Patriots Mankins Hurt Players Stance With Holdout

[DaBruinz]

A holdout is a player under contract refusing to show up. Mankins was not under contract. That's a huge difference.

Just like its a huge difference whether the union decertifies before or after their CBA has expired...

 

[IllegalContact]

Not really, the Patriots still owned Mankins' rights and the action of refusing to sign a tender is still the same as holding out.

mankins acted according to procedural documentation. he didn't do anything that was in breach of a contract. just because he didn't sign the contract does not mean what you think it does.

it is no different from a rookie who is drafted and refuses to sign a deal which allows him to go back to the draft the following year. its an actualy documented proces.

unlike holding out while under contract.....very different

 

[ausbacker]

mankins acted according to procedural documentation. he didn't do anything that was in breach of a contract. just because he didn't sign the contract does not mean what you think it does.

it is no different from a rookie who is drafted and refuses to sign a deal which allows him to go back to the draft the following year. its an actualy documented proces.

unlike holding out while under contract.....very different

Hi Frank. Let me reiterate so you understand. The action of holding out is the same as the action of not signing your tender. Whilst I agree a hold out is infinitely worse than refusing to sign your tender what you choose to believe is your imperative.

You cannot argue against that because it is the exact same action under a different set of circumstances and obligations. I already understood the differences in contractual obligations versus retained rights.

 

[TruthSeeker]

A holdout is a player under contract refusing to show up. Mankins was not under contract. That's a huge difference.

Definately agree; it is a huge difference. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a player and a team not coming to an agreement on a contract. To classify this non-agreement as a "holdout" is totally inappropriate and unfair to Mankins. Who is to even say that the fault is Mankins for not reaching an agreement? Maybe it's more the fault of the Patriots?

 

[ausbacker]

Definately agree; it is a huge difference. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a player and a team not coming to an agreement on a contract. To classify this non-agreement as a "holdout" is totally inappropriate and unfair to Mankins. Who is to even say that the fault is Mankins for not reaching an agreement? Maybe it's more the fault of the Patriots?

Don't start this crap again. It's both parties fault just like the CBA is both parties fault.

 

[Ian]

Mankins didn't hold out on a contract. The O.P. is misleading on that count.

With all due respect Deus, that really wasn't the purpose of the entry. The point was that the league actually pointed out the fact that even though Mankins completely stayed away during that entire offseason and into the early part of the season, he still returned in shape and ready to go, and even later made the Pro Bowl. Taking that into account, now they're using it as evidence that the offseason participation isn't as detrimental as the players claim. Again, that's their opinion - I was just trying to alert people to the story. I figured there may have been others who didn't see it, and as I said, I thought it was interesting that the league was actually singling him (and Welker) out in the legal documentation.

It wasn't meant to start an argument over semantics since under contract or not, he wasn't here and didn't work out at the team's facilities, nor did he participate in any of their offseason activities. So my apologies if it created any confusion as my goal wasn't meant to mislead anyone.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

With all due respect Deus, that really wasn't the purpose of the entry. The point was that the league actually pointed out the fact that even though Mankins completely stayed away during that entire offseason and into the early part of the season, he still returned in shape and ready to go, and even later made the Pro Bowl. Taking that into account, now they're using it as evidence that the offseason participation isn't as detrimental as the players claim. Again, that's their opinion - I was just trying to alert people to the story. I figured there may have been others who didn't see it, and as I said, I thought it was interesting that the league was actually singling him (and Welker) out in the legal documentation.

It wasn't meant to start an argument over semantics since under contract or not, he wasn't here and didn't work out at the team's facilities, nor did he participate in any of their offseason activities. So my apologies if it created any confusion as my goal wasn't meant to mislead anyone.

Welcome to our world, Ian, where for some it's always about semantics...

I thought from the get go the league should have pointed out to the courts just how difficult a time they have long had getting players to attend off season workout programs and how strongly the union defended their right not to and insisted voluntary meant voluntary and had been lobbying for the less is more approach... and how routinely players held out of at least off season workouts and non mandatory OTA's even if under contract either to attempt to leverage owners into more lucrative deals or just because they preferred to and could... Of course when it did come up there was talk in court of a possible evidentiary hearing on the concept of irreparable harm, which never did transpire because the judge decided the players suddenly poignant claims were IHO apparently sufficiently compelling. Maybe that is one reason the appeal has legs... The other being that if the owners did simply unite to insure no frenzy occurs in the absence of a CBA the association and it's members will then claim collusion. In fact they still have a collusion claim pending over the lack of splashy FA signings in an uncapped 2010...