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.
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said: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.
Right, because obviously the Patriots weren't trying to win Super Bowls while he was on the roster.dbn said: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.
LogansDad said:Right, because obviously the Patriots weren't trying to win Super Bowls while he was on the roster.
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:Right, because obviously the Patriots weren't trying to win Super Bowls while he was on the roster.
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.
caesarbear said:Even Terry Glenn got a ring.
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:Are they giving him a super bowl ring? Would be a classy, JWH-esque move by Kraft.
HomeRunBaker said: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.
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.
MentalDisabldLst said: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:
I agree, why would he even want it?
HomeRunBaker 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.
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:
Expect that accounting person was with the team when they won the Super Bowl while Mankins was not. That is a huge difference.
HomeRunBaker said:It's owners discretion though and lately they have loosened the guidelines and as was mentioned above Mankins did break camp with the team.
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.
Stitch01 said:I don't think the cheerleaders and accountants get the same rings as the players, but rather a stripped down version.
I personally think its great that Kraft and company spring for rings for lots of people in the organization.
I see what you did there. ;-)Stitch01 said:I don't think the cheerleaders and accountants get the same rings as the players, but rather a stripped down version.
I personally think its great that Kraft and company spring for rings for lots of people in the organization.
tims4wins said:So should the Pats send Lawyer Milloy a 2003 ring? Probably.
Really? Does it say (lost) in really small diamonds?HomeRunBaker 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.
Seattle's rings will say "NFC Champions."Al Zarilla said:Really? Does it say (lost) in really small diamonds?
I hope he melted that thing down to a diamond encrusted anal bead to simulate the feeling of that last game.NortheasternPJ said:![]()
Sigh....
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: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.
Caspir said:I hope he melted that thing down to a diamond encrusted anal bead to simulate the feeling of that last game.
Karen Guregian @kguregian 3m3 minutes ago
Tampa GM Jason Licht said he was pleased with what Logan Mankins brought to Bucs and the Pro Bowl guard was staying put
drleather2001 said: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.
drleather2001 said:I'm sure Logan is thrilled.
tims4wins 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.
drleather2001 said:
It was a joke based on Tampa sucking.
MentalDisabldLst said: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?
drleather2001 said:
It was a joke based on Tampa sucking.
E5 Yaz said:
It's always best to use footnotes to help t4w
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: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?
mpx42 said: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.
Small correction: for a max of 5 years.MentalDisabldLst said:OK, so signing bonuses are paid as cash upon signing, and then amortized for cap purposes over the life of the deal,