PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    You kind of prove my point by quoting Breer as saying the deal was $35 million and Curran saying it was $42 million.  How do we know that any of what they say is accurate when the broad numbers they give aren't even the same?  And neither of the reporters provides details on the contracts or any information on their sources. 

    As far as Jonathan Kraft's statement, if you look closely at what Mankins said, he never claims that he talked directly to Robert Kraft.  So Jonathan's statement isn't quite accurate. 

    Here's what J Kraft says:

    “Robert’s never spoken to Logan about his contract. Logan, in my opinion, seriously misspoke when he said that about Robert because Robert has not spoken with Logan about his contract.”



    And here's what Mankins is quoted as saying:

    "After the 2008 season, me and my agent approached the Patriots about an
    extension and I was told that Mr. Kraft did not want to do an extension
    because of the [uncertain collective bargaining agreement],” Mankins told Mike Reiss of ESPNBoston.com. “I was asked to play ’09 out, and that they would address contract after the uncapped year. I’m a team player, I took them at word, and I felt I played out an undervalued contract.”

    Note that Mankins says he approached not Robert Kraft but "the Patriots."  And then he was told by whomever he approached in the Patriots organization that Kraft didn't want to do a deal yet. I don't know who Mankins approached but from the way the statement was worded you can't claim that Mankins ever said that he approached Robert Kraft directly or was told anything directly by Kraft.  So Jonathan Kraft is misreading what Mankins said. 

    Look . . .contract disputes get ugly and feelings can get hurt on both sides.  But the main point is that none of us knows anything about the details of the contract and so it's impossible to say who is right here.  Throwing all the blame for the collapse of the deal on Mankins and calling Mankins stupid simply isn't fair because we don't know any of the details.  

    I assume both parties offered what they felt was fair.  They couldn't come to an agreement.  That happens.  It doesn't, however, make Mankins a bad person or a stupid person.  It just means he didn't get what he wanted from the Patriots--and he's under no obligation to sign if he thinks he can get something better. Since you don't know what he was offered, you have no way of knowing whether his decision was sensible or not.  That's why I think it's pretty low of you to be calling him names.   
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wildwillis. Show Wildwillis's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    If it were me, Franchise him like we did to Wilfork.  Any thought?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    In Response to Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!:
    If it were me, Franchise him like we did to Wilfork.  Any thought?
    Posted by Wildwillis


    I agree with franchising him if that option still exists - he put himself before the team and sat out for 7 weeks saying that was business - well, the Patriots can do 'business' too - they owe Mankins nothing
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    They can franchise him, but then they have to pay him almost $11 million for just one year.  I can't imagine the Pats paying that much for a guard for one year. I think it's much more likely that they work out a long term deal if they want to keep him around. 
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    In Response to Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!:

    My question is: Why would Mankins be so dumb to even risk a tag? That's another reason his agent misled him.
    Posted by BBReigns


    Because there's no way to avoid the risk of being franchised other than signing the contract the Patriots offered him. As a restricted free agent, Mankins only had three realistic options:

    Sign the deal the Patriots offered him

    Refuse the deal but sign the tender

    Refuse to sign anything

    Only the first spares him the risk of being franchised--but it locks him into whatever deal the Pats offered him for the length of the contract.  If he didn't think that contract was a good one, it would make no sense to sign it just to avoid the possibility of being franchised (which is a long shot anyway). The CBA does not give restricted free agents a great deal of bargaining power. Most either sign with their current team or sign the tenders. You can say Mankins made a mistake not signing the initial $3.26 million tender, but unless you know the details of the contract he was offered (which you don't) there's no way to judge whether he made a mistake by not signing that.

    The only other possibility for a restricted free agent besides the three mentioned above is to get signed by another team during the March 5-April 15 signing window.  But this almost never happens because teams have to give up draft picks if they sign restricted free agents. 

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    Again Russ, we don't know what they offered him (other than a rough idea of total value, which is meaningless since guaranteed value is what's primarily important) so there's no way to objectively tell whether Mankins and his agent made a good decision or a bad one. 

    Look, I don't blame the Patriots for not giving Mankins everything he wanted.  I don't even think the Patriots are cheap.  All I'm saying is that we have no basis on which to determine whether Mankins made a good decision or a bad one by refusing to sign the contract the Pats offered him--because we don't know what the details of the contract were and the details matter!  My guess is the Pats decided that guard wasn't a position where they wanted to invest a lot of money.  That's sensible because they have lots of other positions where they probably need talent even more (and they needed to sign Brady).  But that probably led them to offer Mankins a deal that was probably a little low in guaranteed money and probably back-loaded so it wouldn't adversely effect the cap in the short term (once the new cap is agreed to). That's good business by the Pats--but it doesn't help Mankins. I suspect Mankins and his agent aren't idiots and do have a good idea of the market (certainly better than either you or I do!).  I suspect they think the Pats' offer was low relative to market and I suspect they're right.  Not a lot low, maybe, but not a real stellar package either.  So here's where emotion comes in on Mankins' side.  He felt he was promised something (rightly or wrongly) and feels betrayed since the deal isn't what he expected.  The Pats also decide not to come to the table and offer anything better because they've already offered the most they're willing to pay. So Mankins gets pissed off.  And he decides well if they're going to play hardball, then I'm going to play hardball too and not sign the tender and try to force the issue.  That may have been a mistake (I think it probably was.) But it's not necessarily stupid.  He got an extended vacation (missing all of the summer workouts and half the season) and still can come back and get half his annual money and possibly play in a Super Bowl.  And next year he can negotiate with another team for a better deal if the Pats don't step up to the plate.  So Mankins ends up okay, I think, unless the next offer he gets is for less than what the Pats offered.  There is a risk there, but given that we don't know what the Pats offer really was and we don't know what the market is, neither you or I are really in a position to accruately assess it. I suspect Mankins and his agent have a better idea what risk they're taking and I doubt they're both idiots like you seem to think. 

    What I don't understand is why Patriots fans have this knee-jerk need to demonize players when something doesn't work out with contracts.  As far as I can tell, Mankins is a hard working player who gives 100% effort when he's on the field. Until the contract dispute, he never complained or drew attention to himself. His teammates like him.  He's everything you want in an offensive guard. What we have with Mankins is simply a failure of communication and a failure to work out a deal.  That shouldn't reflect all that bad on either the team or the player.  It's just one of those things that happens.  If they can correct things now and come to some good deal--I'm all for it.  Mankins is a great player and I hope they can work something out that is good for the player and good for the team.  But if they can't, then Mankins can move on--and there's nothing wrong with that either.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    Well, I don't have high opinions of agents either, but I do think players often need the help. Without agents, a lot of these guys would be signing for significantly less money than they could sign for.  Yeah, most agents tend to put money before intangibles (like playing for a good team) and in many cases that doesn't serve the player well (if intangibles are important to the player), but if all players got rid of their agents, I think the owners would be dancing in the streets at the thought of the millions in salary money that would be transfered from players' pockets to their own.

      
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaPrince77. Show DaPrince77's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    In Response to Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!:
    I think once you establish yourself in the league, you don't need a full time agent unless you want endorsements. Just my .02. Mankins is a Pro Bowl Guard and any lawyer worth a damn could negotiate a legitimate deal for a client and take less of a cut based on the time spent on the deal. NE wanted Mankins.   Mankins wants to be there. So, really, this is a slam dunk. That's why it's so dumb.
    Posted by BBReigns


    Now I'm not sure about the credibility of the source, but wasn't there a story that the Kraft's wanted Mankins to make a public apology, because in essence he lied to the media about his contract situation?
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    In Response to Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!:
    I said it before and I'll say it again.  Brady had all day last night to find his receivers.  His receivers could have been toddlers or seniors and it wouldn't have mattered as long as they could catch.  If that is Mankins effect, I want Polian to call him.
    Posted by Indylove


    Indylove you got me convinced, we should try to sign him because I do not want him on my number two hated team:)
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaPrince77. Show DaPrince77's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    The whole situation is crazy, Mankins doesn't strike me to be the greedy type(but who knows) 7 million for a guard would be one helluva deal....we are not talking about a left-tackle here, albeit an excellent player.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BTownExpress. Show BTownExpress's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    The Pats are holding all the cards...that have (drfat) picks on them...
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

    In Response to Re: PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!:
    I am not demonizing.  I think they are crazy fort having agents to begin with., especially if you are someone like Mankins. ... Keep the 20% for yourself, walk in with the stats, state your case and then hire a lawyer to look over the deal... 

    Posted by BBReigns

    The standard agent fee (if that's what you're referring to here?) is considerably less than 20%.  Not sure exactly, but I think it's like 3%.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts