Restricted trio may be forced to hold out

[Ian]

Noticed this article tonight and thought I'd post it here since there's some interesting fodder from Jason Cole regarding Mankins:

Restricted trio may be forced to hold out - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

 

[IcyPatriot]

93% of the people visiting the site have voted 'MEH' Mankins ... because

business is business and we need to spend our time talking about the players who are here.

 

[RayClay]

Mankins got a bad deal from the league, however he's certainly not worth what Wilfork is to this team and it appears he was offered a good contract (that's relative, of course).

If he loses out and eventually gets what seems to me as more than he's worth, good luck to him, but he's not worth that much to us.

 

[mgteich]

If he isn't worth the money to us, then we should trade him (with his cooperation of course).

 

[Ring 6]

If he isn't worth the money to us, then we should trade him (with his cooperation of course).

That assumes he is worth the money to anyone, which is not certain.

 

[spacecrime]

If he isn't worth the money to us, then we should trade him (with his cooperation of course).

We aren't paying him anything. Surely he is worth keeping for free? Worst case scenario, he never pays for us and gets a big contract and we get a 3rd round compensatory pick.

Probably only get a 4th for him if we try to trade him anyway. All this talk about a first round pick is nuts. If he was worth that someone woud have made an RFA offer earlier this year. No one with give a first (or even a second) for a guy who will be a FA next year and cost nothing.

No need to panic and trade him away for less than we'd get as a compensatory pick.

 

[patriot lifer]

the article compares the situation of Leon Washington last year to McNeil, Jackson, and Mankins. I think the moral of the story for Leon Washington was that he should have signed the deal they offered him of $5.5 million per year, not hold out longer than he did.

 

[RayClay]

For what it's worth, Mankins contract situation does seem totally unfair. I don't think the Pats are trying to take advantage of him, though. I think they really are offering what they think a good young guard is worth.

He might be wiser to analyze that and maximize his position, but he's got a right to feel, because of the league rule, he got a bad deal.

Doubt they could get much for him considering the situation. Sometimes you just have to take the comp pick.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think Cole makes some assumptions that are skewered at best. Like that these players should have presumed themselves to be in line for absolute top of the line deals - or what those deals actually might reasonably be assumed to encompass. Not sure what kind of deals if any AJ was offering his players in SD. In Mankins case however he was offered a deal in the top 5 at his position, $7MAAV, and the top player at his position was only offered $19M in guaranteed money, not the $25M Cole is sputtering about. So that deal and whatever guarantees it entailed and not merely the original tender is what Mankins has walked away from.

Cole is also assuming that the consequences of holding out past week 10 are mitigated by the liklihood that there even is a CBA next season to allow for their becoming UFA whether they earn a year of service credit this season or not, when it's at least as likely there will be either a lockout or a season or three played under rules determined by ownership following a decertification of the union as a result of a CBA impass... And he is totally ignoring the possibility that unfortunate **** sometimes happens to players apart from when they are playing football. Just ask Steve Smith or that young Giants FS because no one ever said life would be fair. Just ask our still young old friend David Givens, who has two championship rings he was instrumental in winning that he now flashes to customers at his smoothie shop.

If I were Mankins I'd stay as far away as I could from my daddy's cows from here on out, and might just baracade myself in a padded room...for fear something happen that precluded me from ever even seeing an offer approaching $35M again... At the end of the day whether for reasons Billick cites or otherwise, there remains a reason no one has held out on a tender in recent memory...

There were in excess of 200 players tendered as RFA this season, largely as a result of the rules changes in an expiring CBA. 9 remain unsigned. This is a little like the angst expressed via the media every off season when roughly a dozen (less that one half of 1%) of the thousands of players in his league suffer the tragic misfortune of being franchise tagged... Pardon the majority of fans if they can't locate their violins at the moment given the state of the national economy and life in the real world. Perhaps some had to pawn theirs to pay their mortgage lest their home be forclosed on...

 

[Fencer]

I'm sure the union and the owners will be at loggerheads over the three or so guys who are sitting out the season. The union will want to give them their UFA rights back, and will push for same. Guaranteed.

What is far from guaranteed is that the owners will cave first.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Mankins got a bad deal from the league, however he's certainly not worth what Wilfork is to this team and it appears he was offered a good contract (that's relative, of course).

If he loses out and eventually gets what seems to me as more than he's worth, good luck to him, but he's not worth that much to us.

If the Union hadn't agreed to the provision by which UFAs would be RFAs, we wouldn't be talking about it today.

in other words NFL teams are playing by the rules agreed to by the Union - Mankins beef is with them as much as the owners.

 

[Frezo]

Mankins needs to realize that just like the Pats perceive his value as reduced because of the lock out threat and unknown future CBA conditions, other potential teams that could hire him are faced with same dilemma. His self imposed worth likely does not exist until the league stabilizes. Thousands of people face undesirable conditions of employment everyday. Get in line Logan.

 

[patriot lifer]

i don't blame these guys for looking out for their livelihood. this is when the vast majority of these guys will earn the bulk of their income for their entire lives. But Mankins can't honestly be surprised that he isn't getting fair market value from the Krafts. Moss even said that he probably won't be back, and we all were thinking it. my guess is that he asked to not be tagged next year and they said no. It stinks for him but they're playing by the rules. He just isn't going to get fmv, and if he holds out into the season he is deferring income even more (by rejecting the Patiots contract) and lowering the value of his big contract deal that he's looking for. And if they're willing to deal him in a trade, he has to realize that the Pats will be looking for fair compensation, which lowers the chance that a suitor comes along and also pays him big.

 

[MassPats38]

i don't blame these guys for looking out for their livelihood. this is when the vast majority of these guys will earn the bulk of their income for their entire lives. But Mankins can't honestly be surprised that he isn't getting fair market value from the Krafts. Moss even said that he probably won't be back, and we all were thinking it. my guess is that he asked to not be tagged next year and they said no. It stinks for him but they're playing by the rules. He just isn't going to get fmv, and if he holds out into the season he is deferring income even more (by rejecting the Patiots contract) and lowering the value of his big contract deal that he's looking for. And if they're willing to deal him in a trade, he has to realize that the Pats will be looking for fair compensation, which lowers the chance that a suitor comes along and also pays him big.

That's part of the problem with this scenario. Mankins probably is getting fair market value, which reflects what the average informed buyer would pay for him, not maximum value, which appears to be his requirement. Fair market value might be increased somewhat by a very high sale, in this case the New Orleans deal, but it does not rise to the level of that high sale by virtue of a single deal.

I expect the Patriots offered him fair market value, the price the average unpressured NFL buyer would pay for a guard of his age and abilities, he wants the price the pressured (by circumstances) or goofy (see virtually every major deal the Redskins have made over the past 10 years) NFL team will pay for the same. I don't blame Mankins for wanting the money, but I expect most teams in the NFL would call it a fair offer, not an insult, in negotiations.

I am still not sure what he is thinking given the prospect of a lockout. If he loses money this year by virtue of the RFA provision, and loses his salary next year through the lockout, I have to figure whatever contract he does get in 2012 will not net the return he would get this year at 20% less than the maximum. He would also have the present value of the bonus money to recoup the losses from any lesser contract. If the Pats don't blink and trade him, if that is his goal, he stands to be out a big chunk of change.

 

[capetide]

i don't blame these guys for looking out for their livelihood. this is when the vast majority of these guys will earn the bulk of their income for their entire lives. But Mankins can't honestly be surprised that he isn't getting fair market value from the Krafts. Moss even said that he probably won't be back, and we all were thinking it. my guess is that he asked to not be tagged next year and they said no. It stinks for him but they're playing by the rules. He just isn't going to get fmv, and if he holds out into the season he is deferring income even more (by rejecting the Patiots contract) and lowering the value of his big contract deal that he's looking for. And if they're willing to deal him in a trade, he has to realize that the Pats will be looking for fair compensation, which lowers the chance that a suitor comes along and also pays him big.

Who said that Mankins wasnt being offered a fair market value contract?

 

[patriot lifer]

Who said that Mankins wasnt being offered a fair market value contract?

Mankins and his agent.

I define fmv as: "Fair market value generally means the highest price, expressed in dollars, that a property would bring in an open and unrestricted market between a willing buyer and a willing seller who are both knowledgeable, informed, and prudent, and who are acting independently of each other."

Basically, he can only get fmv if he's an unrestricted free agent. Otherwise we don't know what fmv is. Is he entitled to that amount? I don't know. Is he in a position to get fmv? Definitely not.

 

[capetide]

Mankins and his agent.

I define fmv as: "Fair market value generally means the highest price, expressed in dollars, that a property would bring in an open and unrestricted market between a willing buyer and a willing seller who are both knowledgeable, informed, and prudent, and who are acting independently of each other."

Basically, he can only get fmv if he's an unrestricted free agent. Otherwise we don't know what fmv is. Is he entitled to that amount? I don't know. Is he in a position to get fmv? Definitely not.

So, by your definition, it would be impossible for the Patriots to offer fair market value since, according to the rules that the players' association agreed to, he is under a restricted status. They could make him the highest paid player in the entire NFL and, by your definition, it wouldnt be "fair market value". Interesting. I guess now I see why Mankins would be resentful.

 

[mgteich]

Fair and market are two separate concepts, unless fair is defined as offering the market price. The market price is what ONE other team would pay. Do you really believe that no team in the league would pay more in salary and guaranteed monies for Mankins than what he has been offered by the patriots? I not that almost no one guesses about the guaranteed monies the patriots might have offered compared to what other teams might have offered. In the end, it is guaranteed money that is critical.

It is guaranteed money that protects a player. Just ask Cassell ($28M guaranteed) or a player who has signed a one year tender and then has been injured.

It seems that Mankins was an RFA only through a one-time CBA rule. He will be a UFA next year whether he plays or not. It is not clear why Mankins should risk injury by ever showing up this year. There is little reason to risk a $20M payday to get $1.6M in 2010 monies.

The open question is how much Mankins might be worth now. We can specualte that he isn't worth much, or we can allow his agent to try to find a partner with a 2011 2nd to offer (ala Branch). I don't see what the patriots have to lose.
======

Of course, IF AND ONLY IF MANKINS needs to show up in October to secure his 2011 rights to free agency, then it MIGHT be reasonable for the aptriot not to accept a second. I still would accept a second.

Who said that Mankins wasnt being offered a fair market value contract?

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I define fmv as: "Fair market value generally means the highest price, expressed in dollars, that a property would bring in an open and unrestricted market between a willing buyer and a willing seller who are both knowledgeable, informed, and prudent, and who are acting independently of each other."

Not sure thats how you should define fair market value.

I define fmv as: "Fair market value generally means the most probable price, expressed in dollars, that a property would bring in an open and unrestricted market between a willing buyer and a willing seller who are both knowledgeable, informed, and prudent, and who are acting independently of each other."
Change in bold.
I agree Mankins appears to be looking for the highest he can be expected to make but he doesnt have leverage as of right now, if he was a UFA then the rules change and he could get more.

 

[mgteich]

Mankins must weigh the patriots deal against the most probable deal that he can get 2011, factoring in no wages in 2010. Obviously, one key is guaranteed monies.

Not sure thats how you should define fair market value.

I define fmv as: "Fair market value generally means the most probable price, expressed in dollars, that a property would bring in an open and unrestricted market between a willing buyer and a willing seller who are both knowledgeable, informed, and prudent, and who are acting independently of each other."
Change in bold.
I agree Mankins appears to be looking for the highest he can be expected to make but he doesnt have leverage as of right now, if he was a UFA then the rules change and he could get more.