Roster exempt status - with Mankins?

[PATSNUTme]

Here is an article as it applies to 2 Charger players, vincent Jackson and Marcus McNiel.

McNeill, Jackson receive roster exempt letters - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

The San Diego Chargers have placed unsigned restricted free agent offensive tackle Marcus McNeill(notes) and wide receiver Vincent Jackson(notes) on the roster exempt list, which means they can't play for three games after signing their one-year tenders.

My questions are; Have the Patriots done the same with Mankins? Do the 3 games include pre-season game or are they all regular season games?

Does anyone have the facts as it applies to Mankins?

Connelly has done a good job so far but it is pre-season. Also what if he gets injured? I'm concerned about a suitable back up. Now when cuts are made son OG may become available. I remember William Robert being cut by the Giants and he gave us a couple of good years. But right now I don't have any confidence in any of the backups.

Discuss.

 

[BTTA]

How did this get five stars before anyone else even looked at it?

idontunderstand.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: How did this get five stars before anyone else even looked at it?

There was an earlier thread on this same article and I believe it erroneous to say that the player "Can't play 3 games". My understanding from Miguel was that the player could join the team and practise for up to as many as 3 games before he had to count as one of the 53.

But Nut's question still stands. I've read nothing to indicate that the Pats did the paper for a roster exemption. This seems to be a major oversight from the local press if so.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

I read something on one of the feeds on the main page that the pats did not need to issue the letter..the situation was different then the two players from SD...

I'll try and see if I can dig it up.


and here it is

http://www.patspulpit.com/2010/8/16/1624443/new-england-patriots-links-8-16-10

Logan Mankins update. Belichick helped clear up a housekeeping-type issue with regard to offensive lineman Logan Mankins. Sunday is reportedly the deadline for teams to send a holdout player a letter informing him of their right to place him on the roster-exempt list, and Mankins’ agent Frank Bauer told the Boston Globe over the weekend: "We haven’t got it yet, but it’ll come. … I would expect them to do everything nasty they can." Yet since Mankins is not under contract, the Patriots have no cause to send the letter and this reported deadline is apparently not a factor when it comes to the team’s dealings with Mankins, according to Belichick.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Re: How did this get five stars before anyone else even looked at it?

idontunderstand.

neitherdoIandthat'swhyIaskedthequestion.

But I think it has been answered. For some reason it does aply to Mankins although the situations seem to be the same. All three are restricted, all three were given tenders, all three declined to sign the tender.

 

[Gwedd]

The more I read of this entire situation, the more I am convinced that the real problem is with Mankins' agent, and not him or the Patriots. I believe that Mankins is being poorly served by his agent and might well benefit by a new agent, or perhaps some direct talks with the Patriots.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The Pats can send the letter but have chosen not to.

Mankins' agent went on the record saying he expected it, which may be causing confusion.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I read something on one of the feeds on the main page that the pats did not need to issue the letter..the situation was different then the two players from SD...

I'll try and see if I can dig it up.


and here it is

New England Patriots Links 8/16/10 - Belichick: Brady's Finger Injury 'Not Life Threatening.' - Pats Pulpit

From what I can gather, Bill mis spoke, possibly because he didn't want to go into detail about anything to do with Mankins. I think they chose to simply not bust Mankins balls by sending the letter because they don't think he's showing up any time soon and if and when he does they want him to be available to play and/or be more and not less rational. The roster exempt list and letter is merely a tool (a hammer to be precise) that allows teams to pressure unsigned players into signing. It only works if the player was intending to report for the first paid game (i.e. regular season) or actually cares about getting paid. The player does face three games of ineligibility, it's not a choice teams can rescind and I believe SD used it to get a player signed a couple of years ago and could not play him in week 1 regardless, but the pre season counts and the letter had to be sent before week 2 of the pre season or the option no longer exists to preclude them from getting paid if they sign and show up. So effectively the team is denying them the right to show up and collect 1/17th of their scheduled salary unless they end their holdout before week 3 of the pre season. It's worked on some unsigned holdouts in the past, but it wasn't likely to work on the three remaining this season since they are all apparently pretty entrenched. In Jackson's case it's meaningless since he has a 4 game suspension to serve if and when he does show up (including to anyone foolish enough to trade for him) and he would serve this "suspension" concurrently.

For MacNeill each game that goes by means the "suspension" part of the exemption extends further into the regular season. If they somehow got him to sign his tender and even an extension say in week 2, he would then be unavailable to the Chargers for the first three games thereafter. It's just so AJ to cut off his nose to spite his face. You can use it to force an unsigned player in before week 10 as well, but what is the point if you can't play him anyway...

What may start to work is the reality that the money isn't out there for any of them. The Chargers aren't close on MacNeil, Seattle is willing to give up a two for Jackson but not for remotely what his (and Revis) idiotic agent is demanding. Logan might net us a #2 or conditional #1 or some such, but what he isn't getting from anyone is $8M+ with $20M guaranteed...

This was a decent article from former OL Ross Tucker over on NFP Friday about the disconnect between these players and their teams and just whose most responsible... He suggests it's the agents for not managing expectations better. Mankins agent blythly predicted that we would do whatever nasty thing we could to Logan...only we didn't.

Logan Mankins contract squabble with Pats points to troubling trend - Ross Tucker - SI.com

 

[BTTA]

Re: How did this get five stars before anyone else even looked at it?

neitherdoIandthat'swhyIaskedthequestion

You didn't read my title line. I don't understand how a new posting can have 5 stars when opened it as the first person to read it.

 

[Patspsycho]

I believe that when a team issues the roster exempt status, they must notify the NFL office, and in that way it becomes public information.

In that regard, no such letter was sent to Logan Mankins, in which we can then describe the situation as being somewhat hopeful.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: How did this get five stars before anyone else even looked at it?

You didn't read my title line. I don't understand how a new posting can have 5 stars when opened it as the first person to read it.

It was self-awarded.

EDIT: apparently someone has one-starred it.

 

[BTTA]

Re: How did this get five stars before anyone else even looked at it?

It was self-awarded.

Got it, thanks. Kind of like the Jets making sure they get their "mad props" by giving them to themselves.

 

[UofApatsfan]

Re: How did this get five stars before anyone else even looked at it?

We're so used to seeing this team be frugal with veterans, regardless of how good/bad they are so people are just assuming what the agent is saying is true, but this guy is just a flat out liar trying to victimize his client and milk a few more bucks, and here's why:

Vince Wilfork, currently 28 years old, was by far their best defensive lineman last year and was rewarded with a new deal rather quickly.

Leigh Bodden, currently 28 years old, was by far their best corner last year and was rewarded with a new deal also rather quickly.

Logan Mankins, currently 28 years old, was by far their best O-lineman last year, and according to Mankins' agent, they're being this cheap and mean with him refusing to give him a fair deal?

There's no reason to believe they'd treat Mankins so much more differently/worse than Wilfork and Bodden when he's coming off a probowl year, doesn't have the young talent behind him that Bodden/Wilfork have at their position, and is the best run blocker on a team trying to commit to the run more. It's a shame the national media salivates at the chance to make New England look bad because chances are they offered Mankins a lucrative longterm deal his agent rejected.

 

[Athelas]

In Jackson's case it's meaningless since he has a 4 game suspension to serve if and when he does show up (including to anyone foolish enough to trade for him) and he would serve this "suspension" concurrently.

Florio said it can only be served concurrently if he signs with a new team by Sept 4th, but I'm not sure he has a good grasp on the details of the rule (which is too bad since he's a lawyer--why can't he?)

 

[PATSNUTme]

Re: How did this get five stars before anyone else even looked at it?

You didn't read my title line. I don't understand how a new posting can have 5 stars when opened it as the first person to read it.

Oh, you are concerned with the stars. My bad, I thought that you didn't understand the roster exemption.

It could be that someone who viewed it gave it the stars, or maybe I did. I think that I did perhaps while looking at "thread tools" to edit the title but hit the wrong thingy. I hope that clears up the star mystery.

Do you understand the roster exemption status?

EDIT: Breaking news: I tried to give it 1 star but I was blocked because I had already starred it. So yes, the star mystery is now solved. Starring is serious business.

 

[Triumph]

So, if Mankins comes back, NE has to cut someone to fit Mankins in the 53, is that right?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

So, if Mankins comes back, NE has to cut someone to fit Mankins in the 53, is that right?

I believe that is correct. Since Logan is decidely NOT under contract he does not now count towards the forthcoming magic 53. Were he to sign the tender and come back after say 9 games, Pats would need to cut or IR someone fat or useless to put him on the roster.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Re: How did this get five stars before anyone else even looked at it?

We're so used to seeing this team be frugal with veterans, regardless of how good/bad they are so people are just assuming what the agent is saying is true, but this guy is just a flat out liar trying to victimize his client and milk a few more bucks, and here's why:

Vince Wilfork, currently 28 years old, was by far their best defensive lineman last year and was rewarded with a new deal rather quickly.

Leigh Bodden, currently 28 years old, was by far their best corner last year and was rewarded with a new deal also rather quickly.

Logan Mankins, currently 28 years old, was by far their best O-lineman last year, and according to Mankins' agent, they're being this cheap and mean with him refusing to give him a fair deal?

There's no reason to believe they'd treat Mankins so much more differently/worse than Wilfork and Bodden when he's coming off a probowl year, doesn't have the young talent behind him that Bodden/Wilfork have at their position, and is the best run blocker on a team trying to commit to the run more. It's a shame the national media salivates at the chance to make New England look bad because chances are they offered Mankins a lucrative longterm deal his agent rejected.

I have yet to see the Pats offer a long term extension deal worth less than the veteran player is worth. Seymour, Light, Warren, Law, Branch, Samuels, ect.. all got offers that accurately reflected their value. In some cases they never played up to the deal (Sey, Warren??) and in other cases they went elsewhere and never got paid what they would have here (Law) and in other cases they went elsewhere for way too much money (Branch, Givens, Samuels, ect).

But I have yet to see the Pats not offer an exceptionally well thought out and correctly priced deal. I really doubt that Mankins was the first extension deal to be offered by the Pats which somehow shortchanged his actual value as a NFL player.

Unfortunately Mankins wants a sugar daddy team that will overpay him.

 

[sbpatfan]

I hope Mankins never steps on the field in a Patriots uniform again. The Patriots have a bunch of young players now, it would suck for them to get the idea of holding out if Mankins is rewarded a big ass contract at the end of this. He's not even arguably the best guard in the league. Honestly, I just want to see his career get ruined at this point and the Patriots are capable of doing that.

 

[Deus Irae]

I hope Mankins never steps on the field in a Patriots uniform again. The Patriots have a bunch of young players now, it would suck for them to get the idea of holding out if Mankins is rewarded a big ass contract at the end of this. He's not even arguably the best guard in the league. Honestly, I just want to see his career get ruined at this point and the Patriots are capable of doing that.

Mankins isn't holding out.