REPORT: Mankins' [Tender Offer] Reduced - was offered 7 mil per season

[IllegalContact]

If he sits out until week 10 I would franchise his ***** next year just to control his rights and try and trade him.

that's not how you build and maintain a successful franchise

 

[Rob0729]

mankins can wait all the way until week 10 to sign and show and still get credit for the season.

if I was in his shoes, that is what I would do. since he felt so insulted by 7m/year, it is likely because the deal is backloaded with little $$$ in the form of guarantees.

Or he was insulted because he wanted to be the highest paid guard in the league or close to it.

I doubt it had to do with the fact that it was backloaded since the Patriots haven't done a backloaded contract in years. Didn't with Wilfork. Didn't with Moss (who would be a more likely candidate since he was older and has a history of wearing out his welcome with teams). Didn't with Seymour. Why would they do somethig they haven't done since the early parts of the Belichick tenure.

Also, if Mankins sits out, he loses a lot of money this year and potentially more next. If the Pats have Brady locked up by next offseason, they can franchise him and he will get about $9-10 million for 2011. There is a reason why it has been nearly a decade since a player held out well into the regular season. The player always loses.

 

[Rob0729]

What happens if Mankins doesn't sign his tender? Can we still trade him?

The Pats can trade him, but Mankins would most likely have to work on a long term deal with the team he is going to for it to happen. Mankins would have to sign his tender to complete the deal so that part would be critical.

Since Mankins asked publically for a trade, the Pats probably have permission to shop him eventhough he isn't under contract (they couldn't do it without his permission though since he isn't under contract).

 

[IllegalContact]

Against the Bengals at home? Unlikely. Christ even the Jets are sack spastics in week two, the potentially Schobel less Bills in week three which leaves the Dolphins in week four that don't appear as strong on D.

how'd being at home work out against the ravens?

the bengals defense was actually pretty good last year.

but I guess based on your theory, the pats should have just let mankins walk

 

[ausbacker]

how'd being at home work out against the ravens?

the bengals defense was actually pretty good last year.

but I guess based on your theory, the pats should have just let mankins walk

Just using the simple mechanism that measures sacks. The end of season team sack total. Only Miami presents any danger in that regard and we don't face them until week four.

I'd have liked to kept Mankins but the way in which he is acting aggrieved at being reportedly offered a contract which would put him in the higher stratosphere of guards is laughable.

Won't be too long before his PR people start joining forums and trying to spin his side of the story when there's no need for it to begin with.

 

[IllegalContact]

Or he was insulted because he wanted to be the highest paid guard in the league or close to it.

I doubt it had to do with the fact that it was backloaded since the Patriots haven't done a backloaded contract in years. Didn't with Wilfork. Didn't with Moss (who would be a more likely candidate since he was older and has a history of wearing out his welcome with teams). Didn't with Seymour. Why would they do somethig they haven't done since the early parts of the Belichick tenure.

Also, if Mankins sits out, he loses a lot of money this year and potentially more next. If the Pats have Brady locked up by next offseason, they can franchise him and he will get about $9-10 million for 2011. There is a reason why it has been nearly a decade since a player held out well into the regular season. The player always loses.

well...he doesn't lose alot of money anymore.

they back-loaded kaczur to a degree.

the pats certainly can franchise mankins after only playing 6 games in 2010, but it doesn't make it a sound move

 

[PatsFanInEaglesLand]

Franchise him and he would get the average of the top five LT's in the league. That would be fine with Mankins.

How so? He just turned down a top 5 contract.

 

[IllegalContact]

Just using the simple mechanism that measures sacks. The end of season team sack total. Only Miami presents any danger in that regard and we don't face them until week four.

I'd have liked to kept Mankins but the way in which he is acting aggrieved at being reportedly offered a contract which would put him in the higher stratosphere of guards is laughable.

Won't be too long before his PR people start joining forums and trying to spin his side of the story when there's no need for it to begin with.

I'd like to have kept mankins, also, since there really is no alternative on the roster right now.

without knowing the facts, one can only surmise the things in the contract that would make someone go ballistic even if it did work out to 7m/yr, like a massive backloading with little guaranteed $$

if the ratios are similar to what evans got in terms of guarantees and money in the 1st 3 years, then yeah, he is off his rocker.

on the other hand, it is possible that mankins wants years 6-7 as part of this deal and not some new deal where someone can say 'ahhh, you're old now'

 

[RayClay]

that's not how you build and maintain a successful franchise

So you're saying we should trust the people who know how to build and maintain a successful franchise?

I agree 100%!

 

[ausbacker]

I'd like to have kept mankins, also, since there really is no alternative on the roster right now.

without knowing the facts, one can only surmise the things in the contract that would make someone go ballistic even if it did work out to 7m/yr, like a massive backloading with little guaranteed $$

if the ratios are similar to what evans got in terms of guarantees and money in the 1st 3 years, then yeah, he is off his rocker.

on the other hand, it is possible that mankins wants years 6-7 as part of this deal and not some new deal where someone can say 'ahhh, you're old now'

This is why I am going to continue with the read some news articles about this issue IllegalContact. Mankins started out saying he was pissed with the Patriots for not keeping their word and addressing his contract until after the CBA is in place. Well they've addressed his contract before the CBA is in play. He in fact questioned the morality of the organization over this and has infact misrepresented himself. How do we know this? His agent said there was a contract offered.

Logan Mankins doesn't like the contract that's been offered to him. That's all it comes down to. He looks like a major **** right now.

 

[IllegalContact]

So you're saying we should trust the people who know how to build and maintain a successful franchise?

I agree 100%!

by using the franchise tag out of spite?

that's a new one

 

[RayClay]

I'd like to have kept mankins, also, since there really is no alternative on the roster right now.

We have three draft picks, a sometimes starter, a starting tackle convert and a practice squad player being paid 310,000 instead of 150,000 so he will stay in the mix.

In addition, cuts are yet to be made and many older guards could be had for nothing or a low draft pick.

Out of all the positions on a football field, guard is probably the easiest to fill cheaply in the short term.

This fantasy that the only human capable of playing guard for the Patriots in the next two years in Logan Mankins is strictly of your invention and does not conform to the realities of the NFL.

Would they prefer to keep the talented guy they groomed? Sure, that's why they offered him a lucrative contract. They could pick up two short term starters and draft and sign future replacements with the money they save year one not signing Mankins too.

Successful franchises don't let themselves be held hostage by players at relatively easy to fill positions.

 

[j00fek]

raider's 2nd round pick next yr? sounds good

 

[patsox23]

Re: REPORT: Mankins' Contract Reduced

Didnt take long for the crowd to turn in him huh? I agree the 7 mil/yr seems pretty damn reasonable (top 5 an insult, really?), but business is business and he's looking to max out his contract. Unfortunately he has 0 leverage aside from sitting out a season, or most of one. Hate on him for being a dumb ass with negotiations, but he was still probably the best lineman out there for us last year.

Why shouldn't it take long? He's being a dumbass and it's affecting the team. 7 mill per year, if that's an accurate figure, is perfectly reasonable. Certainly not something to carp to the media about.

Fine, Logan -- sit out. We now hate you AND you won't get 7 mill.

 

[JMarr]

Won't be too long before his PR people start joining forums and trying to spin his side of the story when there's no need for it to begin with.

LOL. I'm convinced from all his posts that IllegalContact either has a dog in this fight, or maybe even thinks he's Mankins' agent, in which case he needs to get back on his meds for schitzophrenia.

[Sorry IllegalContact--you do raise some reasonable points from the player's perspective. However, one thing is for certain--Mankins looks like an idiot now and went way over the line with his comments. How is this possibly going to help in resolving his dilemma?]

 

[RayClay]

by using the franchise tag out of spite?

that's a new one

You're the one that's criticizing every motive and the personal morals of our leadership bud. Actually, the franchise tag gives you a lot of control and saves you handing out a long term contract to someone who'd you be better off trading. It was used consecutive years just for that reason on a fading Vinatieri.Who says it would be spite?

 

[IllegalContact]

You're the one that's criticizing every motive and the personal morals of our leadership bud. Actually, the franchise tag gives you a lot of control and saves you handing out a long term contract to someone who'd you be better off trading. It was used consecutive years just for that reason on a fading Vinatieri.Who says it would be spite?

I'm not criticizing. the facts don't exist to criticize one or the other right now. just playing devil's advocate with all of those here who 'know' what mankins deserves.

logically, it seems odd that mankins would throw a hissy fit over a 5yr/7m per deal, that's all. if he indeed got an offer like that with around 30% in guarantees and a gradual slope in year to year salary, then he is a little out of his mind to take that public. we will not know until this saga settles given the way the pats don't communicate these thing (which is fine by me)

I'm just not going to sit here and say 'mankins is wrong' at this point. the front office makes great moves, but has also allowed itself to screw the pooch from time to time. the deion branch thing dod not work out the way they had planned and you can argue it cost them an SB. other times things just run their course like asante samuel and they deal with it pretty well. the richard seymour ending likely did not go according to plan, but when al davis comes around throwing a 1st rounder at you, you have to take it.

ultimately, the team has final say, but it doesn't always work out well for them

 

[IllegalContact]

LOL. I'm convinced from all his posts that IllegalContact either has a dog in this fight, or maybe even thinks he's Mankins' agent, in which case he needs to get back on his meds for schitzophrenia.

[Sorry IllegalContact--you do raise some reasonable points from the player's perspective. However, one thing is for certain--Mankins looks like an idiot now and went way over the line with his comments. How is this possibly going to help in resolving his dilemma?]

like I said, if he really got a deal in the ballpark of 5/35 with 10-12M in guarantees, then AT A MINIMUM, he is wrong for taking it public this way. an offer like that by the pats would at least command the continued silent negotiation of the deal and the mankins camp should have quietly countered.

but if the 5/35 is some bogus back-loaded deal with 5M in guarantees, then he has a case for acting like an idiot.

my baseline for mankins would be the ty warren deal. a $$ friendly deal with a ton of guarantees. mankins at least deserves sizeable guarantees given the guy has started every game since being drafted. how many other players can say that?

 

[IllegalContact]

so what happens in the event there is a lockout next year regarding the franchise tag.

say mankins shows up week 10, plays 6 games and earns his right to be franchised. the pats franchise him, but the league locks out the players. in this instance, do the pats have any obligations to mankins? would they tag him again in 2012 and have to throw in an extra 30%?

 

[ausbacker]

I'm not criticizing. the facts don't exist to criticize one or the other right now. just playing devil's advocate with all of those here who 'know' what mankins deserves.

logically, it seems odd that mankins would throw a hissy fit over a 5yr/7m per deal, that's all. if he indeed got an offer like that with around 30% in guarantees and a gradual slope in year to year salary, then he is a little out of his mind to take that public. we will not know until this saga settles given the way the pats don't communicate these thing (which is fine by me)

I'm just not going to sit here and say 'mankins is wrong' at this point. the front office makes great moves, but has also allowed itself to screw the pooch from time to time. the deion branch thing dod not work out the way they had planned and you can argue it cost them an SB. other times things just run their course like asante samuel and they deal with it pretty well. the richard seymour ending likely did not go according to plan, but when al davis comes around throwing a 1st rounder at you, you have to take it.

ultimately, the team has final say, but it doesn't always work out well for them

Logically it makes sense to read the news reports before you offer commentary. Had you actually done that then I wonder if you would change tact.