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

[RobertWeathers]

There was no scenario in which he would leave the Saints Bldg. with a contract. It means nothing.

Right. He can't sign a contract without signing the tender. Its procedural. The offer sheet needs to be signed first, league approves it and then player rights transferred. Only then can he sign a contract w NO

 

[nabwong]

There will be a quid pro quo if butler is traded... Better start hoping we dont face the saints in the super bowl

Don't worry. We will run the ball.

 

[borg]

Can't imagine Belichick not wanting to extend Butler at around 10m per year (per reports from Butler's camp),

BB already tried....at $10 mill (my math) per year for 2 FA years. Butler declined.

Let's stop pretending that NE could make this happen if NE would only act "fair and reasonable" . BB already went down this road and Butler's agent wanted NE to relinquish two years of NE cost control. BB declined.

Given the agent's declaration that NE offered Butler an extension prior to the 2016 season that averaged $6-$7 million...which comes out to something like:
2016.....<$1 mill.......contracted dollars
2017.....$3.9 mill........RFA dollars agreed to by NFL/NFLPA
2018.....$ 10 mill .......
2019....$10 mill
-----------------
total....$25 mill / 4 years = $6.25/yr

 

[moosekill]

one year cheap..2018 would be $8.5m

$8.5 is cheap money for Cooks.

 

[JMC00]

Right. He can't sign a contract without signing the tender. Its procedural. The offer sheet needs to be signed first, league approves it and then player rights transferred. Only then can he sign a contract w NO

What? This not right at all.

Butler could sign with them without signing the tender but Saints would have to give up their #11 pick. He would have to sign the tender if it was a trade.

Chris Hogan last year never signed his tender, Pats offered him a deal and the Bills didn't match it.

When the Pats offered Emmanuel Sanders a deal when he was a RFA he hadn't signed the Steelers tender but the Steelers matched the Pats offer so his rights stayed with them.

 

[RobertWeathers]

What? This not right at all.

Butler could sign with them without signing the tender but Saints would have to give up their #11 pick. He would have to sign the tender if it was a trade.

Chris Hogan last year never signed his tender, Pats offered him a deal and the Bills didn't match it.

When the Pats offered Emmanuel Sanders a deal when he was a RFA he hadn't signed the Steelers tender but the Steelers matched the Pats offer so his rights stayed with them.

Clarify..I meant if he signed the tender.

However I think the poster I was responding to and I are operating under the assumption that there is no way in hell NO is giving up #11 for Malcolm and a trade is the only way he is leaving NE for NO....Thus why he left NO w/o a deal.

U are correct though. If he signs the tender a team makes the offer and he can work out a deal

 

[PatriotDynasty99]

People just don't seem to grasp that NE has all the leverage here. If NO wants Butler, they have to come to terms with him on a contract and then NE has the right to either match or not and then collect NO's first round pick (11th overall) if they decide not to match. It's that simple.

NO doesn't want to even (supposedly) give up a 1st round pick, either #11 or #32.

While it may prove to be uncomfortable for Butler, he very likely will have to play out this year in a NE uniform. NO or any other NFL is very unlikely to pay him a very high salary AND give up their #1 pick.

 

[ivanvamp]

People just don't seem to grasp that NE has all the leverage here. If NO wants Butler, they have to come to terms with him on a contract and then NE has the right to either match or not and then collect NO's first round pick (11th overall) if they decide not to match. It's that simple.

NO doesn't want to even (supposedly) give up a 1st round pick, either #11 or #32.

While it may prove to be uncomfortable for Butler, he very likely will have to play out this year in a NE uniform. NO or any other NFL is very unlikely to pay him a very high salary AND give up their #1 pick.

That's true but remember that BB doesn't seem to tolerate malcontents or players that will give him some problems.

He had all the leverage with Collins, but dealt him mid season during a Super Bowl run for a third round pick. That's it.

None of us knows if Butler is, or will be, a malcontent. Or if he will give BB problems if he is "forced" to play for the Pats under the $3.9m tender.

But it Belichick (whose opinion is the only one that matters) THINKS that could happen, he's quite likely to trade him away, even if it means getting less than what he SHOULD get for him.

On the face of it, Collins is worth way more than a third round pick. But BB wanted him gone and if that was the price, so be it.

If he feels that Butler is going to be a problem, he'll trade him away for less than what we think he should get, even though he (BB) had all the leverage.

 

[Froob]

That's true but remember that BB doesn't seem to tolerate malcontents or players that will give him some problems.

He had all the leverage with Collins, but dealt him mid season during a Super Bowl run for a third round pick. That's it.

None of us knows if Butler is, or will be, a malcontent. Or if he will give BB problems if he is "forced" to play for the Pats under the $3.9m tender.

But it Belichick (whose opinion is the only one that matters) THINKS that could happen, he's quite likely to trade him away, even if it means getting less than what he SHOULD get for him.

On the face of it, Collins is worth way more than a third round pick. But BB wanted him gone and if that was the price, so be it.

If he feels that Butler is going to be a problem, he'll trade him away for less than what we think he should get, even though he (BB) had all the leverage.

Mankins caused quite a storm and ended up sticking around like 4 more years. Don't think Butler must be traded.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

People just don't seem to grasp that NE has all the leverage here. If NO wants Butler, they have to come to terms with him on a contract and then NE has the right to either match or not and then collect NO's first round pick (11th overall) if they decide not to match. It's that simple.

NO doesn't want to even (supposedly) give up a 1st round pick, either #11 or #32.

While it may prove to be uncomfortable for Butler, he very likely will have to play out this year in a NE uniform. NO or any other NFL is very unlikely to pay him a very high salary AND give up their #1 pick.

It isn't quite that simple. Real life doesn't follow Madden or fantasy football teams.

First, you're looking short-term, not overall. Yes, we could force Butler to stay for a year on a really good contract for the team. But even in the short-term, an unhappy player can cause problems throughout the team. They can bring guys with them. Who is to say Butler doesn't start jumping routes trying to run up his INT numbers for his free agency season, like Asante? Or his anger about his contract situation starts to impact the 2018 free agents like Solder or Edelman or Lewis?

You might think we keep him and either franchise him or let him get paid for a comp pick. But the comp pick formula isn't so straight-forward. So many people were upset about the Collins deal, claiming we would have gotten the same comp pick if we waited. But as it turns out, the Gilmore deal would have cancelled that out, so no, it's not as simple as saying he'll get a big deal next year so we'll get a high comp pick.

The franchise tag value is $15M this year, and bound to go up next. You could potentially tag and trade, but would the trading team offer up a 1st next year when Butler is a year older and starting with $15M in guaranteed money vs. under $4M right now? Let's say the Saints want to negotiate a $12M/year deal. It would be easier to do this year than next because Butler's base salary is now above and beyond that. And all indications seem to hint that his agent doesn't know what he's doing.

So technically, yes we have short-term leverage. But that doesn't mean it's as simple and straight-forward as saying, "Play it out." There are lots of other complications that go beyond just the fantasy football roster.

 

[XLIX]

Seems because MB has left the Saints Bldg. that this is seeming less and less of a possibility..

What was he supposed to do? Bring his pajamas for a sleepover?

You do realize it would have been illegal for Butler to sign any deal with NO besides a formal offer sheet which would cost NO their #11 and prevent any chance of a trade, right?

 

[XLIX]

People just don't seem to grasp that NE has all the leverage here. If NO wants Butler, they have to come to terms with him on a contract and then NE has the right to either match or not and then collect NO's first round pick (11th overall) if they decide not to match. It's that simple.

NO doesn't want to even (supposedly) give up a 1st round pick, either #11 or #32.

Where are you hearing this? All accounts say that the #32 is in play.

I'm not saying the Cooks deal is related to this one, but it can be reasonably assumed that NO and NE discussed what it would take to get Butler. The fact that NO brought Butler in implies they reached some sort of agreement.

 

[ivanvamp]

Mankins caused quite a storm and ended up sticking around like 4 more years. Don't think Butler must be traded.

Of course nobody said that Butler "must be traded". But it's a good bet that if he thinks Butler is going to be a headache for him, he could move him for less than what we think he should or could get.

My point to those that think that because the Patriots have all the leverage here is simply that, yes, while that's true, don't be surprised if they still trade for less than what they should get for him.

 

[TomPatriot]

Where are you hearing this? All accounts say that the #32 is in play.

I'm not saying the Cooks deal is related to this one, but it can be reasonably assumed that NO and NE discussed what it would take to get Butler. The fact that NO brought Butler in implies they reached some sort of agreement.

Pretty safe to say if Butler and Saints agree on a deal, it's for the No. 32 only. CBA doesn't require that the new team's original pick be traded. If BB/NC get more it's a damn good job.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

People just don't seem to grasp that NE has all the leverage here. If NO wants Butler, they have to come to terms with him on a contract and then NE has the right to either match or not and then collect NO's first round pick (11th overall) if they decide not to match. It's that simple.

No, it's not that simple and no, NE does not have all the leverage. Would you claim a car dealer has "all the leverage" because he has the car, doesn't have to give it to you, and slaps a price on it?

First and most importantly NE only has leverage to the extent they're willing to walk away from the trade more than NO is willing to walk away from the trade. If you say "the price of the trade is X" and no one will offer X and you still want the trade to happen, you're going to have to come down from X. Saying "but...but...but...I want X!" isn't going to magically make people give up X.

Second, NO does not have to sign an offer sheet and see NE fail to match and give up the #11. They can tell Butler "If you get traded here, here's the contract we promise to sign you to". Then the can tell NE "Here's what we're willing to give up for Butler". When NO and Butler have agreed and NO and NE have agreed, Butler signs with NE, is traded, then signs a new contract once in NO.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I think part of what's happening is that some people conflate NE's leverage over Butler (which they absolutely do have lots of) with NE's leverage over NO (or any other team).

NE has no more leverage over another team on this than they would in any other situation.

 

[Marqui]

I think part of what's happening is that some people conflate NE's leverage over Butler (which they absolutely do have lots of) with NE's leverage over NO (or any other team).

NE has no more leverage over another team on this than they would in any other situation.

If NE has leverage over Butler and NO wants Butler desperately, then NE has leverage over NO. It's not that complicated.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

If NE has leverage over Butler and NO wants Butler desperately, then NE has leverage over NO. It's not that complicated.

Except that no one has said NO desperately wants Butler. If they do, they'll be willing to give up #11 for him. If they don't, they'd be willing to walk away from the deal if NE won't move off from 11. It's no different than any other trade.

 

[Marqui]

Except that no one has said NO desperately wants Butler. If they do, they'll be willing to give up #11 for him. If they don't, they'd be willing to walk away from the deal if NE won't move off from 11. It's no different than any other trade.

NO said NO is desperate to sign Butler by being willing to give him a big contract despite being cap strapped.

 

[Ring 6]

NO said NO is desperate to sign Butler by being willing to give him a big contract despite being cap strapped.

That logic is whacked.
A team has limited cap room and is negotiating with a player. That makes them desperate? So every player a team negotiates with is someone they are desperate for?