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

[ivanvamp]

Sure. But whatvthey cant do is talk about trading a guy who is a great agent that they have no rights to. How could they?

Easy.

BB: So Sean, are you guys gonna sign Butler?
SP: I think so, we could use him, but we don't want to pay the 11th pick.
BB: I understand. Want to figure out another solution?
SP: Sure. How about if we negotiate a contract extension for him that he would like. He signs the tender, then you guys trade him to us for the #32 and, say, our 3rd round pick.
BB: Ok, I'm cool with that, if Butler is cool with that.
SP: Sweet.

Not hard at all.

Well a rule is a rule whether it makes sense to you or not.

The point is... I've never seen the rule and I'm asking you if you know the actual rule. Seems like you don't. Which I understand...because...nobody here seems to.

The issue though is that you can't discuss trading a player you do not own rights to. How could you.

Easy, as I just demonstrated. It's not really that hard.

For example bill belichick cannot call the saints and offer to trade them matt forte for pick #32.
He has no rights to mart forte.

He could *discuss* a trade, of course he could. HAVING the conversation would be a piece of cake.

But there's a difference between talking about a player under contract with another team (that's tampering, wink-wink Jets), and talking about a FREE AGENT, who NOBODY has the rights to. In the former case, you're tampering with someone else's property. In the latter case, you're not tampering with someone else's property.

Nor could he trade legarette Blount for pick 32 because he is not under current tract.

Agreed. I'm not saying he could ACTUALLY trade Butler with the Saints if Butler is a free agent. Just that they could have the conversation like I give above.

He equal as if right now has no rights to Malcolm butler.

I have no idea what this is trying to say.

He has the chance to have butlers rights if he agrees to the contract that has been offered if it is ever accepted. He also has the right to match an offer he signs, which he hasn t signed. He doesn't have the right to trade him. Evatse he doesn't possses his contractual obligation.

I agree that he doesn't have the right to ACTUALLY trade a free agent. But that doesn't mean he can't TALK about a possible trade like I outline above.

It seems wise for a league to have a rule that you can't offer to trade something you do not have. Imagine the corruption that could happen if you allowed it.

I think you I've cleared this point up enough now, the difference between TALKING about a potential trade and ACTUALLY executing a trade involving a free agent. I'm not sure how to make it more clear, if I haven't.

 

[ivanvamp]

It's based upon Bill's interpretation of 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.

BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS

--
FWIW, Florio and others think that such a narrow interpretation is silly, though I wouldn't put it past the NFL to interpret any action by the Patriots in the worst possible light and interpreting rules in a way most unfavorable to the Patriots.

The first opponent, though, is probably not the NFL but the NFLPA. Teams may fear a challenge from the NFLPA, if trade talks occur before the franchise tender is signed.

Thank you. This is helpful.

But that could easily be interpreted to refer to salary restructuring. In other words, Butler signs the tender at $3.9m, and BB then says, ok, now that you're our property, we need you to restructure your contract - and do it in a way that lowers Butler's salary.

The reason I say this is because if it was about that team wanting, in good faith, to EMPLOY that player, then the article would simply read, "[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". The fact that it includes the financial clause, "at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season", indicates that the emphasis on this rule is about the financial renumeration, not the team employing him.

EDIT: But I agree that there's a good chance that if the Saints and Patriots - two teams that Goodell has come down hard on recently - were talking about a trade, and Goodell found out, that Goodell probably would hammer them in violation of this rule, even if this rule was written for the financial piece and not the "employment" piece. So I could see BB being extra careful here.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

We actually don't know that belichick wants to trade him.
All we know is they couldn't agree on an extension. And BB theoretically replaced him.
The idea that BB wouldn't match an offer or keep him as an RFA if he can't get the 11 is all rumor concocted by circumstantial guessing.


A) butler is rfa
B) pays sign top ufa at same position
C) pats make a trade with NO who needs defense

All of a sudden speculation runs rampant that BB doesn't want butler.

There is every reason to believe BB would rather have butler at 3.9 mill and go from there as that we wants him gone.
There is also every reason to believe that there is a package of comp that would change that decision.

People who conclude BB wants butler gone are guessing.

This is true, but you are missing some key points that make it a high percentage guess, rather than just a complete dart throw.

1. The initial report was that talk between the Patriots and Saints of a Cooks-Butler trade. The Patriots traded for Cooks. Isn't strange that the Saints happen to be the only team that is interested in Butler, and the only team that is actively looking to sign him to a long-term deal. Educated guess: that is because they know they do not have to give up pick #11 to get him, because a deal has already been worked out. Or do you think it's just a gigantic coincidence that there was buzz of a Butler-Cooks trade, but in reality, the Patriots and Saints never discussed the trade, and this is shocking news, since Belichick was planning to keep Butler all along? That would be quite a coincidence.

2. Butler has now gone and doubled down on leaving New England. His agent publicly complained about the Gilmore signing and Butler's "reasonable" demands; insiders with the Patriots, such as Mike Lombardi, said Butler was "asking for the moon and more." A public spat between a team and player adds another level of very reasonable conjecture that a separation is coming, or at least desired by both sides.

3. The Patriots signed Gilmore as a replacement #1 cornerback to Butler. It is obvious to anyone who isn't reaching beyond reachable territory and desperately trying to grasp at the notion they want Butler as their #2 CB. Occam's Razor. It is now public knowledge that the negotiations between Butler and the Patriots are sour, and the Patriots signed a #1 corner for huge money. The Patriots have never paid a lot for a #2 corner because that player is typically getting safety help and can be performed pretty well by average CBs. They just extended Harmon. They have invested as much money in their secondary as Seattle. At a certain point, the strength you add to one unit starts becoming less for your dollar, since the unit's improvement level is only so high.

 

[supafly]

Hey guys what's going on

Ray Lewis killed a guy, that's all. Carry on.

 

[supafly]

If he signs the tender essentially he accepts that offer and relinquishes his free agency.

Unless, of course, he signs the tender and helps to facilitate a trade where he ends up getting a nice deal.

 

[50-yard-line]

One more time: the offer the Pats gave the Saints for Cooks was the highest point value offered by any of the three teams reportedly in the mix for him.

1. BB doesn't owe SP a favor.
2. It is very possible that BB would trade MB for the highest offer, if he really believes that MB is done in NE, attitude-wise.
3. 99% of the "reports" are pure speculation looking for clicks.
4. BB has all the leverage here.
5. If MB signs the tender, BB will get to choose if an offer for MB is worth more than keeping MB for 1 year for 3.9m and will act accordingly - as in, in what is in the best interest of HIS TEAM, not SP's team or any other team.
6. If MB signs an offer sheet, the Pats will either match or take that team's 1st Round pick.
7. Ray Lewis killed a guy.


Reiterate #1: BB doesn't owe SP a favor. The deal for Cooks was the best NO could get.

 

[PatsDeb]

Since nothing is happening, I still think there's a chance the Pats just want Butler to sign the tender, keep him for this year with Gilmore & let him hit free agency next year. However, the Pats' lack of a pick in either of the 1st two rounds gives me pause on this.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The problem with the idea that the Patriots would match the offer sheet and keep Butler on a long-term deal:

You make a false assumption that the Patriots would want to pay a high amount for a #1 corner and a #2 corner. There's a reason why the Patriots barely tried to pursue Logan Ryan, because it makes little sense for them to sign a CB2 for that much. Don't assume that a having a great CB1 and a great CB2 are critical to the team's success and that a great CB2 is a higher priority than other positions.

Look at the Seahawks. Their #2 corner looks great there with Sherman, Thomas, and Chancellor, but they don't think twice about letting him go or replacing him with anyone expensive. The Patriots have a similar secondary. They simply don't demand that much from the position, so they could likely get someone through the draft or a player they've already been developing for a fraction of the cost of Butler. Think of the 2000s Ravens getting rid of Bart Scott and Adalius Thomas. They did it for the same reasons, that they already had elite playmakers all over the front 7, so it was just overkill to keep spending there instead of investing in other areas. The dropoff was minimal when they replaced those guys with cheaper options.

In simple math, why pay $23M for two elite cornerbacks when your secondary will be 85-90% as effective with one $13M cornerback and a decent, cheap guy the other side who will get plenty of safety help.

I would compare a Butler signing to what the Jets did on their defensive line. By putting too many high profile stars on one defensive line, their return became less than spreading out elite players around the field. At some point, teams were able to just counter this by taking advantage of weaker units, like their linebackers or secondaries. They didn't have good players since they used all of their high draft picks and money on a bunch of defensive tackles/ends. Same thing with the Patriots. The secondary is great right now..that tells you teams will look at alternative ways to attack you. No point in adding more strength to strength. Beef up the trenches and other positions of need with the extra money/picks from Butler.

Signing/matching Butler to a big contract would be a great move...if this were the pre-salary cap era and return on investment was not the key factor. But that's not the world Belichick lives in, and allocating resources is one of his best skills.

 

[Ring 6]

Easy.

BB: So Sean, are you guys gonna sign Butler?
SP: I think so, we could use him, but we don't want to pay the 11th pick.
BB: I understand. Want to figure out another solution?
SP: Sure. How about if we negotiate a contract extension for him that he would like. He signs the tender, then you guys trade him to us for the #32 and, say, our 3rd round pick.
BB: Ok, I'm cool with that, if Butler is cool with that.
SP: Sweet.

Not hard at all.



The point is... I've never seen the rule and I'm asking you if you know the actual rule. Seems like you don't. Which I understand...because...nobody here seems to.



Easy, as I just demonstrated. It's not really that hard.



He could *discuss* a trade, of course he could. HAVING the conversation would be a piece of cake.

But there's a difference between talking about a player under contract with another team (that's tampering, wink-wink Jets), and talking about a FREE AGENT, who NOBODY has the rights to. In the former case, you're tampering with someone else's property. In the latter case, you're not tampering with someone else's property.



Agreed. I'm not saying he could ACTUALLY trade Butler with the Saints if Butler is a free agent. Just that they could have the conversation like I give above.



I have no idea what this is trying to say.



I agree that he doesn't have the right to ACTUALLY trade a free agent. But that doesn't mean he can't TALK about a possible trade like I outline above.



I think you I've cleared this point up enough now, the difference between TALKING about a potential trade and ACTUALLY executing a trade involving a free agent. I'm not sure how to make it more clear, if I haven't.

Ok well there is a rule that you cannot discuss trading a player who isn't under contract. BB is i. Record saying so. Lombardi said so in a tweet this week. I believe them. You can choose to think they don't know what they are talking about if you wish.

I am of the belief belichick would not purposely violate a rule and hope no one catches it. You can believe he cheats if you wish.

 

[Sfpat]

In all probability, the Saints offer will be very cap friendly in the 1st year due to their cap situation and I don't think the Pats are too concerned about cash outlay this year to pay any signing bonus that's part of the deal. So I envision something along this line:

SP - We want to sign MB to an offer.
BB - Thanks for negotiating the deal with MB. Good, cap friendly, we are going to match and thanks for pick #11
SP - We want to keep #11, how about 32, 2nd and next year's 3rd in lieu of 11.
BB - Deal. Have MB sign the offer sheet.

 

[Ring 6]

This is true, but you are missing some key points that make it a high percentage guess, rather than just a complete dart throw.

1. The initial report was that talk between the Patriots and Saints of a Cooks-Butler trade. The Patriots traded for Cooks. Isn't strange that the Saints happen to be the only team that is interested in Butler, and the only team that is actively looking to sign him to a long-term deal. Educated guess: that is because they know they do not have to give up pick #11 to get him, because a deal has already been worked out. Or do you think it's just a gigantic coincidence that there was buzz of a Butler-Cooks trade, but in reality, the Patriots and Saints never discussed the trade, and this is shocking news, since Belichick was planning to keep Butler all along? That would be quite a coincidence.

2. Butler has now gone and doubled down on leaving New England. His agent publicly complained about the Gilmore signing and Butler's "reasonable" demands; insiders with the Patriots, such as Mike Lombardi, said Butler was "asking for the moon and more." A public spat between a team and player adds another level of very reasonable conjecture that a separation is coming, or at least desired by both sides.

3. The Patriots signed Gilmore as a replacement #1 cornerback to Butler. It is obvious to anyone who isn't reaching beyond reachable territory and desperately trying to grasp at the notion they want Butler as their #2 CB. Occam's Razor. It is now public knowledge that the negotiations between Butler and the Patriots are sour, and the Patriots signed a #1 corner for huge money. The Patriots have never paid a lot for a #2 corner because that player is typically getting safety help and can be performed pretty well by average CBs. They just extended Harmon. They have invested as much money in their secondary as Seattle. At a certain point, the strength you add to one unit starts becoming less for your dollar, since the unit's improvement level is only so high.

Reports.
First the report that they were trying to trade butler is either wrong or BB is cheating.
There is no reason BB wouldn't sign a #1 cb knowing he has another for just one year.

Butler can do what he wants but that doesn't mean BB wants to trade him

 

[Ring 6]

Unless, of course, he signs the tender and helps to facilitate a trade where he ends up getting a nice deal.

He still relinquished his RFA so he wouldn't sign it until that deal is totally worked out.

 

[The Scrizz]

So it appears that there are 2 schools of thought here.

1. BB and SP both know the rules re: discussing trades for players not under contract and are ignoring them.

2. BB and SP, who have been *****-slapped harder by the league than any teams in history, are not de facto colluding in the Butler situation.

Oh, and 3... after it being said 3 thousand times cannot comprehend said rule.

I'm picking choice 2.

 

[ivanvamp]

Ok well there is a rule that you cannot discuss trading a player who isn't under contract. BB is i. Record saying so. Lombardi said so in a tweet this week. I believe them. You can choose to think they don't know what they are talking about if you wish.

I am of the belief belichick would not purposely violate a rule and hope no one catches it. You can believe he cheats if you wish.

Oh stop it already. I'm not accusing him of cheating. I've offered a reasonable interpretation of the situation. The rule another poster cited, and BB thinking, geez if I go near this I could get whacked, so I'm not gonna touch it. We've seen when he interprets a rule closely he gets whacked (Spygate) so it makes sense for him to say, ok we aren't going there.

Me suggesting this doesn't mean I think he's cheating. You offering that is the worst kind of posting and it's happening all too much around here these days. It's disheartening actually.

Ian puts too much work into this site for crap like this Andy. You of all people should know better.

 

[Ring 6]

The problem with the idea that the Patriots would match the offer sheet and keep Butler on a long-term deal:

You make a false assumption that the Patriots would want to pay a high amount for a #1 corner and a #2 corner. There's a reason why the Patriots barely tried to pursue Logan Ryan, because it makes little sense for them to sign a CB2 for that much. Don't assume that a having a great CB1 and a great CB2 are critical to the team's success and that a great CB2 is a higher priority than other positions.

Look at the Seahawks. Their #2 corner looks great there with Sherman, Thomas, and Chancellor, but they don't think twice about letting him go or replacing him with anyone expensive. The Patriots have a similar secondary. They simply don't demand that much from the position, so they could likely get someone through the draft or a player they've already been developing for a fraction of the cost of Butler. Think of the 2000s Ravens getting rid of Bart Scott and Adalius Thomas. They did it for the same reasons, that they already had elite playmakers all over the front 7, so it was just overkill to keep spending there instead of investing in other areas. The dropoff was minimal when they replaced those guys with cheaper options.

In simple math, why pay $23M for two elite cornerbacks when your secondary will be 85-90% as effective with one $13M cornerback and a decent, cheap guy the other side who will get plenty of safety help.

I would compare a Butler signing to what the Jets did on their defensive line. By putting too many high profile stars on one defensive line, their return became less than spreading out elite players around the field. At some point, teams were able to just counter this by taking advantage of weaker units, like their linebackers or secondaries. They didn't have good players since they used all of their high draft picks and money on a bunch of defensive tackles/ends. Same thing with the Patriots. The secondary is great right now..that tells you teams will look at alternative ways to attack you. No point in adding more strength to strength. Beef up the trenches and other positions of need with the extra money/picks from Butler.

Signing/matching Butler to a big contract would be a great move...if this were the pre-salary cap era and return on investment was not the key factor. But that's not the world Belichick lives in, and allocating resources is one of his best skills.

You could also argue the opposite side. Having a #1 corner losesxcalue if the guy in the other side sucks.
If he thinks butler is worth the deal he will keep him regardless of already having Gilmore. He has the room in the cap and then some.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Reports.
First the report that they were trying to trade butler is either wrong or BB is cheating.
There is no reason BB wouldn't sign a #1 cb knowing he has another for just one year.

Butler can do what he wants but that doesn't mean BB wants to trade him

Based on the timing of the reports about trading Butler, I think it's obvious that BB and SP crossed a line, and they were not wanting this to get out to the press. I don't know if it's even a bad thing because it could wind up benefiting Butler in the end, so I would think this wouldn't be an NFLPA gripe if the deal goes through. Florio and others have basically compared this to "legal tampering" where everyone does it, but of course, we all know as Patriots fans, that doesn't matter and any type of perception of rule-breaking will probably lead to postseason forfeit for the next 30 seasons. The Patriots seem to be on a PR/leak campaign to make it clear they have not talked to the Saints about Butler. Seems odd for a team that is usually as secretive as Area 51 about any and all type of strategy or situations, deferring to "we will make the best moves for this football team."

Belichick is trying to put the rabbit back in the hat now by pretending he knows nothing of any type of Saints agreement, to the extent that he has even fooled fans who know there is no way the Butler trade report could have come out before Butler met with the Saints, unless there were talks between the Patriots and Saints about Butler, and anyone who is thinking reasonably understands that the Saints if the Saints were really giving up pick #11, they would not even be negotiating with Buter. They clearly know the Patriots price for the trade. Now it just a big act of denial and ignorance.

Before anyone attacks me for this, I'll be clear: I think in the end, all of the parties involved will get what they want.

 

[Ring 6]

Based on the timing of the reports about trading Butler, I think it's obvious that BB and SP crossed a line, and they were not wanting this to get out to the press. I don't know if it's even a bad thing because it could wind up benefiting Butler in the end, so I would think this wouldn't be an NFLPA gripe if the deal goes through. Florio and others have basically compared this to "legal tampering" where everyone does it, but of course, we all know as Patriots fans, that doesn't matter and any type of perception of rule-breaking will probably lead to postseason forfeit for the next 30 seasons. The Patriots seem to be on a PR/leak campaign to make it clear they have not talked to the Saints about Butler. Seems odd for a team that is usually as secretive as Area 51 about any and all type of strategy or situations, deferring to "we will make the best moves for this football team."

Belichick is trying to put the rabbit back in the hat now by pretending he knows nothing of any type of Saints agreement, to the extent that he has even fooled fans who know there is no way the Butler trade report could have come out before Butler met with the Saints, unless there were talks between the Patriots and Saints about Butler, and anyone who is thinking reasonably understands that the Saints if the Saints were really giving up pick #11, they would not even be negotiating with Buter. They clearly know the Patriots price for the trade. Now it just a big act of denial and ignorance.

Before anyone attacks me for this, I'll be clear: I think in the end, all of the parties involved will get what they want.

So you start from BB certainly cheated and build a story from there?

No way he would risk that.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You could also argue the opposite side. Having a #1 corner (I think you were typing loses value) if the guy in the other side sucks.

How exactly would that argument go?

Also, I am not saying their #2 corner will suck; maybe you thought that "cheap" implied "sucks". There is a big gap between a $11M dollar a year guy like Butler and a sucky CB. Lots of options in the middle of that gamut, and many would be guys still on rookie deals, guys like Eric Rowe. If Eric Rowe's job is to bump and run the WR for five yards and then hand him off onto a safety, why are would we pay Malcolm Butler that type of money to do the same thing? Only reasonable option I could see is making Butler a slot CB in the mold of Chris Harris, but I'm not sure if Butler is quick enough, and Harris's deal was well below traditional, bigger #1 corners like Talib. I don't see the Patriots wanting to go that route either, but mostly, I don't see Butler wanting to go that route. Why would he?

 

[Ring 6]

How exactly would that argument go?

Also, I am not saying their #2 corner will suck; maybe you thought that "cheap" implied "sucks". There is a big gap between a $11M dollar a year guy like Butler and a sucky CB. Lots of options in the middle of that gamut, and many would be guys still on rookie deals, guys like Eric Rowe. If Eric Rowe's job is to bump and run the WR for five yards and then hand him off onto a safety, why are would we pay Malcolm Butler that type of money to do the same thing? Only reasonable option I could see is making Butler a slot CB in the mold of Chris Harris, but I'm not sure if Butler is quick enough, and Harris's deal was well below traditional, bigger #1 corners like Talib. I don't see the Patriots wanting to go that route either, but mostly, I don't see Butler wanting to go that route. Why would he?

One good corner has little impact in a bad secondary.
You are really belittling a starting corner by saying his role is to bump a guy for 5 yards and hand him off abd if that's the role of our #2 corner the pass d will blow no matter who is 1.

In any event your argument was a good second corner had less value if you have a good #1 and I disagree.
Taking away one receiver all game does you no good if you can't cover the other ones. Having 2 top corners is an enormous strength that BB could leverage. The question becomes what other needs there are for the money.

 

[Clonamery]

Ray Lewis killed a guy, that's all. Carry on.

Unless, like Roger says, Ray Lewis killed two guys.