Kraft might be the reason Mankins leaves

[jah]

I'll just come out and say it: the suspicion that I've heard voiced privately is specifically that Mankins made an anti-semitic remark that got back to the Krafts. It has also been observed that the part of California that Mankins is from is virtually an outpost of the "Aryan Nation" movement. Entirely speculative of course, but if true, I wouldn't blame the Krafts at all for holding it against Mankins and demanding an apology (at least).

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I've got no basis for saying this, but I've always believed that one of the things going on when people call Kraft cheap is a veiled reference to his ethnicity. It actually started before he purchased the Patriots. I remember reading Boston papers where people questioned whether he had the team's best interests in mind, and it was stated overtly that unlike two of the other candidates to purchase the team, he was an outside in the region's old buy network.

Then when he tried to move the Patriots and fought for infrastructure, it was stated that the region's politicians were aligned against him, and in that discussion, out came the Irish background of top politicians at the time (I forget the head honcho's name, Speaker of House) and Kraft's Jewish background.

For a guy who pays to the salary cap, and sunk his own cash and behind into the construction of the stadium, without going the PSL route, I always felt that Kraft takes way too much guff about being cheap. Even Moss called him that after they paid Moss $9 million a year. What does it have to do with? Part of me thinks it's his ethnicity.

Mistah Speakah Tommy "Taxes" Finneran, a.k.a. "The Felon" on WRKO Talk Radio.

I believe that there was a "not one of us" or anti-semetic stink to the rejection of Kraft's South Boston stadium plans. At the time there were vociferous complaints that 10 weekends a year would ruin the neighborhood with traffic. Then these same yahoos a couple years later wet themselves with excitement when there was a proposal for a Red Sox stadium in the same sacrosanct neighborhood. Morons.

 

[bucky]

I've got no basis for saying this, but I've always believed that one of the things going on when people call Kraft cheap is a veiled reference to his ethnicity. It actually started before he purchased the Patriots. I remember reading Boston papers where people questioned whether he had the team's best interests in mind, and it was stated overtly that unlike two of the other candidates to purchase the team, he was an outside in the region's old buy network.

Then when he tried to move the Patriots and fought for infrastructure, it was stated that the region's politicians were aligned against him, and in that discussion, out came the Irish background of top politicians at the time (I forget the head honcho's name, Speaker of House) and Kraft's Jewish background.

For a guy who pays to the salary cap, and sunk his own cash and behind into the construction of the stadium, without going the PSL route, I always felt that Kraft takes way too much guff about being cheap. Even Moss called him that after they paid Moss $9 million a year. What does it have to do with? Part of me thinks it's his ethnicity.

While you can never rule out the role people's prejudices play in their judgments, even at a subconscious level, it should also be said that a third of the NFL owners are Jewish (though some are more pronounced than others) and 2 of these guys - Dan Snyder and Al Davis - are notorious for throwing their money around with little to show for it.

 

[RayClay]

Kraft wildly overpaid with long term contracts to Bledsoe, Law, Milloy, Lane and Rucci, (correct me if I'm somewhat off). he was generous to a fault. BB is the tightwad.

If there's anti semitism, Kraft has certainly overcome it becoming very wealthy and politically succesful.

did Mankins say something? i guess calling the owner a liar could be considered somewhat bad form.

Nevertheless, he's on the team and if he's willing to take a paltry 7-8 million he can play. The Pats are simply exercising their options for a player that wants a hell of a whole lot of money to play a position that doesn't warrant it in importance. It's not a running league anymore.

It's simple as that, he wants more money than they're offering, no conspiracy.

Oh, and his agent is an idiot.

 

[SanAngeloState]

I don't care who deserves the credit, as long as he leaves. Hopefully with a 2nd round pick in exchange.

 

[Rob0729]

They had an issue with Moss, Wilfork, Seymour, Samuel, Mankins. The theme is pretty clear. If a player is willing to take less than he's worth (Brady, Koppen, Warren, Bruschi, Light), there's no problem. If a player wants something close to what he's worth on the market, there's a problem.

Again, Seymour's issue was his own personal one. Not the way the Pats negotiate. His issue was when he decided his deal was beneath him with two years left on the deal. The Pats said they would negotiate with him when he had one year left on his deal and he wanted to get a new deal with two years left. Not because the Pats burnt him in negotiations. That is on Seymour. With one year left on his deal, they made him the highest paid d-lineman in history. A completely different issue.

Moss really didn't have an issue except that they didn't get a deal done until after free agency begun. In fact, they didn't put the franchise tag on him which was rumored because they knew he would have been insulted and disgruntled by the act. Most overblown story and a situation that happens to players all over the league.

The Wilfork situation was overblown too just because Wilfork felt he wanted to negotiate through the media. The Pats had every intention to pay the guy, but the process wasn't moving as fast as he would like. As for his wife, she has always been very vocal and forceful when it comes to her husband's career. She got one of Vince's fines from the league overturned by going to NY and reading Goodell the riot act.

The Pats have always been tough negotiators while Belichick was here. No doubt about it. No one had a problem with it when they were winning championships. When they were cutting Lawyer Milloy when he refused to take a pay cut or letting Chad Eaton walk because he wanted too much. Now people have problems with what they have been doing the entire Belichick era. In fact during the Super Bowl years, they were praised by fans and the media for doing what people rip them about now.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Or why cut his RFA tender in half last season when you didn't have to?

Because that was how Mankins chose to play his stupid game. Don't blame the Pats, they were just going down that same path as Mankins.

 

[IcyPatriot]

It's Jim Plunkett's fault.

Mankins would have a btter chance of getting the money if he had Clay Matthews type hair.

 

[BPF]

The bottom-line in business is this: People may disagree but it's healthy and leads to better results. I've been in business with a partner for 4 years now and we rarely agree on most matters. We have a clear understanding though that disagreeing with each other is acceptable and a healthy situation because ultimaltely it leads us to better overall management. Our disagreements lead to brainstorming and the end results are almost always positive for our company. If the we did not have independent thoughts/opinions, the whole idea of a "partnership" is defeated. Business people of conviction can and do disagree because there's always a good reason to do so, but all business partners are working towards the same goal so in the end it works out.

Kraft and BB may agree or disagree but Curran doesn't know that and neither do we but ultimately if they agree or disagree the decision will be made in tandem and the decision will be one that they think is the best for the team based on the situation at hand.

 

[Deus Irae]

Again, Seymour's issue was his own personal one. Not the way the Pats negotiate. His issue was when he decided his deal was beneath him with two years left on the deal. The Pats said they would negotiate with him when he had one year left on his deal and he wanted to get a new deal with two years left. Not because the Pats burnt him in negotiations. That is on Seymour. With one year left on his deal, they made him the highest paid d-lineman in history. A completely different issue.

Moss really didn't have an issue except that they didn't get a deal done until after free agency begun. In fact, they didn't put the franchise tag on him which was rumored because they knew he would have been insulted and disgruntled by the act. Most overblown story and a situation that happens to players all over the league.

The Wilfork situation was overblown too just because Wilfork felt he wanted to negotiate through the media. The Pats had every intention to pay the guy, but the process wasn't moving as fast as he would like. As for his wife, she has always been very vocal and forceful when it comes to her husband's career. She got one of Vince's fines from the league overturned by going to NY and reading Goodell the riot act.

The Pats have always been tough negotiators while Belichick was here. No doubt about it. No one had a problem with it when they were winning championships. When they were cutting Lawyer Milloy when he refused to take a pay cut or letting Chad Eaton walk because he wanted too much. Now people have problems with what they have been doing the entire Belichick era. In fact during the Super Bowl years, they were praised by fans and the media for doing what people rip them about now.

They were all the same basic situation, including Seymour, and they weren't overblown. And, yes, they are doing what they've always done. So why is it that so many of the homers insist that it's not being done?


P.S. Actually, there are people who have had a problem with the team's negotiating style from the beginning. Some were even writing articles about it back then.

 

[Deus Irae]

Because that was how Mankins chose to play his stupid game. Don't blame the Pats, they were just going down that same path as Mankins.

The Patriots chose the path by slapping the RFA tender on Mankins rather than working out a deal.

 

[Raymond]

The Wilfork situation was overblown too just because Wilfork felt he wanted to negotiate through the media. The Pats had every intention to pay the guy, but the process wasn't moving as fast as he would like. As for his wife, she has always been very vocal and forceful when it comes to her husband's career. She got one of Vince's fines from the league overturned by going to NY and reading Goodell the riot act.

Interesting. I didn't know that. Vince was unfairly hit with one or two fines that he didn't deserve, IMO.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

They had an issue with Moss, Wilfork, Seymour, Samuel, Mankins. The theme is pretty clear. If a player is willing to take less than he's worth (Brady, Koppen, Warren, Bruschi, Light), there's no problem. If a player wants something close to what he's worth on the market, there's a problem.

It could be said another way too, if you want to get every last dollar you can from the NFL your not going to get it from the Pats. If you want to get a good contract thats maybe 90% or so of what you may be able to get in the open market to stay with a team that has a winning formula then sign with the Pats.
Its part of their success in managing the cap, they have a top dollar amount for every position and they dont usually go above it, although you could say they have a couple times, Seymour being one, if BB feels that position is important to the teams success.

 

[Deus Irae]

It could be said another way too, if you want to get every last dollar you can from the NFL your not going to get it from the Pats. If you want to get a good contract thats maybe 90% or so of what you may be able to get in the open market to stay with a team that has a winning formula then sign with the Pats.
Its part of their success in managing the cap, they have a top dollar amount for every position and they dont usually go above it, although you could say they have a couple times, Seymour being one, if BB feels that position is important to the teams success.

Your position used to make sense as a 'style', especially in a salary capped league. However, given that the team hasn't won the Super Bowl since 2004, it no longer does. The problem with being a hardass (I'm not debating that there are good things about it, I'm just pointing out the problem aspect at the moment) is that you will lose players that you thought you could afford to, only to find out that you couldn't get adequate replacements, and hosed yourself as a result. It's really not surprising that the only time since 2004 that the team has been back to the Super Bowl is in the year where the team took a risk and made a big jump into the pool with guys like Stallworth, Moss and Welker, because the team seems to have failed to adjust with the times when it comes to dealing with its own high-end players.

It's not the player you lose that kills you. It's the player you don't adequately replace. When the team ditched Milloy, they had Harrison waiting and got lucky with Chung. That's not always been the case, though, and that seems to have become a bit of a blind spot for the organization. You can't be ditching Asante Samuel, replacing him with Deltha O'Neal, and expecting everything to work out just because you're Bill Belichick.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'm going to take the "Glass is Half Full" approach on this one.

Even though none of us, including those writing about it in the national media, have any idea what, if anything, is going on between Mankins and the Krafts, I'm willing, for the sake of discussion,to stipulate that something unpleasant has gone down there.

To which, my response is, "So what?"

The only other time in the 18 years since Kraft bought the team that there was a rumor of trouble between the Krafts and someone "on their payroll," was in 1996/7 when there was a lot of (unsubstantiated) talk about problems between the Krafts and Bill Parcells over some remarks by Parcells that supposedly upset Myra Kraft.

That's it. In 18 years, two very "alleged" instances of the owner unhelpfully "meddling" in the football side of the business. I present as Exhibits A and B in my argument that this shouldn't bother us at all, Messrs. Jones of Dallas and Snyder of Washington, neither of whose teams, with their ample meddling, has been in a Super Bowl during that period, while the Pats have gone to five.

 

[Rob0729]

They were all the same basic situation, including Seymour, and they weren't overblown. And, yes, they are doing what they've always done. So why is it that so many of the homers insist that it's not being done?


P.S. Actually, there are people who have had a problem with the team's negotiating style from the beginning. Some were even writing articles about it back then.

The Seymour situation is nothing like the others. The Pats said to Seymour they they weren't going to negotiate with him with two years left and at that point they had a universal policy that they do not do do deals two years early for anyone not named Tom Brady and every player knew it.

The Moss thing never got contenscious although the Pats were tough negotiators and Moss chose to return eventhough the Eagles offered him a very good contract. Moss never complained and nothing came of it other than speculations and rumors of Moss being upset of how he was treated. This time around, the Pats were right not to negotiate with him since he was on the downside of his career and showing signs of falling apart.

I don't think anything has changed with the Patriots negotiating style. They are tough negotiators. That is part of the reason why they are in the Super Bowl mix year after year while many teams who are free with their money are rarely in it. The Steelers would rather let a free agent walk away than pay them top dollar in most circumstances and they are the only team in the last decade that have come close to rivaling the Pats in Super Bowl appearances and wins over the last decade.

 

[Rob0729]

Your position used to make sense as a 'style', especially in a salary capped league. However, given that the team hasn't won the Super Bowl since 2004, it no longer does. The problem with being a hardass (I'm not debating that there are good things about it, I'm just pointing out the problem aspect at the moment) is that you will lose players that you thought you could afford to, only to find out that you couldn't get adequate replacements, and hosed yourself as a result. It's really not surprising that the only time since 2004 that the team has been back to the Super Bowl is in the year where the team took a risk and made a big jump into the pool with guys like Stallworth, Moss and Welker, because the team seems to have failed to adjust with the times when it comes to dealing with its own high-end players.

It's not the player you lose that kills you. It's the player you don't adequately replace. When the team ditched Milloy, they had Harrison waiting and got lucky with Chung. That's not always been the case, though, and that seems to have become a bit of a blind spot for the organization. You can't be ditching Asante Samuel, replacing him with Deltha O'Neal, and expecting everything to work out just because you're Bill Belichick.

First, the Pats were one of any three plays on the Giants' last drive from having a perfect season in 2007. Are we going to blame Kraft's/Belichick's hard-arse negotiating style for Asante Samuel dropping an easy INT or the refs not calling a pretty obvious "In the Grasp" call? This "haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004" argument is weak since the Pats were one minute away from having the best season in NFL history in 2007 and the reason why they failed has exactly 0% to do with how the Pats run their contract negotiation tactics.

Second, not replacing players lost with adequet replacements is a different issue. It has very little to do with their negotiating tactic. In fact, if they paid players like Samuel, they might have lost someone else nearly as important and replaced him with someone who would have failed just as bad or worse as O"Neil. Replacing Samuel with O'Neil was a mistake, but I don't blame that on their negotiating style. The Pats paid serious money to free agents like Adalius Thomas and Fred Taylor to come here. And they weren't replacing players who left because the Pats refused to pay them. Yet, they failed to deliver. This goes to their scouting of personnel of other teams more than anything else.

Third, the Pats in 2007 didn't really take anymore risk than they ever did in 2007. Moss was no risk. They got him for a fourth round pick and a low salary in 2007. They were able to take advantage of the fact that the Raiders were a mess and they needed to get rid of Moss when no one else wanted him. Welker is one of about a half dozen to dozen RFA the Pats offered contracts to over the years, but he was the only one that wasn't matched. He was the one they were most agressive about, but he wasn't the first or last one they went after. Stallworth signed a glorified one year deal with the Pats and was almost a non-factor by the end of the season replaced by a street free agent that the Pats picked up early in the season the previous year in Jabar Gaffney.

 

[Deus Irae]

First, the Pats were one of any three plays on the Giants' last drive from having a perfect season in 2007. Are we going to blame Kraft's/Belichick's hard-arse negotiating style for Asante Samuel dropping an easy INT or the refs not calling a pretty obvious "In the Grasp" call? This "haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004" argument is weak since the Pats were one minute away from having the best season in NFL history in 2007 and the reason why they failed has exactly 0% to do with how the Pats run their contract negotiation tactics.

Rob....

"It's really not surprising that the only time since 2004 that the team has been back to the Super Bowl is in the year where the team took a risk and made a big jump into the pool with guys like Stallworth, Moss and Welker,"

That's pretty clear, yet you either missed or ignored it prior to writing this portion of your post.

Second, not replacing players lost with adequet replacements is a different issue. It has very little to do with their negotiating tactic. In fact, if they paid players like Samuel, they might have lost someone else nearly as important and replaced him with someone who would have failed just as bad or worse as O"Neil. Replacing Samuel with O'Neil was a mistake, but I don't blame that on their negotiating style. The Pats paid serious money to free agents like Adalius Thomas and Fred Taylor to come here. And they weren't replacing players who left because the Pats refused to pay them. Yet, they failed to deliver. This goes to their scouting of personnel of other teams more than anything else.

Availability of a replacement is crucial in contract negotiations. How are you questioning that even for a moment? It's not even debatable.

Third, the Pats in 2007 didn't really take anymore risk than they ever did in 2007. Moss was no risk. They got him for a fourth round pick and a low salary in 2007. They were able to take advantage of the fact that the Raiders were a mess and they needed to get rid of Moss when no one else wanted him. Welker is one of about a half dozen to dozen RFA the Pats offered contracts to over the years, but he was the only one that wasn't matched. He was the one they were most agressive about, but he wasn't the first or last one they went after. Stallworth signed a glorified one year deal with the Pats and was almost a non-factor by the end of the season replaced by a street free agent that the Pats picked up early in the season the previous year in Jabar Gaffney.

Actually, they did. They spent picks and money on a player that was seemingly on the down side and a problem child, a player that was a consistent disappointment, and a player who they wanted enough to trade for in an RFA situation.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Seymour situation is nothing like the others.

You can keep saying that all you want. It's never going to be true. They are all battles between player perception of worth and team perception of acceptable payout.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Rob....

"It's really not surprising that the only time since 2004 that the team has been back to the Super Bowl is in the year where the team took a risk and made a big jump into the pool with guys like Stallworth, Moss and Welker,"

That's pretty clear, yet you either missed or ignored it prior to writing this portion of your post.

It wasnt much of a risk, Rob said the same thing. I think its something they try almost every year depending on whos available, that year just worked out better than previous years.