Mankins should be available in October

[mgteich]

It is NOT inevitable at all. It is the choice of the patriot management. They can choose to get compensation or choose to get almost none.

A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER
Do the patriots wish to allow Mankins to secure a deal getting the patriots a 2010 second or early third or do they not want the compensation?

Clearly what you describe is not the best situation for the Patriots; I think Mo was just suggesting that it is inevitable and not optimal.

As I've said several times, I look at this in the context of giving TB the best possible chance to lead the Pats on another SB run while he's still on the right side of 35, past which only Elway has won a Ring as QB. I just hope the Pats find a way out of this with Mankins.

 

[mgteich]

While I agree that he might be a UFA under the new CBA, Mankins might not want to take the riisk.

I'm not sure Mankins shows up in week 10. He's got 5 years in. Under the CBA he would have been a UFA in a capped year and will likely be one under the next CBA with 5 years of service.

 

[Ring 6]

It is NOT inevitable at all. It is the choice of the patriot management. They can choose to get compensation or choose to get almost none.

A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER
Do the patriots wish to allow Mankins to secure a deal getting the patriots a 2010 second or early third or do they not want the compensation?

I dont think the trade value is much. With his contract demands, he may be pricing himself out of the market. He is a G on a passing team after all.
Personally, I think the best message the Pats can send from the standpoint of future contract issues is to leak out what the offer on the table is, and let him sit home, absolutely refusing to trade him.
It is quite possible that the compensatory pick may be higher that what anyone will offer for the right to pay a G 8 mill or more a season, especially when they would be shelling out 20mill for one season with the possiblity of no football next year.

Whether or not Mankins likes it the Patriots are simply following the rules of the CBA. Demanding to be the highest paid player at your position when you are an RFA is really kind of ludicrous. I could understand Mankins feeling the system is screwing him, but to act as if he has leverage in his current situation is kind of ignorant.
Refusing to trade him and making him blink first may seem to some as a cruel strategy that could alienate players, but I think in the long run it helps the organization more than bending over and supporting the idea that good players 'deserve' new deals even when they have no leverage. Losing one player this way is preferable to having an entire team thinking their contract is meaningless and they should 'get theirs' because they had a good season. (See: Jets, NJ)

Jus my opinion, but I think a hard line (or even a by the book line) is best in the long run. If its my choice, Mankins either gets back to the negotiating table, signs the tender or sits. If I'm not mistaken the Patriots can put him on some type of list (reserve did not report?) that puts him out for the season and he oes back to the same situation next year. To me if he wants to say FU Pats, the Pats need to say FU Logan, and the team holds all of the cards right now.

 

[SanAngeloState]

They really need to make an example out of this guy.

Let him find a trade partner so he can guage the market as to his "worth". He will find out that the pats offer was really the best.

 

[Miguel]

You don't know what the franchise number would be in that year. You're taking a WAG at it.. And it's silly

Given that the franchise number for OL this year was $10.7 million. Why is guesstimating that it will be $11 million in 2011 silly??

 

[mgteich]

YOU DON'T THINK HIS TRADE VALUE IS MUCH
That's nice. So what? As with Branch, the player's agent can be told the demands of the patriots and go out and get a 2nd or not. It may be appropriate to set an example and not allow Mankins to play anywhere else this year, and it may be right for the patriots to forgo compensation, but if the patriots are willing to take a 2nd or 3rd, there is an easy process to find out if such a pick is available. As with Branch, if they start the process, they would be obligated to take a pick if the agent get a deal that meets the patriot's demands.

MANKINS WILL BE AN UNDRAFTED FREE AGENT IN 2011 EVEN IF THE PATS STICK IT TO HIM
Mankins may or may not need to show up by Week 10 to guarantee his 2011 UFA status. In no case would he not show up and give the patriots rights to him for 2011.

THE CHOICES ARE SIMPLE
A) Stick it to Mankins and forgo any compensation except an end of 3rd 2012 pick.
B) Before the trade deadline, allow Mankins' lawyer to try to secure a 2011 second rounder; if that doesn't work try for a 3rd the second time around. A late July or early August effort would probably produce the best chance for a higher pick.
C) Believe that Mankins will come back with his tail between his legs begging for a long-term deal with the patriots.

THE BOTTOM LINE
Mankins does not belong to the patriots forever. The CBA gave the patriots an extra year. Other than fan arrogance, I see no reason why Mankins shoiuld sign a long-term deal with the patriots. The patriots gave it their best shot. The deal was deemed to be a non-starter by Mankins. That's his choice to make. All the tantrums in the world by patriot fans won't force Mankins to play for the patriots in 2011.

The patriots gained a year of value from the CBA clause regarding RFA extensions. Patriot management can decide how to maximize that value. As of now, patriot management seems to believe that the highest value is as a public example of how strong they are in negotiations. Personally, I don't think that this is really the stand of the patriots, no matter how much many fans here would like that.

I dont think the trade value is much. With his contract demands, he may be pricing himself out of the market. He is a G on a passing team after all.
Personally, I think the best message the Pats can send from the standpoint of future contract issues is to leak out what the offer on the table is, and let him sit home, absolutely refusing to trade him.
It is quite possible that the compensatory pick may be higher that what anyone will offer for the right to pay a G 8 mill or more a season, especially when they would be shelling out 20mill for one season with the possiblity of no football next year.

Whether or not Mankins likes it the Patriots are simply following the rules of the CBA. Demanding to be the highest paid player at your position when you are an RFA is really kind of ludicrous. I could understand Mankins feeling the system is screwing him, but to act as if he has leverage in his current situation is kind of ignorant.
Refusing to trade him and making him blink first may seem to some as a cruel strategy that could alienate players, but I think in the long run it helps the organization more than bending over and supporting the idea that good players 'deserve' new deals even when they have no leverage. Losing one player this way is preferable to having an entire team thinking their contract is meaningless and they should 'get theirs' because they had a good season. (See: Jets, NJ)

Jus my opinion, but I think a hard line (or even a by the book line) is best in the long run. If its my choice, Mankins either gets back to the negotiating table, signs the tender or sits. If I'm not mistaken the Patriots can put him on some type of list (reserve did not report?) that puts him out for the season and he oes back to the same situation next year. To me if he wants to say FU Pats, the Pats need to say FU Logan, and the team holds all of the cards right now.

 

[eom]

re: comp picks

I've read here and there in a few threads that if this whole thing trainwrecks we would still end up with a good comp pick for mankins, and I was wondering if somebody could explain that a little.

my understanding of comp picks, which is pretty sketchy to begin with, is that it's a collective thing regarding fa losses, and each guy's contribution is influenced by salary and number of games played --- although, like I said, sketchy understanding.......

if he only plays a couple games at little money can we really bank on a high comp pick from him, not even knowing what other fa movement the team will be involved in?

 

[mgteich]

If Mankins is deemed to be a 2011 free agent and signs with someone else, we could get a comp pick, depending on his salary, and whether the patriots lost more qulaifying free agents than they signed. The maximum pick would be a pick at the end of the third round in 2012.
===========
Personally, I think a 2011 2nd or 3rd is much better for the patriots. Also, I don't think that it will much of a positive to have Mankins out for half a year and come back to the team in October. At this point, I'd rather have the pick.

re: comp picks

I've read here and there in a few threads that if this whole thing trainwrecks we would still end up with a good comp pick for mankins, and I was wondering if somebody could explain that a little.

my understanding of comp picks, which is pretty sketchy to begin with, is that it's a collective thing regarding fa losses, and each guy's contribution is influenced by salary and number of games played --- although, like I said, sketchy understanding.......

if he only plays a couple games at little money can we really bank on a high comp pick from him, not even knowing what other fa movement the team will be involved in?

 

[eom]

If Mankins is deemed to be a 2011 free agent and signs with someone else, we could get a comp pick, depending on his salary, and whether the patriots lost more qulaifying free agents than they signed. The maximum pick would be a pick at the end of the third round in 2012.

exactly --- so what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of people on here are banking on the 3rd rounder, but I think it's more likely it will be a very low round, if anything at all.
I'm talking about this scenario where he joins the team in week 10.

as far as the whole thing goes, no one player is bigger than the team.
they kept playing even when brady went down, and if mankins isn't there somebody else will be.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a legit beef, maybe he does, but it'll all work itself out one way or the other.
maybe both sides eventually come to an agreement, like the wilfork case, or maybe he gets shipped for whatever the going market brings.

 

[mgteich]

There is no rush. The trade could happen during Training Camp, when teams can better evaluate their need for Mankins. In the end, the patriots decided what Wilfork was worth to us, what Bodden was worth and Mankins was worth. I don't think Mankins and the patriots have much to discuss unless the patriots are interested in trading him. Otherwise, we'll see him in October, if that is even required of him.

Dante and Brady will likely discuss the issue. I suspect that they are fine with other options. Brady spent a year being protected by rookie Kaczur at LT; having a veteran Kaczur at LG will be just fine.

exactly --- so what I'm saying is that it seems like a lot of people on here are banking on the 3rd rounder, but I think it's more likely it will be a very low round, if anything at all.
I'm talking about this scenario where he joins the team in week 10.

as far as the whole thing goes, no one player is bigger than the team.
they kept playing even when brady went down, and if mankins isn't there somebody else will be.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a legit beef, maybe he does, but it'll all work itself out one way or the other.
maybe both sides eventually come to an agreement, like the wilfork case, or maybe he gets shipped for whatever the going market brings.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If the patriots wish, they can sit on their hands until after the trrade deadline, and accept Mankins back at practice in mid-October for $800K for the rest of 2010 season and accept the presumed 2012 3rd round comp pick. That seems to be what you advocating for the team. In that case, there is nothing to discuss. Mankins can enjoy his vacation and look forward to backup and ST duty for the patriots and look forward to a new team in 2011.

We simply disagree with regard to whether this is best solution for the patriots. I think not.

Given how shallow the 2011 draft is predicted to be, a 2012 3rd might have more value. Especially if it allows you to utilize Mankins down the stretch in 2010, when if he doesn't perform well he just further screws himself...whether there even is a w 2011 season or not.

 

[eom]

I really don't see this 10 week hold out thing happening, but if it did why would he be on the field at all at the end of the year?
do we believe belichick would be playing him after a ten week hold out?

 

[mgteich]

This is a reasonable position.

Given how shallow the 2011 draft is predicted to be, a 2012 3rd might have more value. Especially if it allows you to utilize Mankins down the stretch in 2010, when if he doesn't perform well he just further screws himself...whether there even is a w 2011 season or not.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'm not sure Mankins shows up in week 10. He's got 5 years in. Under the CBA he would have been a UFA in a capped year and will likely be one under the next CBA with 5 years of service.

There is roughly a one in three chance there won't be one. And if there isn't he won't be. There is also a 50/50 chance there isn't a 2011 season so it won't matter... And if that happens at age 30 and two seasons removed from playing the game he will never make up the financial loss.

 

[mgteich]

Mankins is available at approximately $200K per game whenever he shows up. The patriots have determined the rate of pay. You seem to think that Belichick will choose not to use an asset at his disposal.

Would Belichick use him? Sure, why not? That doesn't mean that he will start or even be active. That will depend on the situation at the time. But, let's not be silly about this. Having Mankins available, even after a half-year layoff, is better than not having him available. If Neal were injured, I would think Mankins might start.

My question is whether the 2010 draft pick we'd give up by not trading him is worth more than this availability. Some think it is. They may be right.

I really don't see this 10 week hold out thing happening, but if it did why would he be on the field at all at the end of the year?
do we believe belichick would be playing him after a ten week hold out?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If Mankins is deemed to be a 2011 free agent and signs with someone else, we could get a comp pick, depending on his salary, and whether the patriots lost more qulaifying free agents than they signed. The maximum pick would be a pick at the end of the third round in 2012.
===========
Personally, I think a 2011 2nd or 3rd is much better for the patriots. Also, I don't think that it will much of a positive to have Mankins out for half a year and come back to the team in October. At this point, I'd rather have the pick.

The pick can't play in 2010 and nobody may be playing in 2011 after a reportedly shallow draft class is in the books and a lockout ensues.

Mankins can and will play at some point in 2010 unless he's dumber than dirt. And when he does he will be playing for his next contract with his fingers crossed in hopes he doesn't have to wait until 2012 to realize it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I really don't see this 10 week hold out thing happening, but if it did why would he be on the field at all at the end of the year?
do we believe belichick would be playing him after a ten week hold out?

Belichick will always do what he thinks is best for the team. With 6 games remaining if he's dealing with injuries or headed into the playoffs, a veteran probowler like Mankins SHOULD be little different than adding a veteran player coming off PUP.

 

[mgteich]

If the 2011 draft will be so poor, I guess we should have used the #89 pick in 2010 for OG Mike Johnson instead of trading it forward for a 2010 2nd. I suspect that we may be asking that question for a year or two.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If the 2011 draft will be so poor, I guess we should have used the #89 pick in 2010 for OG Mike Johnson instead of trading it forward for a 2010 2nd. I suspect that we may be asking that question for a year or two.

Didn't say it would be poor, said it is projected to be shallow. In a shallow draft we are presently positioned about as well as could be imagined. With multiple picks in the first and second. If we had another second we'd likely trade it for a 2012 1st... Might yet be able to get that for Mankins via tag and trade in 2011...while still benefitting from his presence on the roster in 2010.

 

[mgteich]

Thank you for the correction. In a shallow draft, I would like the 2nd to draft a guard.

I think that we would not get that for Mankins next year or whenever football starts again. You think that a team would trade a 2nd for the right to pay Mankins $11M to play in 2011; I think that is reasonable. We each have our differring positions.

But, as I said before, you may right with regard to the value of having Mankins for part of 2010. Belichick could have a top guard in 2010. Instead he traded the pick into 2011 where he can either have Mankins (if he can be signed) a rookie or Kaczur or even Bussey. The 2011 pick may not be worth as much as I think.

Didn't say it would be poor, said it is projected to be shallow. In a shallow draft we are presently positioned about as well as could be imagined. With multiple picks in the first and second. If we had another second we'd likely trade it for a 2012 1st... Might yet be able to get that for Mankins via tag and trade in 2011...while still benefitting from his presence on the roster in 2010.