REPORT: Mankins' [Tender Offer] Reduced - was offered 7 mil per season - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

IllegalContact · 06-15-2010, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juxtapoz15

If he sits out until week 10 I would franchise his ***** next year just to control his rights and try and trade him.

that's not how you build and maintain a successful franchise

***Rob0729*** · 06-15-2010, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllegalContact

mankins can wait all the way until week 10 to sign and show and still get credit for the season.

if I was in his shoes, that is what I would do. since he felt so insulted by 7m/year, it is likely because the deal is backloaded with little $$$ in the form of guarantees.

Or he was insulted because he wanted to be the highest paid guard in the league or close to it.

I doubt it had to do with the fact that it was backloaded since the Patriots haven't done a backloaded contract in years. Didn't with Wilfork. Didn't with Moss (who would be a more likely candidate since he was older and has a history of wearing out his welcome with teams). Didn't with Seymour. Why would they do somethig they haven't done since the early parts of the Belichick tenure.

Also, if Mankins sits out, he loses a lot of money this year and potentially more next. If the Pats have Brady locked up by next offseason, they can franchise him and he will get about $9-10 million for 2011. There is a reason why it has been nearly a decade since a player held out well into the regular season. The player always loses.

***Rob0729*** · 06-15-2010, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ac0608

What happens if Mankins doesn't sign his tender? Can we still trade him?

The Pats can trade him, but Mankins would most likely have to work on a long term deal with the team he is going to for it to happen. Mankins would have to sign his tender to complete the deal so that part would be critical.

Since Mankins asked publically for a trade, the Pats probably have permission to shop him eventhough he isn't under contract (they couldn't do it without his permission though since he isn't under contract).

IllegalContact · 06-15-2010, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausbacker

Against the Bengals at home? Unlikely. Christ even the Jets are sack spastics in week two, the potentially Schobel less Bills in week three which leaves the Dolphins in week four that don't appear as strong on D.

how'd being at home work out against the ravens?

the bengals defense was actually pretty good last year.

but I guess based on your theory, the pats should have just let mankins walk

***ausbacker*** · 06-15-2010, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllegalContact

how'd being at home work out against the ravens?

the bengals defense was actually pretty good last year.

but I guess based on your theory, the pats should have just let mankins walk

Just using the simple mechanism that measures sacks. The end of season team sack total. Only Miami presents any danger in that regard and we don't face them until week four.

I'd have liked to kept Mankins but the way in which he is acting aggrieved at being reportedly offered a contract which would put him in the higher stratosphere of guards is laughable.

Won't be too long before his PR people start joining forums and trying to spin his side of the story when there's no need for it to begin with.

IllegalContact · 06-15-2010, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Or he was insulted because he wanted to be the highest paid guard in the league or close to it.

I doubt it had to do with the fact that it was backloaded since the Patriots haven't done a backloaded contract in years. Didn't with Wilfork. Didn't with Moss (who would be a more likely candidate since he was older and has a history of wearing out his welcome with teams). Didn't with Seymour. Why would they do somethig they haven't done since the early parts of the Belichick tenure.

Also, if Mankins sits out, he loses a lot of money this year and potentially more next. If the Pats have Brady locked up by next offseason, they can franchise him and he will get about $9-10 million for 2011. There is a reason why it has been nearly a decade since a player held out well into the regular season. The player always loses.

well...he doesn't lose alot of money anymore.

they back-loaded kaczur to a degree.

the pats certainly can franchise mankins after only playing 6 games in 2010, but it doesn't make it a sound move

PatsFanInEaglesLand · 06-15-2010, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

Franchise him and he would get the average of the top five LT's in the league. That would be fine with Mankins.

How so? He just turned down a top 5 contract.

IllegalContact · 06-15-2010, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausbacker

Just using the simple mechanism that measures sacks. The end of season team sack total. Only Miami presents any danger in that regard and we don't face them until week four.

I'd have liked to kept Mankins but the way in which he is acting aggrieved at being reportedly offered a contract which would put him in the higher stratosphere of guards is laughable.

Won't be too long before his PR people start joining forums and trying to spin his side of the story when there's no need for it to begin with.

I'd like to have kept mankins, also, since there really is no alternative on the roster right now.

without knowing the facts, one can only surmise the things in the contract that would make someone go ballistic even if it did work out to 7m/yr, like a massive backloading with little guaranteed $$

if the ratios are similar to what evans got in terms of guarantees and money in the 1st 3 years, then yeah, he is off his rocker.

on the other hand, it is possible that mankins wants years 6-7 as part of this deal and not some new deal where someone can say 'ahhh, you're old now'

RayClay · 06-15-2010, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllegalContact

that's not how you build and maintain a successful franchise

So you're saying we should trust the people who know how to build and maintain a successful franchise?

I agree 100%!

***ausbacker*** · 06-15-2010, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllegalContact

I'd like to have kept mankins, also, since there really is no alternative on the roster right now.

without knowing the facts, one can only surmise the things in the contract that would make someone go ballistic even if it did work out to 7m/yr, like a massive backloading with little guaranteed $$

if the ratios are similar to what evans got in terms of guarantees and money in the 1st 3 years, then yeah, he is off his rocker.

on the other hand, it is possible that mankins wants years 6-7 as part of this deal and not some new deal where someone can say 'ahhh, you're old now'

This is why I am going to continue with the read some news articles about this issue IllegalContact. Mankins started out saying he was pissed with the Patriots for not keeping their word and addressing his contract until after the CBA is in place. Well they've addressed his contract before the CBA is in play. He in fact questioned the morality of the organization over this and has infact misrepresented himself. How do we know this? His agent said there was a contract offered.

Logan Mankins doesn't like the contract that's been offered to him. That's all it comes down to. He looks like a major dick right now.