2017 Butler Watch: Love Me Tender

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
The Brady timeline makes me want this more than trading MG for even #11.

Why on earth would Sherman be available for NO?
Yeah I kind of feel the same way - get #6 at whatever cost - but I also want them to remain good, like, forever

edit: and Lombardi's position makes no sense. Wouldn't NO have to trade for Sherman AND pay him a crap ton?

Plus, NO doesn't play cover 3 right?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,191
Sherman is signed 2 years/22.4 mil effectively; Sea only would have $4 mil dead money (and $11 mil savings this year on his salary) so certainly conceivable cap-wise.

What you have to pay to get him is hard to know (as it is Seattle's valuation and we don't know it)---I'd imagine it's more than 32, though perhaps 11 gets him for you. Perhaps Lombardi's point is that they need more size, and also a leader and attitude guy more than anything else? That makes some sense---though why Sea would deal him, not so much
 

sketz

Bad Santa
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
203
seattle
In a vacuum, sure the Hawks would entertain trading Sherman for the right deal. But that would put them in a position of trying to replace both starting corners this year and that makes this very unlikely to happen.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
It would be such a great fake-out to pull off the JG deal while the focus is on Butler
 

sketz

Bad Santa
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
203
seattle
The Patriots are about to do just that...
True, but the Pats have BB who will change his scheme to suit his personnel if he doesn't have the guys he wants for the old scheme. Carroll & the hawks are pretty much the opposite. We find players to fit the D. We don't really alter the D to fit the players.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,597
02130
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.
There was also considerable off-field smoke with Jones. I think that can't be understated. Reiss aside, there is none of that with Butler. I don't know if that makes a late 1st for Butler a bad deal, but I think Jones could have gotten a better package back if he didn't have the synthetic marijuana incident.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,701
Bow, NH
There was also considerable off-field smoke with Jones. I think that can't be understated. Reiss aside, there is none of that with Butler. I don't know if that makes a late 1st for Butler a bad deal, but I think Jones could have gotten a better package back if he didn't have the synthetic marijuana incident.
I see what you did there.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
So in a Lombardi esque blatant use of media Payton goes on radio and praises Butler. NFL journos promptly say " done deal HC s never do this for player not on team". Meanwhile the Saints have a toxic cap situation which makes actually offering an unmatchable tender sheet extremely unlikely nevermind the fact they've openly rejected idea of trading 11 for Butler.

Now there's been a lot of NFL writers saying well 32 and something else would be a reasonable deal and there's no rule requiring that Pats get equivalent of 11. But that rationale ignores that if NE agreed to that arrangment that why wouldn't they just shop the right to negotiate with Butler all over the league ? Doubtful they couldn't do better than 32 plus later rounds...

Instead NO applies as much soft media pressure as possible in the hopes of getting BB and NEP to miraculously forget Butler and any team trying to sign/trade for him have no leverage. Zip.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Belichick and Payton are friends. I firmly believe if a deal happens it was discussed by the two before the Cooks deal as part 2 of a 2 parter.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,278
AZ
But that rationale ignores that if NE agreed to that arrangment that why wouldn't they just shop the right to negotiate with Butler all over the league ? Doubtful they couldn't do better than 32 plus later rounds.
If you believed the Steelers, who need corner help and have cap space, were prepared to make him an offer that you likely wouldn't match, would you be happy if you turned down a trade with the Saints even for 32? I'd rather have him on the Saints than have him on the Steelers for pick 30.

I have no idea what is out there, but there is an element of a game of chicken here.
 

Hendu At The Wall

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
108
Woodstock, NY
Belichick and Payton are friends. I firmly believe if a deal happens it was discussed by the two before the Cooks deal as part 2 of a 2 parter.
The complications journalists are referring to seem to be that the Pats need to be very careful about how they pull off the compensation here. They cannot make the Cooks trade appear to include a player whom they had no rights to (a RFA who hadn't signed the tender).
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,759
Pittsburgh, PA
I'd take #32 and have Butler in the NFC over getting #30 and having him patch up the main flaw on our chief AFC rivals.

Then again, it depends on what the offer sheet is that Butler signs, if it goes that route.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
I'd take #32 and have Butler in the NFC over getting #30 and having him patch up the main flaw on our chief AFC rivals.

Then again, it depends on what the offer sheet is that Butler signs, if it goes that route.
12. Cleveland Browns from Philadelphia Eagles Prob not interested but have the cap room but they'd have to deal number 1 not happening
13. Arizona Cardinals Peterson contract
14. Philadelphia Eagles from Minnesota Vikings Have need no money
15. Indianapolis Colts - Need D help think they still have cash and no corner
16. Baltimore Ravens - Um no
17. Washington Redskins - No idea who is running things
18. Tennessee Titans - This is actually their pick former pats brass just signed logan
19. Tampa Bay Buccaneers- Spent a ton of cash
20. Denver Broncos- Unlikely due to CB already committed to
21. Detroit Lions- Another former Patriot as GM need some D help unsure of cap
22. Miami Dolphins- Have cap space but I'd say unlikely
23. New York Giants- ton of money already on D
24. Oakland Raiders- Would def address a need
25. Houston Texans - Just lost Bouye presumably b/c not wanting to extend at CB
26. Seattle Seahawks- lot of big contracts on D
27. Kansas City Chiefs- Would likely greatly help D
28. Dallas Cowboys - very little cap room with Romo still on roster
29. Green Bay Packers - Makes a ton IMHO
30. Pittsburgh Steelers- as discussed makes sense
31. Atlanta Falcons- Also seemingly would fit

So contenders with CB need and Cap Space and pick lower than 11 15 Indy 18 Tenn, (wouldn't trade 18 for cooks) ,24 Oak, 25 HOU,27 KC 29 GB 30 Pitt 31 ATL

So NO is helped by a plethora of AFC teams being the other potential landing spots and GB and ATL being NFC champs as the other likelihood. Then again this NO advantage only comes into play if BB and NEP have already decided they won't match an offer sheet.

When looked at through this perspective it makes even more sense to just match an offer sheet or deal with a moody Butler on the 4.9 mill tender. The problem arises if they're trying to save cap space for a JG extension or franchise tag which seems like a reality if we re going to believe Scheftner.

Philly is mildly interesting at 14 though i don't know if they can trade it. Pats could trade Butler on the tender to PHI for 14 with them agreeing to do some extension/franchise next year when their cap is better. In essence PHI turns Bradford into Butler for a year with a chance to extend. Though this scenario is problematic if PHI likes a CB in a deep draft and just wants him.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,278
AZ
I would take the 30th over the 32nd for sure.
Ok, agree to disagree. Keeping Butler off the Steelers, Raiders, Broncos, and the AFC East, among others, would be worth draft points that are the equivalent of a fifth or sixth round pick to me.

What about 32 and the Saint's sixth round pick v. 30?

Whatever your answer, the point is that all the discussion seems to be that we somehow would deserve 11, because that's where the Saints pick, and so 32 (or say, 32 plus 150 something) is not appropriate. The point I'm trying to make is there's no magic to 11. Butler could walk and we could get far less, and might not know until well into April.
 

Yossarian

New Member
Jan 22, 2015
89
I just think we might need to resign ourselves to the idea that regardless of how much we might want something better than #32, the market for Butler at this point isn't as good as we would assume. The fact that Belichick and Payton are pals surely wouldn't dissuade BB from pursuing other opportunities if they existed.

It's allegedly a CB heavy draft where teams could potentially get a good player on a rookie scale, rather than both cough up big money for a player AND give up a valuable pick. My guess is that teams view Butler as good but a notch below the truly elite CB's, and if so why pay that high a price? We ran into this a little bit with Jamie Collins last year where everyone was stunned at how little BB got for him, but teams generally aren't willing to fork over big money and big picks for players in their contract years unless they're absolute studs - and those guys tend not to get traded in the first place. Prying first round picks from teams, even low ones, is no easy task and I think we should start to recalibrate our expectations.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
Using the assumption that they want to get away from or minimize the the Safety Help coverage technique.

You state Butler is "overqualified" as the #2 CB. I disagree. He is probably the perfect #2. He proved it this year by consistently covering #2s with no help.
How did you rank Ryan? I assume under qualified as he needed Safety help to be competent, but to be fair that was on Mega Star WRs.

So who fits in between Butler level and Ryan Level that you would trust on a #2 opposite Gilmore?
Ryan is already making 10mil/yr in this market.
From a cost perspective IMHO paying 13-15 million to both CBs might be a better idea then a "15 Million dollar guy" and a "10 Million dollar guy". Especially when that 10 Million dollar guy probably needs the Safety help we are trying to minimize.
Whats the price point of the guy your looking for? (Better then Logan, Not as good as Butler).

Now off field considerations (Contract Malcontent, Rookie Agent) might devalue Butler, but a s #2 he is perfect.
Since I used the term "overqualified" and it's ridiculously imprecise, I'm a little sheepish to add that I did write "almost overqualified."

I don't disagree that Butler is a perfect #2 ability-wise and if in a sense he's almost overqualified it's because he can also be a #1 which Ryan proved he couldn't be. If Butler's unusual situation didn't exist and he was paid at market rates, you're paying Gilmore $14 million plus Butler at around $12 million, I'd guess. I'd be perfectly happy with this as you'd have 2 CB's in their primes who can free up a safety and make it easier to disguise coverages while developing Jones, rookies for the future.

It seems like BB wants to pay no more than $24 million for Gilmore and Butler (if I have the rumored offers to Butler during the season correct) and, given his concerns for current roster construction and long term implications, there's probably a good reason for it. Because of his ability to be a #1, Butler is a special case for that $10 million slot and without him, I don't think it exists or Ryan might still be here. Apparently, Rowe, Jones or some draftee they have their eyes on will be enough in the alternative. I think we're in agreement that we'd both prefer to spend a few extra million to have 2 very good to great CB's instead of a great CB paired with an unpredictable. Post-Samuel, the scarring is still fresh.
 

Kull

wannabe merloni
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
1,689
El Paso, TX
One reason that NO might overpay for Butler (i.e. more than pick 32) is the "Drew Brees window" isn't open forever either. He's 38 going into the 2017 season (and 39 by the next Super Bowl). Wait one more year to *maybe* solve your cornerback problem, and it might be too late.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
It seems like BB wants to pay no more than $24 million for Gilmore and Butler (if I have the rumored offers to Butler during the season correct) and, given his concerns for current roster construction and long term implications, there's probably a good reason for it.
I don't think this is really it. I'd be really surprised if there's a CB-cap in the organization - it's just not a good way to allocate resources.You make decisions based on what your needs are, and what you have left for resources, not on arbitrary cap percentages.

The Patriots have a long history of not being willing to give away years that they've bargained for, and I'd guess that's the real reason. Almost every real fight they've had with a player since Branch has been over not being willing to tear up an RFA year or a last year on a rookie contract. Butler wants $10M+ this year, the Patriots think he owes them a year at $3.9M.

Gilmore is getting $13M a year.

If you look back to when the Patriots told Butler "They wouldn't pay a CB 10M+" and supposedly offered him $7m/yr, they had 2 years of control left. One at 600K, and one at 3.9M, so 4.5M/2. If they gave him 3 new years at 11.5M/per year (which is 13M adjusted to the cap 2 years ago), it comes out to 5/39 for a total year, or 7.8M, which is right in the range he says they offered.

I'd bet they offered him something like 5/55 with about 30M guaranteed, and he's upset that it's 2M/year less than Gilmore.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
If you look back to when the Patriots told Butler "They wouldn't pay a CB 10M+" ...
Has this ever been proven? Given how "well" Butler's agent has handled things, it would be nice to have independent verification that this statement was made
 

Curt S Loew

SoSH Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
6,513
Shantytown
One reason that NO might overpay for Butler (i.e. more than pick 32) is the "Drew Brees window" isn't open forever either. He's 38 going into the 2017 season (and 39 by the next Super Bowl). Wait one more year to *maybe* solve your cornerback problem, and it might be too late.
Pretty sure that window is gonna be nailed shut and insulated before the Saints are good again.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
Remind me again why the Patriot should settle for anything less than the NO first round pick (#11). The alternative is having Butler in the fold for one more year at $3.9MM. What's not to like about that?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
Remind me again why the Patriot should settle for anything less than the NO first round pick (#11). The alternative is having Butler in the fold for one more year at $3.9MM. What's not to like about that?
If he has his head on straight after all this, there's really nothing wrong with it. If he can't keep it from affecting his play, it can be an issue. It seems as though the Patriots historically haven't liked to take that risk.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,520
Maine
I guess the other question is do they want to or feel a need to move away from the "Best guy takes the #2 and 2 guys take the #1 Wr out of the game".

I mean it was very effective and should continue to be with Cinn, Pitt, Oak and (to a degree) Denvers current personnel. The problem comes when you have a #1A, and 3 #2s like Atlanta. You simply can afford to have 2 guys cover 1, AND single cover all those other guys AND stop the run. Those AFC teams simply don't have the multiple high end guys that Atlanta does.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
Remind me again why the Patriot should settle for anything less than the NO first round pick (#11). The alternative is having Butler in the fold for one more year at $3.9MM. What's not to like about that?
Well they have to weigh what a year of Butler plus a comp pick is worth vs. a trade.

Is Butler for one year at $3.9M plus a 2019 comp pick (3rd round likely) worth more than the 32nd pick in 2017? I think that is very debatable.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
Is Butler for one year at $3.9M plus a 2019 comp pick (3rd round likely) worth more than the 32nd pick? in 2017? I think that is very debatable.
Particularly because, as it stands, they don't have a pick until the third round at the moment
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Maybe it's just my fever talking, but is there any reason the Pats wouldn't negotiate a one-year contract with Butler worth something near market rate? I get that they don't *have* to do this ... but they don't *have* to do anything in this situation.

Couldn't they simply say "Extenuating circumstances, no restricted free agent has ever played in the first three years of his deal the way Malcolm has. We know he would ultimately like a long-term contract but we think this is more than fair based on what a terrific performer he's been for our club."

Is there any reason they wouldn't want to do that? It's not like every average restricted free agent would be entitled to ask for the same thing. As everyone has been saying throughout, Butler's situation is fairly unique.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
Particularly because, as it stands, they don't have a pick until the third round at the moment
This is true, assuming they keep Jimmy.

And to answer my own question, if we take it as a given that Butler will leave after 2017 if he is forced to play on the tender, then I would trade him for 32 in a heartbeat.

Also, if he is forced to play on the tender, I am going to guess he holds out and only plays the minimum 6 games. So it may just be 6 games of Butler and a 2019 3rd round comp pick vs. whatever they can get for him this year. They traded Collins halfway through the year and only got a 3rd round comp pick back. By comparison 32 for Butler seems awesome.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
It will cost Butler $2.4MM to sit out 10 games, plus whatever damage he does to his marketability. Why not spend $250k on insurance and play the 10 games. Out of spite? Fear of failure?
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
Maybe it's just my fever talking, but is there any reason the Pats wouldn't negotiate a one-year contract with Butler worth something near market rate?
Don't see why either side would agree to this. On the Patriots side, if they really want to keep him they can simply pay him the tender amount. (I suppose a better deal would eliminate the chance he holds out, but not sure whether that is worth ~6m or whatever extra they would have to pay for a "market" deal.)

From Butler's perspective, it seems clear at this point that he (and/or his agent) craves long-term financial security more than anything, so I don't see why he would willingly agree to a 1-year deal that leaves open the possibility that he suffers an injury this season that permanently affects his ability to secure a long-term deal after 2017. Unless the Pats basically said "we aren't trading you, so you either play at the tender amount or accept this one-year deal," but again, then the Patriots would simply be negotiating against themselves.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
This is true, assuming they keep Jimmy.

And to answer my own question, if we take it as a given that Butler will leave after 2017 if he is forced to play on the tender, then I would trade him for 32 in a heartbeat.

Also, if he is forced to play on the tender, I am going to guess he holds out and only plays the minimum 6 games. So it may just be 6 games of Butler and a 2019 3rd round comp pick vs. whatever they can get for him this year. They traded Collins halfway through the year and only got a 3rd round comp pick back. By comparison 32 for Butler seems awesome.
I understand why you would say that but I would rather have one year of Gilmore and Butler and then get a lower pick than lose Butler now, get the 32 and go with Rowe, C. Jones, J. Jones or someone else.

I say that because I view the 2017 Pats as truly loaded and, at this very early time in the calendar, as having a realistic shot at title contention. And while I believe that will continue to be the case going forward, nothing is at all guaranteed and things can change fast. At this time, with this team, I'd trade increasing the odds on 2017 for a lower draft order in the future as Butler compensation. I also say that because I view the 32nd pick as being low enough in the round as to not be at all a sure thing.

The bottom line for me is that the Gilmore- Butler combination at corner would be extremely strong, while a Gilmore-Rowe combination would be much more of a wild card. Given how strong the Pats look seemingly everywhere else, I'd rather not weaken such an important position.

I remain somewhat baffled as to why BB and Malcolm (and his agents) can't forge a middle ground. Perhaps the relationship has been sufficiently soured by the negotiations thus far but that seems to be a bit simplistic.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
At this point, I'd bet they'd be happy to get that #32 as well. Trading Butler gets a high pick back, keeps the 2018 franchise tag open, and doesn't increase the salary cap. They can draft some CB's and also give Rowe and Jones their shot as well. Finally, if this doesn't work and the #2 CB is killing the team, they still have the option of trading for another CB in-season like they did with Talib whom they acquired on November 1st.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,278
AZ
Don't see why either side would agree to this.
Only reason the Patriots would consider something like this is if they think Butler otherwise would be given an offer that they don't want to match by a team whose draft pick they value less than a year of Butler. The other reason might be to trade him.

If you could get him to sign an $8 million contract today, without any other visits, you would block another team from signing him and you could do a trade.

But, the flip side is that if the Patriots were really worried about another team coming in with an offer sheet, then Butler likely should be thinking the same thing and might not want to block that from happening.

Trading Butler gets a high pick back, keeps the 2018 franchise tag open, and doesn't increase the salary cap.
It actually does better than that -- it knocks $3.4 million off the cap and increases their current cap room to about $31 million.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,058
Hingham, MA
I understand why you would say that but I would rather have one year of Gilmore and Butler and then get a lower pick than lose Butler now, get the 32 and go with Rowe, C. Jones, J. Jones or someone else.

I say that because I view the 2017 Pats as truly loaded and, at this very early time in the calendar, as having a realistic shot at title contention. And while I believe that will continue to be the case going forward, nothing is at all guaranteed and things can change fast. At this time, with this team, I'd trade increasing the odds on 2017 for a lower draft order in the future as Butler compensation. I also say that because I view the 32nd pick as being low enough in the round as to not be at all a sure thing.

The bottom line for me is that the Gilmore- Butler combination at corner would be extremely strong, while a Gilmore-Rowe combination would be much more of a wild card. Given how strong the Pats look seemingly everywhere else, I'd rather not weaken such an important position.

I remain somewhat baffled as to why BB and Malcolm (and his agents) can't forge a middle ground. Perhaps the relationship has been sufficiently soured by the negotiations thus far but that seems to be a bit simplistic.
I get where you are coming from, and I also view 2017 as an all-in, go for #6 type of year, but at the same time their goal is to remain excellent for the long haul. From that perspective trading Butler helps them be better in 2018-2021 (assuming a first round pick in 2017 plays 5 years)
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
The bottom line for me is that the Gilmore- Butler combination at corner would be extremely strong, while a Gilmore-Rowe combination would be much more of a wild card. Given how strong the Pats look seemingly everywhere else, I'd rather not weaken such an important position.
Butler-Rowe just won a Super Bowl against a prolific passing team. So, unless you see a real dropoff from Butler to Gilmore, I don't see how they're weaker
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204

Consider the source, but I don't see any reason to believe Butler will hold out. It's a pretty poor decision on the economics alone.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Yes he did, but that has nothing to do with the question that was posed: Would Gilmore-Rowe be worse than Butler-Rowe
I meant Butler and Gilmore as your top two corners.

Regardless of the SB itself, Rowe was normally a slot corner and normally played many fewer snaps than Butler or Ryan.

My contention is that the Pats are likely materially better with Gilmore and Butler in the 1 and 2 roles than they are with Gilmore and Rowe. Nothing that happened in the SB changes my view on that.

Also, I think they are better with Gilmore, Butler and Rowe on the field than they are with Gilmore, Rowe and Jones/Jones/X.