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

[TheRazorsEdge]

Saints etheir came up with a Contract he really liked and he's on the way to sign ...

Or

Saints have pulled out and Butler is at peace with making nearly 4 million this year...

Or

Its simply a reflective post in which he's talking about how at one point He had nothing and now he's doing well financially .

At the end of the day we can all agree...sweet chain.

 

[Ring 6]

I am not here to argue deflategate, but you are either lying or clueless - I can't tell which since you are both so dishonest and so ignorant regarding a great many things.

Deflategate = people concluding what must have happened with no facts only rumors gossip and speculation

Your argument here = people concluding what must have happened with no facts only rumors gossip and speculation


Sorry aunt bea your gossiping sewing circle has no facts.

 

[Tony2046]

That would be the ideal scenario, in my opinion. That kind of news would be the cherry on top of a great period of free agency.

I agree. But I was just trying to fit into the thread protocol by building an assumption/fact off a curiously written instagram message.

 

[XLIX]

Deflategate = people concluding what must have happened with no facts only rumors gossip and speculation

Your argument here = people concluding what must have happened with no facts only rumors gossip and speculation


Sorry aunt bea your gossiping sewing circle has no facts.

The fact that you are trying to derail this whole thing and make an intellectually bankrupt comparison to media coverage of deflategate shows how pathetic your whole stance is.

You've already proven you don't understand how RFA works (until I schooled you on the reality of signing the tender). Now, for some reason, you've decided to double down on displaying your ignorance for all to see. So be it.

 

[Mr. Objective]

According to belichick you cannot discuss trading ANY PLAYER not under contract. This is not limited to RFAs. He is not talking about the good faith part of the RFA rules he is taking about every player that is not under contract to you.

This is about the 15th time you’ve made this same point and the assertion hasn’t become more accurate in the repeating. There is no general rule that prohibits a team from discussing the trade of a player who is not under contract or, as you expanded the rule sometime back, that prohibits a team from discussing the trade of a player who, at the time the trade discussions take place, is not under a contract that will still be in effect at the time of the trade. Such a rule is nowhere to be found in the CBA and there is one situation that Bobsyouruncle pointed to (Did you miss his comment?) where it is perfectly permissible for a team to discuss the trade of a player not under contract: when a team drafts a player and then trades that player to another team before he signs a rookie contract, e.g., when the Chargers drafted Eli Manning and then traded him to the Giants an hour later. In most cases the rule you say exists would be completely unnecessary. Why would any team discuss a trade with another team about a player who is not under contract, when that team can simply pick up the phone and talk to the player or his agent directly and not have to give up anything to the other team? The only time that a team would have any reason to involve another team regarding a player who is not under contract is when the other team has control over the player for some other reason, e.g., because the other team has draft rights over the player, the other team has transition tagged the player, or, as in this case, the player is a restricted free agent who has not signed a tender. The only thing that inhibits NO-NE trade talks about Butler is the ambiguous Art. 4, Section 8(b), quoted numerous times above. Personally, like Mike Florio and Ivanvamp, I don’t think this Section prohibits trade talks in this situation, but Belichick is wise to be cautious, as the league is out to get him and the Patriots. Yes, I know Belichick has been quoted as saying that a team “can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed,” but that, as you correctly recalled, was in connection with Julius Peppers, who at the time was an RFA who hadn’t signed his tender.

 

[Tony2046]

Please god make it stop.

Don't worry. It's all show.

 

[Ring 6]

The fact that you are trying to derail this whole thing and make an intellectually bankrupt comparison to media coverage of deflategate shows how pathetic your whole stance is.

You've already proven you don't understand how RFA works (until I schooled you on the reality of signing the tender). Now, for some reason, you've decided to double down on displaying your ignorance for all to see. So be it.

Ok aunt bea.

I was wrong about one detail and readily admitted it. You keep bringing it up like you are somehow smarter because I got a detail wrong which I admitted uncertainty of.
You still have not admitted you are wrong that you can discuss trading players to have no right to.
You still won't admit you have zero facts.
You ignore that you are accusing BB of breaking the rules and cheating with no evidence at all making you the mark Brunell of this say discussion.

Go back to the sewing circle aunt bea and gossip about the kardasians.

 

[Tuck]

If you run "Nothing changed but the change." through Google Translate it comes back with "He's staying and getting paid more money."

 

[sambam94]

If you run "Nothing changed but the change." through Google Translate it comes back with "He's staying and getting paid more money."

makes sense to me...change meaning $$$

 

[JMC00]

I could be wrong, but I see this as being a classic "much ado about nothing" scenario, UNLESS one of the 3 parties involved file a complaint against someone.

Except the NFLPA would do something. They'd make the argument that the Pats did not act in good faith by placing the tender on Butler, blocking him from being an unrestricted free agent so they could get more value for him than what they'd get if he left as an unrestricted free agent. Will make the claim Butler could have gotten more in free agency with 31 teams being able to vie for his services. Then you'd likely have teams screaming that the Pats and Saints colluded to allow the Saints to be the only team that had a chance of getting Butler without giving up their 1st round pick.

Because it's Belichick and the Patriots it won't go unnoticed or unpunished
'


And people please stop with the Welker stuff. PATS STILL GAVE UP THE 2ND ROUND PICK THAT HE WAS TENDERED WITH. It would only be the same if the Saint gave up #11 (the tender the Pats put on Butler) and added on a 7th round pick.

 

[Ring 6]

This is about the 15th time you’ve made this same point and the assertion hasn’t become more accurate in the repeating. There is no general rule that prohibits a team from discussing the trade of a player who is not under contract or, as you expanded the rule sometime back, that prohibits a team from discussing the trade of a player who, at the time the trade discussions take place, is not under a contract that will still be in effect at the time of the trade. Such a rule is nowhere to be found in the CBA

So BB and Lombardi don't know the rules?
Have you studied the cba? Are you aware the league has rules that are not in the cba?
Have you reviewed all of those rules.?

and there is one situation that Bobsyouruncle pointed to (Did you miss his comment?) where it is perfectly permissible for a team to discuss the trade of a player not under contract: when a team drafts a player and then trades that player to another team before he signs a rookie contract, e.g., when the Chargers drafted Eli Manning and then traded him to the Giants an hour later.

See this further proves my point. They didn't trade the player after picking them they traded the pick before it was used. Why? Because they can't do it the other way. It's against the rules.

In most cases the rule you say exists would be completely unnecessary. Why would any team discuss a trade with another team about a player who is not under contract, when that team can simply pick up the phone and talk to the player or his agent directly and not have to give up anything to the other team? The only time that a team would have any reason to involve another team regarding a player who is not under contract is when the other team has control over the player for some other reason, e.g., because the other team has draft rights over the player, the other team has transition tagged the player, or, as in this case, the player is a restricted free agent who has not signed a tender.

A rule doesn't not exist because you don't understand its purpose.

The only thing that inhibits NO-NE trade talks about Butler is the ambiguous Art. 4, Section 8(b), quoted numerous times above.

You are simply wrong. If you don't want to believe me take it up with BB and Lombardi. Clearly you think you know the rules better than they do because they agree with me and you are saying they are wrong.

Personally, like Mike Florio and Ivanvamp, I don’t think this Section prohibits trade talks in this situation, but Belichick is wise to be cautious, as the league is out to get him and the Patriots.

Perhaps it doesn't but that doesn't mean I can murder my ex wife because the law against speeding doesn't say I can't.

Yes, I know Belichick has been quoted as saying that a team “can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed,” but that, as you correctly recalled, was in connection with Julius Peppers, who at the time was an RFA who hadn’t signed his tender.

And butler is an RFA.
But BB (and Lombardi) didn't say you can't talk about trading an RFA who didn't sign the tender. They says you cannot talk about trading a player who is not under contract.

It is plain and simple.
You either agree with me or you are saying you know the rules better than BB and Lombardi. What would lead you to think you know the rules better than them?

 

[Ring 6]

Except the NFLPA would do something. They'd make the argument that the Pats did not act in good faith by placing the tender on Butler, blocking him from being an unrestricted free agent so they could get more value for him than what they'd get if he left as an unrestricted free agent. Will make the claim Butler could have gotten more in free agency with 31 teams being able to vie for his services. Then you'd likely have teams screaming that the Pats and Saints colluded to allow the Saints to be the only team that had a chance of getting Butler without giving up their 1st round pick.

Because it's Belichick and the Patriots it won't go unnoticed or unpunished
'


And people please stop with the Welker stuff. PATS STILL GAVE UP THE 2ND ROUND PICK THAT HE WAS TENDERED WITH. It would only be the same if the Saint gave up #11 (the tender the Pats put on Butler) and added on a 7th round pick.

Of course you are correct here

By tendering and then trying to trade butler you violate the good faith process of tendering him with the intention of Keeping him.
This harms him because he can only sign with a team you agree to trade him to limiting his marketability as a FA. Secondly he will realistically get less money now that ad a free agent because if the comp in Trading for him.
The RFA rules seem pretty clear if you don't intend to keep him under the tender you can't tender him in good faith. Seeking a trade would seem to confirm your intentions were phony.

Now if HE goes out as a RFA and funds that he can get a deal but the team is unwilling to pay the tender cost HE can go back to the patriots and say he arranged a trade if himself for whatever picks are offered and will sign the tender of the team agrees to make that deal

 

[JMC00]

There is no general rule that prohibits a team from discussing the trade of a player who is not under contract or, as you expanded the rule sometime back, that prohibits a team from discussing the trade of a player

Uhhh. Yes there is, Article 4 Section 8 in the CBA.

(b) 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


Pat have extended a tender offer to Butler.. At this point only thing the Pats can do when it comes to Butler is talk to him about a new deal. Them giving him a tender and then talking to another team about a trade would mean they weren't acting in GOOD FAITH INTENTION TO EMPLOY him this season. Which would be a violation of Arictle 4 Section 8 of the CBA.


Straight from the horse's mouth Bill Belichick

“They don’t have a signed contract. They can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed.”

BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS


BUTLER ISN'T SIGNED.

 

[Joker]

I heard Butler is gonna change his name to "Mahat Macoat" and take up rugby in the Indian League playing for the Calcutta Leopards...

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

What does this mean? Posted on his instagram 25 min ago

Could be completely unrelated to football i.e talking about himself personally. He is wealthy now (even making the league min means ur wealthier than uve probably been) but it hasnt changed who he is like it does to alot of ppl.

 

[borg]

So BB and Lombardi don't know the rules?
Have you studied the cba? Are you aware the league has rules that are not in the cba?
Have you reviewed all of those rules.?



See this further proves my point. They didn't trade the player after picking them they traded the pick before it was used. Why? Because they can't do it the other way. It's against the rules.



A rule doesn't not exist because you don't understand its purpose.






You are simply wrong. If you don't want to believe me take it up with BB and Lombardi. Clearly you think you know the rules better than they do because they agree with me and you are saying they are wrong.


Perhaps it doesn't but that doesn't mean I can murder my ex wife because the law against speeding doesn't say I can't.



And butler is an RFA.
But BB (and Lombardi) didn't say you can't talk about trading an RFA who didn't sign the tender. They says you cannot talk about trading a player who is not under contract.

It is plain and simple.
You either agree with me or you are saying you know the rules better than BB and Lombardi. What would lead you to think you know the rules better than them?

No worries Andy, you are not alone ...

 

[Tuck]

Or it could mean he just changed his outfit in the sky lavatory and wants to know what we think.

 

[ivanvamp]

Uhhh. Yes there is, Article 4 Section 8 in the CBA.

(b) 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


Pat have extended a tender offer to Butler.. At this point only thing the Pats can do when it comes to Butler is talk to him about a new deal. Them giving him a tender and then talking to another team about a trade would mean they weren't acting in GOOD FAITH INTENTION TO EMPLOY him this season. Which would be a violation of Arictle 4 Section 8 of the CBA.


Straight from the horse's mouth Bill Belichick

“They don’t have a signed contract. They can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed.”

BELICHICK: PATS HAVEN'T TALKED TO PANTHERS ABOUT PEPPERS


BUTLER ISN'T SIGNED.

You're leaving out the part where it defines what a violation of the rules consists of. It says it right in there, just a couple of sentences later.

Go ahead and quote the rest. The part where it explains what constitutes a violation of this rule.

 

[XLIX]

Ok aunt bea.

I was wrong about one detail and readily admitted it. You keep bringing it up like you are somehow smarter because I got a detail wrong which I admitted uncertainty of.

No, you didn't get one "detail" wrong, you completely misunderstood the whole essence of what it means to sign an RFA tender.

And now you've doubled down on humiliating yourself. Please keep it up, I'm rather enjoying it.

 

[Arialgg]

Can we not have inane arguments please.. (sprinkles love & rose petals...then exits right on a wave of holy water)......