Mankins could hold up NFL settlement

[Deus Irae]

What color is the sky on your world? Using a term like "screwed" is 100% opinion and, as I noted before, not even one shared by most of the people in this forum.

I see you're just trolling again. The RFA tag cost Mankins millions of dollars. That's a financial screwing. You can pretend that's "opinion" all you want.


BTW, citing to this forum, with its ridiculously high homer percentage?

Seriously?

 

[Wolfpack]

I see you're just trolling again. The RFA tag cost Mankins millions of dollars. That's a financial screwing. You can pretend that's "opinion" all you want.

Actually, I was just about to say the same thing to you. Unless you honestly, truly don't know the difference between "fact" and "opinion." Here's some help:

Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Holy Crap...15 pages in less than 4 hrs...

 

[dhamz]

I personally think the real story is the "growing disconnect" between Peyton Manning and the Colts. The let him play out the last year of his deal. They franchise him for the second time with no negotiaions towards a LT deal. Now he is essentially asking for a court order freeing him from their control.

Of course, I don't really think Manning will be anywhere but Indy but the difference in the way the national media covered Brady not having an extension before entering his final year and the way they are covering the Colts/Manning situation is night and day.

 

[HomerSchooled]

Rotoworld- "Accidentally" lists Brady as one of the people holding up deal.

This seems to be the place to vent our frustrations about the players supposedly holding the deal hostage. Here, Rotoworld "accidentally" lists Brady instead of Manning as one of the players whining for free agency. This reminds me of all that fox news Osama/Obama nonsense. I try not be paranoid, but sometimes I feel like this team is dealing with some serious media bias.

It's funny. Last year, Brady and Manning were in the exact same position. Despite both their contracts expiring at the same time, everyone runs stories about Brady complaining about not getting a deal done, that negotiations were going terribly. No one says a peep about Manning's negotiations, and treats it as an obvious non-issue. A year later, Brady has an extremely team friendly deal while Manning is trying to extort the league because apparently he doesn't like the fact that his team has the leverage of forcing him to play out a one year, 22 million, fully guaranteed contract.

It's maddening. Writers speculate non-existent, audience alienating behavior for Brady, then ignore the obvious reality that Manning is ACTUALLY engaging in what they're senselessly accusing Brady of. Manning is going to suck every last drop out of the Colts on his next contract. He's seriously going to aim for 30 million a year, and push his team 20+ million over the 120 million cap. Good riddance to the Colts as a competitive team, I guess. It's fitting that Manning would finally do them in, yet again.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Holy Crap...15 pages in less than 4 hrs...

And at the risk of going off-topic here, the Globe's Bedard had this tweet:

Heard from a source that Jackson, Manning and Brees have softened their stances privately after backlash. Unclear on Mankins.

From what I've read and heard about Mankins, he's not the type to back down in any way just because of backlash. We'll certainly see.

Just reading a (surprisingly) good piece on ESPN.com. Two interesting quotes provide some perspective:

One high-ranking NFLPA executive told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen: "Any media reports of a last-minute power play by players are misleading and erroneous. There are unresolved issues and we remain focused on resolving them

And this on Mankins and Jackson:

According to ESPN legal analyst Roger Cossack, if any of the named plaintiffs opt out, the antitrust suit would remain alive in federal court. "The question then would be who would finance the suit?" Cossack said. "Who would pay the legal fees for Mankins and Jackson? Unless you're Bill Gates, you don't want to get into an antitrust case with the NFL."

 

[dhamz]

From Jim Trotter of SI

Also, the plaintiffs issue in the antitrust case remains unresolved. Vincent Jackson is the only player who has yet to verbally sign off.

 

[townes]

There was a one year loophole regarding RFAs. As a result of that, Mankins was tendered when he would ordinarily have been a UFA and able to get much more money on the market, as demonstrated by the Patriots' willingness to pay him a much higher value contract once the RFA year was up.


Sorry, but that's fact. A bunch of people who can't be bothered to look at a case objectively doesn't somehow mutate it to opinion.

It's not the Patriots fault that those were the rules for free agency, and abiding by them isn't screwing a player it is operating under the rules, just as Mankins sitting for half the year but still getting credit by coming in later wasn't him screwing the Patriots but rather playing by the rules set up. I think the Patriots have mishandled the negotiations and believe Mankins should already be the highest paid OG in football but they haven't screwed him and they have offered him a deal that would have paid him much more than he made last year but he turned down that offer and chose to live with the tag.

Mankins won't hold up a CBA and he will get filthy rich in the near future, hopefully as a Patriot, he could have already achieved that but wants to be even richer, and because he's the best he will in all likelihood achieve that soon.

 

[TheSolderKing]

I don't understand how LAST season's pay to a player is pertinent to 2011 and the new CBA


why is this issue holding up this chit parade? phuck you Mankins.


I am so confused how this issue is relevant to NOW.

 

[townes]

I don't understand how LAST season's pay to a player is pertinent to 2011 and the new CBA

The CBA contained poison pills that allowed for an uncapped year in 2010 but players who would have been UFA had to wait an extra year, killing the free agent class and making the uncapped year moot because there wasn't a market that would drive salaries off the charts, Mankins was one of the players who was forced to take an RFA tender instead of a franchise designation so that cost him millions, however he also passed on a top 3 deal that would have paid him a ton but not top dollar.

Mankins isn't going to hold up a new CBA so those ripping him are going to have to eat their words.

 

[Ring 6]

Couldn't disagree more, Mankins is a rare player and may be the best interior OL of this era. I didn't get to see Belichik discuss Mankins during the best of series on the NFL network but i would be willing to bet his comments were effusive, and that's rare for Belichik. Make him the highest paid at OG and get on with free agency.

Did you seriously just make a point that although you didnt hear the comments you bet they were very positive and thats rare for Belichick?
You can't make up what someone might have said and use it to make an argument that it proves something.

 

[Ring 6]

There was a one year loophole regarding RFAs. As a result of that, Mankins was tendered when he would ordinarily have been a UFA and able to get much more money on the market, as demonstrated by the Patriots' willingness to pay him a much higher value contract once the RFA year was up.


Sorry, but that's fact. A bunch of people who can't be bothered to look at a case objectively doesn't somehow mutate it to opinion.

"Loophole" and "screwed" are terms that illustrate your lack of objectivity here.
The UFA status was a RULE that was collectively bargained. That is not a loophole.
No one forced Mankins not to sign his tender. The reduction in it was also a RULE that was collectively bargained.
No one forced him to not report.

See, that is an objective look at the facts. Your BIAS as indicated by the negative connotiation of 'loophole' and 'screwed' gives you away.

 

[Ring 6]

The CBA contained poison pills that allowed for an uncapped year in 2010 but players who would have been UFA had to wait an extra year, killing the free agent class and making the uncapped year moot because there wasn't a market that would drive salaries off the charts, Mankins was one of the players who was forced to take an RFA tender instead of a franchise designation so that cost him millions, however he also passed on a top 3 deal that would have paid him a ton but not top dollar.

Mankins isn't going to hold up a new CBA so those ripping him are going to have to eat their words.

Poison pill is an inaccurate term to use here. It was collectively bargained, agreed to by both sides.
You cannot consistently criticize the owners for exercising their right to opt out and at the same time speak as if the players were stuck with rules they didnt agree to. The players wanted the uncapped year, and gave the extended RFA term in return. The fact that it didn't work out the way they expected isn't a poison pill.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course. It is truly insane to state the blatantly obvious.

BTW, way to deflect the point about the Pats only offered Mankins top rated guard money. Classic Deus. When the facts blows up your argument, deflect and ignore. And never under any circumstances admit you are wrong no matter how foolish you get.

Also, I assume that mythical Mike Reiss article will never appear.

The least objective person on this board is calling you nuts because you state you are more objective than him, while he is in the middle of one of his drama queen emotional tirades. Priceless.

 

[Ring 6]

that's certainly one version of it.......

another one could be that 2 OL guys drafted in 2006, a year after mankins who are on the same level of ability as mankins were extended last year......the pats had an opportunity to put their money where their mouth was and instead of talking the 'we'll take care of you' hot air, actually signed him to a deal at that time.......it would have likely been much cheaper then, and would have avoided this mess altogether.

oh, those 2 guys? ferguson and mangold

So now the Patriots are wrong for not overpaying players?

 

[TheSolderKing]

The CBA contained poison pills that allowed for an uncapped year in 2010 but players who would have been UFA had to wait an extra year, killing the free agent class and making the uncapped year moot because there wasn't a market that would drive salaries off the charts, Mankins was one of the players who was forced to take an RFA tender instead of a franchise designation so that cost him millions, however he also passed on a top 3 deal that would have paid him a ton but not top dollar.

Mankins isn't going to hold up a new CBA so those ripping him are going to have to eat their words.

Thank You for breaking that down.

Who is going to PAY Mankins??? The NFL?

 

[townes]

Did you seriously just make a point that although you didnt hear the comments you bet they were very positive and thats rare for Belichick?
You can't make up what someone might have said and use it to make an argument that it proves something.

Yep.

I saw Belichik present Mankins on the NFL Network countdown of the best players and as they showed clips of Mankins destroying people he was the narrative. I couldn't hear the presentation but for some reason I'm guessing that Belichik was saying some pretty good things about Mankins.


If anyone who saw it wants to dispute that go for it, I'd be really interested in why they would have Belichik knocking Mankins.

Did you see it Andy?

 

[townes]

Thank You for breaking that down.

Who is going to PAY Mankins??? The NFL?

If the settlement gives them money then it would be the NFL, but i would be really surprised if a player or players would hold up the deal over that. The NFL may throw some money at them just to make it go away but it would be a douchebag move by any of them to hold a deal hostage for personal gain.

 

[Ring 6]

Yep.

I saw Belichik present Mankins on the NFL Network countdown of the best players and as they showed clips of Mankins destroying people he was the narrative. I couldn't hear the presentation but for some reason I'm guessing that Belichik was saying some pretty good things about Mankins.


If anyone who saw it wants to dispute that go for it, I'd be really interested in why they would have Belichik knocking Mankins.

Did you see it Andy?

Perhaps he did, but surely you can see the flaw in arguing you didn't hear it but figure it must have been positive so that says a lot, right?
I don't know how a HC would not make positive comments about a top 100 player, but that doesn't mean there is no limit on the value of the player and what you feel it is sensible to pay him.

 

[townes]

Poison pill is an inaccurate term to use here. It was collectively bargained, agreed to by both sides.
You cannot consistently criticize the owners for exercising their right to opt out and at the same time speak as if the players were stuck with rules they didnt agree to. The players wanted the uncapped year, and gave the extended RFA term in return. The fact that it didn't work out the way they expected isn't a poison pill.

Thanks teach. Poison pills is the correct term as they were put in by both sides to discourage opting out. It worked against the players because the owners outsmarted them and they only have themselves to blame because they signed off on it but the concept remains the same.