2017 Butler Watch: Love Me Tender

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY


Jason La Canfora‏Verified account @JasonLaCanfora

Saints and Pats expect to continue exploring a Malcolm Butler trade but simply might not be able to agree on trade compensation...

Nothing really new here...
That the answer is not simply the 32 back to NE is news to me. I have been assuming they had a handshake from the beginning, the Pats would get the 32 back, and the trade was always essentially Cooks for Butler. If they actually can't get to a deal, or if the 32 doesn't do it, then things are different than that.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,669
32 plus a market-value-ish- extension when there are lots of DBs in the draft (and Richard Sherman possibly available for less) seems like a stretch. I'd say 42 or 76 is more likely.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
That the answer is not simply the 32 back to NE is news to me. I have been assuming they had a handshake from the beginning, the Pats would get the 32 back, and the trade was always essentially Cooks for Butler. If they actually can't get to a deal, or if the 32 doesn't do it, then things are different than that.
Wouldn't a 'handshake deal' have been illegal if Butler wasn't under contract? Just seems like hubris for both Payton and Belichick (of all people) to think that the NFL wouldn't want to look deeper into that.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
Wouldn't a 'handshake deal' have been illegal if Butler wasn't under contract? Just seems like hubris for both Payton and Belichick (of all people) to think that the NFL wouldn't want to look deeper into that.
Exactly. I highly doubt they talked trade terms before Butler signed his tender. The Pats do everything in their power to do things above board, and I assume Payton operates in the same way now
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
Wouldn't a 'handshake deal' have been illegal if Butler wasn't under contract? Just seems like hubris for both Payton and Belichick (of all people) to think that the NFL wouldn't want to look deeper into that.
Had the Belichick told the Saints: "I'd trade you Butler for Cooks if he had signed his tender. Not sure if you want to wait until he does; if not, I'll send you the 32".

Saints: "Sure, I'll take the 32. But call me if Butler does sign even afterwards; we'd love to have him if we can work it out".

I don't think there is anything wrong with the above.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Wouldn't a 'handshake deal' have been illegal if Butler wasn't under contract? Just seems like hubris for both Payton and Belichick (of all people) to think that the NFL wouldn't want to look deeper into that.
Yes, and the Pats have been very careful to avoid this, well before the Butler situation developed.

#32 in a deep draft and regarded as deep at Butler's position is extraordinarily valuable. Depth and position aside, it's the last pick that gives you an extra year of player control. And it's the last pick of the night, so some team lusting after someone still on the board has a chance to get that guy and avoid an auction that will start for #33 and last all night and the next day until the second round opens.

If we were to get #32, BB would play this for all it's worth -- unless some guy fell dramatically who he really wanted. So why wouldn't the Saints do the same? You always should ask that question.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I'm with Lex and think folks are being overly technical and cautious. Perhaps "handshake" was too strong of a term, though. What I meant is that they very well might have had a tacit understanding that was unrecorded enough to keep them both out of trouble. Nothing definitive yet something they both understood. Especially with two guys who like and respect each other, I think something like that was do-able.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I'm with Lex and think folks are being overly technical and cautious. Perhaps "handshake" was too strong of a term, though. What I meant is that they very well might have had a tacit understanding that was unrecorded enough to keep them both out of trouble. Nothing definitive yet something they both understood. Especially with two guys who like and respect each other, I think something like that was do-able.
Even if that were the case, by definition it's unenforceable. That's then, this is now. For reasons documented in these 20 pages, the Saints would be selling themselves short by giving the Pats 32 and Butler the money likely necessary to satisfy him. Particularly since, by no stretch of the imagination, are the Saints deemed one-player-away. And if anything, with Butler holding himself out of voluntary workouts, the perception of leverage tilts more in the Saints' favor.

If it were the Steelers, different story; you may not agree with the move, but it would be totally understandable.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
Even if that were the case, by definition it's unenforceable. That's then, this is now. For reasons documented in these 20 pages, the Saints would be selling themselves short by giving the Pats 32 and Butler the money likely necessary to satisfy him. Particularly since, by no stretch of the imagination, are the Saints deemed one-player-away. And if anything, with Butler holding himself out of voluntary workouts, the perception of leverage tilts more in the Saints' favor.

If it were the Steelers, different story; you may not agree with the move, but it would be totally understandable.
I'm not sure that the leverage is not in the Patriots favor. What is the Patriots incentive to trade Butler now that he has signed his tender? Are the Patriots better off this year with a first round pick instead of Butler? I almost feel like the Patriots are potentially one-player-removed from being Super Bowl favorites (or however that needs to be worded to make sense).
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Even if that were the case, by definition it's unenforceable. That's then, this is now. For reasons documented in these 20 pages, the Saints would be selling themselves short by giving the Pats 32 and Butler the money likely necessary to satisfy him. Particularly since, by no stretch of the imagination, are the Saints deemed one-player-away. And if anything, with Butler holding himself out of voluntary workouts, the perception of leverage tilts more in the Saints' favor.

If it were the Steelers, different story; you may not agree with the move, but it would be totally understandable.
No argument about it being unenforceable. That's the nature of a handshake/tacit agreement/undocumented understanding.

My point was that I considered it news that the Pats and Saints might not be able to come to terms on a Butler trade because my assumption was that they effectively had already done that. And that they were only waiting to give themselves some daylight between from when he signed the tender and official consummation of the deal.

In fact, I still think that's what happened and that Butler will go to NO, and at a price that Belichick and Payton have already agreed on informally. Whether that's the 32 or something else is another matter.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
No argument about it being unenforceable. That's the nature of a handshake/tacit agreement/undocumented understanding.

My point was that I considered it news that the Pats and Saints might not be able to come to terms on a Butler trade because my assumption was that they effectively had already done that. And that they were only waiting to give themselves some daylight between from when he signed the tender and official consummation of the deal.

In fact, I still think that's what happened and that Butler will go to NO, and at a price that Belichick and Payton have already agreed on informally. Whether that's the 32 or something else is another matter.
I still don't see why NO would give up a pick for him plus give him a huge deal when they can just draft a CB
 

H78

Fists of Millennial Fury!
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2009
4,613
I'm not sure that the leverage is not in the Patriots favor. What is the Patriots incentive to trade Butler now that he has signed his tender? Are the Patriots better off this year with a first round pick instead of Butler? I almost feel like the Patriots are potentially one-player-removed from being Super Bowl favorites (or however that needs to be worded to make sense).
If they lose Butler they're still huge Super Bowl favorites. Especially if they replace him on a short deal with, say, Jason McCourty.

Butler is the #1, prime example of an embarrassment of riches for the 2017 squad. The truth is I don't think they actually need him, but they become that much more impossible to beat in 2017 if they keep him.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,018
Oregon
I still don't see why NO would give up a pick for him plus give him a huge deal when they can just draft a CB
Butler is proven, a draftee is not ... and as others have said, the CBs in this draft might not be as sure-things as advertised
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I'm not sure that the leverage is not in the Patriots favor. What is the Patriots incentive to trade Butler now that he has signed his tender? Are the Patriots better off this year with a first round pick instead of Butler? I almost feel like the Patriots are potentially one-player-removed from being Super Bowl favorites (or however that needs to be worded to make sense).
I think so, and my hope is that they keep him next season and that he acts professionally. What happens after that, I do not much care.

Much of this discussion presupposes the Pats want to deal him, but I hope they don't.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,018
Oregon
I think so, and my hope is that they keep him next season and that he acts professionally. What happens after that, I do not much care.

Much of this discussion presupposes the Pats want to deal him, but I hope they don't.
This where I am at this point
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I think so, and my hope is that they keep him next season and that he acts professionally. What happens after that, I do not much care.

Much of this discussion presupposes the Pats want to deal him, but I hope they don't.
Amen to all of that.

I would much rather they keep Butler. I'm not at all convinced that Gilmore is better than him and every time I re-watch SB 51 (from the 6 minute mark of the 3rd quarter, mind you), I am reminded of my Butler love. And especially on that pivotal 3rd and 33 pass when he had the WR totally blanketed.

My assumption is that things have soured with Butler and that he will be moved. And that Jason McCourty will appear. I hope that I am wrong.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
If they lose Butler they're still huge Super Bowl favorites. Especially if they replace him on a short deal with, say, Jason McCourty.

Butler is the #1, prime example of an embarrassment of riches for the 2017 squad. The truth is I don't think they actually need him, but they become that much more impossible to beat in 2017 if they keep him.
Even with the addition of Gilmore, I worry that the lose of Butler potentially compounds the loses of Long, Sheard and Ryan and is the fatal flaw of our roster construction.

Much of this discussion presupposes the Pats want to deal him, but I hope they don't.
100% agreed.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
Honestly I am good either way.

If Butler stays, that is awesome, they'll have an awesome defensive backfield in 2017 and they could potentially franchise him in 2018 if they want. He is likely gone after 2017, and almost 100% gone after 2018.

If Butler is traded, they will get an asset that hopefully will help them for the next 4-5 years, and they would also likely sign a guy like McCourty around a similar price as Butler for a similar timeframe - like 2 or 3 years.

I actually think that McCourty + 32 is better for the Pats for the next 4-5 years than keeping Butler and either letting him walk or franchising him in 2018. YMMV.
 

PayrodsFirstClutchHit

Bob Kraft's Season Ticket Robin Hoodie
SoSH Member
Jun 29, 2006
8,319
Winterport, ME
The PFF grades on Butler for last season are 3rd best coverage corner and 4th overall best corner. We are not talking some JAG the Pats should dump due to poor performance. The odds of getting an equivalent coverage corner in the draft, (even in the first round) are low.

I do not see the value for the Pats to unload Butler given there is no cap need and he has yet to demonstrate the contract issues will translate to poor on-field performance.
 
Last edited:

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,018
Oregon
When we took our unscientific poll of what we thought would happen, more than 79% of respondents said they thought Butler would be staying ... so it's not as those there's a clamoring for him to be gone
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
Had the Belichick told the Saints: "I'd trade you Butler for Cooks if he had signed his tender. Not sure if you want to wait until he does; if not, I'll send you the 32".

Saints: "Sure, I'll take the 32. But call me if Butler does sign even afterwards; we'd love to have him if we can work it out".

I don't think there is anything wrong with the above.
Sure there is. NFLPA would rightfully be pissed and look deeply into this.

There has been talk in the past about the NFLPA filling collusion charges due to the lack of RFA signings. If they had actual evidence of teams discussing a trade of a free agent, the NFLPA would be rushing to file.


Specific to Butler, yes I hope he's here this year and still think along term deal is a possibility.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,841
Even with the addition of Gilmore, I worry that the lose of Butler potentially compounds the loses of Long, Sheard and Ryan and is the fatal flaw of our roster construction.
That's why we're gonna score 50 a game.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
Even with the addition of Gilmore, I worry that the lose of Butler potentially compounds the loses of Long, Sheard and Ryan and is the fatal flaw of our roster construction.
Is this post serious? Long and Sheard were statues. They barely made an impact. The Pats have nowhere to go but up in terms of their edge players. Re: Ryan, if Butler leaves, then yes, this is a small concern, but A) I think Rowe played well and will continue to improve; B) there is still an ultra talented 2nd round pick named Cyrus Jones on the roster who could make an impact in 2017; and C) there are guys out there like Jason McCourty who could probably be signed at a decent price and provide pretty good performance.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,188
32 plus a market-value-ish- extension when there are lots of DBs in the draft (and Richard Sherman possibly available for less) seems like a stretch. I'd say 42 or 76 is more likely.
If the Patriots would have been happy with a 2nd or 3rd round pick, they would have given him a 2nd round tender. Maybe 42 is high enough, but accepting 76 makes no sense at all to me. Personally, I would value him at 32+.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
If the Patriots would have been happy with a 2nd or 3rd round pick, they would have given him a 2nd round tender. Maybe 42 is high enough, but accepting 76 makes no sense at all to me. Personally, I would value him at 32+.
This is a fantastic point. It is so simple but so smart. Can't believe it hasn't been made yet (I think)
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
Is this post serious? Long and Sheard were statues. They barely made an impact. The Pats have nowhere to go but up in terms of their edge players. Re: Ryan, if Butler leaves, then yes, this is a small concern, but A) I think Rowe played well and will continue to improve; B) there is still an ultra talented 2nd round pick named Cyrus Jones on the roster who could make an impact in 2017; and C) there are guys out there like Jason McCourty who could probably be signed at a decent price and provide pretty good performance.
Okay, Long and Sheard were statues, and yet the team went 14-2, allowed the fewest points in the league, and won the Super Bowl.

Does it not follow, based simply on how good the defense was last year, that the weakness of the edge was masked by the strong play of the rest of the defense, including, the secondary? (or perhaps that Long and Sheard were not quite as bad as you are making them out to be?)

If so, and with no evidence so far that the addition of Kony Ealy addresses or improves the edge, is it really that out of line to worry that a talent loss in the secondary could have a snowball effect that exposes weaknesses in other areas of the defense?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
If the Patriots would have been happy with a 2nd or 3rd round pick, they would have given him a 2nd round tender. Maybe 42 is high enough, but accepting 76 makes no sense at all to me. Personally, I would value him at 32+.
It is a good point, but things can change in 6 weeks.

They tendered Butler March 7, signed Gilmore to a huge deal March 10.

They are not stupid, so they probably figured Butler would not be thrilled with either development. And they probably made the calculation that a Butler extension was unlikely, and that they would have him for one year and that is it. (I don't believe anyone, including Butler, takes seriously the prospect of being franchised after the "17 season, which would result in a $16 MM cap hit.)

These are reasonable assumptions. They reflect their estimation that Butler for one year > anything less than a first round pick next week.

Now the question is, raised by Stitch early and often, does that equation change because Butler is going to be high maintenance? That's what these six weeks have been about.

I agree with you about 76, but I do not believe 32 is happening, and they may have to settle for 42 if they want to part ways.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,426
The PFF grades on Butler for last season are 3rd best coverage corner and 4th overall best corner. We are not talking some JAG the Pats should dump due to poor performance. The odds of getting an equivalent coverage corner in the draft, (even in the first round) are low.

I do not see the value for the Pats to unload Butler given there is no cap need and he has yet to demonstrate the contract issues will translate to poor on-field performance.
Cool. What's does my first grade nephew think?
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,669
If the Patriots would have been happy with a 2nd or 3rd round pick, they would have given him a 2nd round tender. Maybe 42 is high enough, but accepting 76 makes no sense at all to me. Personally, I would value him at 32+.
Yes, very good point.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
Okay, Long and Sheard were statues, and yet the team went 14-2, allowed the fewest points in the league, and won the Super Bowl.

Does it not follow, based simply on how good the defense was last year, that the weakness of the edge was masked by the strong play of the rest of the defense, including, the secondary? (or perhaps that Long and Sheard were not quite as bad as you are making them out to be?)

If so, and with no evidence so far that the addition of Kony Ealy addresses or improves the edge, is it really that out of line to worry that a talent loss in the secondary could have a snowball effect that exposes weaknesses in other areas of the defense?
I agree that the secondary masked some of the pressure issues. But let's remember the defense performed more like a middle of the pack defense than the #1 ranked defense. Yes they led the league in points allowed and went 14-2 but most metrics had them middle of the pack. And yes if they lose Butler and Ryan while adding Gilmore that does represent some loss of talent. But again you have to remember that other guys can improve, and there are veterans available to sign. I mean honestly your post sounds like the 2014 offseason after they won the Super Bowl - how will they replace Revis & Browner???!?!!111. Their 2015 D was on the same level as the 2014 defense despite that. They'll find a way.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,188
It is a good point, but things can change in 6 weeks.

They tendered Butler March 7, signed Gilmore to a huge deal March 10.

They are not stupid, so they probably figured Butler would not be thrilled with either development. And they probably made the calculation that a Butler extension was unlikely, and that they would have him for one year and that is it. (I don't believe anyone, including Butler, takes seriously the prospect of being franchised after the "17 season, which would result in a $16 MM cap hit.)

These are reasonable assumptions. They reflect their estimation that Butler for one year > anything less than a first round pick next week.

Now the question is, raised by Stitch early and often, does that equation change because Butler is going to be high maintenance? That's what these six weeks have been about.

I agree with you about 76, but I do not believe 32 is happening, and they may have to settle for 42 if they want to part ways.
I agree with you that signing Gilmore could have changed their valuation of Butler, however his snap count probably won't be much different with Gilmore on the team than if he hadn't signed. So how much less value does Butler provide now than he did before? I'm not sure I know how to answer that, but my instinct is that the change is small.

A player on an RFA tender being high maintenance or upset is completely predictable. It should come as no surprise to the team that Butler wanted a longer deal. They should have been almost completely factored into their initial decision to tender him.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
It is a good point, but things can change in 6 weeks.

They tendered Butler March 7, signed Gilmore to a huge deal March 10.

They are not stupid, so they probably figured Butler would not be thrilled with either development. And they probably made the calculation that a Butler extension was unlikely, and that they would have him for one year and that is it. (I don't believe anyone, including Butler, takes seriously the prospect of being franchised after the "17 season, which would result in a $16 MM cap hit.)

These are reasonable assumptions. They reflect their estimation that Butler for one year > anything less than a first round pick next week.

Now the question is, raised by Stitch early and often, does that equation change because Butler is going to be high maintenance? That's what these six weeks have been about.

I agree with you about 76, but I do not believe 32 is happening, and they may have to settle for 42 if they want to part ways.
Exactly and there's also the fact that there may be a line of delineation for them on the value they're looking to get back if they let him go and also a bit of control as to where he ends up comes into play with a first round tender.

If they tendered at second round level and say, the Steelers go after him - well, they might not value a back of the round 2nd that highly and are forced to match or take less than they want in return value. They might be perfectly content with the fifth pick in the second though, only there's no way to assure that other than taking the road they chose.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Wouldn't a 'handshake deal' have been illegal if Butler wasn't under contract? Just seems like hubris for both Payton and Belichick (of all people) to think that the NFL wouldn't want to look deeper into that.
Exactly. I highly doubt they talked trade terms before Butler signed his tender. The Pats do everything in their power to do things above board, and I assume Payton operates in the same way now
Yes, and the Pats have been very careful to avoid this, well before the Butler situation developed.
Is this really the case? When the Pats traded for Wes Welker, the reports were that they negotiated a deal while Welker was still a RFA.

From: http://archive.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/10/17/patriots_pounced_fast_to_grab_welker/

"From Welker's perspective, the interest from the Patriots was flattering. While some teams' views of him reflected the label with which he entered the league - a rookie free agent - he felt different on his visit to New England.

By that point, the only question was how to finalize the process. The Patriots were prepared to sign Welker to an offer sheet that included a "poison pill" that would make it difficult for the Dolphins to match. Yet in hopes of avoiding the bad blood that sometimes can accompany offer sheets - the Seahawks and Vikings recently engaged in a nasty back and forth with offensive lineman Steve Hutchinson and receiver Nate Burleson exchanging teams via offer sheets - the Patriots instead called the Dolphins and proposed a trade.

The Dolphins were amenable, shipping Welker to the Patriots for second- and seventh-round draft choices. The Dolphins used the second-rounder (60th overall) to select Hawaii center Samson Satele, who has started all six games this season. The seventh-round pick (238th overall) yielded Abraham Wright, a linebacker from Colorado who has been inactive for every game."

From: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/giants/cruz-rules-tender-options-blog-entry-1.1657084

"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."

From: http://www.thephinsider.com/2012/2/12/2792894/miami-dolphins-revenge-wes-welker-poison-pill

"After the 2006 season, the Dolphins offered Welker, a restricted free agent, a second round tender, with a $1.35 million one-year contract. However, the New England Patriots suddenly came into the picture, and looked ready to snatch the wide out from the Dolphins. The Patriots were free to negotiate a contract with Welker, but Miami would have had seven days to match.

So, the Patriots were looking to add a poison pill to the deal. Essentially, New England was looking to add a stipulation stating that if Welker played a certain number of games (around 5) in the state of Florida, a huge bonus would kick in. That bonus would prevent the Dolphins from being able to match the offer, and New England would be able to sign Welker, sending a second round pick to Miami for him.

In the end, rather than officially put the poison pill into an offer, the Patriots worked out a trade with the Dolphins, sending their 2007 second and seventh round picks to Miami for Welker."


So it seems that what happened was that Welker was an RFA, had not yet signed the Dolphins' tender, and the Patriots were prepared to make him an offer sheet that included a poison pill. But they knew that bad blood comes about with those, so they called Miami and worked out a deal that was amenable to the Dolphins and Welker. They all agreed, then Welker signed the Dolphins' tender, and then they consummated the trade.

Granted, all those reports could be wrong, but I doubt it. And I know they entered a new CBA since then, but I don't think this part of it was changed materially. I think as long as the player is on board, it's all ok. At least when the Pats dealt for Welker it seemed to be.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,841
There's a lot of words in this thread but in the end it seems obvious there was no handshake deal cuz he's still here so why do we care?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Is this really the case? When the Pats traded for Wes Welker, the reports were that they negotiated a deal while Welker was still a RFA.

From: http://archive.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/10/17/patriots_pounced_fast_to_grab_welker/

"From Welker's perspective, the interest from the Patriots was flattering. While some teams' views of him reflected the label with which he entered the league - a rookie free agent - he felt different on his visit to New England.

By that point, the only question was how to finalize the process. The Patriots were prepared to sign Welker to an offer sheet that included a "poison pill" that would make it difficult for the Dolphins to match. Yet in hopes of avoiding the bad blood that sometimes can accompany offer sheets - the Seahawks and Vikings recently engaged in a nasty back and forth with offensive lineman Steve Hutchinson and receiver Nate Burleson exchanging teams via offer sheets - the Patriots instead called the Dolphins and proposed a trade.

The Dolphins were amenable, shipping Welker to the Patriots for second- and seventh-round draft choices. The Dolphins used the second-rounder (60th overall) to select Hawaii center Samson Satele, who has started all six games this season. The seventh-round pick (238th overall) yielded Abraham Wright, a linebacker from Colorado who has been inactive for every game."

From: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/giants/cruz-rules-tender-options-blog-entry-1.1657084

"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."

From: http://www.thephinsider.com/2012/2/12/2792894/miami-dolphins-revenge-wes-welker-poison-pill

"After the 2006 season, the Dolphins offered Welker, a restricted free agent, a second round tender, with a $1.35 million one-year contract. However, the New England Patriots suddenly came into the picture, and looked ready to snatch the wide out from the Dolphins. The Patriots were free to negotiate a contract with Welker, but Miami would have had seven days to match.

So, the Patriots were looking to add a poison pill to the deal. Essentially, New England was looking to add a stipulation stating that if Welker played a certain number of games (around 5) in the state of Florida, a huge bonus would kick in. That bonus would prevent the Dolphins from being able to match the offer, and New England would be able to sign Welker, sending a second round pick to Miami for him.

In the end, rather than officially put the poison pill into an offer, the Patriots worked out a trade with the Dolphins, sending their 2007 second and seventh round picks to Miami for Welker."


So it seems that what happened was that Welker was an RFA, had not yet signed the Dolphins' tender, and the Patriots were prepared to make him an offer sheet that included a poison pill. But they knew that bad blood comes about with those, so they called Miami and worked out a deal that was amenable to the Dolphins and Welker. They all agreed, then Welker signed the Dolphins' tender, and then they consummated the trade.

Granted, all those reports could be wrong, but I doubt it. And I know they entered a new CBA since then, but I don't think this part of it was changed materially. I think as long as the player is on board, it's all ok. At least when the Pats dealt for Welker it seemed to be.
Let's assume the reporting is accurate. You are citing a 2007 example involving Welker. That occurred before Spygate, before Deflategate and before the NFLPA militancy that now exists.

To me that's apples and oranges. It is now beyond any reasonable doubt that the League office - and influential teams -- are out to get them. It would be reckless for this team provide a pretext to get them. And bending the rules to offload a player they probably would prefer remain in the fold would be reckless. I prefer to assume they have learned some things and are not reckless.

As for what the Giants may or may not get away with -- ha. Can you imagine the response if the Eli Manning shit show were now playing out in Foxboro? Different rules for different teams and a bull's eye on us.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Let's assume the reporting is accurate. You are citing a 2007 example involving Welker. That occurred before Spygate, before Deflategate and before the NFLPA militancy that now exists.

To me that's apples and oranges. It is now beyond any reasonable doubt that the League office - and influential teams -- are out to get them. It would be reckless for this team provide a pretext to get them. And bending the rules to offload a player they probably would prefer remain in the fold would be reckless. I prefer to assume they have learned some things and are not reckless.

As for what the Giants may or may not get away with -- ha. Can you imagine the response if the Eli Manning shit show were now playing out in Foxboro? Different rules for different teams and a bull's eye on us.
Oh I totally agree with your point. Fully. But I just don't think that it's against the rules to negotiate a deal if the player involved approves. Which was obviously true in the Welker case and which would likely have been true in the Butler case.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
Is this really the case? When the Pats traded for Wes Welker, the reports were that they negotiated a deal while Welker was still a RFA.

From: http://archive.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/10/17/patriots_pounced_fast_to_grab_welker/

"From Welker's perspective, the interest from the Patriots was flattering. While some teams' views of him reflected the label with which he entered the league - a rookie free agent - he felt different on his visit to New England.

By that point, the only question was how to finalize the process. The Patriots were prepared to sign Welker to an offer sheet that included a "poison pill" that would make it difficult for the Dolphins to match. Yet in hopes of avoiding the bad blood that sometimes can accompany offer sheets - the Seahawks and Vikings recently engaged in a nasty back and forth with offensive lineman Steve Hutchinson and receiver Nate Burleson exchanging teams via offer sheets - the Patriots instead called the Dolphins and proposed a trade.

The Dolphins were amenable, shipping Welker to the Patriots for second- and seventh-round draft choices. The Dolphins used the second-rounder (60th overall) to select Hawaii center Samson Satele, who has started all six games this season. The seventh-round pick (238th overall) yielded Abraham Wright, a linebacker from Colorado who has been inactive for every game."

From: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/giants/cruz-rules-tender-options-blog-entry-1.1657084

"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."

From: http://www.thephinsider.com/2012/2/12/2792894/miami-dolphins-revenge-wes-welker-poison-pill

"After the 2006 season, the Dolphins offered Welker, a restricted free agent, a second round tender, with a $1.35 million one-year contract. However, the New England Patriots suddenly came into the picture, and looked ready to snatch the wide out from the Dolphins. The Patriots were free to negotiate a contract with Welker, but Miami would have had seven days to match.

So, the Patriots were looking to add a poison pill to the deal. Essentially, New England was looking to add a stipulation stating that if Welker played a certain number of games (around 5) in the state of Florida, a huge bonus would kick in. That bonus would prevent the Dolphins from being able to match the offer, and New England would be able to sign Welker, sending a second round pick to Miami for him.

In the end, rather than officially put the poison pill into an offer, the Patriots worked out a trade with the Dolphins, sending their 2007 second and seventh round picks to Miami for Welker."


So it seems that what happened was that Welker was an RFA, had not yet signed the Dolphins' tender, and the Patriots were prepared to make him an offer sheet that included a poison pill. But they knew that bad blood comes about with those, so they called Miami and worked out a deal that was amenable to the Dolphins and Welker. They all agreed, then Welker signed the Dolphins' tender, and then they consummated the trade.

Granted, all those reports could be wrong, but I doubt it. And I know they entered a new CBA since then, but I don't think this part of it was changed materially. I think as long as the player is on board, it's all ok. At least when the Pats dealt for Welker it seemed to be.
That was before spygate when the league didn't go after the Pats for such things with so much zeal.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
I don't believe there's anything in the CBA or the league bylaws to prevent two teams discussing interest in a player that happens to be an RFA. Granted, the NFL does sometimes make rules up as they go, but I fail to see the harm if the Saints expressed interest in trading for Butler. I don't believe the teams even attempted to make a handshake deal. But given that Butler visited the Saints, it certainly makes sense that they would call the Pats once Butler signed his tender. There is nothing to prevent the Pats from trading him to the Saints or any other team; the CBA allows it, in fact.

I hope the Pats don't trade him. I think $4M is cheap money for a guy of Butler's talents.
 

Otto

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
1,736
Anytime, USA
There's a rule, and it was changed in the current CBA (i.e., since the Welker trade). The most recent change (bolded/italicized) adds a clumsy trade provision (player must sign new contract prior to being traded, which is cap ignorant; or player must sign the tender and then be traded, which adds some complication due to veteran renegotiation rules within 12 months) and an unwelcome twist (NFLPA review/approval):

No Consideration Between Clubs. There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club's decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal, or in exchange for a Club's decision to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to a Restricted Free Agent or to make or not to make an offer to enter into a Player Contract with a Restricted Free Agent. Nothing in 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. If a Club exercises its Right of First Refusal and matches an Offer Sheet, that Club may not trade that player to the Club that submitted the Offer Sheet for at least one calendar year, unless the player consents to such trade.

I can see why a team might not want to deal with this rule.
 
Bert Breer on Sports Sunday with Felger said Pats and Saints definitely revisited trade talks this week. He says if he had to put a percentage on it, there's a 51% chance Butler ends up in NO. Breer hears that if the trade goes through, it will be for #42 (not #32) and an additional pick - probably a fourth rounder. When Felger argued that #42 and a fourth is a poor return Breer said Belichick doesn't want another Jamie Collins situation where the contentious contract talks bled onto the field. NE is fearful the same thing could happen with Butler. Not sure I agree with that last part but thought it was worth posting.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,018
Oregon
Bert Breer on Sports Sunday with Felger said Pats and Saints definitely revisited trade talks this week. He says if he had to put a percentage on it, there's a 51% chance Butler ends up in NO. Breer hears that if the trade goes through, it will be for #42 (not #32) and an additional pick - probably a fourth rounder. When Felger argued that #42 and a fourth is a poor return Breer said Belichick doesn't want another Jamie Collins situation where the contentious contract talks bled onto the field. NE is fearful the same thing could happen with Butler. Not sure I agree with that last part but thought it was worth posting.
That's pretty much the same package Peter King was pushing last week
 

Sportsbstn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2004
8,794
Bert Breer on Sports Sunday with Felger said Pats and Saints definitely revisited trade talks this week. He says if he had to put a percentage on it, there's a 51% chance Butler ends up in NO. Breer hears that if the trade goes through, it will be for #42 (not #32) and an additional pick - probably a fourth rounder. When Felger argued that #42 and a fourth is a poor return Breer said Belichick doesn't want another Jamie Collins situation where the contentious contract talks bled onto the field. NE is fearful the same thing could happen with Butler. Not sure I agree with that last part but thought it was worth posting.
Something seems amiss here. The Patriots are so fearful about Butler being a malcontent that there is only a 51% chance of the trade happening? Can't imagine it would New Orleans holding the trade up as it's not a great deal for the Patriots. Collins had a history freelancing on the field, can't see Butler doing the same.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Peter King's MMQB

Whither Malcolm Butler? The Saints (picking 11, 32, 42, 76, 103 in the first three rounds) are still interested in Butler, but someone familiar with their thinking believes they are leaning toward keeping their first three picks. The Saints believe that their board between 25 and 75 has a slew of players capable of contributing immediately, with grades close to each other, and the thought of dealing one or more picks for Butler, then paying him a huge contract, is less attractive than it once seemed.


http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/04/24/cleveland-browns-nfl-mock-draft-myles-garrett-mitch-trubisky-peter-king
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,093
Peter King's MMQB

Whither Malcolm Butler? The Saints (picking 11, 32, 42, 76, 103 in the first three rounds) are still interested in Butler, but someone familiar with their thinking believes they are leaning toward keeping their first three picks. The Saints believe that their board between 25 and 75 has a slew of players capable of contributing immediately, with grades close to each other, and the thought of dealing one or more picks for Butler, then paying him a huge contract, is less attractive than it once seemed.


http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2017/04/24/cleveland-browns-nfl-mock-draft-myles-garrett-mitch-trubisky-peter-king
We'll see. I'm perfectly fine with bringing Gronk/Cooks/Edelman/Hogan/Mitchell to New Orleans in Week 2 to face off against a bunch of rookies and mediocre vets.

I think 42 plus a mid rounder is a pretty fair compromise that has a decent chance of getting done but both sides are clearly digging in now because they both can.
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,505
It's ridiculous and probable, which stinks. If this were a straight-up Butler-for-Cooks swap, I wouldn't like it - a talented CB for an unnecessary, but very talented WR is poor value - and this compensation is worse than that. Combine that with the fact that Butler, by all accounts I've read, was frustrated last year but didn't let it get in the way, and has said to be willing to focus and be a good soldier in 2017, and I REALLY don't understand why BB would be willing to settle for less.