- Joined
- Mar 25, 2005
- Messages
- 19,929
- Reaction score
- 3
1.) Breer's wrong. The rules don't roll over.
2.) DaBruinz is wrong. The Patriots won't hold Mankins' rights. Those rights would be open for determination by the new CBA, along with the rights to every other player.
Until a new CBA is agreed upon that changes the existing rules, or until in the event of a decertification the last best offer replaces the CBA and it in fact reverts to 4 years, he would remain under the Patriots control provided he doesn't report by week 10 and secure his year of service credit. Because his situation doesn't change until a new league year commences. I believe this CBA has been in existence since 1993 and each successive CBA is just a collectively bargained amended version of that original CBA. In effect it would provide the basis upon which the sides would propose/negotiate amendments. So in that respect the rules roll over subject to last best offer amendment absent a new CBA. And of course if there is a lockout it's a moot point...everyone from the QB to the ball boy will be in limbo, and most of them will be absent compensation or on reduced compensation for the duration.
I believe DaBruinz is wrong in assuming a new CBA doesn't supercede an expired CBA. Although it would not invalidate an existing contract. Mankins however isn't under contract. If he were including if he'd signed his RFA tender and then held out, his contract would likely toll and he would in fact probably owe the team another year of service regardless of whether the rules for RFA's going forward reverted to 4 years.