Mankins could hold up NFL settlement

[DaBruinz]

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?

And the insanity of it all shows itself.

Just because they had the right to make Mankins an RFA and did so means that they screwed Mankins. The guy who didn't actually negotiate with the Pats. The man who sat there and lied when he said that the Pats broke their promise even though they did try and take care of him, but he refused?

 

[patfanken]

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

This is ANOTHER asinine statement (you are clearly on a hot streak lol) Being a named litigant gives you NO greater right to benefits than any of the other litigants. In fact if I were in the NFLPA and found out they gave Manning or Jackson benefits that I couldn't get, I be in court suing the NFL, the NFLPA and the so called "named" players for Billions.

BTW, its 6 pages ago and I haven't seen a single item here or in the news that explains HOW the named plaintiffs can do anything else but opt out the suit. If that IS the case WHAT is the big deal.

BTW its comforting...to some degree to read that Mankins hasn't requested extra benefits....though I'd like to hear it from him.

 

[BradyManny]

The notion that forcing a player to accept an RFA tender, gotten in a one year exception, that's $4-$5 million below his market value as part of any contract 'extension' is a "reasonable starting offer to use and work towards a deal" is ridiculous.

Deus - they did not force Mankins to do anything. The RFA tender was a piece of leverage to the Patriots and a fail-safe. Mankins never understood this. He still probably doesn't understand this. They had an initial offer - what should've been a jumpstart to negotiations - on the table which Mankins was so "offended" by that he would not negotiate.

What recourse did the Patriots have? You expect them to cave to Mankins and just keep offering him more money until he comes back? God, no. No one forced Mankins to take that tender.

 

[Deus Irae]

Reiss reports what sources tell him. Since the Patriots don't talk about contracts, the reporting will be one sided. The Patriots claimed they offered Mankins top 3 guard money which people assumed their own number. They never gave their side of the details. Reiss reported most of the contract information as sources close to Mankins. He never portrayed them as facts. He portrayed them as Mankins' side of the facts even quoting Frank Bauer, Mankins, or unnamed sources close to Mankins.

Reiss can only report what his sources tell him and if only one side is talking, the "facts" will be skewed in favor of that side.

The numbers from other reporters, not gotten from the Mankins camp, backed the Reiss account in terms of reconciling the two positions.

Reporters claimed X dollars

Bauer claimed Y dollars

Reiss noted that the RFA year was the difference, making the X dollars and Y dollars match up.


You can act as if that's just coincidence all you want.

 

[IllegalContact]

Of course the players gave the Pats permission to give a RFA tender in 2010. It was written in black and white in the CBA. The Pats had permission for from the NFLPA to tender Mankins and Mankins is part of the NFLPA. So Mankins gave him permission through his representatives.

oh......I get it....LMFAO.......are you sure that mankins actually voted YEA for the CBA?

 

[Deus Irae]

This is ANOTHER asinine statement (you are clearly on a hot streak lol) Being a named litigant gives you NO greater right to benefits than any of the other litigants. In fact if I were in the NFLPA and found out they gave Manning or Jackson benefits that I couldn't get, I be in court suing the NFL, the NFLPA and the so called "named" players for Billions.

BTW, its 6 pages ago and I haven't seen a single item here or in the news that explains HOW the named plaintiffs can do anything else but opt out the suit. If that IS the case WHAT is the big deal.

BTW its comforting...to some degree to read that Mankins hasn't requested extra benefits....though I'd like to hear it from him.

Apparently you also need to read up on law.

 

[patfanken]

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

Again please site the legal basis that allows "named plaintiffs" to get extra benefits in a class action suit

 

[DaBruinz]

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........

It doesn't matter whether or not Mankins vote, alone, decided the fate of the CBA. It doesn't matter how he voted either.

BTW, what John Hannah did or didn't do has absolutely no bearing on the situation so please don't try and divert the conversation.

Sorry, but calling the Krafts "Liars" when they did try and "take care of him" is not within his "documented rights" as you put it.

 

[DaBruinz]

Again please site the legal basis that allows "named plaintiffs" to get extra benefits in a class action suit

Don't bother asking Deus to answer that. He's going to ignore it because he knows that the named plaintiffs in class action lawsuits don't get any extra special treatment.

Especially when the case hasn't even gone to trial yet.

 

[mgcolby]

huh?


mankins didn't sign the tender until the midseason....which means he didn't agree or give permission or whatever you call it......

You really can't be this lost? Rob was simply stating that the Patriots used the RFA tender on Mankins because the union gave the Patriots that right in the 2006 CBA.

 

[DaBruinz]

no more greedy than say tom brady or vince wilfork

Yep.. Because Tom Brady held out for those 10 weeks in 2002.. umm.. Ooops.. I forgot.. He didn't..

And I mean, Vince holding out until week 8 of the season in 2009 just killed the Pats... OH wait..

Care to try again, Charlie Brown?

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus - they did not force Mankins to do anything. The RFA tender was a piece of leverage to the Patriots and a fail-safe. Mankins never understood this. He still probably doesn't understand this. They had an initial offer - what should've been a jumpstart to negotiations - on the table which Mankins was so "offended" by that he would not negotiate.

What recourse did the Patriots have? You expect them to cave to Mankins and just keep offering him more money until he comes back? God, no. No one forced Mankins to take that tender.

The Patriots sure as hell weren't 'forced' to demand that Mankins play under his RFA money. Mankins was 'forced' to take the tender or lose his year of service. Another clause in the CBA.

You're failing to see the obvious. The Patriots had a 'right' to do what they did. That doesn't mean they should have done it. I have a right to do any number of things that will screw others over. It doesn't mean I should exercise those rights.

 

[IllegalContact]

It doesn't matter whether or not Mankins vote, alone, decided the fate of the CBA. It doesn't matter how he voted either.

BTW, what John Hannah did or didn't do has absolutely no bearing on the situation so please don't try and divert the conversation.

Sorry, but calling the Krafts "Liars" when they did try and "take care of him" is not within his "documented rights" as you put it.

nothing matters.....except your 'facts'.

mankins is within his documented rights to call kraft whatever he wants......and it is your opinion that the krafts did try and take care of him

I understand that you are blindly behind the pats front office.....that's fine as plenty of people are.

 

[Deus Irae]

Again please site the legal basis that allows "named plaintiffs" to get extra benefits in a class action suit

You mean that the example from the last time the NFL and the players went through this isn't good enough for you? :bricks:


In that case, a Google search can get you some examples.

 

[DaBruinz]

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'?

Clearly 10000 times more than you as to what constitutes being "taken care of".

And the contract that Mankins was offered would definitely have taken care of him because he'd have been amongst the top paid interior linemen.

 

[IllegalContact]

Yep.. Because Tom Brady held out for those 10 weeks in 2002.. umm.. Ooops.. I forgot.. He didn't..

And I mean, Vince holding out until week 8 of the season in 2009 just killed the Pats... OH wait..

Care to try again, Charlie Brown?

mankins was not under contract, so he did not hold out.....wish to offer up any more of your cluelessness?

 

[BradyManny]

The Patriots sure as hell weren't 'forced' to demand that Mankins play under his RFA money. Mankins was 'forced' to take the tender or lose his year of service. Another clause in the CBA.

You're failing to see the obvious. The Patriots had a 'right' to do what they did. That doesn't mean they should have done it. I have a right to do any number of things that will screw others over. It doesn't mean I should exercise those rights.

The Patriots have an obligation to the players, organization and fans to field the best possible team and compete for a Super Bowl.

The RFA tender was there for them to use as a way to retain Mankins' services for 2010 - dramatically improving their chances of winning the Super Bowl.

That obligation is far greater than their obligation to appeasing Logan Mankins.

And again, it's not like Logan didn't have options. He could have negotiated and worked with the Patriots.

Again - I ask what you think of reports that the two sides had a deal in place once Mankins apologized. If true, what do you say then?

 

[IllegalContact]

Clearly 10000 times more than you as to what constitutes being "taken care of".

And the contract that Mankins was offered would definitely have taken care of him because he'd have been amongst the top paid interior linemen.

LOL at another one of your 'opinions'

 

[MoLewisrocks]

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.

All any of the plaintiffs are entitiled to for being on the list is squat because the case hasn't even gone to trial yet. The lawsuit has nothing to do with the expired CBA or what it allowed all teams to do in the uncapped year. The union that represented those same players negotiated that agreement. Former Patriot offensive lineman turned mediot Ross Tucker sums it up pretty well on twitter...

RossTuckerNFL Ross Tucker 1) How hard IS it to circumsize a mosquito? 2)If I knew I could get $10M to be a "named plaintiff" and do nothing I'd have signed up.

 

[townes]

I don't think the Patriots have handled the Mankins negotiations well but in terms of tagging him they simply did what any team in that position would have done, and there is nothing wrong with that. At the same time i see nothing wrong with Mankins using the leverage available to him to sit until after mid season.


Mankins is the best guard in football and hopefully they recognize this and make him the highest paid. Letting an HOF quality lineman walk in a salary dispute is foolish and the Patriots should be resourceful enough to find a way to get a deal done.