Here's why Mankins is a goner

[MoLewisrocks]

1.) Breer's wrong. The rules don't roll over.

2.) DaBruinz is wrong. The Patriots won't hold Mankins' rights. Those rights would be open for determination by the new CBA, along with the rights to every other player.

Until a new CBA is agreed upon that changes the existing rules, or until in the event of a decertification the last best offer replaces the CBA and it in fact reverts to 4 years, he would remain under the Patriots control provided he doesn't report by week 10 and secure his year of service credit. Because his situation doesn't change until a new league year commences. I believe this CBA has been in existence since 1993 and each successive CBA is just a collectively bargained amended version of that original CBA. In effect it would provide the basis upon which the sides would propose/negotiate amendments. So in that respect the rules roll over subject to last best offer amendment absent a new CBA. And of course if there is a lockout it's a moot point...everyone from the QB to the ball boy will be in limbo, and most of them will be absent compensation or on reduced compensation for the duration.

I believe DaBruinz is wrong in assuming a new CBA doesn't supercede an expired CBA. Although it would not invalidate an existing contract. Mankins however isn't under contract. If he were including if he'd signed his RFA tender and then held out, his contract would likely toll and he would in fact probably owe the team another year of service regardless of whether the rules for RFA's going forward reverted to 4 years.

 

[Metaphors]

The league cannot unilaterally implement the same CBA

While the statement is certainly accurate ("unilaterally" doesn't jibe with a "collective" agreement), I believe the sentiment isn't. Once the CBA expires, the league can declare negotiations to be at an impasse and just unilaterally implement new league rules for 2011 and beyond. It would then be up to the players to either play (not gonna happen), strike (possible but problematic) or sue (the most likely option).

Forcing a player strike gives the owners an air of douchebaggery. Not a good idea when America's top sport is on the line.

Getting this resolved in court almost never works out well for the owners...regardless of the strength or weakness of their case.

So a lockout starting in March is almost a certainty. Fortunately there is a long time between March and the end of August (when the new 18 game schedule will begin).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The CBA ends after the draft. After that comes the bargaining/negotiations. The league cannot unilaterally implement the same CBA, and neither can the players. What will have to happen is the back and forth with meetings, etc... If agreement is reached, the rules of said agreement will be followed. If agreement is not reached, what happens will depend upon the actions taken by the parties (a strike, a lockout or a "last best offer" scenario).


Edit: Here's one take on what could happen...

Wm. David Cornwell, Sr.: There Will Not Be a Lockout in the NFL

Like I said, it took years before and Cornwell anticipates it will take years again - during which the owners will get pretty much everything they want...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

While the statement is certainly accurate ("unilaterally" doesn't jibe with a "collective" agreement), I believe the sentiment isn't. Once the CBA expires, the league can declare negotiations to be at an impasse and just unilaterally implement new league rules for 2011 and beyond. It would then be up to the players to either play (not gonna happen), strike (possible but problematic) or sue (the most likely option).

Forcing a player strike gives the owners an air of douchebaggery. Not a good idea when America's top sport is on the line.

Getting this resolved in court almost never works out well for the owners...regardless of the strength or weakness of their case.

So a lockout starting in March is almost a certainty. Fortunately there is a long time between March and the end of August (when the new 18 game schedule will begin).

Oh, the players will play. DeMaurice recently admitted there is no support for a work stoppage among his rank and file. I think the lockout talk is largely rhetoric. The alternative works for both sides short term but probably not well for either long term. The Union doesn't stand to gain enough this time around to rally the troops, who will watch their dues go to the lawyers and the union suits while salary growth evaporates or slows to a crawl. The owners could find themselves stuck with some unpalatable court imposed rules down the road, although the increase in net franchise earnings in the interim could go a long way towards mitigating that.

Although getting back to Mankins situation, he's screwed either way. Since under unilateral ownership rules he's likely stuck here again in 2011 unless he shows up by week 10 this season, and if he is a UFA in 2011 it could be under a significantly reduced cap that would impact the FA market. While under a lockout he's not earning any money for upwards of 2 years, and in all liklihood the new league year whenever it commences could also be under a reduced cap.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Another thing, this may be wrong but I saw stated that his rookie contract was $7M. If so, after taxes fed & state plus agent's fees, he's neted $3.5M. He stated when signed that he was buying a home. Rational, he has a family. In MA or CA he could well have spent $1M. 2005 to 2010 is 6 years. 6 years of living expenses of ~$250K is another $1.5M. That leaves him with $1M or more, not enough to retire on with a family and under 30.

I heard Bob Neumier say LM has every penny of the 7 mill hes earned in the bank and thought thats the most absurd thing Ive heard all day, he never got 7 mill like you stated and he has to have spent some to live the last 6 years. He may have more than 1 mill but certainly doesnt have 7 mill.

 

[Fencer]

I heard Bob Neumier say LM has every penny of the 7 mill hes earned in the bank and thought thats the most absurd thing Ive heard all day, he never got 7 mill like you stated and he has to have spent some to live the last 6 years. He may have more than 1 mill but certainly doesnt have 7 mill.

Rapaport wrote that Mankins has most of the $7 million he made left. That's implausible, because total tax rates are too close to 50%.

What IS plausible is that Mankins has the majority of his after-tax pay left.

 

[Miguel]

People are forgetting that Mankins
earned postseason pay,
earned Pro Bowl pay,
earned performance-based pay
probably banked most of his preseason per diem
probably banked most of his regular season travel allowance.

May be getting paid to sponsor some local companies.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Nobody here is saying that Logan is gonna have trouble paying his bills over the next year or maybe two. He likely has low 7 figures. What everyone is saying is that he doesn't have anything like $7M plus extra earnings. Taxes, yearly living expenses and he talked about buying homes when 1st drafted. Not likely enough to retire for a long life with a family with young children. The mediots are the most clueless here.

 

[Off The Grid]

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.

You're joking, right??

 

[Off The Grid]

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.

THANK you.

There is a WEALTH of foolishness being posted on this one thread.

 

[Off The Grid]

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.

English...isn't your first language...IS it?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

People are forgetting that Mankins
earned postseason pay,
earned Pro Bowl pay,
earned performance-based pay
probably banked most of his preseason per diem
probably banked most of his regular season travel allowance.

May be getting paid to sponsor some local companies.

Other people are forgetting that when he was drafted Mankins already had three other family members to feed which grew to four and recently five, he bought or built a home in California and bought or rented a home here, he either bought a ranch of his own or he doesn't actually own a self sustaining ranch, his parents do, his family certainly traveled and lived here in season, he was hanging around Foxboro sans per diem and travel allowance this offseason, I've never seen or heard him sponsor anything locally or nationally, nor has he ever been one of the radio or TV regulars, and as marketable as he probably is in Cathy's Valley where cell phone reception is non existent and cattle outnumber two legged residents those gig's wouldn't amount to much and it's immaterial anyway since whatever anscillary income he may have generated was also subject to roughly the same tax rate.

This is one of the sillier aspects of a holdout we've ever debated here. His friends endeavored to characterize him as just fine without an NFL income, and his lifestyle may dictate that is absolutely the case. He can go back to herding cattle and competing in calf roping contests on the rodeo circuit. Doesn't change the fact that he's thumbed his nose at being exponentially better off because the offers not only weren't enough they were in fact insulting. The tender alone was equal to what he's likely taken home over the last five seasons and after taxes probably would have doubled his current net worth the way he squeezes a nickel 'til it screams. The long term contract wasn't to his liking, but it would have secured his extended family for generations. It's not about the money with Logan though, it's just about the principle of the money... And it's obviously not about football because Logan apparently neither financially needs or emotionally craves to play it. He didn't persue a football career so much as one persued him.

After playing out his 6 year rookie deal as a NT in the increasingly popular 3-4 defense, the Wilfork's were delighted by a 5 year $40M deal with $20M guaranteed and a couple of million in weight and workout clauses. Different strokes apparently.

 

[Off The Grid]

ahhhh. much better. on to football discussions

Well PLAYED, sir!! :rocker:

 

[Off The Grid]

THANK you.

There is a WEALTH of foolishness being posted on this one thread.

Heh! In all fairness, I posted the above in the wake of various and sundry emissions from Illegal Contact and his ilk...and before coming across the prose and wisdom of DaBruinz, MoLewis, et cetera!!

 

[tailgater]

Mankins is a goner. Pats have to trade him at this point. I believe he does have the will to sit out as long as it takes.

 

[The Brandon Five]

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

Name		Sack	Knock	Press	Tip	False
Light		0	3	5	0	2
Mankins		3	2	5	0	0
Koppen		1	1	4	0	0
Hochstein	1	2	1	0	0
Neal		0	0	0	0	0
Kaczur		2	2	3	1	0

Neither Kyle Brady, Ben Watson, or Kevin Faulk are included, as they didn't pass block enough to be significant. It is noteworthy how poor Kyle Brady's blocking was on the night, however.

Of the linemen, Logan Mankins in particular had his worst game of the season. Several times he took himself out of position, and when he was in position he was often straight-up beat, usually by Justin Tuck. Overall I'd say he had the worst game of the linemen.

Brees was sacked one time in SB 44 (by Dwight Freeney). Presumably Freeney was not Evans responsibility given that he is a RG. Brady was sacked five times, three of those charged to Mankins (see Unoriginal's breakdown above).

So on the biggest stage Evans allowed zero sacks while Mankins was culpable in three.

Gee, I can't figure out why this guy isn't the highest paid interior lineman in the whole league.

 

[Metaphors]

It's not about the money with Logan though, it's just about the principle of the money... And it's obviously not about football because Logan apparently neither financially needs or emotionally craves to play it. He didn't persue a football career so much as one persued him.

Two excellent points, which unfortunately are at complete odds with each other. Why would Mankins care about being paid at the absolute top of his position when he seems perfectly happy to walk away from football. In fact, why would he even know who Jahri Evans is, much less how much money he makes.

I suspect the agent is the only thing keeping these competing perspectives in play. No harm in it to this point since games haven't started yet. Once the sides seem to be content to just move on ("Connolly will do just fine" and "I'll just hang at the ranch for a year or 2 or 3 or ..."), then the agent is staring at a 3% commission on bubkas.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Originally Posted by DaBruinz
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.

THANK you.

There is a WEALTH of foolishness being posted on this one thread.

I think the ranch is a business and makes plenty of money, probably enough to sustain the whole Mankins clan. I think thats the point everyones trying to make. What it makes, who knows, probably not 36 mill.
Athletes equate money with principle, then say its not about the money :bricks:

 

[DaBruinz]

Actually, I love the pats. I just don't believe they are incapable of making their own mistakes whereas you obviously believe the only blame always liesbwith the players.

You keep spewing numbers and babble how he should suck it up and be hapyynwith whatever the pats offer him. Like you have all the facts. But you don't, and you're still acting like you know what should be done.

You're the yahoo, the zealot........you're a freak, more like a jets fan.

Stop acting like a pathetic victim.

You're a bold faced liar. You've already proven that. So don't give us this garbage about how you "love" the Patriots.

And no, I didn't say he should be "happy" with whatever the Pats offer him. What I said was that he is the one lying about the fact that the Pats didn't try and take care of him. Clearly they did. So, for him to claim otherwise is the lie.

As for believing that the blame only lies with the player, that is just you making stuff up. I review each case on it's own merit. I provided the facts as they have been reported and I provided how I came to my belied. You can sit there and claim I only support the Pats management, but you'd be wrong. I've voiced plenty of contradiction to things they've done. But I've also learned from my mistakes in that as well.

I'm not acting like a victim here. You clearly have no clue what the victim mentality is and you are, again, trying to divert the conversation.

 

[DaBruinz]

Mankins RFA situation is due to the change in the years of service requirement, not due to him being Logan Mankins. Mankins has 5 years of service time. Therefore, if the new CBA has a service requirement of less than 6 years before a player becomes a UFA, Mankins will become a UFA.

Wrong.. Mankins RFA status won't change with the new CBA. His status will be grandfathered in. Just like Jackson, McNeill, and any other RFA who hasn't signed prior to the end of the CBA.

The only way it won't change is if there is a specific clause written in to the new CBA that says otherwise. And I just don't see the owners giving that up.

As I said, there is already precedent in sports contracts to uphold my viewpoint. Both in the NFL and in other sports.