Logan Mankins: 'I want to be traded'

[VrabelMayeWin]

Also, Breer is reporting that the tender offer has already been reduced. Care to bet that Mankins doesn't sign that $1.5 million dollar tender any time soon?

Whatever he wants to do. He has to come in eventually unless he's traded or he's in the same spot next year. I really don't care about this stuff but it makes me shake my head when some ********* is insulted by $35M when his team is under no obligation to make him a long term offer.

 

[BPF]

This is a good read on RFA's: Restricted free agents truly restricted | National Football Post

 

[BPF]

We don't know how the deal the Pats offered is structured and how much of the money is guaranteed, etc, etc but Breer reported per a league source that it would make Mankins one of the five highest-paid players at this position. Mankins and his agent played this badly, sign the damn tender and continue to negotiate don't act like a child about the situation and say that you're taking your ball and going home. If they were $1 mil apart, or 2 yrs apart of whatever the situation well continue to negotiate that's what you pay your agent to do -- let him earn his 3%. The Pats were willing to pay him as a top 5 player at his position, so their offer can't be that insulting and they were willing to play ball so play the game before pouting to the press. This isn't 2002-2006 Logan, this is 2010 and we have this worldwide economic crisis and no cba -- I don't know if you've heard.

 

[Deus Irae]

Whatever he wants to do. He has to come in eventually unless he's traded or he's in the same spot next year. I really don't care about this stuff but it makes me shake my head when some ********* is insulted by $35M when his team is under no obligation to make him a long term offer.

He's not in the same spot next year, unless you think the RFA status is going to somehow end up at 7 years instead of 6, so I don't know where you're getting that notion from. Also, he's under no obligation to take a contract he doesn't want, he's under no obligation to refrain from speaking his mind regarding the team or his contract status, and he's under no obligation to come in before week 10 in order to accrue his year of service.

If he wants to feel insulted because the team is trying to pay him something on the order of a million plus dollars less per season than a player he deems his fair comparison, that's for him to decide. I'm reasonably sure that would piss off pretty much everybody, including you.

 

[patriot lifer]

He's not in the same spot next year. I don't know where you're getting that notion from.

I think he might mean that if he doesn't sign the tender period, then he might be an RFA yet again the subsequent year.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

He's not in the same spot next year. I don't know where you're getting that notion from.

If he sits out the year he is - unless the uncapped year changes the concept of an accrued season. Unless a team offers a #1, Mankins get his $1.5M this year or nothing.

LMAO at the guy. No, no, I can't take $35M :bricks:

 

[ausbacker]

He's not in the same spot next year, unless you think the RFA status is going to somehow end up at 7 years instead of 6, so I don't know where you're getting that notion from. Also, he's under no obligation to take a contract he doesn't want, he's under no obligation to refrain from speaking his mind regarding the team or his contract status, and he's under no obligation to come in before week 10 in order to accrue his year of service.

If he wants to feel insulted because the team is trying to pay him something on the order of a million plus dollars less per season than a player he deems his fair comparison, that's for him to decide. I'm reasonably sure that would piss off pretty much everybody, including you.

Now I'm certain your last comment is just codswallop. Everybody thinks they are worth more than their true or actual worth. Look at all the conjecture over the price of Bodden's contract when inflated numbers were being floated around before he was resigned. He was signed at exactly his worth.

If the numbers are reported as true Mankins is a ******* idiot for bleating like a ewe in this instance. 7 million per for a guard is excellent money.

 

[BSR]

Using your argument, the team could have said "76 years at minimum salary" and fulfilled the terms. That's clearly not was the intended nature of any agreement to "address contract". At this time, there is no evidence that Mankins claim is bogus.

Nonsense. Using your argument, the team could have said "9 years guaranteed at $20million per year" and still might not have fulfilled the terms. After all, it was Kraft that stated that they would "address contract" so it was Kraft that set the meaning not Mankins.

There are certainly times where players are lowballed, but this isn't one of those times. Frankly, I don't care one way or another. I don't blame Mankins for trying to get more money, but I do think he is going about it in an idiotic way.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Nonsense. Using your argument, the team could have said "9 years guaranteed at $20million per year" and still might not have fulfilled the terms. After all, it was Kraft that stated that they would "address contract" so it was Kraft that set the meaning not Mankins.

There are certainly times where players are lowballed, but this isn't one of those times. Frankly, I don't care one way or another. I don't blame Mankins for trying to get more money, but I do think he is going about it in an idiotic way.

Like me, you clearly misunderstand the concept of low-balling.

 

[Deus Irae]

Now I'm certain your last comment is just codswallop. Everybody thinks they are worth more than their true or actual worth. Look at all the conjecture over the price of Bodden's contract when inflated numbers were being floated around before he was resigned. He was signed at exactly his worth.

If the numbers are reported as true Mankins is a ******* idiot for bleating like a ewe in this instance. 7 million per for a guard is excellent money.

Are you saying that you wouldn't be pissed if someone you thought was of equal value to you got a salary of a million dollars per year more than you?

 

[Deus Irae]

Nonsense. Using your argument, the team could have said "9 years guaranteed at $20million per year" and still might not have fulfilled the terms. After all, it was Kraft that stated that they would "address contract" so it was Kraft that set the meaning not Mankins.

There are certainly times where players are lowballed, but this isn't one of those times. Frankly, I don't care one way or another. I don't blame Mankins for trying to get more money, but I do think he is going about it in an idiotic way.

Obviously neither you nor I was present when "address contract" was discussed. You are apparently claiming to know what the hell was said and what was meant by it by claiming that Kraft set the meaning. I'm doing no such thing, since I wasn't there for the conversation.

As for being low-balled in the context I was using it, you're simply wrong, by definition, just as NEGoldenAge was wrong.

 

[ausbacker]

Are you saying that you wouldn't be pissed if someone you thought was of equal value to you got a salary of a million dollars per year more than you?

Just because I think I am equal to someone doesn't actually make that a true statement.

If you consider that it's been reported the Patriots have actually tried to extend Mankins with a reasonable offer and he's bleating on about keeping your word etc.. doesn't that strike you as strange?

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Let his ass walk. I am sick and tired of guys like him.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Up until recently I felt Mankins was essential to our team. But now I hope they grant his wish of being traded. If he really turned down 7M a year before things really turned sour then that motherfornicater can go make love to himself.

This really does suck for us though. Light and Koppen are on the decline, Neal is rarely healthy, and to lose Mankins on top of all that would make OL a concern heading into the season.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Obviously neither you nor I was present when "address contract" was discussed. You are apparently claiming to know what the hell was said and what was meant by it by claiming that Kraft set the meaning. I'm doing no such thing, since I wasn't there for the conversation.

As for being low-balled in the context I was using it, you're simply wrong, by definition, just as NEGoldenAge was wrong.

Yep. In his context, there is no market value, just one contract to compare to Mankins. Top five money is irrelevant. It's quite simple, actually. I'm embarrassed that it took me so long to realize it.



If you run out, just keep grabbin at the last one.

 

[BSR]

Obviously neither you nor I was present when "address contract" was discussed. You are apparently claiming to know what the hell was said and what was meant by it by claiming that Kraft set the meaning. I'm doing no such thing, since I wasn't there for the conversation.

As for being low-balled in the context I was using it, you're simply wrong, by definition, just as NEGoldenAge was wrong.

I am only addressing the bogus statement that the Patriots lied. In his own words Mankins said that the Patriots promised to "address contract". The only one trying to read meaning into the meeting is you. As you say above, by definition, the Patriots addressed the contract and therefore didn't lie. If you want to try to read into it further about what Kraft meant or what Mankins heard, then that is something else.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Are you saying that you wouldn't be pissed if someone you thought was of equal value to you got a salary of a million dollars per year more than you?

Sometimes I don't know what planet you live on. Tom Brady and I both live in the real world, albeit on different streets. We've often been pissed at the fact that many people we believe we are of at least equal value to get paid more than we do for reasons totally beyond our control. We now welcome Logan Mankins to the real world where nobody ever said it would be fair. You should try joining the majority us there sometime...

 

[ausbacker]

I am only addressing the bogus statement that the Patriots lied. In his own words Mankins said that the Patriots promised to "address contract". The only one trying to read meaning into the meeting is you. As you say above, by definition, the Patriots addressed the contract and therefore didn't lie. If you want to try to read into it further about what Kraft meant or what Mankins heard, then that is something else.

That was the first thing that stood out to me BSR. If the Patriots hadn't addressed Mankins' contract demands then he wouldn't be crying like a baby over it not being the size that he and his agent wanted.

When you sit back and evaluate it at all... Mankins' story just doesn't stack up.

 

[jmt57]

This really does suck for us though. Light and Koppen are on the decline, Neal is rarely healthy, and to lose Mankins on top of all that would make OL a concern heading into the season.

Well, yes and no. Yes, the o-line is better with Mankins than without Mankins. But if indeed the Pats end up without him in 2010, you move Kaczur to guard. Vollmer is an upgrade at tackle over Kaczur. Kaczur's biggest weakness is moving side-to-side against speed rushers; that's not a problem at guard. In other words, the downgrade at guard is not as dramatic as some think it would be, as he has the size and strength to play guard.

That leaves depth as the next question. At tackle there's LeVoir and there's Connolly first off the bench for the interior line. LeVoir is healthy, Connolly has enough time in Dante's o-line school he should be ready. It's not quite as dire as some are making it out to be, though I'm sure somebody will accuse me of drinking too much Kool Aid.

 

[jmt57]

The NFL's RFA problem hits home - Extra Points - Boston.com



Mankins wants to be traded - Extra Points - Boston.com

This is a good read on RFA's: Restricted free agents truly restricted | National Football Post

Thanks for the links BPF, that's very helpful information.

The wildcard in all of this is the CBA. If a new CBA is agreed upon, then the rules under the old CBA are irrelevant. And if a new CBA is not agreed upon, then what happens with RFAs and UFAs is probably a moot point since that would mean there will probably be a lockout.