LG please not Ryan Wendell

[efin98]

This is really quite funny because you've got the temerity to insult everyone else's reading comprehension.

I'll make this simple.

Forget about other players. Period. You're the only one who seems obsessed with the bizarre notion that a 1 year layoff for other players somehow means Mankins will get more in 2 years than he will now.

Look at Mankins and only Mankins and let's assume he fully sits out this year, and next year is a lockout year. Ask yourself whether he's worth more at age 30 after 2 years of inactivity than he is at age 28 coming off a string of productive seasons.

You obviously think he's worth more at age 30 with 2 years of rust than he is now... we'd all just love to hear your theory of WHY that is and how he's going to earn enough MORE to offset the 2 years that he could be enjoying the 2010 signing bonus he's thumbing his nose at.

You chortle proclaiming that there's an absense of common sense at any suggestion a 30 year old Mankins would command less of a contract after sitting out for 2 years than a 28 year year old Mankins would today

... so once again, please explain to us YOUR "common sense" that the 30 year old rusty Mankins be worth MORE than he is today.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize it...

Two years older, two years away from the game, two years behind others in his draft class playing himself against younger guys at a position that at that time is the start or in the middle of a decline...two years wasted for a net loss for him in his salary because there is no way in hell any team gives him the contract he would have gotten from the Patriots with so long away.

You are right, but if the forum contrarian doesn't want to see it so be it. Don't fuel his ego by continuing to argue a point that was already ignored by him. It's not worth it Joe, it's not worth it.

 

[JoeSixPat]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize it...

Two years older, two years away from the game, two years behind others in his draft class playing himself against younger guys at a position that at that time is the start or in the middle of a decline...two years wasted for a net loss for him in his salary because there is no way in hell any team gives him the contract he would have gotten from the Patriots with so long away.

You are right, but if the forum contrarian doesn't want to see it so be it. Don't fuel his ego by continuing to argue a point that was already ignored by him. It's not worth it Joe, it's not worth it.

Yes - thanks for pointing that out and reaffirming that it's NOT rocket science... meanwhile the crickets are chirping as we await Deus' personal version of how it's "common sense" that a 30 year old rusty Mankins will command a large enough contract above the one offered to his 28 year old self to make up for the lost income.

Internet message boards often have this weird attraction for those who like to argue and need to find an outlet for something that's lacking in their lives. It can be quite poisonous in some cases.

Mankins and his agent no doubt see the common sense of getting paid now or getting paid nothing for the next 2 years. While I understand their posturing - i.e. the NEED to sound willing to sit out - it seems clear that the Patriots understand their quandary as well.

Hopefully some agreement can be reached sooner rather than later.

I understand why Mankins wouldn't risk injury on a one year contract at $3.2 million let alone the current tender offer - and if this were a normal season sitting out until Game 10 might be an actual option.

But this isn't a normal season and that changes things greatly for Mankins and his agent in their planning and posturing.

A face saving agreement that's perceived as slightly better than the Patriots original offer strikes me as the best case scenario. I'm not sure the Patriots like the precedent of letting hold-out players demand and get trades simply because of the precedent it sets and the problems down the road when other players attempt the same play.

 

[crowell33]

Yes - thanks for pointing that out and reaffirming that it's NOT rocket science... meanwhile the crickets are chirping as we await Deus' personal version of how it's "common sense" that a 30 year old rusty Mankins will command a large enough contract above the one offered to his 28 year old self to make up for the lost income.

"Internet message boards often have this weird attraction for those who like to argue and need to find an outlet for something that's lacking in their lives. It can be quite poisonous in some cases."


I don't think we're suppose to be talking about this.........

 

[efin98]

Yes - thanks for pointing that out and reaffirming that it's NOT rocket science... meanwhile the crickets are chirping as we await Deus' personal version of how it's "common sense" that a 30 year old rusty Mankins will command a large enough contract above the one offered to his 28 year old self to make up for the lost income.

Internet message boards often have this weird attraction for those who like to argue and need to find an outlet for something that's lacking in their lives. It can be quite poisonous in some cases.

Mankins and his agent no doubt see the common sense of getting paid now or getting paid nothing for the next 2 years. While I understand their posturing - i.e. the NEED to sound willing to sit out - it seems clear that the Patriots understand their quandary as well.

Hopefully some agreement can be reached sooner rather than later.

I understand why Mankins wouldn't risk injury on a one year contract at $3.2 million let alone the current tender offer - and if this were a normal season sitting out until Game 10 might be an actual option.

But this isn't a normal season and that changes things greatly for Mankins and his agent in their planning and posturing.

A face saving agreement that's perceived as slightly better than the Patriots original offer strikes me as the best case scenario. I'm not sure the Patriots like the precedent of letting hold-out players demand and get trades simply because of the precedent it sets and the problems down the road when other players attempt the same play.

Agreed in full.

How many players have come back from being out of football for two years that wasn't due to injury and played at a level that Deus seems to think he could still play at? I'd welcome a list like this especially compatible O-Linemen...

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Yes - thanks for pointing that out and reaffirming that it's NOT rocket science... meanwhile the crickets are chirping as we await Deus' personal version of how it's "common sense" that a 30 year old rusty Mankins will command a large enough contract above the one offered to his 28 year old self to make up for the lost income.

Isn't this a question that Mankins needs to ask his agent? Fair is fair and Mankins has earned the right to be paid as an all pro.

Given that this is probably his only opportunity for a chance for a large contract that could potentially create generational wealth for his family; what is FMV for an all pro OG?

Before answering consider the following:

1.) Mankins risks injury every time he steps on a game or practice field,.

2.) Mankins risks permanent disability every time he steps on a game or practice field.

3.) Mankins future quality of life is negatively impacted due to playing this game and all of his joints and back will probably bother him for the rest of his life.

4.) Mankins life span will be shortened by playing this game. It least statiscally speaking.

5.) What is the long term impact of multiple concussions on Mankin's mental faculties from playing this game?

I don't know what size contract the Pats should offer or what size contract Mankins should sign, all I know is that this a very unforgiving game both mentally and physically with lots of consequences. And at the end of the day all contracts require both parties signature.

 

[SanAngeloState]

Given that mankins already served 5 years and was promised to be "paid", I can see how 1 year at 1.8M or whatever is insulting. They should have offered him like 5-6M for one year in light of his 5 year rookie contract etc.

Maybe they could still do that. He'd have injury risk for one year but it's better than not being paid at all for one year, most likely.

I realize another poster basically said that but I had the same thought before reading it.

 

[Ring 6]

Given that mankins already served 5 years and was promised to be "paid", I can see how 1 year at 1.8M or whatever is insulting. They should have offered him like 5-6M for one year in light of his 5 year rookie contract etc.

Maybe they could still do that. He'd have injury risk for one year but it's better than not being paid at all for one year, most likely.

I realize another poster basically said that but I had the same thought before reading it.

They didnt offer him 1 year for 1.8mill. The CBA rules required him to be tendered for something like 3.5 mill, but when he refused to sign on time it dropped to 1.8 or so.
What they offered him was a long term contract, but he felt his value was higher than the team did so he is insulted because the team, in their offer, disagree with what he thinks the quality of his play is.
Something like 95% of the Gs in the NFL make less than what Mankins was offered. The 'insult' appers to be that the Saints felt Jabari Evans deserved more money than the Pats felt Mankins deserved.
There apparently are many levels of 'insulted'.

 

[mgteich]

So Mankins should sign a long term deal with the patriots because the patriots are being fair?

Perhaps Mankins would prefer not to play for the patriots if he cannot get what HE considers a reasonable deal from them.

Many here seem to think that as long as the patriots make "fair" offers, players should want to stay here until the patriots cut them.

Have the patriots offered a "fair" one year deal? The CBA set an amount. When negotiations weren't working out on a long-term deal, the patriots used their option to cut the one-year offer in half.

They didnt offer him 1 year for 1.8mill. The CBA rules required him to be tendered for something like 3.5 mill, but when he refused to sign on time it dropped to 1.8 or so.
What they offered him was a long term contract, but he felt his value was higher than the team did so he is insulted because the team, in their offer, disagree with what he thinks the quality of his play is.
Something like 95% of the Gs in the NFL make less than what Mankins was offered. The 'insult' appers to be that the Saints felt Jabari Evans deserved more money than the Pats felt Mankins deserved.
There apparently are many levels of 'insulted'.

 

[Ring 6]

So Mankins should sign a long term deal with the patriots because the patriots are being fair?

Perhaps Mankins would prefer not to play for the patriots if he cannot get what HE considers a reasonable deal from them.

Many here seem to think that as long as the patriots make "fair" offers, players should want to stay here until the patriots cut them.

Have the patriots offered a "fair" one year deal? The CBA set an amount. When negotiations weren't working out on a long-term deal, the patriots used their option to cut the one-year offer in half.

Don't you think that if I meant to say he should be expected to sign it because it is fair, then I would have said that?

None of the scenarios you have created here change the fact that they didnt offer him 1.8, but rather offered him a lucratie long term deal.
Of course Mankins didn't like it and of course he doesnt have to sign it and of course he hasn't.
Why are you being so defensive?
I think this is a very reasonable standoff on both sides.
I can understand why Mankins thinks he deserves more and I can understand why the team feels otherwise.
Why would you take that to think that I am stating that Mankins should do anything?
My only objection is that people continu to use 'insulting' in describing the offer that was made, and I find it far from insulting (and I'm sure Mankins in private understands it is an offer that is less than he thinks he should get, not an insult)

 

[mgteich]

I agree.

There is no coming to the minds on a long-term deal. We think that the patriots have offered $7M a year, although we do not know the guaranteed amounts. We also don't know what Mankins would receive in 2010.

There is no coming to the minds on a 1-year deal. The patriots first offered $3.6M and have since lowered their offer to $1.8M.

We all agree that the patriots have made a "reasonable" long term offer. Some think that the patriots have offered too much. Some think that Mankins has taken a "reasonable" position, others not so much.
====================

HOWEVER, do YOU believe that the patriots have made a reasonable short term offer to Mankins? Do you think that they should?

To me, it seems that the patriots should make their best short term offer and then move on to allowing his agent to seek a trade for a 2nd round draft choice. OR, the patriots should make their best long-term offer and let Mankins sit out if he wants.

My BOTTOM LINE is that the patriots need to make a decision. The long term deal on the table has not been accepted and will not be. It is time to offer a short term deal, or not.

.

I think this is a very reasonable standoff on both sides.
I can understand why Mankins thinks he deserves more and I can understand why the team feels otherwise.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree.

There is no coming to the minds on a long-term deal. We think that the patriots have offered $7M a year, although we do not know the guaranteed amounts. We also don't know what Mankins would receive in 2010.

There is no coming to the minds on a 1-year deal. The patriots first offered $3.6M and have since lowered their offer to $1.8M.

We all agree that the patriots have made a "reasonable" long term offer. Some think that the patriots have offered too much. Some think that Mankins has taken a "reasonable" position, others not so much.
====================

HOWEVER, do YOU believe that the patriots have made a reasonable short term offer to Mankins? Do you think that they should?

To me, it seems that the patriots should make their best short term offer and then move on to allowing his agent to seek a trade for a 2nd round draft choice. OR, the patriots should make their best long-term offer and let Mankins sit out if he wants.

My BOTTOM LINE is that the patriots need to make a decision. The long term deal on the table has not been accepted and will not be. It is time to offer a short term deal, or not.

.

No, I dont agree.
This is a standoff where ultimately one side will give in. Your plan has the Patriots not only giving in and offering a one year deal (why in the worlld would you use the RFA status in order to pay the guy MORE so he can leave) but to give hm a trade if he wants more money.
What do the Patriots gain by giving in?
They will have to trade the player for less than his value. You think a 2nd, so if we stipulate that, you are saying that it is worth giving up leverage in order to get a 2nd instead of a compensatory 3rd?

This negotiation is no different than many others where the sides are apart. Ech side has an incenive to give something. You are suggesting the Patriots give everything, because you assume Mankins will not.

I think the Patriots have made a decision. They made an offer. Making their best offer, then telling him to seek a trade is bad negotiating.
I understand we want him in camp.
But he won't come to camp. I don't think that is a reason to appease him.
I would rather have him at home, and we will see what the CBA says about our rights, than to trade him without trying to make him sweat and make HIM make a decision to come to the table, report for 1 year, or sit out and suffer the consequences.
The player refused to counter the offer the team felt comfprtable making him, and said I'm done, trade me. I wouldnt have much faith in the future of the franchise if the response to that was to go begging him to listen to a higher offer.

Right now, Mankins is sitting home not having to endure 2 a days.
Do you really think that in 3,4,5, or more weeks, he will continue to refuse to contact the team and negotiate?
If he needs to report by week 10 to have theyear count (Ive lost track of that rule) I would MUCH prefer:
Mankins coming in week 10, then becoming a UFA and if we dont sign him (no one really knows someone else will offer more than we have) we get a 3rd comp pick
Than
Trade hm for a 2nd.

Sometimes the best course is to wait out the other side.

 

[mgteich]

I guess we can agree to disagree.

The 10 week rule you can't remember applies only if the new CBA requires more than four years of accrued service to be a UFA, or has a special clause for those who didn't accept RFA's renders and had over four years of service in 2010. Both of these cases are extremely unlikely.

No, I dont agree.
This is a standoff where ultimately one side will give in. Your plan has the Patriots not only giving in and offering a one year deal (why in the worlld would you use the RFA status in order to pay the guy MORE so he can leave) but to give hm a trade if he wants more money.
What do the Patriots gain by giving in?
They will have to trade the player for less than his value. You think a 2nd, so if we stipulate that, you are saying that it is worth giving up leverage in order to get a 2nd instead of a compensatory 3rd?

This negotiation is no different than many others where the sides are apart. Ech side has an incenive to give something. You are suggesting the Patriots give everything, because you assume Mankins will not.

I think the Patriots have made a decision. They made an offer. Making their best offer, then telling him to seek a trade is bad negotiating.
I understand we want him in camp.
But he won't come to camp. I don't think that is a reason to appease him.
I would rather have him at home, and we will see what the CBA says about our rights, than to trade him without trying to make him sweat and make HIM make a decision to come to the table, report for 1 year, or sit out and suffer the consequences.
The player refused to counter the offer the team felt comfprtable making him, and said I'm done, trade me. I wouldnt have much faith in the future of the franchise if the response to that was to go begging him to listen to a higher offer.

Right now, Mankins is sitting home not having to endure 2 a days.
Do you really think that in 3,4,5, or more weeks, he will continue to refuse to contact the team and negotiate?
If he needs to report by week 10 to have theyear count (Ive lost track of that rule) I would MUCH prefer:
Mankins coming in week 10, then becoming a UFA and if we dont sign him (no one really knows someone else will offer more than we have) we get a 3rd comp pick
Than
Trade hm for a 2nd.

Sometimes the best course is to wait out the other side.

 

[Ring 6]

I guess we can agree to disagree.

The 10 week rule you can't remember applies only if the new CBA requires more than four years of accrued service to be a UFA, or has a special clause for those who didn't accept RFA's renders and had over four years of service in 2010. Both of these cases are extremely unlikely.

So does or doesnt the 10 week rule matter here?
Why do you think there is an urgency to the Pats doing something? Thats the part I am missing.
Sure, there would be urgency in getting him here, but your post pretty much says he is gone no matter what.
If thats the case, the team really loses nothing if he stays home, and the player loses a lot more. Woudnt holding that card be the only way to get him here?

 

[mgteich]

1) I don't believe that the 10 week rule is releavent.

2) Are you saying that you don't under why the value of Mankins' 2010 services to other teams will be less in six or eight weeks than it is now?

I agree that if the patriots have no intention of trading Mankins, there would not be much incentive to act now. Some might disagree thinking that Mankins is worth more now to us than a month ago. We have seen Kaczur injured, how good the other guards have performed, and what is available in free agency.

3) Is Mankins really gone "no matter what"? In march, the patriots thought he was worth $3.6M to play one year. What do you think tha patriots now put on the value of one year of Mankins' services. Less than $3.6M??????? Why? Is it because all of a sudden we have better options at LG than we had in February? What I am suggesting is that perhaps the patriots might conclude that Mankins is again worth $3.6M or perhaps a bit more. And perhaps Mankins would even sign for $3.6M to $5M now that he knows that he has no long term future with the patriots.

Perhaps, you are correct and the best way to get this result is to wait. However, I am not sure that the team wants to pay Mankins a $4M or $5M one year deal.

So does or doesnt the 10 week rule matter here?
Why do you think there is an urgency to the Pats doing something? Thats the part I am missing.
Sure, there would be urgency in getting him here, but your post pretty much says he is gone no matter what.
If thats the case, the team really loses nothing if he stays home, and the player loses a lot more. Woudnt holding that card be the only way to get him here?

 

[Ring 6]

1) I don't believe that the 10 week rule is releavent.

2) Are you saying that you don't under why the value of Mankins' 2010 services to other teams will be less in six or eight weeks than it is now?

I agree that if the patriots have no intention of trading Mankins, there would not be much incentive to act now. Some might disagree thinking that Mankins is worth more now to us than a month ago. We have seen Kaczur injured, how good the other guards have performed, and what is available in free agency.

3) Is Mankins really gone "no matter what"? In march, the patriots thought he was worth $3.6M to play one year. What do you think tha patriots now put on the value of one year of Mankins' services. Less than $3.6M??????? Why? Is it because all of a sudden we have better options at LG than we had in February? What I am suggesting is that perhaps the patriots might conclude that Mankins is again worth $3.6M or perhaps a bit more. And perhaps Mankins would even sign for $3.6M to $5M now that he knows that he has no long term future with the patriots.

Perhaps, you are correct and the best way to get this result is to wait. However, I am not sure that the team wants to pay Mankins a $4M or $5M one year deal.

You are confusing me. Your original post suggested there was no way Mankins would sign any deal.
If you are talking about getting him on the field, there is a ton of urgency.
If it is realistic to negoatiate with him, they should be doing so as that would not impact him ultimately 'buckling' for lack of a better word.
If there is no chance he will sign, again as you suggested,the only course is to see if he changes that opinion in time.
Pursuing trades clinches that he is gone. I see zero urgency in trading him.
I think we would be lucky to get a 2nd in this landscape. Teams are shuddering to sign their own best players, I think the market for a holdout who wants to be the highest paid player at his position in a long term deal is the worst it has ever been.
I dont care if we trade him or not frankly. I would rather risk the danger of missing a season of football will bring him back, at least to the table, than worry about how much more than a compensatory 3 someone would give me now. A 2 is by far the best possible hope, and it may not even be realistic.

I see no reason why the Pats wouldnt pay him even 6 or 7 mill for one year, but it seems clear he won't play under those condiitions. He didnt not sign the tender because of the amount (I suggest he wouldnt have signed a franchise tender at the top 5 avg) it was because it isnt a long term deal, and also one that isnt the biggest any G has ever signed.

 

[mgteich]

A) Mankins didn't sign the tender because he hoped for a long-term dealing to his liking.

B) The patriots didn't make such an offer.

C) It is now many months later.

D) I do NOT agree that it is a forgone conclusion that Mankins wouldn't sign a one-year deal for $6M of $7M with the pats, knowing that he would be an UFA in 2011, with a chance to sell himself to the highest bidder.

=============
I see no reason why the Pats wouldnt pay him even 6 or 7 mill for one year, but it seems clear he won't play under those condiitions. He didnt not sign the tender because of the amount (I suggest he wouldnt have signed a franchise tender at the top 5 avg) it was because it isnt a long term deal, and also one that isnt the biggest any G has ever signed.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ring 6]

A) Mankins didn't sign the tender because he hoped for a long-term dealing to his liking.

B) The patriots didn't make such an offer.

C) It is now many months later.

D) I do NOT agree that it is a forgone conclusion that Mankins wouldn't sign a one-year deal for $6M of $7M with the pats, knowing that he would be an UFA in 2011, with a chance to sell himself to the highest bidder.

=============
I see no reason why the Pats wouldnt pay him even 6 or 7 mill for one year, but it seems clear he won't play under those condiitions. He didnt not sign the tender because of the amount (I suggest he wouldnt have signed a franchise tender at the top 5 avg) it was because it isnt a long term deal, and also one that isnt the biggest any G has ever signed.

[/quote]
I find it very hard to believe that when all is said and done, Mankins forgoes a season of football (with the risk of it being 2)because the tender was 3.8 mill instead of 6 or 7. I think his decision has absolutely nothing to do with a difference of $3mill.
If he would gladly play as an RFA for 6-7 mill so he could be a UFA next year, he would play for 3.8 too. At least that is my opinion, and of course we have no way of reading his mind.

My main point was if there is a deal to make today, they should be at the table.
If there isnt a deal to make today, they should wait and see if Mankins weakens in his posture.
There is absolutely no reason, IMO, that the Patriots should waste a second trying to trade him, or allow him to seek a trade, partly because there is no upside to trading him, and partly because if you wont give him his ticket out of town, you limit his options and make him more likely to come to the table.
Is a 6 yr 42 mill deal today better than missing a season and getting 6 for 50 next year? Thats part of what the Pats need to make him realize. Getting a 'free agent' deal today isnt possible (it is if you offer to trade him) and less money today is worth more (or the hope of more tomorrow). This is especially enhanced by the uncertainty of a 2011 season.

You have to agree that if Mankins realizes the Patriots are the only team he can play for this season and a trade cannot happen, he is more likely to come back than if he holds out hope he can get traded and get paid the highest contract any G has ever gotten, right?

 

[mgteich]

Mankins bet that the patriots would come through with an a long-term deal acceptable to him. He therefore did not sign the tender. Mankins was wrong. Now that an acceptable long-term deal with the patriots is no longer an option, perhaps there is an opportunity to discuss a one-year deal.

As I said a couple of posts ago, I agree with you that bringing up trades at this point would probably be counterproductive if the goal is having Mankins play for the patriots this year. That may no llonger be a patriot goal.

I find it very hard to believe that when all is said and done, Mankins forgoes a season of football (with the risk of it being 2)because the tender was 3.8 mill instead of 6 or 7. I think his decision has absolutely nothing to do with a difference of $3mill.
If he would gladly play as an RFA for 6-7 mill so he could be a UFA next year, he would play for 3.8 too. At least that is my opinion, and of course we have no way of reading his mind.

My main point was if there is a deal to make today, they should be at the table.
If there isnt a deal to make today, they should wait and see if Mankins weakens in his posture.
There is absolutely no reason, IMO, that the Patriots should waste a second trying to trade him, or allow him to seek a trade, partly because there is no upside to trading him, and partly because if you wont give him his ticket out of town, you limit his options and make him more likely to come to the table.
Is a 6 yr 42 mill deal today better than missing a season and getting 6 for 50 next year? Thats part of what the Pats need to make him realize. Getting a 'free agent' deal today isnt possible (it is if you offer to trade him) and less money today is worth more (or the hope of more tomorrow). This is especially enhanced by the uncertainty of a 2011 season.

You have to agree that if Mankins realizes the Patriots are the only team he can play for this season and a trade cannot happen, he is more likely to come back than if he holds out hope he can get traded and get paid the highest contract any G has ever gotten, right?[/QUOTE]