Proper Compensation for a Mankins trade?

[dryheat44]

Suppose we trade #17 back and instead of grabbing JJ Watt we instead pick up both Pouncey & Danny Watkins, at that point our line would probably be stronger than with Mankins & Neal/Connelly. Pouncey can also be groomed to take over at Center, with perhaps another player being slotted in at Guard down the road.

Funny you write that. My ideal scenario is to trade Mankins and 28 for Fitzgerald and 36 (plus some other considerations) and pick up Watkins, Boling, and O'Dowd in the draft.

Any time you can pick up one of the top WRs in the league in his prime, an A+ citizen, plus an overwhelming desire to win vs. an overwhelming desire to get paid, you make the move, regardless if it's improving the strength or weakness of your team.

 

[jeffbiologist]

There is no chance in hell that we recind the tag and why would we?

He will sign here, With the cap going down there are going to be even less teams interested in paying 8mill a year for a guard.

Yes, there is certainly a chance we could recind the tag. We had nothing to lose by tagging him, we certainly dont want to tag him, we dont want to pay him that kind of money or we would have had a deal done by now. We tagged him because well, we had a tag and he could be worth something to someone. What has to happen is similar to the Cassel deal....you need 2 teams interested to get proper value. If he is tagged there is most certainly a chance he will hold out again, and with the cap going down that only means if tags do carry over and we cant make a deal by draft time then we could take the tag off after the draft. He hasnt signed his tender, again that drops his value. He doesnt want to play here, that drops his value. His insistence on a long term contract drops his value. I think without a new CBA we cant trade players for picks, and that really drops his value. He is not a squeaky clean citizen, he has shown he will hold out and some teams just dont want problem children...we are one of them.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Funny you write that. My ideal scenario is to trade Mankins and 28 for Fitzgerald and 36 (plus some other considerations) and pick up Watkins, Boling, and O'Dowd in the draft.

Any time you can pick up one of the top WRs in the league in his prime, an A+ citizen, plus an overwhelming desire to win vs. an overwhelming desire to get paid, you make the move, regardless if it's improving the strength or weakness of your team.

I like this scenario and would love to see Arizona do it. I also like the three interior linemen that you drafted. All three fit thwe Patriots zone blocking scheme and Boling is the best pulling OG in this draft.

I would follow up this trade by trading Welker to Atlanta for a 2012 3rd rounder, upgradable to the second if Atlanta makes the SB.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Always the optimist Box, and I love it!

I cannot say that I agree that we would even get a 2nd and a 3rd together, let alone a 1st and a 3rd. He is a guard, not Larry Fitzgerald. Thinking that we would get a 1st alone, let alone a 1st AND a 3rd is wishful thinking, IMO, but as always, I listen closely and respect your opinion. (and pretty much all here) I believe that Mankins has the most value to our team, and that the gap may be a bit wider than he/some of us tend to believe. As another pointed out, can you think of too many guards who have demanded 1st rd picks in a trade? Of course there's always room to break the trend, but I'd be damn surprised if we really picked up a 1st for Mankins--although pleasantly surprised

I think the general consensus is that we would get a 2nd round pick, and I would agree with that wholeheartedly, although some are thinking a high 3rd. Personally, I wouldn't deal him unless it were for a 2nd rd pick, and a lot of posters have a very valid point when considering that a 2012 2nd rd pick is nice, but the window to win now is closing, and maybe a little faster than we want to admit.

Moss is gone, Welker is in the last year, Light, Mankins (maybe?) this year. Vollmer, Koppen next year, Meriweather will be gone one way or another after this season in a best case scenario. Kazcur, Neal are gonzo, possibly Faulk too. Branch should be able to contribute in a way that he did last year, as long as he can hold up injury-wise. Bodden and Warren coming back from serious injuries, some other guys on the D line. The linebacker position and pass rush situation has been a problem---And I am sorry if I am seeming negative, b/c I do not really mean to. I honestly believe that we have one hell of a good chance at restoring the defense this year, and continuing to be a force on offense, but on the other hand, I do believe that the window is closing, and the absolute best approach would be to take a good shot this year and next.

That said, I am very impressed by some of the personnel decisions/stockpiling of draft picks to keep us competitive in the future, but there's no doubt, the time to win is right now, even if that sounds a bit cliche.

Another question or thought would be trading him for a player, although that's a very grey area, and we'd never be able to agree on who--specifically, as there are too many variables.

My reasoning starts from NFL baseline:
-- trade value for a franchise player is two 1st round picks. Mankins is franchised, that sets his value at two 1st rounds picks when opening the negotiations (and that means NE values him highly enough to insist on that starting point).
-- compensation value for the maximum RFA tender is a 1st and a 3rd. NE set the maximum RFA tender on Mankins last February and were reported to be insisting on a minimum 1st round pick (more if it was a late 1st) in trade value.
-- NE is making every effort to retain Mankins, they are also giving him an out. Logan played his backside off and went All-Pro on nine games of playing time, he proved himself one of the best OL in the NFL today - he's marketed himself very well, now he is waiting to discover if he's done enough for a Jones or Snyder or Crazy Al Davis to bite on the bait.
-- If NE was not going to let him go for less than a 1st under the max RFA tender, why should anyone expect them to accept less than a 1st under the franchise tender? NE is looking for exceptional value for an exceptional player, this is why I say the equivalent of the max RFA tender, a 1st and a 3rd, is the minimum NE is likely to consider, they've been fairly obvious about their valuation in trade (DI and others wishing to argue the cheap side of contract negotiations, please take it to another thread - thank you).

Uncle Boxter says, 1st & a 3rd minimum or no Logan - straight picks homey.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

My reasoning starts from NFL baseline:
-- trade value for a franchise player is two 1st round picks. Mankins is franchised, that sets his value at two 1st rounds picks when opening the negotiations (and that means NE values him highly enough to insist on that starting point).
-- compensation value for the maximum RFA tender is a 1st and a 3rd. NE set the maximum RFA tender on Mankins last February and were reported to be insisting on a minimum 1st round pick (more if it was a late 1st) in trade value.
-- NE is making every effort to retain Mankins, they are also giving him an out. Logan played his backside off and went All-Pro on nine games of playing time, he proved himself one of the best OL in the NFL today - he's marketed himself very well, now he is waiting to discover if he's done enough for a Jones or Snyder or Crazy Al Davis to bite on the bait.
-- If NE was not going to let him go for less than a 1st under the max RFA tender, why should anyone expect them to accept less than a 1st under the franchise tender? NE is looking for exceptional value for an exceptional player, this is why I say the equivalent of the max RFA tender, a 1st and a 3rd, is the minimum NE is likely to consider, they've been fairly obvious about their valuation in trade (DI and others wishing to argue the cheap side of contract negotiations, please take it to another thread - thank you).

Uncle Boxter says, 1st & a 3rd minimum or no Logan - straight picks homey.

Homey don't play that, my brother! Word to your mother......

New England will take as much for Mankins as what the market will bear. Can you feel me?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Homey don't play that, my brother! Word to your mother......

New England will take as much for Mankins as what the market will bear. Can you feel me?

Only if Lolo is sitting at home.

 

[Snake Eyes]

My reasoning starts from NFL baseline:
-- trade value for a franchise player is two 1st round picks. Mankins is franchised, that sets his value at two 1st rounds picks when opening the negotiations (and that means NE values him highly enough to insist on that starting point).
-- compensation value for the maximum RFA tender is a 1st and a 3rd. NE set the maximum RFA tender on Mankins last February and were reported to be insisting on a minimum 1st round pick (more if it was a late 1st) in trade value.
-- NE is making every effort to retain Mankins, they are also giving him an out. Logan played his backside off and went All-Pro on nine games of playing time, he proved himself one of the best OL in the NFL today - he's marketed himself very well, now he is waiting to discover if he's done enough for a Jones or Snyder or Crazy Al Davis to bite on the bait.
-- If NE was not going to let him go for less than a 1st under the max RFA tender, why should anyone expect them to accept less than a 1st under the franchise tender? NE is looking for exceptional value for an exceptional player, this is why I say the equivalent of the max RFA tender, a 1st and a 3rd, is the minimum NE is likely to consider, they've been fairly obvious about their valuation in trade (DI and others wishing to argue the cheap side of contract negotiations, please take it to another thread - thank you).

Uncle Boxter says, 1st & a 3rd minimum or no Logan - straight picks homey.

I admire your greed:rocker:

 

[IllegalContact]

Good points but the NFL is now a passing league. End of story. I like power but the game is evolving. Your SB Packers team is not a power football team. The Saints the year before that. Our issues are solidly outside the hash marks and deeper in our passing game. Fitz is no diva as well. He makes a Team like the Jets waste Revis and it is good for him if he is helping the other WRs. I don't care if they drink a cup of tea together during the game.

Who then covers Welker, Branch, Gronk and Hernandez? Checkmate BB.
DW Toys

same song and dance..........and the same result come playoff time.......

who's going to protect brady? why bother with fitzgerald if all you're going to have time for is dump-offs?

 

[IllegalContact]

I don't know about that, Fitzgerald can run any damn route on the tree and gets a lot of his yards after the catch, with him brady wouldnt necessarily need to be in the danger zone as long as he was with Moss, who was a lot more limited to the deep routes, which take a lot more time to happen.

Suppose we trade #17 back and instead of grabbing JJ Watt we instead pick up both Pouncey & Danny Watkins, at that point our line would probably be stronger than with Mankins & Neal/Connelly. Pouncey can also be groomed to take over at Center, with perhaps another player being slotted in at Guard down the road.

We can still grab a Kendrick Ellis in the 2nd/3rd and, with our 2 new Guards we'd be doing pretty well. If we can also get our hands on Brooks Reed we'd probably be good for a run with some other.

With both lines solid, we can easily pick up a power HB/FB to increase the power we both want.

brady had no deep threat against the jets in the playoffs, and they still got to him

 

[IllegalContact]

this team struggles started the moment the team stopped bringing in new higher level talent on both lines.

the offense became a finesse unit the moment they parted ways with daniel graham. lots of offense and points, but can't respond when it gets punched in the mouth.

as for the notion that this has become a passing league.......defense is still what makes the difference who was in the AFCC and NFCC? 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best defenses.....that's who ..... who was in the SB? the 1st and 2nd best defenses in the NFL......

WR's are kind of like RB's....not too many of the top ones win all that much

 

[jeffbiologist]

My reasoning starts from NFL baseline:
-- trade value for a franchise player is two 1st round picks. Mankins is franchised, that sets his value at two 1st rounds picks when opening the negotiations (and that means NE values him highly enough to insist on that starting point).
-- compensation value for the maximum RFA tender is a 1st and a 3rd. NE set the maximum RFA tender on Mankins last February and were reported to be insisting on a minimum 1st round pick (more if it was a late 1st) in trade value.
-- NE is making every effort to retain Mankins, they are also giving him an out. Logan played his backside off and went All-Pro on nine games of playing time, he proved himself one of the best OL in the NFL today - he's marketed himself very well, now he is waiting to discover if he's done enough for a Jones or Snyder or Crazy Al Davis to bite on the bait.
-- If NE was not going to let him go for less than a 1st under the max RFA tender, why should anyone expect them to accept less than a 1st under the franchise tender? NE is looking for exceptional value for an exceptional player, this is why I say the equivalent of the max RFA tender, a 1st and a 3rd, is the minimum NE is likely to consider, they've been fairly obvious about their valuation in trade (DI and others wishing to argue the cheap side of contract negotiations, please take it to another thread - thank you).

Uncle Boxter says, 1st & a 3rd minimum or no Logan - straight picks homey.

Marshall was tagged last year with a 1st for comp....and Miami got him for a 2nd and a future 2nd, no first involved. The tag is a tool to control a player until the team can get something in return. If we didnt tag Mankins we would have no control, and that control is worth $$. The Krafts arent in the business of giving away $$ regardless if he is wanted or wants to be here. There are alot more tags than normal this year simply because of the uncertainty of the CBA. Alot of players signed their tags quickly because they are afraid of the team dropping the tag later if the cap goes down. Of course even the signed tenders could be null and void depending on the outcome of the CBA.

 

[Snake Eyes]

brady had no deep threat against the jets in the playoffs, and they still got to him

My plan would strengthen the line.

 

[dryheat44]

this team struggles started the moment the team stopped bringing in new higher level talent on both lines.

the offense became a finesse unit the moment they parted ways with daniel graham. lots of offense and points, but can't respond when it gets punched in the mouth.

as for the notion that this has become a passing league.......defense is still what makes the difference who was in the AFCC and NFCC? 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best defenses.....that's who ..... who was in the SB? the 1st and 2nd best defenses in the NFL......

WR's are kind of like RB's....not too many of the top ones win all that much

Nobody's arguing that the defense doesn't need improving. I find it hard, though, to make the argument that the offense would be better by getting back to what won us the Super Bowls. We have perhaps the greatest offense ever right now, and certainly since the 80s Niners. Changing it isn't going to make us better. The O-line wasn't any better during the Super Bowls than it is now. The quarterback is better. The TE and WRs are better.

Yes, we need to keep improving our defense, but that doesn't preclude BB from improving the offense. Adding Fitzgerald gives the defense another guy that requires a double team, something Branch doesn't. Putting a WR corps of Fitzgerald-Welker/Edelmen-and choose the other plus the TEs is downright terrifying to other defenses.

Hell, it's worth it just because the Jets wouldn't be able to rush an extra man.

EDIT: Just noticed your last line. Jerry Rice won Super Bowls. Lots of them. Marvin Harrison won one. It's a funny argument. Only one team a year wins the Super Bowl. A lots of the best of any position has never won the Super Bowl. Munoz, Hannah, Marino, Fouts, Winslow, Gonzalez, Roaf, W Jones, B Smith, etc.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Marshall was tagged last year with a 1st for comp....and Miami got him for a 2nd and a future 2nd, no first involved. The tag is a tool to control a player until the team can get something in return. If we didnt tag Mankins we would have no control, and that control is worth $$. The Krafts arent in the business of giving away $$ regardless if he is wanted or wants to be here. There are alot more tags than normal this year simply because of the uncertainty of the CBA. Alot of players signed their tags quickly because they are afraid of the team dropping the tag later if the cap goes down. Of course even the signed tenders could be null and void depending on the outcome of the CBA.

Per Roger Goodell when fining NE for alleged violation of the video tape rules, NE was to be fined either a first or a second & third, which presented an NFL position of equivalence for those two options. Marshall's trade involving a current year second and a future year second was the equivalent of a second & third (when trading future picks the NFL accept the premise that a future pick is the equivalent of a current year pick one round later). By that standard, Marshall's controlling team received a first round equivalent return. Which is why I believe NE isn't prepared to take significantly less than the two firsts expected of a franchise tag. Of course DeMaurice Smith seems to be messing with my valuation.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Per Roger Goodell when fining NE for alleged violation of the video tape rules, NE was to be fined either a first or a second & third, which presented an NFL position of equivalence for those two options. Marshall's trade involving a current year second and a future year second was the equivalent of a second & third (when trading future picks the NFL accept the premise that a future pick is the equivalent of a current year pick one round later). By that standard, Marshall's controlling team received a first round equivalent return. Which is why I believe NE isn't prepared to take significantly less than the two firsts expected of a franchise tag. Of course DeMaurice Smith seems to be messing with my valuation.

I dont know any scenario that would make a 1st round pick equal to a 2nd & 3rd from the same team the same year. All anyone has to do is look at the value chart, you know better. Stop being greedy! I enjoy having discussions about options for our team this time of year but inevitably the greedy pee in the pool so much I dont want to swim anymore. They would be overjoyed to take a 2nd TODAY if they could, no more problem child, a decent replacement pick and money to spend in areas of value. Guards just arent valued, neither are holdouts.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I dont know any scenario that would make a 1st round pick equal to a 2nd & 3rd from the same team the same year. All anyone has to do is look at the value chart, you know better. Stop being greedy! I enjoy having discussions about options for our team this time of year but inevitably the greedy pee in the pool so much I dont want to swim anymore. They would be overjoyed to take a 2nd TODAY if they could, no more problem child, a decent replacement pick and money to spend in areas of value. Guards just arent valued, neither are holdouts.

Guards aren't valued? Which is why there are Guards getting $7-8M/year deals? Which value chart? There are any number running around out there, and none are official. But I thank you for skimming my remarks and ignoring the team history from last year's holdout which informed them. I am in awe of your inside access, "overjoyed" with a second for Mankins; you've even outmaneuvered Holley's sources! I am chastised by your moral high ground on greed, I bow to your pulpit, not to mention your puritanical pool standards.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Guards aren't valued? Which is why there are Guards getting $7-8M/year deals? Which value chart? There are any number running around out there, and none are official. But I thank you for skimming my remarks and ignoring the team history from last year's holdout which informed them. I am in awe of your inside access, "overjoyed" with a second for Mankins; you've even outmaneuvered Holley's sources! I am chastised by your moral high ground on greed, I bow to your pulpit, not to mention your puritanical pool standards.

Cassel/Vrabel went for #34, and Cassel was of zero value to the Patriots except as a trade chip/insurance policy.

Mankins is slightly more than a trade chip/insurance policy in terms of his value.

I don't know that I see a 1+3 as the floor, but I'd say the floor is more than a 2.

 

[jeffbiologist]

Guards aren't valued? Which is why there are Guards getting $7-8M/year deals? Which value chart? There are any number running around out there, and none are official. But I thank you for skimming my remarks and ignoring the team history from last year's holdout which informed them. I am in awe of your inside access, "overjoyed" with a second for Mankins; you've even outmaneuvered Holley's sources! I am chastised by your moral high ground on greed, I bow to your pulpit, not to mention your puritanical pool standards.

Some teams in the league might pay Guards $7-8M and some teams win. Team history? Not applicable. Value chart?
Draft Countdown - Trade Value Chart
Not official but a pretty fair guide. When you went on about us losing a first OR a second and third it wasnt a choice, it was dependant on us making the playoffs, remember?
I dont think we need inside access to see that we dont want to pay him market value and we dont care if he likes the franchise tag. Skimming your remarks? YUP.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Some teams in the league might pay Guards $7-8M and some teams win. Team history? Not applicable. Value chart?
Draft Countdown - Trade Value Chart
Not official but a pretty fair guide. When you went on about us losing a first OR a second and third it wasnt a choice, it was dependant on us making the playoffs, remember?
I dont think we need inside access to see that we dont want to pay him market value and we dont care if he likes the franchise tag. Skimming your remarks? YUP.

Ah, not applicable, the scientific process at work no doubt.

Fair guides are just "fair."

Indeed I do recall King Roger's decree as to what draft picks NE would forfeit, which begs the question - is a team to be punished less if they fail to make the postseason? While you may argue using an unofficial trade value chart, the league still viewed the penalty options to be punitive in about the same measure. As NE fans we see the injustice, to our less evolved brethren ...

Market rates are an interesting argument. At the moment the players are trying to force a seller's market, and the owners are looking for more of a buyer's market. NE has been operating on a set budget which spends every bit as much as the rest of the NFL as a group, and amidst uncertain market conditions tries to minimize excess. That NE does not open their purse in the same manner as Washington or Oakland does not mean they set an unfair value, certainly we've heard reports claiming the offers last season would have averaged more than $7M/year, if not with as much up front as Mankins may have wished. That price was established because Buffalo and Cleveland and Minnesota, to name three, were shelling out considerable lucre for Guards. It's also a rarely noted factor that NE's run game goes through the interior, behind Koppen, Mankins, and Neal ... or whomever will eventually resurrect those roles in 2011/12.

I submit NE's use of the franchise tag is more than an attempt to control a valuable commodity (which goes to my argument on the valuation of Guards), it is also a valuation of Mankins the player. A valuation which subtly replaces the $1.5M+ (with interest) he forfeited in his holdout last season, while paying him the going rate for a top Guard on a top contender. The other frictions involved aside, NE is stroking Mankins' ruffled feathers with cold, hard cash to show him, and those who care to look, how valuable a commodity he is in NE's eyes.

You choose to call me "greedy," yet the evidence before me does not indicate a team "undervaluing" a player. Nor does it suggest a team which is willing to "settle" for a second round pick in compensation. Tis not greed dictating my appreciation of the situation, follow the money.