Jason Cole: Mankins refused renegotiation twice

[mayoclinic]

If that were the case, why ask him to take a paycut? Clearly if he said yes, he would not have been traded.

I agree with Nut on this one.

The Pats had reportedly been interested in Tim Wright for several weeks. If Mankins had restructured then the odds are that they would have traded someone else away for Wright when Tampa Bay called asking about possible availability of lineman. But if Mankins' play had been commensurate with his contract, then the Pats wouldn't have considered trading him in the first place.

The two issues are intertwined, but I don't think the Pats would have traded Mankins away if they believed that there was a huge dropoff at LG that would hurt the team.

 

[voluntarysaftey]

But its not being practical, Galeb. You cannot deny that, while he is still an above average OG, he's hasn't been the player who earned that big contract for a couple of years now. In other words he's no longer playing to the level of that big contract. There is no WAY that another team would give him the same money if he were on the open market.

The Pats did him a HUGE favor by trading him a to a team with a desperate need for an interior offensive lineman and the cap room to be able to significantly overpay for a declining asset. Its a deal that works for both parties, even though its not perfect for either side.

This is wrong -- no favor was done.
I agree he has not lived up to the contract -- I didn't like the contract at the time.

However, the already earned/guaranteed signing bonus portion he gets even if he was cut.
So the question is, would he have gotten more than what is remaining on his contract on the open market.

And the answer is YES --- which is why the Pats didn't cut him -- his remaining salary is less than what a an equivalent free agent would cost the pats; and it's why Tampa decided to give up a pre-bowl potential 2nd year TE for him.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with Nut on this one.

The Pats had reportedly been interested in Tim Wright for several weeks. If Mankins had restructured then the odds are that they would have traded someone else away for Wright when Tampa Bay called asking about possible availability of lineman. But if Mankins' play had been commensurate with his contract, then the Pats wouldn't have considered trading him in the first place.

The two issues are intertwined, but I don't think the Pats would have traded Mankins away if they believed that there was a huge dropoff at LG that would hurt the team.

Lets put it this way. If Mankins wasnt traded he would be starting.
If Mankins took a paycut he wouldn't be traded.
Therefore, money was a large motivating factor.
I'm not saying the sky if falling, but the best player for LG was traded due to his cap hit.
Overall, I have no doubt it helps the team, but in the short term, its not so clear.

 

[mayoclinic]

Lets put it this way. If Mankins wasnt traded he would be starting.
If Mankins took a paycut he wouldn't be traded.
Therefore, money was a large motivating factor.
I'm not saying the sky if falling, but the best player for LG was traded due to his cap hit.
Overall, I have no doubt it helps the team, but in the short term, its not so clear.

I think you can spin it different ways. If Mankins hadn't been traded and didn't take a paycut he might have been cut outright, if the team felt that a younger cheaper player could start without a significant dropoff.

The money issue was obviously intertwined with the player performance issue, but if either Mankins' performance had been commensurate with his salary OR if there wasn't an adequate alternative, he never would have been traded. That's why the Pats kept him in the past, just like every other player at every position.

 

[SB39]

Overall, I have no doubt it helps the team, but in the short term, its not so clear.

In the short term, it probably hurts, but the reason why this team has been so successful for so long is they are constantly thinking long term. The true gain from trading Mankins is the guy you get to sign/keep with the money you're no longer slated to give to him.

 

[Ring 6]

I think you can spin it different ways. If Mankins hadn't been traded and didn't take a paycut he might have been cut outright, if the team felt that a younger cheaper player could start without a significant dropoff.

The money issue was obviously intertwined with the player performance issue, but if either Mankins' performance had been commensurate with his salary OR if there wasn't an adequate alternative, he never would have been traded. That's why the Pats kept him in the past, just like every other player at every position.

Its not spin its a statement of the facts.
They would not go to him about a paycut just before trading him if they were going to cut him, or if it wasn't about money.
I understand what you are saying about the replacement, and perhaps the dropoff will be slight, but they would have paid Mankins a lot more than Josh Kline, or whoever else replaces him to play LG and he would have been out there starting.
Whether he would be cut if he wouldn't take a paycut does nothing to show it ISNT about money.

 

[Galeb]

Its not spin its a statement of the facts.
They would not go to him about a paycut just before trading him if they were going to cut him, or if it wasn't about money.
I understand what you are saying about the replacement, and perhaps the dropoff will be slight, but they would have paid Mankins a lot more than Josh Kline, or whoever else replaces him to play LG and he would have been out there starting.
Whether he would be cut if he wouldn't take a paycut does nothing to show it ISNT about money.

A paycut would not guarantee not being cut or traded. We're not dealing with fixed objects. People (players) are constantly changing, and so are a myriad of circumstances and other teams' needs.

 

[mayoclinic]

Its not spin its a statement of the facts.
They would not go to him about a paycut just before trading him if they were going to cut him, or if it wasn't about money.
I understand what you are saying about the replacement, and perhaps the dropoff will be slight, but they would have paid Mankins a lot more than Josh Kline, or whoever else replaces him to play LG and he would have been out there starting.
Whether he would be cut if he wouldn't take a paycut does nothing to show it ISNT about money.

All I'm saying is that performance and pay go hand in hand.

Mankins wasn't cut in 2013. Why? Because of some combination of (1) the team believed that his performance was one line with his contract, and (2) the team did not have an effective alternative at his position.

We don't know that there will be a dropoff at LG this year. It's quite possible that Mankins continues to deteriorate as a pass blocker, and that Kline or Cannon or whoever the Pats put in there ends up developing to be better than Mankisn this year. I understand that the odds suggest that there will probably be a dropoff of some kind, but it's by no means certain, and the team probably has a much better read on the situation than we do. It's not uncommon for aging veterans to get beat out, and teams that keep players based on past reputation and performance seldom have a record of long term success.

The comparison I made was Pittsburgh cutting Joey Porter in 2007:

Steelers cut Porter, Haynes to get under cap - ESPN
Cutting Porter wasn't easy, Steelers say - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Everyone thought the move was mainly about money, and that the Steelers were getting weaker by cutting one of their defensive stars. James Harrison was an unknown at the time, and barely mentioned. The idea that the team also knew they had a star in the making and wanted to make room for him was never really considered at the time.

Obviously, we don't know whether the Pats think they have a "star" LG in the making. We don't know their evaluation of their own linemen. Maybe the move was all about money. Maybe Mankins would have started if he had stayed. Or maybe not. But I don't think it's as clear-cut as you say, and I doubt the Pats would have made the move if they considered the dropoff at LG to be unacceptably large.

 

[mayoclinic]

A paycut would not guarantee not being cut or traded. We're not dealing with fixed objects. People (players) are constantly changing, and so are a myriad of circumstances and other teams' needs.

Tommy Kelly took a pay cut, and was still cut.

 

[Ring 6]

A paycut would not guarantee not being cut or traded. We're not dealing with fixed objects. People (players) are constantly changing, and so are a myriad of circumstances and other teams' needs.

Well the league could disband tomorrow too, but I think we can safely agree that if Mankins was offered a paycut Tuesday and traded when he rejected it, that he wasn't being cut or traded if he accepted it.

 

[Ring 6]

Tommy Kelly took a pay cut, and was still cut.

Kelly took a paycut in March, not the day before he was cut.

 

[mayoclinic]

Kelly took a paycut in March, not the day before he was cut.

And when a team approaches a player with a week left in training camp and asks that he take a pay cut (for the second time this offseason) and he refuses, I think the obvious implication it that they consider him expendable based on his performance, and that he will be cut or traded if he declines.

 

[Ring 6]

And when a team approaches a player with a week left in training camp and asks that he take a pay cut (for the second time this offseason) and he refuses, I think the obvious implication it that they consider him expendable based on his performance, and that he will be cut or traded if he declines.

Sure, but thats not what we are discussing.
We are discussing that if it were not a money issue, Mankins would be playing LG for the Patriots.

 

[Ring 6]

I think you are confusing 'best player at the position' with 'worth the money'.

 

[mayoclinic]

Sure, but thats not what we are discussing.
We are discussing that if it were not a money issue, Mankins would be playing LG for the Patriots.

I thought we were discussing that if it wasn't a performance issue, Mankins would be playing LG for the Patriots. The money wouldn't be an issue if the performance had justified it.

 

[Ring 6]

I thought we were discussing that if it wasn't a performance issue, Mankins would be playing LG for the Patriots. The money wouldn't be an issue if the performance had justified it.

Not me, I think that is a given.
I was discussing that despite him being viewed as 'not worth the money' he was still the best option we had to play LG from a purely football sense.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Not me, I think that is a given.
I was discussing that despite him being viewed as 'not worth the money' he was still the best option we had to play LG from a purely football sense.

Pretty much - no matter how you feel about this trade from a cap management perspective, I think it's a virtual guarantee that the Pats will be worse at LG this year than they would've been if Mankins was still here.

 

[mayoclinic]

Not me, I think that is a given.
I was discussing that despite him being viewed as 'not worth the money' he was still the best option we had to play LG from a purely football sense.

And I'm still saying that I'm not so sure about that. Last year he was "not worth the money", but "he was still the best option we had to play LG from a purely football sense". This year I'm not so sure the coaching staff felt the same way - or at the very least, I'm guessing they thought the cap had closed considerably.

 

[Ring 6]

Pretty much - no matter how you feel about this trade from a cap management perspective, I think it's a virtual guarantee that the Pats will be worse at LG this year than they would've been if Mankins was still here.

I wouldn't go so far as 'guarantee' since the player leaving is on the way down, and the one taking his place is on the way up. And from a pass blocking perspective, the bar wasn't set very high.

 

[Ring 6]

And I'm still saying that I'm not so sure about that. Last year he was "not worth the money", but "he was still the best option we had to play LG from a purely football sense". This year I'm not so sure the coaching staff felt the same way - or at the very least, I'm guessing they thought the cap had closed considerably.

As I said, if they didn't think he had value they wouldn't have tried to do a paycut instead.
At this point we are just repeating the same positions that neither of us seem to agree with the other on, so last word is yours, but not much value in beating a dead animal.