Mankins could hold up NFL settlement

[Rob0729]

The Patriots could have played Mankins fairly, especially because they had to know the kind of person he was with regards to honor, etc.... Instead, they used the hammer of the RFA situation. You can tongue wash the Patriots all you want, but it won't make what they did right.

They screwed up. They behaved badly and stupidly. I'm just hoping that the resolution, whatever it may be, doesn't lead to lesser performance on the field.

First, who is tongue washing. I think I am being pretty objective here. I am saying no one knows what really went on in the negotiations and it is a case of he said/he said. You like always want to take the player's side in the negotiations as facts.

Second, Mankins gave them permission to give him a RFA tender... at least his side did. I don't know how anyone can blame the Patriots for using the RFA tender on Mankins when the NFLPA afforded them that right.

Third, you have no proof that the Pats screwed, behaved badly, or stupidly. That is Mankins' contention, but that is one sided accounts of the situation. There is as much evidence of Mankins "screwing up, behaving badly, or stupidly" as there is of the Patriots doing it. You just want to take Mankins' one-sided account as fact.

 

[Deus Irae]

What was so unfair about the deal the Patriots purportedly offered?

By some accounts - it was good enough that Mankins was willing to actually accept it, but turned it down to his unwillingness to offer Kraft an apology for his agent's petulance.

Again, the Patriots offer, per the Patriots was roughly equivalent to that of the top center. Mankins is a guard, and that's underpaying him a bit. I don't really consider that to be unfair, though, as much as just being a bit tight with a buc.

What was unfair, though, was making it an extension of the RFA tender, and requiring Mankins to play out the season under that salary. It was worse than unfair, though. It was monumentally stupid. This team does some things very well, obviously. However, dealing with its high end talent when contract time rolls around is an area where it could use some work.

 

[IllegalContact]

Unless you're saying that Reiss was wrong, we know quite a bit about what happened. The Patriots low balled the offer after putting Mankins off for a year (even their claimed offer only put Mankins on par with the top center, and that offer has been reported, by Reiss, to have required Mankins to accept the one year RFA money as part of the deal before the new 'extension' kicked in).

there are a few parallels with the deion branch affair of 2006........except that branch did not believe the kraft that he would be 'taken care of' so he forced his hand while still under contract........and with the way things have turned out for mankins, should have been his tactic all along.

the only thing this assures anyone of is that regardless of who was actually wrong or right, the pats front office will not get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to using the 'you'll be taken care of' speech.........will anyone blame mccourty if he decided to hold out after being a pro bowler for his first 3 years? I know I won't.

 

[Rob0729]

Actually, he has the "right" to ask for whatever the hell he wants. He's a named plaintiff.

Doesn't mean he deserves it. He really doesn't. A plantiff in any case can ask for anything they want within the law, but they clearly do not always deserve what they get or there would be no need for courts if the plantiff was always in the right.

 

[Deus Irae]

First, who is tongue washing. I think I am being pretty objective here. I am saying no one knows what really went on in the negotiations and it is a case of he said/he said. You like always want to take the player's side in the negotiations as facts.

Second, Mankins gave them permission to give him a RFA tender... at least his side did. I don't know how anyone can blame the Patriots for using the RFA tender on Mankins when the NFLPA afforded them that right.

Third, you have no proof that the Pats screwed, behaved badly, or stupidly. That is Mankins' contention, but that is one sided accounts of the situation. There is as much evidence of Mankins "screwing up, behaving badly, or stupidly" as there is of the Patriots doing it. You just want to take Mankins' one-sided account as fact.

Rob, you always think you're being objective. You pretty much never are. That's part of being a homer. Also, I'm not taking Mankins' account as fact. I'm taking the reports of Mike Reiss as accurate.

And that "permission" thing is a lame argument.

 

[townes]

False. Mankins lent his name to be used both in the lawsuit and in the idea that he is going to want some sort of other payment/compensation for the Pats handling of his contract. Just because he didn't state any demands doesn't mean that there aren't any..

Bullcrap, the reports are about what is being asked for right now and as of a couple of hours ago Schefter specifically said Jackson had made demands but Mankins had made none. Are you going to take shots at Brady as well saying he is holding up a deal because the lawsuit has his name on it? Is it possible, yes, is it a fact, no. If he makes some then b.tch about it then.

 

[townes]

A couple of weeks from now the very same people who are and have been crapping all over the players will be at training camp telling them how much they love them and begging for autographs.

 

[mgcolby]

ther eis no argument.....mankins alone did not have the power to deny the voting of the CBA.......like I said, maybe he did vote against it.

but the fact is that the owners decision to opt out was the actual action that made mankins be an RFA instead of a FA. I have no problem with mankins taking exception to the way things worked out and then following it up with an attempt to recoup some of that money.

I actually take more exception to the fact that brady has his name on the lawsuit even though he is under contract for several upcoming years.

I would not pass up on any opportunity to squeeze 10M out of the other side for my own behalf.......if you would not do the same in his spot, it is only because you're a homer or incredibly stupid

john hannah is a hero around these parts, and what did he do? he sat out while under contract until the pats ponied up 38 grand......then he came back. yeh......real classy guy

Ok it is obvious that you can't understand the main point. The only reason he was a RFA in year 6 is because the players union voted to ratify a CBA that allowed for an uncapped year and for the owners to opt out.

If the players union (which Mankins is a part of) did not vote to ratify a CBA giving the owners that option, then he would not have been restricted in year 6.

To go even further if the players didn't see the uncapped year as a lottery ticket and insist on an uncapped year in the event that the owners opted out; then there would have been no need for the owners to insist on protecting their young players coming off of their rookie contract by adding the option to restrict their 6th year players.

Bottom line the UNION sacrificed the 5th year players who were finishing up their rookie season at the time, for an inticipated huge payday. So again your argument, point - whatever you want to call it fails in this regard. I will repeat what I said earlier, Mankins beef should not be with the Owners it should be with his fellow players, particularly the ones that would not have been affected by the 6th year RFA come 2010 who voted to ratify the 2006 CBA extension.

I would not pass up the opportunity to squeeze 10 million dollars from a team in FA at my own expense if it fails or backfires on me so be it. However, squeezing 10 million dolllars at the expense of the rest of the NFL is extremely selfish and I would not do that especially given the fact that he is inline for a huge payday any way. And if you fail to see the *******ness in doing such a thing, then either your a selfish person or stupid as well. (I love personal attacks disguised as generalizations on the internet, especially about someone you have never met, because they can easily go both ways).....

 

[BradyManny]

Again, the Patriots offer, per the Patriots was roughly equivalent to that of the top center. Mankins is a guard, and that's underpaying him a bit. I don't really consider that to be unfair, though, as much as just being a bit tight with a buc.

What was unfair, though, was making it an extension of the RFA tender, and requiring Mankins to play out the season under that salary. It was worse than unfair, though. It was monumentally stupid. This team does some things very well, obviously. However, dealing with its high end talent when contract time rolls around is an area where it could use some work.

What choice did they have? They made Mankins - at worst - a reasonable starting offer to use and work towards a deal. Mankins and his agent, forgetting that negotiations is a give-and-take process, reacted like children and refused to engage in said process.

At that point, the Patriots used the only means they had to ensure Mankins contributed to the team in the 2010 season.

The Patriots dealings with high-end talent leaves nothing to be desired. When the player on the other side of the equation is reasonable and professional, like Tom Brady or Vince Wilfork, the deal gets done. When the player on the other end is stubborn and manipulated by an arrogant, unprofessional agent, like Deion Branch or Logan Mankins, a deal does not get done.

The Patriots have a right to place a value on their player and stick to it. They are under no obligation to pay a player more than they believe he is worth solely due to loyalty.

 

[patfanken]

What do the Patriots rights have to do with it? Mankins got screwed by the Patriots. Just because the Patriots had the 'right' to do it, you think that means Mankins should sit back and enjoy it?

WTF, DI are you nuts. Are you saying the Pats "screwed" Mankins by NOT making him the highest paid guard in the league, and that making him the 3rd highest paid G in the league was an INSULT. This could have been the most asinine statement you have EVER made on this board....at least from my perspective.

The Pats made him a reasonable offer. It was Mankins right to refuse it and hold out. Where was he "screwed". Why are you taking the position that the Pats screwed him, There were no bad guys in this.

 

[DaBruinz]

Brees and Manning are reportedly looking for lifetime exclusion from the franchise tag. They are looking to gain something for being on the list. Mankins and Jackson, OTOH, are just seeking to right a wrong done them by their teams last season. If San Diego and New England had treated the players the way they should have, this wouldn't be any kind of issue. Instead, the teams decided to screw over their players, and we're now seeing the results of that. I hope the players get their wish, whether it be a cash increase to make up for what they lost last year, or free agency without the tags.

*ROFLMAO*

Neither Mankins nor Jackson were wronged last year. That is such garbage. They were victims of their (the players) own greed. The players were the ones who agreed to the out clause and the clause that made it mandatory that any player with less than 6 accrued years be RFA. Yet, you put all the blame on the owners. Typical of your biased garbage.

What you fail to acknowledge is that the Pats attempted to negotiate with Mankins and offered him a Very fair deal. Jackson never even bothered to try and negotiate according to people I know who are big Charger fans. So, this idea that Mankins and Jackson were wronged/screwed is a figment of your imagination. And theirs for that matter.

 

[Deus Irae]

Doesn't mean he deserves it. He really doesn't. A plantiff in any case can ask for anything they want within the law, but they clearly do not always deserve what they get or there would be no need for courts if the plantiff was always in the right.

Fact: Both sides did/are doing things that were within their rights.

Fact: Neither side had/has to exercise those rights

Fact: The Patriots used a one year 'loophole' in such a way that Mankins got screwed financially

Fact: Mankins is looking to find some measure of righting that 'wrong'

 

[IllegalContact]

Second, Mankins gave them permission to give him a RFA tender... at least his side did. I don't know how anyone can blame the Patriots for using the RFA tender on Mankins when the NFLPA afforded them that right..

huh?


mankins didn't sign the tender until the midseason....which means he didn't agree or give permission or whatever you call it......

 

[Deus Irae]

WTF, DI are you nuts. Are you saying the Pats "screwed" Mankins by NOT making him the highest paid guard in the league, and that making him the 3rd highest paid G in the league was an INSULT. This could have been the most asinine statement you have EVER made on this board....at least from my perspective.

The Pats made him a reasonable offer. It was Mankins right to refuse it and hold out. Where was he "screwed". Why are you taking the position that the Pats screwed him, There were no bad guys in this.

Perhaps reading what I've posted, striving for comprehension, and putting down the homer goggles would be a good start for you on this.

 

[Rob0729]

Unless you're saying that Reiss was wrong, we know quite a bit about what happened. The Patriots low balled the offer after putting Mankins off for a year (even their claimed offer only put Mankins on par with the top center, and that offer has been reported, by Reiss, to have required Mankins to accept the one year RFA money as part of the deal before the new 'extension' kicked in).

Reiss reports what sources tell him. Since the Patriots don't talk about contracts, the reporting will be one sided. The Patriots claimed they offered Mankins top 3 guard money which people assumed their own number. They never gave their side of the details. Reiss reported most of the contract information as sources close to Mankins. He never portrayed them as facts. He portrayed them as Mankins' side of the facts even quoting Frank Bauer, Mankins, or unnamed sources close to Mankins.

Reiss can only report what his sources tell him and if only one side is talking, the "facts" will be skewed in favor of that side.

 

[IllegalContact]

*ROFLMAO*

Neither Mankins nor Jackson were wronged last year. That is such garbage. They were victims of their (the players) own greed. The players were the ones who agreed to the out clause and the clause that made it mandatory that any player with less than 6 accrued years be RFA. Yet, you put all the blame on the owners. Typical of your biased garbage(In your opinion). .

What you fail to acknowledge is that the Pats attempted to negotiate with Mankins and offered him a Very fair deal (In your opinion). Jackson never even bothered to try and negotiate according to people I know who are big Charger fans. So, this idea that Mankins and Jackson were wronged/screwed is a figment of your imagination(In your opinion). . And theirs for that matter(In your opinion). .

I just needed to correct your post

 

[Rob0729]

huh?


mankins didn't sign the tender until the midseason....which means he didn't agree or give permission or whatever you call it......

Of course the players gave the Pats permission to give a RFA tender in 2010. It was written in black and white in the CBA. The Pats had permission for from the NFLPA to tender Mankins and Mankins is part of the NFLPA. So Mankins gave him permission through his representatives.

 

[Deus Irae]

What choice did they have? They made Mankins - at worst - a reasonable starting offer to use and work towards a deal. Mankins and his agent, forgetting that negotiations is a give-and-take process, reacted like children and refused to engage in said process.

At that point, the Patriots used the only means they had to ensure Mankins contributed to the team in the 2010 season.

The Patriots dealings with high-end talent leaves nothing to be desired. When the player on the other side of the equation is reasonable and professional, like Tom Brady or Vince Wilfork, the deal gets done. When the player on the other end is stubborn and manipulated by an arrogant, unprofessional agent, like Deion Branch or Logan Mankins, a deal does not get done.

The Patriots have a right to place a value on their player and stick to it. They are under no obligation to pay a player more than they believe he is worth solely due to loyalty.

Get back to me when you're willing to be objective on the subject. Until then, further discussion is useless. The notion that forcing a player to accept an RFA tender, gotten in a one year exception, that's $4-$5 million below his market value as part of any contract 'extension' is a "reasonable starting offer to use and work towards a deal" is ridiculous.

 

[BradyManny]

Deus, if the Pats offer was so terrible - then what do you make of the reports out there that they were a Mankins-apology away from getting a deal done?

 

[BradyManny]

Get back to me when you're willing to be objective. Until then, further discussion is useless.

I am being objective. I want the Patriots to pay Logan Mankins top $$ and get this thing done. It's a hard thing to do when the player doesn't understand the negotiation process and expects to be blown away by his initial offer, acting like a spoiled child who doesn't get his away.