Outlook on Mankins Not Promising

[Rob0729]

Since nobody has the terms of the deal, claims like this are simply guesses.

That's why I said it seems that they have tried to negotiate in good faith effort not that they have tried. All we can go on is sources and Curran's sources says that they made a good faith effort. I tend to believe them since Mankin's agent's own words seem to be that they feel that if Mankins does even get offered the highest paid contract (or second highest but close) that it isn't a good faith effort. If Curran's sources are right, the Pats legitimately tried to come to the table and Mankins is playing hardball.

 

[Deus Irae]

That's why I said it seems that they have tried to negotiate in good faith effort not that they have tried. All we can go on is sources and Curran's sources says that they made a good faith effort.

Mankins clearly disagreed.

I tend to believe them since Mankin's agent's own words seem to be that they feel that if Mankins does even get offered the highest paid contract (or second highest but close) that it isn't a good faith effort.

Those weren't Mankins' agent's words.

If Curran's sources are right, the Pats legitimately tried to come to the table and Mankins is playing hardball.

When did pushing off a players contract requests for another year while significantly underpaying him, followed by offering a contract that's lower than the player's value on the open market (assuming no collusion) end up being considered "tried to come to the table"? And, again:

Mankins’ camp says the contract offered was seven years with $6.5 million annually.

 

[Rob0729]

Mankins clearly disagreed.

Doesn't mean Mankins is right. He could be, but he also could be unreasonable. The fact that his camp admits they never counter offered, it seems that he isn't the one willing to negotiate in good faith. I am just going on what we have as information and you listen to both sides and it seems reasonable to assume the Pats did offer Mankins a good contract as a first offer. Although it may not be the case.

Those weren't Mankins' agent's words.

No he said if people are making $8 million, Mankins should be making $8 million. There is only one guard making that much.

When did pushing off a players contract requests for another year while significantly underpaying him, followed by offering a contract that's lower than the player's value on the open market (assuming no collusion) end up being considered "tried to come to the table"? And, again:

Who cares whether they tried to negotiate in other years or not? That is irrelevant to whether they tried to come to the table this year.

If Curran is right, the Pats INITIAL offer was to make him the third highest, no worse than the fourth highest paid guard in the league with no funny money. In fact, when they made the offer it was before Evans got his deal so at the time it could have been the second best contract for a guard ever. Unless Mankins is indisputably the best or second best guard in the league, that is not lower than his value on the open market at least by much. Beside, considering that Mankins never counter offer, we will never know how high they would have gone.

Curran has blasted the Pats as much as anyone about how they do business in recent years and he seems to believe that the Pats made a good faith effort to retain Mankins. So although Curran's sources have been wrong in the past; but if they are right now, I don't think the Pats are in the wrong. I don't blame Mankins for trying to be the highest paid player in the league at his position and doing whatever he can to do so it happens. But if Curran's sources are right, he is not the innocent victim and the Pats did not do him wrong.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Mankins clearly disagreed.

Doesn't mean he's right, maybe he's just irrational or unreasonable.



Those weren't Mankins' agent's words.

No, he said if everyone is making X dollars then he and his client expect to make that. And he mentioned $8M from which you can reasonably infer he thinks Jabari Greer represents everyone and therefore his client should be making that too.


When did pushing off a players contract requests for another year while significantly underpaying him, followed by offering a contract that's lower than the player's value on the open market (assuming no collusion) end up being considered "tried to come to the table"? And, again:

Since when is it a given that requests for another contract when a player is still under contract on a rookie deal he wouldn't have seen had you not drafted him in the first freakin' round must be acted on at all... And who says they offered him a contract that lower than his value on the open market, let alone that he's entitled to one since he isn't...

Baur was pretty clear. He and Mankins want $8M per. They think because one guy just got that it's what everyone gets. He's been offered a deal that is still a damn sight better than what everyone gets, it's well within the top 5 for a player at his position which is what only a select few get.

Maybe the mistake on the team's part was in not starting the bidding at the freakin' league average for the postion...you know, what pretty much everyone makes.

Maybe the mistake on Mankins part was assuming that being told he'd be taken care of in the uncapped year meant he'd be made the top paid player at the position, something we have never done in the Belichick era except with the PK on short terms and recently semanticly with a NT who plays a position that is a subset of DT where the market holder is making $10M. (And don't talk about Drew whose 6 year deal had a $10M signing bonus and salary...period.) Perhaps what the team was inferring was he would get a fair market deal in 2010 as opposed to a dramatically discounted early deal if he waited. See Ty Warren. You think he'd be happy now if they had tried to sign him for $5M per back in 2008...or close to $6M in 2009...although given the terms of an expiring CBA they likely couldn't have offered him much more than an incremental deal like D'Brick just signed since they could not have guaranteed his salaries... Hell no, since he's so pissed he can't see straight when offered a close to $7M deal with no funny money.

You were pretty convinced they must have low balled him to get that reaction. And once your mind is made up, there is no reasoning with you. He never even counter offered. Sorry but top 3-4 money isn't lowballing, especially since he was not ever an UFA and therefore not entitled to a market deal - even presuming $7M wouldn't be his market if he were a UFA.

And he has his union who agreed to ALL those terms to thank for also not being a UFA. And he's known about that little fact since 2008.

 

[Triumph]

It sounds to me like the Mankins camp is getting nervous.

Training Camp is a few weeks away and they are in limbo. Mankins has to be the one to pick up the phone and first call Bob Kraft to straighten things out. Its the right thing to do and I see Mankins as that kind of guy.

I dont think Mankins really wants to hold out, because once that button is pressed, theres no turning back. The Pats will play hardball all the way.

 

[Triumph]

I never said anything about a "public" apology. I feel an apology is in order any time you personally attack someones character, whether under contract to him or not, if you still expect him to pay you. And I suggested he let his pragmatic agent handle his business.

A personal apology is definitely in order.

Kraft could simply tell the media that he and Mankins settled any misunderstandings to two may have had and that conversation is private. Both save face. Kraft did that exact thing with Parcells after he left and that feud was way worse.

 

[vyrago]

A personal apology is definitely in order.

When I read those Mankins quotes I thought he is deadly serious about wanting to be traded because there is a very large bridge burning in the background, but then the line from his agent about a door opening suggests that either Mankins doesn't think before he runs his pie hole or the agent is trying to massage things to get negotiations going again. If the second option is the case, I would imagine it will take a lot of massaging before Kraft can swallow being called a liar and welcome Mankins back into the er, ah herd.

 

[Water Boy]

$8 Million for an Offensive Guard? No thanks. I'm even hesitant about the reported $7 million BB offered.

 

[patfanken]

Maybe we should think about it this way. If it wasn't for the uncapped year. Mankins would have been an UFA. The Pats would have made their $7MM offer and some team would have given him his $8MM and he would have been long gone by now, and all our discussions would have be on who would replace him. IMHO if he comes back its a bonus.

Instead we are left with sort of an "open sore" situation and a lot of questions are still to be answered. I don't see the Pats moving much from their original offer, and I don't see Mankins coming off his "high horse". (pride coming before the fall). I agree that the best situation would be to let his agent try and make a deal with another team and then judge whether it is worth it. I don't want to see this unresolved as we go into the season. Personally I'd take a 2nd in 2011 or a first in 2012

 

[Rob0729]

Maybe we should think about it this way. If it wasn't for the uncapped year. Mankins would have been an UFA. The Pats would have made their $7MM offer and some team would have given him his $8MM and he would have been long gone by now, and all our discussions would have be on who would replace him. IMHO if he comes back its a bonus.

Instead we are left with sort of an "open sore" situation and a lot of questions are still to be answered. I don't see the Pats moving much from their original offer, and I don't see Mankins coming off his "high horse". (pride coming before the fall). I agree that the best situation would be to let his agent try and make a deal with another team and then judge whether it is worth it. I don't want to see this unresolved as we go into the season. Personally I'd take a 2nd in 2011 or a first in 2012

Why not just send Mankins to the Jets for a seventh round pick? That is basically what you are advocating. If the Pats allow Mankins to go out and negotiate his own trade like they did with Branch and the Jets offer him $10 million a year for a seventh and he accepts, the Pats may be forced to accept that trade.

There is absolutely no upside to allow Mankins to negotiate his own trade at this point. From the start of free agency to a week before the draft, Mankins could have signed with anyone for whatever he wanted for a compensation of a first and third rounder. He had no takers whatsoever. If someone was serious about Mankins they could have negotiated a deal with Mankins and tried to get the Pats to lower the compensation to just a first or a second.

Why would the Pats be stupid enough to back themselves into a corner like they did with Branch? They were lucky enough to get a first for Branch, but they might only get a third or fourth this time around for Mankins. Like they did with Branch, they would give up all leverage by allowing him to seek a trade and will likely be forced to trade him for pennies on the dollar.

 

[BlueThunder]

I have to admit I know nothing about Mankins' personal situation, but from afar, I've always wondered how a western valleybound cowboy likes it in New England.

From the sound of it...looks like he has about 7 million reasons to like New England

 

[patfanken]

Why not just send Mankins to the Jets for a seventh round pick? That is basically what you are advocating. If the Pats allow Mankins to go out and negotiate his own trade like they did with Branch and the Jets offer him $10 million a year for a seventh and he accepts, the Pats may be forced to accept that trade.

There is absolutely no upside to allow Mankins to negotiate his own trade at this point. From the start of free agency to a week before the draft, Mankins could have signed with anyone for whatever he wanted for a compensation of a first and third rounder. He had no takers whatsoever. If someone was serious about Mankins they could have negotiated a deal with Mankins and tried to get the Pats to lower the compensation to just a first or a second.

Why would the Pats be stupid enough to back themselves into a corner like they did with Branch? They were lucky enough to get a first for Branch, but they might only get a third or fourth this time around for Mankins. Like they did with Branch, they would give up all leverage by allowing him to seek a trade and will likely be forced to trade him for pennies on the dollar.

Excuse me? That strategy netted the Pats a first round pick and rid them of a problem that would have followed them half the year.

Your 7th round metaphor is almost a ridiculous as the rest of your post. I'd think the Pats would be smart enough to reject this deal. While Mankins is NOT under contract, he IS still bound by the current CBA. Any team signing him would be required to compensate the Pats a first and 3rd round pick. THAT's were negotiations would begin.

BTW- If Mankins is truly willing to hold out until week 10, would a second round pick in 2011 or a first rounder in 2012 be enough for you to pull the trigger, or are you holding out for that 7th rounder

 

[Boston Boxer]

True.

Frankly, I don't think he's worth 7M a year, anyway, so I'm rooting against such a deal occurring. I think the 6.5M deal is a little rich when we have other priorities.

Let's put it this way - we've won Super Bowls with much less heralded guards. We haven't won Super Bowls without Brady, or without a stout DL, or without a group of quality LBs. I do think we have to factor in Scar's ability to coach up players when looking at how much Mankins is worth over a potential replacement.

i have seen interviews with other player from opposing teams that say he is THE best guard in the league...so i think 7M is a good deal for both player and team.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

I don't think the Pats should let Mankins pursue his own trade, but if the Pats don't think they're going to be able to reach a long term deal with him AND feel he's going to legit sit out the first 10 weeks, I think they should deal him. If he winds up holding out but will play the full season, I'd roll the dice with him in hope of making a deep playoff run and maybe working something out after the season.

But if he's going to sit out games and then pack his bags after 2010, they should trade him now. They could probably get a 2nd rounder or conditional 3rd that could turn into a 2nd for a guy with his reputation and level of talent. If these were the circumstances and we could get a 2nd rounder, I'd definitely take it because if he leaves after 2010 we will get a compensatory 3rd round pick at best.

I don't want to see him go though. I think he's the best OL the Pats have and I love the way he plays. I'm not confident Kaczur/Connolly/Ohrnberger can adequately fill the void left by him.

 

[italia44]

Maybe we should think about it this way. If it wasn't for the uncapped year. Mankins would have been an UFA. The Pats would have made their $7MM offer and some team would have given him his $8MM and he would have been long gone by now, and all our discussions would have be on who would replace him. IMHO if he comes back its a bonus.

Instead we are left with sort of an "open sore" situation and a lot of questions are still to be answered. I don't see the Pats moving much from their original offer, and I don't see Mankins coming off his "high horse". (pride coming before the fall). I agree that the best situation would be to let his agent try and make a deal with another team and then judge whether it is worth it. I don't want to see this unresolved as we go into the season. Personally I'd take a 2nd in 2011 or a first in 2012

jeezus.......no more draft choices......this team is on overload,already.If they let Mankins make his own deal,then we'll be looking at him playing in the AFCE,for years.....worse,for Pitts or Indy.

Try to get an established player from a 2nd tier team,even if you have to take less in value,but for gods' sake,no more draft choices.

BTW,pfk.....it's "pride COMETH,before the fall".

 

[PatsFanSince74]

For a guy with a client so intensely principled (aka so mad he can't see straight), his agent sounds remarkably pragmatic... Perhaps Logan would be well served to let him handle his business. Not sure at this juncture however if the FO will consider this a first move on the players side absent Logan himself doing a mea culpa to the guy who actually signs the checks and having his agent submit a realistic counter offer. Apparently the good news is team Mankins wants us to know they have no issues with Bill. Which is almost comical given the fact that Bill has total control of football ops, including deciding the limits on what you get paid contractually in relation to the rest of your teamates...What remains to be seen is if team Kraft has lingering issues with the way the player publicly conducted himself. And how he intends to conduct himself going forward.

I think that's spot on. In the end, the Krafts will have to be the "grownups" in this matter, accepting an apology for the overheated language of a young guy facing his first real negotiation, once they are convinced that they haven't misjudged his character and can write it off to a youthful mistake. I've said all along here that I think this deal will get done if people could just cool off. Maybe that's happening.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

jeezus.......no more draft choices......this team is on overload,already.If they let Mankins make his own deal,then we'll be looking at him playing in the AFCE,for years.....worse,for Pitts or Indy.

Try to get an established player from a 2nd tier team,even if you have to take less in value,but for gods' sake,no more draft choices.

BTW,pfk.....it's "pride COMETH,before the fall".

Agreed, but for a different reason. I hope they sign Mankins, but if they don't, I don't want to see them "experiment" with a youth movement on Tommy's blindside. Let's not forget that the Franchise was only sacked 16 times last year. TB has another three to whatever seasons at a high level left, let's give him all the tools we can.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Trade him while they can. Like Andruzzi and Mike Compton, nobody will miss Mankins. Guards are a dime a dozen.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

Any OLB's on the block? Mankins for that much needed OLB?

 

[RayClay]

Sounds to me like the Pats made an offer, Mankins threw a tantrum, the pats did nothing and his agent just blinked.

So many factors against Mankins having any real leverage.

When Meion tried to hold us hostage, Givens had already moved on. We had virtually no depth, for some reason.

If Mankins leaves we have six possible replacements, if you include Kaczur.

Connolly has obviously played a lot, Wendell's been on and off for two years and is getting extra PS pay, Ohrnberger and Bussey have been around for a year and our c-g rookie is reportedly a good prospect.

Add to that guard is probably the easiest position (imo) to get an affordable cut with a little tread left on the tires that can play.

Training camp hasn't begun, so where's the panic on the Pats part? There isn't. They'd rather have Mankins, but if he doesn't want 7 mil a year, they'll spend it elsewhere. They could get two veteran guards for much less than that, which isn't a bad idea with Neal's injury history.