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

[Deus Irae]

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

Actually, what happened was that I replied to a post of yours in the thread and then responded to you multiple times in the thread, over the course of more than 2 hours. Sooner or later, all threads die. That one didn't even make it over 30 posts. You made a claim without backing it up, and I didn't respond either because I didn't feel it warranted a response or because I didn't see your response. I'm not sure what you expected from that, but that post is still not one that is really worthy of a response.

But, to each his own. You feel it was utmost importance.

 

[Deus Irae]

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

Nah, this isn't even an interesting back-and-forth. I'm only replying to Fixit and Ausbacker because the site is so slow right now. Rob's the only one really bothering to discuss the DaBruinz post and my response on the merits, but it's taking the thread off topic.

A thread about Charlie Sheen would be much more popcorn worthy.

 

[Fixit]

Actually, what happened was that I replied to a post of yours in the thread and then responded to you multiple times in the thread, over the course of more than 2 hours. Sooner or later, all threads die. That one didn't even make it over 30 posts. You made a claim without backing it up, and I didn't respond either because I didn't feel it warranted a response or because I didn't see your response. I'm not sure what you expected from that, but that post is still not one that is really worthy of a response.

But, to each his own. You feel it was utmost importance.

Actually, I did make a claim. Then I backed it up. Then I conceded that no one really knows what money was offered, but pointed out that, no matter whose account you believed, Mankins was offered a lot of money.

Then I pointed out the fallacy of your claim that Reiss' report backed up Bauer's story. You just so happened to choose that moment to ghost, because you didn't feel it warranted a response, I guess. Or, more likely, because you couldn't have a logical one.

Anyway, I fail to see how someone pointing out why your claim of Reiss' report backing up Bauer's is false doesn't warrant a response, when that was the whole argument.

 

[Fixit]

Nah, this isn't even an interesting back-and-forth. I'm only replying to Fixit and Ausbacker because the site is so slow right now.

Yeah, 20,000 posts' worth of "only when it's slow."

 

[DaBruinz]

You mustn't have bothered reading DaBruinz' post. You can't possibly have done so and made your post as part of the response with any thought of it being accurate or logical. To re-post the relevant portion of DaBruinz' comment:



Samuel had to threaten to sit out
Branch had to sit out rather than take an onerous contract that's no longer even valid in the league
Seymour had to hold out
Wilfork had to go public with complaints
Mankins has had to go public

The Contract that Branch was offered was MORE than generous at the time it was offered.

Seymour didn't hold out. It was a mutual agreement that he didn't have to go to the minicamps and to training camp until his new contract was signed.

Wilfork didn't have to go to the public with his complaints. And if you are daft enough to believe that it had ANY affect on the Pats negotiating with him, then you just need to stop posting.

Mankins was offered a more than fair deal both before he was tendered as an RFA and AFTER. Like his agent, you overlook that Mankins would have gotten almost 20 million in signing bonus money during the 1st year of the contract. But, oh, god forbid that the salary wasn't 7 million for that year on top of everything.

And, you continue to overlook the numerous players that the Pats have treated well over BB's tenure.

 

[Fixit]

Anyway...goodnight, y'all.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Reiss was reporting what BAUER told him. Not what he saw. Clearly you don't understand the difference.

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.

How do you know they took the "hardass" approach? You don't. You have nothing but the word of Mankin's agent. Yet Kraft was on record as saying that Mankins had an offer on a contract well before they made him an RFA.

I bet you believe that Branch tried to bargain in good faith back in 2005, don't you?

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

That is an outright lie on your part. Ausbacker never said such a thing.

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

It's amazing how you tell others to "get on the ball" when you can't even admit when you're wrong about things. Like the NUMEROUS players that the Patriots have treated "damn well". Funny how you ignored how I blew up your list and the numerous errors on it.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

Yes you have. It's Bauer who Reiss got his info from.

ESPN, with Reiss:



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.

It's amazing how you take things OUT OF CONTEXT in an attempt to prove yourself correct. That was regarding the offer made AFTER Jahri Evans signed his deal. Not the offer that Mankins received prior to the start of Free Agency. The one you insist on ignoring.

And yes, you are the one re-writing history. As you did with your blatant attempt to say that the Patriots mis-treated Branch, Seymour, and Wilfork. All blatant BS on your part.

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.

Yes, it becomes a waste of time when you insist on ignoring what others point out that make your statements incorrect.

 

[SNHU0311]

Report: Logan Mankins agent shouts out

Logan Mankins’ Agent Shouts out to Media Patriots Plus I don't like the looks of this. Do you think Mankins will end up being traded? I hope not...

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

If you think that the Wilfork's going public is what got the deal done then I have 5000 acres of Ocean front property in Nebraska for sale.. Really cheap..

Branch was NOT being held to a terrible deal. What BS is this that it's no longer allowed?? Because it was a 5 year deal to a 2nd round pick?? How many years did they have 2nd round picks signing 5 year deals?? Yeah, that's what I thought.

It's amazing how you suck the players jocks when it comes to this stuff and you implicitly make the Patriots out to be some evil people who abuse the players.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

It's only in your fantasy land that the case fit for all those players..

I posted plenty of examples that flew in the face of your BS... Not to mention that Bruschi got the deal HE wanted. And let's not forget that the Pats could have cut him after his stroke and didn't. They stuck by him, paid him his salary. But yeah, they didn't treat him well.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Really? So having Branch be like Seymour and Brady and numerous others was treating him poorly? And, I notice how you blatantly ignore the fact that the Patriots tried on 2 different occasions prior to Branch's contract being up, to sign an extension, but he refused. Yet, you still imply that the Patriots were the ones in the wrong.

BTW, SFBs, Branch stewed for nearly 5 months before he got his trade. And during most of that time, neither he nor his agent bothered to respond to the Patriots offers..

So, Branch went to mediocrity and the Pats moved on.

 

[Off The Grid]

It's apparent that this ****roach is using Logan Mankins as a pawn to further his own media profile.

A professional wouldn't use the language he's using in an interview.

Well said, sir.

 

[Major **********]

So if a player holds out (as is his right under the CBA) because he doesn't want to honor the last year of his contract, that means he is being treated poorly by the Team? If a team places a franchise tag on a player or if they make an RFA tender to them (as is their right under the CBA) they are treating those players poorly? If so then there are 31 other teams treating players poorly. Tennessee treated poor Chris Johnson very badly last year. So much so that poor Chris had to sit out only 2 years into his NFL career(is that a record by the way? Apart from rookie hold outs of course). Payton Manning has been treated very poorly by the Colts more than once. He was franchised the last time he was a FA and then forced into that contract that made him at the time the highest paid player in the league. Then his owner said last year how Manning would become the highest paid player in the league again and then this year they franchised him instead. That bastard. He franchised Freeney when he became a FA too. Jets are mistreating Harris, Eagles are mistreating Vick, Steelers-Woodley, Vikings-Greenway etc. etc.

Ludicrous.

 

[DW Toys]

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.

Cousin WP, I agree. First of all I want them to sign Mankins, but!..... Bauer was just begging and conniving the Pats to not put the Tag on his client so he could make money for...... Frank Bauer. Someone will overpay for Mankins and he knows it won't be the Pats. He already cost Mankins millions in money last year. Correct me if I am wrong, but for what Mankins got paid by sitting out, and what he could have made at $7m per year, Bauer lost his client $6m!!!!! This is now the blame game. Why on earth should the Pats actually ever grant a FA get out of jail card ever again?

Another point. The FA designation type the Pats placed on Mankins allows "Frankie Boy" to shop his client to anybody that the Pats might accept a deal from. He should be blowing up the phones if he says his client is so elite. The fly in the "let my client walk to be an FA" logic if there are honorariums to pay his present Team, is the complication of what Mankins wants to sign with said new suitor ....plus the compensation to the former employer. Frankie, I have an idea... If you are so sure your client will be showered by enormous wealth by another Team if granted freedom and the Pats treated him so badly, then convince a Team to go two #1's choices and tell said Team that Logan Mankins will play for a million in 2011 and the rest of his balance of contract determined if he plays at that elite level this coming year.
I think the Pats jump at that.

It is absurd to think the Pats just let Mankins walk because he is such a great kid Frank. You intercoursed up!!! YOU lost the kid six million. What is your next trick?

It just drives me crazy with the logic that Agents can shoot their clients out of town without compensation justly due, and badmouth the present rights ownership in an attempt to force that Team to acquiesce.


Frank...you tell the Pats what you would do if the shoe was on the other foot.......?
DW Toys

 

[Off The Grid]

They tendered Mankins only after he refused their very lucrative offer. One that was close to what Jahri Evans received. Let's not change history now.

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.

Nicely put, sir.

I read his post as I read the dialogue between the both of you. I disagree with yours because as DaBruinz has made mention, you enjoy re-writing history to service your self. You've given no thought to the process itself and zeroed in on the notion of who have they treated well without giving any credence to the situations the players created for themselves.

According to you, it can be assumed that it's the big bad Patriots, never the players at fault in contract negotiations (or a combination of both). The players the Patriots wanted to extend got extended and rewarded financially and with long term deals. To me, that is the definition of being looked after. You've also failed to address that there is usually more than 1 contract negotiation ongoing at any given time.

But please, continue with telling me what I have or haven't read.

Hah!!

As John Malkovich said to Steve Buscemi in Con Air: LOVE your Work!!

 

[VJCPatriot]

Trade Mankins for a 1st, draft Watkins or Pouncey at OG and be done with it.

 

[Joker]

die thread die!!!!!

damn...just won't die...and me out of popcorn

 

[jsull87]

He's saying that Mankins is one of the two best guards the team's ever had, with Hannah being the other one. Unless you want to argue Sam Adams over Mankins, I don't see the problem here.

Mate i understand your need to play devils advocate on this forum but it is quite clear that the agent is trying to put him in the same sentence as hannah... infact he does put him in the same sentence.

Mankins is good he deserves a big contract but it has been clear over the last year and a bit that mankins and his agent haven't handled the situation to well publicly

 

[jcdavey]

agents are scum, with condon being the worst