Mankins compensation

[Deus Irae]

The $7mil was part of a long term deal.The Patriots would be giving up their trump card (franchise tag) so Mankins would not be worth the $7mil on a 1 year deal to them.

That's one approach to take. It doesn't solve any problems, but it's an approach.

 

[spacecrime]

I'd prefer the salary myownself, which is neither here nor there. Logan, if he managed his rookie bonuses and salaries wisely, isn't hurting. He gets to make his own mind up as to when to sign a contract, that's control.

Yes and no. He cannot make up his own mind, because the number of years available to him to sign a high-priced long term deal probably equal the number of fingers you have on one hand (assuming you are not a bad carpenter).

By holding out his year and if there is no football next year, Mankins just cut off two fingers.

And while it is true that if he managed his money properly he doesn't need any more, that is irrelevant to whether or not he is in control of his destiny or not. All the money in the bank does is make not controlling his destiny not hurt so much. He still has only short-term control, and when all is said and done, may not in the long run make more money than he would have had he signed the Pats offer.

But as Breer keeps saying, with Mankins it isn't about the money. It's about the principle.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

What if the offer is 6.99 million for 1 Deus Irae?

Then you've just overpaid, by a significant margin, for a slightly used Deus Irae (which are normally marked down for quick sale at the dollar store).

 

[Fencer]

Most likely, once there's a new deal, Mankins will be a UFA (because making things up to the guys who held out doesn't hurt many teams past the Pats and Chargers).

If the franchise tag position groupings are redefined, so that he's just a guard, then he's subject to being franchised. But competition for the tag is apt to include Moss.

If the franchise rules aren't changed, he's apt to be an unfranchised UFA. Think the Jets might like to sign him?

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

Most likely, once there's a new deal, Mankins will be a UFA (because making things up to the guys who held out doesn't hurt many teams past the Pats and Chargers).

If the franchise tag position groupings are redefined, so that he's just a guard, then he's subject to being franchised. But competition for the tag is apt to include Moss.

If the franchise rules aren't changed, he's apt to be an unfranchised UFA. Think the Jets might like to sign him?

Agree with your logic.

 

[Water Boy]

When another pipsqueak like Branch decides he'll wait and try to hold the team hostage, for instance. People talk like we were outplayed in that negotiation, but to me getting a first rounder that turned into an All Pro and dodging a long term contract for a guy that's been mediocre or injured and never lived up to it is a pretty good case of making lemonade out of that lemon.

Well put RayClay

 

[Water Boy]

I presume that although Mankins base salary for 2010 would have been 3 million, he also would have been paid his signing bonus in 2010 for signing the new contract. True?

 

[Pats726]

Yes and no. He cannot make up his own mind, because the number of years available to him to sign a high-priced long term deal probably equal the number of fingers you have on one hand (assuming you are not a bad carpenter).

By holding out his year and if there is no football next year, Mankins just cut off two fingers.

And while it is true that if he managed his money properly he doesn't need any more, that is irrelevant to whether or not he is in control of his destiny or not. All the money in the bank does is make not controlling his destiny not hurt so much. He still has only short-term control, and when all is said and done, may not in the long run make more money than he would have had he signed the Pats offer.

But as Breer keeps saying, with Mankins it isn't about the money. It's about the principle.

Not sure what the principle is though.....D&C went over the history of it all a week ago and while I am no fan of this usually dumb duo, they hit the nail on the head.
Mankins went to Kraft about his situation...Kraft said they'd take care of it in the off season and the Pats came up with quite a reasonable offer...35 mil in 5 years. I think to almost all this is quite a reasonable offer, no matter HOW it's structured..(Although BOZO Gresh seems to think the stucture MAY be the issue...) 35 million 5 years?? Mankins apparently thinks that with that amount thrown at him, he's mistreated. ????? Just another greedy piggy in my book. In these economic times..he can go *** a steer or something. If his principle is being a greedy turd...he's got that covered. Not sure what else it could be. For once D&C had it right.

 

[RussFrancis]

That principle is gonna end up costing him about $7 or 8 million. Wasnt his original principle just to get a new contract that would provide him with MONEY for his future? He's basically crapping all over his own principle.

This is exactly where irrational stubbornness gets you in life. Out of work with zero compensation taking stands on principle that basically equate to jack. And all over basically a lack of communication? Honestly, I feel bad for the man. He's essentially screwed himself out of the ability to do something he loves over a BS principle.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Not sure what the principle is though.....D&C went over the history of it all a week ago and while I am no fan of this usually dumb duo, they hit the nail on the head.
Mankins went to Kraft about his situation...Kraft said they'd take care of it in the off season and the Pats came up with quite a reasonable offer...35 mil in 5 years. I think to almost all this is quite a reasonable offer, no matter HOW it's structured..(Although BOZO Gresh seems to think the stucture MAY be the issue...) 35 million 5 years?? Mankins apparently thinks that with that amount thrown at him, he's mistreated. ????? Just another greedy piggy in my book. In these economic times..he can go *** a steer or something. If his principle is being a greedy turd...he's got that covered. Not sure what else it could be. For once D&C had it right.

Good points, Pats726. IIRC, Pats have been pretty good about paying players that perform and are organizational guys the entire amounts of their deals.

Mankins for whatever reason (structure, out of reach incentives, etc.) may be the issue here too.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

This situation needs to and most likely will get resolved in the next two weeks.

Mankins was a little older than most coming out of college (I think he was 24), so he is most likely looking at his ONLY payday in the NFL. He is an All-Pro guard, no question about it and the Pats are better off with him on the line. IF the accounts of the 5 year 35 million offer are correct, that is by no means chump change. Mankins got screwed by the CBA. He should have been an unrestricted Free Agent and would have been one of the top prizes in Free Agency. Let face it, having 32 teams bid for your services is going to drive up the price significantly (as opposed to one, that owns your rights). Now I gues the Pats could have kept the 3.4 tender out there as anoffer of good will, but if Mankins is playing by the rules (holding out til week 10, without any repurcussions because he is not under contract) then I guess you can't blame the Pats for doing the same by lowering his tender.

Either way, a stalemate is not doing either side any good. Mankins is not getting any younger, and sitting out a year and then facing either another uncapped year or a new CBA and then hoping to get paid is a huge risk, and the Pats need to either get him on the field or move him.

I think that the Pats will allow him to negotiate with someone, and once that happens, a trade will get worked out (hopefully for a DE who can rush the passer).

But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the Mankins situation is settled one way or another before the Jets game, week 2.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

That principle is gonna end up costing him about $7 or 8 million. Wasnt his original principle just to get a new contract that would provide him with MONEY for his future? He's basically crapping all over his own principle.

This is exactly where irrational stubbornness gets you in life. Out of work with zero compensation taking stands on principle that basically equate to jack. And all over basically a lack of communication? Honestly, I feel bad for the man. He's essentially screwed himself out of the ability to do something he loves over a BS principle.

That's it in a nutshell. Although it's likely it cost him more since that deal likely guaranteed close to half of the $35M in new money on a deal he had a good shot at completing. If he misses a year he may not ever break even. If he loses two... He picked a bad time to stand on principle. The goal for most players and agents this season was to get as much money up front or guaranteed as possible on the eve of a lockout and deal with ego driven details like total deal or average value down the road.

Branch only got his wish because BB miscalculated on a move designed to teach the player that his market wasn't what he thought it was. Branch had more value to him on the roster than in trade until he had no choice. That is why he won't agree to trade Mankins per his request. Especially now that Kaczur is out. Mankins still represents value on the roster in week 10. He is clearly a guy they'd have PUPed and anticipated getting back for the stretch run. If they traded him now for a draft pick or picks they don't see that value before the next league season as they're calling it... And no team is going to trade a player of significant value/talent at an alternate position unless he too is holding or projects as impossible to sign long term.

If he doesn't show up at all this season they can still opt to tag and trade him "before the next league year". The tag isn't going away, and some believe owners will insist on more than one in the transition year to the new CBA. He may not bring a first in 2012, but we already have two and he could bring one in 2013 or if he sees the market isn't there in trade he'd be likely to sign his tag to recoup a chunk of money. Or they could simply let him walk for a comp pick in 2013 because talent aside he's emerged as the anthesis of the player they want on their roster long term.

They could also yet decide to roll the dice and offer him a one year deal in excess of $7M. I don't think they will because the last time they opted to overpay for one year of service the player didn't make any impact plays when it mattered most. And Mankins was on the roster that night too and neither did he. And in Asante's case they were not setting precedent as franchise tagged players are often reeled in with the promise not to re-tag in a subsequent season. Like with Branch, Mankins hasn't ever been franchise tagged and they are not going to set the precedent that waiving the tag in advance represents. The JETS can play fast and loose with that kind of innovative thinking (only to end up with their own holdout again in the process).

As it is they have reportedly pulled their previous offer of a long term deal off the table. I don't think they negotiate again until or unless the player signs his now reduced tag and reports. And even then the negotiating may be limited to structure and fluff because I think they put their first and last best offer on the table and this player who has emerged as more concerned about hollow principle than winning championships or securing his family financially for the long haul may no longer be worth even that in their eyes. No one player is worth more than upholding their own time tested financial principles and internal salary structure. There could potentially be several position players exponentially more valuable than a guard that they will face extensions with in the next 2-3 years and they are not going to hamstring themselves by giving skill players that player to point to as an internal benchmark they expect to exceed. NO chose to reward Evans as they did because they believe he is the second most important and talented player on their roster behind only their QB. Mankins isn't even close to that here... It's debateable he's even in the top 5, and if he is it's likely he will get bumped out of that tier by one or more of the first and second or third year players currently on this roster in the not too distant future. You pay more than a handful of players top of the market money and you quickly become the Colts with little or no middle class depth and overly reliant on the backend of the draft to plug holes. That won't fly here given the complexity of the schemes we employ on both sides of the ball.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I have no problem in the least with the Pats withdrawing their extremely rich offer (by any conventional measure of the working man) "on principle".

 

[SanAngeloState]

I predict that he comes back in week 4 or 5 after signing his 1.6M tender and is so unhappy and cancerous they tell him to just stay home, they'll pay him and he doesn't even have to show up.

Then next year he's a FA.

 

[patsfaninpa]

I think once the cba is finalized. They will declare 5yr players free agents Like they would have been had there been a contract in place. He will sit out the year. And, sign with someone like SF or Sea next year. I don't think we franchise him. Too much bad blood.

 

[Big-T]

I think he reports in the next 2 weeks, but has to work his way back up the depth chart and has to play with the 2nd & 3rd stringers in the last pre-season game with Connolly the starter, because of the fact he's been here since day 1 and really hasn't put a foot wrong.

 

[captain stone]

I think that the Pats will allow him to negotiate with someone, and once that happens, a trade will get worked out (hopefully for a DE who can rush the passer).

But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the Mankins situation is settled one way or another before the Jets game, week 2.

This is my feeling too. I think there's little chance that Bill allows Mankin$ to waltz into Foxborough after week 10 to collect his year of accrued service, only to leave, and never return, at season's end.

 

[eagle eye]

Just on Larsen, he had two false starts which was bad. Besides that though he put in a good shift.