Butler visiting Saints

[Le Numéro Douze]

BB seems to like to allocate a certain amount of resources to different units. He prefers not "getting the best backfield" & hoping other units hold up. Seems like Butler being back would make for some crazy good backfield situations. But, like Rodney in 2003, the new player seems to be replacing, not adding...

Makes sense. However, Butler would make 3,9M this year, that's a pretty good deal for us. I guess BB sees Gilmore and Butler playing the same role for us therefore not needing to keep Butler. In that case, I would understand, but dislike the move (as I love Butler).

In BB we trust, I guess. He earned our trust.

 

[ATippett56]

Because, for example, BB would rather trade him now than keep him. And NO will not trade #11.

Suck it up son, you are a restricted free agent not an unrestricted free agent.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Doesn't he lose $$$ long term?

It depends on what NO is offering

If its Malcolm getting 4/$40 and a $15m signing bonus that is a helluva lot better than $3.91m 1 yr from NE

 

[farn]

Makes sense. However, Butler would make 3,9M this year, that's a pretty good deal for us. I guess BB sees Gilmore and Butler playing the same role for us therefore not needing to keep Butler. In that case, I would understand, but dislike the move (as I love Butler).

In BB we trust, I guess. He earned our trust.

Think you have it in this post. And, as mentionned a few posts ago by another, BB likes him some control going forward.

 

[Le Numéro Douze]

The fundamental philosophy of the NEP is if an asset cannot be controlled long term and a return on its investment then it is to be jettisoned.

If the asset presents a short-term liability then it is to be jettisoned immediately.

If you want to understand how BB views players, analyze how hedge fund managers operate.

Its all you need to know.

Makes total sense and total business sense. I guess I am thinking too much like a fan because I like Butler so much.

Thank you for your explanation, I appreciate it!

 

[Mack Herron]

Bill Belichick is under no obligation to trade Malcolm Butler. Bill Belichick is under no obligation to trade Jimmy Garoppolo.

Of course. Not what I said.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Makes total sense and total business sense. I guess I am thinking too much like a fan because I like Butler so much.

Thank you for your explanation, I appreciate it!

Its a brutally cold way to run a business and manage people.

But its been working for 17 years.

 

[ATippett56]

The fundamental philosophy of the NEP is if an asset cannot be controlled long term and a return on its investment not realized over its term then it is to be jettisoned.

If the asset presents a short-term liability and long term commitments are cloudy, then it is to be jettisoned immediately.

If you want to understand how BB views players, analyze how hedge fund managers operate.

Its all you need to know.

Yet BB allowed the likes of Browner, Revis, Ridley, Vereen, Welker to walk.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Yet BB allowed the likes of Browner, Revis, Ridley, Vereen, Welker to walk.

Exactly. BB adhered to his philosophy

 

[ATippett56]

Exactly. BB adhered to his philosophy

Unrestricted Free Agent vs Restricted Free Agent, big difference.

 

[ATippett56]

Of course. Not what I said.

If you think Butler's situation is terrible, imagine franchise tagged twice by the dysfunctional Washington Redskins.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Bill Belichick is under no obligation to trade Malcolm Butler. Bill Belichick is under no obligation to trade Jimmy Garoppolo.

No ****. So what?

Just because he's not obligated to doesn't mean he won't want to.

If they trade Butler for the #32 they lose Butler but gain a player who will be cheap for 4-5 years and (given his draft spot) will hopefully be good.

If they don't trade Butler they'll get the 2017 season out of him but will then (highly likely) lose him for nothing after 2017 ends.

Both of those scenarios have pros and cons. If Belichick thinks that on balance trading Butler is better, that's what he'll do. That he has "no obligation" to do so is completely irrelevant.

Also, they're not getting anyone's first-round pick via offer sheet. A first-round tendered RFA hasn't been signed away since 2003 and there's no reason to expect it'll happen now. So get the #11 pick out of your head. There's no way NE is getting that.

 

[ATippett56]

No ****. So what?

Just because he's not obligated to doesn't mean he won't want to.

If they trade Butler for the #32 they lose Butler but gain a player who will be cheap for 4-5 years and (given his draft spot) will hopefully be good.

If they don't trade Butler they'll get the 2017 season out of him but will then (highly likely) lose him for nothing after 2017 ends.

Both of those scenarios have pros and cons. If Belichick thinks that on balance trading Butler is better, that's what he'll do. That he has "no obligation" to do so is completely irrelevant.

Also, they're not getting anyone's first-round pick via offer sheet. A first-round tendered RFA hasn't been signed away since 2003 and there's no reason to expect it'll happen now. So get the #11 pick out of your head. There's no way NE is getting that.

Bill Belichick is under no obligation to trade Malcolm Butler whatsoever. I don't see Jimmy Garoppolo travelling all over the country acting like a cry baby.

 

[Soliel]

Belichick wont do this for less than the prescribed tender. I know he doesent want to lose the guy for nothing next year but there are other ideas. On the other hand Butler is acting out like a kid so this becomes a hard call.

 

[PatriotsPimp136]

I am surprise clairbone's still out there. I thought he played well for the cowboys. The guy can't stay healthy but he's worth a look. Why not? Give him a cheap 2 year deal. Always liked him out of college but he's brittled

 

[ATippett56]

Belichick wont do this for less than the prescribed tender. I know he doesent want to lose the guy for nothing next year but there are other ideas. On the other hand Butler is acting out like a kid so this becomes a hard call.

Kid?

How about a five year old throwing a temper tantrum on the kitchen floor?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Unrestricted Free Agent vs Restricted Free Agent, big difference.

OK great. Didn't know.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Bill Belichick is under no obligation to trade Malcolm Butler whatsoever. I don't see Jimmy Garoppolo travelling all over the country acting like a cry baby.

Jimmy Garoppolo is not a free agent and it would be illegal for him to go around talking to teams or for teams to be talking to him. Apples and watermelons.

 

[ATippett56]

Jimmy Garoppolo is not a free agent and it would be illegal for him to go around talking to teams or for teams to be talking to him. Apples and watermelons.

Neither is Malcolm Butler. Garoppolo vs Butler, fourth year pro vs fourth year pro.

The only difference between Garoppolo and Butler was that Garoppolo was drafted.

End of story.

 

[mitsudriver]

All this "lose the guy for nothing next year" crap is just that. Crap. The trade off isn't losing him for nothing. The trade off is take whatever trade compensation you can get now or a year of MB services at corner for $3.91 million. Since no first round tendered RFA have been signed away since, what 2003 or so, that's really the only two scenarios we're looking at.