Mankins could hold up NFL settlement

[Rob0729]

Brees and Manning are reportedly looking for lifetime exclusion from the franchise tag. They are looking to gain something for being on the list. Mankins and Jackson, OTOH, are just seeking to right a wrong done them by their teams last season. If San Diego and New England had treated the players the way they should have, this wouldn't be any kind of issue. Instead, the teams decided to screw over their players, and we're now seeing the results of that. I hope the players get their wish, whether it be a cash increase to make up for what they lost last year, or free agency without the tags.

That is one side of the story. The Pats feel they offered Mankins a good contract. According to the Patriots, it was top 3 money. Whether the Pats did him wrong or treated him fairly is based on who you talked to.

As for making them RFAs, they shouldn't have a beef with the teams. They should have a beef with NFLPA management in 2006. The Patriots and Chargers did nothing that the players didn't give them permission the teams to do in the CBA. Why aren't Mankins and Jackson asking the NFLPA to give them extra money when they reform. They are supposed to be looking out for their best interest and in 2006, they set forth actions to treat them unfairly. In fact, Mankins and Jackson might want to sue themselves because they might have treated themselves unfairly by voting for the 2006 CBA which basically gave the Pats and Chargers permission to treat them like they did.

Let's not make it like the Patriots and Chargers did anything last year that the players didn't vote to give them permission to do. If Mankins and Jackson didn't think it was fair that they were RFAs last year, they should have been more vocal in voting down the 2006 CBA. I never heard one player be against that CBA.

 

[DaBruinz]

there are 2 sides to this argument.........it was not mankins' fault there was no CBA last year, and if there was an agreement in place, that he would have been either franchised or had a new contract in place.

I don't blame him........especially in a world where the team can dump your ass even though you are under contract. especially in an organization where retirees have been treated like dirt

There was, most certainly, a CBA last year. And Mankins was in the league when that CBA was negotiated. What are you talking about?

He would have had a new contract if he'd actually negotiated. But, from the sounds of it, he's only listened to that idiot agent of his..

 

[DaBruinz]

was he in the NFL when they voted on it? even if he was, it was the owners who opted out of the most recent CBA, not the players........and who knows.....maybe he voted against it, not that it has any kind of real point in this

Mankins was drafted in 2005, so yes he was in the NFL when it was voted on.

The owners "opting out" of the CBA doesn't change the fact that the CBA that Mankins voted on DID have that stipulation in there.

 

[Deus Irae]

Were the Patriots not doing what was within their rights? Mankins and Jackson were screwed by the system - not their teams for taking advantage of it. Football is too competitive to put principle above winning.

What do the Patriots rights have to do with it? Mankins got screwed by the Patriots. Just because the Patriots had the 'right' to do it, you think that means Mankins should sit back and enjoy it?

 

[Rob0729]

Not knowing the details of the Mankin's offer for a long term contract, only Mankins and his agent know if he was stiffed or just greedy..........BB and Pats went by the rules and Logan or his agent didn't like it after he held out and got docked $$$$......

If the offer was in the neighborhood of $7.5mil/year and a signing bonus, how is that a bad deal? NOBODY knows the length of the contract as far as I know...

The problem is people want to believe what they want to believe. Deus who has been critical of how Belichick and Kraft negotiate with players chooses to believe Mankins' side of the story. Those of us who trust the way Belichick runs the business choose to believe the Pats' side of the story. The fact of the matter is we probably don't know the truth and it is most likely somewhere in the middle.

Based on Mankins' actions, I have a hard time believing he went into negotiations with an attitude of cordial negotiations and was just an innocent victim of the evil Patriots. On the flip side, based on the Patriots' previous negotiations, they were probably not very cordial themselves. I think this is really a case of a team that is a biatch to negotate with negotiating with a guy who felt he was entitled to be the highest paid guard and anything less would be a personal insult. I do think the Pats do feel they gave Mankins a fair deal (whether it is or not), but Mankins was not happy with that deal and unfortunately he took it personally.

 

[Deus Irae]

That is one side of the story. The Pats feel they offered Mankins a good contract. According to the Patriots, it was top 3 money. Whether the Pats did him wrong or treated him fairly is based on who you talked to.

As for making them RFAs, they shouldn't have a beef with the teams. They should have a beef with NFLPA management in 2006. The Patriots and Chargers did nothing that the players didn't give them permission the teams to do in the CBA. Why aren't Mankins and Jackson asking the NFLPA to give them extra money when they reform. They are supposed to be looking out for their best interest and in 2006, they set forth actions to treat them unfairly. In fact, Mankins and Jackson might want to sue themselves because they might have treated themselves unfairly by voting for the 2006 CBA which basically gave the Pats and Chargers permission to treat them like they did.

Let's not make it like the Patriots and Chargers did anything last year that the players didn't vote to give them permission to do. If Mankins and Jackson didn't think it was fair that they were RFAs last year, they should have been more vocal in voting down the 2006 CBA. I never heard one player be against that CBA.

The Patriots could have played Mankins fairly, especially because they had to know the kind of person he was with regards to honor, etc.... Instead, they used the hammer of the RFA situation. You can tongue wash the Patriots all you want, but it won't make what they did right.

They screwed up. They behaved badly and stupidly. I'm just hoping that the resolution, whatever it may be, doesn't lead to lesser performance on the field.

 

[DaBruinz]

Why is it that everybody is giving Mankins grief. The Krafts have had all the power for the last couple of years. Mankins sat out most of last year rather than accept the Franchise Tag. Does anyone here really think he cares on bit about the Krafts? He has stated publicly that they reneged on some agreement.

As far what the others players think about Mankins I am betting he does not really care?
Mark Sanchez does not like him? Booo Hooo. Pats fans don't like him, so what? Seriously,
too many people fail to understand that this is a cut throat buisness.

Mankins will get what he wants. When the NFL looks at the prospect of loosing pre-season games due to this there will be an accomodation made.

Umm.. Mankins wasn't under the franchise tag last year. If you are going to make an argument, the least you could do is have the facts correct. Otherwise your argument is pointless.

Mankins CLAIM is that the Krafts reneged on a deal. The Problem is that Mankins own words contradict him. Mankins said that the Pats agreed to "take care of him". The Pats offered Mankins a very fair and reasonable deal that would have easily taken care of Mankins. Mankins refused it saying it wasn't enough.

The NFL isn't going to lose pre-season games because of Mankins or Jackson. The reason being that they only account for 20% of the Plaintiffs. And the legal council already asked for a summary judgement without offering any arguments. Basically, Brady and the rest can accept the deal and the only way that Mankins and Jackson get squat is if they remove themselves from the Class. And if that happens, the league moves on regardless.

 

[Wolfpack]

Well this story - if true - should pretty much do away with the ridiculous notion (which some people in here kept harping on) that Mankins is a man of absolute, supreme integrity who bases all his actions on his own personal highly evolved code of conduct - and we swear money isn't a factor in his actions!!

Looks like he's just another greedy athlete and in this case trying to get paid for work not perfumed. Yeah, what integrity.

 

[IllegalContact]

Mankins was drafted in 2005, so yes he was in the NFL when it was voted on.

The owners "opting out" of the CBA doesn't change the fact that the CBA that Mankins voted on DID have that stipulation in there.

did mankins' vote alone decide the fate of the CBA? if not, do you know if he voted for it or against it? nope

regardless of anyone's opinion, from the outset, mankins' actions have been with the scope of any provided process. he honored contracts that he had and he used his documented rights.

I misspoke about the 'no CBA' I should have said 'uncapped year'.

either way, mankins has stayed within the process more than john hannah did........

 

[BradyManny]

What do the Patriots rights have to do with it? Mankins got screwed by the Patriots. Just because the Patriots had the 'right' to do it, you think that means Mankins should sit back and enjoy it?

Yes, I hear Hollywood is working on The Passion of Logan Mankins as we speak to detail his horrific life as a slightly-unfairly treated Pro Bowl left guard in the NFL. They'll have to edit out the part where he turned down a deal that would've made him one of the highest-paid guards in the league and then refused to negotiate, of course.

 

[IllegalContact]

Well this story - if true - should pretty much do away with the ridiculous notion (which some people in here kept harping on) that Mankins is a man of absolute, supreme integrity who bases all his actions on his own personal highly evolved code of conduct - and we swear money isn't a factor in his actions!!

Looks like he's just another greedy athlete and in this case trying to get paid for work not perfumed. Yeah, what integrity.

no more greedy than say tom brady or vince wilfork

 

[Rob0729]

What do the Patriots rights have to do with it? Mankins got screwed by the Patriots. Just because the Patriots had the 'right' to do it, you think that means Mankins should sit back and enjoy it?

He doesn't have to enjoy it, but since the players gave permission for the Patriots to do it, he has no right for renumeration. It isn't like the owners did something that wasn't agreed to by both sides in the CBA. There was no vocal opposition by the players in 2006.

I'm sure Woody Johnson is not happy he couldn't be an active player in free agency last year because of the Final Four rule. Shouldn't the players give him something special for not being able to sign Julius Peppers? It is the same thing.

 

[DaBruinz]

The Patriots could have played Mankins fairly, especially because they had to know the kind of person he was with regards to honor, etc.... Instead, they used the hammer of the RFA situation. You can tongue wash the Patriots all you want, but it won't make what they did right.

They screwed up. They behaved badly and stupidly. I'm just hoping that the resolution, whatever it may be, doesn't lead to lesser performance on the field.

You can "tongue wash" Mankins all you want. The reality is that the Pats still offered Mankins a very good deal. Just because it wasn't the deal HE WANTED doesn't mean they didn't try and take care of him.

The Pats didn't screw up, behave badly, or stupidly. That is your own ignorance talking. Especially since you are 100% clueless on the negotiations beyond the deal the Pats offered.

 

[BradyManny]

The Patriots could have played Mankins fairly, especially because they had to know the kind of person he was with regards to honor, etc.... Instead, they used the hammer of the RFA situation. You can tongue wash the Patriots all you want, but it won't make what they did right

What was so unfair about the deal the Patriots purportedly offered?

By some accounts - it was good enough that Mankins was willing to actually accept it, but turned it down to his unwillingness to offer Kraft an apology for his agent's petulance.

 

[Deus Irae]

The problem is people want to believe what they want to believe. Deus who has been critical of how Belichick and Kraft negotiate with players chooses to believe Mankins' side of the story. Those of us who trust the way Belichick runs the business choose to believe the Pats' side of the story. The fact of the matter is we probably don't know the truth and it is most likely somewhere in the middle.

Unless you're saying that Reiss was wrong, we know quite a bit about what happened. The Patriots low balled the offer after putting Mankins off for a year (even their claimed offer only put Mankins on par with the top center, and that offer has been reported, by Reiss, to have required Mankins to accept the one year RFA money as part of the deal before the new 'extension' kicked in).

 

[Deus Irae]

He doesn't have to enjoy it, but since the players gave permission for the Patriots to do it, he has no right for renumeration. It isn't like the owners did something that wasn't agreed to by both sides in the CBA. There was no vocal opposition by the players in 2006.

I'm sure Woody Johnson is not happy he couldn't be an active player in free agency last year because of the Final Four rule. Shouldn't the players give him something special for not being able to sign Julius Peppers? It is the same thing.

Actually, he has the "right" to ask for whatever the hell he wants. He's a named plaintiff.

 

[DaBruinz]

Mankins hasn't said or done anything to derail the deal so people are simply making sh.t up and throwing it at the wall.

False. Mankins lent his name to be used both in the lawsuit and in the idea that he is going to want some sort of other payment/compensation for the Pats handling of his contract. Just because he didn't state any demands doesn't mean that there aren't any..

 

[IllegalContact]

Umm.. Mankins wasn't under the franchise tag last year. If you are going to make an argument, the least you could do is have the facts correct. Otherwise your argument is pointless.

Mankins CLAIM is that the Krafts reneged on a deal. The Problem is that Mankins own words contradict him. Mankins said that the Pats agreed to "take care of him". The Pats offered Mankins a very fair and reasonable deal that would have easily taken care of Mankins. Mankins refused it saying it wasn't enough.

The NFL isn't going to lose pre-season games because of Mankins or Jackson. The reason being that they only account for 20% of the Plaintiffs. And the legal council already asked for a summary judgement without offering any arguments. Basically, Brady and the rest can accept the deal and the only way that Mankins and Jackson get squat is if they remove themselves from the Class. And if that happens, the league moves on regardless.

maybe to YOU think mankins was taken care of.........do you mind if I come by your office and negotiate a new salary with your boss? I promise to take care of you....... I mean WTF do you know about what constitutes being 'taken care of'?

 

[IllegalContact]

False. Mankins lent his name to be used both in the lawsuit and in the idea that he is going to want some sort of other payment/compensation for the Pats handling of his contract. Just because he didn't state any demands doesn't mean that there aren't any..

so did Tom Brady.....even though he was already under contract for the next 4 years....

 

[Wolfpack]

no more greedy than say tom brady or vince wilfork

I haven't seen any articles about Brady threatening to disrupt the entire process, have you? If such an article exists, please post a link because I would be very interested in reading it.

I also don't remember Brady holding out for half a season, but maybe that happened and no one in here remembers it.