When is a player morally entitled to be let out of his contract?

[patchick]

If he does and he's forced to report in week 10 to retain his year of service, he better hope Bill isn't shorthanded on ST. And he better hope there isn't a lockout in 2011 or his union doesn't decertify. Because unless there is a new CBA in place by March 2011, he is screwed no matter what he does.

True enough, the labor uncertainty makes the bird in the hand even more attractive than usual this year. (Though my bet is on a new CBA in time, I think situations just like this one have the NFLPA sweating a bit.)

 

[SanAngeloState]

I don't think they're ever "morally" entitled. But it is a game theory thing.

They don't "have" to show up and can threaten all they want. That's their right and there are provisions for that, penalties and such.

The player has to look at it as a situation where he's risking injury and thus missing out on a big payday. So it's worth it to hold out.

It's just business, nothign personal.

Mankins doesn't like his contract that he's being forced into, so he wants a trade. Fair enough.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with many of your comments.
============================

I understand that you believe that anyone who doesn't accept a long-term deal from the patriots is a dumb cow wrestler. I would not have expected any different from you, or from the many folks who cannot understand how anyone could choose not to love a long-term stay in Boston.

Understand that we are really talking about $2.5M here, the difference between the original tender amount and what Mankins will get if he reports at midseason. Mankins may be stupid for leaving this money on the table. That is his choice. He would choose to skip all of the offseason practices, TC, the preseason and half the season and take a long vacation. And he will be not udner contract until then and will be speaking out. I accept your analysis that the patriots may be hardnosed and not accept a 2010 draft choice from another team for Mankins (with his cooperation). That is the CHOICE of the patriots.

Yes, Mankins was in the situation of many players. He could have accepted whatever guaranteed monies the team offered. After all, he could be injured, and perhaps there won't be a 2011 season. I think that guaranteed money was huge in 2010 contract negotiations, even more so than in other years.
=============

I would have drafted a guard early in 2009 or 2010 (as you would have done). It would have been a good businees decision. I do disagree about Brace. Unless you think that he is a defensive end, his only use is as a backup NT, as expensive Wilfork insurance.

That they simply stand their ground, which is pretty firm. Again, nobody negotiates these mythical one year deals you keep proposing, let alone with an RFA. Players who have been franchise tagged occasionally get a promise to not be tagged a second consecutive season in exchange for reporting. A couple have gotten that in writing, i.e. the one year deal. Only one I know of got more than his tag price in his one year deal. Both I can think of went on to resign with teams who in hindsight wish they hadn't...

Mankins is the worst kind of malcontent...the closet malcontent. Says all the right things publicly and even privately while apparently internally fuming and working himself into an emotional dither from which he can't see straight only to then dig in his heels and behave irrationally and lash out emotionally once he finally achieves the opportunity he supposedly longed for to negotiate a change in the circumstances that fueled his latent discontent.

I don't fault them for misreading this guy because of all the mixed messages he was sending. Personally I'd have hedged my bets on draft day, and I said so at the time. Vince was upset when he was franchise tagged. He calmed down once he was reassured it wasn't to be traded and was merely a formality on the road to a long term deal. I always had faith that Bianca would do the smart money thing. I think the FO did as well... Brace was brought in not as Wilfork insurance but because the FO knew that one of Wilfork or Seymour, and preferably the latter, wouldn't be here beyond 2009 at best.

Samuel and Branch were another whole kettle of fish. Each had been jawing about their 2nd and 4th round contracts almost since the day they were drafted. When on the heels of a lackluster 2005 season he opted to train on his own heading into his contract year and expressed insult at the generous offers they made him at a time when his percieved trade value was nil - I'd have begun to fromulate a plan to trade Asante's ass at the first sign of value. That he was insulted by their matching his earlier demands at the end of that season because his demands had now increased exponentially would have just validated that strategic decision for me. Asante was never a leader and always a loner so he never projected as a team first guy. Branch should have valued the opportunity playing for TFB afforded him. But WR's seldom view themselves realistically. Each of them clearly had ego issues tied to their contractual demands. Both should have been traded pre emptively in hindsight. Branch because the specter of his ego inflating Superbowl MVP trophy hovering over growing durability concerns was going to make him impossible to sign to a realistic deal. Didn't take Seattle long to realize the mistake they'd made. Philly is rapidly approaching that realization now as well...

You always suggest players take their ball and go home and safely await freedom. It's not generally sound advice, which is why none of them has ever taken it. There is a first time for everything, though, and this one just might because he's not the sharpest tool in the drawer... If he does and he's forced to report in week 10 to retain his year of service, he better hope Bill isn't shorthanded on ST. And he better hope there isn't a lockout in 2011 or his union doesn't decertify. Because unless there is a new CBA in place by March 2011, he is screwed no matter what he does. Which is why what he just did, let alone the way in which he did it, makes no sense unless he's as dumb as those cows he wrestles in the offseason.

 

[IllegalContact]

well said...

I agree with many of your comments.
============================

I understand that you believe that anyone who doesn't accept a long-term deal from the patriots is a dumb cow wrestler. I would not have expected any different from you, or from the many folks who cannot understand how anyone could choose not to love a long-term stay in Boston.

Understand that we are really talking about $2.5M here, the difference between the original tender amount and what Mankins will get if he reports at midseason. Mankins may be stupid for leaving this money on the table. That is his choice. He would choose to skip all of the offseason practices, TC, the preseason and half the season and take a long vacation. And he will be not udner contract until then and will be speaking out. I accept your analysis that the patriots may be hardnosed and not accept a 2010 draft choice from another team for Mankins (with his cooperation). That is the CHOICE of the patriots.

Yes, Mankins was in the situation of many players. He could have accepted whatever guaranteed monies the team offered. After all, he could be injured, and perhaps there won't be a 2011 season. I think that guaranteed money was huge in 2010 contract negotiations, even more so than in other years.
=============

I would have drafted a guard early in 2009 or 2010 (as you would have done). It would have been a good businees decision. I do disagree about Brace. Unless you think that he is a defensive end, his only use is as a backup NT, as expensive Wilfork insurance.

 

[vyrago]

Mankins is the worst kind of malcontent...the closet malcontent. Says all the right things publicly and even privately while apparently internally fuming and working himself into an emotional dither from which he can't see straight only to then dig in his heels and behave irrationally and lash out emotionally once he finally achieves the opportunity he supposedly longed for to negotiate a change in the circumstances that fueled his latent discontent.

I don't fault them for misreading this guy because of all the mixed messages he was sending.

I find Mankins' message confusing, except that he's clear about not liking the Pats' offer or Bob Kraft, for that matter. Teddy Bruschi makes him sound like Lincoln: New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston.

Maybe Bianca Wilfolk could enlighten him.

Maybe someone could enlighten me about what part of Mankins' honor has been besmirched.

 

[patchick]

Understand that we are really talking about $2.5M here, the difference between the original tender amount and what Mankins will get if he reports at midseason.

That $2.5M is all that's certain, true. But I think Mo has a point that the lack of a CBA for 2011 adds a significant element of financial risk. That reduces the expected value of Mankins' future earnings if he plays under the tender -- and thus makes the Patriots' offer more valuable in comparison.

IOW, Mankins is banking hard on forcing the Pats to trade him now. If he ends up sitting until midseason, he lost this game of chicken in a big way.

 

[IllegalContact]

I asked this question before, but could not find an answer:

If mankins starts playing week 10 and finishes the season, and then the pats place the franchise tag on him after the season, then the NFL proceeds to lock out the players, are the pats on the hook to pay mankins?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I asked this question before, but could not find an answer:

If mankins starts playing week 10 and finishes the season, and then the pats place the franchise tag on him after the season, then the NFL proceeds to lock out the players, are the pats on the hook to pay mankins?

Maybe I am wrong, but I would think that they would be obligated to pay him only if he signs the franchise tender, which would seem to have a zero percent chance of happening

 

[ALP]

My suggestion is that the team negotiate a one-year deal with Mankins. What is your suggestion?

You expect the patriots to offfer a 1 yr contract that is larger than the tender they had at first given him? I do not see that happening

if mankins will accept a 1 year tender, than he would have signed the tender to begin with

 

[ahmed]

A team can cut a player anytime they want. So, I never fault players when they decide to hold out.

I don't see any fan complain when the team is not holding their end of the deal and cut a player 3 years before the end of the contract. However, when a player decides to do the same thing, all of sudden you start hearing, he signed the contract, he should playe it out. Definition of Hypocracy if there ever was one.

This is the nature of contracts in the NFL. If you are fine with teams cutting players that don't perform before the term of their contract, you shouldn't complain when players want to hold out for when they outperform their contract. This also applies to RFAs, Franchise tags....

 

[ALP]

A team can cut a player anytime they want. So, I never fault players when they decide to hold out.

I don't see any fan complain when the team is not holding their end of the deal and cut a player 3 years before the end of the contract. However, when a player decides to do the same thing, all of sudden you start hearing, he signed the contract, he should playe it out. Definition of Hypocracy if there ever was one.

This is the nature of contracts in the NFL. If you are fine with teams cutting players that don't perform before the term of their contract, you shouldn't complain when players want to hold out for when they outperform their contract. This also applies to RFAs, Franchise tags....

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

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I don't see any fan complain when the team is not holding their end of the deal and cut a player 3 years before the end of the contract. However, when a player decides to do the same thing, all of sudden you start hearing, he signed the contract, he should playe it out. Definition of Hypocracy if there ever was one.

This is the nature of contracts in the NFL. If you are fine with teams cutting players that don't perform before the term of their contract, you shouldn't complain when players want to hold out for when they outperform their contract. This also applies to RFAs, Franchise tags....

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.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Maybe I am wrong, but I would think that they would be obligated to pay him only if he signs the franchise tender, which would seem to have a zero percent chance of happening

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]

Mankins is the worst kind of malcontent...the closet malcontent. Says all the right things publicly and even privately while apparently internally fuming and working himself into an emotional dither from which he can't see straight only to then dig in his heels and behave irrationally and lash out emotionally once he finally achieves the opportunity he supposedly longed for to negotiate a change in the circumstances that fueled his latent discontent.

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.

 

[ahmed]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Classic ad hominem Deus, so I'll assume you got nothing else.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

He might have punched Kraft in the nuts had that happened.

Again with the absolutely ridiculous commentary on your part.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

I'm sure your mom loves you very much.

 

[shakadave]

He will do the minimum possible to secure his free agency in 2011. As soon as he is forced to sign or lose a year, the patriots will likely trade him and tell us all how great a deal we got for a declining player, perhaps getting us an oh so valuable 2012 first.

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....