Here's why Mankins is a goner

[Fencer]

Three tweets from Albert Breer (read them bottom to top) say

1. albertbreer
   @CurtMonash ...One thing that's interesting: If owners choose NOT to lock out, I believe this year's rules roll over. So it would be 6 again 2 minutes ago via web in reply to CurtMonash
2. albertbreer
   @CurtMonash ...But the union actually wants it down to 3, if they're going to agree to a rookie salary scale. So guys can get $$$ quicker... 3 minutes ago via web in reply to CurtMonash
3. albertbreer
   @CurtMonash At the end of this, all signs point to service years toward free agency being a big negotiating piece. Probably back to 4.

And the response to that was

But then LM could sit out again @albertbreer If owners choose NOT to lock out, I believe this year's rules roll over. So it would be 6 again 2 minutes ago via web

Bottom line: Mankins can in highest likelihood become a UFA without ever again putting on a Patriots uniform.

 

[Fencer]

Breer doesn't think the franchise tag will hold Mankins either:

http://twitter.com/albertbreer

albertbreer
@CurtMonash If Brady's not done, tag number for Mankins is irrelevant. If anything, franchise tag $$ increase to encourage spirit of rule. half a minute ago via web in reply to CurtMonash

 

[DaBruinz]

Um.. No. If the owners chose not to lock out and it's 6 again, then Mankins, McNeill, Jackson, etc, are still considered RFA since they will not have accrued a season.

Also, I can guarantee you that the owners will want a clause in the new CBA that guarantees that they hold the rights to those players since they were RFAed. Those players would be grand-fathered under the old rules. I don't see the owners giving up that leverage.

And, if Mankins held out through the 2011 season, he'd be 30 years old, not having played in 2 years. He'd be lucky to get a contract half of what the Pats offered him.

Mankins needs to man up, period. Even if the 1st year was the $3.26 million or , you add that to whatever signing bonus (hypothetically 12 million) the Pats offered in his deal and the salaries for years 2 and 3 (which would be in the 4.2 and 5.5 million ranges) and he'd pull in about 24 million in 3 years.. That's pretty damn good for a guy who isn't in the top 5 in guards in the league. Even if it was a 6 year deal where the last couple of years tapered down in salary (ala Brady), Mankins would be looking at being 33 and 34 for those years...

 

[Fencer]

1. Mankins can keep sitting out until there's a new CBA. If he's not afraid of one year's rust, why would he fear two?

2. Most owners don't benefit from screwing over the guys whose 4 (or 5) years were up this year. Pats and Chargers may be the only two teams who really care. So the other 30 will cave.

 

[IllegalContact]

Mankins needs to man up, period. Even if the 1st year was the $3.26 million or , you add that to whatever signing bonus (hypothetically 12 million) the Pats offered in his deal and the salaries for years 2 and 3 (which would be in the 4.2 and 5.5 million ranges) and he'd pull in about 24 million in 3 years.. That's pretty damn good for a guy who isn't in the top 5 in guards in the league. Even if it was a 6 year deal where the last couple of years tapered down in salary (ala Brady), Mankins would be looking at being 33 and 34 for those years...

as long as you can conviince brady to sign for 13M/yr, you might be right

 

[IllegalContact]

1. Mankins can keep sitting out until there's a new CBA. If he's not afraid of one year's rust, why would he fear two?

2. Most owners don't benefit from screwing over the guys whose 4 (or 5) years were up this year. Pats and Chargers may be the only two teams who really care. So the other 30 will cave.

he doesn't need the money. according to rappoport, he's got almost all of the 7M he's earned in his rookie deal in the bank and lives on a self-sufficient ranch. california conservatives do funny things. just look at pat tillman

 

[DaBruinz]

1. Mankins can keep sitting out until there's a new CBA. If he's not afraid of one year's rust, why would he fear two?

2. Most owners don't benefit from screwing over the guys whose 4 (or 5) years were up this year. Pats and Chargers may be the only two teams who really care. So the other 30 will cave.

1) Mankins can sit out until there is a new CBA all he wants. It won't change the fact that the Pats will still hold his rights..

And why would he fear 2? Gee, because that's 2 years of NO PRACTICE, No team workouts, and reinforcement that he's just there for the money. Also, a new CBA, more than likely, means less salary cap space. Which would mean less money available for Mankins to be signed. You also seem either refuse to understand or just want to ignore that no team is going to pay Mankins the going rate of guards at that time for someone who has sat out for 2 years.

3) The owners have very little to do with contract negotiations. Most have nothing to do with them other than to sign the documents when their lawyer tells them to. Also, the Pats didn't try and screw Mankins, but all reports. They made him an offer that would have paid him extremely well (somewhere between 6.5 and 8 mil per annum).

Mankins is only screwing himself.

 

[DaBruinz]

as long as you can conviince brady to sign for 13M/yr, you might be right

What are you going on about? How about you stick to the topic at hand and not try to go off-course. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Also, I can guarantee you that the owners will want a clause in the new CBA that guarantees that they hold the rights to those players since they were RFAed. Those players would be grand-fathered under the old rules. I don't see the owners giving up that leverage.

The question is what, if anything, will they give up to make that happen? I know that the NFLPA was willing to throw the four- and five-year RFAs under the bus this year if it would have gotten them a new CBA, so it's not out of the question, but I can't quite agree with you that the owners won't give up that leverage.

 

[IllegalContact]

What are you going on about? How about you stick to the topic at hand and not try to go off-course. One has nothing to do with the other.

has plenty to do with each other. you're telling mankins to man up and take 65% of what he thinks he's worth. brady should do the same.

 

[cloud34]

1. Mankins can keep sitting out until there's a new CBA. If he's not afraid of one year's rust, why would he fear two?

2. Most owners don't benefit from screwing over the guys whose 4 (or 5) years were up this year. Pats and Chargers may be the only two teams who really care. So the other 30 will cave.

Let's do some simple math here. Although we don't know the exact numbers the Pats offered, let's say it averaged out to 7 Mill/yr. If he sits out 2 years, that's 14 million he has to make up in his next contract. If he signs a 4 year contract, his contract would have to be 3.5 million per year higher than what the Pats offered year to make it up. If he signs a 5 year contract, his contract would have to be 2.8 million per year higher than what the Pats offered to make it up. Yes, I realize, it's a little more complicated than that, with signing bonus and the way the deal is structured, but I wonder if he will ever recoup the money he loses by sitting two years in his next contract.

 

[Rob0729]

Actually, it guarantees that Mankins will be with the Patriots this year unless he is traded. If Mankins sits out the entire year, he will be an RFA next year of the owners choose to roll over the current rules. He will only have five years of service in the league because he has to report to the Pats by week 7 (I am assuming the Pats applied the same thing the Chargers did with Jackson and McNeil that he will be suspended for the first three weeks he reports) to get credit for this year.

 

[folamzz]

At this point, manikins has no incentive to show up until week 10. He can actually end up having the last laugh. The Patriots cannot completely pull the tender. Therefore, he shows up in week 10, signs his tender,force the patriots to play him or not and get his acrued season
I'm not sure about the rules regarding the money, but if he gets the full $1.6 million (maybe the amount is pro-rated) despite only playing six games, then it works out well for him.

 

[DaBruinz]

has plenty to do with each other. you're telling mankins to man up and take 65% of what he thinks he's worth. brady should do the same.

I never said such a thing. Are you daft? I said Mankins should have taken the deal he was offered earlier that would have paid him between 6.5 and 7.5 mill a year. And that is about what he's worth.

So, no, they don't have a damn thing to do with one another. That is just your ignorant bias that is clouding your thinking.

 

[Rob0729]

1. Mankins can keep sitting out until there's a new CBA. If he's not afraid of one year's rust, why would he fear two?

2. Most owners don't benefit from screwing over the guys whose 4 (or 5) years were up this year. Pats and Chargers may be the only two teams who really care. So the other 30 will cave.

If he wants to be the highest paid player at his position, sitting out two years would guarantee that is a pipe dream. How many teams will be scampering to give a big deal to a guy who has been out of football for two years?

 

[IllegalContact]

Let's do some simple math here. Although we don't know the exact numbers the Pats offered, let's say it averaged out to 7 Mill/yr. If he sits out 2 years, that's 14 million he has to make up in his next contract. If he signs a 4 year contract, his contract would have to be 3.5 million per year higher than what the Pats offered year to make it up. If he signs a 5 year contract, his contract would have to be 2.8 million per year higher than what the Pats offered to make it up. Yes, I realize, it's a little more complicated than that, with signing bonus and the way the deal is structured, but I wonder if he will ever recoup the money he loses by sitting two years in his next contract.

unless you're talking about a guy who has virtually everything he earned in his rookie deal in the bank. it cost him nothing to live on his ranch. maybe he's just old-fashioned and is willing to walk on basic principle alone. with all the talk of a lockout, and being tendered instead of extended, if there is a lockout next year, he isn't going to get paid for 2011 anyway. maybe he's just fiscally prepared to not earn another dime in football.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

1) Mankins can sit out until there is a new CBA all he wants. It won't change the fact that the Pats will still hold his rights..

And why would he fear 2? Gee, because that's 2 years of NO PRACTICE, No team workouts, and reinforcement that he's just there for the money. Also, a new CBA, more than likely, means less salary cap space. Which would mean less money available for Mankins to be signed. You also seem either refuse to understand or just want to ignore that no team is going to pay Mankins the going rate of guards at that time for someone who has sat out for 2 years.

3) The owners have very little to do with contract negotiations. Most have nothing to do with them other than to sign the documents when their lawyer tells them to. Also, the Pats didn't try and screw Mankins, but all reports. They made him an offer that would have paid him extremely well (somewhere between 6.5 and 8 mil per annum).

Mankins is only screwing himself.

This entire spectacle makes zero sense.

Mankins seems to infer he was promised to be the highest paid guard. When exactly did the Pats ever operate like that?

I wonder if his agent mentioed Greer won a super Bowl and didn't get schooled in the big game.

He spends no money so he's sitting out because he'll make "only" $6.5 million vs $8.0 million.

Maybe he's forcing a trade to stay on the west coast. Seems that the Raiders or Seahawks could use him. Ofcourse, both organizations have been down this road before.

 

[DaBruinz]

At this point, manikins has no incentive to show up until week 10. He can actually end up having the last laugh. The Patriots cannot completely pull the tender. Therefore, he shows up in week 10, signs his tender,force the patriots to play him or not and get his acrued season
I'm not sure about the rules regarding the money, but if he gets the full $1.6 million (maybe the amount is pro-rated) despite only playing six games, then it works out well for him.

The Patriots will not be forced to play him. They only have to dress him. And no, Mankins wouldn't get the FULL 1.6 million. He'd get a pro-rated amount. And, if the Pats did put him on the "Roster-Exempt" list, he'd have to sign by week 7 to qualify to play for week 10.

Mankins has plenty of incentive to show up prior to week 10. Especially if it means he signs a lucrative deal that keeps him here for 6 more years.

 

[ausbacker]

has plenty to do with each other. you're telling mankins to man up and take 65% of what he thinks he's worth. brady should do the same.

It's been reported that Mankins would at worst be paid top ten guard money with the possibility of it being top three money depending on which source you plan on listening too. Given your qualification that Mankins has been offered 65% of what he believes his worth is let's have a look at a few things.

1. Where's the link that stipulates the Patriots have offered Mankins a contract that is worth 65% of the sum contract he is seeking?
2. Top 3 guard money in the NFL is approximately 7 million per season.
3. 65% of 7 million is 4.55 million per season.
4. If Mankins wants to be the highest paid we'll use 8.2 million.
5. 65% of 8.2 million is 5.33 million per season.
6. You're having a laugh.

What's funny is that you call the rest of us yahoo's with the crap you sprout.

 

[IllegalContact]

I never said such a thing. Are you daft? I said Mankins should have taken the deal he was offered earlier that would have paid him between 6.5 and 7.5 mill a year. And that is about what he's worth.

So, no, they don't have a damn thing to do with one another. That is just your ignorant bias that is clouding your thinking.

you are more biased than I am. you've got his value figured out and that he should sign whatever tha pats offered him.

now mangold is getting 24M guaranteed and you think 12M is plenty for mankins? so who's biased?