Just an FYI but Mankins was free to talk trade so to speak from the time he was tendered until the deadline for making offers to other teams RFA's passed around the first of June. Once that ship sailed unless a team rescinded the tender, the player, while not under contract to the team unless he signs his tender, cannot talk to other teams.
BB attempted to do to Branch what you suggested he do with Mankins - show him there wasn't a market at the level he and his agent were contractually demanding - let alone when appropriate compensation was factored in - only to have one team step up and call that bluff. And it only takes one. Granted this time given the landscape it would seem unlikely a team would be willing to part with a first round selection in the last scheduled draft for the priviledge of signing a guard to a deal in excess of 5/$35M with presumably at least half guaranteed on the eve of a lockout. But it's folly to go there again based on the old courtroom adage that you never ask a question unless you are absolutely certain you know the answer. They thought they knew the answer to the question what is a sub thousand yard twig WR's market value to a new team whose offense he has never taken a snap in a week before the 2006 season and they were wr..wr..wrong. It's probably more important at this juncture that BB re-establish discipline and leverage by proving he is willing to go to the mat vs. threats to hold out. Unless of course they really don't want Mankins at all, and the offer they reportedly made him hints that is not nearly the case.
As for confusion regarding deadlines to report, it is my understanding that the August 13th deadline only applied to those who opted to sign their tender (in order to avoid reduction) lest they still contemplate a holdout under contract. They can't just absorb the fines like any other holdout under contract and soldier on until week 1 or 2 let alone week 10 to make a more dramatic point unless they are willing to roll the dice that there will be a new CBA in 2011 or following a lockout that re-establishes UFA in year 5 years (if not less). Because they won't secure a year of service credit unless they report by August 13th. Whereas those who remain unsigned (I believe there are only about a dozen remaining unsigned RFA's including Mankins) can still hold out until their face turns blue or week 10 and avoid fines while still securing credit for their year of service - although most if not all of them saw their tenders reduced dramatically which will severely impact what they can still earn following any length of in season holdout.
I know Andrew Brandt said last week in an article on the NFP that they all faced loss of service credit after August 13th, but I believe he mis spoke. Just like the Buc's GM mis spoke when he stated his RFA (Penn) could be fined even if he didn't sign his tender. Given the numbers and contentious nature of the RFA landscape this season, owners (or their bargaining agents) apparently anticipated they needed some additional leverage beyond limited fines (against $3M+ contracts) to get the majority of exponentially unhappier RFA's to report this season before the season opened. Their answer was if you want the prescribed tender and not the reduced tender you're gonna have to show up and be ready to play by week 1 - ergo you're in 4 weeks before the season opens - or no service credit for you. And like everything else that has transpired, players need look no farther than their union rep when asking htf did this happen...
