If we franchise Mankins, how does that impact our draft? - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

Ochmed Jones · 02-13-2011, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patfanken

I think the best way to go with Mankins is the following -

1. By Franchising him you can put off your final decision on him for a few months. It lets the Pats have more control of where he goes, and it is their best opportunity to maximize his value in any trade scenario. Hopefully it would be resolved by the draft in late April. He'll either sign or be traded.

Is the threat of legal action by the players association going to scare teams from using their franchise tag?

***Aßßynormal*** · 02-13-2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

1) With Kaczur, we had a player UNDER CONTRACT who was about to be beaten out by Vollmer for his RT spot. We were considering using our 3rd string LG as a starter. Kaczur was considered at a possible option. It did indeed seem reasonable at the time. Kaczur was starter without a job. It was a good idea to see if he could be an option at LG, or RG for that matter. Personally, I agree that Kaczur might have the flexibility to play OG, he certainly has the ability to play LT.

2) You see to believe that Light has no other options than the patriots. You want to sign him for $4M as an OK backup, who could start. I ahve no problem paying Light the $5 or $6M a year it will take to sign him. I have no doubt that, if we sign him that he will start. I have absolutely ZERO CLUE why this board thinks he's not a starter. If Dante agrees, he'll start elsewhere. It really is that simple, unless you think that Light will get more money from the patriots to be a backup than he would get to start elsewhere.

3) I did NOT say that no one is capable of being able to play more than one position. It is OFTEN the case that a LT in college plays LG in the pros. There have been literally hundreds of posts about Light moving to RT or LG (mostly so that Vollmer can play LT). Someone can dig up the analysis and quotes from those who know much more than I do about the x's and o's. They was a very solid conclusion every time that Light is our LT or he is playing elsewhere.

4) I would much rather have Light as a starter than have anyone else.

5) I would rather have a healthy Kaczur as a backup than Light.

6) I have a different draft philosphies depending on whether we need a starter or whether, on the other hand, we are looking for depth and a starter (immediate or 2012. In depth, we look for felxibility. Obviously, we need Game Day backups who can backup more than one position. If we are looking for starters, we need to get the ebst we can at that position, being able to backup another position is a plus, but not essential. We defintely need one pure OG or even two if Mankins is gone. We need a pure center.

At OT, the situation is much more interesting. The question is whether dante is OK with Vollmer and Kaczur as his starters. If so, he can draft a LT with considerable skills at OG. This would be important if Light is re-signed.

I agree that if we resign him, he should start somewhere. There appear to be a lot of options and possibly playing a rookie at LG prepartory to taking over at LT is a good point.

MaineMan · 02-13-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ochmed Jones

Is the threat of legal action by the players association going to scare teams from using their franchise tag?

I've heard this before and I'm not quite sure I understand it. The teams are still operating under a CBA that is presumably valid until it expires at the end of the league year, yes? If so, then can't they still tag a player whose contract is expiring? In fact, aren't they required to tag him if they want to keep him?

Or is it the situation where they can't tag him until his contract expires, which, in nearly all cases, I guess, would be simultaneous with the expiration of the current CBA (at which point, tags wouldn't exist)?

***mgteich*** · 02-13-2011, 02:08 PM

If teams don't use their tags, they lose them. Of course, the new CBA could provide for a 2nd round of tags; this seems extreley unlikely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaineMan

I've heard this before and I'm not quite sure I understand it. The teams are still operating under a CBA that is presumably valid until it expires at the end of the league year, yes? If so, then can't they still tag a player whose contract is expiring? In fact, aren't they required to tag him if they want to keep him?

Or is it the situation where they can't tag him until his contract expires, which, in nearly all cases, I guess, would be simultaneous with the expiration of the current CBA (at which point, tags wouldn't exist)?

dryheat44 · 02-14-2011, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaineMan

I've heard this before and I'm not quite sure I understand it. The teams are still operating under a CBA that is presumably valid until it expires at the end of the league year, yes? If so, then can't they still tag a player whose contract is expiring? In fact, aren't they required to tag him if they want to keep him?

Or is it the situation where they can't tag him until his contract expires, which, in nearly all cases, I guess, would be simultaneous with the expiration of the current CBA (at which point, tags wouldn't exist)?

I tend to think any franchise tags place between now and the new CBA (assuming there's no agreement by March) would be ruled invalid. The language is pretty clear in the CBA that the franchise tag can be used before every season that is covered by the CBA. It seems an open-and-shut case if a grievance is filed and it's arbitrated. 2011 is not covered under the current CBA, therefore franchise tags aren't allowed.

Of course, this is something that the Union could concede in negotiations, but there's a real possibility that any tag placed by a team between now and March 5 would simply be removed. In which case another team could present a free agent an offer.

The extreme case here is that the Titans (or somebody) would present Peyton Manning an enormous offer after he is tagged, which he signs since the Union's stance is that there are no tags barring a new agreement. After all, Goodell has said that teams are free to sign free agents regardless of the presence of a CBA. If no owner presents Manning, Mankins, V Jax, and other UFAs with a contract, it's a pretty good collusion case for the Union.

I suppose the downside of that play is that Polian and Irsay will fight like hell to get a clause in the new CBA to invalidate every free agent contract signed between March 6th and the start of the new CBA. But if you're a team that needs a QB, it's worth a shot.

MaineMan · 02-15-2011, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dryheat44

I tend to think any franchise tags place between now and the new CBA (assuming there's no agreement by March) would be ruled invalid. The language is pretty clear in the CBA that the franchise tag can be used before every season that is covered by the CBA. It seems an open-and-shut case if a grievance is filed and it's arbitrated. 2011 is not covered under the current CBA, therefore franchise tags aren't allowed......

So, this will be tested now that the Pats have franchised Mankins. Really, it pretty much needed to be tested in order to get an "official clarification". It would probably be risky, from a legal standpoint, for teams to just assume that tags are not viable.

Seems to me that your first impulse, "ruled invalid", would be closer than "not allowed" in that, if your interpretation of the CBA language is correct, tags are effectively "non-existent" for 2011.

jeffbiologist · 02-15-2011, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaineMan

So, this will be tested now that the Pats have franchised Mankins. Really, it pretty much needed to be tested in order to get an "official clarification". It would probably be risky, from a legal standpoint, for teams to just assume that tags are not viable.

Seems to me that your first impulse, "ruled invalid", would be closer than "not allowed" in that, if your interpretation of the CBA language is correct, tags are effectively "non-existent" for 2011.

I think most teams realize more than the players do what is going to happen to the CBA. The teams surely tagged players as another bargaining chip to bring to the negotiating table, legal or not. There is very little to lose in tagging players if you know you wont be paying them, right? I suspect more tags used now than ever as a show of force by the owners.
Bringing it back on topic, tagging players should have zero impact on the draft as teams will be forced to fill holes normally reserved for FAs. I think this will eventually devalue most FAs as the needs will be lessened. For players at the end of their careers or near it they will be under more pressure than ever to make that last year's pay. An example of this IMHO is Neal, a player who most likely will come back to finish the contract to find possibly 2 sets of draft picks(if we lose the year)as competition.

MaineMan · 02-16-2011, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffbiologist

I think most teams realize more than the players do what is going to happen to the CBA. The teams surely tagged players as another bargaining chip to bring to the negotiating table, legal or not. There is very little to lose in tagging players if you know you wont be paying them, right? I suspect more tags used now than ever as a show of force by the owners.
Bringing it back on topic, tagging players should have zero impact on the draft as teams will be forced to fill holes normally reserved for FAs. I think this will eventually devalue most FAs as the needs will be lessened. For players at the end of their careers or near it they will be under more pressure than ever to make that last year's pay. An example of this IMHO is Neal, a player who most likely will come back to finish the contract to find possibly 2 sets of draft picks(if we lose the year)as competition.

Agree with this. The bolded part is an element that, IMO, hasn't received enough consideration or discussion.

Which brings up a question that's been knocking around in my brain: If there's no FA before the draft, is it possible for the league to unilaterally expand the draft to more rounds (since teams won't be allowed to go after UDFAs either)?

Actually, I just thought of another one: Are compensatory picks at all dependent on the existence of a CBA?

patfanken · 02-18-2011, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaineMan

I've heard this before and I'm not quite sure I understand it. The teams are still operating under a CBA that is presumably valid until it expires at the end of the league year, yes? If so, then can't they still tag a player whose contract is expiring? In fact, aren't they required to tag him if they want to keep him?

Or is it the situation where they can't tag him until his contract expires, which, in nearly all cases, I guess, would be simultaneous with the expiration of the current CBA (at which point, tags wouldn't exist)?

It seems like there are a number of players who are being franchised all over the league. BTW if I were a player I'd sign the tender right away. I'm pretty sure if you sign the tender the team would have to pay you whether a new CBA is done or not. Its the best shot at security for 2011 the players have (though this mediation things is very promising).

2 points

1. Moving Light to LG is not only doable it makes sense....a lot of sense. It would NOT be a big dislocation for Light. Staying on the left side, he will be seeing the same looks he's been seeing for 10 years. LT's for the Pats do a lot of pulling, so moving to G again, would not be a shock. Light is very quick for an OLman and wouldn't have a problem at the second level vs 3-4 looks.

That being said I would have no problem if the Pats took a quality OT with one of their first 3 picks and moving him to LG (much like we did with Mankins) and keep Light at LT and Volmer at RT. I just like moving Light to LG more. Plus now is the time to move Volmer.to LT

2. I don't understand the disrespect for Light. Its not like he had a bad year, quite the reverse. Didn't he just come back from Hawaii?

My bet is that if he was moved to LG, I would fully expect him to be voted there again.

townes · 02-18-2011, 11:45 AM

They need an interior OL out lof this draft whether they re-sign Mankins or not. Wisniewski at #28 or #33, or Pouncey in the same range is fine with me.