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

[1960Pats]

As what my father used to say when I was a kid saying that...."We are here, but not there!"

Dad was right, as usual.

 

[Nunchucks]

You're always better for not reading Atlas Shrugged.

EDIT for the disagree: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

One book you know is fantasy, the other book is fantasy, but some people believe it could be real.

 

[ivanvamp]

I can't speak for anyone else, but no, I didn't find it interesting at all.

Well, to each his own. It appears that Andy has dropped it anyway. Smart move on his part. He should have given it up about three days ago.

Now....if only this Butler situation would be solved.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, to each his own. It appears that Andy has dropped it anyway. Smart move on his part. He should have given it up about three days ago.

Now....if only this Butler situation would be solved.

Very smart move by me as discussing facts and being answered with conjecture is always a waste of time.

 

[Ivan]

One book you know is fantasy, the other book is fantasy, but some people believe it could be real.

Agree completely, Lord of The Rings could happen.

 

[Nikolai]

I don't come here for Butler updates. If something meaningful happened, there would be one seventeen new threads on it within the hour.

I come here for the entertainment value.

 

[ivanvamp]

Very smart move by me as discussing facts and being answered with conjecture is always a waste of time.

Like the FACT that Belichick, contrary to your claims, never actually cited a rule forbidding teams from talking about possible trades involving players not under contract?

Like that FACT that the Patriots, in the same exact CBA when Belichick uttered the phrase you keep harping about, ACTUALLY negotiated a trade involving an RFA not under contract? As in, for real, that actually happened? Not conjecture - FACT?

Like the FACT that other teams have made similar deals?

Like the FACT that I actually cited a portion of the CBA which indicates that as long as the player and the NFLPA agree to it ahead of time, a team MAY negotiate a trade for an RFA not under contract?

Like I said. It was very wise for you to bow out, because I've been hammering you with actual facts for several days and all you have in reply is "Oh well you must think BB doesn't know what he's talking about." As if there couldn't POSSIBLY have been another reason for his comment, especially in the face of all these other actual facts, including the obvious one where Belichick HIMSELF actually negotiated a trade involving an RFA not under contract, just two years prior to that comment, under the same exact CBA?

Yes, very, very wise of you to bow out. It should have happened sooner, Andy, but better late than never I guess.

 

[TomPatriot]

 

[RayClay]

Have they got that deal finalized yet?

 

[Ring 6]

Like the FACT that Belichick, contrary to your claims, never actually cited a rule forbidding teams from talking about possible trades involving players not under contract?

I just finally realized that you are trying to argue that it isn't a rule because he didnt state the rule word for word and tell you where to look it up.
This is like saying if I said I can't break into your house and punch you in the face it's not illegal to do so because I didn't identify the statute.
Silly.

Like that FACT that the Patriots, in the same exact CBA when Belichick uttered the phrase you keep harping about, ACTUALLY negotiated a trade involving an RFA not under contract? As in, for real, that actually happened? Not conjecture - FACT?

Not fact.
Tebucky jones was not an RFA and it was under a different cba.
There is no fact that says belichick negotiated to trade for welker rather than the agent being a go between to limit hard feelings over the poison pill.

Like the FACT that other teams have made similar deals?

Not a fact and I actually asked you to provide examples which you did not.

Like the FACT that I actually cited a portion of the CBA which indicates that as long as the player and the NFLPA agree to it ahead of time, a team MAY negotiate a trade for an RFA not under contract?

I think you are confused between fact and relevant fact.
Yes it is a fact you cited a part of the cba. No it is not a fact that it says what you think it does or that it is applicable here.
Just like above where you think BB is required to recite the section of the rule book in order to be correct.

Like I said. It was very wise for you to bow out, because I've been hammering you with actual facts for several days and all you have in reply is "Oh well you must think BB doesn't know what he's talking about."

A) I didn't "bow out "
B) the most sure sign someone knows they are losing an argument is when they declare themselves crocbe winning or "hammering with facts"
C) you have no facts.
D) there is no question belichick said it is against the rules. You are arguing withot fact that he is wrong. Lombardi says the same and you are arguing without fact that he is wrong.
What this adds up to is 2 professionals agree on a rule and I believe them.
You instead chose to misinterpret sections of the cba that are not applicable to the topic and conclude that you are not capable enough at research to show what they are referring to that theory therefore are wrong and your unsubstantiated guess is right.

As if there couldn't POSSIBLY have been another reason for his comment, especially in the face of all these other actual facts, including the obvious one where Belichick HIMSELF actually negotiated a trade involving an RFA not under contract, just two years prior to that comment, under the same exact CBA?

Yes, very, very wise of you to bow out. It should have happened sooner, Andy, but better late than never I guess.

There is no gray area. He said you cannot do it. Are you telling me that belichicks response to spy gate was to make a statement that something which is allowable is not allowable so that what? What does he gain? It makes absolutely no sense. If you were right belichick is a moron who decided to fight spy gate by announcing something that is legal is not.
You are clowning yourself.

 

[jan08]

just when i thought i was out gif - Google Search:

 

[ivanvamp]

I just finally realized that you are trying to argue that it isn't a rule because he didnt state the rule word for word and tell you where to look it up.

Nope. I'm saying that I provided Belichick's actual, exact words. And he never cited a single rule. If he did, which rule did he cite?

This is like saying if I said I can't break into your house and punch you in the face it's not illegal to do so because I didn't identify the statute.
Silly.

What a frigging stupid comparison.

Not fact.
Tebucky jones was not an RFA and it was under a different cba.
There is no fact that says belichick negotiated to trade for welker rather than the agent being a go between to limit hard feelings over the poison pill.

Wait, what?!? Are you kidding me? It has been shown by another poster that the relevant part of the CBA was not changed in 2006 so your point about Tebucky is irrelevant.

As for Welker.... are you KIDDING me? It is an absolute fact that Belichick negotiated to trade for Wes Welker when Welker was an RFA not under contract. That is absolute fact. That is not up for debate, Andy.

Are you saying that Belichick cheated when he negotiated that trade? Because apparently it was against the rules and he did it anyway.

Not a fact and I actually asked you to provide examples which you did not.

Using your logic, I don't need to. Florio made it clear that this is commonplace. You are free, of course, to look it up. I provided the relevant link.

I think you are confused between fact and relevant fact.

I think you are clearly confused over what constitutes a fact.

Yes it is a fact you cited a part of the cba. No it is not a fact that it says what you think it does or that it is applicable here.[/QUOTE]

Even though the part of the CBA that I cited *IS ABOUT RESTRICTED FREE AGENTS*!?!?

You are clowning yourself.

You are embarrassing yourself in this conversation. Normally I'd not be interested in piling on because it's not very sportsmanlike, but in this case, I just can't help it.

 

[WinstonSmith]

Why you cannot win an argument on the internet, according to science
By Clayton Purdom @claytonpurdom
Jan 6, 2017

Why you cannot win an argument on the internet, according to science

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

This thread is 61 pages of Bill Clinton's "it all depends on what your definition of is is"

 

[Ring 6]

Nope. I'm saying that I provided Belichick's actual, exact words. And he never cited a single rule. If he did, which rule did he cite?



What a frigging stupid comparison.

It is a perfect comparison.
Citing which rulevhe us referring to is not a requirement for his statement to be correct and accurate.

Wait, what?!? Are you kidding me? It has been shown by another poster that the relevant part of the CBA was not changed in 2006 so your point about Tebucky is irrelevant.

No it has not. First of jones was franchised.
Second calling a part of the cba relevant to this topic does not make it relevant.
There are many rules affecting NFL franchises that are not in the cba.

for Welker.... are you KIDDING me? It is an absolute fact that Belichick negotiated to trade for Wes Welker when Welker was an RFA not under contract. That is absolute fact. That is not up for debate, Andy.

No that is not a fact. But I do not think you actually understand what a fact is.
Fact is that welker was negotiating a RFA offer from the patriots and the patriots ended up trading for him for more than the tender cost.
The circumstances around it and whether belichick violated the rules by discussing a trade with the dolphins is not known publicly and therefore not a fact. It is possible, in fact likely that the agent negotiated with both sides and determined parameters that each would agree to after the player signed his tender. This is legal. Assuming the illegal maneuver over the legal us far from stating a fact and actually is rather naive.

Are you saying that Belichick cheated when he negotiated that trade? Because apparently it was against the rules and he did it anyway.

Apparent to who?
BB negotiate an offer sheet. It is likely that because a poison pill was agreed to by BB and the agent and the agent felt it was dirty pool and would hurt his rep and bb wanted the player that part of the negotiation was whether the patriots would sweeten the pot to not have it matched and the agent went to the dolphins and got them on board. All legal.

Using your logic, I don't need to. Florio made it clear that this is commonplace. You are free, of course, to look it up. I provided the relevant link.

So in other words, no, you gave no examples.
And you are now saying florio is a better source than BB because you believe him but think BB is wrong. Gotcha.

I think you are clearly confused over what constitutes a fact.

Again when you have no argument you pull the I know what you are what am I game.

Even though the part of the CBA that I cited *IS ABOUT RESTRICTED FREE AGENTS*!?!?

It is about RFAs but does not address the issue at hand. For the umpteenth time this is an issue about the rights you have to players and the rules regarding trades and trade discussions not an issue about RFAs.

Why do you think you have tried so hard and can't find the answer? It's because you are looking in the wrong place.

You are embarrassing yourself in this conversation. Normally I'd not be interested in piling on because it's not very sportsmanlike, but in this case, I just can't help it.

You certainly have created a pile of something.

One thing though.
In numerous references you have totally ignored lombardis comments.
Are you telling me you believe you know more than him?

 

[ivanvamp]

This thread is 61 pages of Bill Clinton's "it all depends on what your definition of is is"

I confess to being a bit flummoxed in how to reply to someone who insists he's arguing facts contra my conjecture, when I gave him Belichick's exact words which do not cite the rule and yet Andy insists that he was, and when I cite the actual reality that the Patriots negotiated a trade for Welker when he was a RFA not under contract, and Andy insists that's NOT a fact.

It's like arguing with a flat earther.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Why you cannot win an argument on the internet, according to science
By Clayton Purdom @claytonpurdom
Jan 6, 2017

Why you cannot win an argument on the internet, according to science

 

[Soliel]

That statement by clinton, ive never understood that.

 

[ivanvamp]

That statement by clinton, ive never understood that.

Now you know how I feel when Andy says that the Patriots negotiating with the Dolphins to trade Welker, who was an unsigned RFA at the time, isn't...a fact, when, you know, that actually happened in real life.

I just don't understand.

 

[ivanvamp]

It is a perfect comparison.

No it's stupid.

Citing which rulevhe us referring to is not a requirement for his statement to be correct and accurate.

I totally AGREE with this. Totally. I've never ever argued otherwise. All I've said is: (1) Belichick, contrary to your repeated claims, did NOT actually cite a rule. And (2) Nobody has actually produced such a rule. It very well may exist. I wouldn't be shocked if it did. I've looked and can't find it. Nobody here has either. You sure as hell haven't, and you sure as hell haven't the foggiest idea where in the CBA this rule can be found, or what rule BB was talking about. You. Have. No. Idea. At. All.

No it has not. First of jones was franchised.

So? The franchise tag is something that is slapped on a player, and the player needs to sign it in order for that player to be under contract. If the player doesn't sign it, it's no different than Butler's situation.

Second calling a part of the cba relevant to this topic does not make it relevant.
There are many rules affecting NFL franchises that are not in the cba.

God you are just confusing everything. I cited the actual section of the CBA *specifically dealing with restricted free agents*, and it said that if the player and NFLPA agree to the terms, the teams can negotiate a trade involving player not under contract. It actually said that. No really, it did.

No that is not a fact.

OMG. So are you seriously saying that never happened?

But I do not think you actually understand what a fact is.
Fact is that welker was negotiating a RFA offer from the patriots and the patriots ended up trading for him for more than the tender cost.

Irrelevant. He was not under contract. When he was not under contract, the Patriots and Dolphins negotiated a trade for him. Period. That is a FACT, Andy. That actually happened in real life.

The circumstances around it and whether belichick violated the rules by discussing a trade with the dolphins is not known publicly and therefore not a fact.

If you're not allowed to discuss a potential trade for a player not under contract (your contention), and the Patriots actually discussed a potential trade for Welker, who was not a player under contract, then they broke the rules.

It is possible, in fact likely that the agent negotiated with both sides and determined parameters that each would agree to after the player signed his tender. This is legal. Assuming the illegal maneuver over the legal us far from stating a fact and actually is rather naive.

Wait, so is it your position that if the *AGENT* does the negotiation back and forth and the teams work out the details THROUGH THE AGENT, then that's not breaking the rules?

LOLOLOLOL

If THAT is all you're saying, why are we having this conversation?

But regardless....I'd like to add that you are the one criticizing me for dealing in "conjecture" and yet look at your words. "It is possible"..."it is likely". You have absolutely NO IDEA. LOL.

Apparent to who?
BB negotiate an offer sheet. It is likely that because a poison pill was agreed to by BB and the agent and the agent felt it was dirty pool and would hurt his rep and bb wanted the player that part of the negotiation was whether the patriots would sweeten the pot to not have it matched and the agent went to the dolphins and got them on board. All legal.

The Patriots and Dolphins, regardless of their motivation, negotiated a trade for Wes Welker while Welker was not under contract, and was a restricted free agent. Do the NFL rules say that you are not allowed to negotiate a trade for a player not under contract unless you are doing it to not hurt the player's reputation?

The trade couldn't have happened, Andy, without negotiations occurring that involved the Dolphins and the Patriots. It's impossible. So both teams, whether directly or through an agent, negotiated a trade involving a player who was a restricted free agent and not under contract.

That actually happened in real life.

You know... a FACT.

I get that in AndyJohnson world things that happen in real life but don't fit your personal narrative aren't "facts", but to the rest of us they are.

So in other words, no, you gave no examples.

Your logic dictates that I don't actually need to. Are you saying that Florio, whose link I gave, was lying, or didn't know what he was talking about? Are you saying you now more than Florio does?

But here's what I found quickly just from 2010.

From: Pasquarelli: Restricted free-agent market never materialized - "There have been four trades involving restricted free agents this spring, but a dearth of the more conventional offer sheets."

From: Seahawks Blog | Seahawks trade Darryl Tapp for Chris Clemons, fourth-round pick | Seattle Times Newspaper - "The Seahawks have traded Darryl Tapp to the Philadelphia Eagles for linebacker Chris Clemons and a fourth-round pick. The news was first reported by Jay Glazer of FOX Sports, confirmed by Darrl Tapp and then announced by the team....Tapp was a restricted free agent....Tapp said when he signed his one-year qualifying offer from the team, he did not know a trade was in the works. He said he planned to sign the qualifying offer regardless." - Um... HOW COULD A TRADE HAVE BEEN IN THE WORKS INVOLVING TAPP BEFORE HE SIGNED THE TENDER, WHEN HE WAS NOT UNDER CONTRACT!?!?

From: Makeover continues: Seahawks trade Sims to Lions - "The much-anticipated trade of Rob Sims by the Seahawks has finally happened, with the team confirming Monday afternoon that the veteran guard has been swapped to the Detroit Lions for a fifth-round draft pick....Sims was a restricted free agent with a fourth-round tender offer, but he signed that $1.1 million offer sheet with the Seahawks last week in order to expedite a deal elsewhere." - So this trade had BEEN IN THE WORKS for a while, BEFORE Sims, who was a restricted free agent, signed his tender.

I mean, we have Tebucky Jones. Wes Welker. Darryl Tapp. Rob Sims. You could do just a little homework yourself, Andy, and find a bunch more. These trades ALL happened. They ALL involved restricted free agents being traded *in principle* (i.e., the trades were being negotiated) WHILE THEY WERE NOT UNDER CONTRACT. They had been offered tenders, but they had not yet signed them when their teams began to negotiate trades involving them.

And you are now saying florio is a better source than BB because you believe him but think BB is wrong. Gotcha.

I'm saying there are a lot of potential reasons why BB may have said what he said. We KNOW beyond any doubt, because these things ACTUALLY HAPPENED, that teams negotiated trades involving players who were restricted free agents, yet not under contract. Were these teams all breaking the rules, openly, with the media knowing all about it, and the NFL just chose to do nothing? How is this possible, Andy?

Again when you have no argument you pull the I know what you are what am I game.

LOL.

It is about RFAs but does not address the issue at hand. For the umpteenth time this is an issue about the rights you have to players and the rules regarding trades and trade discussions not an issue about RFAs.

Why do you think you have tried so hard and can't find the answer? It's because you are looking in the wrong place.

Where is the right place? I've looked and looked but amazingly I can't find anything. I bet you can't either.

You certainly have created a pile of something.

One thing though.
In numerous references you have totally ignored lombardis comments.
Are you telling me you believe you know more than him?

No, I'm saying I know more than you. It should be obvious to anyone following this thread.