A trade proposal

[Deus Irae]

1.) The Patriots won't pay Mankins to be a starting guard. Why on Earth would anyone expect them to pay McNeil to be a backup tackle?

2.) McNeil isn't all that good.

3.) Neither player is under contract, both would be going to a team that didn't have a need at their position, and both would be dealing with hardasses in the front office. Why would either of them agree to the trade?

 

[TealSox]

I was thinking of....

Mankins for Merriman.

Doesn't solve the McNeil issue for the Chargers, but with McNeil's back issues, I don't want him on the Patriots.

 

[Rob0729]

1.) The Patriots won't pay Mankins to be a starting guard.

That isn't true. The Pats are willing to pay Mankins very well to be a starter. They are just willing to pay him top 5 guard money and Mankins was to be paid at least top 4 probably top 1-3.

 

[Rob0729]

I was thinking of....

Mankins for Merriman.

Doesn't solve the McNeil issue for the Chargers, but with McNeil's back issues, I don't want him on the Patriots.

No way would I want the Pats to give up Mankins for Merriman. Injury concerns, wanting huge salary, and hasn't been nearly as productive the last few years (even before his injury).

 

[Deus Irae]

That isn't true. The Pats are willing to pay Mankins very well to be a starter. They are just willing to pay him top 5 guard money and Mankins was to be paid at least top 4 probably top 1-3.

You can spin it any way you like. It doesn't change the bottom line.

 

[Rob0729]

You can spin it any way you like. It doesn't change the bottom line.

How am I spinning it? The Pats never told Mankins that they were not going to offer him a contract. They offered him a deal and he didn't like the deal. Never said the Pats offered him a contract what he was worth or not. They obviously offered him starting guard money if it was equal to at least the fifth highest paid guard money.

You claimed that the Pats aren't willing to pay Mankins to be a starting guard. You were wrong. Most of the starting guards in the league would jump at the offer the Pats offered him. Whether the top guards in the league would is another story.

I never said gave comments on whether top 5 money was more than enough for Mankins nor did I say Mankins was wrong for asking for more. In fact, in other threads, I said I could see why Mankins would be upset with the Pats' offer, but I felt his actions on handling it was wrong. All I said the Pats offered to pay him very well to be a starting guard which isn't disputable. The question is eventhough it is very good money for a starting guard is it very good money for an ELITE starting guard.

 

[Reckedtrek]

Well how about this then. Mankins for DeAngelo Williams. Carolina really needs a guard. Williams' contract is up at the end of the season. I don't know if they'll want to keep 2 high priced RBs. The Pats get a great 27 year old starting RB. Plus, the marketing is easy. New England's sub chain D'Angelos quickly hires DeAngelo to promote their food. Done and done.

Yeah, I would do this if we can get him for 3 years. The last two seasons, he's averaged about 1,300+ yards rushing, 5.2+ YPC, and 12+ rushing TD's a season. He's 27 and while maybe not a top 5 RB in the league is a considerable improvement over who we have now.

Keep LoMo for his last year, Faulk for 3rd downs, and maybe one of the younger backs, like BJGE. Next year we draft Mark Ingram with the Raider pick when LoMo goes. Or use the Raider pick for an elite pass rusher and get the 2nd or 3rd best back in the draft with NE's own #1 to team up with Williams over the next 3 years, setting us up for RB for the next 6 years or maybe more.


Imagine Brady w/Moss, Welker, Hernandez or Gronk at TE AND D. Williams at RB. Yikes! :rocker:

 

[Calciumee]

Yeah, I would do this if we can get him for 3 years. The last two seasons, he's averaged about 1,300+ yards rushing, 5.2+ YPC, and 12+ rushing TD's a season. He's 27 and while maybe not a top 5 RB in the league is a considerable improvement over who we have now.

Keep LoMo for his last year, Faulk for 3rd downs, and maybe one of the younger backs, like BJGE. Next year we draft Mark Ingram with the Raider pick when LoMo goes. Or use the Raider pick for an elite pass rusher and get the 2nd or 3rd best back in the draft with NE's own #1 to team up with Williams over the next 3 years, setting us up for RB for the next 6 years or maybe more.


Imagine Brady w/Moss, Welker, Hernandez or Gronk at TE AND D. Williams at RB. Yikes! :rocker:

I like the sound of that

I actually like Williams as a player, and think he is a little underrated at times Took a while to play like he does, but when he did

 

[Deus Irae]

How am I spinning it? The Pats never told Mankins that they were not going to offer him a contract. They offered him a deal and he didn't like the deal. Never said the Pats offered him a contract what he was worth or not. They obviously offered him starting guard money if it was equal to at least the fifth highest paid guard money.

You claimed that the Pats aren't willing to pay Mankins to be a starting guard. You were wrong. Most of the starting guards in the league would jump at the offer the Pats offered him. Whether the top guards in the league would is another story.

I never said gave comments on whether top 5 money was more than enough for Mankins nor did I say Mankins was wrong for asking for more. In fact, in other threads, I said I could see why Mankins would be upset with the Pats' offer, but I felt his actions on handling it was wrong. All I said the Pats offered to pay him very well to be a starting guard which isn't disputable. The question is eventhough it is very good money for a starting guard is it very good money for an ELITE starting guard.

Kind of ridiculous to claim it's not spin on your part. We both know that the team would gladly pay the league minimum for Mankins to be a starter, so clearly the point wasn't supposed to be absolute.

We also both know that they weren't willing to grant him a contract that was acceptable to him, or even to come close enough for the two sides to continue discussions.

And we also both know which of the above I was referring to.

 

[Rob0729]

Kind of ridiculous to claim it's not spin on your part. We both know that the team would gladly pay the league minimum for Mankins to be a starter, so clearly the point wasn't supposed to be absolute.

We also both know that they weren't willing to grant him a contract that was acceptable to him, or even to come close enough for the two sides to continue discussions.

And we also both know which of the above I was referring to.

If ridiculous absolutely dead on, yes it is ridiculous. Because there is clearly no spinning going on. I have stated in the past that I could see why Mankins would not be happy with the Pats offer if it is true so why would I spin. It is clear the Pats offered Mankins good money in a contract. I can see why Mankins thinks he deserves more and he may be right, but I don't feel the Pats offered him a bad offer and he did get offered great starter money.

BTW, of course the Pats would be happy to pay Mankins the league minimum. Every team would love to pay all their players the league minimum, but the thing is the Pats' offer was nowhere close to the league minimum and just you deflecting the argument.

As for whether the Pats were willing to grant a contract acceptable to Mankins, it is a two way street. We have no idea what the Pats' ceiling was and what Mankins' floor was. Maybe Mankins expected additional money over being the highest paid guard for waiting a year to negotiate. Maybe the Pats would have come up to Mankins position. You were the same person who believed the Pats would never pay Wilfork and he would be gone from the Pats by the 2011 season.

As for why Mankins didn't continue negotiatons may not have anything to do with whether the Pats first offer was a good offer based on the market value and irrelevant to this discussion. For all we know, Mankins could believe that Evans' contract should have been the starting point.

I have stated my point several times which surprisingly you decided to twist into something else. We're done here. Nothing left to discuss because I am not getting into your argument since it has nothing to do with the original point which is you were wrong when you said the Pats weren't willing to give Mankins starting guard money. Whether they were willing to give elite starting guard money is a different argument which you didn't make nor did I respond to.

 

[Deus Irae]

If ridiculous absolutely dead on, yes it is ridiculous. Because there is clearly no spinning going on. I have stated in the past that I could see why Mankins would not be happy with the Pats offer if it is true so why would I spin. It is clear the Pats offered Mankins good money in a contract. I can see why Mankins thinks he deserves more and he may be right, but I don't feel the Pats offered him a bad offer and he did get offered great starter money.

BTW, of course the Pats would be happy to pay Mankins the league minimum. Every team would love to pay all their players the league minimum, but the thing is the Pats' offer was nowhere close to the league minimum and just you deflecting the argument.

As for whether the Pats were willing to grant a contract acceptable to Mankins, it is a two way street. We have no idea what the Pats' ceiling was and what Mankins' floor was. Maybe Mankins expected additional money over being the highest paid guard for waiting a year to negotiate. Maybe the Pats would have come up to Mankins position. You were the same person who believed the Pats would never pay Wilfork and he would be gone from the Pats by the 2011 season.

As for why Mankins didn't continue negotiatons may not have anything to do with whether the Pats first offer was a good offer based on the market value and irrelevant to this discussion. For all we know, Mankins could believe that Evans' contract should have been the starting point.

I have stated my point several times which surprisingly you decided to twist into something else. We're done here. Nothing left to discuss because I am not getting into your argument since it has nothing to do with the original point which is you were wrong when you said the Pats weren't willing to give Mankins starting guard money. Whether they were willing to give elite starting guard money is a different argument which you didn't make nor did I respond to.

It's good that "we're done here", given that my comment was never really questionable anyway, that your response was obviously wrong, and that you jumped onto something that you shouldn't have in the first place since you knew full well what my point was.

I also never twisted any point you made, and just noted that you were spinning.

One last thing: We don't know that Mankins was offered "good money" in the contract. There's a report of a ballpark yearly figure, with nothing about how it's broken down, guarantees, etc..., and a possibly different monetary claim from the agent. That's it.

You have yourself a good evening.

 

[AzPatsFan]

The reason I proposed the trade was/is because there seems to tbe an impasse in the contract negotiations for both McNeil and Mankins. Neither has signed his tender and both have had their tenders reduced, by their respective clubs. Sometimes a fresh start works wonders. Mankins might appreciate playing closer to home too. I have no idea where McNeil is from, but didn't he play his college ball back East?

I think a Pats Tackle tandem of McNeil & Vollmer would be superior with a G combo of Kaczur and Neal. Plus, its easier to find a good G in the second round that the Pats seem to have lots of picks, versus Tackles. Even though the Pats have found their tackles, Light and Volmer in the second round and a RT in Kaczur in the third.

Any trade have to be balanced with the Pats adding a sweetner for the G T disparity.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Interesting thought, but if they're not going to pay Mankins they aren't going to pay him. I think they should just fix the situation with Logan and pay him.

 

[Rob0729]

I think a Pats Tackle tandem of McNeil & Vollmer would be superior with a G combo of Kaczur and Neal. Plus, its easier to find a good G in the second round that the Pats seem to have lots of picks, versus Tackles. Even though the Pats have found their tackles, Light and Vollmer in the second round and a RT in Kaczur in the third.

The problem is that if the Pats think that Vollmer is going to be a very good or great LT, why pay McNeill great LT money? Vollmer is signed through 2012 for cheap money. If he takes over the starting LT spot in 2011, they have a starting LT for $1.2 million for two years. McNeill is going to get at least $9-10 million a year. And he might not be any better than Vollmer when he does actually slide over to that position.

Why would the Pats want to pay top for a LT when they might have a solid LT already on his roster making cheap money for the next three years? That's why the trade makes no sense. You don't pay top dollar to add a player at a position of strength.

 

[Calciumee]

The problem is that if the Pats think that Vollmer is going to be a very good or great LT, why pay McNeill great LT money? Vollmer is signed through 2012 for cheap money. If he takes over the starting LT spot in 2011, they have a starting LT for $1.2 million for two years. McNeill is going to get at least $9-10 million a year. And he might not be any better than Vollmer when he does actually slide over to that position.

Why would the Pats want to pay top for a LT when they might have a solid LT already on his roster making cheap money for the next three years? That's why the trade makes no sense. You don't pay top dollar to add a player at a position of strength.

It won't happen So don't worry