Is today deadline to trade Mankins?

[Kontradiction]

I wasn't intending that to be a pro-patriots or anti-Mankins sentiment. The fact remains, the idea that A) The Patriots could at any time simply go sign him and choose not to is silly, and/or B) That it is sound business practice or team-building to simply overpay for him because we had a rough running game against a top run defense is extremely silly.

You should read Rodak's write-up. The interior blocking issues weren't only evident in running game, but they were also evident in the passing game as well. Koppen is already a liability and Neal has aged. Both will probably be gone in a matter of years along with Light. Is paying our top flight LG while he's in his prime to both stabilize this O-Line and usher in a new era within the unit really too much to ask? Like I said, this is a no-brainer to me. Both sides need to open up talks again and get a deal done.

 

[Sicilian]

You should read Rodak's write-up. The interior blocking issues weren't only evident in running game, but they were also evident in the passing game as well. Koppen is already a liability and Neal has aged. Both will probably be gone in a matter of years along with Light. Is paying our top flight LG while he's in his prime to both stabilize this O-Line and usher in a new era within the unit really too much to ask? Like I said, this is a no-brainer to me. Both sides need to open up talks again and get a deal done.

Here's what you said (and what I was replying to):

"Pony up and sign this man immediately"

That, to me, doesn't indicate "both sides need to open up talks again and get a deal done". Sounds to me like you just want them to pay him whatever it takes, which is a terrible way to do business, IMO.

 

[Kontradiction]

Here's what you said (and what I was replying to):

"Pony up and sign this man immediately"

That, to me, doesn't indicate "both sides need to open up talks again and get a deal done". Sounds to me like you just want them to pay him whatever it takes, which is a terrible way to do business, IMO.

I've specified that I wouldn't go above $8M/year. That should get it done. In this case, one of the sides needs to budge in order to get talks moving. With the way our interior blocking looked this past Sunday (absolutely dreadful), it should be the Patriots making the first move.

 

[Sicilian]

I've specified that I wouldn't go above $8M/year. That should get it done. In this case, one of the sides needs to budge in order to get talks moving. With the way our interior blocking looked this past Sunday (absolutely dreadful), it should be the Patriots making the first move.

And that is where we wholeheartedly disagree. You don't make long term, high impact financial decisions based on desperation after one game. That's not a good way to build a team, and it's a terrible negotiating position.

 

[Kontradiction]

And that is where we wholeheartedly disagree. You don't make long term, high impact financial decisions based on desperation after one game. That's not a good way to build a team, and it's a terrible negotiating position.

It's not just about one game...

1. Continuity on the new offensive line that will feature both he and Vollmer in the coming years. Light, Koppen, and Neal are all not long for this team.

2. He's never been injured and has been a good citizen while he is here.

3. He is our best run blocker, and is in his prime.

4. This line has the same issues last year re: Neal and Koppen. No need to compound those issues this year when we can get Mankins back into camp to replace the third stringer Connolly.

When you have a guy as good as Mankins is, is in his prime, can stabilize the current line, and can provide a starting block for the new O-Line... I don't see why you can't pay him. The Jets game is just one of many examples that I can use from 2009 and will no doubt be able to use from 2010. The team won't financially go tits-up from giving him an $8M/year contract. So, yeah, I don't see why you don't do it.

 

[Deus Irae]

And that is where we wholeheartedly disagree. You don't make long term, high impact financial decisions based on desperation after one game. That's not a good way to build a team, and it's a terrible negotiating position.

It's not been just one game. Connolly has never been good enough to be a starter, and Mankins is has been a top flight guard for years.

 

[Sicilian]

It's not been just one game. Connolly has never been good enough to be a starter, and Mankins is has been a top flight guard for years.

He's had TWO GAMES to really show this. No doubt they should be trying to sign Mankins, but the idea that they should go crawling to him now because Connelly isn't an all pro is absurd.

 

[Kontradiction]

He's had TWO GAMES to really show this. No doubt they should be trying to sign Mankins, but the idea that they should go crawling to him now because Connelly isn't an all pro is absurd.

Who said anything about "crawling"? It's not crawling when you're doing what you should have done a long time ago.

 

[Deus Irae]

He's had TWO GAMES to really show this. No doubt they should be trying to sign Mankins, but the idea that they should go crawling to him now because Connelly isn't an all pro is absurd.

Connolly has been in the NFL since 2005 and has never been able to win a starting job. Also, he started 4 games last year due to starter injury, and he couldn't get it done then.

And I haven't seen anyone suggest crawling in this thread.

 

[Sicilian]

Who said anything about "crawling"? It's not crawling when you're doing what you should have done a long time ago.

Connolly has been in the NFL since 2005 and has never been able to win a starting job. Also, he started 4 games last year due to starter injury, and he couldn't get it done then.

And I haven't seen anyone suggest crawling in this thread.

You're right, my word usage was incorrect, no one actually suggested crawling, but it was somewhat implied. Basically, the thought was put forward that because the line didn't look good against the Jets (ignoring that it looked pretty good against Cincinnati), that suddenly this means they should really get down to business and pay the man.

That idea suggests two things. 1) That the Patriots don't really want him on the team, and thus haven't been working to do this already (I find this unlikely), and 2) That it's entirely up to them and Mankins' attitude has absolutely nothing to do with the decision. It's all Pats, either pay him, or don't, and without knowing details of the negotiations, this is an unfair slant IMO.

But I do apologize for my word usage, I didn't mean to misrepresent. Just in a foul mood I suppose.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're right, my word usage was incorrect, no one actually suggested crawling, but it was somewhat implied. Basically, the thought was put forward that because the line didn't look good against the Jets (ignoring that it looked pretty good against Cincinnati), that suddenly this means they should really get down to business and pay the man.

That idea suggests two things. 1) That the Patriots don't really want him on the team, and thus haven't been working to do this already (I find this unlikely), and 2) That it's entirely up to them and Mankins' attitude has absolutely nothing to do with the decision. It's all Pats, either pay him, or don't, and without knowing details of the negotiations, this is an unfair slant IMO.

But I do apologize for my word usage, I didn't mean to misrepresent. Just in a foul mood I suppose.

No apologies needed, good sir.

 

[Off The Grid]

Mankins is done here. No way they extend him now because they reserve those deals for guys who bring more to the table than talent. He's stated he will come in in week 10 and be available for the last six games. Bill will take him up on that for peanuts, even if he doens't start him. If he plays Mankins will have to play well or he shoots himself in the heart (as opposed to the foot where he's already wounded himself extensively). The only way you see him here beyond this season is if he comes back and essentially takes whatever deal is on the table and apoligizes profusely in public and private whether he wants to or should be expected to or not. Otherwise there is no way they are guaranteeing him in excess of $20M... And depending on what happens with the CBA and what their cap position is heading into 2011 and how he performs down the stretch in 2010 there is every reason to believe they will use the tag on him in an effort to facilitate compensation in a trade.

Beautifull, beautifull, beautifull.

 

[Off The Grid]

You're right, my word usage was incorrect, no one actually suggested crawling, but it was somewhat implied. Basically, the thought was put forward that because the line didn't look good against the Jets (ignoring that it looked pretty good against Cincinnati), that suddenly this means they should really get down to business and pay the man.

That idea suggests two things. 1) That the Patriots don't really want him on the team, and thus haven't been working to do this already (I find this unlikely), and 2) That it's entirely up to them and Mankins' attitude has absolutely nothing to do with the decision. It's all Pats, either pay him, or don't, and without knowing details of the negotiations, this is an unfair slant IMO.

But I do apologize for my word usage, I didn't mean to misrepresent. Just in a foul mood I suppose.

Absolutely exquisite.

Thank YOU, Brothers Sicilian and Contra, for a RICH, textured Argument.

 

[mgteich]

To me, it is worth signing Mankins at $500K a game for 2010 to have a better chance at the Super Bowl. But that just me; it's Kraft's money.

Mankins is a huge upgrade over Connolly, and Connolly is a huge upgrade over Wendell as a backup.
============================

A long term deal is much more complicated. Issues include how much guaranteed money the patriots are willing to pay a guard, projections of how much Mankins could get elsewhere next year, and various projections regarding the 2011 player agreement.
============================

I would guess that Belichick doesn't want to sign Mankins short-term while there is still a chance at a long-term contract. The question is whether belichick will trade him before the October trade deadline. As long as Connolly and Neal are both healthy, the immediate pressure is reduced.

 

[IcyPatriot]

ESPN was reporting he's coming back for the last 6 games. We'll franchise him next year.

 

[mgteich]

We are very unlikely to franchise Mankins. He would get the average of the five highest paid LT's.

ESPN was reporting he's coming back for the last 6 games. We'll franchise him next year.

 

[Gwedd]

I still stand by my projection that Mankins will be suiting up for the Patriots and practicing during the bye week.