2017 Butler Watch: Love Me Tender

[Red Averages]

The notion that Malcolm Butler is overpaid is so ludicrous it is kind of infuriating. The rookie contract system is the NFL is something every player has to go through. For example, 2nd round pick Derek Carr is still under his rookie contract and is a top-10 QB and an MVP candidate. His rookie contract totals $5.37 million. If Malcolm Butler plays under the tender next year he'd have earned $5.44 million. So, should Derek Carr force his way out of Oakland to get paid faster? Should every draft pick who outperforms his contract force their way out? It's a complete joke. Malcolm please come to your senses. Sign the tender, make 5 times what you made at any point in your life, and go on the open market next offseason. You aren't the first player this has happened to and you certainly wouldn't be the last.

There is a good case to be made that the answer to this is yes. It's a business, both ways. If you are sacrificing tens of millions of dollars without a safety net, absolutely. If David Carr holds out he's risking what, 4 million to make 50 million guaranteed? Doesn't sound like a joke to me. The teams hold all of the leverage and are more than willing to ship people out if they don't live up to their contract for injury or performance. Yet the other side of getting extended or a boost in salary for staying healthy and out performance rarely occurs at the appropriate time.

 

[RedOctober3829]

There is a good case to be made that the answer to this is yes. It's a business, both ways. If you are sacrificing tens of millions of dollars without a safety net, absolutely. If David Carr holds out he's risking what, 4 million to make 50 million guaranteed? Doesn't sound like a joke to me. The teams hold all of the leverage and are more than willing to ship people out if they don't live up to their contract for injury or performance. Yet the other side of getting extended or a boost in salary for staying healthy and out performance rarely occurs.

If the system is an issue, why hasn't it been fixed in the CBA?

 

[Harry Hooper]

I thought the extension offer was for several years, not one year.

It's all fog-of-war reporting but yes presumably he wasn't interested in a multiyear deal along those lines. If he doesn't get a big offer and plays 2017 for about $4 million, he's about $8 million behind what he could have earned over the 2016 and 2017 seasons.

 

[Stitch01]

If the system is an issue, why hasn't it been fixed in the CBA?

Owners are always going to have leverage over players in the CBA negotiations. The overall CBA is pretty bad for players.

Pats are, of course, perfectly within their rights to make Butler play for his tender (or less if he doesnt sign) and then franchise him or transition tag him next offseason. One poster suggested what the Pats have done regarding Butler is "shitty", and Id certainly disagree with that.

That said, I think its both human and smart for Butler to try to get paid now (and perfectly reasonable to be upset by the Gilmore contract), I think Butler owes the Patriots exactly zero loyalty, and I can see the case for BB deciding the best thing for the team is to move on now rather than proceed with an unhappy Butler. I certainly wont think less of Butler or appreciate what he has done any less if he decides the best thing for his future is to try and force his way out of town.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Owners are always going to have leverage over players in the CBA negotiations. The overall CBA is pretty bad for players.

Pats are, of course, perfectly within their rights to make Butler play for his tender (or less if he doesnt sign) and then franchise him or transition tag him next offseason. One poster suggested what the Pats have done regarding Butler is "shitty", and Id certainly disagree with that.

That said, I think its both human and smart for Butler to try to get paid now (and perfectly reasonable to be upset by the Gilmore contract), I think Butler owes the Patriots exactly zero loyalty, and I can see the case for BB deciding the best thing for the team is to move on now rather than proceed with an unhappy Butler. I certainly wont think less of Butler or appreciate what he has done any less if he decides the best thing for his future is to try and force his way out of town.

I agree with a lot of what you said except being upset by the Gilmore contract. If Butler was on the open market, he'd be just as valuable as Gilmore. To me, it's simple. Play for the $3.91 million tender and go on the open market next offseason and make Gilmore money. I won't think any less of him if he leaves now, but I wonder if he realizes that he isn't the first player to be in this situation.

 

[snowmanny]

What a pile of useless info from Howe here.

The Saints reportedly aren't willing to give up the value of the #11 pick to get Butler, so he bunches up a pile of smaller assets equal to the #11, and we're to believe the Saints would give that up for Butler?

I'm usually a fan of Howe, he'd been terrible this week.

Also, while I myself have referred to the "draft value chart," the notion that an actual professional football reporter thinks Bill Belichick values picks in accordance to that chart strikes me as amusing.

 

[Stitch01]

I agree with a lot of what you said except being upset by the Gilmore contract. If Butler was on the open market, he'd be just as valuable as Gilmore. To me, it's simple. Play for the $3.91 million tender and go on the open market next offseason and make Gilmore money. I won't think any less of him if he leaves now, but I wonder if he realizes that he isn't the first player to be in this situation.

Well there's the complicating factor that he might tear his ACL or crack a vertabrae this season.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I agree with a lot of what you said except being upset by the Gilmore contract. If Butler was on the open market, he'd be just as valuable as Gilmore. To me, it's simple. Play for the $3.91 million tender and go on the open market next offseason and make Gilmore money. I won't think any less of him if he leaves now, but I wonder if he realizes that he isn't the first player to be in this situation.

Mitch Moreland is getting paid $4.5 million more than Mookie Betts for the 2017 season.

 

[BaseballJones]

I agree with a lot of what you said except being upset by the Gilmore contract. If Butler was on the open market, he'd be just as valuable as Gilmore. To me, it's simple. Play for the $3.91 million tender and go on the open market next offseason and make Gilmore money. I won't think any less of him if he leaves now, but I wonder if he realizes that he isn't the first player to be in this situation.

It often happens that a player in a sport signs a huge deal as a free agent, and everyone is happy, but then the next year or two, because of natural inflation, someone of the same caliber (or maybe even worse) signs an even BIGGER deal, and that first player is upset because he's now "underpaid". I mean, what did he think would happen in subsequent years?

 

[scottyno]

Well there's the complicating factor that he might tear his ACL or crack a vertabrae this season.

then he could have signed the extension before last year and he'd have his big payday already, not like the tender came out of nowhere

 

[dcmissle]

Yup. But if a corner rips his knee or wrecks his ankle badly enough ... Baseball, not so much.

This is unfortunate and maybe was unnecessary. Blaming no one in particular, but wish the agent were more savvy.

I think BB has zero patience for high maintenance guys anymore and is acting accordingly.

 

[Stitch01]

then he could have signed the extension before last year and he'd have his big payday already, not like the tender came out of nowhere

He could have. Seems like the Patriots and Butler disagreed on what the appropriate discount to market value should be. Now he still wants to be paid the long-term contract today and is using the (limited) leverage he has to make that happen. Dont think what happened last offseason is super relevant to either the Butler or Patriots decision going forward.

 

[Jnai]

The notion that Malcolm Butler is overpaid is so ludicrous it is kind of infuriating. The rookie contract system is the NFL is something every player has to go through. For example, 2nd round pick Derek Carr is still under his rookie contract and is a top-10 QB and an MVP candidate. His rookie contract totals $5.37 million. If Malcolm Butler plays under the tender next year he'd have earned $5.44 million. So, should Derek Carr force his way out of Oakland to get paid faster? Should every draft pick who outperforms his contract force their way out? It's a complete joke. Malcolm please come to your senses. Sign the tender, make 5 times what you made at any point in your life, and go on the open market next offseason. You aren't the first player this has happened to and you certainly wouldn't be the last.

I don't disagree with anything in this post and think the idea that the Patriots (or any team) should compromise their advantageous position on most NFL contracts, and especially rookie deals, is ludicrous.

But, remember that salary caps and rookie wage scales are fundamentally in place to line the pockets of incredibly wealthy owners.

 

[InstaFace]

the salary cap affects competitive balance and parity, but not fundamental profitability. It's set to a fixed and collectively-bargained percentage of league revenues. It prevents owners of bigger-market teams from dominating the free-agent and UDFA talent. It keeps dumb owners from overspending out of ego and hurting their own bottom lines, but collectively, at the league level, I don't think it "lines the pockets" of ownership any more than a collectively-bargained deal without a salary cap would.

 

[Harry Hooper]

the salary cap affects competitive balance and parity, but not fundamental profitability. It's set to a fixed and collectively-bargained percentage of league revenues. It prevents owners of bigger-market teams from dominating the free-agent and UDFA talent. It keeps dumb owners from overspending out of ego and hurting their own bottom lines, but collectively, at the league level, I don't think it "lines the pockets" of ownership any more than a collectively-bargained deal without a salary cap would.

How can you acknowledge this and ignore how such overspending would drive salary escalation?

 

[chonce1]

What a pile of useless info from Howe here.

The Saints reportedly aren't willing to give up the value of the #11 pick to get Butler, so he bunches up a pile of smaller assets equal to the #11, and we're to believe the Saints would give that up for Butler?

I'm usually a fan of Howe, he'd been terrible this week.

I don't see why this is so crazy. Just because the Saints say they won't give up 11 doesn't mean the Patriots are wrong to ask for it. The Patriots do not have a gun to their head . The worst case is they have Butler for 3.9 and even if he holds out he has to come back for stretch run and playoffs. So they have the power to say "you don't like the deal, too bad." The Saints can say no too. But you act like their no impacts negotiations more than NEs stance. NO shouldn't control these negotiations to that extent.

Further, people keep saying BB doesn't like to deal with unhappy players. But this is overstated. The negotiations with Mankins, Wilfork got way more personal than this. And he still kept them for some time. Same with the year he franchised Welker (and Welker never got the big payday he wanted. He got franchised and then was to old to get a top-market extension).

It is plausible BB will trade butler for a weaker return than we expect (he did so with Collins). But it shouldn't be assumed. But just because the Saints are saying #11 is off the table, doesn't mean the Pat's are not being rational to ask for something comparable in value. To me that seems pretty rational.

 

[Jnai]

the salary cap affects competitive balance and parity, but not fundamental profitability. It's set to a fixed and collectively-bargained percentage of league revenues. It prevents owners of bigger-market teams from dominating the free-agent and UDFA talent. It keeps dumb owners from overspending out of ego and hurting their own bottom lines, but collectively, at the league level, I don't think it "lines the pockets" of ownership any more than a collectively-bargained deal without a salary cap would.

Salary caps / team control / drafts / etc artificially suppress wages. I think it's much easier to argue that all of the things you suggest have done nothing to help competitive balance and parity given the relative dominance of a small number of teams over the last 15 years than it is to argue that salary caps are not a wage control mechanism designed primarily to benefit team owners.

 

[mcpickl]

I don't see why this is so crazy. Just because the Saints say they won't give up 11 doesn't mean the Patriots are wrong to ask for it. The Patriots do not have a gun to their head . The worst case is they have Butler for 3.9 and even if he holds out he has to come back for stretch run and playoffs. So they have the power to say "you don't like the deal, too bad." The Saints can say no too. But you act like their no impacts negotiations more than NEs stance. NO shouldn't control these negotiations to that extent.

Further, people keep saying BB doesn't like to deal with unhappy players. But this is overstated. The negotiations with Mankins, Wilfork got way more personal than this. And he still kept them for some time. Same with the year he franchised Welker (and Welker never got the big payday he wanted. He got franchised and then was to old to get a top-market extension).

It is plausible BB will trade butler for a weaker return than we expect (he did so with Collins). But it shouldn't be assumed. But just because the Saints are saying #11 is off the table, doesn't mean the Pat's are not being rational to ask for something comparable in value. To me that seems pretty rational.

The Pats can ask for whatever they want. But if the Saints are saying we won't give you #11, coming up with a package of picks he thinks is worth about the same as #11 isn't a solution. They'd say no to that as well.

If I ask you to give me a dollar for my thoughts. you say no. If I then say ok how about four quarters, is your answer going to be any different?

 

[BaseballJones]

The Pats can ask for whatever they want. But if the Saints are saying we won't give you #11, coming up with a package of picks he thinks is worth about the same as #11 isn't a solution. They'd say no to that as well.

If I ask you to give me a dollar for my thoughts. you say no. If I then say ok how about four quarters, is your answer going to be any different?

That's a bad analogy, because in the draft, you may have your eye set on one particular player that you feel like you NEED, and that may be way more important than three other guys whose total value equals that one guy, but it's that one guy you gotta have. And you know you can't get that one guy in the second round of the draft.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

A $7 million per year contract wouldn't be fair to Malcolm now because he only has one more "cheap" year that you're "overpaying" him for with the contract average. Let's say you look at a 4 year contract. Well, his numbers now would be just short of $4 million then the free agent rate of, say, $14 million per. So, the 4 year open market total for him would be something like $46 million. A small discount for giving him some of the money early might result in a 4 year, $41 million or $42 million contract.

 

[mcpickl]

That's a bad analogy, because in the draft, you may have your eye set on one particular player that you feel like you NEED, and that may be way more important than three other guys whose total value equals that one guy, but it's that one guy you gotta have. And you know you can't get that one guy in the second round of the draft.

None of that matters.

If the Saints don't feel Butler is worth the value of the #11 pick, they're not going to feel he's worth the value of a bunch of picks that add up to the value of the #11 pick. No matter whether they want one particular guy they have no idea will be there at #11 or not. That makes no sense.

When you're on the clock at the draft, you could certainly say, eh I'm being offered enough value to trade down but I love this guy on the board so I'll pass on the offer. In March? The picks are just negotiables.

Think of it in reverse. If the Patriots told the Saints, we'll trade you Butler for the #11. The Saints reject, but counteroffer with a package of picks equal in value to the #11, would the Patriots say no?

 

[BaseballJones]

I think it matters a great deal, or at least COULD, depending on how the team was thinking.

The number 11 pick may have the same "value" as a collection of other picks in a vacuum, but a given team may value the #11 pick MORE because of the kind of player they can get there, as opposed to the collection of players they'd add later.

Just because YOU wouldn't do it doesn't mean that nobody else would either.

Imagine you want to buy a $50,000 car. The dealer says no but we'll give you ten $5,000 cars with 100k miles on them instead. If you wanted a new $50,000 car, you'd happily pay the $50,000 for that $50,000 car, but no way in hell you'd pay the $50,000 for ten $5,000 cars. Even though the total value is the same.

 

[MuppetAsteriskTalk]

Or as Tony Mazz would say, but Mike, why would you rather have 2 ponies than a horse?

 

[snowmanny]

Well it's football, so it's more like would you like a $25,000 car and a $15,000 car and $11,000, or a $50,000 car and a $1,000 car, given that all the cars have a 1 in 4 chance of breaking down at some point during the year?

 

[Spelunker]

Well it's football, so it's more like would you like a $25,000 car and a $15,000 car and $11,000, or a $50,000 car and a $1,000 car, given that all the cars have a 1 in 4 chance of breaking down at some point during the year?

Depends a lot on what you already have in your garage.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I think it matters a great deal, or at least COULD, depending on how the team was thinking.

The number 11 pick may have the same "value" as a collection of other picks in a vacuum, but a given team may value the #11 pick MORE because of the kind of player they can get there, as opposed to the collection of players they'd add later.

Just because YOU wouldn't do it doesn't mean that nobody else would either.

Imagine you want to buy a $50,000 car. The dealer says no but we'll give you ten $5,000 cars with 100k miles on them instead. If you wanted a new $50,000 car, you'd happily pay the $50,000 for that $50,000 car, but no way in hell you'd pay the $50,000 for ten $5,000 cars. Even though the total value is the same.

Especially if you don't have a 10 car garage. How many real spots are available on the 53 man roster to carry 6+ rookies?

 

[RetractableRoof]

The logic in the article quoted doesn't hold up. First of all, every team grades 15-20 players as first rounders (we can also quibble with round-grading as a concept, but let's leave that alone for now). This is not unique to NE. Secondly, not every team has the same 15-20 players graded as firsts. Undoubtedly some teams in front of the Pats will take players that they grade as first-rounders but the Pats don't. Obviously the chances of a first-rounder "slipping" to 32 is a lot greater than one slipping to 45. Thirdly, that they might not get a first-rounder at 32 doesn't mean they will get just as good a player as 45 without knowing how many players they grade as second-rounders. They might only get a second-round value at 32, but they might only get a third-round value at 45.

I took all this in the context of financial value. At #32 you're paying first round money to a player who is often a first rounder in label only. At that point the players taken in the next tier aren't vastly professionally different but often financially are more viable than those first round stragglers. I think it is very much how BB runs the draft process.

The people saying BB would prefer a 2 and 3 over a 1 are looking at fixed numbers and not fluid opportunity. That #11 could net a player worthy of 1st round money or be traded multiple times BB style for more opportunity and financial bang for the buck.

 

[bankshot1]

If the Saints want Butler, then the price is the #11. If the Pats won't accept any other package (32 and 42+, or other potentially acceptable iterations ), the Saints are SoL.

I see no reason for the Pats to bend from what the NFL and NFLPA has agreed upon is the proper protocol for trade value of restricted free agents. Sets a very bad precedent.

 

[BaseballJones]

Well it's football, so it's more like would you like a $25,000 car and a $15,000 car and $11,000, or a $50,000 car and a $1,000 car, given that all the cars have a 1 in 4 chance of breaking down at some point during the year?

Right. And while some people would prefer the former, other people would prefer the latter. Which was my point. Just because one poster equates the #11 pick with its equivalent picks in collection, doesn't mean that every GM would feel the same.

 

[BigJimEd]

If the Saints want Butler, then the price is the #11. If the Pats won't accept any other package (32 and 42+, or other potentially acceptable iterations ), the Saints are SoL.

I see no reason for the Pats to bend from what the NFL and NFLPA has agreed upon is the proper protocol for trade value of restricted free agents. Sets a very bad precedent.

There is no protocol.

A trade is a trade. Both sides need to agree. The tender is irrelevant in a trade. If Pats feel the trade is better for the team they will take it. Whatever that value is.

 

[tims4wins]

There is no protocol.

A trade is a trade. Both sides need to agree. The tender is irrelevant in a trade. If Pats feel the trade is better for the team they will take it. Whatever that value is.

They can't trade him unless he signs the tender

 

[BigJimEd]

They can't trade him unless he signs the tender

I realize that. I should have been more clear. The 1st round value for signing an offer sheet is irrelevant in a trade

 

[tims4wins]

I realize that. I should have been more clear. The 1st round value for signing an offer sheet is irrelevant in a trade

True. If he signs tender they can trade him for a 7th if they want to.

 

[bankshot1]

There is no protocol.

A trade is a trade. Both sides need to agree. The tender is irrelevant in a trade. If Pats feel the trade is better for the team they will take it. Whatever that value is.

There is very much a protocol,.

If a team signs a RFA to an offer sheet, one of the outcomes is that to sign that player they must swap their 1st round draft choice.

If the Patriots want to follow the approved proocol, but the Saints do not, the Saints are SoL.

 

[Curt S Loew]

There is very much a protocol,.

If a team signs a RFA to an offer sheet, one of the outcomes is that to sign that player they must swap their 1st round draft choice.

If the Patriots want to follow the approved proocol, but the Saints do not, the Saints are SoL.

That's not a trade.

 

[bankshot1]

That's not a trade.

This was my post.

"If the Saints want Butler, then the price is the #11. If the Pats won't accept any other package (32 and 42+, or other potentially acceptable iterations ), the Saints are SoL.

I see no reason for the Pats to bend from what the NFL and NFLPA has agreed upon is the proper protocol for trade value of restricted free agents. Sets a very bad precedent."

I'm did not advocate for a trade. I suggested that if the Saints want Butler, make him an offer, that the Pats can either match or decline. The protocol has been spelled out for these situations. Now if the Pats would be satisfied by accepting another form of consideration to make them whole, (like the 32+42, or whatever) that would be up to them. The point remains there is a protocol and there is no reason for the Pats to negotiate against themselves.

 

[mcpickl]

I think it matters a great deal, or at least COULD, depending on how the team was thinking.

The number 11 pick may have the same "value" as a collection of other picks in a vacuum, but a given team may value the #11 pick MORE because of the kind of player they can get there, as opposed to the collection of players they'd add later.

Just because YOU wouldn't do it doesn't mean that nobody else would either.

Imagine you want to buy a $50,000 car. The dealer says no but we'll give you ten $5,000 cars with 100k miles on them instead. If you wanted a new $50,000 car, you'd happily pay the $50,000 for that $50,000 car, but no way in hell you'd pay the $50,000 for ten $5,000 cars. Even though the total value is the same.

You seem to make it sound like these picks are set in stone. The value in both PACKAGES are the SAME(at least according to Howes' point I took issue with). If you say NO to one, you'd say NO to the other. If six weeks from now someone was on the board in the #11 range, but you've traded the #11, you could use the PACKAGE of picks you didn't trade instead of #11 to MOVE UP into the same area of the draft if you need to. Be no different if the Pats got #11, but didn't see a player they liked they can trade down. They're just negotiables at this point. They're just negotiating a price for a player.

Think you reversed the cars analogy. Are the Saints buying ten cars? The Saints are buying one Butler El Dorado. They're willing to pay $50,000 for it. If the Patriots ask for one bank check at 60 grand, or three bank checks at 20 grand each, or a 30 grand check and a Mark Ingram El Camino trade in the Saints value at 30 grand, the Saints say no to all. No matter what denominations the Patriots break it into, the price hasn't changed. But if the Patriots say we'll take one 50 grand bank check, or five 10 grand bank checks, or their Andrus Peat Trans Am the Saints value at 50K, the Saints say yes.

 

[Curt S Loew]

This was my post.

"If the Saints want Butler, then the price is the #11. If the Pats won't accept any other package (32 and 42+, or other potentially acceptable iterations ), the Saints are SoL.

I see no reason for the Pats to bend from what the NFL and NFLPA has agreed upon is the proper protocol for trade value of restricted free agents. Sets a very bad precedent."

I'm did not advocate for a trade. I suggested that if the Saints want Butler, make him an offer, that the Pats can either match or decline. The protocol has been spelled out for these situations. Now if the Pats would be satisfied by accepting another form of consideration to make them whole, (like the 32+42, or whatever) that would be up to them. The point remains there is a protocol and there is no reason for the Pats to negotiate against themselves.

Right. But the Saints aren't going to sign him to an offer sheet. They don't want to give up the #11. So they aren't going to offer that type of compensation in a trade.

 

[bankshot1]

Right. But the Saints aren't going to sign him to an offer sheet. They don't want to give up the #11. So they aren't going to offer that type of compensation in a trade.

Then if they don't follow the protocol, (ie. sacrifice the #11 for Butler) they are SoL.

I'm fine with Butler returning for $3.9MM.

Again the Pats have all the leverage, and there is little reason for them to discount the sales price.
.

 

[biff_hardbody]

What if the Pats prefer receiving less than the 11th to keeping him?

 

[Fred not Lynn]

Sorry, wrong thread

 

[BigJimEd]

What if the Pats prefer receiving less than the 11th to keeping him?

Exactly. I hope Butler is back. But if they can work out a trade both sides agree then they will make a trade. Just like every other trade.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Then if they don't follow the protocol, (ie. sacrifice the #11 for Butler) they are SoL.

I'm fine with Butler returning for $3.9MM.

Again the Pats have all the leverage, and there is little reason for them to discount the sales price.
.

We don't know what BB and Payton have discussed in trade talks. It might very well be that they agreed to certain parameters of a large deal, but it needed to be split up because of timing issues.

In other words, they might have agreed up front to Butler, 32, and a 3rd for Cooks, 42, and a 4th. But Pats agreed to take on the 800k roster bonus, so they had to split it up. I have no issues with BB honoring that deal if it was agreed upon.

 

[bankshot1]

What if the Pats prefer receiving less than the 11th to keeping him?

That would be the Pats decision. (presumably they think that a disgruntled Butler could be a headache). But that is entirely different than the Saints objecting to following the proscribed methodology for acquiring RFA.

I think the #11 is too much, but it is what it is. Would BB accept the # 32 in return plus other consideration? Probably.

 

[Curt S Loew]

Then if they don't follow the protocol, (ie. sacrifice the #11 for Butler) they are SoL.

I'm fine with Butler returning for $3.9MM.

Again the Pats have all the leverage, and there is little reason for them to discount the sales price.
.

There is no set protocol for a trade. Which is what they are apparently working on.

The Pats have all the leverage but they aren't getting the #11. I am also fine with Butler returning for 3.9MM. It appears the Pats are willing to deal him.

 

[InstaFace]

We don't know what BB and Payton have discussed in trade talks. It might very well be that they agreed to certain parameters of a large deal, but it needed to be split up because of timing issues.

In other words, they might have agreed up front to Butler, 32, and a 3rd for Cooks, 42, and a 4th. But Pats agreed to take on the 800k roster bonus, so they had to split it up. I have no issues with BB honoring that deal if it was agreed upon.

...which would get totally FUBAR'd if Butler doesn't sign his tender, and instead gets an offer sheet from somewhere else, on terms that either the Patriots don't like or the Saints don't like.

Which is why E5's post of Mike Florio's article earlier seems the most sensible take of anything I've heard speculated here:

Coach Bill Belichick historically has had a high level of sensitivity regarding trade discussions involving a player who is subject to a tender offer that has not yet been signed. Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Butler’s decision not to sign his tender kept the Patriots and Saints from seriously exploring the prospect of adding Butler to the deal.

Eight years ago, Belichick made clear his disdain for discussing trades of players who have not yet signed tender offers, regarding the possibility of acquiring former-and-present Panthers defensive end Julius Peppers.

“There’s no trade talks going on with Carolina,” Belichick said at the time. “They don’t have a signed contract. They can’t talk about trading a player that isn’t signed.”

When it comes to the playing rules, Belichick has a habit of interpreting and applying them aggressively. When it comes to CBA provisions regarding tender offers, Belichick has been very careful not to give the NFL Players Association any ammunition for arguing that the tender was not made with a good-faith intention to employe the player at the amount of the tender for the upcoming season.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/03/12/unsigned-tender-kept-malcolm-butler-out-of-brandin-cooks-talks/

BB may have had brief, theoretical discussions with the Saints, but if there's one GM in the league who's not going to play fast and loose with the rules, it's the guy who literally has everyone else out to get him. I'm well-persuaded that any action on Butler's deal is tabled until he signs his RFA tender, signs an offer sheet with another team (pending a Pats match), or god willing signs a decent compromise extension with the Patriots that keeps him here a few more years. Belichick has plenty of priorities to keep himself busy.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

We don't know what BB and Payton have discussed in trade talks. It might very well be that they agreed to certain parameters of a large deal, but it needed to be split up because of timing issues.

In other words, they might have agreed up front to Butler, 32, and a 3rd for Cooks, 42, and a 4th. But Pats agreed to take on the 800k roster bonus, so they had to split it up. I have no issues with BB honoring that deal if it was agreed upon.

I'd be shocked if this wasn't the case. It sounds like this trade was 90% done last week and the initial reports were correct. They just had to expedite Cooks to NE because of the bonus. In the meantime Butler and the Saints worked on a specific contract number. The Patriots aren't getting #11 and don't have any leverage with the Saints if they already agreed in principle to the specifics last week.

 

[reggiecleveland]

I'd be shocked if this wasn't the case. It sounds like this trade was 90% done last week and the initial reports were correct. They just had to expedite Cooks to NE because of the bonus. In the meantime Butler and the Saints worked on a specific contract number. The Patriots aren't getting #11 and don't have any leverage with the Saints if they already agreed in principle to the specifics last week.

Kevin Costner changed his mind.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

Kevin Costner changed his mind.

True.

Spoiler

"I'm not into plugs, rugs or drugs to correct this problem, and would rather just shave it all off." -- Kevin Costner of his thinning hair. The New York Post, 2002.

 

[PedraMartina]

All this talk of how the Pats shouldn't trade him seems misguided. Butler was an incredible story and everybody hoped that he would be an anchor of the franchise, #1 corner for the rest of the BB era. But it seems that something happened last year that caused BB to conclude that there was a very significant risk that they would never be able to sign Butler long term, so he moved quickly to get another #1 corner. Having done that, they are now looking to exploit the leverage they have to get as much value from trading Butler as they can. It looks like Plan A was a straight trade for Cooks, and when that didn't pan out b/c he wouldn't sign the tender, they made that deal, and now are looking to get back that pick, or maybe a couple lower picks, or maybe even less (a la Collins). It's pretty great that they could stand pat and just play him at the tender but I don't think that was ever part of the plan and I don't think anybody involved here views that as a particularly plausible outcome.

This has a similar look to it as the Welker situation, where the Pats realized that there was a difference in how they valued him and how he valued himself, so they moved on, at which point it was too late for him to come back. Same thing for Bennett.