More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

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

    More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    Mankins actions once again show everyone how totally screwed up he is....from his excesive greed & refusal to the contract the Patriots offered him to now wanting to be compinsated after sitting out the first 6 games last year (his choice) 10 million dollars by holding the new CBA for ransom....selfish greedy piece of BLEEP!!! This guy is not the type of player I want to see on the Patriots TEAM....PLEASE sign & trade him for anything you can get Bill.... 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    Mankins has simply been trying to get a market-rate deal for himself in a system that works against players in his situation.  I see nothing wrong with what he's done or is doing.  I guess all you guys -- if you ever had the chance to earn $20 or $30 million -- would just say "oh heck, it doesn't really matter, I'll just settle for $3 million."  That's what you're all asking Mankins to do--but you know what? If you were in Mankins' situation you would do exactly what he's doing unless you're a fool, a martyr, or both.   


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dna53. Show dna53's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    He says it's not about the money but wants a ton of it..everone says how when he came back how good the line was..they were 6-1 before him!!! He's making demands w/ jackson and shows he's a greedt SOB

    Here is a new patriots site 60maxpowero.com....
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jerh5. Show jerh5's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

        The whole apology thing aside, he was offered a FAIR contract. 40 mil for 5 years is damn good. No matter what promises were made, throwing Kraft under the bus and spitting on him was not a wise choice.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    From everything I read, the contract was about 20% below what the very top guards were making--and none of the details (signing bonus, etc.) were ever published, so all the people saying he was offered a good deal really can't be sure. My guess is, if the deal was truly a good one, it would have been accepted.  The deal may not have been a terrible one, but I doubt it was really a great one either.  

    Mankins issue, though, is that the rules of the old CBA prevented him from shopping around.  The only way to truly tell what a "fair" deal would be would be to allow the guy to shop his services and see what he could get on a more open market.  Mankins is simply fighting to get that right to shop his services so he can tell whether the Pats offer was at market or not. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    I'm not going to hold it against Mankins for trying to get everything he can because he should. I'm not going to hold it against Mankins for getting angry about being tendered then the tag because it's frustrating. I'm not going to hold it against Mankins for trying to get something from the lawsuit because you never know what you can get unless you try.

    What I am going to hold against him is that he went about it the wrong way releasing the frustration against the Kraft's in a public forum. I'm going to hold it against him that he lays all blame on the owners when it's the union that agreed to the 6th year RFA and to keep the tags, some blame for his situation needs to fall on them. I hold it against him that even after all the backlash from both players and fans it still appears he wants to hold up the settlement of the lawsuit for personal gain when in a previous statement made last year he said he didn't care about the money as he lived on a self-sustaining farm.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ANONMD08. Show ANONMD08's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    @PatsEng. I agree with you on the points that you don't throw the owner under the bus. Whatever happens in a locker room stays in the locker room and not for public reading. Mankins does have the right to do what he wants. He is being greedy. I believe this will be resolved but this is being blown way out of proportion by the media.  
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    In Response to Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE : Stop saying he's "trying to get a market deal".  He was offered a market deal that "rivals Nick Mangold's".  Mankins is not more vital to this line than Mangold is to his. Some of you make terrible faux agents and attorneys. Don't quit your day jobs. So weak with the arguments. All you're doing is following Frank Bauer's lead and pretending Bob Kraft is the issue here.  Mankins lied. We get it, you want the best for the team. Well, the best for this team isn't player greed and selfishness. Tag and trade Mankins.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]


    Russ,
    To the best of my knowledge it was never published what the guaranteed number was in the deal offered Mankins. Therefore, it can't be decided if Mankins was selfish, greedy or foolish. 
    It has been repeated numerous times that the Pats did not make the rules, they simply played by the rules, and used it to an advantage.
    Now the shoe is on the other foot. I don't see why Mankins, who did not make the rules, shouldn't simply play by the rules and use it to an advantage?
    I certainly see a scenario of the Pats tagging him for $10 mil this year. Surely, a number any of us would drool over. But just as certain, if injured this year, Mankins will be out well over an additional $10 mil. 
    I don't see how a guy taking a 50% hit can be called greedy or worse?  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsNut5480. Show PatsNut5480's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    The thing working against Mankins is that he's a guard.  There's always a stupid team out there but not many teams will give a huge contract to a guard.  As Belichick said before "you can always find a guard"  I like Mankins and he's the type of player I want on my team but it's not smart business to give a guard a huge contract even if he's one of the top 3 in the league. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    As I recall, the argument last year was based on reports that Mankins was offered a 5 year 35 million deal with absolutely no details about the contract structure - signing bonus, was it front loaded, back loaded, was it incentive laden, etc. 

    I noted then that the contract could have been back loaded so that the Pats would have never been required to pay the big portion of the deal - something like 3 mill bonus + 2 mill 1st, 2 mill 2nd, 4 mill 3rd, 4 mill 4th, 20 mill 5th. 

    Further, some of you might not like this - Brady's demands and subsequent deal may have put a good Mankins deal on the back burner.  All teams were reluctant to pay big $ to players ahead of the new CBA, but that didn't mean they wouldn't spend any money.  Brady's deal likely tapped out the pats for anything else big and the player damaged most by that was Mankins. 
     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    LOL, Russ - Since Brady had another year left on his deal, I think the pats were hoping to wait on him - that is until Brady took the dispute public. 

    the facts are, and I don't blame the pats, that the pats used uncapped year rules to keep Mankins without having to "pay" him as he says they promised.  Brady's unexpected demands put the pats in a very difficult position and Mankins was the victim. 

    Had Brady waited, I am willing to bet that Mankins would have been taken care of. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    I don't see how Krafts comment, if he indeed made it, is it any different than any comment made by Mankins camp?
    I also don't see the same animosity between the Pats and Mankins that is seen here on the board. It seems pretty clear to me that BB wants Mankins on the team.
    It is also pretty clear that the rushing numbers went up significantly when Mankins returned, in spite of the playing the top 3 defenses against the rush. Coincidence? Read into what you may.
    Unless we see some pretty clear cut numbers regarding the contract offer, I think it is fair to say that Mankins is playing by the rules, and it is certainly with in his rights to get the best deal he can. IMO, if the Pats aren't offering Mankins top 3 guard money with similiar guaranteed money, Mankins is getting the short end. If all Mankins gets out of his time played which is 7 years with no guarantee, and he is tagged at $10 mil, I too would hold out for that additional $10 mil that I feel is deserved. 
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    In Response to Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE:
    [QUOTE]No. Brady was the bigger contract, so they chose to deal with that first, which is the right move. You are just using this angle to try to make it seem like Gomer is in the correct position, without a contract. Brady was the sr. position player and the more important player than Mankins. Not a debatable topic. Again, Mankins's only issue is it came after Brady's and Wilfork's which apparently hurt the wittle millionaires feelings.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Right and wrong.  Doing Brady's deal was absolutely the important and right thing to do, but I believe the team was hoping to avoid it last offseason and if that happened they could have handled Mankins.  Brady did not allow that to happen although he had a year left on his deal.  Wilfork was an FA and HAD to be handled.  Mankins got used because of the uncapped year language which took away his FA rights. 

    I don't fault Brady for wanting to get his deal done.  I don't fault Mankins for being apesh*t pis_ed about getting scr_wed with the uncapped year language.  I don't fault the pats for using the leverage of the uncapped year language to do what they had to do. 

    All of that said, if Brady had waited (and I don't think he should have had to), Mankins may have gotten his deal.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    In Response to Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE : You don't see how it's different?  Did you miss parts of the chronology here? Who took the contract public and who called his boss a liar? No animosity?  He called Kraft a liar.  He then was so in the wrong, Frank Bauer even told him to apologize. Anyone defending how Mankins has handled himself, has a screw loose. The fact is Wilfork and Brady were frustrated with the duration of their deals, but they didn't do what Mankins did. Why is Mankins ABOVE Brady and Wilfork? Id' sure like to get the "short end" of a 40 million dollar stick and have a chance to win SB rings.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    but taking the contract public and calling names is still within the rules of negotiation. whether you or I agree with it, is not the debate. The debate is Mankins getting significantly short changed on his deal. Since we don't know the contract details, we really don't know. 
    What we do know, is that by tagging Mankins, he is getting only approx 50% of what he feels s/b his guaranteed money. Would you like to still get the "short end" if it is in reality $3 million if you feel it s/b $20 million? C'mon, even you are not that monetarily foolish.
    Unless you can point out where Mankins has broken rules or not played up tyo his contract that he signed, I see nothing wrong with what he is doing.   
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from sfpat. Show sfpat's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    In Response to Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE : Russ, To the best of my knowledge it was never published what the guaranteed number was in the deal offered Mankins. Therefore, it can't be decided if Mankins was selfish, greedy or foolish.  It has been repeated numerous times that the Pats did not make the rules, they simply played by the rules, and used it to an advantage. Now the shoe is on the other foot. I don't see why Mankins, who did not make the rules, shouldn't simply play by the rules and use it to an advantage? I certainly see a scenario of the Pats tagging him for $10 mil this year. Surely, a number any of us would drool over. But just as certain, if injured this year, Mankins will be out well over an additional $10 mil.  I don't see how a guy taking a 50% hit can be called greedy or worse?  
    Posted by rkarp[/QUOTE]

    What rules?  Mankins is trying to make up rules as he goes.  Mankins signed onto a class action suit where everyone is supposed to get the same settlement.  He now has made it his personal suit against the league.  As I've said, Mankins played his hand poorly, went all in, lost, and now demands to be given the pot.

    And a Mangold type contract is more than fair for Mankins.  The team went 6-1 without him (when the defense was extremely green) and should he go, as a worst case, we will win as many Super Bowls without him as we won with him.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    In Response to Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE:
    [QUOTE]Some of you make terrible faux agents and attorneys. Don't quit your day jobs. So weak with the arguments. Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Hey, Mr. strong arguments, what were the details of the offer the Pats made Mankins? What was the signing bonus?  How much was paid in each year?  What was guaranteed and what was likely to actually be earned in 201?

    Oh that's right . . . you have no idea.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from PetesCall. Show PetesCall's posts

    Re: More proof Mankins ia an _HOLE

    As the President says, we can share the wealth. Maybe we can take some of his excessive salary and give it to the homeless.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share