LG please not Ryan Wendell

[crowell33]

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet

Look at that picture. There must be 5 guys in McShays Pub who look more reading to start in the NFL than Wendell.

 

[Ring 6]

Ummm, thats pretty much what an NFL G looks like.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Ummm, thats pretty much what an NFL G looks like.

+1.

Heck, that's more or less what Mankins looks like these days. . . .

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

So im guessing that we're going to have 800 threads about the o-line between now, and game 1 :violent:

 

[Patspsycho]

So im guessing that we're going to have 800 threads about the o-line between now, and game 1 :violent:

That could perhaps be between now and before game 10. I don't think Mankins wants to lose a year towards his UFA status, especially if next year is a lockout.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

That could perhaps be between now and before game 10. I don't think Mankins wants to lose a year towards his UFA status, especially if next year is a lockout.

lets hope its not that long of a wait

 

[IllegalContact]

So im guessing that we're going to have 800 threads about the o-line between now, and game 1 :violent:

Considering they have pro bowl LG they do not wish to employ, it should be a topic

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

Considering they have pro bowl LG they do not wish to employ, it should be a topic

what do you mean 'they do not wish to employ'? they made him a very good offer. He's the one who thinks he deserves more, and he's one of the ONLY people that thinks he's worth it.

 

[Metaphors]

That could perhaps be between now and before game 10. I don't think Mankins wants to lose a year towards his UFA status, especially if next year is a lockout.

Rules are different this year. If Mankins doesn't report by Tuesday, he loses 2010 as an accrued year. Probably not a big deal since the next CBA is unlikely to have more than a 4 year UFA provision.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't know if Wendall can play, but based on his picture alone he looks like a prototypical guard. The Pats' o-line system is one that uses smaller faster linemen for the most part. The Pats do not use the huge beefy loads like other teams do. If you looked at all of the Pats line in street clothes and didn't know who they were, you wouldn't peg them off the bat as NFL offensive linemen.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Rules are different this year. If Mankins doesn't report by Tuesday, he loses 2010 as an accrued year. Probably not a big deal since the next CBA is unlikely to have more than a 4 year UFA provision.

Apparently that rule only applies to players under contract; since Mankins didn't sign his tender, he's not under contract.

OTOH, a certain "Island" in New Jersey is subject to this rule. . . . :singing:

 

[Rob0729]

Apparently that rule only applies to players under contract; since Mankins didn't sign his tender, he's not under contract.

OTOH, a certain "Island" in New Jersey is subject to this rule. . . . :singing:

Yeah, Mankins only loses his accrued season if he doesn't report by week 10. The only significant player around the league that I know of in danger of losing his 2010 eligibility if he doesn't show up by Tuesday is Darrell Revis. If Revis doesn't show up to camp by Tuesday, I think the Jets should expect the guy could sit the year. I never thought a player would sit out a season ever again, but it could happen this year because of the uncapped year.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Apparently that rule only applies to players under contract; since Mankins didn't sign his tender, he's not under contract.

OTOH, a certain "Island" in New Jersey is subject to this rule. . . . :singing:

Yeah, Mankins only loses his accrued season if he doesn't report by week 10.

Technically Mankins is a free agent and not under contract - but he's an RFA and of course that's the big sticking point here... had we not been in this CBA transition he WOULD be an UFA.

So I guess some of the questions Mankins would be asking himself is whether the next CBA would continue to treat him like an RFA even if he sat out the entire season.

On that count I think it's unlikely the next CBA would contain a provision for players in Mankins situation who sat out all 2010, seeing as they already served an extra year as an RFA.

That being said, if Mankins held out all season, followed by a lockout in 2011, and entered free agency in 2012 if a new CBA can be hammered out, that's a long time of inactivity and Mankins should be seriously wondering what the market value for a 30 year old inside lineman who hasn't played in 2 years would be, assuming the CBA is even friendly to the players in general or players in Mankin's situation in particular.

We don't have all the details of the Patriots offer to Mankins but even a deal that's 20% less than Jahiri Evan's contract (or at least that's what Mankin's agent was complaining about) strikes me as the better alternative for Mankins.

Jahiri Evans was 26 when that contract was signed this year. Mankins would be 30 with 2 years of inactivity in 2012 and if the owners get their way the salary cap isn't going to rise as dramatically in the future.

That's a long time to wait for a payoff that I think would be less than his current offer - and he'd be missing the guaranteed money over the next 2 years as well, and be 2 years closer to retirement.

If Mankins is thinking this through clearly, injury or no injury to Kaczur, it's in his best interest to settle with the Patriots and take the cash he can now, before the lockout.

 

[Deus Irae]

Technically Mankins is a free agent and not under contract - but he's an RFA and of course that's the big sticking point here... had we not been in this CBA transition he WOULD be an UFA.

So I guess some of the questions Mankins would be asking himself is whether the next CBA would continue to treat him like an RFA even if he sat out the entire season.

On that count I think it's unlikely the next CBA would contain a provision for players in Mankins situation who sat out all 2010, seeing as they already served an extra year as an RFA.

That being said, if Mankins held out all season, followed by a lockout in 2011, and entered free agency in 2012 if a new CBA can be hammered out, that's a long time of inactivity and Mankins should be seriously wondering what the market value for a 30 year old inside lineman who hasn't played in 2 years would be, assuming the CBA is even friendly to the players in general or players in Mankin's situation in particular.

We don't have all the details of the Patriots offer to Mankins but even a deal that's 20% less than Jahiri Evan's contract (or at least that's what Mankin's agent was complaining about) strikes me as the better alternative for Mankins.

Jahiri Evans was 26 when that contract was signed this year. Mankins would be 30 with 2 years of inactivity in 2012 and if the owners get their way the salary cap isn't going to rise as dramatically in the future.

That's a long time to wait for a payoff that I think would be less than his current offer - and he'd be missing the guaranteed money over the next 2 years as well, and be 2 years closer to retirement.

If Mankins is thinking this through clearly, injury or no injury to Kaczur, it's in his best interest to settle with the Patriots and take the cash he can now, before the lockout.

If there's a lockout and lost season, every player will have been "out of football" for a year. The lost time is essentially meaningless under those circumstances.

 

[JoeSixPat]

If there's a lockout and lost season, every player will have been "out of football" for a year. The lost time is essentially meaningless under those circumstances.

The point isn't that every player in the NFL will have been sitting out a year.

It's that Mankins will have been sitting out 2 years - and my guess is that a 30 year old left guard who hasn't played in the last 2 years will be worth LESS than a 28 year old left guard who has been a consistent player for the immediate past seasons.

If Mankins truly feels that he'd come out ahead by refusing something in the range of but less than Jahiri Evans's Year 1 payout of $19 million, and sitting out for the next 2 years then he should definately proceed with this course of action.

But that would have to be one helluva big signing bonus in 2012 to make this worthwhile to him, and again, my guess is that a 2012 contract offer to a 30 year old OL who hasn't played in 2 years won't get as large an offer the one the Patriots made to an active, consistent 28 year old OL in 2010... especially in a new CBA that is bound to be more owner friendly.

 

[Deus Irae]

The point isn't that every player in the NFL will have been sitting out a year.

It's that Mankins will have been sitting out 2 years - and my guess is that a 30 year old left guard who hasn't played in the last 2 years will be worth LESS than a 28 year old left guard who has been a consistent player for the immediate past seasons.

And my point is that nobody will have been playing in the immediate past season.

 

[JoeSixPat]

And my point is that nobody will have been playing in the immediate past season.

Which has absolutely nothing to with my point - that Mankins is cutting off his nose to spite his face, losing a bigger signing bonus/contract now for a smaller one in 2 years, and having no income for that period of time either.

 

[Deus Irae]

Which has absolutely nothing to with my point - that Mankins is cutting off his nose to spite his face, losing a bigger signing bonus/contract now for a smaller one in 2 years, and having no income for that period of time either.

Actually, it does. You were pointing to the years of inaction. I was noting that a lost season would mean that every NFL player had a year of inaction (albeit some players may decide to play for some other league). Your claim about the smaller contract is conjecture. My point about the period of inaction is not.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Actually, it does. You were pointing to the years of inaction. I was noting that a lost season would mean that every NFL player had a year of inaction (albeit some players may decide to play for some other league). Your claim about the smaller contract is conjecture. My point about the period of inaction is not.

Yes.... you've got me... with pretty much the same argument that those who point out that the Theory of Evolution is just a theory. You and the Creationists can proudly claim debate victory while engaging in conjecture about why God buried so many dinosaur bones 5000 years ago when he created the Universe.

Of course I'm not comparing Mankins to other players coming off of 1 year of inactivity compared to his 2... I'm comparing Mankins and his likely contract offerings in his prime at age 28 to a the contract offerings to Mankins at age 30 following 2 years of inactivity entering a new CBA that's most likely more owner friendly.

You might be opposed to common sense conjecture, but I promise you, Logan Mankins and his agent are very much engaged in exactly this sort of conjecture.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes.... you've got me... with pretty much the same argument that those who point out that the Theory of Evolution is just a theory.

Of course I'm not comparing Mankins to other players coming off of 1 year of inactivity compared to his 2... I'm comparing Mankins and his likely contract offerings in his prime at age 28 to a the contract offerings to Mankins at age 30 following 2 years of inactivity entering a new CBA that's most likely more owner friendly.

You might be opposed to common sense conjecture, but I promise you, Logan Mankins and his agent are very much engaged in exactly this sort of conjecture.

There's nothing common sense about your conjecture, though. Whatevver Mankins and his agent are engaged in, it's pretty clear that they aren't following your path to date. You're making an assumption and jumping on it, nothing more.