Do you think the Pats will re-structure Mankins's contract to create cap space?

[Shockt327]

I was hearing about this before FA got started, but not so much anymore. Do you think it will happen?

 

[voluntarysaftey]

no. Last time around Mankins called the Kraft a liar and held out.
Mankins isn't going to accept a paycut.
And the Patriots shouldn't be giving Mankins more years at top dollar -- I don't think he's worth it.
So he finished out his contract. We'll have to look elsewhere if we need cap space.

 

[deters]

not a chance in hell.

 

[jah]

I remember reading right before the start of free agency that an unnamed Patriots official said a pay cut/restructure was "not going to happen." Can't find the source but I'm sure someone else here saw it as well.

Even in the absence of definitive proof, let's just use logic. Mankins is 100% about the money and nothing else--we know that from his absurd holdout. Sure, he's a great OL and one of the best all-time Patriots, but he's still all about the money.

 

[Stylez]

I was hearing about this before FA got started, but not so much anymore. Do you think it will happen?

I hate to say this…but if you follow the Patriots, you already know this answer…waste of thread here...:bricks:

 

[mgteich]

I thought that I'd respond to the question you actually asked rather than thinking that you asked about a pay cut.

A restructure of Mankins' contract would produce about $3M of cap room by move salary from this year to 2015 and 2016. So, if Mankins were cut next year, the additional amount would hit next year's cap.

Players almost always accept a re-structure. All it does is take $4.5M of his slaray and converts it to a signing bonus. Mankins just gets his $3M of his money early instead of waiting to get it week by week.

I think that it will and should happen. Others don't like pushing money forward. Of course, that is done on almost every contract signing.

I was hearing about this before FA got started, but not so much anymore. Do you think it will happen?

 

[BobDigital]

Nope. He won't. After his contract is over we are going to need to part ways.

Personally I don't think we should have gave him that contract in the first play.

Guards are nice but they don't win SBs and should not be paid like they do.

We didn't win a SB with John Hannah and we never won one with Mankins.

Having that much money invested in that position hurts a team IMHO.

This is not to say having sucky guards is not a problem. You need decent play at that position but at the top level DTs will neutralize even the best guards.

I can not wait until we can take that money and invest it in a DE.

 

[mgteich]

Interesting. So, you think that we should pay Mankins this year, $7M next year, and $7M the year after that, and that we shouldn't push some of this year's salary to the next two years?

Nope. He won't. After his contract is over we are going to need to part ways.

Personally I don't think we should have gave him that contract in the first play.

Guards are nice but they don't win SBs and should not be paid like they do.

We didn't win a SB with John Hannah and we never won one with Mankins.

Having that much money invest in that position hurts a team IMHO.

This is not to say having sucky guards is not a problem. You need decent play at that position but at the top level DTs will neutralize even the best guards.

I can not wait until we can take that money and invest it in a DE.

 

[TB=TD]

Why would Manchild restructure his deal?

 

[BobDigital]

Interesting. So, you think that we should pay Mankins this year, $7M next year, and $7M the year after that, and that we shouldn't push some of this year's salary to the next two years?

No, I think we should. I just don't believe he will do it. If he does then great. I am just questioning the logic of paying him that amount in the first place.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

I remember reading right before the start of free agency that an unnamed Patriots official said a pay cut/restructure was "not going to happen." Can't find the source but I'm sure someone else here saw it as well.

Even in the absence of definitive proof, let's just use logic. Mankins is 100% about the money and nothing else--we know that from his absurd holdout. Sure, he's a great OL and one of the best all-time Patriots, but he's still all about the money.

If by "restructuring", we're talking about converting most of his base salary this year into a signing bonus, with no changes to the rest of the contract - why wouldn't Mankins do that?

- It guarantees real cash all in his pocket *now*
- It would decrease the Pats' cap savings for cutting him in 2015 from $7M to about $3.4M, thus making it more likely that he'll actually get to see the scheduled $7M in compensation for 2015.

The only reason why he wouldn't want to take that deal is if he *wants* to be cut before the 2015 season because he thinks he can get more money on the open market at that point.

The loss of 2015 cap savings might be a reason why the Pats *haven't* approached him about this.

On the other hand, if by "restructuring" we're talking about doing something like Tommy Kelly did - turning his base salary into a lower base with incentives - then I can understand why Mankins wouldn't want to do that.

 

[Stylez]

I thought that I'd respond to the question you actually asked rather than thinking that you asked about a pay cut.

A restructure of Mankins' contract would produce about $3M of cap room by move salary from this year to 2015 and 2016. So, if Mankins were cut next year, the additional amount would hit next year's cap.

Players almost always accept a re-structure. All it does is take $4.5M of his slaray and converts it to a signing bonus. Mankins just gets his $3M of his money early instead of waiting to get it week by week.

I think that it will and should happen. Others don't like pushing money forward. Of course, that is done on almost every contract signing.

My resource:

No relief from Logan Mankins, Vince Wilfork | Boston Herald

yours?

 

[RayClay]

Lots of comments based on no knowledge here. He's signed through 2016 now and a restructure at some point could benefit us. A restructure is not necessarily a pay cut. A pay cut is a pay cut.

 

[RayClay]

Mankins has three full seasons more under contract. Whether he wants to restructure now (or the team does, anyone thought of that?) there's a great possibility it will come up in the next three years as an alternative to cutting him.

 

[breakin]

Mankins had a down year this year. I dont think he played to the value of his contract. I dont see a restructure coming. This time next year we are having the same conversation about Mankins as we are now having about Wilfork except its more likely Mankins might be cut by this stage next year.

Next year Mankins is the pretty much the same as wilfork is this year $11m cap hit with $7m savings if he is cut.

 

[mayoclinic]

Interesting. So, you think that we should pay Mankins this year, $7M next year, and $7M the year after that, and that we shouldn't push some of this year's salary to the next two years?

Mankins is going to get paid for this year one way or another - the cap savings of cutting him ($2M) wouldn't be enough to pay for a quality player. But for next year, we currently save $7M by cutting Mankins, and another $7M in 2016. Mankins' play has not lived up to his lofty salary, and he will be 33 and a half by the time the 2015 season starts.

The more money we push into 2015 and beyond, the harder it becomes to cut Mankins. We've already pushed a lot of money into 2015 to squeeze contracts under the 2014 cap. The 2014 league-wide cap is expected to increase to around $140M in 2015 and around $150M in 2016 (and possibly higher), but it's not unlimited. We're already at $126M+ according to Miguel (including Revis' $20M option). We're not likely to have any carryover, and may have a negative adjustment to our 2015 cap once the incentives are sorted out. I'd hate to be in a situation where limit our ability to maneuver by pushing too much money out. What if we got into a situation where we couldn't afford to keep Revis because we tied too much money up into guys who weren't producing to their contracts?

Teams that get too aggressive backloading contracts and pushing out money generally get into trouble. I would personally be cautious about doing that with a high-cap hit player who I could see the team potentially wanting to jettison in 2015. That's just my personal view. I understand the alternative one has some short-term attraction, but I think that disciplined teams take a longer term view.

 

[Sticky Caulk]

Mankins had a down year this year. I dont think he played to the value of his contract.

I'm not going to fully disagree with that, but his teammates at guard and center both sucked. A lot. that alone was excuse enough for his 'down' season. I bet he looks a hell of a lot better when paired up with worthy linemen. Wendell and, to a lesser extent, Connolly made things difficult for the entire offense to function at 100%.

 

[breakin]

Mankins got beat on alot of plays last year. Plays he normally doesnt get beat on and definately plays that a OL getting $10m+/yr shouldnt get beat on. The one that really stands out is the 4th and 2 vs Denver in the AFCCG when Knighton just blows by him untouched. While Pats were man handled most of that game that one play was the nail in the coffin. That one was all on Mankins.

I like Mankins and all things being equal i would want him on me team. However if his production is the same this year he simply wont be worth the $11m next year when cutting him offers $7m in savings.

 

[Wilfork#75]

Interesting. So, you think that we should pay Mankins this year, $7M next year, and $7M the year after that, and that we shouldn't push some of this year's salary to the next two years?

I would let Mankins play out this year of his contract and cut him next year. My issue with re-structuring Mankins contract is it makes it so much harder to part ways with him next season if his play continues to decline. I don't want a 33 year old LG with a $12.5mil cap hit and $7mil in dead money on the books. He's been a great player for the Pats but I was never a fan of that contract and I would try and get out from under it as soon as I could and 2015 seems like the right time.

From Mankins perspective he would be silly to not accept a re-structure. It would not only give him part of his money upfront but it would also make him much harder to cut next season almost guaranteeing that salary too. If he was offered a pay cut I could see why he would turn it down, but a straight re-structure turning base salary into bonus money is a no-brainer.

 

[Rob0729]

My resource:

No relief from Logan Mankins, Vince Wilfork | Boston Herald

yours?

That article is so misleading. Was the source from Mankins or the Pats? Did it mean Mankins won't do an extension or the Pats won't convert part of his base salary into bonus?

I guarantee you that if the Pats went to Mankins and asked him to convert part of his base salary into bonus, he would jump at it. It would give him money immediately and more leverage in a year or two if the Pats come to him to take a pay cut since he has more dead money.

I personally think the Pats won't redo Mankins contract because this may be his last year with the Pats and they won't want to increase his dead money. I think if Mankins has a 2014 like his 2013, they will have little choice but to part ways with him since I doubt he will take a pay cut.