Content Post Trade Mankins NOW!!

[Ochmed Jones]

About trading mankins for picks......Would it be so bad for us to get a 1st rounder for him and come out of the 1st round with Mike Iupati and Pouncey? Or could we use the 1st round pick for Mankins on defense then draft Pouncey with our 1st and take Mike Johnson in the 2nd round? Possibly

Neither Iupati nor Pouncey fit our zone blocking schee very well.

However Johnson is an excellent fit and I really think that even if Mankins is resigned, given Neal's injury history, we need to take johnson in the second round.

 

[dhamz]

he will play, but he can take his sweet time getting to camp.......if the status quo remains, don't expect to see him until late august since he doesn't get an extra dim for showing up earlier.......from his perspective, there's no need to risk injury

This is incorrect. As noted in the Globe article about him missing the off-season workouts, as a RFA, Mankins has until June 15th to sign his tender (3.268m) or the Pats can reduce it to 1.54m which is 110% of last year's salary. He'll make twice as much in 2010 by showing up on time.

Mankins refuses to take part in workouts - The Boston Globe

 

[tanked_as_usual]

This is incorrect. As noted in the Globe article about him missing the off-season workouts, as a RFA, Mankins has until June 15th to sign his tender (3.268m) or the Pats can reduce it to 1.54m which is 110% of last year's salary. He'll make twice as much in 2010 by showing up on time.

Mankins refuses to take part in workouts - The Boston Globe

chump change for him with respect to what he would lose if he got hurt over the summer.........

and it would be up to the pats to cause further harm to a situation that already seems a bit strained..........depends on whether the pats plan on keeping him around after this year

 

[JDSal45]

I've been following the Pats for a long time and I think I have a sense of what "consistently good teams" do.

As for the wager, if you're saying that Belichick will trade Mankins rather than pay him market rate or franchise him, given that he protects Tommy's blind side, you're on. $100 to my favorite charity vs. $100 to your favorite charity. And BTW, why would someone give us a high pick for him with an unresolved contract; he's not Richard Seymour. I'm gonna bookmark this thread and I will call you on it.

You would have made your "dumbest thread of the year" post last April if someone had suggested then trading Seymour for a first round pick 2 years later.

Yawn. Teams make trades. Plenty of people have given perfect reasoning why its not nearly as outlandish as the ridiculous reactions and hypebole of some. Not to say it will happen. But as a consideration, its not nearly crazy as suggested.

J D Sal

 

[PatsFanSince74]

You would have made your "dumbest thread of the year" post last April if someone had suggested then trading Seymour for a first round pick 2 years later.

Yawn. Teams make trades. Plenty of people have given perfect reasoning why its not nearly as outlandish as the ridiculous reactions and hypebole of some. Not to say it will happen. But as a consideration, its not nearly crazy as suggested.

J D Sal

while Richard is a couple of years older than Mankins, I wouldn't have wanted/didn't want to trade him. But there was an often-expressed view among many that Seymour's production was down. So, the suggestion a year ago that the Pats might trade him wouldn't have been nuts.

Yawn (or whatever that was about...). As long as they need to protect TB's blind side and as long as Mankins is viewed as doing that pretty well, I don't see the Pats trading him in the near future.

 

[JDSal45]

while Richard is a couple of years older than Mankins, I wouldn't have wanted/didn't want to trade him. But there was an often-expressed view among many that Seymour's production was down. So, the suggestion a year ago that the Pats might trade him wouldn't have been nuts.

Yawn (or whatever that was about...). As long as they need to protect TB's blind side and as long as Mankins is viewed as doing that pretty well, I don't see the Pats trading him in the near future.

A year ago today Seymour was 29. Mankins is 28 right now. So there is less than a 2 year difference in age, about a year and a half. Big deal. And Seymour played a more valuable position.

I'm not saying to trade the guy or he sucks. But a top 20 pick for a guard who wants huge dollars? Sign me up. Belichick believes in analyzing value and is not the type to practice preconceived notions with basically cursory analysis of possibilities. Can't say the same about most on here. Saying its absurd is right up there with the dumbest things I have read on here this year. Its not. And I highly doubt if someone did call up and offer a first rounder, Belichick would hang up the phone keeled over in laughter. Pretty sure they'd say we'll get back to you and have serious discussions about the pro's and con's. Because there are some of each.

That doesn't mean it'll happen. Never said it would. But if the situation opened up, I'd probably do it for the right compensation.

J D Sal

 

[Deus Irae]

A year ago today Seymour was 29. Mankins is 28 right now. So there is less than a 2 year difference in age, about a year and a half. Big deal. And Seymour played a more valuable position.

I'm not saying to trade the guy or he sucks. But a top 20 pick for a guard who wants huge dollars? Sign me up. Belichick believes in analyzing value and is not the type to practice preconceived notions with basically cursory analysis of possibilities. Can't say the same about most on here. Saying its absurd is right up there with the dumbest things I have read on here this year. Its not. And I highly doubt if someone did call up and offer a first rounder, Belichick would hang up the phone keeled over in laughter. Pretty sure they'd say we'll get back to you and have serious discussions about the pro's and con's. Because there are some of each.

That doesn't mean it'll happen. Never said it would. But if the situation opened up, I'd probably do it for the right compensation.

J D Sal

The Seymour deal undercut the defense for an entire season to date, and it still requires finding a replacement for Seymour. I assume that BB isn't fool enough to pull the same boneheaded move 2 years in a row.

Of course, in keeping with your point, I'd have thought he wasn't fool enough to make the Seymour trade in the first place.

 

[iapatsfan]

The Seymour deal undercut the defense for an entire season to date, and it still requires finding a replacement for Seymour. I assume that BB isn't fool enough to pull the same boneheaded move 2 years in a row.

Of course, in keeping with your point, I'd have thought he wasn't fool enough to make the Seymour trade in the first place.

3-4 defensive ends do not grow on trees, offensive guards are much easier to replace. I will be very upset if the Pats give big money to a guard. Look at the starting guards from last year's Superbowl teams, Jahri Evans and Carl Nicks for the Saints and Ryan Lilja and Kyle Devan for the Colts. They get by with guys like this and we're worried about signing Logan Mankins??? Going into next year we have old and unproven RBs, one viable WR option, and a single TE that is far past his prime. We're worried about re-signing a guard??? Are you kidding me?? It is the easiest position to fill on a football team and the Pats have much bigger needs than re-signing Logan Mankins. There are teams out there that are poorly run enough to give up a 2nd rounder for Mankins, and I hope and fully believe the Pats would jump all over it. Mankins will not be with this team unless he takes a contract that reflects the value BB puts on the OG position, which I don't believe is much. The Pats have won Superbowls with undrafted guys and a guy that didn't even play college football at the guard position.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

A year ago today Seymour was 29. Mankins is 28 right now. So there is less than a 2 year difference in age, about a year and a half. Big deal. And Seymour played a more valuable position.

I'm not saying to trade the guy or he sucks. But a top 20 pick for a guard who wants huge dollars? Sign me up. Belichick believes in analyzing value and is not the type to practice preconceived notions with basically cursory analysis of possibilities. Can't say the same about most on here. Saying its absurd is right up there with the dumbest things I have read on here this year. Its not. And I highly doubt if someone did call up and offer a first rounder, Belichick would hang up the phone keeled over in laughter. Pretty sure they'd say we'll get back to you and have serious discussions about the pro's and con's. Because there are some of each.

That doesn't mean it'll happen. Never said it would. But if the situation opened up, I'd probably do it for the right compensation.

J D Sal

i guess it depends on what you mean by "huge dollars." i think the pats should and will try to keep mankins at a reasonable price. yes, i'm sure there's a tipping point in BB's internal computer at which Mankins looks better off the roster than on the roster, but i think they'll be very cautious in his case...

i think the seymour trade ended up putting too much pressure on a transitioning D last year...in the long run it might work out, but i think that last year's team was pretty close to being a lot better than its record indicated...there were just too many moving parts in play all at once, from brady's return to revamping the D to losing the leadership of Brewski and Seymour and Vrabel and Rodney...

 

[memento]

If the pats handle Mankins anything like Damien Woody, he'll go to the Lions through free agency.

:bricks:

 

[g-fresh]

A lot of people are going back to the classic fallacy of "he's not that great lets trade him" and then "well wouldn't you trade him for a top 20 pick?", which of course makes no sense because if he is not that great and we want to get rid of him there is no way someone would give up a top 20 pick.

People also keep saying that Belichick will not pay for an interior lineman. I could be wrong about this, but the year Hutchinson got traded didn't everyone think Neal was going to go to Seattle for big $$$ since we wouldn't come close to matching their offer? And then didn't we end up opening up the wallet and paying Neal pretty well?

They also said Belichick would never draft a guard in the first round, and then he drafts Mankins. Don't be too fast to say we won't give him an extension for a good amount either.

 

[JDSal45]

A lot of people are going back to the classic fallacy of "he's not that great lets trade him" and then "well wouldn't you trade him for a top 20 pick?", which of course makes no sense because if he is not that great and we want to get rid of him there is no way someone would give up a top 20 pick.

People also keep saying that Belichick will not pay for an interior lineman. I could be wrong about this, but the year Hutchinson got traded didn't everyone think Neal was going to go to Seattle for big $$$ since we wouldn't come close to matching their offer? And then didn't we end up opening up the wallet and paying Neal pretty well?

They also said Belichick would never draft a guard in the first round, and then he drafts Mankins. Don't be too fast to say we won't give him an extension for a good amount either.

Go back and re-read. I haven't seen anyone claim he isn't good. I have seen people consistently, like OVER AND OVER, say they don't value the position that highly and isn't worth the money he'll probably want.

So your whole post is based on a position nobody has taken.

J D Sal

 

[Triumph]

Does anyone know how much Mankins wants per season?

Hes free to shop around and bring an offer from another club to NE. I've heard of none.

 

[Deus Irae]

3-4 defensive ends do not grow on trees, offensive guards are much easier to replace. I will be very upset if the Pats give big money to a guard. Look at the starting guards from last year's Superbowl teams, Jahri Evans and Carl Nicks for the Saints and Ryan Lilja and Kyle Devan for the Colts. They get by with guys like this and we're worried about signing Logan Mankins??? Going into next year we have old and unproven RBs, one viable WR option, and a single TE that is far past his prime. We're worried about re-signing a guard??? Are you kidding me?? It is the easiest position to fill on a football team and the Pats have much bigger needs than re-signing Logan Mankins. There are teams out there that are poorly run enough to give up a 2nd rounder for Mankins, and I hope and fully believe the Pats would jump all over it. Mankins will not be with this team unless he takes a contract that reflects the value BB puts on the OG position, which I don't believe is much. The Pats have won Superbowls with undrafted guys and a guy that didn't even play college football at the guard position.

Ok, let's use your type of logic:

1.) You can get QBs like Brady in the 6th round.

1.a) Matt Cassel, a 7th round pick, guided the Patriots to more wins in 2008 than Brady managed in 2009.

2.) Rex Grossman and Trent Dilfer got to the Super Bowl, and Dilfer's team won.

3.) The Rams won a Super Bowl with a QB that wasn't even drafted, so why worry about quarterbacks?

Therefore....

There are teams out there that are poorly run enough to give up a 1st rounder for Brady, and I hope and fully believe the Pats would jump all over it.



Same argument, and silly when argued about either player. Position is irrelevant if you don't have talent to replace what you lose.

 

[jeffbiologist]

WOW, I go away for a day and this thread blew up, LMAO! OK guys, lets do some quick math...If the cap is $120M and you have 53 guys to pay how on earth can you pay a GUARD(all everything or not) about 6-8% of it? After Brady gets his it will be more than that! If you make a list of every position on the team arent there 22 starters? Who would you rather have a all pro GUARD or a all pro P,K, and still be able to pay a few other guys?? Would you rather have all pros on ST and a jag G or jag STs??
I'm not saying throw a rookie in there, Light was drafted as a T/G right?? He has been watching Mankins as close as anyone right? For all the people that think the sky will fall with Light at LG, why are you so high on him at LT then?? Who is worth more in trade? We do have to make room for Vollmer right?? OL is our deepest position right?? Now I dont expect a first round pick either, no one but Al is dumb enough to do that. But if I were wheeling and dealing as Bill does it would be foolish of us not to think this is possible. Shoot, never mind Seymour, how about VRABEL?? We gave him away for contract purposes so dont think if Mankins refuses a extension now he cant go too. If we are going to have to replace him next year anyways might as well get something for him....and if a guy slips into the 3rd that BB likes dont be surprised. I think BB knows which positions are most important, and those important positions usually get paid. Guard just isnt one of them.

 

[iapatsfan]

Ok, let's use your type of logic:

1.) You can get QBs like Brady in the 6th round.

1.a) Matt Cassel, a 7th round pick, guided the Patriots to more wins in 2008 than Brady managed in 2009.

2.) Rex Grossman and Trent Dilfer got to the Super Bowl, and Dilfer's team won.

3.) The Rams won a Super Bowl with a QB that wasn't even drafted, so why worry about quarterbacks?

Therefore....

There are teams out there that are poorly run enough to give up a 1st rounder for Brady, and I hope and fully believe the Pats would jump all over it.



Same argument, and silly when argued about either player. Position is irrelevant if you don't have talent to replace what you lose.

You are comparing the importance of the QB position to the importance of a guard. Are you serious??? So if the Saints would have lost Brees or if the Colts would have lost Manning, that would be the same as losing one of their all important guards? Please redo your argument and substitute the names of starting guards for all of the quarterbacks you named and my point will hold true. That point is that OG is the easiest position to fill and teams should not spend big coin on the position. Your points were laughable.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are comparing the importance of the QB position to the importance of a guard. Are you serious??? So if the Saints would have lost Brees or if the Colts would have lost Manning, that would be the same as losing one of their all important guards? Please redo your argument and substitute the names of starting guards for all of the quarterbacks you named and my point will hold true. That point is that OG is the easiest position to fill and teams should not spend big coin on the position. Your points were laughable.

No, I was comparing the importance of any position using your logic. It's not my fault or problem that your logic sucked.

By the way, feel free to ask Mr. Alexander about losing his All-Pro guard.

 

[jeffbiologist]

No, I was comparing the importance of any position using your logic. It's not my fault or problem that your logic sucked.

By the way, feel free to ask Mr. Alexander about losing his All-Pro guard.

I think Mr. Alexander should have worried more about his all pro head and less than all pro work ethic. Guard play had nothing to do with that.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think Mr. Alexander should have worried more about his all pro head and less than all pro work ethic. Guard play had nothing to do with that.

Yeah, you go with that fantasy.

 

[jczxohn1]

The proper thing to do is what they have done. Franchise -- If no CBA is reached, the fate of their RG is a ways down on the list of concerns.