Logan Mankins Traded

Rob0729 said:

Stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. Just because I don't want to play your little prediction game doesn't mean I am predicting that Wright will do worse this year.

Just to stop this BS. Just go with my high end of 70. I just don't care. That way if he gets 30-50 catches you can declare victory.

I was honest with my predictions. You just cannot accept it because although I think he will improve the passing game, I am just not sure how much at this point. That is why I gave a range.

The ironic thing, as a fan, you will be rooting for wright to fail all year just so you can be right.

Click to expand...

Who gets embarrassed on fan forums? LOL. Maybe you do because you keep bringing it up.

So whether I'm right or wrong, it's not a big deal. I'll give my opinion and if someone disagrees, I'll give it a back and forth.

And if I happen to be wrong on Wright, so be it. But don't assume I'll be rooting against any of the Patriot players just so I can win an argument against an anonymous poster on a fan forum.

1960Pats said:

When they dump guys like Mankins over money but reward the scumbags, yes, very much yes. How do you know they're better without Mankins but with Wright and a 4th round pick?

Click to expand...

......and several million dollars they can now use to extend McCourty and/or Revis.

Evidently, THAT small detail eludes you.

****If you sat down and THOUGHT for a millisecond, you would understand that our starting All-World CB was CUT FROM HIS TEAM WITH NO COMPENSATION FOR THEM because of the salary cap. Do you actually believe Tampa Bay's front office thought "Oh, that Revis, he's just not good enough to make our 53 man roster?????"

Everyone else understands that there is a salary cap. As opposed to Tampa Bay with Revis, Belichick actually got something in return for Mankins (who, in 2014 and beyond, is nowhere NEAR Revis' value). Good for Belichick, who has now ripped off Tampa Bay this year twice. For you (not counting salary cap implications), that is Revis, Tim Wright and a 4th rounder for Logan Mankins. Pray tell, 1960, do you think that is a bad trade???????

Look, it's obvious you don't understand the term "hard salary cap". Frankly, the sooner you learn about it, the more intelligent your posts will be.

1960Pats said:

Poor little Bruins fan doesn't like that I disagreed with one of his football posts. Too bad kid. I actually disagreed with most of the 50-100 **** posts that you posted in this thread during your back and forth with whomever.

I've been a fan of the Pats longer than you've been alive, and that gives me the right to be critical of them. If you don't like it go cry to someone else.

We? Who else are you speaking for, all the other Belichick Elves?

Click to expand...

I know that's you Shank Shaughnessy, don't you deny it. Brothers Felger and Borges will call you a Patriots wussy unless you keep this nonsense up. Don't you dare ever think for yourself and let them down. LOL!

1960Pats said:

When they dump guys like Mankins over money but reward the scumbags, yes, very much yes. How do you know they're better without Mankins but with Wright and a 4th round pick?

And why is it okay for them to come to a player and ask him to redo his signed contract, but when a player does that or even just makes them live up to the agreement they signed, they drop him like a hot potato?

Sorry if it bothers some of you, but when they dump great people like Logan laMankins it makes the Pats koolaid taste just a little bitter.

Click to expand...

It's a bummer to lose a player like Mankins, but a 32-year-old OG with numerous knee and leg injuries is just not worth the investment of $10.5 million in 2014 that increases in 2015 and 2016. If the Pats signed any lineman at his age (make that any player at any position) off of another team for that kind of money, we'd think Daniel Snyder owned the Patriots.

It's not about whether he is "great people," or not. The cap and non-guaranteed contracts are the reality of working in the NFL.

"Why is it okay?," you ask. Because that's what the NFLPA agreed to. Mankins was screwed by the old CBA that allowed for 6-year rookie deals, and he got screwed again in the new CBA. The NFLPA needs to get new leadership that looks out for the players and not the relationships between the Executive Director and the owners.

Don't cry for Logan Mankins, just yet. He will get his full $10.6 million this year, and have a chance to renegotiate again in 2015, or become a high value free agent if Lovie Smith cuts him next year.

We all wish him the best, and look forward to his induction into the Patriots HOF and maybe Canton.

I was camping and hiking last week, so only had limited internet access to peruse this thread when the Mankins trade was announced. My NFL info was mostly from Sirius NFL radio in the car.

What a contrast. While the usual doom and gloom, end of the world is here, pearl-clutching descended over Pats fandom, I was listening to ex-front office guy Pat Kirwin and ex-GMs Bill Polian and Joe Banner sing the praises of the deal from the Pats standpoint. Polian and Banner didn't care about the TE, they thought it was a good deal for the Pats just to dump a 32 year old player whose contract was too big. Polian said that a fourth rounder for an old vet with a monster contract was more than the Pats should have gotten according to the GM handbook. Fans and front office people obviously have completely different views. The front office people know that you HAVE to dump the older guys when their contracts are out of line. They also understand that it's a 53 man roster and the incremental step down at one position from an aging pro bowler to an younger player has a pretty small impact on the overall production on the team and may be completely offset if you can invest that money in production somewhere else on the roster. Big picture, a $10 million cap number for a guard (any guard) is just not smart cap management. It would be disappointing for the Pats to not explore ways of getting out from under the backloaded years on Mankin's deal. And, you know he's wasn't going to take a haircut.

Kirwin loved the deal for all those reasons, but especially because of the player the Pats got and what his production could mean for the Pats high speed hurry up offense. He loves the Pats in a 2TE, 1RB group.

Polian thought the deal was OK for the Bucs, because an aging player like Mankins usually gives the new team one really good year (mostly out of spite for being traded) before falling off a cliff.

hwc said:

Polian and Banner didn't care about the TE, they thought it was a good deal for the Pats just to dump a 32 year old player whose contract was too big. Polian said that a fourth rounder for an old vet with a monster contract was more than the Pats should have gotten according to the GM handbook. Fans and front office people obviously have completely different views.

Click to expand...

Like most, I have some apprehension regarding the OL, and am worried that the Mankins deal may hurt for the immediate future. That said, I think the underlined part of your statement is the most important thing to keep in mind, as generally about 95% of NFL fans overvalue the compensation received in trades.

It was a great move in terms of looking ahead to the future and freeing up some additional finances, and it should help greatly in retaining Revis/McCourty. Let's just hope that we can have a LG take over and do their job correctly. The dropoff in talent and nastiness alone is something to be concerned with, but in the bigger picture moves like this are necessary in keeping the team ahead of the salary cap.

I think the Polian's point was that getting out from under $6 to $7 million in cap hit on a 32 year old player is a BIG deal in and of itself because it allows you to invest more productively in younger players and get more bang for your buck. The 4th rounder is just icing on top of the cake (and pretty valuable icing because those draft picks are how you build a team in salary cap football). I've been thinking for a while that a $10 cap hit for a guard really limits the Pats in other areas. It's just not a position where you want to be budgeting franchise tag money. I heard that Mankins was something like the 5th highest cap number for an OL in the NFL. More than 59 starting tackles. He's not THAT good.

I think Kirwin actually has it right. It sounds like it was Belichick's interest (for some time) in Wright that started the trade talks (initially for young OL). Wright potentially plugs a major hole on the Pats roster -- certainly a hole that has produced an inordinate amount of hand wringing around here.

1960Pats said:

And why is it okay for them to come to a player and ask him to redo his signed contract, but when a player does that or even just makes them live up to the agreement they signed, they drop him like a hot potato?

.

Click to expand...

You do realize that mankins held out for 6 games not honoring his contract which is what led to him signing the one that led to him bring traded because it grew to more than he was worth, right?

Players on rookie contracts are such a bargain that the league is moving towards a college model: draft players, play them for four years, and start with new players. When you have a guy like Josh Kline who demonstrates that he can be a decent NFL starter, it does you no good to put him back on the bench until he's ready for his next contract. You want as many Josh Klines starting as you can possibly get. $495,000 versus $6 million for Mankins.

Churning the roster to play guys like Josh Kline is the only way to keep from eventually slamming into the cap. You can't keep all your guys as they get older and more expensive. The ones you do keep better be real differences makers (wins/losses) like Brady or Revis.

I'm not sure a guard can even BE a real difference maker.

hwc said:

Players on rookie contracts are such a bargain that the league is moving towards a college model: draft players, play them for four years, and start with new players. When you have a guy like Josh Kline who demonstrates that he can be a decent NFL starter, it does you no good to put him back on the bench until he's ready for his next contract. You want as many Josh Klines starting as you can possibly get. $495,000 versus $6 million for Mankins.

Churning the roster to play guys like Josh Kline is the only way to keep from eventually slamming into the cap. You can't keep all your guys as they get older and more expensive. The ones you do keep better be real differences makers (wins/losses) like Brady or Revis.

I'm not sure a guard can even BE a real difference maker.

Click to expand...

I think your reasoning makes a ton of sense, and I would imagine that you're spot on.

There will be debates as to whether or not LM was in the "elite" category that would warrant a high payday, but that's another topic. I'm a firm believer that it may haunt us a bit for about 6-8 games, but that ultimately---it's the right thing to do.

Mankins is just at the wrong position for a $10 million cap hit. Just as Belichick isn't likely to pay top dollar for a running back, he likely doesn't view guard as a "marquee" position. The fact that he got cornered into paying Mankins shows just how much he liked him. But, nobody could have thought Mankins would see the end of that contract with those cap numbers.

Sign Revis? Or spend that money on a guard? Kind of a no brainer...

And that's not even diving into the possibility that some of those sacks on Brady last year were the result of Mankins missing some blocks, maybe not as quick as he was before knee surgery... something that none of us are in any position to evaluate. Easy to blame it all on Wendell, but we don't have the luxury of coach's film.

Run blocking is all well and good, but Volin the Village Idiot's prediction notwithstanding, I really don't see the Pats going with the ground and pound this year...

203Pat said:

Anyone think there was a chance there was a clash between him and new O-line coach Gugelamo or does everyone feel this is strictly getting what you can when you can?

Click to expand...

Getting what you can while you can get it, however I also think that clearing the space to get Revis and McCourty done as well as addressing the move TE position were significant factors. I think Belichick really wanted the two TE option for his offense and I just don't see them clearing this much cap room for the season unless they were planning on getting significant deals done with it. This isn't a rainy day reserve fund this is big money sitting on the sideline and I would be shocked if nothing came of it other than some cash in the Kraft's pockets. They have never operated that way and i can't buy the idea they would do so now.

hwc said:

Players on rookie contracts are such a bargain that the league is moving towards a college model: draft players, play them for four years, and start with new players. When you have a guy like Josh Kline who demonstrates that he can be a decent NFL starter, it does you no good to put him back on the bench until he's ready for his next contract. You want as many Josh Klines starting as you can possibly get. $495,000 versus $6 million for Mankins...

Click to expand...

That's the problem I have with the trade: there's nobody on this OL including Kline who has come close
to demonstrating that he can become even a decent NFL starter, never mind a starter on Tom Brady's
OL…which was the exact same problem in 2010 when Mankins held the FO for ransom. It is ridiculous
that Bill has not developed a replacement at LG in the 4 years since the extension was signed.

I'm not sure what you mean. Dan Connolly has started 58 NFL games on a top team.

One of the reasons Mankins was tradable was because there was a glut of young promising o-line players: Cannon, Kline, Devey, Stork, and Flemming. Belichick went very heavy o-line in this year's draft.

From all indications, Kline played well in 8 games last season -- on team that made the AFC Championship game.

I share the concerns about working through some growing pains in the LG spot but ultimately, I definitely agree with @hwc in terms of this being a move that screamed necessity, at least in terms of the future.

All we can do is hope that the other IOL are ready enough to keep Brady upright, while they possibly work through some learning curve aspects.

hwc said:

I'm not sure what you mean. Dan Connolly has started 58 NFL games on a top team.

One of the reasons Mankins was tradable was because there was a glut of young promising o-line players: Cannon, Kline, Devey, Stork, and Flemming. Belichick went very heavy o-line in this year's draft.

From all indications, Kline played well in 8 games last season -- on team that made the AFC Championship game.

Click to expand...

Cannon & Fleming will not be playing LG anytime soon, if ever. Connolly isn't very good at RG;
I seriously doubt that he would improve by moving to LG; and calling Kline, Devey & Stork promising
at LG is really stretching the definition of the word. Stork might have some promise at Center,
but that is mostly based on the level of his competition.

Very interesting comment from Belichick during his EEI interview today. He was asked if the development of young guards on the team played a role in the Mankins trade. Belichick said... no, not really. He said that he and Logan Mankins had talked several times about his situation and they just hadn't been able to work something out.

captain stone said:

Connolly isn't very good at RG

Click to expand...

You say that Connolly isn't very good, but he's started 58 games on a team that has a pretty decent record over the time he has played and is widely regarded as having a reasonably good offense. Apparently his coach, who is generally considered to be a decent NFL coach, thinks Connolly must be OK.

Mid year perspective.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/08/logan-mankins-on-1-7-season-in-tampa-its-a-grind/

Interesting comments section.

Mankins has been a turnstyle this year. We got lucky he declined to renegotiate.

Hopefully the money is worth it for him. I can't fault anyone for taking the money when they can get it, but you risk getting stuck on a team like TB when you are all about the money.