Triumph

Mar 6, 2011
By Tom E. Curran
CSNNE.com

In March of 2001, the Patriots called a press conference at Robert Kraft's downtown offices to announce a 10-year, $103 million contract extension for Drew Bledsoe.

That day, Kraft suggested Bledsoe would follow in the footsteps of Ted Williams, Bill Russell and Larry Bird. He'd spend his entire career in Boston. He'd be an icon.



A little more than a year later, he was a Buffalo Bill.
Bill Belichick wasn't at the Bledsoe photo-op that day. None of the Patriots football brass was. It was a Kraft production, a dog-and-pony show Belichick didn't carve out time to be a part of.



Bledsoe was too inaccurate, too indecisive, too unaware of pocket pressure for Belichick's tastes. The coach had rarely had difficulty defending Bledsoe when he was an opponent and nothing Bledsoe showed during the 2000 season or the first two games of 2001 changed his mind.



But Belichick knew that with CMGi Field (later to be renamed Gillette Stadium) being built and Foxboro Stadium being torn down, keeping Bledsoe -- the franchise hood ornament -- was a business decision as much as a football decision. Would people buy luxury suites if Michael Bishop were the starter? Or Tom Brady?



Even though the Patriots were 7-17 in Bledsoe's previous 24 starts, and the fact that Bledsoe had thrown 31 interceptions and been sacked 90 times in the previous 32 games, Belichick had to roll with it.



By the end of the preseason, Bledsoe and his $103 million contract were on thin ice because he was playing so poorly. Belichick considered starting Brady in the third preseason game against Carolina that August. And Bledsoe was so ineffective throughout the summer, Belichick made him play significant time in the fourth preseason game.



A serious showdown between coach and quarterback loomed and when quarterback got benched, he would have headed straight for the owner. Then Mo Lewis intervened.



We bring you this moment in Patriots' contractual history because of something Greg Bedard wrote in Sunday's Boston Globe.


In discussing the ongoing Logan Mankins Affair, Bedard fires in a paragraph that reads, "And for those wondering whether there's a disconnect between the football staff and ownership on Mankins, there isn't. The two have been in agreement for 11 years on contracts, and now there might be a rift over a guard (albeit a darn good one)?"
Eleven years of contractual bliss, huh? Head nods and high fives for better than a decade? Remarkable. Even more remarkable if it were true which, it isn't.



Who's been talking about a disconnect, anyway?


Well, me. Right here.



Bedard, who was in Washington last week, said he hadn't seen my story when I asked him if his passage was a veiled rebuttal to me.
I believe him because A) I'm not required reading and B) Bedard's a good guy and a writer I respect.



But I predicted at the end of my article that my observation of a business-football disconnect would be pooh-poohed and here's the pooh-poohing.
Which doesn't change the reality.



The Mankins issue hasn't been strictly a football one. It did get personal when Mankins questioned Robert Kraft's honor. And the dislike for Mankins' agent Frank Bauer remains. I believe Bauer when he says Bill Belichick has worked extremely hard to facilitate a deal.



So for those wondering if there's a disconnect between the football staff and ownership on Mankins?


There is.

Mankins isn't first Pats' front office/football squabble

PatsWickedPissah

Bob Kraft is too busy traveling and hobknobing overseas with Governor Patrick to let these minor contact issues affect him

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

patsfaninpittsburgh

How could there be a squabble with Mankins?

He's the guy who demands being the highest paid guard despite the fact that money means zero to him. Sounds like a perfect line of thought.

Also, the Kraft's are involved with Isreal. Last I saw, Robert Kraft had an equity stake in Carmel Container. Who else would make sense on an Isreali trade mission?

Ofcourse, if a Jerry Jones/ Daniel Snyder model is your liking......

Rob0729

Huh?!? Prior to Belichick getting here, Kraft frequently overpaid his players in new deals and many time for underachieving garbage (Max Lane or Todd Rucci anyone?). Kraft's philosophy in the 90s, which he stated multiple times publically, was to reward his own players with generous contracts rather than be active free agency players. It wasn't until Belichick got here that Kraft got the "cheap" moniker.

MoLewisrocks

Because Kraft once overpaid a player to be a hood ornament Curren now surmises there is a disconnect between Kraft spitefully wanting to under pay a guard Bill desperately wants to overpay?? If that were the case, why tag him at all? Or why cut his RFA tender in half last season when you didn't have to?

I've said it before, Tom E isn't the brightest bulb on the planet...

Kraft is thin skinned (and Jonathan may be a tad vindictive where insults to his old man are concerned) where things some of these players say and do is concerned, whereas Bill isn't because he takes it for what it's worth (frustration). But I don't for a minute believe that has anything to do with the value Bill places on them. Kraft might even want some sort of apology or revision of history as part of any Mankins deal going forward, but he isn't limiting what Belichick can or has offered him dollar wise in the context of the overall unit or roster budget because Bill wouldn't put up with that level of interference. Team Mankins just prefers to spin the disconnect as existing between ownership and the player because it can't be that the greatest HC/defacto GM in a generation doesn't think he's worth $8M+ per on a long term deal...

I think there was a similar situation with Moss and with Seymour to the extent that the things they said or did matched up against their production led Bill to decide it was time to pull the plug.

DarrylStingley

I suspect that Kraft will eventually get this right.

Triumph

1. To control where Mankins will play next.
2. To receive compensation other than a compensatory pick.

Wouldnt that be Kraft saying FU to Mankins?

MoLewisrocks

After reading Curren's original article I've come to the conclusion that he's upset that folks don't believe his source on this piece any more than his sources on the Brady may miss the season piece... That and he's jealous of Bedard...

BradyFTW!

You're totally right. The team's recent history with pro bowl players, excluding the majority of those players since they don't support your axe-grinding argument, is really interesting and conclusion-worthy

Deus Irae

Well this thread is already breaking down along the expected lines.

__________________
"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