Patriots offered Mankins Top 3 Guard Pay

[MoLewisrocks]

1.) They didn't offer top 3 guard pay, if you believe Reiss, because they played games with the RFA year.

2.) Mankins is a top guard. Where you put him in that top is a matter of personal taste. However, he's been an all rookie selection, a Pro Bowler twice and an All Pro (2nd team) once. It's not all that easy finding better guards than Mankins, even though I've got a person preference for Neal, due to his superior pulling ability.

It depends on how you define top 3. The gold standard in contracts is first three or guaranteed money or % of total contract fully guaranteed. AAV is for brainless bragging rights in long term deals, except for Asamougha of course since his three year deal was essentially guaranteed, since it's never guaranteed you see a day beyond when your guaranteed money is paid in full and most players abhor playing for salary. If Mankins was offered a deal in which he saw top 3 guaranteed money for a guard or top first 3 year payout for a guard, it doesn't matter if they included the RFA season as year 1. Unless Mankins is in fact brainless.

 

[ausbacker]

Re: The next domino to fall in the Mankins saga

After you insist how mankins got a fair deal offered to him

I'm absolutely certain you're invested in the Logan Mankins process given the PR you try to garner for him in multiple threads over time.

I don't "hate" Logan Mankins but I do resent his comments. What he needs is a new manager who is competent in his dealings, not one who provides him poor advice like Frank Bauer has been.

 

[IllegalContact]

Re: The next domino to fall in the Mankins saga

I'm absolutely certain you're invested in the Logan Mankins process given the PR you try to garner for him in multiple threads over time.

I don't "hate" Logan Mankins but I do resent his comments. What he needs is a new manager who is competent in his dealings, not one who provides him poor advice like Frank Bauer has been.

The problem is that you resent them whether they are true or not

 

[Deus Irae]

That's all well and good Deus Irae and we've argued this point in other Logan Mankins threads. The fundamental which you fail to appreciate every single time this is brought about is that Mankins under direction if his ******** agent Frank Bauer has contradicted himself when it comes to addressing the Patriots and the contract himself.

No, he hasn't.

Bauer has repeatedly stated that there's no contract tabled yet provides ball park figures for the numbers of the tabled contract. The reality is they are bickering over the size of the contract, not that one hasn't been put forward to Mankins and that dimwit Bauer.

I'd have no issue with the business conduct of either if it simply came down to a disagreement over numbers not the public tact in which Mankins and his agent have taken.

No. Mankins said that. Bauer said that an offer was made that was far lower than the $7 million per year that was being reported. The difference in content makes sense if you simply take the view that playing the "extension" after underpaying for the RFA year is not a new contract, which would seem to be how Mankins views it, and compare that to the Bauer "20% less" position.

The Patriots are trying to screw Mankins over if Reiss is right, although they would not couch it that way or admit it to be the case. I've said from the beginning that Mankins should be laying into the NFLPA for agreeing to the RFA clause in the CBA, but that doesn't make the Patriots blameless in this.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Re: The next domino to fall in the Mankins saga

Yes there is, and there's nothing in it that says he has to play. The further this goes on, the more it hurts the pats until the pats wind up getting a 6th rounder for him

Yes... as long as Mankins is satisfied not earning a penny this year, or likely next when the CBA lockout stops play for 2011

That's a long time to wait for a payday - and he'll be two years older with 2 years of rust from not playing.

I find it tough to imagine that he's going to command more at age 30 with 2 years of rust than he is now at 28 coming off some pretty good seasons.

He's turning down @$15 million guaranteed -cash in hand now... $7 million a season NOW - that's going to be a doozy of a contract he thinks he'll get in 2012 to offset 2 years of lost wages.

 

[ausbacker]

No, he hasn't.

No. Mankins said that. Bauer said that an offer was made that was far lower than the $7 million per year that was being reported. The difference in content makes sense if you simply take the view that playing the "extension" after underpaying for the RFA year is not a new contract, which would seem to be how Mankins views it, and compare that to the Bauer "20% less" position.

The Patriots are trying to screw Mankins over if Reiss is right, although they would not couch it that way or admit it to be the case. I've said from the beginning that Mankins should be laying into the NFLPA for agreeing to the RFA clause in the CBA, but that doesn't make the Patriots blameless in this.

Yes he has. It's in the print media. It has been reported and cited multiple times and you cannot possibly refute that.

**** me you are a pain in the arse at the moment.

 

[Joker]

Re: The next domino to fall in the Mankins saga

he can always fly down over the equator and try kangaroo herding Down Under for a season...get himself a nice hat with corks to shade the sun..

and maybe some anti-venin to ward attacks from 9 of the 10 most poisonous snakes on the planet...

 

[ausbacker]

Re: The next domino to fall in the Mankins saga

The problem is that you resent them whether they are true or not

Well Frank Bauer I wouldn't have any sort of problem with the dealings between the Patriots and Logan Mankins if Mankins hadn't publicly questioned the Kraft family's integrity. I'm not stupid enough to believe that the Patriots are without fault in this either.

 

[eom]

Re: The next domino to fall in the Mankins saga

I really hate to even comment in these threads, but if mankins can't cut a deal this year, and let's say it looks like there won't be football next year, I wonder what his prospects of cashing in will be with a new cba looming, and that's on top of possibly 2 yrs of lost revenue.

meanwhile, the pats will just roll out whoever's on the 53 this year, and draft another body next year at rookie wage scale.

it's like the guy's pissed at a 10 buck offer, so he's going to end up taking 6 bucks.

 

[Deus Irae]

I like Mankins. A lot. But he does have a propensity for breakdowns in pass protection. Which is the sole reason why I keep him off the list of the elite. He's a terrific player, regardless, and I'd like to see him on the team. But for him to scoff at an offer that pays him well but slightly less than Jahri Evans is ludicrous. Granted, it seems we haven't a consensus on what the Patriots offered.

I've not defended, or attacked, Mankins on the money amount, and I won't start now. I've simply pointed out that we didn't have the actual facts of the deal, and that the agent was disagreeing with the $7 million claim. Reiss seems to be reporting that the agent was telling it truthfully, which means that a whole lot of posters need to start seasoning up the crow for their dinners.

 

[Joker]

Crow Ala Joe Kerr...

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes he has. It's in the print media. It has been reported and cited multiple times and you cannot possibly refute that.

**** me you are a pain in the arse at the moment.

Mankins would not provide details of negotiations, or what he is seeking financially in a contract. His agent, Frank Bauer, also declined to discuss details, although revealed that the main reason a deal hasn't been reached is that the Patriots' final offer is "20 percent lower than Jahri Evans' deal with the Saints."

"After the 2008 season, me and my agent approached the Patriots about an extension and I was told that Mr. Kraft did not want to do an extension because of the [uncertain collective bargaining agreement]," Mankins said. "I was asked to play '09 out, and that they would address the contract during the uncapped year. I'm a team player, I took them at their word, and I felt I played out an undervalued contract.

Logan Mankins says he wants to be traded from the New England Patriots - ESPN Boston

Now, rather than making it personal with me, think that through. Bauer is talking about a contract offer, Mankins is looking at it as a screw job via extension. Think about the import of what Mankins is saying, if he's correct.

The Patriots didn't want to address the extension in 2009 because of the CBA, but they wanted to make the "new" contract an extension here in 2010.

That's some shady crap being pulled by the Patriots (again, if Mankins is telling it accurately).

 

[ausbacker]

Logan Mankins says he wants to be traded from the New England Patriots - ESPN Boston

Now, rather than making it personal with me, think that through. Bauer is talking about a contract offer, Mankins is looking at it as a screw job via extension. Think about the import of what Mankins is saying, if he's correct.

The Patriots didn't want to address the extension in 2009 because of the CBA, but they wanted to make the "new" contract an extension here in 2010.

That's some shady crap being pulled by the Patriots (again, if Mankins is telling it accurately).

I have covered this time and time and time again with you Deus Irae. You are so tiresome and boring in the tact that you take with posters that of course it becomes personal in the debate.

Funny that in the supplied piece Bauer intimates the size of the contract (which can either be taken at face value or dismissed - much like you dismiss the apparent Pro-Patriots business model) yet you're equally happy to dismiss the league source cited contract size on the very same grounds you dismiss the people who use this as a topical point for comparison. Furthermore you're happy to go on Reiss' "feel" of Bauer's authenticity. Good luck with that.

The Patriots have addressed Mankins contract in 2010, which isn't 2009. Nothing about that is factually incorrect. Mankins has been tabled with a contract that he doesn't like and that is the crux of this entire debate. Moving further from that I'm not sitting in either side as both sides have made a furfy somewhere along the line in this process.

I've explained that to you on multiple occasions and you simply do not wish to acknowledge that.

As you are not interested in that opinions of people who disagree with you and then demonstrated in multiple threads I am done with you and you can have the last word as you desire in every conversation.

 

[Deus Irae]

I have covered this time and time and time again with you Deus Irae. You are so tiresome and boring in the tact that you take with posters that of course it becomes personal in the debate.

Funny that in the supplied piece Bauer intimates the size of the contract (which can either be taken at face value or dismissed - much like you dismiss the apparent Pro-Patriots business model) yet you're equally happy to dismiss the league source cited contract size.

How many times do words like "if" have to come into play? I've used such disclaimers in the Mankins discussion from the beginning.

The Patriots have addressed Mankins contract in 2010, which isn't 2009. Nothing about that is factually incorrect. Mankins has been tabled with a contract that he doesn't like and that is the crux of this entire debate.

Actually, this is a matter of framing your statement. Slapping the RFA tender on the man isn't his idea of "addressing the contract". Most people working in a 'free' country will agree with Mankins on that, since forcing someone to work for less money than he is worth is generally not considered to be 'addressing' the matter in any honorable sense.

I've explained that to you on multiple occasions and you simply do not wish to acknowledge that.

No, you've made claims, in the absence of facts, and you have gotten pissed off when I've refused to accept them due to the absence of those facts.

As you are not interested in that opinions of people who disagree with you and then demonstrated in multiple threads I am done with you and you can have the last word as you desire in every conversation.

I have no problem with disagreement. You're the one who can't seem to handle it here.

 

[ausbacker]

How many times do words like "if" have to come into play? I've used such disclaimers in the Mankins discussion from the beginning.

Actually, this is a matter of framing your statement. Slapping the RFA tender on the man isn't his idea of "addressing the contract". Most people working in a 'free' country will agree with Mankins on that, since forcing someone to work for less money than he is worth is generally not considered to be 'addressing' the matter in any honorable sense.

No, you've made claims, in the absence of facts, and you have gotten pissed off when I've refused to accept them due to the absence of those facts.


I have no problem with disagreement. You're the one who can't seem to handle it here.

I rarely have problems with disagreement but I make an exception for you who privy to the same information is able to invent fact from fresh air it would appear.

 

[Deus Irae]

I rarely have problems with disagreement but I make an exception for you who privy to the same information is able to invent fact from fresh air it would appear.

That's a strange claim, considering my point on the Mankins issue all along has been that we didn't have the information. Even now, even if we assume that Reiss/Curran got the stuff right or mostly right, we still don't know the framework of the offer with regards to money structure, guarantees and the like.

 

[ausbacker]

That's a strange claim, considering my point on the Mankins issue all along has been that we didn't have the information. Even now, even if we assume that Reiss/Curran got the stuff right or mostly right, we still don't know the framework of the offer with regards to money structure, guarantees and the like.

And my point has been that Mankins has taken an exceptionally strange tact given the Patriots have remained true to their claim that they would address his contract when they have. I have remained steadfast in addressing this from day 1 with you and you have referenced material to cite through the search function if you should chose too.

The disagreement in contract is what should be the discussion and what is the true determining factor in the Patriots-Mankins debate. Somehow this has become convoluted to a the Patriots are right or Mankins is right, of which you have been a key poster in creating the divide.

 

[Joker]

my head hurts....

 

[Deus Irae]

And my point has been that Mankins has taken an exceptionally strange tact given the Patriots have remained true to their claim that they would address his contract when they have.

See, here's what I'm talking about. You're making a claim. It's not factual. The Patriots, if Reiss is right, clearly did not "address the contract" for this year, since the "new" contract wouldn't take place until next year and the RFA tender would be in place for this year.

I have remained steadfast in addressing this from day 1 with you and you have referenced material to cite through the search function if you should chose too.

I've remained steadfast in my position too. That doesn't differentiate us at all.

The disagreement in contract is what should be the discussion and what is the true determining factor in the Patriots-Mankins debate. Somehow this has become convoluted to a the Patriots are right or Mankins is right, of which you have been a key poster in creating the divide.

Except that I've not claimed either side right or wrong, and the people bashing Mankins have chosen sides without knowing what the hell they've been talking about, since we haven't had enough information on the subject. How that's supposed to be a 'divide' I leave for you.

 

[ausbacker]

See, here's what I'm talking about. You're making a claim. It's not factual. The Patriots, if Reiss is right, clearly did not "address the contract" for this year, since the "new" contract wouldn't take place until next year and the RFA tender would be in place for this year.

I've remained steadfast in my position too. That doesn't differentiate us at all.

Except that I've not claimed either side right or wrong, and the people bashing Mankins have chosen sides without knowing what the hell they've been talking about, since we haven't had enough information on the subject. How that's supposed to be a 'divide' I leave for you.

I'm done with you seeing as though you are unable to grasp the notion of what's put infront of you despite being happy to contemplate your own invented truths.