The Invisible Man...kins

[MoLewisrocks]

Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon?

I just saw an article over on NFL.com by Jason LaCanfora about what he thinks teams should do with the remaining high profile holdouts. He covers Revis, of course. His recommendation is pay him. Then he covers McNeill and Jackson and Merriman in SD (pay him, trade him, play it out respectively). Then he oddly opines about Haynesworth.

That's it. No other holdouts on the media radar, apparently. I wonder how Logan and his agent feel about the lack of attention his particular holdout seems to generate. I also think it's interesting that his agent also represents one of the Charger holdouts, Jackson, I believe.

And even locally, opining about whether Tommy will get a deal he's already indicated he will play without this week, this month, this year, next year... And now whether Welker is really as driven as he appears because he loves the game or simply jonesing for a new deal... That crap dominates the airwaves with nary a mention of the invisible mankins.

It's game time -- and not just for teams getting ready for the preseason.

It's time for us to play a little game ourselves.

We've long chronicled the disputes that exist between several high-profile players and their teams. It's about time we went about trying to answer them.

At the risk of oversimplifying each situation, there are three courses of action open to these teams: "Pay the man" (i.e. give the player a new contract in the vicinity of what he's asking for), "trade the man" (obvious enough) or "play it out" (essentially let the player continue to dangle and more or less call his bluff).

In each scenario, I'll prescribe my remedy -- not as a prediction of what might happen, but just as what I believe is the most salient solution.

So, on the eve of the pre season and in the spirit of the article, what say ye Patsfans about Logan Mankins... since nobody else seems to care...



NFL.com news: How to smooth things over with unhappy high-profile players

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

pay
10char

 

[captain insano]

screw mankins. the pats aparently already made him a excellent offer. pay brady

 

[Patjew]

Make a fake business apology that means nothing ("sorry you felt disrespected", "we're disappointed that you're upset", "we feel bad that you were upset about your misunderstanding of our offer", etc.), give him a reasonable one year contract, and get him in there to protect Brady's ass. The man is a rock and we have no substitute. Get his hick butt through those doors pronto.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Bite the bullet and pay him. The laws of supply and demand rule, and the Pats demand for a solid offensive line is great, at least if they have any hope of competing for a title. Kaczur is done. Connolly is soft. You can talk about building a tougher team, but it takes a lifetime for an individual player to build it, and Logan has it in spades.

 

[Patjew]

PS, this is the best thread title I've seen in a long time.

 

[RussFrancis]

My feeling is the media doesnt report a whole lot on stories of which most people sort of know the answer. People pretty much know Mankins isnt re-signing with this team. Its more or less a fact. Some would argue. But how many high end interior offensive line contracts has this team drawn up in the last 10 years. Its not even interesting because its a non factor.

The media also doesnt talk a whole lot about Manning's contract because we all pretty much know he's just gonna sign a whopper of a contract that will make him the highest paid player in the game. There's nothing to wonder about there besides when it will actually happen.

Brady's contract is more interesting because he hasnt broken the bank with any contracts, so people are just wondering if he's gonna do that this time around. We dont know if its gonna be blockbuster money, or team-friendly money again. Its actually interesting. Things that make us wonder are actually interesting. But noone really cares about some anonymous Olineman who's hardly said 3 words in 5 years with this team, knowing full well he's about to sit on his butt all year more than likely.

 

[BTTA]

They HAVE made an offer that is a ton of money

And is only a few hundred thousand less than what NO paid their guy.

If you were to take the PFW analysis and identify the difference in value for a guard who makes 10% fewer positive blocks and has 10% more negative ones than Mankins, you'd have an average guard making a couple million a year and having fairly insignificant impact on your won/loss record.

The poll sets up a false choice. The real choices are as follows:

1) Stick to your offer, which is more than what you value a Guard already and is one of the richest contracts ever for an interior lineman

2) Increase your offer by a few hundred thousand to give Mankins what he's demanding, and set yourself up for this with every player you negotiate with for the next decade

3) Trade him.

 

[Triumph]

Mankins need to apologize to Bob Kraft first.

Then approach the Pats about his contract.

I like the way the Pats are handling the situation. Ignoring Mankins and moving on as if he was out for the season.

 

[Tunescribe]

Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon?

I just saw an article over on NFL.com by Jason LaCanfora about what he thinks teams should do with the remaining high profile holdouts. He covers Revis, of course. His recommendation is pay him. Then he covers McNeill and Jackson and Merriman in SD (pay him, trade him, play it out respectively). Then he oddly opines about Haynesworth.

That's it. No other holdouts on the media radar, apparently. I wonder how Logan and his agent feel about the lack of attention his particular holdout seems to generate. I also think it's interesting that his agent also represents one of the Charger holdouts, Jackson, I believe.

And even locally, opining about whether Tommy will get a deal he's already indicated he will play without this week, this month, this year, next year... And now whether Welker is really as driven as he appears because he loves the game or simply jonesing for a new deal... That crap dominates the airwaves with nary a mention of the invisible mankins.



So, on the eve of the pre season and in the spirit of the article, what say ye Patsfans about Logan Mankins... since nobody else seems to care...



NFL.com news: How to smooth things over with unhappy high-profile players

You haven't voted yet, what is your opinion? I say wait it out. He was offered a great deal already and was a fool for turning it down.

 

[Buchanty]

Make a fake business apology that means nothing ("sorry you felt disrespected", "we're disappointed that you're upset", "we feel bad that you were upset about your misunderstanding of our offer", etc.), give him a reasonable one year contract, and get him in there to protect Brady's ass. The man is a rock and we have no substitute. Get his hick butt through those doors pronto.

I like this approach - I get the impression that Mankins is more about principles than about the money (unlike Revis). A simple admission that they had not intended to ignore his efforts in 2009 or slight him in any way and a minor adjustment to the contract that benefits Mankins and you could be there.

On the other hand if it is the money - Play it out!

 

[RayClay]

Make a fake business apology that means nothing ("sorry you felt disrespected", "we're disappointed that you're upset", "we feel bad that you were upset about your misunderstanding of our offer", etc.), give him a reasonable one year contract, and get him in there to protect Brady's ass. The man is a rock and we have no substitute. Get his hick butt through those doors pronto.

I don't know. Shouldn't they be honest and admit that they're lying, two faced scum and beg him to take 8 million per long term?

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

Mankins need to apologize to Bob Kraft first.

Then approach the Pats about his contract.

I like the way the Pats are handling the situation. Ignoring Mankins and moving on as if he was out for the season.

How do you know this is what's happening?

 

[Patjew]

How do you know this is what's happening?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Patjew]

I don't know. Shouldn't they be honest and admit that they're lying, two faced scum and beg him to take 8 million per long term?

Ah, you have jumped to step 2 of my diabolical plan.

Seriously, this crap happens all of the time in business (and sports, I guess). Someone plays hardball, some BS concessions are made, and then the two sides come together. A week later it's all forgotten.

To those suggesting the Pats play hardball, who exactly does that benefit? Why should the Pats punish themselves by fielding an inferior O-line and risk their franchise player if they can get this thing done and bring in their stud guard with a couple minor concessions?

Get that hick in F-boro now!

 

[patsfan-1982]

i think we all remember how bad the D line was last year with out seymour, the O line will be the same with out Mankins, i hope they work something out

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Though I'm a big fan of this franchise's current management, I am a player's person when it comes down to who I support in negotiations.

If I were Mankins I would be a bit peeved as well. He played out the entirety of his crappy rookie deal, which should get credit given other holdouts like Revis who still has a whopping 3 years left on his deal. The deal offered by the Patriots, publicized everywhere to seem like it was a reasonable offer, was about a fifth lower than the top paid guard in the league.

The Patriots do have a history of being tough negotiators, it's what makes them so great in a salary capped league. They even did it to Brady before, on the radio awhile ago they reported that after the first championship the Patriots wouldn't budge on a $20,000 bonus to get Brady re-signed, and Brady never forgot it, he made them re-include that on their 3rd contract together afterwards.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

PS, this is the best thread title I've seen in a long time.

LOL Thanks PJ. It just struck me as I read the LaCanfora piece that it's as if Mankins doesn't exist...

As for your somewhat alternate option of paying him for a year, that was never gonna fly with this guy. He wants his long term deal on his terms or nothing by all indications.

 

[patsfan-1982]

Though I'm a big fan of this franchise's current management, I am a player's person when it comes down to who I support in negotiations.

If I were Mankins I would be a bit peeved as well. He played out the entirety of his crappy rookie deal, which should get credit given other holdouts like Revis who still has a whopping 3 years left on his deal. The deal offered by the Patriots, publicized everywhere to seem like it was a reasonable offer, was about a fifth lower than the top paid guard in the league.

The Patriots do have a history of being tough negotiators, it's what makes them so great in a salary capped league. They even did it to Brady before, on the radio awhile ago they reported that after the first championship the Patriots wouldn't budge on a $20,000 bonus to get Brady re-signed, and Brady never forgot it, he made them re-include that on their 3rd contract together afterwards.

i agree he played out he's contract pay him or trade him... i looked up player salaries in 2009 i don't know if this is true but it said Mankins made less then 1.5 million last year he is a all pro LG

 

[WhiZa]

It's not like the Pats to pay a player who doesn't put the team first. I put trade him just like they did with Branch