Sean Payton says Saints won't sign Malcolm Butler to an offer sheet

[XLIX]

Lets say its true with Payton saying that they aren't going to sign Butler. Who else is interested? I'd rather just keep him.

He didn't say they aren't going to sign Butler; he said they aren't going to sign Butler to an offer sheet, meaning he will not give up #11 for Butler.

As for what they are willing to give up, and whether or not that would satisfy the Patriots, is anyone's guess.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

You could work around this by not having a signing bonus--you'd instead have a roster bonus that could become payable shortly after the trade, say, April 15. That puts it on the Saints' cap, not the Patriots.

You could, but roster bonuses aren't fully guaranteed, which may cause issues with the Butler camp. And they can't be spread out over several years, though I think at a certain point, future ones can be converted.

So if Butler wants to get say $20M guaranteed his first year, a signing bonus would be the best option, especially since the Saints currently only have $8M of cap room to work with. The Saints could then guarantee money in future years if they want, but let's say we create a perfect deal for them, backloading the years because of their salary cap issues, then they bail on the deal at the last minute. Now we have a ****ty deal for us.

And that's really what I don't understand. Just because we CAN do this or CAN do that really misses the point. WHY would we do anything regarding negotiating a deal on our competitor's behalf?

Let's say the deal is for #32 and a 4th round pick. If we help negotiate a better deal, does that 4th become a 3rd? If we get the same pick regardless, who gives a ****? Just trade him, be done with it. Otherwise you're assuming a ton of headaches and risk for no real gain.

Maybe if the Saints are saying if you work out the deal for us, we'll upgrade the pick. But there's no indication that's in the cards, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be comfortable because you're still taking risk that they will bail on the deal last-minute. I don't think they would, but it's still risk that you don't need to do unless there's an actual financial gain somewhere, and I just don't see it.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Yes someone could have. Butler and his agent are free to discuss what the saints would give up and threaten to hold out if the patriots don't agree to that trade if he signs the tender.
Happens all the time.
It's the legal way to handle this.

Yes, but we can all agree that would be the most foolish way to handle this situation. By holding out, not only does it look bad and devalue him from the standpoint of other teams, it would also prevent him from accruing the year he needs in order to hit UFA. It would be like a poker player who is holding a 2/7 offsuit and pushing his chips all in, though his cards are visible to everyone. He would just get fined, miss offseason activities, potentially get benched, and then would cave eventually.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, but we can all agree that would be the most foolish way to handle this situation. By holding out, not only does it look bad and devalue him from the standpoint of other teams, it would also prevent him from accruing the year he needs in order to hit UFA. It would be like a poker player who is holding a 2/7 offsuit and pushing his chips all in, though his cards are visible to everyone. He would just get fined, miss offseason activities, potentially get benched, and then would cave eventually.

The point is not that he holds out.
The point is that ASSUMING the patriots want to trade him and ASSUMING that after telling him that he goes and works out a deal, then ASSUMING the Patriots say no, never mind we want to hold you over a barrell so we are going to force you to sign the tender and then we will pick who we trade you to, then that is his recourse.
Meaning because a holdout is good for no one if butler negotiates a reasonable trade the patriots will take it again ASSUMING they have any intention of trading him which we have no concrete proof of.

 

[Ring 6]

You could, but roster bonuses aren't fully guaranteed, which may cause issues with the Butler camp. And they can't be spread out over several years, though I think at a certain point, future ones can be converted.

So if Butler wants to get say $20M guaranteed his first year, a signing bonus would be the best option, especially since the Saints currently only have $8M of cap room to work with. The Saints could then guarantee money in future years if they want, but let's say we create a perfect deal for them, backloading the years because of their salary cap issues, then they bail on the deal at the last minute. Now we have a ****ty deal for us.

And that's really what I don't understand. Just because we CAN do this or CAN do that really misses the point. WHY would we do anything regarding negotiating a deal on our competitor's behalf?

Let's say the deal is for #32 and a 4th round pick. If we help negotiate a better deal, does that 4th become a 3rd? If we get the same pick regardless, who gives a ****? Just trade him, be done with it. Otherwise you're assuming a ton of headaches and risk for no real gain.

Maybe if the Saints are saying if you work out the deal for us, we'll upgrade the pick. But there's no indication that's in the cards, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be comfortable because you're still taking risk that they will bail on the deal last-minute. I don't think they would, but it's still risk that you don't need to do unless there's an actual financial gain somewhere, and I just don't see it.

He negotiates the contract with NO, signs the tender, gets traded, then signs his new deal. You have the order of the steps mixed up.

 

[ivanvamp]

He negotiates the contract with NO, signs the tender, gets traded, then signs his new deal. You have the order of the steps mixed up.

In order for him to be assured that he is going to get traded after signing the tender, the terms of the trade need to be worked out and agreed upon ahead of time. Otherwise, he takes a chance that by signing the tender, the Patriots don't just go, oh hey great, see you in camp!

 

[convertedpatsfan]

He negotiates the contract with NO, signs the tender, gets traded, then signs his new deal. You have the order of the steps mixed up.

You missed the earlier posts. That was my point, we shouldn't be involved in creating a contract as an earlier poster wrote.

 

[Ring 6]

In order for him to be assured that he is going to get traded after signing the tender, the terms of the trade need to be worked out and agreed upon ahead of time. Otherwise, he takes a chance that by signing the tender, the Patriots don't just go, oh hey great, see you in camp!

Of course. That is why his agent negotiates both the terms and the trade with the new team and goes back to the old team with the offer

 

[Ring 6]

You missed the earlier posts. That was my point, we shouldn't be involved in creating a contract as an earlier poster wrote.

Then I agree

 

[supafly]

Lets say its true with Payton saying that they aren't going to sign Butler. Who else is interested? I'd rather just keep him.

Did Sean Payton actually claim that they aren't going to sign Butler?

Edit: nevermind, I just saw an earlier explanation.

 

[RIpats88]

I still think the most likely scenario is that butler plays in New england on the 3.9million$ The fact that it has gone silent since the meeting and the saints explanation of it is "exploring the waters" tells me likely Butler realized the Pats offer really wasnt a slap in the face. it was an accurate assessment of where his market stands NOW.

 

[RayClay]

SP and BB can't say they are negotiating a trade, but SP can say to the media he is interested in butler, can't he? That's not tampering as far as I know.

He just said he wasn't going to sign an offer sheet so, in what way, can he say he is interested that isn't about a trade?