Jason Cole: Mankins refused renegotiation twice

TheBostonStraggler · Aug 27, 2014

Pretty simple stuff.
Mankins did what he felt was right for him, he didn't renegotiate, he kept his cash flow potential maximized. I don't blame him for that. Doing so, however, he surely was aware of the risk to his status as a New England Patriot. "Ceasar calls it 'the Business' and that's how BB and Mankins saw it.

This is a plus for the future, period. We were beginning to pay Mankins for the player he was and that was going to continue thanks to father time.
If this TE ends up with 60+ grabs and gives BB a real 2 TE threat by end of season, this may be a plus this year. If this TE ends up all but another JAG on the TE lop heap, this was unquestionably a negative for this year.

supafly · Aug 27, 2014

TheBostonStraggler said:
This is a plus for the future, period. We were beginning to pay Mankins for the player he was and that was going to continue thanks to father time.
If this TE ends up with 60+ grabs and gives BB a real 2 TE threat by end of season, this may be a plus this year. If this TE ends up all but another JAG on the TE lop heap, this was unquestionably a negative for this year.

I also think if it allows us the cap relief that we needed to retain one/both of Revis and McCourty, it should be looked at as a positive for the year. We're now under the cap by 13+ million at the moment.

Of course there will be some growing pains, but I'm not sure whether to believe my eyes (that LM was still a very good guard) or the stats (that said that he gave up 9 sacks last year). In the meantime, let's hope Brady can get rid of the ball quickly, and the other guards can mesh together in a solid OL.

Mack Herron · Aug 27, 2014

patfanken said:
Why do players who KNOW that they are slipping, refuse to understand the need of an organization to ONLY pay for current production, not PAST production. That's not "principle", that's selfishness.

I find this a rather one-sided perspective. If the Patriots paid for current production, they would have come running to renegotiate Mankins' rookie contract. That did not happen of course, because teams are more than happy to underpay players. That's not "principle", that's selfishness (to coin a phrase).

Miguel · Aug 27, 2014

One problem for both sides is that there was little way to offer Mankins an opportunity to recoup the money lost if he agreed to a paycut.

He played in 16 games so any 46-man active roster bonuses would be LTBE and count against the cap immediately.
He played in a very high percentage of offensive snaps.

Most of the possible applicable incentives would have to be really high to be NTLBE this year since the Patriots offense did so well in most of these categories, sacks allowed the notable exception.

OFFENSE
Points scored by Team - Pats scored 444 points last year
Touchdowns scored by Team - 44
Total offense (net yards) - 6194
Average net yards gained per rushing play -
Average net yards gained per passing play
Sacks allowed
Passing % completed
ALL
Wins
Playoffs
Conference Championship
Super Bowl

SB39 · Aug 27, 2014

wizwor said:
LOL, change the names. No one liked Seymour. Most think Mankins was overpaid. We got good stuff in return. Lawyer Milloy -- that was a dust up!

I was hoping this was a Lawyer Milloy moment - meaning we go 14-2 and win the next 2 Super Bowls.

Hey, same initials... never know!

patfanken · Aug 28, 2014

Mack Herron said:
I find this a rather one-sided Nperspective. If the Patriots paid for current production, they would have come running to renegotiate Mankins' rookie contract. That did not happen of course, because teams are more than happy to underpay players. That's not "principle", that's selfishness (to coin a phrase).

That's the yin and yang of the process. Initially great players are almost always underpaid during their rookie contracts. Then they get their big paydays in which they are generally overpaid. The area where I think most players get "selfish" (which might not be the correct word) is at the tail end of that 2nd contract. This is a time where often their play has slipped some due to age or injury, and their cap number has risen (often due to the huge signing bonus they get off the top.

No Mack, Mankins has been fairly paid for his excellent play over the years on average. I believie the Pats didn't have a problem with paying him $6MM this year. The issue ns to get the $11MM cap number down, and to do that he'd have to take a cut. If his cap number was what his salary was, he'd still be on the team. But ti wasn't because of the signing bonuses. Money he was paid up front.

Its like all the mediots who are now speculating that Brady is going to be upset that he's getting paid less than his elite contemporaries this year, while conveniently forgetting the huge up front money he got when he signed. They want to ignore the fact that the contract was purposely front loaded so Brady wouldn't wind up in the same situation Manning and Farve found themselves .

But to get back on point, Mankins has a right not to renegotiate, but the team has a right to do what it can to be able to sign ascending assets, NOT ones who are under performing on huge cap numbers. And to repeat, I really believe the issue was less about the actual cash being spent this year, than the cap number they'd have to deal with the next 3 years.

I always thought this was how it was going to end with Mankins, but I didn't think it would be this year. My guess is the development of Devey and Kline along with the drafting of Stork and Halopina make the risk of letting him go this year, less risky....at least to them.

BTW- you are right on this point. The mistake the Pats made was NOT extending him in 2009. I think if they had a do over, They wouldn't have made him wait that extra year.

supafly · Aug 28, 2014

patfanken said:
Its like all the mediots who are now speculating that Brady is going to be upset that he's getting paid less than his elite contemporaries this year, while conveniently forgetting the huge up front money he got when he signed.

Mediots and lots of posters too!

patsfan-1982 · Aug 28, 2014

he has made the pro bowl 5 years in row and has been voted first or 2th team all pro 4 years in a row so I could understand why he would not take less money but this is the NFL and his 32 so the pats moved on and got a young TE to and not just cutting him, I am not happy about it but it is what it is

Ivan · Aug 28, 2014

Miguel said:
One problem for both sides is that there was little way to offer Mankins an opportunity to recoup the money lost if he agreed to a paycut.

He played in 16 games so any 46-man active roster bonuses would be LTBE and count against the cap immediately.
He played in a very high percentage of offensive snaps.

Most of the possible applicable incentives would have to be really high to be NTLBE this year since the Patriots offense did so well in most of these categories, sacks allowed the notable exception.

OFFENSE
Points scored by Team - Pats scored 444 points last year
Touchdowns scored by Team - 44
Total offense (net yards) - 6194
Average net yards gained per rushing play -
Average net yards gained per passing play
Sacks allowed
Passing % completed
ALL
Wins
Playoffs
Conference Championship
Super Bowl

No one gets more "useful" icons. Thanks once again, good post.

Ivan · Aug 28, 2014

I did not know Mankins wanted out and the information about the two refusals to renegotiate are also new to me, as well to pretty much everyone. That bein g the case this was never going to end well and they actually did a good job getting some value for him. I still wish the pick was higher but you can't have everything. To me it still comes down to what they do with the cap space, no way do they sit on it, it will be used to get new deals done, the only question is whether Revis will be one of them, and he's obviously the most important deal by far.

supafly · Aug 28, 2014

Ivan said:
I did not know Mankins wanted out and the information about the two refusals to renegotiate are also new to me, as well to pretty much everyone. That bein g the case this was never going to end well and they actually did a good job getting some value for him. I still wish the pick was higher but you can't have everything. To me it still comes down to what they do with the cap space, no way do they sit on it, it will be used to get new deals done, the only question is whether Revis will be one of them, and he's obviously the most important deal by far.

Why do you say that he "wanted out," Ivan? Due to the fact that he wouldn't take a pay cut, you mean?

Ivan · Aug 28, 2014

supafly said:
Why do you say that he "wanted out," Ivan? Due to the fact that he wouldn't take a pay cut, you mean?

No, because he apparently told Reiss he had enough and didn't need to be in NE anymore. First I had heard of it but like Milloy and Seymour you cannot have a leader in the lockerroom who really doesn't want to be there.

TheBostonStraggler · Aug 28, 2014

supafly said:
I also think if it allows us the cap relief that we needed to retain one/both of Revis and McCourty, it should be looked at as a positive for the year. We're now under the cap by 13+ million at the moment.

Of course there will be some growing pains, but I'm not sure whether to believe my eyes (that LM was still a very good guard) or the stats (that said that he gave up 9 sacks last year). In the meantime, let's hope Brady can get rid of the ball quickly, and the other guards can mesh together in a solid OL.

Good point Sup.
Diminishing due to age or not, Mankins is still, fairly obviously, a good Guard. Yet from a cap value perspective I believe he is so-so. The equation, as you sorta pointed out too, is: (for example)3.5 million dollar replacement guard + significant help to keep McCourty + significant help to keep ???(Revis) is definitely greater than (IMHO) a 2014 & 2015 Mankins. That's the bottom line business end that fans rarely calculate (understandably so).

I think a lot of people are overlooking this young, and cheap, TE we got. I believe (??) he led all rookie TE's in receptions, and he accomplished this on a team in turmoil, a team struggling to get a revamped passing game off the ground. Now he is on a team with a highly functional passing game, one that fields multiple proven receiving threats with TB at the helm. So considering last year's TE production was atrocious for most of the season, and considering the NFL's trying to make the game into 'whichever team throws 6 TD passes first, wins', if this new TE repeats his rookie numbers then this deal was a clear win. And given the dynamics mentioned I think the odds are in his favor his second year numbers/production will also be good.

Spiral · Aug 28, 2014

I think Mankins' position of not renegotiating makes more sense if you assume that he's retiring after this year. This will be his 10th year, and he may have decided that he's made enough money and that 10 years in the league is long enough. He probably isn't going to live in NE after he retires, so doesn't really care about retiring as a Patriot. Assuming he's planning to retire, re-structuring the remaining years on his contract isn't as important as collecting 100% of what he was scheduled to earn in 2014. If Bill wasn't going to allow him to do that in NE, then he probably figured he's OK with camping out in some other city for the next four months, collecting his $6M, getting in his truck and riding back to CA for good.

Mack Herron · Aug 28, 2014

patfanken said:
That's the yin and yang of the process. Initially great players are almost always underpaid during their rookie contracts. Then they get their big paydays in which they are generally overpaid. The area where I think most players get "selfish" (which might not be the correct word) is at the tail end of that 2nd contract. This is a time where often their play has slipped some due to age or injury, and their cap number has risen (often due to the huge signing bonus they get off the top.

No Mack, Mankins has been fairly paid for his excellent play over the years on average. I believie the Pats didn't have a problem with paying him $6MM this year. The issue ns to get the $11MM cap number down, and to do that he'd have to take a cut. If his cap number was what his salary was, he'd still be on the team. But ti wasn't because of the signing bonuses. Money he was paid up front.

Its like all the mediots who are now speculating that Brady is going to be upset that he's getting paid less than his elite contemporaries this year, while conveniently forgetting the huge up front money he got when he signed. They want to ignore the fact that the contract was purposely front loaded so Brady wouldn't wind up in the same situation Manning and Farve found themselves .

But to get back on point, Mankins has a right not to renegotiate, but the team has a right to do what it can to be able to sign ascending assets, NOT ones who are under performing on huge cap numbers. And to repeat, I really believe the issue was less about the actual cash being spent this year, than the cap number they'd have to deal with the next 3 years.

I always thought this was how it was going to end with Mankins, but I didn't think it would be this year. My guess is the development of Devey and Kline along with the drafting of Stork and Halopina make the risk of letting him go this year, less risky....at least to them.

BTW- you are right on this point. The mistake the Pats made was NOT extending him in 2009. I think if they had a do over, They wouldn't have made him wait that extra year.

Thanks Ken--we are in agreement on all these issues as far as I can see. My only point was that it is fairly easy to see both sides trying to protect their own interests here. While there is room to suggest that you might have handled certain strategies differently, I don't see the need for calling Mankins selfish, at least any more than the team was being selfish. Mankins was a great player, respected Captain and leader, and certainly gave supreme effort during his time in NE. I wish him the best. In time, I hope it will turn out to be a good decision by BB for hte Patriots.

Mack Herron · Aug 28, 2014

Ivan said:
No, because he apparently told Reiss he had enough and didn't need to be in NE anymore. First I had heard of it but like Milloy and Seymour you cannot have a leader in the lockerroom who really doesn't want to be there.

Do you have a quote or link? I thought that was from the previous negotiation when he was holding out.

Ring 6 · Aug 28, 2014

Mack Herron said:
I find this a rather one-sided perspective. If the Patriots paid for current production, they would have come running to renegotiate Mankins' rookie contract. That did not happen of course, because teams are more than happy to underpay players. That's not "principle", that's selfishness (to coin a phrase).

I just don't think there is any valor, empathy or kind-heartedness involved in an NFL team paying a player, nor should there be.
The system is set up so that the player gets a large lump sum at the beginning and is guaranteed that money whether he proves to be worth it or not. IN RETURN FOR THAT the team is guaranteed a cost for the future years, and has the right to not pay it by relinquishing rights to the player.
I don't think its reasonable to break out pieces of that relationship and call them unfair without considering the others.
If there were no signing bonuses, then the contracts would almost certainly be guaranteed, like other sports. I assume due to the injury risk, NFL players have chosen to collectively bargain a system that gives them more money up front, while locking themselves into future salaries that the team can choose to opt out of.
While people seem to view this as a selfish decision, there are many players who never 'earn' the signing bonus, which is actually part of the overall decision.

PATSNUTme · Aug 28, 2014

I may be in the minority or even the only one who thinks this trade has nothing to do with his current contract - not at this time of the year. I think that the coaches think that they can relace him with a player who is solid at that position and get a player that they wanted.

Winning another SB is the ultimate goal of the team including the coaches and the owners. Another banner would produce much more money for the team than they could ever save on Mankins contract. If he was so much better than who they have to replace him, he would still be here.

Ring 6 · Aug 28, 2014

PATSNUTme said:
I may be in the minority or even the only one who thinks this trade has nothing to do with his current contract - not at this time of the year. I think that the coaches think that they can relace him with a player who is solid at that position and get a player that they wanted.

Winning another SB is the ultimate goal of the team including the coaches and the owners. Another banner would produce much more money for the team than they could ever save on Mankins contract. If he was so much better than who they have to replace him, he would still be here.

If that were the case, why ask him to take a paycut? Clearly if he said yes, he would not have been traded.
Also, the money issue isn't cash in Krafts pocket, its cap room. Since the change that allows you to roll it forward, cap money now always matters, even if you have more than you can use.
Personally, I think, deep down the motive is for that money or a large chunk of it to be in Darelle Revis' bank account.

mayoclinic · Aug 28, 2014

PATSNUTme said:
I may be in the minority or even the only one who thinks this trade has nothing to do with his current contract - not at this time of the year. I think that the coaches think that they can relace him with a player who is solid at that position and get a player that they wanted.

Winning another SB is the ultimate goal of the team including the coaches and the owners. Another banner would produce much more money for the team than they could ever save on Mankins contract. If he was so much better than who they have to replace him, he would still be here.

Not a minority of one - I agree completely. Any contract issue was secondary.

The Pats asked Mankins to take a pay cut because his contract didn't reflect his current performance. They traded him because at his currently level of performance he was replaceable, and they could improve the overall caliber of the team by adding a young player they prized at a position of need and by potentially using the cap space saved to address other areas. It's 2 sides of the same coin - it all comes down to Mankins' level of play making him expendable.

Jason Cole: Mankins refused renegotiation twice

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Eff you, Shula

Pro Bowl Player

Patriots Salary Cap Guru

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Eff you, Shula

In the Starting Line-Up

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

Eff you, Shula

Hall of Fame Poster

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Paranoid Homer ex-moderator

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads