One would hope that they wouldn't do the deal, if that's the case. I'm not convinced of that, however. I realize that Payton and Belichick are friends, but I don't know that it means they will be returning any favors. If they were willing to do that, then why not just trade Cooks for Butler the other day?

Don't forget that there are other suitors for Butler if the Saints don't pony up.

They hadn't had the opportunity to meet with Butler yet and had to move quickly on Cooks. They have to have something worked out with Btler in advance. It all make perfect sense.

I'm scratching my head on this one for a number of reasons. Proponents of this deal keep making this claim that "they must have a deal in place", which even if true, is not at all related to my issue with it.

I don't care if they have a deal worked out with Butler. I'm saying what are we giving up to get him. And why exactly do we need him so bad?

Also, why do you say they had to move quickly on Cooks? What's the rush? That doesn't make perfect sense to me. People seem convinced that a deal in place means we won't get fleeced again.

If they didn't get a deal done on Cooks before this past Monday the Saints would have had to eat his $781K roster bonus. By making the deal before then the Patriots had to take the hit. Perfectly logical.

Don't roster bonuses not count against the cap? If that is correct, that isn't much money to swallow in the NFL, in order to take a little more time on getting a better trade deal worked out.