Mankins

[mgteich]

We've been talking about draft an OG. Well, a probowl LG will be available for a low 1st and 3rd. This presumes that he would be offered a contract that the patriots chose not to match.

 

[Jimke]

We've been talking about draft an OG. Well, a probowl LG will be available for a low 1st and 3rd. This presumes that he would be offered a contract that the patriots chose not to match.

Mankins would be a steal for teams with middle to late first round picks.

 

[SanAngeloState]

I would do it then.

Draft another guard, like Roger Saffold of Indiana or Iaputi. Plug them in and pay them what Mankins was making while mankin's new team has to pay a huge contract. Brilliant!

 

[pabst37]

The Patriots could actually put the lowest tender on Mankins which means a team would have to only give up a first round pick if they signed him. This tender would be about $1mil lower than the tender of a 1st and a 3rd - I've been wondering if the Pats might put the lower tender on him with the thought that if they could get a 1st for him it would be good value given the depth of this draft.

 

[mayoclinic]

The Patriots could actually put the lowest tender on Mankins which means a team would have to only give up a first round pick if they signed him. This tender would be about $1mil lower than the tender of a 1st and a 3rd - I've been wondering if the Pats might put the lower tender on him with the thought that if they could get a 1st for him it would be good value given the depth of this draft.

I'd want the 3rd round pick too - with this draft, that could be a heck of a player.

For example, if the Steelers want to give us a 1st and 3rd for Mankins then we can still get 2 solid guards in the draft at 42 and 47/53, plus 2 1st round picks, plus an additional 2nd round pick at 42/43, plus the Steeler's 3rd round pick (around #82). Also, I'd probably move either Light or Kaczur to LG in that scenario. At #18 we might get someone like CJ Spiller, Brian Bulaga, Dan Williams or Carlos Dunlap. We might be able to trade up from 18 to 10 to get Rolando McClain.

I like Mankins, but I wouldn't cry if any of those scenarios happened.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

It looks more and more like 2010 is going to be the "Final Year" of the CBA. Which means that the following new rules will apply:

In addition to a Franchise player, a team can also place a Transitional tag on another player (before you could only tag one play as either a "Franchise" or Transitional" player, in the "Final Year" you can do both.

Which means that the Pats can Franchise Wilfork, AND place the transitional tag on another player. The Transitional tag only gives you the right to match any other offer sheet that the player signs from another team, however, if you do not match the offer sheet, you get no compensation (draft picks) from the other team.


However, again assuming that no new CBA is reached, Mankins will be a restricted Free Agent, and the Patriots will give him a "high tender" which in Mankins case will only be 2.79 million. Then any team signing Mankins would have to forfeit their 1st and 3rd round pick.

BOTTOMLINE, if no new CBA is signed, Mankins is not gooing anywhere....




This is an excellent Q&A about the rules for the Final Year of the CBA

Key questions and answers about the CBA

 

[mgteich]

Of course Mankins isn't going anywhere if the patriots are willing to match any offer given by any team, and any poisen pills in those offers. That is true of UFA's as well as RFA's.

It looks more and more like 2010 is going to be the "Final Year" of the CBA. Which means that the following new rules will apply:

In addition to a Franchise player, a team can also place a Transitional tag on another player (before you could only tag one play as either a "Franchise" or Transitional" player, in the "Final Year" you can do both.

Which means that the Pats can Franchise Wilfork, AND place the transitional tag on another player. The Transitional tag only gives you the right to match any other offer sheet that the player signs from another team, however, if you do not match the offer sheet, you get no compensation (draft picks) from the other team.


However, again assuming that no new CBA is reached, Mankins will be a restricted Free Agent, and the Patriots will give him a "high tender" which in Mankins case will only be 2.79 million. Then any team signing Mankins would have to forfeit their 1st and 3rd round pick.

BOTTOMLINE, if no new CBA is signed, Mankins is not gooing anywhere....




This is an excellent Q&A about the rules for the Final Year of the CBA

Key questions and answers about the CBA

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Which means that the Pats can Franchise Wilfork, AND place the transitional tag on another player. The Transitional tag only gives you the right to match any other offer sheet that the player signs from another team, however, if you do not match the offer sheet, you get no compensation (draft picks) from the other team.

With the poison pills in place, the transition tag is basically useless.

It's doubly so in the case of Mankins, in that the transition tag costs more than the RFA tender would.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Of course Mankins isn't going anywhere if the patriots are willing to match any offer given by any team, and any poisen pills in those offers. That is true of UFA's as well as RFA's.

I will grant that the Transition tag is useless because of the poison pill and no draft pick compensation, BUT

The rules are very different form Unrestrited Free Agents, and Restricted Free Agents, the UFA can sign with anyone (except the final 8 teams which are now limited to signing only an equal amount to they lose), signing a RFA will cost you draft picks.

Now I think that the final 8 teams can sign RFA, which might open up the market more than it has in the past, but still, no one is going to give up a 1st and 3rd round pick for Mankins (plus sign him to a long term deal) poison pill or no poison pill. This is the mistake that Miami made a few years ago with Welker they gave him a mid-level offer, which only required a 2nd rd draft pick, and the Pats went ahead and added a 7th so they wouldn't have to sign Welker to a longer contract and deal with the whole poison pill stuff. But the Pats will absolutely give Mankins the High Tender, meaning uinless someone wants to part with a 1st and a 3rd for him, he is not going anywhere.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Now I think that the final 8 teams can sign RFA, which might open up the market more than it has in the past, but still, no one is going to give up a 1st and 3rd round pick for Mankins (plus sign him to a long term deal) poison pill or no poison pill. This is the mistake that Miami made a few years ago with Welker they gave him a mid-level offer, which only required a 2nd rd draft pick, and the Pats went ahead and added a 7th so they wouldn't have to sign Welker to a longer contract and deal with the whole poison pill stuff. But the Pats will absolutely give Mankins the High Tender, meaning uinless someone wants to part with a 1st and a 3rd for him, he is not going anywhere.

I believe they can sign players to offer sheets, but CANNOT trade for a player who has already signed his tender (since the CBA prohibits teams from trading for players they cannot sign as UFAs).

That said, a team that's desperate enough might be willing to cough up that much; after all, Mankins will only be 28 when the 2010 season starts.

 

[rsd]

If people seem so confident that they can get a good enough replacement for Mankins in the draft, why would another team give up those same picks and not just draft that rookie and pay him less than Mankins? Sigh

 

[ctpatsfan77]

If people seem so confident that they can get a good enough replacement for Mankins in the draft, why would another team give up those same picks and not just draft that rookie and pay him less than Mankins? Sigh

Because there's less "risk" in taking a "known" quantity.

 

[dryheat44]

If people seem so confident that they can get a good enough replacement for Mankins in the draft, why would another team give up those same picks and not just draft that rookie and pay him less than Mankins? Sigh

Exactly. Sometimes we seem to operate on the premise that the other 31 GMs in the NFL are morons.

So we've established (falsely, might I add), that a perennial pro-bowl guard in his prime is worth less than a 1st and 3rd pick.

Therefore the Patriots, being wise, allow Mankins to go to Team M for 1st and 3rd picks, craftily replacing Mankins with a younger, cheaper, and just as good alternative and saving payroll.

Yet it's a good idea for Team M to forfeit 1st and 3rd picks to get an older,more expensive, and not significantly better guard and add to payroll.

If I did smileys, I'd add the confused one here.

 

[rsd]

Because there's less "risk" in taking a "known" quantity.

Fair point, but you could also argue that the older the player is the more risk of injury etc etc.

The overall logic in this thread is poor/one-sided at best.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Exactly. Sometimes we seem to operate on the premise that the other 31 GMs in the NFL are morons.

So we've established (falsely, might I add), that a perennial pro-bowl guard in his prime is worth less than a 1st and 3rd pick.

Therefore the Patriots, being wise, allow Mankins to go to Team M for 1st and 3rd picks, craftily replacing Mankins with a younger, cheaper, and just as good alternative and saving payroll.

Yet it's a good idea for Team M to forfeit 1st and 3rd picks to get an older,more expensive, and not significantly better guard and add to payroll.

If I did smileys, I'd add the confused one here.

But some GMs/owners are that stupid. See (WR) Roy Williams being traded in mid-season for a first and a third.

See the Seahawks coughing up a first for the Twig.

Again, personally, I think a 1 and a 3 all but guarantees Mankins is a Patriot next year, at least, but I can't say it's 100% certain.

 

[pabst37]

Exactly. Sometimes we seem to operate on the premise that the other 31 GMs in the NFL are morons.

So we've established (falsely, might I add), that a perennial pro-bowl guard in his prime is worth less than a 1st and 3rd pick.

Therefore the Patriots, being wise, allow Mankins to go to Team M for 1st and 3rd picks, craftily replacing Mankins with a younger, cheaper, and just as good alternative and saving payroll.

Yet it's a good idea for Team M to forfeit 1st and 3rd picks to get an older,more expensive, and not significantly better guard and add to payroll.

If I did smileys, I'd add the confused one here.

Well some teams value players differently. Minnesota signed Hutchinson to a 7 year $49 million deal, Dallas did the same with Leonard Davis and Buffalo did the same with Dockery - I'm pretty confident that the Patriots won't pay that much for a guard.

 

[dryheat44]

Well some teams value players differently. Minnesota signed Hutchinson to a 7 year $49 million deal, Dallas did the same with Leonard Davis and Buffalo did the same with Dockery - I'm pretty confident that the Patriots won't pay that much for a guard.

You're probably correct. Fortunately, they don't have to.

 

[mgteich]

What do you think Mankins will be offerred? It would seem that there might be someone out there that would want to spend a low 1st and 3rd and pay top money for a long-term contract.

You're probably correct. Fortunately, they don't have to.

 

[dryheat44]

What do you think Mankins will be offerred? It would seem that there might be someone out there that would want to spend a low 1st and 3rd and pay top money for a long-term contract.

Well, he's not unrestricted, so his situation isn't the same as Dockery, Davis, etc.

If Vince gets extended, as I believe he will, it's not an issue, since Mankins gets franchised and then probably extended.

So I guess we have to start the conversation with the assumption that Wilfork is franchised. I'm not sure what question you're asking specifially. What will Mankins be offered by Belichick, or by another team? In any case, it's not germane to the spirit of the thread, which is that the smart play by Belichick would be to not match any offer to Mankins, take the compensation and use the picks to draft a starter for less money. In a year without a cap, no less. While at the same time, the smart play by other GM would be to trade the picks which could be used to draft a starter for less money and use them to get Mankins. As good as this draft potentially is, draft picks are still draft picks.

I think Mankins is worth every bit of what Hutchinson's worth, but I think teams have eased back on those mega-deals for interior lineman recently. 5 year deal worth an average of 5 million a year would seem a reasonable offer from Belichick. Perhaps he would match up to a 5.5 million/year average on a five-year deal. Alternately, he'd go higher on a shorter term deal. Maybe 6/year for 2 or 3. Certainly the fact that Mankins is his only dependable guard on the roster would have to enter his thinking.

What would another team offer Mankins? I don't really know...it only takes one loose cannon. In this economy, I don't think anybody would offer him Hutchinson money after trading those two draft picks though.

 

[SanAngeloState]

Couldn't Light and Kaczur play RG effectively? I'd think it would be a natural.

Then we need a tackle other than Vollmer, and we have two, I think.

What we really need is a center to replace Koppen. Are there any centers who can hold thier position and not be blown backward in the draft?

Tag and trade Vince for a 1st and trade Mankins for a 1st and 3rd and we'd have 3 1sts, 3 2nds, 1 3rd....that's a lot of rebuilding right there.

Dan Williams
Carlos Dunlap / Brandon Graham
Damien Williams
Mark Tennant
Brandon Spikes