I just think he won't want to come back here. Still seemed a little bitter about the way things shook out. I'd take him on short money, though.
Logan Mankins traded to Tampa Bay
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I don't see a reunion as likely. If he'd be willing to come back cheaply, fine, but I don't see that either. There always seemed to be some friction between the Pats and his camp anyway, so I see both sides looking elsewhere.
Like jsinger said above, I'd look to the draft to help the OL. The guy I'm really falling in love with is AJ Cann from South Carolina. I had a chance to watch a couple of his games over the weekend and the guy is a rock. He was very good in both the pass and run game and only had 2 plays that stood out as negatives. He can struggle a bit with smaller, quicker DL, but is impressively mobile for a guy his size. He's big and athletic, similar to the Pouncey brothers. Get me a guy like that.
Like jsinger said above, I'd look to the draft to help the OL. The guy I'm really falling in love with is AJ Cann from South Carolina. I had a chance to watch a couple of his games over the weekend and the guy is a rock. He was very good in both the pass and run game and only had 2 plays that stood out as negatives. He can struggle a bit with smaller, quicker DL, but is impressively mobile for a guy his size. He's big and athletic, similar to the Pouncey brothers. Get me a guy like that.
He joined the Patriots in 2005, after they had won back-to-back Superbowls and 3 or the last 4. After 9 seasons playing with for then without winning a ring, he gets traded and they win another. Maybe he's a bigger man than me (figuratively speaking), but I'd be a little bitter.
Right, because obviously the Patriots weren't trying to win Super Bowls while he was on the roster.dbn said:
I mean, there's likely plenty for him to be bitter about when it comes to the Patriots and how he was treated on his way out. Playing in two Super Bowls and five AFC Championships probably isn't one of them, though.
LogansDad said:
Plus, the dickhead answer to that question is that had he played halfway decently in his two SB appearances maybe he'd have a ring to his name by now. (Obviously, he gets a pass on the second one as he was playing on a torn ACL). His two worst games as a pro came in the two biggest games of his life and the failure of the OL in both games is likely the biggest reason he's currently ringless. Justin Tuck absolutely dominated him.
Now, I don't hold any of that against him, and he was an excellent player here for many years and if he really wanted to come back I'd happily take him back in a nanosecond.
LogansDad said:
I think you misunderstand me. He has no reasonable reason to be bitter towards the Patriots (regarding SB wins, that is; he may or may not be bitter about the trade in general), IMO. If I were he, though, I'd be cursing fate/timing more than a bit and returning to NE, for low money, when it was largely due to my high-money demands that I got shipped out right as they were to go on to win the SB, would sting.
Anyway, I mostly wanted to simply make the point that the timing of NE SB wins couldn't have been more of tease to LM than it was.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
caesarbear said:
Terry Glenn played 4 regular season games in 2001 while Logan Mankins played zero regular season games for us this year. He isn't going to get a ring.
"Glenn did not receive a championship ring with his teammates; instead, the Kraft ownership group sent Glenn his ring by way of the US postal service."
via wikipedia
Giving a Super Bowl ring to a member of an opposing team would be one of the most absurd things I'd have ever seen.MentalDisabldLst said:
We moved on from Mankins in the summer. You go forward and move on, not backward into the past. No to Logan without thinking twice.
HomeRunBaker said:
I agree, why would he even want it?
I'd send one to Mallett first, he probably needs to money he can get from selling it.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
He broke camp with, and played in 3 preseason games with the Pats this year before being traded on Aug 26th, for at least one important piece in this year's roster. But more importantly, he was a top player for us for 9 seasons and departed with some very sentimental comments from BB. Unless the breakup was more acrimonious than reported, I don't see why he wouldn't want a ring or feel like it was a nice gesture from an organization that greatly appreciated him for a decade.
Say what you will about his Super Bowl performances and parting, Mankins, of all people, seems like the kind of guy who would only want something he actually earned.NortheasternPJ said:
The more I think about it he was on the pre-season roster and now I'm remembering a family friend who worked for the Patriots during one of the early Super Bowl wins in like the accounting dept or something had his own Super Bowl ring.
In short, they are given out to many people within the organization so while I'm more old school on who should receive a ring I suppose in today's "award for participating" society (shit, the losing team now gets SB rings!!) it wouldn't surprise me if Mankins did receive one.
In short, they are given out to many people within the organization so while I'm more old school on who should receive a ring I suppose in today's "award for participating" society (shit, the losing team now gets SB rings!!) it wouldn't surprise me if Mankins did receive one.
HomeRunBaker said:
Expect that accounting person was with the team when they won the Super Bowl while Mankins was not. That is a huge difference.
It's owners discretion though and lately they have loosened the guidelines and as was mentioned above Mankins did break camp with the team.jsinger121 said:
I'm totally against it.....then again I'm totally against the cheerleaders receiving them also but that has been the case in recent years too.
Bottom line is that the value of a physical ring has diminished greatly for this reason. The league provides 150 rings to the winning team at a max cost of $7k per rings but the owner can order more if they choose.
HomeRunBaker said:
I'm against it as well. He didn't play for us this except some meaningless preseason games. He could have taken a paycut to win but he didn't and was shipped off to lose. I don't feel bad for him at all.
Stitch01 said:
That is the case. Usually the players, coaches, front office, scouts and top personnel get the real bling.
I agree that Mankins could've taken a pay cut to stay and "it's his own fault," I guess, but I still feel bad for him. Just because someone might be at fault, or more at fault, doesn't mean we automatically don't care. Doesn't for me, anyway.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
tims4wins said:
I guess I'm more sentimental than some others here. Mankins and Milloy both fall into "owner's discretion" kind of cases. In those, there's then room for considering the player's history, impact on the team, and the terms under which they left / whether they are still in touch with the franchise.
Given the reported undermining of BB that led to Milloy's departure, I'm not sure he'd be as strong a candidate for an "emeritus" ring as Mankins, who left with BB giving a press release calling him "the best guard I ever coached" (to say nothing of Nomar's 2004 ring). Plus, Mankins was a top-5 player on the roster his entire time with the team (save maybe 2007 when the list of stars was ridiculously long) and clearly misses new england a lot. It would be in keeping with Belichick's history of doing classy things behind the scenes for people he likes.
But I guess the real point here is: when these are the kind of things you're left to debate, life is pretty damn good.
THE LACES WERE IN!
Apparently this has been a thing for quite a while... googling the above brought up a '74 Vikes NFC Championship ring. And this beauty:
Those are all conference championship rings. HRB said (shit, the losing team now gets SB rings!!).
I assumed that meant like a SB participant ring, kind of like Little League everybody gets a trophy.
I assumed that meant like a SB participant ring, kind of like Little League everybody gets a trophy.
People here are suffering from bloated expectations.
Only 2 teams make it to the Super Bowl every year; getting there is really fucking hard. There's nothing wrong with a team recognizing a very successful year (that falls just short of a Championship) in a dignified manner without too much fanfare.
It wasn't too long ago some of the people on this very board might have attended a rally for Ray Bourque for bringing a Stanley Cup to Boston after winning it for another team. Go ahead and justify it all you want, but if the Jets pulled a similar stunt, there would be no end to the mocking taking place on this board.
Only 2 teams make it to the Super Bowl every year; getting there is really fucking hard. There's nothing wrong with a team recognizing a very successful year (that falls just short of a Championship) in a dignified manner without too much fanfare.
It wasn't too long ago some of the people on this very board might have attended a rally for Ray Bourque for bringing a Stanley Cup to Boston after winning it for another team. Go ahead and justify it all you want, but if the Jets pulled a similar stunt, there would be no end to the mocking taking place on this board.
These are one and the same. The winner of the SB gets the SB Championship rings while the loser gets the Conference Championship version and the league strongly recommends that there is some mention of the SB on the ring.Al Zarilla said:
In other words, the Pats only get a SB ring.....they don't get a SB AND an AFC Championship one.
drleather2001 said:
Many years ago, as a kid, I got to meet Gary Gaetti. I think I have a vague memory of him bringing his ring for us to see and hold. But what I actually remember better was that he was wearing a gold World Series watch. It was elegant and subdued, and It struck me that that was something he could wear every day to remember.
It's all about the ring, obviously, but something about the watch was cooler.
drleather2001 said:
Well he was offered a pay cut last year to stay with a winner, turned it down, and now will make his full contract in 2015. So I don't see how he could possibly complain about that situation. If he was released he would likely make less than 3/4 of what he will make with Tampa in 2015. Maybe more like 1/2.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Yeah, I'm sure he's un-ironically and actually thrilled. He's getting the maximum dollars he possibly could. He knew the tradeoff he was making a year ago; this news just means that he's getting even better value out of his decision that he could have.
If he plays out 2015 and 2016 for his contracted $7M salary, I'd bet there's a small chance he comes back to NE on short salary as a backup or something. It's more likely that he would retire, of course.
As an aside, Spotrac has a section in Mankins' page that appears to claim that NE has a $4M dead money hit for Mankins in 2015. I would have thought that trading him meant we no longer had any financial implications from his contract going forward. Is that not the case?
If he plays out 2015 and 2016 for his contracted $7M salary, I'd bet there's a small chance he comes back to NE on short salary as a backup or something. It's more likely that he would retire, of course.
As an aside, Spotrac has a section in Mankins' page that appears to claim that NE has a $4M dead money hit for Mankins in 2015. I would have thought that trading him meant we no longer had any financial implications from his contract going forward. Is that not the case?
drleather2001 said:
I get that it was a joke, but when he turned town the pay cut he had to know what was coming. He chose $$ over wins. And not getting cut after a year helps validates that decision if he only cares about $$.
Trading him is identical from a cap purpose to cutting him. Since the trade was made after June 1st, the dead money in his contract gets split out over 2 seasons.MentalDisabldLst said:
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
mpx42 said:
Thanks - though I find that bizarre. Wouldn't trading a player (and his contract) usually mean that you were trading with it all the as-yet-unpaid financial obligations that go with it? I mean, absent an agreement to the contrary a la paying a part of a player's guaranteed salary of course. But how could it be that you trade a player and still have an accounting obligation to him counting against you? Why wouldn't that be the receiving team's problem now?
Signing bonus obligations stay with the trading team, so they still have an accounting obligation for his unamortized bonus.
The financial benefit of trading Mankins was that his 2014 and 2015 salaries never hits the Pats cap anywhere.
(Edited for clarity, the 2015 workout bonus in Mankins contract is the obligation of the Bucs)
The financial benefit of trading Mankins was that his 2014 and 2015 salaries never hits the Pats cap anywhere.
(Edited for clarity, the 2015 workout bonus in Mankins contract is the obligation of the Bucs)
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
OK, so signing bonuses are paid as cash upon signing, and then amortized for cap purposes over the life of the deal, and the signing team takes that obligation whether or not they're employing the player. Got it. Although compared to guaranteed-salary deals in most other sports, it seems like a strange way to account for it.
