If it gets to #2, then he only makes like $600K again instead of $3.9M. Seems unlikely.
Correct, I'm not assuming anything. They basically had Butler/Ryan/Rowe down the stretch last season. If you believe Gilmore is at Butler's level (debatable, but they aren't far apart), you're asking Jones to make a very significant jump into major contributor, which, while possible, I have little confidence will happen based on what I saw from him defensively last year. Yes, they could bring in a free agent, but still, odds are you'll have a worse cornerback group than you had in 2016. I'm not saying that's a certainty, but that's the most likely scenario to me right now.
I just don't see why the Pats need to agree such a low return for Butler. There's really no advantage to doing so.
The PMT report of Butler-for-#32 makes sense. Let's see if it turns out to be true.
The official Saints Twitter account responded -
1. Saying "Cooks aside" is fairly ridiculous. Cooks is close to a top 10 NFL WR and is 23 years old. It's a huge add.
No, and thanks for the info. Here's a better tweet:
They dont need to do anything, but seems pretty likely that Butler wants out and the Pats want to accomodate him based on the smoke around this.
Totally agree and I am not sure why the media and most posters here seem to think its a given that the Pats should be motivated to accept less than what they are entitled to. They could very well be right, but if I'm the Pats I would play it straight up. If Malcolm has a deal he likes with the Saints, then tell him he has the right to sign it. If he signs it and its a deal Bill likes, then match. If not, let him walk for #11 per the CBA.
They aren't entitled to anything.
The problem is "entitled to" and "full freight." The only thing they are entitled to is Malcom as an RFA, which could mean playing at $3.91m, could mean holding out, or could mean losing to free agency. What they are entitled to with the Saints would be 11. But if they don't trade him to NOS, then what they are entitled to changes if he has another suitor (for example, the Steelers). If the Steelers wanted to make a run at him, the Patriots would only be entitled to pick 30. If Malcom decides to hold out, then all they are entitled to is six weeks of Malcom Butler with a right to franchise him.
This is the key point. Those arguing for keeping Butler unless and until he signs an offer sheet or the tender are assuming (a) Butler does not hold out for some portion of the season and (b) the contract situation does not negatively affect his play and/or the team as a whole. If either of those things occurs (and BB clearly thinks there is a good chance they do) then Butler's value declines, perhaps significantly.
As has been pointed out multiple times, why would they? Why would you trade a premium draft pick -- and sign Butler to a long-term deal -- when you can just sit back and let him play another season and get him as a UFA?
Because there very well may not be a next year for Saints' leadership. Loomis - who incredibly still has a job despite fucking the cap for years and not putting a good team around a HOF QB consistently - and Payton might very well get shitcanned if they have another disappointing year weighed down by a shitty defense.
We don't know where talks with the patriots are, so it's tough to say there. However, it's not as if the Saints are some sort of great destination at this point for too free agents, so New Orleans would likely have to overbid next year against better teams with as much cap space. This is a team that has jettisoned its 2 best ball catchers in the last 3 years.
Because teams and more specifically individuals don't value players in an absolute sense?
This is basically the Chandler Jones situation all over again. They have more leverage here because of the RFA status, but it comes down to one year of a very good player and an excellent price who may be unhappy, or the draft pick. They got a late 2 for Jones; getting a late 1 for Butler would seem reasonable in that light.
That's a great point.
Being psyched about holding serve after a Super Bowl championship implies cognitive dissonance to be resolved?
What kind of fries?
Sort of an aside, but Pats were actually super healthy last year even accounting for Gronk's absence. They're pretty likely to have more injuries to overcome next year.
I dont think the mechanics would work, giving up a 1st without extending now is pretty risky and Pats probably wouldnt take Talib's $11MM salary this year.
Or, for that matter, tag-and-keep:
