The Tris Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 You guys think Shanahan is going to draft the next Mankins with the #14th overall pick next year? He's not. This move would make a huge statement that the Washington Redskins expect to make a run at the Superbowl in 2010. Considering we passed on (arguably) needed upgrades at ILB, S, and WR, we have already passed on making the statement that we are all in for 2010. Our biggest FA aquisitions? A versitile journeyman OL, a rehab project on a mercurial RB who is 2nd string as of now, and a nickleback on his 5th team. While the goal is always going to be win the Super Bowl, we are not mortgaging the future to do so this season. Trading a pick in the first two rounds on a 28 year old G would be doing just that, and would run counter to our entire offseason strategy this season. Add to the fact that he wants to be the highest paid guard in the NFL, and it just doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINS 21 Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 If all we can get for FatAlbert is a third...hell no, i wouldnt give a first for for Mankins!However he is a bad dude..out of all the sorry,cheatin,low down Pats,hes one of the only i somewhat possibly might consider making a move for!!.... Vincent Jackson for a First,no frickin way,not even a second!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsCrushCowboys Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 not for a first...second maybe,,,not a first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan4128 Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Mankins has been pretty solid, but giving up a 1st for him would be out of the question. Secondly, the guy wants more than 7 mil a season?!? Talk about being proud of himself. Personally, with the way Allen has gone through the offseason with contracts, there's very little chance he's going to trade a high draft pick to NE and then turn around and hand Mankins that kinda contract. Albeit, he, IMHO, would be an upgrade over Dock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 I'd do it for a mid-late second maybe or a 3rd easily. I don't think it's a bad trade idea. We have Mike Williams who might not be able to cut it when all is said and done, and Chad Reinhardt who hasn't impressed so far. I don't think it's a bad idea to pull a guy like Mankins in and move Dockery to the RG. The dude might be disgruntled now, but he'd be fine with a new team and a new deal. He's NEVER made any noise before now, so I really think this is a contract thing, not a consistent character issue. Just imagine how much he could help out with a rookie LT. I don't see Dockery as being able to adjust quickly on the fly in protections and stuff, Mankins would have no problem with it. EDIT: I didn't realize he'd demanded to be traded. If the situation gets really bad, then a 3rd might be all we need to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 im all for bringing in mankins but no trading picks for him. the pats should have absolutely 0 leverage in this situation, which is very unusual for their FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 And despite how many people call this the "dumbest the trade idea ever"-- Not many of you can come up with "smart" reasons for while you feel that way. Actually, everyone seems to have the same smart reason. A first round pick is just way too much for a guard in this league, even one of his caliber. You can argue that his play would more than make up for the pick but that's just not how it works. Smart organizations do not make face value trades for veteran players because the return is rarely worth it over the long haul. In a league where Anquan Boldin isn't even worth a second round pick, spending a first on Logan Mankins is utterly insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianm23 Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Logan Mankins is 28, and he will be a star until he's 33-34 years old. The Patriots promised him before the '09 season that if he played out his highly-underpaid contract, he would get the extension he wanted in 2010. The guy went out and earned another Pro Bowl selection and is legitimately pissed off that he was lied to by the organization. Not true. I don't think they promised him he would get the contract he "wanted". They promised they would work on a new deal, and they offered him one at 7mil per year. The problem here is he's wanting to compare his contract to the one that the Saints gave their guard. The Patriots did their part, just not to the satisfaction that he wanted. I'd definitely say he's a malcontent. He is no malcontent. He is not old. And despite how many people call this the "dumbest the trade idea ever"-- Not many of you can come up with "smart" reasons for while you feel that way. We are discussing one of most highly-respected interior lineman of the game... and because he's a guard, many of you are dismissing his importance. Vinnies. It's not the dumbest trade idea ever, but it is pretty dumb. You want reasons? I'll give you some. 1) You don't trade a 1st rounder for a OG. (even if he is a pro-bowler) 2) You don't sacrifice the future draft picks unless that person is guaranteed to change the level of play within a game. (especially high ones) QBs/RBs/WRs do that, not Offensive guards. 3) He wants too much money. 4) Wasn't he part of that group that got trucked by the Giants DL line in the Super Bowl? Yes he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johns Bass Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 How about Laron landry for logan mankins straight up. ...and exactly what incentive would the Pats have in making that trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 I do not believe that many players are worth trading our number one draft pick in next years draft class even exist in the league today, let alone a Guard on the Patriots. Doing this trade would be an asinine move, not on the asinine level as trading for Eddie Royal as the last "lets trade our draft pick for" post here wanted to do, but a stupid move nevertheless. At this time of year you do not trade draft picks UNLESS you have a significant need you realize must be addressed or the season is lost. Guard is not one of those needs TODAY. Trading is about timing. The more thought put into it, the better your trades usually are. The more rushed a trade is, the worse a trade usually is. Mike Williams and Dockery are going to be fine this season minus an unforseen injury. If Williams plays well then next year at this time we do not have a need a Guard big enough to use the first pick we have on. If Williams doesn't play well then we *might* have to use that #1 pick on a guard, but that's not even considering what we can do in FA next year. Bottom line to me is this would be a wasted trade and I wouldn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruz_97 Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Definitely not for a first. Maybe a bundle of late picks and second-stringers for him if the Patriots will take that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 I do not believe that many players are worth trading our number one draft pick in next years draft class even exist in the league today, let alone a Guard on the Patriots. Doing this trade would be an asinine move, not on the asinine level as trading for Eddie Royal as the last "lets trade our draft pick for" post here wanted to do, but a stupid move nevertheless. At this time of year you do not trade draft picks UNLESS you have a significant need you realize must be addressed or the season is lost. Guard is not one of those needs TODAY. Trading is about timing. The more thought put into it, the better your trades usually are. The more rushed a trade is, the worse a trade usually is. Mike Williams and Dockery are going to be fine this season minus an unforseen injury. If Williams plays well then next year at this time we do not have a need a Guard big enough to use the first pick we have on. If Williams doesn't play well then we *might* have to use that #1 pick on a guard, but that's not even considering what we can do in FA next year. Bottom line to me is this would be a wasted trade and I wouldn't do it. Interesting. I thought that the Eddie Royal trade thread was much more realistic, more thought out, and more logical than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Definitely not for a first. Maybe a bundle of late picks and second-stringers for him if the Patriots will take that. They won't. A) They are a smart organization. This isn't Madden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacoby6644 Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Not going to trade what will most likely be a pretty good pick for a guard. Unless it is HoF'er Russ Grimm. And on top of it pay him 7-8 mill a year. Nothing wrong with seeing what they(NE) would want for him though. I think a 1 is too much unless like someone said we win the SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 ...and exactly what incentive would the Pats have in making that trade? I know, they've already got Brandon Meriweather and Patrick Chung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 I thought Maddenites have learned their lesson about trading 1st round picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Yeah, let's throw a giant bag of money at a guy who "ripped" the freakin' Patriots and doesn't want to play for the Patriots for $7 million a year. Have I mentioned that it's the Patriots? When have we ever made a better FO decision than they have? Oh, and we'd also be giving away our first-rounder for a guard. I don't care if he can play both RG and LG simultaneously. It's still a guard. The spirit of Vinny still haunts us.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGutta Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 ...and exactly what incentive would the Pats have in making that trade? I'm pretty sure he's busting the OP based on his name/sig... Ex: How about your favorite player for Mankins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Interesting. I thought that the Eddie Royal trade thread was much more realistic, more thought out, and more logical than this. Really? I hate to compare turds but both ideas are turds and need flushed. This one at least contains a bonifide probowl caliber player. Problem is he sounds like a greedy player and trading with the Pats is a bad idea always becuase they will take you to the cleaners. Eddie Royal was ranked 100th best WR in the league last year. He's never done anything to warrent a trade for ever in this league. Eddie Royal can't get open down field and gives away his route before the snap. The only time he's ever been noticed is when a real WR was taking the heat off him. Trading for that sounds better to you then trading for a Probowl lineman? I'm on the record saying to pass on both ideas but to me the Royals one of the worst trades I've heard about us ever making and I rank it on the same level as trading for Brandon Lloyd or TJ Duckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Really? I hate to compare turds but both ideas are turds and need flushed. This one at least contains a bonifide probowl caliber player. Problem is he sounds like a greedy player and trading with the Pats is a bad idea always becuase they will take you to the cleaners. Eddie Royal was ranked 100th best WR in the league last year. He's never done anything to warrent a trade for ever in this league. Eddie Royal can't get open down field and gives away his route before the snap. The only time he's ever been noticed is when a real WR was taking the heat off him. Trading for that sounds better to you then trading for a Probowl lineman? I'm on the record saying to pass on both ideas but to me the Royals one of the worst trades I've heard about us ever making and I rank it on the same level as trading for Brandon Lloyd or TJ Duckett Not to derail the thread, but what the hell I think that in the Royal scenario, you had to go in either believing that McDaniels **** on his sophomore year with a system that didn't utilize him, or not believing it. If you believe that, its easy to say, hey, a low round pick for a guy who is under the radar after a horrible season (but who has performed at or near a pro-bowl level for our current coach) might be a good, low-risk deal. If you don't, its easy to say, no way, his rookie years was a fluke, and he's horrible. He's not even worth a mid-rounder. So you see, our individual perceptions of the reasons for his drop-off is really what causes such a large difference in opinions about a trade for him. But most important, is that even those supporting such a trade, only did so in the scenario of a low-pick, low-risk trade. Which probably wouldn't happen anyways. But all of that considered, if you were "pro" Royal, its pretty obvious why you'd think it was a better idea than the Mankins trade. If you were "anti", vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 I love these threads! "I'm in yer interwebz, maken tradz!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johns Bass Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 I'm pretty sure he's busting the OP based on his name/sig...Ex: How about your favorite player for Mankins? A> Pat's do not need help at Safety from the Redskins...Please. B> I seriously do not see a trade that the 'Skins could make that would actually match a need for the Pat's and be fair to DC at the same time. C> The Pat's aren't going to give up on Chung for Landry - get a grip. And if you think LaRon has an edge over Brandon Meriweather you need to put down the Kool-aid. D> I never even noticed OPs name/sig till you mentioned it. Trades have to have value on both sides. Not just to the homer side. Landry just does not add anything worth what the Pat's would give for him. They do not need him. The Skins would have to trade value to a position of need for the Pats. The Pats can do a whole lot better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Not to derail the thread, but what the hell I think that in the Royal scenario, you had to go in either believing that McDaniels **** on his sophomore year with a system that didn't utilize him, or not believing it. If you believe that, its easy to say, hey, a low round pick for a guy who is under the radar after a horrible season (but who has performed at or near a pro-bowl level for our current coach) might be a good, low-risk deal. If you don't, its easy to say, no way, his rookie years was a fluke, and he's horrible. He's not even worth a mid-rounder. So you see, our individual perceptions of the reasons for his drop-off is really what causes such a large difference in opinions about a trade for him. But most important, is that even those supporting such a trade, only did so in the scenario of a low-pick, low-risk trade. Which probably wouldn't happen anyways. But all of that considered, if you were "pro" Royal, its pretty obvious why you'd think it was a better idea than the Mankins trade. If you were "anti", vice versa. I can tell you that McDaniels does not believe that Royal is a bad player nor did I ever believe that they would give him up for a low round pick like many suggested they would. Forum posters might think thats possible but I didn't, not then not now and if you asked Denver they would say the same. To get Royal your talking at least a 2nd round pick. Statisically speaking Royal was the worst starting WR in the entire league last year. To me that's no fluke, and that's not simply because his QB liked to throw to the other guy more, or he just had a bad year. Royal can't identify coverages and gives far too much up before the snap. In my opinion Denver is totally screwed this year entering the season with Brandon Lloyd and Eddie Royal. But this is another topic for another time. Bottom line is you pass on that idea and this one. No thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seantaylor=god Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 haynesworth for him plus one of their 2nd or 3rd round picks. no more trading away our future I think that would be a good trade. Haynesworth is by far the better player but if we got Mankins and a 2nd it would be a great deal. I'd say a 2nd b/c with the Patriots its going to be a later pick most likely, and a late 3rd would be too low for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted June 15, 2010 Share Posted June 15, 2010 Id be interested tto see what they would let him go for. Next years first... prolly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.