MERGED: This can't help with Mankin's contract...

Share this page

P

PatsAddict

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
252
Reaction score
11
Points
18
Age
51
Location
Merrimack, NH
Per PFT:
Jahri Evans Cashes In
Today, Saints guard Jahri Evans has agreed to terms on a seven-year deal worth a whopping $56.7 million, according to Adam Schefter of ESPN.

The deal is being described as the richest ever given to a guard. Then again, Alan Faneca signed a five-year deal with an average of $8 million two years ago. And less than two weeks ago he was cut.

So the devil is, as always, in the details, and we'll wait to see the numbers before handing out any gold stars on this one.

Evans had been a restricted free agent. Thus, his negotiation was not limited by the 30 percent rule.

Well if Mankins needed a yardstick for what he's looking for this could be it.
 
Paging Logan Mankins

ESPN's Adam Schefter is reporting that the Saints have come to an agreement with restricted free-agent guard Jahri Evans, lavishing a seven-year, $56.7 million deal on the All-Pro, and giving him $19 million in the first year of the contract and $25.7 million between 2010-12.

We mentioned yesterday, referencing Patrick Willis and Jerod Mayo, that every new deal impacts others.

The Willis-Mayo thing is a long-range thing (Mayo's got three years left on his deal, and a long way to go in reaching Willis' level). Evans' deal figures to have much more immediate consequences with the Patriots ... and their dealings with Logan Mankins.

Mankins is staying away from the team's workouts for now, and until there's some progress on his deal. This could spark, well, something. Both Evans and Mankins entered this offseason as a restricted free agents, they're separated in age by just 17 months (Mankins is older), and both have been named All-Pro once and played in Pro Bowls in their respective careers.

Now, Evans is considered the best guard in football right now, so it's hard to expect that the Patriots would pay quite the premium that the Saints just did. But Evans' deal could provide some sort of framework for talks.

Remember, the deadline for Mankins to sign his free agent tender is June 15. As we've explained before, if Mankins doesn't sign that day, the club can drop his tender to 110 percent of his 2009 salary. That would mean that tender going from $3.268 million to $1.54 million, costing Mankins $1.728 million. Coincidentally, or perhaps cleverly, the Patriots scheduled their mandatory veteran minicamp for June 15-17.

While we're here, Andrew Brandt's story on Willis and the 49ers exploiting a loophole in the 30 percent rule is up now at the National Football Post. Still, trying to figure whether that could open the door for Tom Brady's new deal. We'll get back to you on that.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/05/paging_logan_ma.html
 
Just posted a thread just bout the same time, sorry for duplication, did not see this when I hit send
 
Like many other Pats over the years Mankins will be faced with taking ok money to stay on a winner or going somewhere and mostly likely making great money while playing for a loser.
 
Consider him gone.

The Patriots have gotten too much value over the years from low round interior offensive lineman to pay a guard 8mil+. I like Logan, seems to be a good guy, and a good player. But I think I would be pretty unhappy if they paid him 8million a year. (Assuming the cap comes back.)

SSDD
 
harrisonhits said:
Like many other Pats over the years Mankins will be faced with taking ok money to stay on a winner or going somewhere and mostly likely making great money while playing for a loser.
Click to expand...


ROFL

The Saints won the Superbowl

ROFL
 
babalu87 said:
ROFL

The Saints won the Superbowl

ROFL
Click to expand...
This.

You guys can't keep expecting talent to take less money to play for you when there are other teams willing to pay them who have just as good a chance of winning as you do.
 
harrisonhits said:
Like many other Pats over the years Mankins will be faced with taking ok money to stay on a winner or going somewhere and mostly likely making great money while playing for a loser.
Click to expand...

Unless he goes to the jets.:coffee:
 
Jaric said:
This.

You guys can't keep expecting talent to take less money to play for you when there are other teams willing to pay them who have just as good a chance of winning as you do.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, we will keep that in mind. They cannot give him money they don't have. Its not as if the pats are 30 mil under the cap and just not paying players. I always hear how cheap the pats are, yet they are right up against the cap every year, they just do not over pay for players, and it has served them pretty well I would say by the trophies they have.
 
midgar8784 said:
Oh ok, we will keep that in mind. They cannot give him money they don't have. Its not as if the pats are 30 mil under the cap and just not paying players. I always hear how cheap the pats are, yet they are right up against the cap every year, they just do not over pay for players, and it has served them pretty well I would say by the trophies they have.
Click to expand...
You'd have a point if anyone was talking about overpaying.

The point of this thread was this contract is setting the market value for Mankin's contract. You apparently want to pay less than market value which would be called "underpaying."
 
Jaric said:
You'd have a point if anyone was talking about overpaying.

The point of this thread was this contract is setting the market value for Mankin's contract. You apparently want to pay less than market value which would be called "underpaying."
Click to expand...

I understand, but again, who sets the market value? If some crazy team pays a D lineman 40 mil for 2 years, is that what everyone has to pay now? I have no problem with the way the pats pay players and how they go about it, like I said it has worked out pretty well for them, and we can look at teams that pay too much for players that are not worth it out there. The pats have always paid the players that are worth it on this team, brady, moss, wilfork, and not the ones that were not. If the pats were 25 mil under the cap, then you would have a better point, but they are always paying as much or more than any team out there, but they spread it out to more players, not to just one or two.
 
midgar8784 said:
I understand, but again, who sets the market value? If some crazy team pays a D lineman 40 mil for 2 years, is that what everyone has to pay now? I have no problem with the way the pats pay players and how they go about it, like I said it has worked out pretty well for them, and we can look at teams that pay too much for players that are not worth it out there. The pats have always paid the players that are worth it on this team, brady, moss, wilfork, and not the ones that were not. If the pats were 25 mil under the cap, then you would have a better point, but they are always paying as much or more than any team out there, but they spread it out to more players, not to just one or two.
Click to expand...
The last couple of contracts for similarly skilled players at that position.
 
Jaric said:
The last couple of contracts for similarly skilled players at that position.
Click to expand...

They have always kept players that were a fit and that had real talent, not talent based on the team around them. Like I said, the pats are not the bengals from the late 90's, they pay their players, they just do not pay a guy what he is not worth to them, but they are against the cap every year, so the money is going somewhere.
 
Box_O_Rocks said:
Oakland's first in 2012 you say? :poke:
Click to expand...
Pfft. Why bother trading him? What would we get for him? A 3, tops, I'd imagine - because the other team will still have to pay him. All they'd be getting is assurance that they land him as opposed to letting him hit FA.

I'd rather keep him for the year, let backups/replacements emerge, and then let him walk if we have to...getting a comp 3 back in return in all likelihood. Just a year later.

Basically, we'd be making a trade down in the 3rd round (and pushing it back a year) to get a year of a highly motivated Mankins playing for what is likely his one really big contract. And we'd be keeping our options open longer to decide if we want to retain him instead.

No brainer, unless someone offers at least a 2.
 
Flagg the Wanderer said:
Pfft. Why bother trading him? What would we get for him? A 3, tops, I'd imagine - because the other team will still have to pay him. All they'd be getting is assurance that they land him as opposed to letting him hit FA.

I'd rather keep him for the year, let backups/replacements emerge, and then let him walk if we have to...getting a comp 3 back in return in all likelihood. Just a year later.

Basically, we'd be making a trade down in the 3rd round (and pushing it back a year) to get a year of a highly motivated Mankins playing for what is likely his one really big contract. And we'd be keeping our options open longer to decide if we want to retain him instead.

No brainer, unless someone offers at least a 2.
Click to expand...



Yeah I like this, guys tend to play all out in a contract year, and basically not sure we can afford to lose him right now. Plus, I am kind of getting tired of the first round draft picks in future drafts that the pats will probably just trade down out of and pick up 4 4th rounders anyway.
 
Flagg the Wanderer said:
Pfft. Why bother trading him? What would we get for him? A 3, tops, I'd imagine - because the other team will still have to pay him. All they'd be getting is assurance that they land him as opposed to letting him hit FA.

I'd rather keep him for the year, let backups/replacements emerge, and then let him walk if we have to...getting a comp 3 back in return in all likelihood. Just a year later.

Basically, we'd be making a trade down in the 3rd round (and pushing it back a year) to get a year of a highly motivated Mankins playing for what is likely his one really big contract. And we'd be keeping our options open longer to decide if we want to retain him instead.

No brainer, unless someone offers at least a 2.
Click to expand...
I agree get him playing for a contract while grooming a replacement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top