LG please not Ryan Wendell

[JoeSixPat]

There's nothing common sense about your conjecture, though. Whatevver Mankins and his agent are engaged in, it's pretty clear that they aren't following your path to date. You're making an assumption and jumping on it, nothing more.

I think I'm pretty safe assuming that a 30 year old player who's been out of the game for two years will get less of a contract offer than a 28 year old active player in his prime.

If you think it's common sense that the 30 year old inactive player will get more than his 28 year old counterpart under that scenario please offer that common sense to us.

And while you're at it we'd love to hear more about how those wacky evolutionists have simply made an assumption and are jumping on it nothing more.

They don't fully appreciate God's sense of humor throwing us off the CORRECT trail by burrying all those dinosaur bones!

 

[Deus Irae]

I think I'm pretty safe assuming that a 30 year old player who's been out of the game for two years will get less of a contract offer than a 28 year old active player in his prime.

If you think it's common sense that the 30 year old inactive player will get more than his 28 year old counterpart under that scenario please offer that common sense to us.

And while you're at it we'd love to hear more about how those wacky evolutionists have simply made an assumption and are jumping on it nothing more.

They don't fully appreciate God's sense of humor throwing us off the CORRECT trail by burrying all those dinosaur bones!

Your ability to misread the posts of others continues to impress me. Since you can't just admit something as obvious as that your "years off" argument is undercut by the fact that all players would have had a year off at that point, there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[IllegalContact]

I think I'm pretty safe assuming that a 30 year old player who's been out of the game for two years will get less of a contract offer than a 28 year old active player in his prime.

If you think it's common sense that the 30 year old inactive player will get more than his 28 year old counterpart under that scenario please offer that common sense to us.

And while you're at it we'd love to hear more about how those wacky evolutionists have simply made an assumption and are jumping on it nothing more.

They don't fully appreciate God's sense of humor throwing us off the CORRECT trail by burrying all those dinosaur bones!

Please explain how this helps the pats

 

[crowell33]

Koppen's not a big center ( 6'2" 295 ). If Wendell plays LG, he is the smallest OLineman on the team. He came to Pats listed at 6'2" 280, although he reported is up to 6'2" 290. With Wendell next to Koppen, my concern is that Brady has the pocket pushed into his lap on an ongoing basis.

 

[Metaphors]

Apparently that rule only applies to players under contract; since Mankins didn't sign his tender, he's not under contract.

OTOH, a certain "Island" in New Jersey is subject to this rule. . . . :singing:

Sorry, missed the "under contract" part.

Anyway, I don't think it changes the dynamic. Mankins has 5 accrued seasons already and that should be enough in the next CBA. The real question is what does Mankins believe will maximize his opportunity for a big contract in 2011. While Mankins can choose to sit out regular season games, it doesn't mean the Pats will sit idly by waiting for him. When Mankins chooses to report, it doesn't mean the Pats will disrupt their OL rotation and slide him into a starting role.

So does Mankins believe a team will give max OG money to a 29 yo that hasn't done any football activities in over a year? Doubtful. Mankins needs to play a full season and play well to get what he wants.

Brady is poised to have a huge year. All the RBs are in a contract year. A huge offensive year is entirely possible for the Pats. Remember 2007? Light, Koppen and Mankins all went to the Pro Bowl.

Getting to be a UFA is half the battle. Getting to be a UFA coming off a huge season is what you need to score big money.

 

[mgteich]

So what is the answer if Mankins wants to be a free agent next year and maximize his income? Is it really to play for the patriots for $1.6M. Perhaps it is, but that is NOT going to happen. The risk of injury is much too great.

I expect the best result for both parties at this point is to agree to a one-year deal for considerably more than $1.6M with the understanding that Mankins will be a free agent next year. That understanding could even be in the contract.

If a one year deal is not possible, then I think that patriots should allow Mankin's agent to find a trading partner that will the patriots at least a 2011 2nd.

Sorry, missed the "under contract" part.

Anyway, I don't think it changes the dynamic. Mankins has 5 accrued seasons already and that should be enough in the next CBA. The real question is what does Mankins believe will maximize his opportunity for a big contract in 2011. While Mankins can choose to sit out regular season games, it doesn't mean the Pats will sit idly by waiting for him. When Mankins chooses to report, it doesn't mean the Pats will disrupt their OL rotation and slide him into a starting role.

So does Mankins believe a team will give max OG money to a 29 yo that hasn't done any football activities in over a year? Doubtful. Mankins needs to play a full season and play well to get what he wants.

Brady is poised to have a huge year. All the RBs are in a contract year. A huge offensive year is entirely possible for the Pats. Remember 2007? Light, Koppen and Mankins all went to the Pro Bowl.

Getting to be a UFA is half the battle. Getting to be a UFA coming off a huge season is what you need to score big money.

 

[crowell33]

On another thread, the LG Poll, only one out of 23 posters named Wendell as the "acceptable" replacement at left guard.

 

[Metaphors]

So what is the answer if Mankins wants to be a free agent next year and maximize his income? Is it really to play for the patriots for $1.6M. Perhaps it is, but that is NOT going to happen. The risk of injury is much too great.

I expect the best result for both parties at this point is to agree to a one-year deal for considerably more than $1.6M with the understanding that Mankins will be a free agent next year. That understanding could even be in the contract.

If a one year deal is not possible, then I think that patriots should allow Mankin's agent to find a trading partner that will the patriots at least a 2011 2nd.

I think you are right on top of the situation. The only variable is the value of the 1 year deal. Another injury or two and Mankins will maximize that value. No injuries, Mankins will have to settle for what the Pats will pony up (likely with a 2011 non-franchise guarantee). One way or the other, it will all be settled in 3 weeks

 

[JoeSixPat]

Please explain how this helps the pats

I don't think Mankins motivation is in helping the Patriots. His motivation is in making as much money as possible.

However if you're looking for the silver lining it may dawn on Mankins that waiting until 2012 for his next paycheck might not be the wisest move and that might prompt him to realize that being among the Top 5 paid inside linemen with a very nice signing bonus in 2010 isn't as insulting as being out of the game without a paycheck until 2012.

 

[mgteich]

Yup, tied with Orhnberger.

On another thread, the LG Poll, only one out of 23 posters named Wendell as the "acceptable" replacement at left guard.

 

[Ring 6]

So what is the answer if Mankins wants to be a free agent next year and maximize his income? Is it really to play for the patriots for $1.6M. Perhaps it is, but that is NOT going to happen. The risk of injury is much too great.

I expect the best result for both parties at this point is to agree to a one-year deal for considerably more than $1.6M with the understanding that Mankins will be a free agent next year. That understanding could even be in the contract.

If a one year deal is not possible, then I think that patriots should allow Mankin's agent to find a trading partner that will the patriots at least a 2011 2nd.

There are a ton of factors at work here. And many of them we just can't know the details of.
First, we have no clue how far apart the sides are. We also have no clue if either side truly offended the other to the point of 'divorce'. Mankins has said that he has, but is that bargaining or principal? Many fans feel Kraft should be, but many think he is above that. It could be that Mankins wont play here for any amount and/or Kraft doesnt want him at any amount. I doubt either but we just don't know.
Beyond that, there are many other issues to consider.
-Clearly caving in to a holdout has negative ramifications for a franchise. Do the Pats view those negatives as more or less important than other teams?
-Mankins loses by holding out. He goes a year without an income and that could backfire further if there is no 2011, because there is no way of knowing if the market will be better or worse then. And if there is a lockout of PART of 2011, how will that impact free agents? We just don't know. We also don't know Mankins financial situation, and how important being paid this year is. The possility of no 2011 matters here too, because signing long term gets him plenty of money to not have to be paid in 2011.
-If the team feels caving to a player is a non-issue or a big issue or somewhere in between, they also have to factor in caving to THIS player, given the gap in negotiations, the position he plays, and how he is perceived by teammates. That could result in different decsions for 2 different players.

My gut instinct is that in a sport where you have 53 players, 1 player is usually not worth making concessions to, if those concessions hurt the franhise in the long run, and that the damage to a player missing a season of his career is greater than the damage to the team of havng to replace one of their 53. My insticnt says let him stay away, and he will show up eventually, because he really gains nothing sitting at home. But, there are so many unknowns and variables its really hard to properly assess the situation reasonably.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Your ability to misread the posts of others continues to impress me.

Ah yes... your default position when you've been shown to be incorrect.

I can point to a dozen threads where when your point is illustrated to be irrelevant or outright wrong, you simply assert that your fellow Patsfan member can't read.

It must be nice living in your world where you're right all the time.

:singing:

You might have wowed your elementary school teacher with your reading comprehension test scores but it looks like your math skills may be lacking as you can't avoid the simple truth that Mankins is potentially looking at 2 years of inactivity compared to the 1 year of everyone else.

Comparing him to other players illustrates that you've got some reading comprehension issues to address yourself.

The only person you need to compare the 30 year old Mankins with 2 years of inactivity to is the 28 year old Mankins coming off several strong seasons and decide which one will have a higher market value.

Perhaps Mankins agrees with you that 2 years older and 2 years of inactivity means he's worth more... but the list of players who have been "insulted" by their initial offer only to wish later they'd have taken it is a long one... we don't even have to look beyond the Patriots to find one.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ah yes... your default position when you've been shown to be incorrect.

I can point to a dozen threads where when your point is illustrated to be irrelevant or outright wrong, you simply assert that your fellow Patsfan member can't read.

It must be nice living in your world where you're right all the time.

:singing:
You might have wowed your elementary school teacher with your reading comprehension test scores but it looks like your math skills may be lacking as you can't avoid the simple truth that Mankins is potentially looking at 2 years of inactivity compared to the 1 year of everyone else.

You were the one hyping the two year layoff. I was noting that, If Mankins is off for 2 years, everyone else will have been off for a year as well, lessening the impact of Mankins' 2 years.

If you can't see something that obvious, I don't know what to tell you.

Now, if you wanted to try making a good point about contracts following a new CBA, you could point to the possible glut of free agents that could be on the market if the CBA brings RFA down to 4 or 5 years. That's something that leads to a valid question of how much an individual player would be able to command in such a market. The layoff thing, given that teams would be working out players post-lost year anyway, is far less compelling.

 

[Ring 6]

So what is the answer if Mankins wants to be a free agent next year and maximize his income? Is it really to play for the patriots for $1.6M. Perhaps it is, but that is NOT going to happen. The risk of injury is much too great.

I expect the best result for both parties at this point is to agree to a one-year deal for considerably more than $1.6M with the understanding that Mankins will be a free agent next year. That understanding could even be in the contract.

If a one year deal is not possible, then I think that patriots should allow Mankin's agent to find a trading partner that will the patriots at least a 2011 2nd.

I dont think I would trade him.
I would take the risk of only getting a 3rd as a comepnsatory pick in order to keep the leverage of him needing to report or sit out, and potentially be right back in the same boat.
I find it VERY hard to believe that if there are holdouts due to the RFA/UFA issue that the owners will set those players free in a new CBA In fact, I would bet they would think that making an example of those players would be worth giving other concessions for. I have to believe that the owners as a group see holdouts and their increasing popularity as very damaging. Rewarding them seems like something they won't not want to do, and actually punishing them seems like a great tool to exret more control. If I am an owner I see how those guys are handled as a precednt for whether holding out is wise or not.

 

[mgteich]

The CBA will likely go back to the 4 year limit for RFA's in 2011.

So, you are betting that owners will insist on a clause that makes an exception for players who held out under the last CBA. Miguel has offerred to take that bet. I am not a betting man, but I certainly strongly agree with Miguel. The nfl will not hold hold the negotations hostage to a special clause excluding a few players from free agency. Mankins will be a free agent in 2011 unless he signs a long-term contract. Count on it; I'm sure he is.

The CBA will be about much more important issues than whether New England patriots should be able exclude Mankins from free agency.

I dont think I would trade him.
I would take the risk of only getting a 3rd as a comepnsatory pick in order to keep the leverage of him needing to report or sit out, and potentially be right back in the same boat.
I find it VERY hard to believe that if there are holdouts due to the RFA/UFA issue that the owners will set those players free in a new CBA In fact, I would bet they would think that making an example of those players would be worth giving other concessions for. I have to believe that the owners as a group see holdouts and their increasing popularity as very damaging. Rewarding them seems like something they won't not want to do, and actually punishing them seems like a great tool to exret more control. If I am an owner I see how those guys are handled as a precednt for whether holding out is wise or not.

 

[Ring 6]

The CBA will likely go back to the 4 year limit for RFA's in 2011.

So, you are betting that owners will insist on a clause that makes an exception for players who held out under the last CBA. Miguel has offerred to take that bet. I am not a betting man, but I certainly strongly agree with Miguel. The nfl will not hold hold the negotations hostage to a special clause excluding a few players from free agency. Mankins will be a free agent in 2011 unless he signs a long-term contract. Count on it; I'm sure he is.

The CBA will be about much more important issues than whether New England patriots should be able exclude Mankins from free agency.

Well the CBA can certainly handle 'limbo' players differently.
I think the owners will very serioulsy try to send a message that plyers who held out, if any do, didn't win. Do you disagree that if there are holdouts this season that the owners will realize they are sending message through the new agreement? And that holdouts as a rule are verybad fo owners?

I don't know how we know what the UFA will be in the new CBA if they havent agreed on any of the terms yet. That seems to be a critical one that will be a hue part of the negotiation.

 

[mgteich]

The RFA rule has always been 4 years. The players accepted a 6 year RFA in the event that the owners walked out on the CBA.

There is no reason to believe that the players will accept anything but a 4 year RFA deal.

HOWEVER, it is just possible that there will be no RFA's at all, and that all players who have played at least 3 or 4 years will be UFA's. In any case, Mankins will be a free agent.

The CBA isn't about sending messages. it is about making money. There will be no such thing as limbo players. The concept makes little sense in the context of developing a contract. It is akin to listing a specific list of players and saying that will each be fine $10M as part of the CBA.

BTW, how many RFA holdouts are there? How many other teams have failed to come to terms with their players.

Well the CBA can certainly handle 'limbo' players differently.
I think the owners will very serioulsy try to send a message that plyers who held out, if any do, didn't win. Do you disagree that if there are holdouts this season that the owners will realize they are sending message through the new agreement? And that holdouts as a rule are verybad fo owners?

I don't know how we know what the UFA will be in the new CBA if they havent agreed on any of the terms yet. That seems to be a critical one that will be a hue part of the negotiation.

 

[JoeSixPat]

You were the one hyping the two year layoff. I was noting that, If Mankins is off for 2 years, everyone else will have been off for a year as well, lessening the impact of Mankins' 2 years.

If you can't see something that obvious, I don't know what to tell you.

Now, if you wanted to try making a good point about contracts following a new CBA, you could point to the possible glut of free agents that could be on the market if the CBA brings RFA down to 4 or 5 years. That's something that leads to a valid question of how much an individual player would be able to command in such a market. The layoff thing, given that teams would be working out players post-lost year anyway, is far less compelling.

This is really quite funny because you've got the temerity to insult everyone else's reading comprehension.

I'll make this simple.

Forget about other players. Period. You're the only one who seems obsessed with the bizarre notion that a 1 year layoff for other players somehow means Mankins will get more in 2 years than he will now.

Look at Mankins and only Mankins and let's assume he fully sits out this year, and next year is a lockout year. Ask yourself whether he's worth more at age 30 after 2 years of inactivity than he is at age 28 coming off a string of productive seasons.

You obviously think he's worth more at age 30 with 2 years of rust than he is now... we'd all just love to hear your theory of WHY that is and how he's going to earn enough MORE to offset the 2 years that he could be enjoying the 2010 signing bonus he's thumbing his nose at.

You chortle proclaiming that there's an absense of common sense at any suggestion a 30 year old Mankins would command less of a contract after sitting out for 2 years than a 28 year year old Mankins would today

... so once again, please explain to us YOUR "common sense" that the 30 year old rusty Mankins be worth MORE than he is today.

 

[BlueThunder]

This is better than the Hagler vs Hearns fight :rocker:

 

[Ring 6]

The RFA rule has always been 4 years. The players accepted a 6 year RFA in the event that the owners walked out on the CBA.

There is no reason to believe that the players will accept anything but a 4 year RFA deal.

HOWEVER, it is just possible that there will be no RFA's at all, and that all players who have played at least 3 or 4 years will be UFA's. In any case, Mankins will be a free agent.

The CBA isn't about sending messages. it is about making money. There will be no such thing as limbo players. The concept makes little sense in the context of developing a contract. It is akin to listing a specific list of players and saying that will each be fine $10M as part of the CBA.

BTW, how many RFA holdouts are there? How many other teams have failed to come to terms with their players.

OK, so you have decided what is going to be collectively bargained and what isnt. Can I have tomorrows lottery numbers please?

I am not implying that the only reason to do something is to send a message, I am saying that if holdouts are a critcial issue (I believe there are 3 on the Chargers as well) that will become an important issue to management. Do you disagree with that?
If it is an important issue to management, then management may wish to make sure that if 3 or 4plyers held out over the issue that they do not get their service credited back, and are not awardedfree agency in order to discourage future holdouts. Unless you think holdouts aren't something owners see as bad. Because if its about making money aren't holdouts a danger to that?

There will absolutely be limbo issues. All of the contracts in existence, particularly the ones signed this year and all the facets of them are up to determination of the new CBA.
If there are players who were RFAs and didnt sign the tender or report, I seriously doubt the new CBA is going to say that they are suddenly Free Agents. However it is addressed, those specific players must be addressed if they do hold out.