Reiss: Mankins demands trade, will not sign RFA tender

[IllegalContact]

I think you're wrong on that, although those who are aguing to that effect are also wrong to assume that there will even be a new CBA in 2011. And absent it the owners will absolutely retain the new 6 year provision...and the only way the league plays in 2011 absent a new CBA is if the union decertifies and whatever rules the owners have proposed to that point becomes the defacto CBA. The alternative being a lockout if owners don't want to continue playing absent a CBA because they don't want to face the prospect of eventual court mandated rules.

Neither scenario works for Mankins. He needs a new CBA with essentially the old rules and a lot of luck while playing out whatever portion of his now $1.5M tender or he has really miscalculated. Anything short of that, including a new CBA with a scaled back cap or cap growth based on givebacks the owners are seeking, doesn't work well for Logan...in seeking in excess of $7M per...

Couple that with his trade demand while insisting he will not sign his now reduced tender...and you have a classic mexican standoff. I think he's gotten some really lousy advice and counsel from Bauer and whomever else he consults. Branch shot his way out of town, but the circumstances were very different. He was under contract so the team could facilitate a trade. But there was also a new CBA with an expansive cap in place at that time and prospective trading partners weren't looking at coughing up draft compensation in order to lavish a big new deal on a player on the eve of a potential work stoppage...

what mankins does have working for him is that there are no viable alternatives to him at LG. nobody but mankins has played LG since 2005, so to expect that they'll just plug connolly in and things will look the same is a foolish notion

not sure if you noticed, but the clock is ticking on brady. I really don't think grooming a new LG is what the pats need to be doing right now

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Low balling? 7-8 million per year guards? I know the position has evolved, but that's still a lot for a guard. Even if the Pats offer was 6.5, what's wrong with that? The Pats have other places to spend money.

Yeah, but a market's a market. I assumed that they were going to treat Mankins like Wilfork and anchor another critical component of the team for several years.

 

[ausbacker]

Yeah, but a market's a market. I assumed that they were going to treat Mankins like Wilfork and anchor another critical component of the team for several years.

Wilfork is arguably the best NT in the NFL. Mankins isn't the best guard in the NFL (although probably top 5). You'd assume you'd pay them accordingly and what the market is set at. 7 mil per seems very fair and reasonable (given the 8.1 mil per ceiling) if reported as true.

 

[DaBruinz]

what mankins does have working for him is that there are no viable alternatives to him at LG. nobody but mankins has played LG since 2005, so to expect that they'll just plug connolly in and things will look the same is a foolish notion

not sure if you noticed, but the clock is ticking on brady. I really don't think grooming a new LG is what the pats need to be doing right now

You really should pay attention troll. Nick Kaczur has been working at LG during the OTAs with the first unit. Do us all a favor and stop posting your nonsense.

 

[DaBruinz]

That is not necessarily correct. His future status as a 6th year player would be determined by whatever CBA gets put in place. Since it's not likely that a new CBA will have 6th year players remaining as RFAs, it's quite possible that Mankins would become a UFA.

No it wouldn't.. His status is determined by this CBA, not the new one. Since he doesn't get credit for the year if he holds out beyond week 10, then he'd still be considered an RFA.

 

[fgssand]

I think you're wrong on that, although those who are aguing to that effect are also wrong to assume that there will even be a new CBA in 2011. And absent it the owners will absolutely retain the new 6 year provision...and the only way the league plays in 2011 absent a new CBA is if the union decertifies and whatever rules the owners have proposed to that point becomes the defacto CBA. The alternative being a lockout if owners don't want to continue playing absent a CBA because they don't want to face the prospect of eventual court mandated rules.

Neither scenario works for Mankins. He needs a new CBA with essentially the old rules and a lot of luck while playing out whatever portion of his now $1.5M tender or he has really miscalculated. Anything short of that, including a new CBA with a scaled back cap or cap growth based on givebacks the owners are seeking, doesn't work well for Logan...in seeking in excess of $7M per...

Couple that with his trade demand while insisting he will not sign his now reduced tender...and you have a classic mexican standoff. I think he's gotten some really lousy advice and counsel from Bauer and whomever else he consults. Branch shot his way out of town, but the circumstances were very different. He was under contract so the team could facilitate a trade. But there was also a new CBA with an expansive cap in place at that time and prospective trading partners weren't looking at coughing up draft compensation in order to lavish a big new deal on a player on the eve of a potential work stoppage...

I do see it your way.

Reading your post surely does put it out there that NOBODY knows what will happen, moving forward with the CBA. The potential loss this year alone means he will be upside down with his new deal that he may get elsewhere if he waits a year or two to get there.

The chances of Mankins doing better than what he is thumbing his nose at seems to me to be pretty low. He is looking for an inside straight to come his way - good luck cowboy. Pride goeth before a fall??

 

[DaBruinz]

Not if both sides agree to something different (e.g., a specific clause releasing any such RFAs and making them UFAs).

It's like talk about franchising player X in 2011—it's likely, but we can't say for sure it'll be allowed by the new CBA.

Your example isn't the same. Why? Because a player who was franchised next year would be done so under the new CBA.

As for both sides reaching that sort of agreement? Not gonna happen. Not without some sort of compensation from the players as well as equivalent picks.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Reiss with bad news on Mankins

And, Brady was sacked 16 times in all of 2009. I'm sure we can all pull stats out of our butts on any subject to support almost anything, but this is a bad loss no matter how we cut it or spin it.

Like Bill says, sacks are over rated. Pressures and hits, that's another story. Tom played most of last season with more to worry about than rebounding from a knee injury... In the last couple of seasons he's also had to play through a myriad of injuries he didn't develop getting out of bed the wrong way... Shoulder tears, sports hernia, busted finger, fractured ribs, high ankle sprains... We're just lucky so far to have not heard the dreaded c word...concussions.

Tom may like Logan the teamate, or he may be ambivalent. Either way, he knows better than to poke his nose into organizational decisions based on emotion. He'd like to see all his teamates paid and happy, but he respects the team doesn't make decisions based on placating everyone because you don't win doing that. And he acknowledges they are all way overpaid... He'll concentrate on working with the guys who show up and want to win, just like Bill will.

 

[IllegalContact]

You really should pay attention troll. Nick Kaczur has been working at LG during the OTAs with the first unit. Do us all a favor and stop posting your nonsense.

somebody has to be there. it does not mean it will work.

the are playing brace at DE. case closed

 

[DaBruinz]

somebody has to be there. it does not mean it will work.

the are playing brace at DE. case closed

Actually, idiot, it's much more likely to work. That's what you clearly aren't capable of understanding.

Why are you even here, Jester fan?

 

[IllegalContact]

Actually, idiot, it's much more likely to work. That's what you clearly aren't capable of understanding.

Why are you even here, Jester fan?

insulting does not help you make your point.

but keep at quantifying the unquantifiable. I understand the game plenty well. if the change is going to be so insignificant, then why offer mankins a contract at all? let him walk and spend the $$ on something you need and pick up a 3rd round compensatory pick in the process

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Yeah, but a market's a market. I assumed that they were going to treat Mankins like Wilfork and anchor another critical component of the team for several years.

They did. He wanted more than Wilfork. Not gonna happen... And a market isn't a market unless you are a UFA, and even then you don't overpay based on what the market has done. Haynesworth is living proof of that. Not all position players are equal or play equally significant positions based on surrounding talent and scheme. It took a couple of seasons for NO to build an offense that could maximize Brees skills while minimizing his lack of ideal stature. Maybe there the LG was the lynchpin. Mankins has been a solid contributor here, but he's isn't a difference maker. Brady won with less talent, and while he set records on Mankins watch those had a lot more to do with Moss stunning the league on arrival coming off a lackluster couple of seasons than dramatically better blocking all of a sudden. In fact blocking was an issue at the end of that season and it's remaind issue due to maddening inconsistency throughout Mankins tenure here. You can blame that on Neal's durability, but if Mankins success is tied to Neal's availability to play what does that tell you...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

what mankins does have working for him is that there are no viable alternatives to him at LG. nobody but mankins has played LG since 2005, so to expect that they'll just plug connolly in and things will look the same is a foolish notion

not sure if you noticed, but the clock is ticking on brady. I really don't think grooming a new LG is what the pats need to be doing right now

Odd, that's what Tannenbaum and Rex decided to saddle their sophomore Sanchise with... among other things....and they're plugging in a project rookie.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Your example isn't the same. Why? Because a player who was franchised next year would be done so under the new CBA.

As for both sides reaching that sort of agreement? Not gonna happen. Not without some sort of compensation from the players as well as equivalent picks.

You're missing my point. We're talking about two different (sets of) clauses here: (A) the ones that determine who's an RFA in the first place, and (B) the ones that govern non-signing of RFA tenders.

In this particular case (and perhaps a few others), that could lead to a contradiction in 2011. You're arguing that (B) has priority, and guarantees that Mankins would be an RFA in 2011. All I'm saying is that you're making an assumption that, while likely, is not an absolute given; a new CBA could explicitly state that (A) has priority in cases like Mankins', or otherwise change the rules to make the contradiction irrelevant.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

He was under contract so the team could facilitate a trade.

The Patriots, IIRC, can explicitly give Mankins permission to seek a trade if they so desire. [The same thing holds for a player given an exclusive franchise tag; a team can still give the player the right to seek a trade, but the player can only do so if given that permission.]

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

You really should pay attention troll. Nick Kaczur has been working at LG during the OTAs with the first unit. Do us all a favor and stop posting your nonsense.

And I'm sure the front office is looking at other alternatives in terms of a trade if there is someone who could be available for the right price and the right contract. It's an added benefit of having those extra 2011 draft picks, though I think as you said they'd rather use Kazcur. It also solves the problem of what to do with 3 starting tackles. Would they rather have Mankins? Yes but if he's going to be a pain in the tuchas and try to shoot his way out of town, they may look at this as a way to move on and Mankins will potentially leave millions on the table.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Our real choices are a one-year deal and a 2012 3rd round draft choice, or a trade for 2011 second (or a 2012 first). That is we can choose between the Samuel solution or the Seymour solution.

If we choose a one-year deal, we can have it be a $1.5M deal and deal with a Mankins locker room and press issue all year, or we can renegotiate a one-year reasonable deal.

I don't know where you're getting this from. Seymour was under contract and was given an advance on his future earnings to buy time to extend him the following season. That's a pretty well established procedure leaguewide. Asante was franchise tagged and all he got was a verbal committment not to franchise him for a second time, which from a financial standpoint was going to be a no brainer anyway. Again, fairly standard procedure to end a franchise tagged holdout. Branch tried the promise to never ever franchise me pre emptively ploy and it landed on deaf ears because it's not a precedent any team other than Oakland would be willing to set... He did get ultimately get traded which was what he really wanted, but only because he was tradeable under a signed contract and the league was operating under a new expansive CBA it had just signed and wasn't on the verge of a lockout...

They just cut Mankins tender because he refused to sign a one year $3.2M deal or a 5 year $35M deal. His choices now are to sign a 1 year $1.5M deal or a 5 year $35M deal if it's still on the table. Or to potentially screw himself over further by holding out funsigned or the first 9 weeks of the season and risking injury to play for 6 weeks and $400K and pray there isn't a lockout. He can't be traded unless he signs and he can't holdout once he does... They aren't about to set a precedent and offer an RFA who refused to sign either his tender or a long term deal a one year deal for double his tender and a promise to never tag...

 

[IllegalContact]

Odd, that's what Tannenbaum and Rex decided to saddle their sophomore Sanchise with... among other things....and they're plugging in a project rookie.

so now the jets are 'smart'?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The Patriots, IIRC, can explicitly give Mankins permission to seek a trade if they so desire. [The same thing holds for a player given an exclusive franchise tag; a team can still give the player the right to seek a trade, but the player can only do so if given that permission.]

They made that mistake with Deion, not gonna happen again. Because once you give that permission to the player you are essentially bound to trade him regardless of compensation or suitability of destination. Tannenbaum could offer a 4th...and a phony one year deal that would bridge the gap from Faneca to Ducasse and when we said no way Mankins could file a grievance... Had Seattle not stepped up Branch was going to NY. Facing a potential lockout in 2011, not sure the offers would be paletable. Belichick was trying to force Branch in, and he ended up handing him his ticket out of town. They are more likely therefore to play this out realizing he has to show up at some point and there is always the possibility they can tag and trade him absent or following a lockout in 2011 because if they get Brady extended they have no one else to tag.

 

[JMarr]

Re: Reiss with bad news on Mankins

I'm mad about the whole situation too, but wishing harm on someone else is bad karma where I come from.

As for the rest, the man thinks he should be paid what the market says he's worth and, rightly or wrongly, feels he was promised he would be. In part, he probably feels this way because he might indeed "blow out" his knee at any time and have his career end, so he wants to be paid as much as he can while he's healthy.

Which is exactly why he should have signed the tender and then continued negotiating while he still had some credibility left, or taken what the Pats offered if it was anywhere near 7 million a year, backloaded or not. If Mankins or his agent are in any way motivated to 'make a statement' because of the ongoing CBA impasse, then they are total, complete, utter bafoons.

I just don't see how this is going to turn out well for him and it's a damn shame because he's been a great player for us.