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

[ivanvamp]

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

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

Every time you try to point something out, you get the actual facts wrong.

Your oft-used Belichick quote was in 2009. The CBA has been revised and signed in '68, '70, '74, '77, '82, '87, '93, '06, and '11.

So when Belichick made his comment in 2009, it was post Spygate (you claimed it was before Spygate). It was after the 2006 revision. The Welker trade - where the Patriots actually negotiated a trade for a RFA who was NOT under contract at the time - happened in 2007. Two years before BB's quote, and within the SAME EXACT CBA.

That the CBA has been revised (note: we do not know if the RFA rules were revised) in 2011 has NO bearing on a quote BB made back in 2009. You have to be insane to think that you can use a quote from 2009 to demonstrate the rules of a 2011 agreement.

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.

You have NO FREAKING IDEA what rule *is* in play. Because BB never actually cited a rule. And the rule that everyone THINKS is in play never actually says what you seem to think it says.

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

Did he? Which rule did he cite?

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.

Then why did the Patriots ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE THE TRADE FOR WES WELKER WHEN HE WAS AN RFA!?!? How could the Patriots have openly negotiated a trade for Welker, who was an unsigned RFA - under the same exact CBA that BB issued that quote you love to cite - if it was against the rules for them to do it? Tell me that. Please, for the love of God, tell me how that was possible.

The true words of someone who cannot effectively counter argue.

Oh Andy.................

 

[Ring 6]

Every time you try to point something out, you get the actual facts wrong.

Your oft-used Belichick quote was in 2009. The CBA has been revised and signed in '68, '70, '74, '77, '82, '87, '93, '06, and '11.

So when Belichick made his comment in 2009, it was post Spygate (you claimed it was before Spygate). It was after the 2006 revision. The Welker trade - where the Patriots actually negotiated a trade for a RFA who was NOT under contract at the time - happened in 2007. Two years before BB's quote, and within the SAME EXACT CBA.

That the CBA has been revised (note: we do not know if the RFA rules were revised) in 2011 has NO bearing on a quote BB made back in 2009. You have to be insane to think that you can use a quote from 2009 to demonstrate the rules of a 2011 agreement.

We were discussing tebucky jones and yes it was under a different set of rules.

You have NO FREAKING IDEA what rule *is* in play. Because BB never actually cited a rule. And the rule that everyone THINKS is in play never actually says what you seem to think it says.

No it doesn't.

Did he? Which rule did he cite?

The inevhe was speaking about.

Then why did the Patriots ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE THE TRADE FOR WES WELKER WHEN HE WAS AN RFA!?!? How could the Patriots have openly negotiated a trade for Welker, who was an unsigned RFA - under the same exact CBA that BB issued that quote you love to cite - if it was against the rules for them to do it? Tell me that. Please, for the love of God, tell me how that was possible.

I believe that welker agent negotiated the trade as a favor to the dolphins. If not BB violated the rule. I seriously doubt he did.

Oh Andy.................

I'm not the one making the argument that you are wrong simply because I say you are.

 

[1960Pats]

I can't believe I read the whole thread (well, other than the back and forth nonsense that gave me a severe case of carpal tunnel syndrome from spinning the mouse wheel).

See @Big Bucks, we made it. Unfortunately, a couple of the drivers will probably decide to add some more mileage to the journey.

Oh look, messages have been posted since I last loaded this page and I can view them. I wonder what those will be about.

 

[ivanvamp]

We were discussing tebucky jones and yes it was under a different set of rules.

Do you know for a fact that the RFA rules changed in 2006? Citation please.

The inevhe was speaking about.

LOL what?

I believe that welker agent negotiated the trade as a favor to the dolphins. If not BB violated the rule. I seriously doubt he did.

The only way that Welker's agent could have negotiated the trade is if THE PATRIOTS (i.e., BILL BELICHICK) WERE IN ON THE NEGOTIATIONS!

How could the Patriots have been in on the negotiations if it was against the rules for them to do so?

I'm not the one making the argument that you are wrong simply because I say you are.

You are making the argument that, despite mountains of evidence that I've actually brought to the table, you are right because of one tiny quote from BB back in 2009, where he doesn't even cite a rule, and which could have any number of different explanations.

 

[ivanvamp]

I can't believe I read the whole thread (well, other than the back and forth nonsense that gave me a severe case of carpal tunnel syndrome from spinning the mouse wheel).

See @Big Bucks, we made it. Unfortunately, a couple of the drivers will probably decide to add some more mileage to the journey.

Oh look, messages have been posted since I last loaded this page and I can view them. I wonder what those will be about.

You guys aren't finding this interesting?

What's fascinating for me isn't even the issue we're discussing. It's the position Andy has staked out, and his absolute unwillingness to even give a single inch no matter what evidence is brought before him. I find that, as a study of human psychology, to be incredibly interesting.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

You guys aren't finding this interesting?

What's fascinating for me isn't even the issue we're discussing. It's the position Andy has staked out, and his absolute unwillingness to even give a single inch no matter what evidence is brought before him. I find that, as a study of human psychology, to be incredibly interesting.

I have long ceased to figure out what BB will try to or interpret his moves. Instead, I sit back and admire/enjoy his head-scratching moves. It is what it is, as he will say.

In the meantime, though I neither disagree nor agree with your opinion of Andy, I am fascinated by the point-by-point rebuttal and back-and-forth between the two of you. It like watching a long tennis set between two heavy weights.

Please carry on this civil exchange.

 

[Big Bucks]

Are we there yet!?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

That the CBA has been revised (note: we do not know if the RFA rules were revised) in 2011 has NO bearing on a quote BB made back in 2009. You have to be insane to think that you can use a quote from 2009 to demonstrate the rules of a 2011 agreement.

Not to be facetious, but the texts of the CBAs are freely available, so it's just a matter of comparing them. (The major change is that they eliminated the top tier tender, which used to be for a first and third.)

 

[Clonamery]

Are we there yet!?

Yes, it is Spring.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

- 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

Good points. And the possible signing of Revis helps to mitigate the loss of Butler.

I'm starting to accept where this is going.... if Malcolm leaves, the Patriots can still find ways to maintain their secondary with the combination of veterans and talented, 1st round caliber prospects

 

[borg]

You guys aren't finding this interesting?

What's fascinating for me isn't even the issue we're discussing. It's the position Andy has staked out, and his absolute unwillingness to even give a single inch no matter what evidence is brought before him. I find that, as a study of human psychology, to be incredibly interesting.

I'm reminded of William H. Macy's character in Pleasantville

 

[pazrul72]

You guys aren't finding this interesting?

What's fascinating for me isn't even the issue we're discussing. It's the position Andy has staked out, and his absolute unwillingness to even give a single inch no matter what evidence is brought before him. I find that, as a study of human psychology, to be incredibly interesting.

I was going to say that the absolute masterstroke of your Magna Carta you wrote several pages back was acknowledging the strengths of Andy's arguments right up front, the parts you agree with and find puzzling. Then ripping the rest of it apart with facts and examples of why it is difficult to understand what's happening today with what has happened in the past. That's what makes it so interesting is we are getting mixed signals. On one hand BB did say we can not talk about someone who is not part of any team. On the other Tubucky and Wes did happen. You can't convince me something as complicated as a NFL trade is able to go down in just a couple hours with no talking what so ever between the parties before paperwork is signed.

So the question is is this something "everyone does" and Bill is being extra cautious due to being slapped down in the past for being held to a higher standard? Maybe Tubucky and Wes were just him being more ok then bending the rules? Or is there no rule about talking hypotheticals like when he signs his tender we will be willing to do this? I have no idea and could honestly see it either way. Personally I think talking about a future contract where the player gets more money now versus having to play for a low money one year contract is in everyone's best interests so talks between teams should be allowed. The actual trade itself needs to wait until the tender is signed but since when did talking hurt anyone?

 

[VectorPrime]

When was the last time actual news was posted in this thread? 50 arguments ago?

 

[ivanvamp]

Not to be facetious, but the texts of the CBAs are freely available, so it's just a matter of comparing them. (The major change is that they eliminated the top tier tender, which used to be for a first and third.)

So the "rule" about whether or not you could talk to another team about a possible trade involving an RFA has not changed between 2003 and the present?

 

[ivanvamp]

When was the last time actual news was posted in this thread? 50 arguments ago?

Hey now. I posted the news that the Patriots negotiated a trade with the Dolphins for Wes Welker back in 2007, despite the fact that Welker was an unsigned RFA!

 

[jan08]

There seems to be a lot of activity in this thread so I know its totally OT, but I'd like to ask a question and I need a quick answer.


Does anyone know if Ray Lewis killed a guy?

 

[SHOWTIME15]

 

[BradyFTW!]

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!

I agree, also based on a hunch and also being usually-wrong. I think having Malcom Brown and nothing else to show for four years' worth of first rounders runs so contrary to Belichick's apparent values that I'll be surprised if this holds. I think there has to be another shoe that'll be dropping at some point.

 

[Pats1989]

So is Butler getting dealt or not? This seems to really be dragging on...

 

[1960Pats]

Good points. And the possible signing of Revis helps to mitigate the loss of Butler.

I'm starting to accept where this is going.... if Malcolm leaves, the Patriots can still find ways to maintain their secondary with the combination of veterans and talented, 1st round caliber prospects

I think many fans are preparing for Malcolm's exit and are underestimating his value to the team. He would be missed, maybe a lot.
There's also a lot of conjecture about the actual numbers being discussed.
And there's much too much confidence in the ability to pick up a draft pick and get 4 or 5 years out of him.
We also can't say for sure that Gilmore will fit in perfectly.
I hope the team stays the way it is and just adds new players to the mix.