Mankins Update: agent says "deal cannot be worked out - we disagree"

[ausbacker]

1.) I don't re-write history. I'm going by what's been reported. If Reiss changes his report, I'll change what I'm writing.

2.) This isn't about "fault" in contract negotiations. As I've stated repeatedly, the Patriots were within their rights to take the actions they did. It is about good/bad moves. The Patriots, who are known to be hardasses in negotiations (this used to be a source of pride for Patriots fans during the SB years), took that approach here when it wasn't needed and wasn't warranted.

3.) Using your definition of "looked under", an offer for a 4 year deal at veteran minimum would be sufficient.


So please, get on the ball more before you jump in.

1. If you don't re-write history then you

2. Then what's your point? If the Patriots are well within their rights to use the system and ultimately end at the point that the player and the organization is happy with the outcome or part ways, why are you bothering with a stance against DaBruinz's POV given most of your listed players were rewarded handsomely as the outcome?

3. No, my definition of looked after is an amicable outcome for both parties, of which we've seen plenty of times from the current administration.

You're being argumentative for the sake of it. But please, continue telling us that you're opinion is the right one.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Well there will be endless posts and threads about this ...

Even though we have seen this play out before.

Logan will move on and we will move on ... and we will still be good.

So MEH on Logan Mankins ... he deserves to get paid and will be elsewhere.

We will sign 2 very good players to take his place and we will be better.

he really got his but kicked in the Jet's game ...

He really got his butt kicked most playoff games he has played ... there I said it.

 

[Deus Irae]

And I'll point out...again...what I said in another thread. Reiss' source for Mankins' contract offer was Bauer himself. You keep clinging to this belief that Reiss' info backs up Bauer's contention, when in reality Bauer is backing himself up through Reiss. Breer said something different (with actual numbers attached), and his source wasn't the player's agent. No one knows for sure what the numbers were, and either way Mankins was going to make a lot of dough, but you hitched yourself to Bauer's wagon for no other reason than to be you.

I've not hitched myself to Bauer at all. Bauer is all but irrelevant.

I also flat-out stated in the other thread that you would ignore that bit of information, and you were never heard from again. Imagine that.

I don't respond to every single post aimed at me. That should be expected of everyone. I certainly wasn't deliberately trying to avoid your post. I don't even remember reading it. Just look at this thread. I made a comment and DaBruinz responded to it. Now Ausbacker and yourself have decided to add your positions, increasing the number of responses I'd have to make to deal with them all. Not everyone is going to get every post answered. It's just the reality of message boards.

PS According to Curran, Bauer also said that the Pats asked him if they'd be interested in a deal similar to Jahri Evans'. He said he was asked this on May 4th. Evans' deal wasn't announced until May 5th. But he's an honest fella, for sure.

ESPN, with Reiss:

According to reports, Mankins is seeking a deal similar to the Saints' Jahri Evans, who received a seven-year, $56.7 million contract this offseason.

Report: Logan Mankins of New England Patriots ready to sit out season - ESPN Boston

DaBruinz and I have gone through this before. Notice his response then (I'll bold the important part, notice his response earlier in this thread, and then notice that I'm the one being accused of re-writing history. It's both funny and pathetic at the same time.

And what Reiss also said was that while the RFA money was there, Mankins would still get his signing bonus this year... So he'd have been looking at double digit millions this season.. And a relatively high salary for each of the next seasons..

This discussion quickly becomes a waste of time, because too many people (such as yourself here) just go knee-jerk, either pro or anti, and thoughtful posting goes by the wayside.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Not surprising given the previous bad blood between both parties. I think that anyone who felt this was going to end in some other fashion was badly mistaken.

 

[Deus Irae]

1. If you don't re-write history then you

2. Then what's your point? If the Patriots are well within their rights to use the system and ultimately end at the point that the player and the organization is happy with the outcome or part ways, why are you bothering with a stance against DaBruinz's POV given most of your listed players were rewarded handsomely as the outcome?

3. No, my definition of looked after is an amicable outcome for both parties, of which we've seen plenty of times from the current administration.

You're being argumentative for the sake of it. But please, continue telling us that you're opinion is the right one.

My post:

No surprise here. The decision to tender Mankins as an RFA last season, instead of taking advantage of the uncapped year to craft a deal amenable to both sides, was destined to lead to bad blood.

was jumped on by others, even though it's a pretty obvious position and was certainly easy to see coming before the tender was placed upon the player. I wasn't the one being argumentative. But you feel free to pretend otherwise, if it makes you feel better.

 

[DaBruinz]

The deal involved the RFA year. Again, per Reiss. I'm not going to argue this point with you. Reiss is considered the gold standard by most around here, and it's his report. Until something else comes out, I'll take Reiss' word.

The deal that was offered after free agency started involved the RFA tender according to Bauer. And that is who Reiss was quoting. But the offer sent to Mankins prior to the start of free agency (like before the SB) did not include the RFA tender. You can be stupid if you want and not acknowledge the difference, but that only reflects on your inability to admit when you are wrong.

 

[upstater1]

This could actually be an excellent year to grab your major defensive presence with the first pick, then focus on OL even if it means you trade down and collect picks. There are lots of good lineman out there who will go 27 and later, between Carimi, Castonzo, Pouncey, Solder, Watkins, Ijalana (sp?) (I expect Smith to go early), Wisnewski, the Patriots could grab two of these guys--hell 3 of them!!!! resign Light, and then just move on without Mankins. Hell, when the league returns, just trade him for a 2nd rounder and be on your way.

 

[Deus Irae]

Seymour and Wilfork were paid handsomely by the Patriots. Seymour was the highest paid d-lineman when they resigned him. Wilfork has no complaints being the highest paid 3-4 NT in the league (well, except for Albert Haynesworth who was signed by the Redskins as a 4-3 DT). Just because the Pats had to franchise Wilfork when they gave him a very fair deal doesn't mean anything. Just because they traded away Seymour doesn't mean they didn't treat him well.

Also, Branch had a year left on his contract when he held out. The Pats were under no obligations to give him anything.

You can really only make a case for Mankins and Samuel.

Seymour had to hold out to get his deal adjusted. Wilfork/Mrs. Wilfork had to start going public (which is precisely what DaBruinz was arguing would NOT get the deal done). Branch was being held to a terrible deal, and one which is no longer even allowed by the new CBA.

The case fits for every player I posted. I could have pointed to the way Bruschi got underpaid and Harrison had to take a paycut down the road, but I figured I'd posted enough examples.

 

[Wolfpack]

Their offer took the RFA tender into account, Per Reiss, requiring Mankins to play that year as part of the deal. Reiss' report lines up with what Bauer was saying about the actual value of the offer. I'm not changing history.

And, besides Brady, the Patriots treat who damn well?

Branch? No.
Samuel? No.
Seymour? No.
Wilfork? No.
Mankins? No.

Who are these players who've been treated damn well?

Ya they treated Branch so poorly that he practically came on his hands and knees begging them to take him back.

 

[Wolfpack]

I don't believe for a second the Patriots promised not to franchise him or that they would "never" franchise a guard. This agent's talk smacks of desperation.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ya they treated Branch so poorly that he practically came on his hands and knees begging them to take him back.

What does one have to do with the other? I didn't say that they beat the living hell out of Branch and left him to die by the roadside. I spoke about the situation with his contract. And I didn't say that the team was right or wrong, either. That wasn't the issue DaBruinz bringing forth. It was about how they were, or were not, taken care of, except when they went public.

 

[Wolfpack]

What does one have to do with the other?

Uh, gee, maybe the fact that he came crawling back to Foxboro destroys your argument that they treated him poorly.

 

[ausbacker]

The deal that was offered after free agency started involved the RFA tender according to Bauer. And that is who Reiss was quoting. But the offer sent to Mankins prior to the start of free agency (like before the SB) did not include the RFA tender. You can be stupid if you want and not acknowledge the difference, but that only reflects on your inability to admit when you are wrong.

Honestly, conversing with Deus Irae (despite his sometimes valid opinion points) is like dealing with a crying child in a supermarket isle.

 

[Deus Irae]

Uh, gee, maybe the fact that he came crawling back to Foxboro destroys your argument that they treated him poorly.

For the last time, hopefully, here are DaBruinz' words to which I was responding:

The Pats have shown that when you play out your contract and don't ask for silly, absurd money, they treat you damn well.. They've also shown that when you flap your gums to the media about the negotiations, they will just let you stew.

Right or wrong, the Patriots were not treating Branch "damn well" by forcing him to keep that onerous last season (Notice how he sticks in the part about playing out the contract? That would apply to Branch). Instead, Branch flapped his gums and, rather than having to stew, he ended up getting his contract, in Seattle.

 

[Rob0729]

Seymour had to hold out to get his deal adjusted. Wilfork/Mrs. Wilfork had to start going public (which is precisely what DaBruinz was arguing would NOT get the deal done). Branch was being held to a terrible deal, and one which is no longer even allowed by the new CBA.

The case fits for every player I posted. I could have pointed to the way Bruschi got underpaid and Harrison had to take a paycut down the road, but I figured I'd posted enough examples.

Seymour held out with two years left on his deal. He didn't have to hold out. He was wrong to hold out with two years left on his deal. He chose to and the Pats gave him a bonus to come back to camp and then gave him a market breaking deal the next year with one year left on his deal.

Wilfork and his wife were agressive in negotations, but he got everything he wanted. That doesn't mean the Pats treated him bad.

I do feel bad for Branch for actually being "forced" to honor the contract he signed rather than the Pats tearing it up and giving him elite WR money for being an above average WR who couldn't stay on the field for a 16 game season.

You could point out that Bruschi willingly took less money to stay with the Pats because he chose not to get an agent to give him more money. You could also argue that the Pats did the same thing that 31 other teams in the league does and ask a player who is on the downside of his career to take a paycut.

 

[Deus Irae]

Seymour held out with two years left on his deal. He didn't have to hold out. He was wrong to hold out with two years left on his deal. He chose to and the Pats gave him a bonus to come back to camp and then gave him a market breaking deal the next year.

Wilfork and his wife were agressive in negotations, but he got everything he wanted. That doesn't mean the Pats treated him bad.

I do feel bad for Branch for actually being "forced" to honor the contract he signed rather than the Pats tearing it up and giving him elite WR money for being an above average WR who couldn't stay on the field for a 16 game season.

You could point out that Bruschi willingly took less money to stay with the Pats because he chose not to get an agent to give him more money. You could also argue that the Pats did the same thing that 31 other teams in the league does and ask a player who is on the downside of his career to take a paycut.

Read what DaBruinz said. Note the response. DaBruinz posted a TWO PART comment. Note that Seymour had to hold out to get his money, but holding out got his money. Note that Branch had to complain to get his contract, but Branch got his contract. Note that Wilfork got unhappy enough that his side came out publicly, and the deal got done.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Fixit]

I don't respond to every single post aimed at me. That should be expected of everyone. I certainly wasn't deliberately trying to avoid your post. I don't even remember reading it. Just look at this thread. I made a comment and DaBruinz responded to it. Now Ausbacker and yourself have decided to add your positions, increasing the number of responses I'd have to make to deal with them all. Not everyone is going to get every post answered. It's just the reality of message boards.

That would be more believable if I hadn't been, quite literally, the only person you responded to (read: argued with) on the entire thread: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/736233-mankins-definitely-franchised.html

 

[Joker]

wait a sec....OK...continue...

 

[Rob0729]

Read what DaBruinz said. Note the response. DaBruinz posted a TWO PART comment. Note that Seymour had to hold out to get his money, but holding out got his money. Note that Branch had to complain to get his contract, but Branch got his contract. Note that Wilfork got unhappy enough that his side came out publicly, and the deal got done.

I'll leave it at that.

Did holding out get Seymour his money? He held out a year before he got his money. He might have gotten his money if he held out or not. He got his money because at the time they gave him his new deal he was arguably one of the best d-linemen in the league and the Pats still made him play out the final year of his contract.

Branch's situation was a unique animal. If he didn't file a greivance with the league and the league didn't pressure the Pats to trade him because they were worried the arbitrator would destroy free agency as we know it, he would have been forced to play out his contract. It was the Pats' stupid mistake in letting Branch find his own deal while under contract that caused the problem. They won't do that again and it is irrelevant to the Mankins situation.

Wilfork was a priority with the Pats. They were already negotiating with him when they franchised him. They gave him a deal he was happy with. He didn't get the very top d-line dollar, but the best 3-4 NT money. It looked like both sides just came to a deal that both sides could live with. I doubt the public stuff did much either way.

 

[Deus Irae]

Did holding out get Seymour his money? He held out a year before he got his money. He might have gotten his money if he held out or not. He got his money because at the time they gave him his new deal he was arguably one of the best d-linemen in the league and the Pats still made him play out the final year of his contract.

Seymour ends holdout! - Page 4 - Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Branch's situation was a unique animal. If he didn't file a greivance with the league and the league didn't pressure the Pats to trade him because they were worried the arbitrator would destroy free agency as we know it, he would have been forced to play out his contract. It was the Pats' stupid mistake in letting Branch find his own deal while under contract that caused the problem. They won't do that again and it is irrelevant to the Mankins situation.

It's not irrelevant to DaBruinz' post, which is what I was responding to.

Wilfork was a priority with the Pats. They were already negotiating with him when they franchised him. They gave him a deal he was happy with. He didn't get the very top d-line dollar, but the best 3-4 NT money. It looked like both sides just came to a deal that both sides could live with. I doubt the public stuff did much either way.

Actually, one of the complaints was that they hadn't been negotiating with him. This stuff has been leading the thread OT, though.