Tomorrow begins Tag You're It time

[Shelterdog]

I know that lol I didnt mean trade him tonight. lol

If there's a new CBA before the draft and mankins is franchised I could definitely see the Pats trading him. If there isn't I think they assume that he's gone after 2011 at the latest and plan accordingly as they draft.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Ray Edwards isn't getting franchised. Does this mean he'll be hitting FA?

If and when it happens, probably. In the meantime he will be in limbo. The only FA that can be signed now are players with 4 years of service who are released or players released and passing through waivers. They can only be signed between now and March 3rd. After March 3rd, no players can be signed or extended until a new CBA is in place (or some alternative to one). Although there may be other options in the works depending on whether or not a lockout occurs and drags on through the summer. Reportedly the owners have already formulated a plan to postpone FA in 2011 if things drag out past a certain point. It included paying some form of prescribed premium to the players who lose out again... The theory being a flooded market under a new cap isn't ideal for the majority of owners or players or the union. Of course it seems a lot like postponing the inevitable. That would likely mean several hundred UFA come 2012, although by then you might have expanded rosters and an 18 game schedule...and a clearer picture of revenue streams and cap projections going forward.

 

[ivanvamp]

If and when it happens, probably. In the meantime he will be in limbo. The only FA that can be signed now are players with 4 years of service who are released or players released and passing through waivers. They can only be signed between now and March 3rd. After March 3rd, no players can be signed or extended until a new CBA is in place (or some alternative to one). Although there may be other options in the works depending on whether or not a lockout occurs and drags on through the summer. Reportedly the owners have already formulated a plan to postpone FA in 2011 if things drag out past a certain point. It included paying some form of prescribed premium to the players who lose out again... The theory being a flooded market under a new cap isn't ideal for the majority of owners or players or the union. Of course it seems a lot like postponing the inevitable. That would likely mean several hundred UFA come 2012, although by then you might have expanded rosters and an 18 game schedule...and a clearer picture of revenue streams and cap projections going forward.

I get that teams can't sign players without a CBA, but can they at least talk with them so that the instant the CBA is finalized, guys can sign? I mean, if the CBA isn't finalized until, say, mid-August, you don't want guys at that point start the process of shopping themselves around. I'm sure both the players and teams would want to have their rosters more settled than that.

 

[TheComeback]

The difference is that this year, Mankins will get $11M to show up.

Unfortunately, Mankins is just the type of guy who wouldn't care how much the tag that is worth. He seems to think it's about respect for the effort he's given to the organization. That respect would come in the form of a multi-year commitment, not a tag whose purpose is to prevent him from talking to other teams.

The money is part of the issue, but I think the larger matter here, from Mankins' perspective, is "respect."

Now if it were me, I'd feel perfectly respected if someone "forced" me to accept an $11M contract. But hey, I guess that's what a career of being locked away from the real world on elite sports teams will do to your perspective on life.

 

[Shelterdog]

Unfortunately, Mankins is just the type of guy who wouldn't care how much the tag that is worth. He seems to think it's about respect for the effort he's given to the organization. That respect would come in the form of a multi-year commitment, not a tag whose purpose is to prevent him from talking to other teams.

The money is part of the issue, but I think the larger matter here, from Mankins' perspective, is "respect."

Now if it were me, I'd feel perfectly respected if someone "forced" me to accept an $11M contract. But hey, I guess that's what a career of being locked away from the real world on elite sports teams will do to your perspective on life.

I know he says he's about respect and that he doesn't care about the money, but of course he's going to say that in negotiations. He came back this year, didn't he?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I get that teams can't sign players without a CBA, but can they at least talk with them so that the instant the CBA is finalized, guys can sign? I mean, if the CBA isn't finalized until, say, mid-August, you don't want guys at that point start the process of shopping themselves around. I'm sure both the players and teams would want to have their rosters more settled than that.

Technically I suppose they could talk to someone...only during a lockout it would be the enemy talking to each other so I kind of doubt there will be a ton of that going on. And the chaos that would result in 500 guys shopping themselves around in a week in August and teams talking to them in terms of not having had them or even their rookies or veterans in an off season program or learning a scheme could lead to a lot of contingent offers...prove it if you will. Which is why the owners are thinking of potential scenarios where FA would simply not occur in 2011. And the potential for a lackluster contract period in FA is reportedly why the union might be down with such a plan. After a lockout and much rhetoric and claims of victory on either side, the union would be hard pressed to explain to those guys why the mega deals aren't materializing. Easier to tell them you're getting a big bonus and paychecks again and wait 'til next year...(when half the competition may have fallen off or begun to seriously age out of the competition for elite $$$).

The owners are claiming that a billion dollars will be lost if a lockout drags into the summer, even if games aren't lost. That's because while ratings are up advertising dollars are down in this economy and lots of deals are done in the offseason. If that is the case the players stand to lose $600M (their 60% of the pie) out of the pie that will never be recovered. That's about what the league is looking for in concessions in the short term to get a long term deal done that will help the league continue to grow the pie and ultimately get everyone as much or more over the next decade. In other words, the players are gonna lose money one way or another in the process, better to take the hit on the % split now and make it back over time than lose it and then still have to take a hit on the % split going forward to get a deal done.

 

[Deus Irae]

No different than any extension they have ever done...Including Brady's... Smart teams don't just toss a year of existing eligibility and amortization out the door though fans persist in under valuing them and the tradeoffs teams make for them. Mankins was also reportedly offered upwards of $25M in guaranteed money in that deal which is actually more than Evans was offered on his 7 year deal that included his 2010 RFA tender as well... Jhari is scheduled to make $21.5M over the first 3 (2010-2012 - which against a $12M signing bonus you could make a case as being implicitly guaranteed although in fact it isn't) and it's all backloaded unguaranteed salary and roster bonuses thereafter...

Given that there hasn't been such a one year RFA alteration of the nature we just went through, yes it is obviously different.

 

[satz]

Because it's a moot point even if they prevailed on that contention in court anyway and the NFLPA knows that. Nowhere for these players to go (or sign) absent a new CBA. And there will be franchise tags in any new CBA. The union itself even stated it's not opposed to them using the tags so much as it was in not being somehow consulted first... They aren't looking to eliminate them in any negotiations. They don't care because they only impact on average less than a dozen player a season. Not worth any tradeoff considering the owners are committed to retaining them. Read the Curren article linked in the first post.

Agreed but do you think that the patriots will add a Logan Mankins clause to just keep him and all owners agree to this ?.
There maybe 2 or 3 players and i will shocked if every one votes to let teams retain the rights to those players.

Just saying that assuming everything will swing pro owners and pro patriots in a deal is wrong.

 

[mgteich]

Mankins may show up on the last day possible, in order to make his point, buy=t he will show up. My guess is that he will sign in July. He might even consider signing the day after the draft. He wouldn't want to wait too long and have the patriots withdraw the tag.

In any case, Mankins will feel terribly put upon to play of only $11M. Ths situation is just not the same as last year.

Unfortunately, Mankins is just the type of guy who wouldn't care how much the tag that is worth. He seems to think it's about respect for the effort he's given to the organization. That respect would come in the form of a multi-year commitment, not a tag whose purpose is to prevent him from talking to other teams.

The money is part of the issue, but I think the larger matter here, from Mankins' perspective, is "respect."

Now if it were me, I'd feel perfectly respected if someone "forced" me to accept an $11M contract. But hey, I guess that's what a career of being locked away from the real world on elite sports teams will do to your perspective on life.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Agreed but do you think that the patriots will add a Logan Mankins clause to just keep him and all owners agree to this ?.
There maybe 2 or 3 players and i will shocked if every one votes to let teams retain the rights to those players.

Just saying that assuming everything will swing pro owners and pro patriots in a deal is wrong.

They don't need to add a Logan Mankins clause. Owners want the tag to remain. The union is ambivalent to conceding anything of value to eliminate it because it only impacts a handful of players per season...

There will probably be a dozen or more tags this season and one of them is likely to be worn by one Peyton Manning...so believe me the rights to those players will be retained... As I said earlier, it may be the new CBA allows for a period to tag players AGAIN prior to commencing any FA. Tagging them now is just procedural in case that becomes the basis for re-tagging them under a new CBA.

 

[Deus Irae]

Mankins may show up on the last day possible, in order to make his point, buy=t he will show up. My guess is that he will sign in July. He might even consider signing the day after the draft. He wouldn't want to wait too long and have the patriots withdraw the tag.

In any case, Mankins will feel terribly put upon to play of only $11M. Ths istuation is just not the same as last year.

This. Last year, he was putting his butt on the line while being grossly underpaid, in relative terms. This year, he'll probably still be pissed, but he'll at least be getting grossly overpaid, in those same relative terms.

 

[mgteich]

I agree 100%. Add them up and Mankins is being paid reasonably for 2010 and 2011.

This. Last year, he was putting his butt on the line while being grossly underpaid, in relative terms. This year, he'll probably still be pissed, but he'll at least be getting grossly overpaid, in those same relative terms.

 

[satz]

They don't need to add a Logan Mankins clause. Owners want the tag to remain. The union is ambivalent to conceding anything of value to eliminate it because it only impacts a handful of players per season...

There will probably be a dozen or more tags this season and one of them is likely to be worn by one Peyton Manning...so believe me the rights to those players will be retained... As I said earlier, it may be the new CBA allows for a period to tag players AGAIN prior to commencing any FA. Tagging them now is just procedural in case that becomes the basis for re-tagging them under a new CBA.

So believe we will not reinstate the 4yr FA rule of the current cancelled CBA but will keep the older model. No idea how you know this but maybe you are correct.

My point is the players are giving up money from there side. So you think they will give up more to the owners and tags to just sweeten what they give up. They will also give 18 games taking a paycut. i am curious what they will gain .from the looks of it nothing .

 

[satz]

Mankins may show up on the last day possible, in order to make his point, buy=t he will show up. My guess is that he will sign in July. He might even consider signing the day after the draft. He wouldn't want to wait too long and have the patriots withdraw the tag.

In any case, Mankins will feel terribly put upon to play of only $11M. Ths situation is just not the same as last year.

July, you think mankins will the first one to become pro owner and break from the players union?

 

[mgteich]

No, I believe the CBA will be signed by then. Perhaps, I would be clearer to you if I said that I expect Mankins to sign in July or within two weeks after the CBA is effective, whichever is later. I understand that the financially weak owners will try to hold up the rest, and may succeed.

July, you think mankins will the first one to become pro owner and break from the players union?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Given that there hasn't been such a one year RFA alteration of the nature we just went through, yes it is obviously different.

No, it's the same - had to play longer than you ever expected without a bigger deal - just for a different reason. And again, Mankins wasn't the only player to find himself suddenly in circumstances he could not have forseen back in 2005 when he signed his rookie deal. There were a couple hundred of 'em and most of them didn't get a new deal or even the offer of one and those who did and took it had it added on to their RFA tender... That was Dieon's biatch back in 2006 when he had a year to go on his deal and Given's who signed a 4 year deal didn't. He just didn't want that last year folded into his deal to lower his AAV. But in the end he landed back here...while Given only wishes he could have. You play the hand you're dealt unless you believe you're so special you should be the exception to the rule. I think that's Mankins problem...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

So believe we will not reinstate the 4yr FA rule of the current cancelled CBA but will keep the older model. No idea how you know this but maybe you are correct.

My point is the players are giving up money from there side. So you think they will give up more to the owners and tags to just sweeten what they give up. They will also give 18 games taking a paycut. i am curious what they will gain .from the looks of it nothing .

You just don't get it. I do believe they will reinstate the 4 year FA rule. Wouldn't make any difference in Mankins getting tagged for 2011...

FWIW they won't gain a damn thing this time around in part because they got way too much last time. The owners are looking for givebacks. The union is perfectly willing to maintain the status quo...only ownership isn't down with that.

 

[TheComeback]

Mankins may show up on the last day possible, in order to make his point, buy=t he will show up. My guess is that he will sign in July. He might even consider signing the day after the draft. He wouldn't want to wait too long and have the patriots withdraw the tag.

In any case, Mankins will feel terribly put upon to play of only $11M. Ths situation is just not the same as last year.

I agree that he'll show up if they tag him. $11M is too much for any guard to ignore. I guess the point I wanted to make was that he won't be happy about it, which would lower the chances of the sides striking a long term deal.

Then again, you never know. He's certainly stubborn enough to hold out anyway, especially if he's tagged and doesn't feel like the Patriots are making a worthy offer and aren't willing to move him.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, it's the same - had to play longer than you ever expected without a bigger deal - just for a different reason. And again, Mankins wasn't the only player to find himself suddenly in circumstances he could not have forseen back in 2005 when he signed his rookie deal. There were a couple hundred of 'em and most of them didn't get a new deal or even the offer of one and those who did and took it had it added on to their RFA tender... That was Dieon's biatch back in 2006 when he had a year to go on his deal and Given's who signed a 4 year deal didn't. He just didn't want that last year folded into his deal to lower his AAV. But in the end he landed back here...while Given only wishes he could have. You play the hand you're dealt unless you believe you're so special you should be the exception to the rule. I think that's Mankins problem...

No, it's different. Essentially by definition, a one-time happening is an exception. In this case, the Patriots did NOT have to take advantage of it.

 

[Wolfpack]

I get that teams can't sign players without a CBA, but can they at least talk with them so that the instant the CBA is finalized, guys can sign? I mean, if the CBA isn't finalized until, say, mid-August, you don't want guys at that point start the process of shopping themselves around. I'm sure both the players and teams would want to have their rosters more settled than that.

If there is no CBA until that late, I think it's very safe to say there will be plenty of "under the table" discussions.