The Trade - 8 Games Later

[Tom meets Kaepernick]

Concepts are good. Facts are better.

1. Mankins was not worth his cap hit
2. Mankins isnt playing well
3. O-Line is right now playing better than last year
4. Wright is a solid contributor
5. It is a good thing we dont have to rely on a 3 WR set much
6. Even people who hate the patriots say the trade was a steal for them

Literally nothing you said was a fact. Learn what a fact actually means. Mankins wasn't worth his contract but that's not a fact. All of what you listed is an opinion.

 

[Bruins29]

Literally nothing you said was a fact. Learn what a fact actually means. Mankins wasn't worth his contract but that's not a fact. All of what you listed is an opinion.

What wasn't a fact? Maybe 5 isnt but given that DA and AD are the 3rd WR and Wright has more receptions than them plus Tyms, and KT (all 4 combined), I would say that 5 is probably a fact too.

I think it is you that need to learn what a fact is. You probably need to learn how to communicate on a message board too. Plus several other things we can cover later. I think the fact that you claimed all of these were not factual shows how clueless you are. Really?

But keep on keeping on Mankins lovers. Its kinda cute.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I see you guys all disagree and suddenly Mankins sucks but I stick to my point.

There is nothing that says Wright is going to pull a Hernandez going forward, we have had plenty of guys step up and then completely disappear, remember you guys were all on Dobson now he doesn't even play for us. I rather have protection than a guy who Brady might not even throw to in the postseason, as the only guaranteed targets will be Gronk and Edelman, anyone else can easily go ghost at any minute. I learned my lesson about getting excited over a few games, Mankins was a solid guard for years and years and that is a fact. Like I said I am not crying over it, but I am not one of those fans who disses/hypes everyone who leaves/comes.

Please consider the following:
(A) Your post above quoted mine, which my post stated "having another satisfactory receiving target instead of a satisfactory Guard makes us better off. "
(B) Your response stated "I see you guys all disagree and suddenly Mankins sucks but I stick to my point".

 

[AzPatsFan]

Bill Belichick set out to rebuild the aging Offensive line. It had two players who were 32 going on 33, and an undersized Center, who was being manhandled by big DTs. Furthermore it was getting harder to create and maintain a pocket for an older immobile QB to step up into.

That O-line had been pretty good in pass blocking, and only average on run blocking at its peak, a few years ago. The pass blocking degenerated progressively, and then alarmingly in the 2013 season.

It was a marvel that TB didn't get hurt, and sent to IR, given the 40 sacks he suffered. Or at least to get dinged enough to miss a few games. BB didn't want to roll the dice again.

BB drafted two OL linemen for his interior line, a Big C and a big G/T to convert one of the Guards slots. Both got hurt.

As the current OL has evolved after tinkering, BB has a new big C, and the older RG/C moved to LG, and the undersized but mobile C, moved to RG. This arrangement appears to be is improving things. The pocket has been re-established sufficiently, that Brady has time and can now throw deeper passes, utilizing the receiver's entire route trees. The Running game can still open holes as it has done with technique, finesse and movement.

But this is but an interim OL. It still contains an aging 33year old Guard, and an undersized RG, who is still too small to drive block and dominate when needed. However, it appears the interim changes are sufficient for the balance of the season.

With another Draft looming, and even more significantly, the other Draft needs substantially satisfied, at move TE, at reserve LB, and perhaps big DT, and enough CAP space to resign the RBs, BB can afford to draft additional OL talent, to continue the rebuild.

I anticipate he will continue to do so,and Draft a couple of OLs high, along with a DE. Comments?

 

[Oswlek]

I see you guys all disagree and suddenly Mankins sucks but I stick to my point.

Mankins doesn't "suddenly suck", he has been overrated and overpaid for years. He was great in 2010, good in 2011 (though it could be considered great now that we know how injured he was) and since then he's been average (plus run, minus pass). Not bad, but not close to his rep and even further from his compensation.

This is not post-trade rationale, I've been saying it since 2012.

 

[Brit patriot]

I have to say, when we got rid of Logan for a fourth and Tim Wright I was rather concerned. When Brady spent the first four weeks getting battered then I was even more upset.

Things seem to have changed though. We have our front five locked and looking a class act; Tim Wright is becoming a brilliant weapon as a second TE and we have Mankins' wages off the bill. We also have a fourth round pick next year.

Is this move turning into a masterstroke, because to me it is!

 

[buile]

I saw it as the convergence of a couple things:
-- Patriots tendency to trade players before their value and skills are in decline.
-- The uncertainty over Gronk's health at the beginning of the year. Without him, we really had no receiving tight-end.
Throw in a little bit of DiGoogs taking over for Scar...

I hesitate to re-define it a "masterstroke" based on how well it looks halfway through the season; I thought it a surprising, risky move to address a need.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

It was a good trade, potential to be great depending on the use of Tim Wright and what they can do with that 4th rounder. Everytime we've decided to use Wright he's been a major asset and should only get better so by the looks of it it's going to be a great move down the road. The only negative really was the timing of it, if there's any way it could have been done a few weeks earlier so the new line could actually use the preseason to find their niche instead of 4-5 regular season games we may have a nicer record. Reminds me alot of the Lawyer Milloy release, even though we got nothing for that move and it hurt in the short term, we saved money and the replacements eventually made it so he wasn't missed.

 

[1960Pats]

As it stands, it's a no-brainer surefire winner. As I thought it would be when we made the deal. You may not like Bill's philosophy of selling early instead of late, but it's one he is consistent with and you really can't argue too much with the results. Wright looks like a player, and Mankins hasn't done anything to resolve the dreadful OL in Tampa Bay. Not that it's all on him for that, but...okay I admit it, I'm pissed because it convinced me to draft Doug Martin on my fantasy team. Thanks a lot, Logan.

Yes, Kraft/Belichick have been consistent. If you don't renegotiate and give them a team friendly deal and have the team to pay you what they signed up for, or force them to put the franchise tag on you to keep you, then they'll dump you. If you rip up the agreement you had and take a more team-friendly deal, then they'll let you stay. That is not what I would call selling early instead of late.

Oh, and it saves the team some money too.

 

[Mack Herron]

I don't wish to put a damper on the love fest but I don't have a see it quite as simply as some I guess. It is surely a plus that we have more cap room and a draft pick, but these chips have yet to be played. Wright has added 17 receptions for 182 yards over 8 games (hardly Hernandez production), and his blocking remains a liability so he gives way to Hooman most plays. The OL has had some success running on movement plays that rely on mobility, but injuries have required constant rotations and the OL has not found a road grader to replace Mankins. Consequently, we struggle to pick up short yardage where last year we routinely ran behind Mankins. We are 6-2, but we have not won anything yet, we lost Ridley and the weather is turning sour when good teams have to lean more heavily on the run. I think it is too early to close the book on this trade.

 

[TomPatriot]

Yes, Kraft/Belichick have been consistent. If you don't renegotiate and give them a team friendly deal and have the team to pay you what they signed up for, or force them to put the franchise tag on you to keep you, then they'll dump you. If you rip up the agreement you had and take a more team-friendly deal, then they'll let you stay. That is not what I would call selling early instead of late.

Oh, and it saves the team some money too.

Doesn't every NFL team trade or cut players who it assesses as providing less value than the salary they are receiving? Isn't that what the CBA permits them to do? And didn't they get value back for Mankins ("dump")? Isn't Mankins getting the money he wanted while playing for Tampa? And didn't the Pats fill a need by getting Wright and a pick in the process? Seems to me the Mankins trade is the very definition of selling early instead of late.

 

[1960Pats]

Why?

In 9 seasons of Logan Mankins in New England, they have never won a game on that first Sunday in February.

I don't think Tampa is going to either this year.

You can say the same about Gostkowski, Slater, Mayo, Edelman, Vollmer, Chung, Gronk, McCourty, Solder, Cannon, and all of the players drafted in the last couple of years. Let's dump them all.

The truth is there's no way of knowing what dumping Mankins has done to the team. It can't be measured in any way.

 

[1960Pats]

Doesn't every NFL team trade or cut players who it assesses as providing less value than the salary they are receiving? Isn't that what the CBA permits them to do? And didn't they get value back for Mankins ("dump")? Isn't Mankins getting the money he wanted while playing for Tampa? And didn't the Pats fill a need by getting Wright and a pick in the process? Seems to me the Mankins trade is the very definition of selling early instead of late.

At some point, I would like the team to keep a top player if they don't have a suitable replacement, even if they have to pay top dollar. It's early to say on this trade, but it might have made a difference last year if Welker was here, or in the past with some other players that still had some gas left in their tanks.

If this strategy was winning us a SB it would be one thing, but it appears to be the opposite. We seem to be coming up just short every year. I'll always be a fan of the team, win or lose, but I don't like the way they're going about things these days. It seems like it's about the money first and the player second.

 

[Oswlek]

I don't wish to put a damper on the love fest but I don't have a see it quite as simply as some I guess. It is surely a plus that we have more cap room and a draft pick, but these chips have yet to be played. Wright has added 17 receptions for 182 yards over 8 games (hardly Hernandez production), and his blocking remains a liability so he gives way to Hooman most plays. The OL has had some success running on movement plays that rely on mobility, but injuries have required constant rotations and the OL has not found a road grader to replace Mankins. Consequently, we struggle to pick up short yardage where last year we routinely ran behind Mankins. We are 6-2, but we have not won anything yet, we lost Ridley and the weather is turning sour when good teams have to lean more heavily on the run. I think it is too early to close the book on this trade.

While I wholeheartedly disagree with you and feel like you could call this trade a grand slam the day it was commenced, I just want to commend you for having the most reasonable argument against the trade I've seen.

 

[Ring 6]

At some point, I would like the team to keep a top player if they don't have a suitable replacement, even if they have to pay top dollar. It's early to say on this trade, but it might have made a difference last year if Welker was here, or in the past with some other players that still had some gas left in their tanks.

If this strategy was winning us a SB it would be one thing, but it appears to be the opposite. We seem to be coming up just short every year. I'll always be a fan of the team, win or lose, but I don't like the way they're going about things these days. It seems like it's about the money first and the player second.

You can't separate money and players because saving money on one player means spending it on others.
It seems more though that you think it's dishonest to not pay out a full contract but you have to realize everyone involved knows future years are optional and by your thinking bad players or those that are injured should pay back some of their signing bonus which is intended to cover the length of the deal. It's all a trade off in the way the league and players have agreed to structure contracts.

 

[1960Pats]

You can't separate money and players because saving money on one player means spending it on others.
It seems more though that you think it's dishonest to not pay out a full contract but you have to realize everyone involved knows future years are optional and by your thinking bad players or those that are injured should pay back some of their signing bonus which is intended to cover the length of the deal. It's all a trade off in the way the league and players have agreed to structure contracts.

The Pats had enough space to keep Mankins. They still might.

The way the Pats operate isn't illegal or even dishonest. I just don't like it. If I were a prospective FA that was looking at teams it might affect my thinking.

As I stated, I will always be a fan of the Pats whether they win or lose, but I'm not sure that the way they operate now will help us win the big one. It hasn't lately, even with Tommy LomBrady at the helm.

 

[Mack Herron]

While I wholeheartedly disagree with you and feel like you could call this trade a grand slam the day it was commenced, I just want to commend you for having the most reasonable argument against the trade I've seen.

Thanks, and I am certainly sympathetic to the view that in the long run I expect the team should get more assets than they gave. I imagine Bill and many fans would have to think like that. I would also acknowledge that some could ask a different question, namely are we more likely to win it all this year with Mankins or Wright? Since the original question is a short term perspective after 8 games, you would pretty much throw out the money and draft pick, and I can see arguments on both sides.

 

[fgssand]

At some point, I would like the team to keep a top player if they don't have a suitable replacement, even if they have to pay top dollar. It's early to say on this trade, but it might have made a difference last year if Welker was here, or in the past with some other players that still had some gas left in their tanks.

If this strategy was winning us a SB it would be one thing, but it appears to be the opposite. We seem to be coming up just short every year. I'll always be a fan of the team, win or lose, but I don't like the way they're going about things these days. It seems like it's about the money first and the player second.

I submit to you that injuries (from gronkowski playing hurt in SB to last years defensive decimation) and failure of the guy you cite above to catch the damn ball at the most important time, have more to do with why they have come up short than personnel decisions and money.

 

[Ring 6]

The Pats had enough space to keep Mankins. They still might.

The way the Pats operate isn't illegal or even dishonest. I just don't like it. If I were a prospective FA that was looking at teams it might affect my thinking.

As I stated, I will always be a fan of the Pats whether they win or lose, but I'm not sure that the way they operate now will help us win the big one. It hasn't lately, even with Tommy LomBrady at the helm.

The mankins money will be spent. Probably next year because a lot of money from this year will push forward.

I really think it has no impact on FAs. I don't think the pats are all that different than other teams in that regard and I don't think players choose a team by worrying about what will happen when they aren't good any more. Almost all fa deals have phony years at the end.

The way they operate had us winning 3 SBs 5 afcc and 11 division titles in the last 13 years. We have been to the afccg 3 straight years. We were one play for winning another SB two more times . Getting rid of players who gave declined and using that money on players more worthy of the cost isn't the reason for coming close and not going all the way. This franchise has had an unprecedented run of success.

 

[TomPatriot]

At some point, I would like the team to keep a top player if they don't have a suitable replacement, even if they have to pay top dollar. It's early to say on this trade, but it might have made a difference last year if Welker was here, or in the past with some other players that still had some gas left in their tanks.

If this strategy was winning us a SB it would be one thing, but it appears to be the opposite. We seem to be coming up just short every year. I'll always be a fan of the team, win or lose, but I don't like the way they're going about things these days. It seems like it's about the money first and the player second.

I wish you were right. But I think it's about never rebuilding through down years, not money. The Kraft and Hiatt families wouldn't have to worry about money, even if the value of the Pats was zero. It's about always putting a good football team on the field, year in and year out. They don't want to do 5-11, 6-10 and 8-8 before they get good again.

You have to make a sacrifice somewhere to go for it: less flexibility for in-season trades, another player gets less, Tom Brady doesn't get his $30m signing bonus, future salaries to future players, etc. Where do you make that sacrifice?

Given his play in the AFCG/SB the last three years, I am not sure Welker's the guy who would have put NE over the top. Hard to argue he was better than JE last year.

Andy Johnson is right. You seem to object to the guy not getting paid. I sympathize with that view, but there's a hard cap that the NFLPA agreed to without GCs. The Pats just work within the rules.