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

[ivanvamp]

Note to wannabe authors in this thread. If you write a post that is more than 200 words, you're only going to piss people off that it takes half a minute to scroll past it. Nobody is going to read it.

Too bad.

(That short enough?)

Edit: sorry that was a pretty snarky reply. Sometimes in order to make your point you need to go a little longer. Andy is being ridiculous in this thread and he needed to have a little more information. And it only takes one and a half seconds to scroll past my long post. That shouldn't be too much of a burden.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Just a quick question, not sure if it's been covered, maybe one of you guys could clear this up for me. So, can we trade Butler if he doesn't sign his tender? Thanks in advance, looking forward to having this clarified in a no doubt concise and compelling manner.....

Correct.
Until Butler signs a contract with NE (and signing the NE tender would be signing a contract with NE), Butler is not under contract to NE.
And when he's not under contract he cannot be traded -- because he's not on the team.

Nobody is arguing about that.

People are arguing about what kind of discussions two teams can have about an RFA who hasn't signed.

BTW. I certainly hope people realize it would be beyond silly to argue about what kind of discussions two teams could have about an unsigned UFA. I'll leave why that would be silly as an exercise to the reader.

 

[Big Bucks]

Are we there yet!?

 

[ivanvamp]

From (Rules Regarding Restricted Free Agents):

Article 9, second 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement:

"Nothing in 41 this Subsection shall preclude a Prior Club from entering into a Player Contract with a player subject to a Tender, and subsequently trading that player under that Player Contract to another Club, provided that the player and the NFLPA must approve in advance any such trade that takes place during the Signing Period."

So I ask, if the CBA says that a team can offer a tender, and have the player sign the tender, and have the team immediately trade that guy away, *provided that the player and the NFLPA approve IN ADVANCE any such trade that takes place during the signing period*, how can such a trade be worked out UNLESS the two teams are actually discussing the trade beforehand? How can the framework of a trade be made, and approved by, the player and the NFLPA, before the trade happens and before the signing of the tender/contract, UNLESS the two teams are negotiating the terms while the player is NOT yet signed?

It's impossible.

Another article here (The Cruz Rules: A look inside the 'tender' options) regarding the Giants and Victor Cruz in 2013:

"The Giants can negotiate a trade with a team while Cruz is negotiating a deal with that team. That’s what the Dolphins and Patriots did in the Wes Welker trade in 2006. The Patriots were considering signing Welker to an “offer sheet” when he was a restricted free agent. Instead – and to guarantee the Dolphins wouldn’t match – the Pats negotiated a trade. Welker then signed his RFA “tender” with the Dolphins, who agreed to trade him to the Patriots, who agreed to give him a five-year, $18.1 million deal – essentially three simultaneous transactions."

So in 2006, the Patriots actually brokered a trade with the Dolphins for Wes Welker, who was a RFA at the time. The only way that was possible is if they actually, you know, discussed the terms of a trade while Welker was not under contract.

 

[patfanken]

No he didn't. I literally gave you his exact quote.

Here it is again: “There’s no trade talks going on with Carolina,” Belichick said, as transcribed by Gregg Rosenthal of NBCSports.com. “They don’t have a signed contract. They can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed.”

The bolded are his exact words. So what rule did he cite? Tell me.

Now I no longer read any of this stuff you and Andy have expounded on for the last for the last 50 pages, but this quote caught my eye as I was skimming the thread looking for something interesting to read.

Both of you keep making a big deal out of a comment Bill makd back in the middle of the last decade, and it occurred to me why either of you would bother. WHATEVER Bill was referring to back then is completely irrelevant since it was done under an entirely different set of rules. When the new CBA was signed in 2011 a whole new UFA, RFA, ERFA, etc rules were established. THOSE are the procedures that apply to whatever you guys are talking aboiut.

OK, sorry about the interuption. I'll let you get back to what you are doing. BTW- keep it up. In the pool I have the over at 70 pages.

 

[patfanken]

Note to wannabe authors in this thread. If you write a post that is more than 200 words, you're only going to piss people off that it takes half a minute to scroll past it. Nobody is going to read it.

So you are telling ME that long posts aren't welcome.

 

[jan08]

Fans of 31 other teams are jealous of the fans of the New England Patriots due to the successes enjoyed these past 15 years or so.

I for one am glad they are unaware of just how jealous they should be, as it would send a lot of them over the edge. To miss out on the Patsfans message board and its page after page after page of discussions about eff only knows what isn't something I ever want to imagine.

Carry on you glorious people.

 

[ivanvamp]

Now I no longer read any of this stuff you and Andy have expounded on for the last for the last 50 pages, but this quote caught my eye as I was skimming the thread looking for something interesting to read.

Both of you keep making a big deal out of a comment Bill makd back in the middle of the last decade, and it occurred to me why either of you would bother. WHATEVER Bill was referring to back then is completely irrelevant since it was done under an entirely different set of rules. When the new CBA was signed in 2011 a whole new UFA, RFA, ERFA, etc rules were established. THOSE are the procedures that apply to whatever you guys are talking aboiut.

OK, sorry about the interuption. I'll let you get back to what you are doing. BTW- keep it up. In the pool I have the over at 70 pages.

I'm not the one relying on BB's quote. I've just asked for a rule where it says that you can't negotiate a possible trade for a player not under contract. Andy keeps referring me to this quote in 2009 and says it's "black and white", and can't understand why anyone would think otherwise, even though the Patriots themselves negotiated the trades of several players not under contract.

You'll have to ask him I guess.

And this thread should be upwards of 90-100 pages before this Butler thing is finished. ;-)

 

[zydecochris]

So you are telling ME that long posts aren't welcome.

You are the exception.

 

[Uptown]

I can't quite put my finger on it, but....something's definitely brewing here....

Do you see Bill's stance & smirk???
Yep, Malcolm's as good as gone!

 

[Ring 6]

No he didn't. I literally gave you his exact quote.

Here it is again: “There’s no trade talks going on with Carolina,” Belichick said, as transcribed by Gregg Rosenthal of NBCSports.com. “They don’t have a signed contract. They can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed.”

The bolded are his exact words. So what rule did he cite? Tell me.

What do you think can't do it means. Jesus.

Jones was not under contract with the Patriots. You have claimed all along that BB said you cannot trade a player not under contract. That's a fact. Your words, literally, in post #1124:

"Bill belichick says you can't discuss trading players that are not under contract."

He was franchised under different rules than exist today and at the time BB commented. You can't ignore that and call it cunguent.

You also have pointed out that the rule we have been talking about here (Article XIV, Section 8(b)) applies to anyone not under contract, and not just RFAs specifically, but that RFAs are a subset of this larger group. So your objection here is pathetic and irrelevant.

Completely wrong. I have said numerous times that is not the correct rule at play. You have to read what I say if you are going to try to trash me.
I said the rule covers unsigned players and RFA is a subsection of that so the RFA rule is not the correct reference.

NOBODY can find the rule, Andy, that says you can't discuss a possible trade with a player not under contract.

Nobody? So far that is you. Where have you looked? Mike lombardi found it.

BB said you can't do it, back in 2009, but he never cited an actual rule, and in fact the Patriots actually negotiated the trade of a player NOT UNDER CONTRACT.

So you think he doesn't know what he is talking about unless he tells you where to go read it yourself?
Ok. I trust his knowledge.

Andy this reply of yours was weak, weak sauce. Probably the weakest post I've seen in this forum in a long, long time.

The true words of someone who cannot effectively counter argue.

 

[borg]

- NE had no #1 draft pick last year
- NE currently has no #1 or #2 draft picks this year
- NE values #1 draft picks more in recent years because of the extra year of player/cost control
- Trading both a #1 and a #3 (a 4th back) for only two years of player control defies BB's core principal....VALUE
- Factor in the quality and depth of the 2017 NFL draft
- Factor in NE's weak recent drafts

Unless Belichick has abandoned his core principals of team building, logic compels me to believe the Butler / Cooks negotiations are linked (duh) and BB never truly abandoned his #1 pick (duh)

Then there are the media reports that state:
1) a trade is in the works
2) the framework of the trade /contract are mostly settled

And to the humorless "letter of the law" table pounders who post every 5 minutes believing repitition proves their point (little kids use this tactic)...like it or not, NE controls Butler's rights until the team decides to relinquish those rights......whether Butler signs his tender or not.

This cake was baked weeks ago

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Both of you keep making a big deal out of a comment Bill makd back in the middle of the last decade, and it occurred to me why either of you would bother. WHATEVER Bill was referring to back then is completely irrelevant since it was done under an entirely different set of rules. When the new CBA was signed in 2011 a whole new UFA, RFA, ERFA, etc rules were established. THOSE are the procedures that apply to whatever you guys are talking aboiut.

True. However, the language in question was unchanged in the 2011 CBA (I checked. You can find both the 2011 CBA and the previous one online.)

 

[XLIX]

Unless Belichick has abandoned his core principals of team building, logic compels me to believe the Butler / Cooks negotiations are linked (duh) and BB never truly abandoned his #1 pick (duh)

IMHO, this is one of the most overlooked part of the whole deal. For Belichick to trade a #1 for another player is quite unlike him. In fact, I don't think he has done it even once before (and I would be interested in hearing if I am mistaken).

 

[farn]

IMHO, this is one of the most overlooked part of the whole deal. For Belichick to trade a #1 for another player is quite unlike him. In fact, I don't think he has done it even once before (and I would be interested in hearing if I am mistaken).

Anything could happen : but in the end, as much as like Butler (and the prospect of both CBs playing together this season), how does BB view it ? If he can flip Butler for the 32nd, he probably prefers the thought of having a low cost (potentially VG) player in town for 5 years (at least, if he wishes) than one year of Butler.

But we are all speculating. BB has gone outside the box in the past. Adalius Thomas, Maroney in the first, Moss, keeping Crable for years.....

 

[patfanken]

True. However, the language in question was unchanged in the 2011 CBA (I checked. You can find both the 2011 CBA and the previous one online.)

Of COURSE you checked. ....and thanks for the info.

 

[1960Pats]

The pieces are coming together if the Revis story ends up true.

4 years of a 1st round pick on a rookie deal + 1-2 years of Revis > 1 year of Butler

The trade makes more sense because it wouldn't damage the 2017 team much (provided Revis stays on his diet). Team could arguably be better depending on who we picked at 32.

Mevis can be had with or without Butler. The actual swap would be Butler for a 1st round pick that may or may not play 4 years and who knows at what level even if he does.

I won't even get into the thought that Gilmore just might not be as good as Butler in the Pats defense. This place will explode if we dump Butler for a draft pick and then fail because of a weaker secondary.

 

[scott99]

So you are telling ME that long posts aren't welcome.

Yours are always chock full of informative goodness, and non argumentative, so always welcome.

 

[PWRxWLF]

Maybe it's just me being optimistic, because to be completely honest, I'm never right about these type of things. But, I really really feel like something big is happening on Day 1 of the draft. IDK what it is, and I can make guesses all day long on who it involves, but the media is going to go wild, and there will be tears from the owners that cause a great flood and there will be hurricane winds from the collective sighs of millions of NFL and sports fans the world over who will have to hear about our beloved franchise for 10 more years!

 

[BradyFTW!]

IMHO, this is one of the most overlooked part of the whole deal. For Belichick to trade a #1 for another player is quite unlike him. In fact, I don't think he has done it even once before (and I would be interested in hearing if I am mistaken).

You're correct, at least since he's been running the show here. I don't know much about his time in Cleveland, but I doubt he did it there either.