Outlook on Mankins Not Promising

[MoLewisrocks]

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

First off, ken, Deion was under contract, Mankins isn't. Bill can't trade him now unless he signs his reduced tender. When Bill told Deions agent to shop him he was calling their bluff because other than tampering Tangini he didn't believe anyone would give that player the $9M he wanted and give us a first. Guess what, one idiot did...and lived to regret it. The Patriots offered this clown $35M...they want to retain him. The last thing they will do is tell him to shop himself for a draft pick that can't help them this season. There may not be a next season, and the player they'd get in exchange might not see the field until 2012. Remember when Reche Caldwell couldn't catch a cold down the stretch against Indy in the AFCC...he was the #1 because Deion was allowed to seek a trade for a 2007 first round draft pick. Deion would have shown up by week 10 at the latest. He did most of his best work in his career here AFTER week 10...

If not for the uncapped year the Patriots might have signed Wilfork and Brady up out of the gate and tagged Mankins... Or insulted him with a discounted early offer back in 2009. And the Saints might not have paid Evans what they did, not to mention there is no reason to believe anyone else would have set the market with Mankins.

The Pats made a mistake with Deion and they know it and learned from it. They aren't ever going to take that prove it approach again. In part because you cannot get sufficient return for the player heading into camp or pre season and because once you open that door you enable the player to shoot his way out of town via threats of arbitration. It would be different if these players were up front with the team from the get go and they could be traded in March or April and a replacement secured via FA or the draft. They didn't let Asante off the hook once that window had passed and he started squawking how he wasn't going to report, and I don't think they should or will with Mankins. He will have to sign his tender and report before they even consider persuing a trade which would have to satisfy their demands before any talk of a new team extending Mankins is even broached. They will never again empower an agent to seek a deal for a holdout because that places them in an untenable position over which they have basically ceded control.

Mankins was a RFA because his union agreed to those terms in an expiring CBA in persuit of the panacea that the uncapped season was going to being players. Only no such panacea unfolded and any team that didn't take advantage of those rules would be managed by idiots. 200 players were subjected to the same misfortune, only a handful remain unsigned further screwing themselves in the process. Foolish as they have behaved, none of them is going to hold out once the season starts. No player has held out in a decade...too much money at stake and this year the potential to be out of work involuntarily next season.

For three months Mankins was available for the price of a first and a third and no one came calling to offer him (or any of them) a market deal. He is not going to net a first now and get the $8M he thinks he's worth, either. He's also not going to sit out 10 weeks because there is a 1 in 3 chance there will be a work stoppage well into 2011 in which case he is royally screwed, a 1 in 3 chance that the union will decertify in the alternative and ownership rules will prevail for a couple of years as the league and union hash things out in court - in which case he likely remains screwed, and a 1 in 3 chance that a deal gets done in time for him to ever recoup the couple to several million he will have lost by not signing his tag or negotiating a very realistic deal this season.

 

[BestQB]

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".

No more draft choices. Are you kidding me? I'm betting that if you give BB a lot of top draft choices, like the one you received for Seymour and what you would receive for Mankins, the Super Bowl parade would be held in New England almost annually. If they got a one from a middle of the road team, this deal would be done in a heartbeat and with my approval as well.

 

[Rob0729]

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

The Pats got a first round pick from Seattle because Branch was a highly rated WR and they were lucky that the Seahawks were willing to pony up. The Pats had no intention of trading Branch and the Jets outsmarted Belichick and helped Branch shoot his way out of town. If the Seahawks weren't willing to give up a first, the Pats would have been forced to trade Branch to the Jets for second rounder.

I was exaggerating about the seventh, but if you don't think that if the Pats allowed Mankins to go get his own deal, the Jets won't screw over the Pats again you are kidding yourself.

What if hypothetically the Pats say that Mankins can get his own deal elsewhere and the Jets offer $10 million a year and only offer the Pats a seventh. If the Pats refuse, Mankins will file a grevience because of it. The league will most certainly step in and force the Pats to trade Mankins and make the Jets be more reasonable like a third. The one thing is for certain is that if Mankins is given permission to seek his own deal, the Jets will offer him more money than anyone else. It is a need for them and since the odds of them getting him is slim they can offer whatever they want to screw over the Pats.

What you and others are missing, Mankins had most of the offseason to try to get his own deal. Mankins was a free agent until the week before the draft and could negotiate with anyone. If a team offered him a deal that was accpeptable, they could have negotiated a trade with the Pats for less than the first and third that comes with his tender. If the Pats were realistically going to get a first, they would have gotten it during that timeframe. Mankins is no longer a free agent and cannot be signed by another team unless the Pats trade him first. Branch was no a free agent when they gave him permission to look elsewhere and had one year left on his deal. That was the first time he actually could legally talk to other teams.

The thing is now if the Pats give Mankins permission to seek a deal elsewhere, they have to trade him for whatever they can get if he gets an offer he wants. A presidence was set with Branch at least as far as the Patriots go. So if Mankins accepts a deal and the best the Pats can get is a seventh rounder, that is all they will get and they have to let Mankins go. If the Pats reject any deal, Mankins will file arbitration and the Pats will likely lose arbiration or the league will step in and force the Pats to trade.

Personally, I would rather have him sit out 10 games than let Mankins control his own destiny. If the Pats are willing to trade him, they should be the ones controling the process by seeking the deal they want and then once they get trade compensation that they are satisfied with then let the team negotiate with Mankins. Not the other way around. The second they let Mankins control the trade process, the Pats are screwed like they were with Branch who they had no intention of trading and were forced to.

BTW, you shouldn't call my post ridiculous when you clearly don't understand the rules of the CBA or the Branch situation. The restricted free agency period is over and the CBA does not say the Pats are guaranteed a first and third if someone signs him now because another team cannot sign him or even talk to him about a contract now unless he is traded to them. That is unless the Pats give Mankins permission to seek a trade, but there are no guarantees of what the Pats can get for compensation in a situation like this because the RFA part of the CBA doesn't cover trades after the RFA period is over and would go back to the regular rules of trading which have no rules about guaranteed compensation. Also, the Branch situation already shows that the league will not allow this to go to an arbitrator and they will hold the Pats to the spirit of the agreement and force them to trade him if they are stupid enough to give him permission to look for a trade after the Branch fiasco. Other teams would likely think Belichick lost it and not offer good compensation either.

 

[IcyPatriot]

MEH .............................

 

[italia44]

No more draft choices. Are you kidding me? I'm betting that if you give BB a lot of top draft choices, like the one you received for Seymour and what you would receive for Mankins, the Super Bowl parade would be held in New England almost annually. If they got a one from a middle of the road team, this deal would be done in a heartbeat and with my approval as well.

no,I'm not kidding......13 draftees +UDFA's in 2009.....another 12 this year.Eventually,you have to get PLAYERS.The Seymour deal was good,however,you can't keep losing your starters and accumulating draft choices.

What I'm proposing is that we trade Mankins to an Nfc team for a Wr or a Tackle or Rb,instead of letting Mankins make a deal with the Jets or Miami,Indy or Pittsburgh for another speculative draft choice.

This isn't Madden or Fantasy Football.....it isn't good,either financially or football-wise to have 3 or 4 first round draft choices.

We need to put down the draftee crack-pipe and get back to building a powerhouse.....this year and many years into the future.

 

[BestQB]

no,I'm not kidding......13 draftees +UDFA's in 2009.....another 12 this year.Eventually,you have to get PLAYERS.The Seymour deal was good,however,you can't keep losing your starters and accumulating draft choices.

What I'm proposing is that we trade Mankins to an Nfc team for a Wr or a Tackle or Rb,instead of letting Mankins make a deal with the Jets or Miami,Indy or Pittsburgh for another speculative draft choice.

This isn't Madden or Fantasy Football.....it isn't good,either financially or football-wise to have 3 or 4 first round draft choices.

We need to put down the draftee crack-pipe and get back to building a powerhouse.....this year and many years into the future.

it isn't good,either financially or football-wise to have 3 or 4 first round draft choices.


I hope you're joking when you wrote this. I promise you that if that guy in charge of the Patriots could get 3 or 4 1st round picks every year, he would take that in a heart beat. I believe that anyone else in the football world would as well. You're starting to sound like Al Davis.

 

[italia44]

it isn't good,either financially or football-wise to have 3 or 4 first round draft choices.


I hope you're joking when you wrote this. I promise you that if that guy in charge of the Patriots could get 3 or 4 1st round picks every year, he would take that in a heart beat. I believe that anyone else in the football world would as well. You're starting to sound like Al Davis.

I'll take Al Davis over Monte Hall.....let's leave it at that....you're giving me a migraine:bricks:

 

[Pats726]

The Pats made a mistake with Deion and they know it and learned from it. They aren't ever going to take that prove it approach again.

I may agree with a lot of what you have said BUT...there was NO mistake made about Branch..and you can revisit history again and again....
I am GLAD you seem to know it all about that...and what the Pats will do and will not do..Gotta love that.

 

[Boston Boxer]

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

if we dont think we can sign him...then absolutely trade him for an OLB or DE that can get to the QB. I am not interested in any more draft picks...we are doing a good job getting younger, so i would want a vet (not an old JAG) that can come in and play.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

no,I'm not kidding......13 draftees +UDFA's in 2009.....another 12 this year.Eventually,you have to get PLAYERS.The Seymour deal was good,however,you can't keep losing your starters and accumulating draft choices.

What I'm proposing is that we trade Mankins to an Nfc team for a Wr or a Tackle or Rb,instead of letting Mankins make a deal with the Jets or Miami,Indy or Pittsburgh for another speculative draft choice.

This isn't Madden or Fantasy Football.....it isn't good,either financially or football-wise to have 3 or 4 first round draft choices.

We need to put down the draftee crack-pipe and get back to building a powerhouse.....this year and many years into the future.

How isn't it good to have 3 or 4 first round draft choices? There is projected rookie cap/pay scale on the way in 2011 which will make it MUCH more economical for teams. Even if there isn't, the Pats can still slide down the board like they always do and get late first/early 2nd round talent at a much better salary. It is also one of the best assets to have when looking to trade for a player.

First round picks in this league are golden. They are at the top of the list when it comes to assets.

Great teams are built through the draft. You can't really win/sustain winning via trades and free agency. Are you proposing that we do what the Jets do and just trade all of our picks for players in their contract year who other teams are looking to dump? You do realize how if there is a cap in 2011, the Jets will be hard pressed to keep even 3/4 of those guys, right? Building through the draft is the best way to go financially and football-wise, especially when your picking in the 20's every year. You get to add some of the top college players in the country at a very cost-effective price.

If some team were to offer us a first for Mankins, I'd do it in a heart beat. He's great, but you don't pay a freakin guard 8 million. We will find an adequate replacement just like we did after Compton and Andruzzi left.

if we dont think we can sign him...then absolutely trade him for an OLB or DE that can get to the QB. I am not interested in any more draft picks...we are doing a good job getting younger, so i would want a vet (not an old JAG) that can come in and play.

I agree, but who is out there? There aren't really any elite 5-techs or OLB out there on the market, especially right before training camp.

The only guy that I know could still probably be had is Merriman. I'm probably one of the few people who would welcome Merriman with open arms. But I would probably require that the Chargers sweeten the deal by throwing in a pick. They've needed OL help for a while and I think, contrary to popular belief, that Merriman would thrive here. I think he's due for a big-time comeback year now that he's 2 years removed from ACL surgery, and I love the leadership, swagger, intensity, and physicality he would bring to the defense.

Maybe Ray Edwards could be had as well, as he's been unhappy with his contract status in Minnesota, but Minnesota doesn't need another left guard considering they already have on of best LG's in the game.

Osi is way overpaid and doesn't really fit our 3-4 scheme, as I don't think he could play OLB for us.

Haynesworth has been unhappy with the fact that he has to play the nose in Shanny's 3-4, but if we brought him in and put him at DE and played a more penetrating style, maybe it could work out. I wouldn't want him though. I'm just not a big fan of his. I think he only plays hard when he needs a contract. All he cares about is getting paid IMO.
Anyone else that you can think of?

Manny Lawson? He was said to be unhappy with his contract status and was someone many people liked coming out in 06, but Mankins has much more trade value than him.

Anyone else you can think of? I think the only one I'd really consider is Merriman + pick for Mankins because I think Merriman will return to his dominant double digit sack form. I was interested in Ray Edwards earlier in the offseason, but not at the cost of Mankins.

 

[JMarr]

How isn't it good to have 3 or 4 first round draft choices? There is projected rookie cap/pay scale on the way in 2011 which will make it MUCH more economical for teams. Even if there isn't, the Pats can still slide down the board like they always do and get late first/early 2nd round talent at a much better salary. It is also one of the best assets to have when looking to trade for a player.

First round picks in this league are golden. They are at the top of the list when it comes to assets.

Great teams are built through the draft. You can't really win/sustain winning via trades and free agency. Are you proposing that we do what the Jets do and just trade all of our picks for players in their contract year who other teams are looking to dump? You do realize how if there is a cap in 2011, the Jets will be hard pressed to keep even 3/4 of those guys, right? Building through the draft is the best way to go financially and football-wise, especially when your picking in the 20's every year. You get to add some of the top college players in the country at a very cost-effective price.

If some team were to offer us a first for Mankins, I'd do it in a heart beat. He's great, but you don't pay a freakin guard 8 million. We will find an adequate replacement just like we did after Compton and Andruzzi left.

Italia44: How's that migraine feeling now? (I agree with you--there is a point where it doesn't make sense to accumulate MORE draft picks, regardless of possible rookie wage scales and happy visions of BB wheeling and dealing like Monte Hall on future draft days).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I may agree with a lot of what you have said BUT...there was NO mistake made about Branch..and you can revisit history again and again....
I am GLAD you seem to know it all about that...and what the Pats will do and will not do..Gotta love that.

There was clearly a mistake made in Branch's case. They were trying to force him in at a time when he was holding out on the last year of his rookie deal because he wanted Reggie Wayne money even though he had durability and therefore production issues or he wanted them to set the unheard of precedent of agreeing not to franchise tag a player who hadn't even finished his rookie deal yet... They knew that the JETS had clearly been whispering in his ear, and Bill wanted to call that bluff. At the time the JETS were up against the cap. But once Bill allowed Deion's agent to look for a trading partner he found he was the one who was screwed. Tannenbaum was willing to back up his tampering (which Bill filed against him for good measure after the fact anyway to no avail) by offering to sign Deion to his deal in exchange for a 2nd. He knew Bill would decline, and probably also knew that Deion's rep would then file a grievance claiming we had no right to refuse to trade him simply because we didn't like the price and were therefore not negotiating in good faith. Then in a random act of desperation Holmgren lived to regret, Seattle piped in and said they would trade for him for a first... No way Bill or Bob was willilng to risk allowing an arbitrator to rule and set precedent that if you said a player could look for a trade you had to be willing to take whatever the trade partner was offering. So they opted to do the deal with Seattle because they were backed into a corner and Seattle would give a first and Deion would not be remaining in the conference let alone the division. But they had no plan B in place to replace him because they never intended to trade him...just to force him in on their terms. You can't replace a player with a draft pick the following year. That's why future draft picks are discounted...

Had they drafted a guard early this year they might be in position to trade Mankins now. But they didn't. They have a plan C of moving Kaczur to LG, but he's never played the position... They are willing to make Mankins one of the top 4 paid guards in the league. They were not interested in making Deion one of the top paid WR's in the league. But even then they were not seriously interested in trading him, just bringing him to heel. They had already lost Givens to FA and were left with a guy they signed off the scrap heap as their #1 and a revolving door corps of WR's the rest of that season...

It was a mistake. Bill has a thing about repeating mistakes...

 

[patfanken]

Ray's right - compared to the Jets our LG situation is in much better shape. If Mankins comes back, we have an elite LG, if he doesn't then we have several options most of which are improvements over an division 1AA OT making the conversion to LG in the NFL, and 6th round pick in 2009 who has never played in a regular season game.

Personally I'd like to move down Light to LG, but it looks like Kaszur is the choice allowing Volmer a smoother entry into the starting lineup. Kaszur has been a good runblocker whose major weakness has been a vulnerability to speed rushers of the edge. He's been a decent pro at RT, so moving to LG might actually be a good thing for his career, minimizing the loss of Mankins

 

[Kontradiction]

Ray's right - compared to the Jets our LG situation is in much better shape. If Mankins comes back, we have an elite LG, if he doesn't then we have several options most of which are improvements over an division 1AA OT making the conversion to LG in the NFL, and 6th round pick in 2009 who has never played in a regular season game.

Personally I'd like to move down Light to LG, but it looks like Kaszur is the choice allowing Volmer a smoother entry into the starting lineup. Kaszur has been a good runblocker whose major weakness has been a vulnerability to speed rushers of the edge. He's been a decent pro at RT, so moving to LG might actually be a good thing for his career, minimizing the loss of Mankins

Contrary to popular belief (that Kaczur was signed because he's a good RT), this is really why he was signed to an extension. He's capable of playing both guard and tackle in this league and I have to believe the team extended him with an eye on the Mankins situation possibly going south. As you said, he's a capable run blocker and his weaknesses should be neutralized as a guard. Now let's hope the O-Line stays healthy.

 

[italia44]

Italia44: How's that migraine feeling now? (I agree with you--there is a point where it doesn't make sense to accumulate MORE draft picks, regardless of possible rookie wage scales and happy visions of BB wheeling and dealing like Monte Hall on future draft days).

migraine is better....got away from the fantasy football freaks and watched a great movie with Sir Ben Kingsley called:".50 Dead Men Walking",the story of an IRA rat....no,not mangini.

Now,if we can keep these draftniks from trading Tom Brady for 2 first rd draft choices.....I'll be able to sleep the sleep of the all knowing,until training camp starts.

 

[Kasmir]

Kaszur has been a good runblocker whose major weakness has been a vulnerability to speed rushers of the edge. He's been a decent pro at RT, so moving to LG might actually be a good thing for his career, minimizing the loss of Mankins

I disagree that Kaczur is a overall a good run blocker, as he lacks functional strength. He's a finesse player, and is actually a better LT than an RT or guard. Most of his pass blocking problems at RT are with bull-rushers. When he filled in for Light in 2006 at LT, he actually did fairly well vs the faster lighter DE's you see on the left side. As a guard, I would actually expect him to be OK at pass blocking but he could never replace the drive blocking of a Mankins in the run game, although he has decent agility and surprising speed, so he could be decent at pulling, trapping, and making contact at the second level.

I think Kaczur is a valuable utility lineman precisely because he can play so many positions, but he is not a top-quartile starter at any of the positions.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

It boggles my mind that some people wouldn't want another first rounder for Mankins if they choose to move him. It gives you so much versatility. You can use it to draft one of the top 32 players in the country or dangle it as trade bait. A first round pick is one of the best trade-able assets to have. A first round pick has more value than Mankins, who would require a large extension.

 

[Pats726]

There was clearly a mistake made in Branch's case. They were trying to force him in at a time when he was holding out on the last year of his rookie deal because he wanted Reggie Wayne money even though he had durability and therefore production issues or he wanted them to set the unheard of precedent of agreeing not to franchise tag a player who hadn't even finished his rookie deal yet... They knew that the JETS had clearly been whispering in his ear, and Bill wanted to call that bluff. At the time the JETS were up against the cap. But once Bill allowed Deion's agent to look for a trading partner he found he was the one who was screwed. Tannenbaum was willing to back up his tampering (which Bill filed against him for good measure after the fact anyway to no avail) by offering to sign Deion to his deal in exchange for a 2nd. He knew Bill would decline, and probably also knew that Deion's rep would then file a grievance claiming we had no right to refuse to trade him simply because we didn't like the price and were therefore not negotiating in good faith. Then in a random act of desperation Holmgren lived to regret, Seattle piped in and said they would trade for him for a first... No way Bill or Bob was willilng to risk allowing an arbitrator to rule and set precedent that if you said a player could look for a trade you had to be willing to take whatever the trade partner was offering. So they opted to do the deal with Seattle because they were backed into a corner and Seattle would give a first and Deion would not be remaining in the conference let alone the division. But they had no plan B in place to replace him because they never intended to trade him...just to force him in on their terms. You can't replace a player with a draft pick the following year. That's why future draft picks are discounted...

Had they drafted a guard early this year they might be in position to trade Mankins now. But they didn't. They have a plan C of moving Kaczur to LG, but he's never played the position... They are willing to make Mankins one of the top 4 paid guards in the league. They were not interested in making Deion one of the top paid WR's in the league. But even then they were not seriously interested in trading him, just bringing him to heel. They had already lost Givens to FA and were left with a guy they signed off the scrap heap as their #1 and a revolving door corps of WR's the rest of that season...

It was a mistake. Bill has a thing about repeating mistakes...

You can Keep saying it was a mistake and keep repeating YOUR set of facts and opinions..BUT you have NO CLUE as to what other events may have resulted from taking other paths...typical..

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

You can Keep saying it was a mistake and keep repeating YOUR set of facts and opinions..BUT you have NO CLUE as to what other events may have resulted from taking other paths...typical..

I think a reasonable person without a dog in the hunt would agree that were Branch simply allowed to hold out the magic 10 games, his contributions late season and especially in the playoffs, say against the Colts, would have been a better course of action for the 2006 Patriots. Most probably would have resulted in another ring.

Long term +/- after that scenario is where I agree we have far more uncertainty.

 

[Kontradiction]

I think a reasonable person without a dog in the hunt would agree that were Branch simply allowed to hold out the magic 10 games, his contributions late season and especially in the playoffs, say against the Colts, would have been a better course of action for the 2006 Patriots. Most probably would have resulted in another ring.

Long term +/- after that scenario is where I agree we have far more uncertainty.

If Mankins is unhappy, I (personally) would not want to see him in there late in the season blocking for The Franchise. Offensive linemen have a tendency to let some defenders escape notice if they aren't happy.