotely, in any way, shape or form behaving improperly by sending Butler to the Saints.

Butler himself would have to choose if he was willing to take $10M from the Saints or wait a year (in which case the trade would certainly fall through), but without a formal offer sheet, the Patriots are 100% within their rights to refuse to deal with certain teams for any reason they damn well please. And if Butler thinks that's not fair, he should take it up with the union.

AndyJohnson said:

If no team wants to give their 1st round pick the only way butler moves is by trade.
If the patriots negotiate a trade butler could end up with the team willing to give the patriots more but butler less. It impedes his free agent rights.

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. No team can offer less than the 1st round tender money. That's the minimum Butler will play for in 2017. The fact that his right are held by the Pats, Jets, Bucs or anybody else won't make a tiny bit of difference.

AndyJohnson said:

The patriots if they were allowed to discuss trading a player who is not under contract would choose butlers destination.
Because they cannot butlers agent makes comp part of the contract negotiation.
He goes and gets his best deal then comes to the patriots and says my guy will sign your tender but only if you trade him to New Orleans for the 34th pick.
Butler holds the cards. He chooses his team and contract and can not sign the tender and hold out (whether that is stupid or not it's still leverage).

Click to expand...

No, that's not how it works. Butler doesn't hold all the cards. That's why it is called 'restricted' free agency. Butler signs the tender, the Pats can move him any way they choose to. Once the tender is signed, the agent has no say.

AndyJohnson said:

By discussing trading a player not under contract the patriots impede his free agency by finding out if they can get a better offer than what he and his agent find.
This is why agents negotiate trades like this. They are allowed to.

Click to expand...

Again, this makes absolutely no sense at all on so many points.

Let's look from the Pats perspective. Unless Butler signs a contract with another team, they just have to wait for him to sign his tender and trade him right after.
They can trade him to any team of their choosing, so they will get the best deal they can for sure.

Now, let's look at it from Butler's perspective. Let's assume the Pats trade him before he signs his tender (we know they can't, this is just to make a point). The Pats gets 3 first rounders (!) from the Bears. Butler's rights are now property of the Bears. Butler can still sign the tender and play for 3.91M (as he would have if he had signed the tender while with the Pats) or still find another team that would offer him a contract (and the Bears would receive that team first rounder, same as the Pats would have received). Butler has not lost anything here. The value for him is the same, whether his rights are property of the Pats or the Bears.

XLIX said:

Well no ****, Sherlock, obviously the fact that any team that wants to sign Butler to an offer sheet has to give up a 1st rounder restricts his free agency. That's kinda the whole point of restricted free agency.
Again, no ****. But you seem to erroneously think Butler has to accept any offer from any team the Patriots ship him to. He is a part of these negotiations as well.

The Patriots have to act in good faith, but they are most certainly NOT obligated (either legally or morally) to trade Butler to the team offering Butler the most money. If the Cowboys say "we will offer a 2nd round pick and give Butler $15M per year" and the Saints say "we will offer a 1st round pick and give Butler $10M per year" then the Patriots are not even remotely, in any way, shape or form behaving improperly by sending Butler to the Saints.

Butler himself would have to choose if he was willing to take $10M from the Saints or wait a year (in which case the trade would certainly fall through), but without a formal offer sheet, the Patriots are 100% within their rights to refuse to deal with certain teams for any reason they damn well please. And if Butler thinks that's not fair, he should take it up with the union.

Click to expand...

Look if you don't want to try to understand that's on you.

If butler were signing an offer sheet trades would be irrelevant. So there is no need to waste time on that in this discussion.

If he cannot get anyone to sign him for the prescribed comp then he can try to find someone who will make an offer to trade for him for less.
This leaves him in control of his free agency as he would go get the offer that he likes and the team would be stuck taking that offer or facing a holdout.

If the team were allowed to ship him around it would impede his free agency because the team would get the best offer they can and then butler would be forced to accept their deal or hold out.

This is why you cannot try to trade a player who is a free agent. His free agency dictates that he is in control.

It's not that hard to follow.

RDS11 said:

No it wouldn't. No team can offer less than the 1st round tender money. That's the minimum Butler will play for in 2017. The fact that his right are held by the Pats, Jets, Bucs or anybody else won't make a tiny bit of difference.

Click to expand...

That doesn't even make any sense.

No, that's not how it works. Butler doesn't hold all the cards. That's why it is called 'restricted' free agency. Butler signs the tender, the Pats can move him any way they choose to. Once the tender is signed, the agent has no say.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why the team cannot interfere before he signs the tender.
Butler holds all the cards in where he gets traded to because he negotiates his own deal since the team cannot offer him in a trade.
If butler arranges a trade the team has to agree or face a hold out. Player holds all cards.
If he were under contract and could be offered in trade the team would hold all the cards because he would have to accept the trade, he can't veto it.

Here is an example. Butler is talking with the saints and seems to want to go there. They make him an offer he likes. But the patriots have been taking to Chicago. Chicago like him and will offer their 2nd which is higher and a 4th. NO will only offer their 2nd.
By being allowed to shop the patriots can tell butler they will only trade him to Chicago.
Since they are not allowed to ship him all that happens is they get a proposal of a trade to NO from his agent. They do not know what other teams will offer and shouldn't because he was a free agent not under contract.
One way is clearly in the players favor and the other clearly impedes his free agent rights.

Again, this makes absolutely no sense at all on so many points.

Let's look from the Pats perspective. Unless Butler signs a contract with another team, they just have to wait for him to sign his tender and trade him right after.
They can trade him to any team of their choosing, so they will get the best deal they can for sure.

Click to expand...

Before he signs the tender he is a free agent.

Now, let's look at it from Butler's perspective. Let's assume the Pats trade him before he signs his tender (we know they can't, this is just to make a point).

Click to expand...

They can't the point is moot.

The Pats gets 3 first rounders (!) from the Bears. Butler's rights are now property of the Bears. Butler can still sign the tender and play for 3.91M (as he would have if he had signed the tender while with the Pats) or still find another team that would offer him a contract (and the Bears would receive that team first rounder, same as the Pats would have received). Butler has not lost anything here. The value for him is the same, whether his rights are property of the Pats or the Bears.

Click to expand...

This can't happen.
It is irrelevant and far away from the point.

What butler loses if the team were allowed to interfere in his free agency is the right to negotiate his own deal if his choosing.
Think about that. A free agent who is not under contract. How could a team trade him when he isn't under contract? If you can't make the trade because you don't own the asset then you cannot negotiates trades for the asset especially when it hinders his free agent rights.

AndyJohnson said:

If the team were allowed to ship him around it would impede his free agency because the team would get the best offer they can and then butler would be forced to accept their deal or hold out.

Click to expand...

Butler is not forced to accept any offer any team makes him. He can simply play for $3.9M this year and be an UFA next year (subject to potentially being franchised).

I agree it's really not that hard to follow, but it has completely confounded you.

XLIX said:

The Patriots have to act in good faith, but they are most certainly NOT obligated (either legally or morally) to trade Butler to the team offering Butler the most money. If the Cowboys say "we will offer a 2nd round pick and give Butler $15M per year" and the Saints say "we will offer a 1st round pick and give Butler $10M per year" then the Patriots are not even remotely, in any way, shape or form behaving improperly by sending Butler to the Saints.

.

Click to expand...

this part is totally wrong.
The patriots do not have any rights to butler (other than thevright to match an offer sheet or receive comp) until he signs his tender.
How can they choose where to trade a free agent?
Since they cannot trade him because he hasn't signed his tender they cannot NEGOTIATE trades. That is ad far from good faith as can be.

This is why you can't try to trade a free agent. he is a free agent but your asset to sell.

XLIX said:

Butler is not forced to accept any offer any team makes him. He can simply play for $3.9M this year and be an UFA next year (subject to potentially being franchised).

I agree it's really not that hard to follow, but it has completely confounded you.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
Who said he has to accept any offer?

The issue is him being a free agent who can negotiate his own trade exclusively. He has no choice to not accept a trade thatvthe team names which is why, since they can't trade him, they can't negotiate to.