ALP

the problem with this is the you are comparing apples to oranges...

cutting a player is NOT the same as holding out

holding out is similar to the team demanding a pay cut, either the player wants to get paid more, or the team wants to pay him less

this is becuase holding out and demanding a pay cut requries the consent of the other party to solve, where ares cutting a player is a solution and can be done with only one party

the player can do nothing akin to a team cutting a player, thats why gauranteed money came into being, insurence that even if a team cuts you, they still owe you that money

__________________
Last time I lived in New England the Pats became a Dynasty

Then I moved away and they haven't won since

...now I'm moving back, and a Lombardi I predict

Palm Beach Pats Fan

Why should anyone demand that the players have the same rights as the team, when the players know from day 1 that this isn't true.

NFL contracts are a one-way guarantee unless a contract specifies otherwise, and guess what, if guaranteed contracts were that important, the NFLPA could demand them in the next CBA, like MLB and NBA players have. Don't hold your breath.

__________________
It is what it is, so just go out there and do your job!

MoLewisrocks

You are half right. They would be obligated to pay him only if he signs the tender and they actually play that season... Franchise dollars are guaranteed in that once signed the offer can't be withdrawn or reduced. The money isn't paid up front though, it is salary paid in 17 installments over the course of the season in the form of game checks. Franchise tag players are bound to their team whether they sign the tender or not. They can sit out an entire season if they choose to and gain their freedom. Of course that would be dependant on there being a season. Contracts generally toll otherwise, and i would expect that to be the case in the event of a lockout. At the moment there are only two alternative scenarios to a lockout. Either they reach accord on a new CBA or the union decertifies and the league plays on based on the rules the owners dictate in their last settlement offer to the union. Under either of those scenarios Mankins can remain the property of the NEP no matter what he wants...as long as the owners don't give up the franchise tag, which they have no intention of doing. And he only gets paid if he signs his franchise tender and plays or signs his franchise tender to facilitate a trade at the teams discretion...in which case he gets paid by someone else.

That is part of the perverse beauty in the Mankins situation. He's stuck here indefinitely no matter what unless the team chooses to rid itself of him. Which they could well decide to do based on his choice of Kraft as his target. Of course the timing would be on their terms and they could part with him at any time between now and when it best suits them...including via cut rather than trade in December or next March if a lockout is imminent or in April of the league's first year back when he's 31 without him seeing a nickle more than $400K over that span of time. I doubt it will come to that because teams aren't generally as vindictive as fans...

Deus Irae

Your unique ability to read the hearts and minds of everyone associated with the Patriots is amazing. Frankly, someone with your paranormal skills could be making literally billions of dollars working for government as a troubleshooter without peer, yet you are kind enough to focus those awesome powers in such a way as to benefit Patriots fans beyond all others.

Could you kindly have a sit down with Bruschi and explain to him that his understanding about Mankins is all wrong, that it's not about principle, and is all about being a closet malcontent? Also, and I know that you generally refuse to provide actual evidence for claims like the one above, but could you please make an exception in this case? Your ability to understand Mankins so very well even as his teammate completely missed the bus on it is simply something that needs to be shared with the world, and that can't be done without us seeing all the proof.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

ahmed

They hold out because they cannot 'cut themselves' so to speak and they don't need anyone's consent to hold out. So yes, holding out is to the player what cutting is to the team.

You don't hear players from other leagues holding out because their contracts are fully guaranteed. If they were in the NFL, this would not happen. So as long as teams can cut players before their contract is out, players will continue to hold out.

ahmed

If NFL contracts were 'a one-way guarantee', players would not have the ability to hold out. Players understand they can be cut at any time and teams understand players can hold out at any time. That is something both sides decided they could live with.

I don't think there will ever be guaranteed contracts in the NFL, the owners would never allow it, something I would never allow if I were an owner because the NFL has the shortest average player career by far. However, just don't act all surprised when you see a player hold out.

Am I happy that Mankins is holding out, absolutely not especially that we really don't have anybody that is close to him in term of ability that can replace him but it is what it is.

MoLewisrocks

Classic ad hominem Deus, so I'll assume you got nothing else. I never expressed any opinion about what little Bruschi said, nor do I read anything into it that contradicts what I've observed on a much more limited basis. Mankins is apparently a guy who means what he says when he's angry and takes slights perceived or real quite seriously. He is furious (though it's not clear why) and he is serious and he is through here as a result. Passionate disagreements are often based on principles combatants adhere to, whether they are rational or not. Contrary to your theory that money and talent rebuild bridges no matter how badly burnt, Tedy thinks he's done here (silly guy). So do I. Mankins said last season he was hoping for a contract but he was willing to honor his existing deal. He seemed a little unhappy he hadn't already been offered a deal, but knowing his reaction to this deal I can see why the team didn't attempt to persue a discounted early extension with him... He might have punched Kraft in the nuts had that happened. Sadly for him the term of his existing deal allowed for him to be tendered as a RFA after his union recently agreed that it would. Just like Vince Wilfork was able to be tendered as a franchise player when his 6 year deal was completed because his union has always agreed that it would. Didn't mean the team was screwing them or lied to them when they tendered them. The team still persued long term deals with each of them in conjunction with their tenders. One of them apparently wanted to find common ground and remain. The other if he did has a strange way of showing it. Never countered the teams offer and isn't shooting down reports that the deal averaged $7M for 5 years and represented a top 5 deal.

FWIW I've been told by people I wouldn't be surprised to find were a lot smarter than you that I'm remarkably observant and insightful...

Wolfpack

I think what really needs to change is the whole draft system. The teams have an unfair amount of leverage when they draft a player. It ends up being too top heavy, whereby the highest draft picks get overpaid, and the mid-rounders who end up being stars are underpaid and locked into unfair contracts (and no, I am not talking about Mankins when I say that - he is a whole 'nother matter).

Deus Irae

You have a habit of utilitzing the tactic of making such posts without providing evidence, and asking for the evidence while pointing out your past history is not an ad hominem attack.

Actually, I never used "no matter how badly burnt" "always" or anything that would be 100% definitive in that sense. Surely you know that, since you must have read the post. We both know that there's not going to be 100% success/failure when it comes to such things. So, you wrongly accuse me of making ad hominem attacks, and then you twist my statement about burned bridges beyond its obvious meaning.

Yes, knowing what you now "know", and tossing your own spin on it, you shockingly side with the team. It's a stunning turn of events for you.

Again with the absolutely ridiculous commentary on your part.

Actually, the team was clearly screwing both of them over. That's not even in question for anyone who takes a moment to think about it. However, the CBA allowed for both to be screwed over in such a manner. I've noted, repeatedly, that I'm not sympathetic to Mankins' call for a trade, and that he should be looking towards the Union for signing the CBA in the first place. We're actually relatively close to agreement on this part of the issue.

One obviously unacceptable offer with no follow up on either side does not demonstrate an attempt "to find common ground" by either party.

I'm sure your mom loves you very much.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

shakadave

Can we really get a first for him if we "own" him for only a fraction of a year? If I'm the other end of this trade, I'm giving up a first for about 10 games of Mankins, plus having to pay him big money for any years beyond that. Still, you could be right in a Deion Branch sort of way....

__________________
Please, God, don't let us ever suck as bad as the 2011 Cowboys did in the Jets opener.
* * * * *
"I got a little shine on and showed you guys a little taste of my speed."

----Vince Wilfork, Jan. 7, 2007