Negotiating Strategy 101: Don't burn your bridges ...unless Mankins intended that

[PatsFanStnfrd]

There is something admirable about standing up for what you believe in. Yet, it makes little sense for Mankins to "blow up" and personally attack the owner of the Patriots. In any negotiation, there is an ebb and flow. Back and forth. Proposal and counter-proposal. What if scenarios. It behooves a party to leave room for the other side to graciously climb down.

Mankins in his public comments did not hold back. By questioning the integrity of the owner and by asking to be traded, he visibly cut his links with the Patriots. That is his choice.

We don't know what happened between the parties. But based on the outburst yesterday, I would say the chances of a compromise are between slim to nil, short of a massive climbdown by Mankins.

So, the question is what is NE's strategy for realizing value from a disgruntled player who wants to force his way out? Even trading him requires his cooperation at negotiating and signing a contract. What about precedent? The Branch case suggests that the Pats will wait to realize value -- at least a first round pick. If a satisfactory offer was not forthcoming, the Pats might stand their ground. Any team trading for Mankins will want him signed for a few years, so even if the trade occurs in the third week, Mankins missing a few games will not deter a committed team from getting his services for a long term. That fact makes me suspect the Pats will be firm on a first round choice.

Finally, on the field, are the Pats ready with a capable replacement. My sense on this is the Pats have several capable back ups who can be deployed in various combinations -- to see who steps up.

Either way, the Mankins era is over.

 

[Ring 6]

There is something admirable about standing up for what you believe in. Yet, it makes little sense for Mankins to "blow up" and personally attack the owner of the Patriots. In any negotiation, there is an ebb and flow. Back and forth. Proposal and counter-proposal. What if scenarios. It behooves a party to leave room for the other side to graciously climb down.

Mankins in his public comments did not hold back. By questioning the integrity of the owner and by asking to be traded, he visibly cut his links with the Patriots. That is his choice.

We don't know what happened between the parties. But based on the outburst yesterday, I would say the chances of a compromise are between slim to nil, short of a massive climbdown by Mankins.

So, the question is what is NE's strategy for realizing value from a disgruntled player who wants to force his way out? Even trading him requires his cooperation at negotiating and signing a contract. What about precedent? The Branch case suggests that the Pats will wait to realize value -- at least a first round pick. If a satisfactory offer was not forthcoming, the Pats might stand their ground. Any team trading for Mankins will want him signed for a few years, so even if the trade occurs in the third week, Mankins missing a few games will not deter a committed team from getting his services for a long term. That fact makes me suspect the Pats will be firm on a first round choice.

Finally, on the field, are the Pats ready with a capable replacement. My sense on this is the Pats have several capable back ups who can be deployed in various combinations -- to see who steps up.

Either way, the Mankins era is over.

First its not over. One proclamation of trade me doesnt mean everythign stops and a trade is the only choice.
Mankins may realize that he has no other choice. The Patriots could very easily let him sit out. That puts him right back in the same place next year, or even in 2012 if there is a lockout. Mankins could legitimately be sitting here 2 years from now in the same position having made no money for 2 years. The loss to the Patriots is whatever pick they would get in a trade.
Mankins expects some team to trade for him and give him Evans money. Good luck. I like Mankins but the market isnt going to be that large. Teams that overpay for Gs want to have dominant running games, and Mankins has never played in a run heavy offense, so he isn't exactly a target of teams looking to break the bank on a G.
In addition, teams are gingerly approaching new deals to their own players fearing paying out big singing bonusses with the chance of no football in 2011. Would you really expect teams to shell that out to get a G in a trade? Mankins best value is here where he is a known commodity.
I serioulsy doubt the organization will take the stand that he criticized them so he is gone, but they hold all the cards.
I do not understand the logic of not signing the tender, that seemed stupid to me.

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

First its not over. One proclamation of trade me doesnt mean everythign stops and a trade is the only choice.
Mankins may realize that he has no other choice. The Patriots could very easily let him sit out. That puts him right back in the same place next year, or even in 2012 if there is a lockout. Mankins could legitimately be sitting here 2 years from now in the same position having made no money for 2 years. The loss to the Patriots is whatever pick they would get in a trade.
Mankins expects some team to trade for him and give him Evans money. Good luck. I like Mankins but the market isnt going to be that large. Teams that overpay for Gs want to have dominant running games, and Mankins has never played in a run heavy offense, so he isn't exactly a target of teams looking to break the bank on a G.
In addition, teams are gingerly approaching new deals to their own players fearing paying out big singing bonusses with the chance of no football in 2011. Would you really expect teams to shell that out to get a G in a trade? Mankins best value is here where he is a known commodity.
I serioulsy doubt the organization will take the stand that he criticized them so he is gone, but they hold all the cards.
I do not understand the logic of not signing the tender, that seemed stupid to me.

Remember, Mankins could report before Week 10 and still get full credit for the year. Sure he will lose 9 game checks if he waits that long.

Your other point is whether there is some team willing to shell out big money for a top guard. You don't think so. Again remember, it takes only one team. And with injuries in training camp and in games, you never know...

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Remember, Mankins could report before Week 10 and still get full credit for the year. Sure he will lose 9 game checks if he waits that long.

Your other point is whether there is some team willing to shell out big money for a top guard. You don't think so. Again remember, it takes only one team. And with injuries in training camp and in games, you never know...

What teams are legit for trades?

Green Bay- they need lineman, probably have the money
Oakland- Mankins is from CA and it's Al Davis

5 years/35 million seems pretty reasonable without the specifics. Interesting to think what he wanted.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

There is something admirable about standing up for what you believe in. Yet, ...

Either way, the Mankins era is over.

A lot of mistakes have been made here and, I would guess, by all parties.

First of all, as someone who shot his mouth off in an inappropriate manner in the work place a couple of times when I was close to Logan's age, I think that sometimes it's the responsibility of the "grownups" on the employer side to calm things down. He's 28 years old; arguably old enough to know better, but did all of us really "know better" when we were that age? This is the first time that he's been in the heat of a negotiation and he clearly spoke way out of line, but, as Andy said, I doubt that alone will put an end to his time in NE.

Secondly, I don't know what he was thinking in not signing the Tender at the offered money. That makes no sense at all.

Third, as Andy also said, the Pats hold all the cards. Clearly, something went very wrong here and we're all just speculating where it went wrong. Count me as someone who thinks that Logan Mankins might play again for the Pats. If there's still a will on their part, I think the grownups could figure a way to fix it. But, if he does return, after the dust is settled, I'm pretty sure that he, like I was, will be told, "And, finally, don't ever speak to me like that again."

 

[Deus Irae]

Bridges are burned all the time. Money rebuilds bridges that teams burn, and talent rebuilds bridges that players burn.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Secondly, I don't know what he was thinking in not signing the Tender at the offered money. That makes no sense at all.

Remember the way the tender works, though: as soon as it's signed, the player is obliged to participate in all workouts, etc. unless excused by the team.

OTOH, the tender salary, while guaranteed against skill and injury, does not get paid out until the regular season begins (1/17 per week).

So, basically, by taking the money now (as opposed to, say, the beginning of the season), he would have been assuming more risk of injury with no extra reward. Now, though, he seems to be doubly screwed, as he'd only get 110% of his 2009 salary instead of the high tender amount.

 

[Rob0729]

Personally, I am beginning to think the NFLPA are advising their players to play tough with the teams (similiar situations are appearing throughout the league like in San Diego and with the Jets). The NFLPA are convinced that the teams colluded to not give out a lot of big contracts this offseason and this might be part of their strategy to strike back.

 

[fgssand]

Bridges are burned all the time. Money rebuilds bridges that teams burn, and talent rebuilds bridges that players burn.

I hate agreeing with you , but money will certainly heal poor mankins right up.

To me it all comes down to whether NE management wants to all the way to 8mm (assuming 7mm is accurate.)

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

I hate agreeing with you , but money will certainly heal poor mankins right up.

To me it all comes down to whether NE management wants to all the way to 8mm (assuming 7mm is accurate.)

For a Guard......... Long Term. I just don't see it. I just don't think BB puts that much value there. That's a lot of money, and it's not like we have a road-grader carving out gaping holes for our back in Mankins. It seems that those are really the Guards that wind up with top $$.

Not knowing the details, I think 7M is certainly about as high as we'll go. Let's not forget, we have a few very high value extensions looming too.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

For a Guard......... Long Term. I just don't see it. I just don't think BB puts that much value there. That's a lot of money, and it's not like we have a road-grader carving out gaping holes for our back in Mankins. It seems that those are really the Guards that wind up with top $$.

Not knowing the details, I think 7M is certainly about as high as we'll go. Let's not forget, we have a few very high value extensions looming too.

Maybe I'm wrong; and I'll admit I might be and if we lose Logan, I hope I am.

But the point to which I keep returning is that if the Pats are thinking about making one more run at the Lombardi while TB is still 35 or younger (he'll be 33 on opening day this year), why screw around with one of the most important elements of that possibility for the negotiable difference between $7 and $8, if indeed those numbers are accurate?

He's already lost one season to a career threatening injury. Last year his OL limited his sacks to 16, almost as few as Peyton takes and less than any other elite QB. The line is already old by NFL standards; why risk losing an important part of that line, a part that could be one of its anchors for the next five or six years?

 

[NEGoldenAge]

He's already lost one season to a career threatening injury. Last year his OL limited his sacks to 16, almost as few as Peyton takes and less than any other elite QB. The line is already old by NFL standards; why risk losing an important part of that line, a part that could be one of its anchors for the next five or six years?

Brady's pocket awareness and pocket movement were amazing this past season... the best I've ever seen. That combined with his quick release and throwing to Welker had more to do with the sack numbers than the OL's performance. The number of times Brady was hit and hurried was quite high relative to the low number of sacks.

 

[patchick]

Bridges are burned all the time. Money rebuilds bridges that teams burn, and talent rebuilds bridges that players burn.

Amen.

That said, it seems pretty clear that Mankins burned his bridges knowingly and deliberately. Having concluded that there was no way to get the deal he wanted out of the Patriots, he and his agent made the strategic decision that shooting their way out of town offered the highest expected reward. So they made statements calculated to drive a wedge between Mankins and the team without making him look like a problem child to potential suitors.

(I imagine that's the main factor in not rejecting the tender, too. He's counting on a trade, and not signing forces a potential trade partner to agree to his terms to make the deal.)

 

[mgteich]

Some would say the the patriots burned the bridge when they decided to reduce the tender. All Mankins did was accept the situation as many before him have. With the possibility of a patriot future gine (except for perhpas one year, Mankins has no reason not to state how he feels in public as many have before.

Mankins has seen a half dozen players get new contracts from the beginning of the last year of his contract until now. He apparently expected his turn to come before now. Instead he is in the category of Seymour, Green, and Watson with no future with the patriots.

One can only guess why the patriots didn't trade him BEFORE the draft (with his cooperation) and draft a left guard.

There is something admirable about standing up for what you believe in. Yet, it makes little sense for Mankins to "blow up" and personally attack the owner of the Patriots. In any negotiation, there is an ebb and flow. Back and forth. Proposal and counter-proposal. What if scenarios. It behooves a party to leave room for the other side to graciously climb down.

Mankins in his public comments did not hold back. By questioning the integrity of the owner and by asking to be traded, he visibly cut his links with the Patriots. That is his choice.

We don't know what happened between the parties. But based on the outburst yesterday, I would say the chances of a compromise are between slim to nil, short of a massive climbdown by Mankins.

So, the question is what is NE's strategy for realizing value from a disgruntled player who wants to force his way out? Even trading him requires his cooperation at negotiating and signing a contract. What about precedent? The Branch case suggests that the Pats will wait to realize value -- at least a first round pick. If a satisfactory offer was not forthcoming, the Pats might stand their ground. Any team trading for Mankins will want him signed for a few years, so even if the trade occurs in the third week, Mankins missing a few games will not deter a committed team from getting his services for a long term. That fact makes me suspect the Pats will be firm on a first round choice.

Finally, on the field, are the Pats ready with a capable replacement. My sense on this is the Pats have several capable back ups who can be deployed in various combinations -- to see who steps up.

Either way, the Mankins era is over.

 

[Nonentity]

Brady's pocket awareness and pocket movement were amazing this past season... the best I've ever seen. That combined with his quick release and throwing to Welker had more to do with the sack numbers than the OL's performance. The number of times Brady was hit and hurried was quite high relative to the low number of sacks.

Precisely. We were ranked 3rd in sacks but only 13th in QB hits.

 

[mgteich]

I agree on all counts.

And there is no reason to "imagine" with regard to signing the tender. There is no reason to sign the tender and be traded to whover the patriots choose, and still have a lousy one year contract.

Amen.

That said, it seems pretty clear that Mankins burned his bridges knowingly and deliberately. Having concluded that there was no way to get the deal he wanted out of the Patriots, he and his agent made the strategic decision that shooting their way out of town offered the highest expected reward. So they made statements calculated to drive a wedge between Mankins and the team without making him look like a problem child to potential suitors.

(I imagine that's the main factor in not rejecting the tender, too. He's counting on a trade, and not signing forces a potential trade partner to agree to his terms to make the deal.)

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

I would hope the bridge only has a bridge blocked sign and not a bridge out sign on it. But whatever happens, I have to trust Bill

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

Amen.

That said, it seems pretty clear that Mankins burned his bridges knowingly and deliberately. Having concluded that there was no way to get the deal he wanted out of the Patriots, he and his agent made the strategic decision that shooting their way out of town offered the highest expected reward. So they made statements calculated to drive a wedge between Mankins and the team without making him look like a problem child to potential suitors.

(I imagine that's the main factor in not rejecting the tender, too. He's counting on a trade, and not signing forces a potential trade partner to agree to his terms to make the deal.)

Yes, deliberately burning your bridges is a strategy designed to force the NE Patriots' hands. It is a form of negative leverage in that it is designed to signal the Pats that Mankins is going to willfully and purposefully disregard the leverage the club has by virtue of Mankins being a RFA. He is saying "that is rubbish. Look at me, see how much i care for that status".

So, the Patriots have to decide how to deal with a wasting asset that Mankins represents.

 

[BelizePats]

I find it very interesting that all of this trade me stuff has come directly from Mankins and and not from his agent. In fact, the agent has been pretty quiet since Mankins demanded a trade.
To me this signals that Mankins has purposely burned his bridge and done as much "goodwill" destruction as is possible.
Do you really want that attitude in the clubhouse, with roughly 24 first and second years players on the team? After last year?
We're not going to get much for him if we trade him either. What franchise would be dumb enough (OK, maybe the Raiders) to both pay a high draft choice (1st or second) and then cough up an Evans type of contact? Doing so is just terribly bad football business and I'm bloody glad that the Pats don't run their team that way!

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I find it very interesting that all of this trade me stuff has come directly from Mankins and and not from his agent. In fact, the agent has been pretty quiet since Mankins demanded a trade.
To me this signals that Mankins has purposely burned his bridge and done as much "goodwill" destruction as is possible.
Do you really want that attitude in the clubhouse, with roughly 24 first and second years players on the team? After last year?
We're not going to get much for him if we trade him either. What franchise would be dumb enough (OK, maybe the Raiders) to both pay a high draft choice (1st or second) and then cough up an Evans type of contact? Doing so is just terribly bad football business and I'm bloody glad that the Pats don't run their team that way!

The only way a Patriot player can get top, top dollar is to either wait for free agency and squawk about the franchise tag (assante) or shoot your way out of town so they have to deal with you. I dont think the Pats want to play this game and may rather he rot. This will be interesting to see how they handle this. The Mankins camp is hoping they trade him for whatever they can get but Im not so sure the Pats take that route here.
Now if your a good player (Brady, Wilfork), they'll pay you top dollar but not the top of the market. Its hard for us 9-5ers to feel bad that a player will only make 40 mill in his career instead of 45 mill.