Here's why Mankins is a goner

[PatsWickedPissah]

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...

Ah, the Law of Unintended Consequences. Amazing how often it's invoked in life. Look around.

 

[Deus Irae]

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...

That "last offer" has to be made in good faith, just as all bargaining is supposed to be. The problem for owners is that their actions have already opened them up to attack on this front. The collusion regarding RFAs might not be provable, but it will be a significant issue in front of anyone presiding over the upcoming situation. It won't take long for a labor judge to rule on this aspect of negotiations. You're likely looking at a matter of a couple of weeks, not months or years.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If in fact he hasn't spent a nickle of his rookie contract money, which of course he has simply traveling back and forth and living here for 5 seasons... then it's doubtful Logan Mankins owns a ranch but rather the references are to the 10000 acre ranch his parents own and on which he grew up working. That ranch has to support them all, including his younger brother who suffered a brain injury in a devastating truck accident a decade ago.

Logan always made money on the rodeo circuit. Maybe the lesson here is that that is all he really wants or needs to do unless he gets what he wants short term from a sport he never dreamed of playing even at the college level. (I'm reminded of the old country standard, Mama's don't let your baby's grow up to be cowboys...). He got a scholarship to Fresno State by accident when a scout sent to check out a player from another HS in the area was shown tape of Logan going against the kid. He red shirted as a freshman because he was academically ineligible because he'd never even taken the SAT's because he didn't plan on attending college...and in the process a 240 lb 3 sport athlete from the middle of nowhere developed into a 300 lb lineman for Pat Hill and Pat's agent Frank Bauer. And of course when he was drafted he cautioned his friends and family not to get their hopes up he'd be selected on day 1 as he was projected as a third rounder.

The accidental pro bowl OLineman, that's Logan. I think they might as well trade him, although given his demands he's likely not worth more than a 2nd and change in 2011 or a 1st in 2012 - and since neither will help them this season they can wait it out and tag and trade him "in the next league year" as we now refer to it...and adhere to their own principles. They can play without him just like he can live without football or an income from it.

I'm not concerned about them needing the tag for Brady. His deal will get done once this CBA expires, and people forget there will be a couple of months between the start of any new league year and the end of the current one when teams like Indy and NE can get those deals done. And if there is a lockout, there will be no need to tag or sign anyone as the entire league will go into limbo. And coming out the other side of that scenario when there finally is a new CBA, there will be a prescribed period during which teams are allowed to deal with their own players before FA commences once again...same way FA was delayed after the current CBA was finally agreed to in 2006.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

That "last offer" has to be made in good faith, just as all bargaining is supposed to be. The problem for owners is that their actions have already opened them up to attack on this front. The collusion regarding RFAs might not be provable, but it will be a significant issue in front of anyone presiding over the upcoming situation. It won't take long for a labor judge to rule on this aspect of negotiations. You're likely looking at a matter of a couple of weeks, not months or years.

Last time out it took years and although it ultimately resulted in FA it came with certain caveats like restrictions and tags that withstood later court challenges as validly bargained for exemptions to FA. Long time agent and attorney Neil Conrich wrote the piece on all this back when he was trying to run against Vincent and Smith, stating it was why there would never be a lockout because it benefits neither side. The union would have to decertify before proceeding to court on any number of individual issues in the hopes of either prevailing on significant ones or pressuring the owners into caving in fear of eventually losing their anti trust exemption altogether. Cases of that magnitude don't get settled in one ruling, they can take years to wend their way through the appeals process. And more often than not they result in settlements at some juncture. But getting just a couple of years of everything there way could be enough to put owners in the drivers seat financially for the forseeable future.

 

[Deus Irae]

Last time out it took years and although it ultimately resulted in FA it came with certain caveats like restrictions and tags that withstood later court challenges as validly bargained for exemptions to FA. Long time agent and attorney Neil Conrich wrote the piece on all this back when he was trying to run against Vincent and Smith, stating it was why there would never be a lockout because it benefits neither side. The union would have to decertify before proceeding to court on any number of individual issues in the hopes of either prevailing on significant ones or pressuring the owners into caving in fear of eventually losing their anti trust exemption altogether. Cases of that magnitude don't get settled in one ruling, they can take years to wend their way through the appeals process. And more often than not they result in settlements at some juncture. But getting just a couple of years of everything there way could be enough to put owners in the drivers seat financially for the forseeable future.

You're tossing in the entirety of the developments. I'm talking about one specific hearing for an injunction.

� An employer�s ability to implement its last best offer when negotiations are fully exhausted is a well-established principle of labor law. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have long held that an employer may unilaterally implement changes in terms and conditions of employment if: 1) the employer has negotiated in good faith; 2) the implementation occurs only when negotiations have truly deadlocked; and 3) the changes are consistent with pre-impasse employer positions.

TALKING POINTS - LAST BEST OFFER

 

[spacecrime]

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?

He doesn't fear it because he is a dope.

It doesn't matter if he isn't afraid of his being rusty, it is the team who thinks about offering him a contract who will show concern, and it most certainly will be a factor in negotiations. No team in its right mind would sign a guy out of football for two years with escape clauses and conditional bonuses. Okay, so the Raiders are still a possibility. But other teams will show prudence.

I simply don't believe that a guy who has not played for two years and is 31 years old is worth as much as a guy who has been playing and is 29 years old.

 

[spacecrime]

Ah, the Law of Unintended Consequences. Amazing how often it's invoked in life. Look around.

Hey! Everybody stop looking at me. It wasn't my fault! I swear!

 

[spacecrime]

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.

Sorry, those two are unrelated.

 

[spacecrime]

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.

It would be except for your boy Mankins. The Pats made and offer. Mankins pulled a hissy fit and went home. That's a contract negotiation? I would have thought a contract negotiation would be him making a counter offer. You know, negotiating?

 

[IllegalContact]

It would be except for your boy Mankins. The Pats made and offer. Mankins pulled a hissy fit and went home. That's a contract negotiation? I would have thought a contract negotiation would be him making a counter offer. You know, negotiating?

he's not my boy

I'm just not some yahoo who thinks the BB regime is always right, that's all.

It's their job to make efficient roster decisions. If Dan Connolly comes through, they will look like geniuses. If he doesn't people will forget soon enough anyway.

I just found it strange the difference in philosophies when it came to dealing with wilfork (they go out and waste a 2nd pick on brace as a just in case, but didn't think to come up with an OG in day 1 or 2 with a much more ominous situation looming with mankins)

for this to have come out the way it has, there is a substantial portion of the story not being told right now, or people simply don't believe that mankins was lied to even though he was. which is what happens when acrimony shows up instantly the way it did. people don't flip out this way if they're not given some kind of misrepresentation. It would not be the first time for this organization

 

[IllegalContact]

Sorry, those two are unrelated.

sure they are.

 

[Fencer]

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.

That disagrees with Albert Breer's reporting, which I'm inclined to trust in this case.

 

[makoute]

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...

There are only two teams affected by this right now, I don't see how this would be a hold up for the other 30 team owners.

 

[TheComeback]

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 wasn't a conservative. He wanted to meet with Noam Chomsky after he got back from Afghanistan.

 

[Fencer]

There are only two teams affected by this right now, I don't see how this would be a hold up for the other 30 team owners.

Maybe DaBruinz' theory is that the other 30 really, really want the Pats and Chargers to win?

/sarcasm

 

[Fencer]

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.

Well said, but I'd tweak it:

1. He's already at the point that he will be underprepared for the season. Sitting out and avoiding injury may indeed be the best for his future performance.

2. Some people just get angry at their employers or partners.

 

[Ring 6]

Maybe DaBruinz' theory is that the other 30 really, really want the Pats and Chargers to win?

/sarcasm

I think its more than that.
Its a labor/management issue.
No matter what team is involved, players gaining from holding out is not something management will want to support.
There is a bigger picture than if my team benefits from it or not.
Holdouts are probably one of the biggest dilemmas that owners will want to try and curtail. I think they are prescient enough to see that holdouts are never based on well reasoned analysis, but on ego. If 3 players hold out and get their reward because of it, there is no doubt the stigma of holding out is lessened and there will be more.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Maybe its possible that LM oesnt really want to play football. He really has a strange approach to negotiating if he really wants to play. Seems to me he can take it or leave it.
We all know Money = respect in the eyes of athletes, remember Mo Vaughs it aint about the money. No Mo its about respect which is measured in dollars so therefore its about the money :bricks:

 

[ausbacker]

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

he's not my boy

I'm just not some yahoo who thinks the BB regime is always right, that's all.

It's their job to make efficient roster decisions. If Dan Connolly comes through, they will look like geniuses. If he doesn't people will forget soon enough anyway.

I just found it strange the difference in philosophies when it came to dealing with wilfork (they go out and waste a 2nd pick on brace as a just in case, but didn't think to come up with an OG in day 1 or 2 with a much more ominous situation looming with mankins)

for this to have come out the way it has, there is a substantial portion of the story not being told right now, or people simply don't believe that mankins was lied to even though he was. which is what happens when acrimony shows up instantly the way it did. people don't flip out this way if they're not given some kind of misrepresentation. It would not be the first time for this organization

There's only so many times that I can explain to you and your ultimate stupidity that I would like to retain Mankins but at a fair price. For mine 6-7 million per is a fair price.

I tend to swing towards the Patriots side because they haven't acted like idiots under poor advice publicly like your boy Logan Mankins has. Like every player he is replaceable and I sure as hell haven't forgotten his Superbowl 42 performance.

If Mankins is that intent on leaving, his agent would have found a suitor and instigated a sign and trade. That speaks volumes about Mankins perceived worth for mine. The reality is Bauer is full of **** and Mankins should sack him and find an agent that can deliver.

Don't kid yourself that this isn't about money. If it wasn't about money Mankins would have signed for any amount out of the love for the game.

 

[Miguel]

Then, the 30% rule kicks in regarding salaries...

The 30% rule does not apply to new contracts which Mankins' would be.