Here's why Mankins is a goner

[Rob0729]

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.

I don't think that the Pats ever promised Mankins would be the highest paid guard. Since Mankins laid all his cards on the table already to the media. It would be a curious ommission if the Pats promised to make him the highest paid guy. I think he was just upset that Evans got a record breaking deal and the Pats' initial offer was a million dollars a year less eventhough based on all guards it was a very competitive offer (top 3-4).

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

I don't know what Fantasy Land you live in, but living on his Ranch in California costs him PLENTY. California has one of the highest property taxes in the country and they are talking about raising taxes again. Mankins is paying a LOT in taxes on that place.

You keep talking about "principles" and Mankins, yet you seem to be under the delusion that what Mankins said was FACT, but you discount the idea that the information on the deal he was offered wasn't.

If he was "fiscally prepared to not earn another dime in football" he'd just say he's retired, like Barry Sanders did. Otherwise, this is about MONEY and not principles.

 

[IllegalContact]

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 with 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.

you don't read so well, do you?

I responded to what DaBruinz said he should sign for. he was just throwing numbers. I have no idea what mankins was actually offered and neither do you, so go back and try again.

 

[ausbacker]

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...

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

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.

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.

you don't read so well, do you?

I responded to what DaBruinz said he should sign for. he was just throwing numbers. I have no idea what mankins was actually offered and neither do you, so go back and try again.

I know I read a lot better than you appear too. DaBruinz proposed an idea (one that I don't agree with) and you've managed to recruit Tom Brady's contract situation. Completely unrelated as one player hasn't publicly lambasted the Patriots brass whilst making an arse of himself in the process.

Go back to negotiating a deal or a trade for Mankins Bauer.

 

[IllegalContact]

I don't know what Fantasy Land you live in, but living on his Ranch in California costs him PLENTY. California has one of the highest property taxes in the country and they are talking about raising taxes again. Mankins is paying a LOT in taxes on that place.

You keep talking about "principles" and Mankins, yet you seem to be under the delusion that what Mankins said was FACT, but you discount the idea that the information on the deal he was offered wasn't.

If he was "fiscally prepared to not earn another dime in football" he'd just say he's retired, like Barry Sanders did. Otherwise, this is about MONEY and not principles.

well, everyone else around here seems to think that the pats are honest, so I figured I'd play devils advocate given that nobody here has the facts. I'm still trying to find where I said anything was a fact. I'm just throwing the same crap against the walls you are.

his ranch is self-sufficient. according to rappoport, that is a fact.
he has almost every dime he has earned in the bank. according to rappoport, that is a fact.

the only thing I can suppose that a person who lives the way he does that triggered him to be as angry as he is over the situation. I don't know what that is. Up until this situation , he has been a straight shooter and a model citizen. you simply cannot say that about the guy who runs the team. draw your own conclusions however biased they may be.

 

[dhamz]

I doubt the owners are going to rollover the CBA they opted out of. There will be a lockout or a new agreement - probably both in that order. The owners want give backs and by going forward with the status quo there is no pressure on the NFLPA to give them anything back.

As for there being a clause in the CBA naming a couple of players who held out in 2010 and as such will be treated to different rules as when they qualify for free agency than the rest of their association, I highly doubt anything like that would ever be proposed by the owners, accepted by the players, or would hold up under a legal challenge from the lawyers of the impacted players.

 

[folamzz]

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.

My point is he will wait to show up at last possible moment in order to get the accrued full year to get to UFA. If the patriots decide not to play him, he gets to keep his pro-rated amount and not risk any significant injury. He can also hedge his bets that the patriots won't agree with brady to a new contract this year. Brady will get the franchise tag and mankins becomes a UFA. KC or denver or atlanta will probably give him big money.

Asante Samuel had 7 millions reasons to show up before week one. For Mankins, the initial amounts was 3.26million, now its 1.6 million. The actual RFA money is less of an issue with him at this point.

 

[IllegalContact]

I know I read a lot better than you appear too. DaBruinz proposed an idea (one that I don't agree with) and you've managed to recruit Tom Brady's contract situation. Completely unrelated as one player hasn't publicly lambasted the Patriots brass whilst making an arse of himself in the process.

Go back to negotiating a deal or a trade for Mankins Bauer.

maybe he did lambaste the pats brass. maybe he did make an arse out of himself. but maybe he's speaking the truth. I know that is a minor detail you don't care about. you probably think that the pats front office has never done anything wrong.

a contract negotiation is a contract negotiation. there are 2 sides to every story. its funny how you always pick the same side

 

[patchick]

I'm still stuck on the part where insisting on being the highest-paid guard in the league isn't about money. If this is a matter of "principle," I really can't imagine that's the principle in question.

When it comes to lies, fairness and principle, the one thing that makes sense is the issue of whether the bad-luck RFA year should stand in a long-term deal. I absolutely can't imagine the Patriots ever suggesting that they would match whatever any other team gave to any other guard. I can imagine them saying something that gave the impression that they wouldn't hold him to the RFA salary -- and the two sides' interpretations of that being very different.

That's the official word from "Mankins Negotiations as Played Out Entirely in Patchick's Brain," anyway.

 

[bucky]

Bottom line is that Mankins is stuck in a less than desirable business situation.

If he sits out the season, there is a small chance he will not be a UFA (very small IMO), but more importantly - he will be 1 year removed from playing football and that hardly improves his bargaining position. So from a business perspective, he needs to play this year.

On the other hand, if it's really a matter of principle, he has to sit out. The problem is that I don't see what the "principle" is, considering the situation is 100% about money.

 

[Nuh-uh!]

I don't know what Fantasy Land you live in, but living on his Ranch in California costs him PLENTY. California has one of the highest property taxes in the country and they are talking about raising taxes again. Mankins is paying a LOT in taxes on that place.

California actually has some of the lowest property tax RATES in the country. Property taxes are high in comparison to other states because California property tends to be more valuable. Building houses in Malibu will do that, I guess. Also how exactly will taxes be raised with Prop 13 in place, anyway? It'd be next to impossible unless the state goes bankrupt and even then it's still iffy.

You, nor I, know how much Mankins paid for his ranch so we don't know how much he pays in taxes. We'll just have to take his word when he says he's set for life.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

He's a goner because the Pats have moved on. All evidence points to this. Their best offer was already made and vociferously rejected without an attempt to negotiate. Pats haven't contacted him since 5 May over 100 days ago. Pats have played 2 summer games with another player at LG without dire consequences. Pats have traded for an OG who has started in the NFL. Pats still have the option to find a 'Joe Andruzzi' as training camps conclude and rosters are set. They've moved on. I believe they'd not make as large an offer again.

Thank you for your service, Logan. Enjoy ranching.

 

[MassPats38]

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

Pat Tillman gave up a lucrative career in the NFL to serve in a war. He didn't forgo NFL dollars in the hopes of leveraging a bigger NFL contract. If Mankins's hold-out reflects principle rather than haggling over salary, he would retire from the NFL to work his ranch. That hasn't happened. This is about money, plain and simple.

 

[crowell33]

California actually has some of the lowest property tax RATES in the country. Property taxes are high in comparison to other states because California property tends to be more valuable. Building houses in Malibu will do that, I guess. Also how exactly will taxes be raised with Prop 13 in place, anyway? It'd be next to impossible unless the state goes bankrupt and even then it's still iffy.

You, nor I, know how much Mankins paid for his ranch so we don't know how much he pays in taxes. We'll just have to take his word when he says he's set for life.

The guy who is "set for life" is the one guy crying that $7 million dollars a year is not enough for him. This guys a joke.

 

[BradyManny]

The guy who is "set for life" is the one guy crying that $7 million dollars a year is not enough for him. This guys a joke.

But don't forget...he's "principled".

It's not about the money...it's only about getting paid as much as Evans and Mangold...:bricks:

Barring, Logan Mankins giving 95% of his salary away to charity upon signing whatever deal he gets, this entire charade by him and his agent will be proven to be just that, a charade. He wants to get paid and he wants to make what he deserves, that's fine. But taking the moral high ground and ignoring the current state of the NFL and the CBA is just stupid. He needs to take a tip from his QB and learn to be more political and not try and polarize himself by propping himself up above the team & organization.

 

[DaBruinz]

maybe he did lambaste the pats brass. maybe he did make an arse out of himself. but maybe he's speaking the truth. I know that is a minor detail you don't care about. you probably think that the pats front office has never done anything wrong.

a contract negotiation is a contract negotiation. there are 2 sides to every story. its funny how you always pick the same side

The problem is that the contract info came from his agent. So how can he be speaking the truth that the Pats didn't try and take care of him. 6.5+ Million a year is attempting to take care of him.. That's how we know it's a lie.

As for you playing "devil's advocate", BS. You are being an instigating biased prig who attempts to de-rail topics by bring up crap that's irrelevant (such as Brady's contract).

 

[DaBruinz]

California actually has some of the lowest property tax RATES in the country. Property taxes are high in comparison to other states because California property tends to be more valuable. Building houses in Malibu will do that, I guess. Also how exactly will taxes be raised with Prop 13 in place, anyway? It'd be next to impossible unless the state goes bankrupt and even then it's still iffy.

You, nor I, know how much Mankins paid for his ranch so we don't know how much he pays in taxes. We'll just have to take his word when he says he's set for life.

You clearly don't live in California. I did and my Parents do. California has gone bankrupt. Not sure how you missed it. And, over-appraising the value of the house is how they get around the "tax limitation". Case in point, my parents house LOST 100K in value since they bought it. Yet, the county their in tried to raise the value by 75K beyond the price they purchased it for even though they had just had it appraised.

As for him being SFL, good for him. If he is, then it's even more clear that he's lying that money isn't the issue because the Pats clearly tried to take care of him with their offer.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The owners can't lock the players out if the union opts to decertify in order to avoid a lockout. This was explained about a year ago in an article by the agent who ran against Smith as the most likely outcome if a new CBA isn't reached. DeMaurice is on record just in the last couple of weeks saying that he KNOWS that the players are against a work stoppage or lockout. If the union decertifies the rules don't roll over per se, they become the last CBA offer on the table from management and everyone keeps working under those rules until either the courts intervene on behalf of the union (and those cases can take years to work their way through trial and appeals courts) or a new union forms and negotiates a new deal with ownership.

If the owners anticipate decertification you can bet the last offer they put on the table in that case will be thoroughly in their favor... I think reading the tea leaves on where they're at is what teams like NE and Indy are talking about when they say they are waiting for more clarity on what a new CBA may hold before they do mega deals with their QB's. The downside for the owners then is the union may ultimately prevail in court on some of their issues. But they would potentially have years of operating on their own terms in the interim and by then Logan will be too old to get a top tier deal from anyone...

This union sold out Mankins and his compatriots without blinking because they were sure that the uncapped year would be a players panacea. Didn't work out that way...

 

[eagle eye]

This is from Mike Reiss and he doesn't put up figures unless he thinks they are right.

According to reports, Mankins is seeking a contract similar to the Saints' Jahri Evans, who received a seven-year, $56.7 million contract this offseason.

Report: Logan Mankins of New England Patriots ready to sit out season - ESPN Boston

 

[DaBruinz]

This is from Mike Reiss and he doesn't put up figures unless he thinks they are right.


Report: Logan Mankins of New England Patriots ready to sit out season - ESPN Boston

If you go back to my original post, my "hypothetical" was working under the premise of the extension. So, the first year would be the 3.26 million, but then he'd also have whatever signing bonus. Then, the 30% rule kicks in regarding salaries... That's where I got the 4.2 million and the 5.5 million.. Then there is whatever signing bonus he got.. Let's say it was 12 million.. That's a 3 year net of 24.96 million. Which is 8.3 million average with 15.26 million in the first year.

Again, it's a hypothetical, and this is where we don't know how it was written up. But, my guess is that it was more front loaded like Evans contract, than it was backloaded.