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

[XLIX]

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.

That's idiotic. If Butler wants to go to NO and works out a deal with them, then it is in perfectly good faith for the Patriots to talk to NO about what they will demand in exchange.

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

The Patriots and Butler can do their best to find a team willing to give Butler the money he wants and the Patriots the trade they want.

A trade can really only happen if Butler agrees (yes, I know a team can trade any player under contract but, for all intents and purposes, no team is going to trade for Butler without working out a deal in principle with him, so Butler can effectively veto any trade he wants).

Having said that, it is the height of idiocy to believe that Butler's name never came up during the Payton-Belichick talks of a couple weeks ago.

 

[XLIX]

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

You did. You 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."

Butler doesn't have to just accept any offer he gets or hold out. He can still play for the $3.9M figure and take his chances on next year. The Patriots can (theoretically) get any trade offer from any team but that doesn't mean Butler has to accept whatever contract that team proposed.

Seriously, try and keep up with the conversation or at the very least keep up with your own bloviating.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

By accept their deal I am saying he either had to sign the tender and accept the trade the patriots want to make in their own best interest or hold out.

Example. Butler negotiates 4/50 from the saints but the saints will only give a 2nd. Butlers agent tells the patriots take the second or we hold out. Patriots hands are tied.

If the patriots were allowed to try to trade him during his FA period they could find that Chicago wants to give them a 2nd and a 4th but no more money.
Butler loses his deal with NO.

If he were a player under contract that's life. But he is not, he is a free agent. A team cannot trade a free agent so based on this misquoted "good faith" theory they did not act in good faith because they took his free agency rights away from him.

 

[XLIX]

By accept their deal I am saying he either had to sign the tender and accept the trade the patriots want to make in their own best interest or hold out.

Example. Butler negotiates 4/50 from the saints but the saints will only give a 2nd. Butlers agent tells the patriots take the second or we hold out. Patriots hands are tied.

So what's your point? They've been in a similar position before, where a player threatened to hold out. Branch and Mankins each had issues along those lines.

If the patriots were allowed to try to trade him during his FA period they could find that Chicago wants to give them a 2nd and a 4th but no more money.
Butler loses his deal with NO.

Yes but as I stated, Butler is not forced to accept a contract with Chicago. And I never said the Patriots could trade a free agent. Butler certainly has to sign the tender prior to being traded. What I have said is it is ridiculous to think the Patriots aren't having any good faith discussions about the subject. There would be nothing wrong with, for example, Belichick and Payton discussing the issue 2 weeks ago.

Now if Butler signs the tender with no prior agreement in place then yes, he would have to accept any trade the Patriots made with him - just like any most other players under contract. But he wouldn't be forced to accept any contract offer the new team made him.

 

[Ring 6]

That's idiotic. If Butler wants to go to NO and works out a deal with them, then it is in perfectly good faith for the Patriots to talk to NO about what they will demand in exchange.

No it's really not. But butler can negotiate his own trade. There is also no reason butler cannot ask the patriots what it would take to trade him.
But the patriots cannot have trade negotiations with team(s) on a player not under contract. The reason is obvious, it undermines the power of his free agency.

The Patriots and Butler can do their best to find a team willing to give Butler the money he wants and the Patriots the trade they want.

Butler can and butler can ask the patriots parameters they would accept. But the team cannot negotiate his trade for the reasons I am talking about.

A trade can really only happen if Butler agrees (yes, I know a team can trade any player under contract but, for all intents and purposes, no team is going to trade for Butler without working out a deal in principle with him, so Butler can effectively veto any trade he wants).

But if the team were allowed to ship him he would have no choice but the destination the team chooses. That's why they can't.

Having said that, it is the height of idiocy to believe that Butler's name never came up during the Payton-Belichick talks of a couple weeks ago.

It can't. It's not legal.

What could happen is butler asking bb if he would take less than the 1 and BB telling him what he would take. Then butler going to NO trying to get a contract under the idea that bb said he would be willing to trade him for less.

There is a major distinction there.
And if you look at it through the big picture you will see why.
If BB could do that then he could be trying to trade him to a team he doesn't want to go to right now. If he hit a better offer then butler loses his free agent rights. Since you do not have the rights to trade him you do not have the rights to interfere in his free agent process by trying to.

 

[Ring 6]

You did. You 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."

Butler doesn't have to just accept any offer he gets or hold out. He can still play for the $3.9M figure and take his chances on next year. The Patriots can (theoretically) get any trade offer from any team but that doesn't mean Butler has to accept whatever contract that team proposed.

Seriously, try and keep up with the conversation or at the very least keep up with your own bloviating.

Accept the deal meaning the trade.

 

[Ring 6]

So what's your point? They've been in a similar position before, where a player threatened to hold out. Branch and Mankins each had issues along those lines.

Not relevant here. They weren't FREE AGENTS.

Yes but as I stated, Butler is not forced to accept a contract with Chicago.

Never said he was. Said he would be forced to accept the trade. You can't force a trade in a free agent.

And I never said the Patriots could trade a free agent. Butler certainly has to sign the tender prior to being traded.

If you can't trade him you can't shop him.

What I have said is it is ridiculous to think the Patriots aren't having any good faith discussions about the subject. There would be nothing wrong with, for example, Belichick and Payton discussing the issue 2 weeks ago.

Yes there would. Just as wrong as if butler worked out a deal with NO and then BB tried to trade him to Cincinnati for more picks. He can't trade him because he doesn't have his rights. If you try to trade someone you cannot you affect his market.

Now if Butler signs the tender with no prior agreement in place then yes, he would have to accept any trade the Patriots made with him - just like any most other players under contract. But he wouldn't be forced to accept any contract offer the new team made him.

This is why butler can negotiate his own trade but the patriots cannot.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

By accept their deal I am saying he either had to sign the tender and accept the trade the patriots want to make in their own best interest or hold out.

That's right. Sucks to be an RFA, but that's exactly the treatment his union has negotiated for him.

Example. Butler negotiates 4/50 from the saints but the saints will only give a 2nd. Butlers agent tells the patriots take the second or we hold out. Patriots hands are tied.

If the patriots were allowed to try to trade him during his FA period they could find that Chicago wants to give them a 2nd and a 4th but no more money.
Butler loses his deal with NO.

He didn't lose any deal. NE has zero obligation to move him anywhere. He could get NO to agree to give him the moon and stars, but unless NO is willing to put that into an official offer sheet and lose their #11, NE is entirely within its rights to blow off NO and keep Butler no matter what.

If he were a player under contract that's life. But he is not, he is a free agent. A team cannot trade a free agent so based on this misquoted "good faith" theory they did not act in good faith because they took his free agency rights away from him.

How the hell did they "take his rights away from him"? The only rights he has is the right to be paid no less than his qualifying tender and the right to sign an offer sheet if he gets one and wants to sign it. That's it. And NE trying to trade him doesn't affect those rights one bit.

 

[zydecochris]

I've been on this site for 10 years. For you other old timers, what is the worst thread you can remember (other than this one)?

 

[Ring 6]

That's right. Sucks to be an RFA, but that's exactly the treatment his union has negotiated for him.

No it isn't. Because he is a free agent and you cannot trade a free agent. If he signs the tender he can then be traded anywhere. This is why RFAs negotiate their own trades before the RFA period expires and the team can trade them.

He didn't lose any deal. NE has zero obligation to move him anywhere. He could get NO to agree to give him the moon and stars, but unless NO is willing to put that into an official offer sheet and lose their #11, NE is entirely within its rights to blow off NO and keep Butler no matter what.

Losing the deal was theoretical because it was what would happen if the team could offer him in the open market to the highest biddder which obviously they cannot.

How the hell did they "take his rights away from him"? The only rights he has is the right to be paid no less than his qualifying tender and the right to sign an offer sheet if he gets one and wants to sign it. That's it. And NE trying to trade him doesn't affect those rights one bit.

Wrong. He has the right to negotiate as a free agent for an offer sheet and if he cannot find one the right to EXCLUSIVELY negotiate a trade.
In the hypothetical where the team shopped him it took away his exclusivity by attempting to trade a free agent which is not allowed.

 

[Ring 6]

I've been on this site for 10 years. I can't really remember a worse thread, but perhaps my memory isn't what it used to be. Does anyone have a better candidate?

Then ignore the thread.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Yes there would. Just as wrong as if butler worked out a deal with NO and then BB tried to trade him to Cincinnati for more picks. He can't trade him because he doesn't have his rights. If you try to trade someone you cannot you affect his market.

So specifically and exactly how does it affect his market? It doesn't prevent any team from giving him an offer sheet. And as an RFA he has zero, repeat zero right to any non-offer sheet deal from another team.

 

[Joey007]

So I'm not sure I've looked at this thread since it was a couple pages long. Did I miss anything?

 

[XLIX]

Not relevant here. They weren't FREE AGENTS.

Logan Mankins was a restricted free agent (just like Butler) and received a tender offer from NE (just like Butler) and refused to sign it until late in the season (probably not just like Butler).

SERIOUSLY, DUDE, DON'T YOU EVER GET TIRED OF MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF AND SHOWING US ALL HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ATRE TALKING ABOUT? (See I can type in caps too)

 

[Ring 6]

So specifically and exactly how does it affect his market? It doesn't prevent any team from giving him an offer sheet. And as an RFA he has zero, repeat zero right to any non-offer sheet deal from another team.

It affects his market to negotiate a trade.

Scenario A) player negotiates his best deal and a trade offer. Team cannot negotiate trades because he is a free agent.
Team takes the trade or keeps the player who likely threatens to hold out 10 weeks.

Scenario b) teams are allowed to trade free agents. The team shops the player to all 31 teams and decides to only trade him to the one giving the most comp. player has to accept of not sign the tender and be back in the same spot next year.


Which scenario do you think gives the player a better market?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

He has the right to negotiate as a free agent for an offer sheet and if he cannot find one the right to EXCLUSIVELY negotiate a trade.
In the hypothetical where the team shopped him it took away his exclusivity by attempting to trade a free agent which is not allowed.

Ah. Making things up again. Gotcha.
And even if your made up thing were true, NE has no obligation to actually do any trade the RFA "negotiated". They are totally free to ignore it. So guess what - NE is part of the negotiations no matter what.

 

[Ring 6]

Logan Mankins was a restricted free agent (just like Butler) and received a tender offer from NE (just like Butler) and refused to sign it until late in the season (probably not just like Butler).

SERIOUSLY, DUDE, DON'T YOU EVER GET TIRED OF MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF AND SHOWING US ALL HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ATRE TALKING ABOUT? (See I can type in caps too)

And branch wasnt.

Why does that matter?
The fact that someone held out in the past does not mean it isn't a bad scenario for the player or the team.

 

[Ring 6]

Ah. Making things up again. Gotcha.
And even if your made up thing were true, NE has no obligation to actually do any trade the RFA "negotiated". They are totally free to ignore it. So guess what - NE is part of the negotiations no matter what.

Yes they are. That doesn't mean they can impede his free agency

 

[Ring 6]

Ah. Making things up again. Gotcha.
And even if your made up thing were true, NE has no obligation to actually do any trade the RFA "negotiated". They are totally free to ignore it. So guess what - NE is part of the negotiations no matter what.

At some point they become part of it. But they cannot offer the player for trade.
Or do you really think the restricted free agency period is a time where team can shop the player around even though they cannot trade them?

 

[signbabybrady]

So I'm not sure I've looked at this thread since it was a couple pages long. Did I miss anything?