Logan Mankins wants to be traded

[clnr]

Forget TO, forget Atogwe! This is the deal that needs to be made. I realize that Phillips is out of money by now, but if there is a way....

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Logan-...-be-traded.html

[Cutsizzle]

This could be a great opportunity for us. Hopefully we have some bait laying around.

[bradjock]

Forget TO, forget Atogwe! This is the deal that needs to be made. I realize that Phillips is out of money by now, but if there is a way....

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Logan-...-be-traded.html

 

First thought: "Isn't that a Martin Lawrence character?" Then I remember'd it was "Roscoe Jenkins." Not Logan Mankins.

 

2nd thought: Who the hell is Logan Mankins? Why don't the Pat's want to pay him? One thing that made them a dynasty is knowing exactly when to dump a guy.

 

I'm thinking we didn't add a veteran back-up QB because we didn't want the addition $$$. I can't see us making this move.

[bradjock]

Wow. Apparantly Mankins is a stud. According to PFT, the Pat's offered him a 5 year deal averaging 7 million per year that would have made him one of the top 5 highest paid guards in the NFL.

 

 

[nfoligno]

Oh, he is a stud, but that is also the problem. If we are not willing to shell out what is necessary for Atogwe, there is no freaking way we are going to shell out what it would take to sign Mankins. And make no mistake. Anyone who trades for him has to pay him.

 

I know it kills everyone that there are players out there who could help, but the reality is, we have blown our wad. The spending is over. We are going to have to simply hope what we have is enough, and that coaching can elevate players as it rarely has in the past.

 

With all this said, I would like to point one thing out. Article after article has been written talking about how upset players are with this years FA. Players feel there has been collusion as owners have simply not been spending the big dollars in an offseason w/ no salary cap. Owners like Snyder, Jones and many others who always seem to go after the most expensive player have been relatively quiet. Anyway, the shocking thing is, the Bears actually spent money, and big money at that.

 

We may not have added everyone we wanted, or filled all the holes some of us would have liked, but we have to give ownership a bit of credit here. When most every other owner is counting their pennies in prep for future uncertain years, we have actually shelled out money caring more about today than tomorrow.

 

 

 

Wow. Apparantly Mankins is a stud. According to PFT, the Pat's offered him a 5 year deal averaging 7 million per year that would have made him one of the top 5 highest paid guards in the NFL.

 

[bradjock]

Oh, he is a stud, but that is also the problem. If we are not willing to shell out what is necessary for Atogwe, there is no freaking way we are going to shell out what it would take to sign Mankins. And make no mistake. Anyone who trades for him has to pay him.

 

We keep hearing good things about Chris Harris and how he is quarterbacking the secondary. Major Wright has tons of potential. I actually believe the team when they say D Manning can be successful at SS (yes . . . I'm an idiot).

 

I'm just saying that even if we had the $$$, we likely wouldn't sign Atogwe.

 

I know it kills everyone that there are players out there who could help, but the reality is, we have blown our wad. The spending is over. We are going to have to simply hope what we have is enough, and that coaching can elevate players as it rarely has in the past.

 

Agreed. The good part is that we've made fairly significant changes on both offense and defense. For once we're not actually throwing the same group of players and coaches out there and hope to get better results.

 

With all this said, I would like to point one thing out. Article after article has been written talking about how upset players are with this years FA. Players feel there has been collusion as owners have simply not been spending the big dollars in an offseason w/ no salary cap. Owners like Snyder, Jones and many others who always seem to go after the most expensive player have been relatively quiet. Anyway, the shocking thing is, the Bears actually spent money, and big money at that.

 

I'm still confounded Dallas & Washington weren't major players. On a side note, they're saying that once a new CBA is reached, there will be tons of FA's. The great thing is the Bears heavily front loaded deals. Assuming there is a cap again, we should be in good shape. (if we'll keep spending the money).

 

We may not have added everyone we wanted, or filled all the holes some of us would have liked, but we have to give ownership a bit of credit here. When most every other owner is counting their pennies in prep for future uncertain years, we have actually shelled out money caring more about today than tomorrow.

 

Maybe now we'll quit hearing people complain about how cheap the McKaskey's are . . .

[nfoligno]

We keep hearing good things about Chris Harris and how he is quarterbacking the secondary. Major Wright has tons of potential. I actually believe the team when they say D Manning can be successful at SS (yes . . . I'm an idiot).

 

Yes, Harris looks good as a leader in our secondary, but I still very much question him as a FS. He failed at FS for us, went to Carolina and excelled as a SS, and we bring him back as a FS? Sorry, but I think Harris at FS has far more to do with our other FS prospects than it does Harris. Yes, Wright as potential, but where have we heard that before? If we were talking about one of the top 5 safeties from the draft, fine, but what, the 8th or 9th? Not knocking the kid, but simply saying that I am not sure he is such a talent that you pass on a very good FA. Also, if he were such a stud, why not simply play him at FS now?

 

You really, honestly believe the talk about DM at SS. Seriously? Did you also buy into the talk about him as a CB and FS?

 

I'm just saying that even if we had the $$$, we likely wouldn't sign Atogwe.

 

Maybe, maybe not, but I think that move would have made as much sense as any out there.

 

Agreed. The good part is that we've made fairly significant changes on both offense and defense. For once we're not actually throwing the same group of players and coaches out there and hope to get better results.

 

Agree and disagree. We made some changes in the secondary that give the staff more to work with. Along the DL, there are going to be new faces in new places, but at the same time, so much is going to rely on players who have been with the team (Anderson, Harrison, Harris). On the OL, we are simply hoping the staff gets more out of what we already have. Ditto at WR, while at RB and TE, we made additions.

 

At the end of the day, there are positions/units we have added to, and which the staff will have more to work with, while other positions/units we will simply have to hope our staff can get more out of.

 

I'm still confounded Dallas & Washington weren't major players. On a side note, they're saying that once a new CBA is reached, there will be tons of FA's. The great thing is the Bears heavily front loaded deals. Assuming there is a cap again, we should be in good shape. (if we'll keep spending the money).

 

Agreed. I am still surprised as well teams like Wash and Dallas kept pretty quiet while Chicago was very loud in FA. Very unusual.

 

Maybe now we'll quit hearing people complain about how cheap the McKaskey's are . . .

 

Belief in this statement ranks up there with the belief in DM as a legit SS prospect.

[BearFan PHX]

Over the years, I've heard Angelo talk about the $ he spends at a certain position. This makes sense to me. No one can afford to pay Pro Bowlers at every spot. And each team has a philosophy, about where they need to emphasize their strengths, and where they are willing to go with lesser talent. The team philosophy and the scheme they run determine which positions are more valuable for which teams.

 

So I think in a way, Angelo has a hypothetical perfect possible team in mind. You know, the studs would be at DT, DE, WLB, QB, RB etc - whatever it is that he thinks the Bears scheme emphasizes.

Some positions will be ones he prefers to fill by the draft. DL is a perfect example. Clearly, Angelo likes to draft the DL. I think you could also say that he prefers to look to Free Agents for the OL?

 

Angelo has paid big for free agent OL in the past, so you gotta figure, in his hypothetical cap allotment, he's got room for a stud OL and the commensurate cost that comes with it.

 

Now maybe the Bears front office has only given him so much cash this year, so even if his master cap plan can take it, maybe he can't afford short term to pull the trigger on Mankins?

 

Maybe the reason we didn't want Atogwe is that Angelo doesn't like to spend big on Safeties, and thinks they aren't so cap-important to the scheme?

 

I think there is a good good chance Angelo WANTS Mankins, and would be willing to pay him. Maybe he doesn't have the 2010 CASH to do it, but I'll bet he has the cap room.

 

Some random thoughts:

 

Given my point about the master plan, and positions being different, you can't really use Atogwe as a factor in predicting Angelo's response to Mankins.

 

Cutler might be a better predictor. We were in pretty much the same position, and a lot of people doubted Angelo's desire to get him.

 

Cutler is tied to Angelo's future, and an OL helps buy insurance and act as a force multiplier on his effectiveness.

 

Mankins could well be seen as the missing piece (and maybe a WR?) between us and a serious SB run.

 

All of this aside, Mankins could just be looking for too much money, and all this talk of Angelo having room for a stud OL is moot because it presupposes a certain cap hit and maybe Mankins is just out of that range.

 

All in all, you can BET that Angelo is working on this a LOT, even if he comes to the conclusion that he can't make it happen, or can't overcome the price.

[Guest TerraTor]

Figured I'd chime in on this.

 

This may the deal that needs to get done at all costs (except a #1). The post below this thread mentions Kevin Shaffer as "Out of the mix". Not that is matters for him to be out, but who the hell else is in the mix? Our best OL in my opinion are williams and beekman. Mankins would be a monster addition. Plus hes 28, so we get at least 4-5 years from the guy

[Lucky Luciano]

All of this aside, Mankins could just be looking for too much money, and all this talk of Angelo having room for a stud OL is moot because it presupposes a certain cap hit and maybe Mankins is just out of that range.

 

All in all, you can BET that Angelo is working on this a LOT, even if he comes to the conclusion that he can't make it happen, or can't overcome the price.

 

2010 free agents

 

julius peppers - $20 mil - 2010

chris harris - $3.5 mil - 2010

chester taylor - $7 mil - 2010

brandon manumaleuna - $6.105 - 2010

 

$36.605 mil

 

all contracts heavily front loaded

 

players gone - 2009 salary

 

adewale ogunleye - $6,464,056

alex brown - $2,882,514

gaines adams - $635,000

orlando pace - $5.33

jason mckie - $795,000

kevin jones - $2 mil

adrian petersen - $770,000

jamar williams - $643,950

 

estimated total saved not counting any escalation OR reduction in 2010 contract money: $19.519 mil.

 

the bears have spent roughly $17.086 mil more in 2010. what also needs to be taken into consideration is we had no first or second round picks to pay signing bonus money to so that softens that amount by how much?

 

the players lised above were released or traded and whose salaries would in my estimation have been replaced by the new free agents. peppers replaces brown, gaines and ogy, manumaleuna a TE who is considered a basic lineman replaces pace and mckie, taylor replaces jones and petersen. the addition of c. harris is offset somewhat by LB j. williams and if bullocks fails to make the squad his salary will count against this addition also.

 

 

josh bullocks - 2009 - $1,200,000 - 2010 - $1.226 million.

 

 

[Mongo3451]

2010 free agents

 

 

What's the figure if you include Vasher?

[Lucky Luciano]

What's the figure if you include Vasher?

 

i forgot about vasher. here is his 2009 numbers:

 

Nathan Vasher $4,866,666

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/nathan_vasher/

 

so that kicks the number down to $12.22 mil in difference. once you deduct what would have possibly been paid to 1st and 2nd round draft picks and the probable rise of what would have been paid for the salary cap and there is not really a huge amount of extra money spent this season in free agency above what they normally would have spent anyway.

 

next season there should be a large drop in cap hit for this years new free agents so i really don't see why they can't pick up another quality free agent if they so desired and put his guaranteed money on next year or the year afters salary cap commitment.

 

EDIT: also if i am not mistaken cutlers contract was laden with incentives. unless he made them, and it seems unreasonable he did, that money rolled over into this season to spend. plus add the money NOT spent last season to be used for a kicker in case of injury etc. that expired and CAN be used in this uncapped season there doesn't seem to me to be a lot of money gone out that wasn't saved already.

[nfoligno]

Just a couple points.

 

1. You talk about salaries we dumped and salaries we added, but that is the same every year. When it comes to salaries, we are pretty close every year. The key this year is bonuses paid out. Say what you will, but the team shelled out a lot of cash this offseason. Yea, I get your argument that it all works out in the end, but sorry, it comes back to yearly budget. A company has X amount they can spend any given year. Just because they may not have to spend as much in a future year doesn't mean they can go way over budget today.

 

2. You said,

 

next season there should be a large drop in cap hit for this years new free agents so i really don't see why they can't pick up another quality free agent if they so desired and put his guaranteed money on next year or the year afters salary cap commitment.

 

First, I believe there is an actual league rule that prevents this, though I can't recall what it was. It was discussed by Lt2 and others previously. Second, how many players do you think are going to be willing to sign a deal which pushes the majority of money to a year which, at the moment, may not even happen. If a player does that, it would allow a team to simply cut him.

 

3. Finally, and this was one of my bigger points, don't just look at what we have done this offseason on an island, but compare it to what other teams have done. This is an uncapped season, and I think it fair to say many (especially players) thought owners (especially those like Jones/Snyder/etc) would go hog wild. If these owners found ways to shell out huge contracts when contrained by a cap, what might they do when the restraints came off. Well, they went against expectations and have avoided the big deals. Teams simply have not been signing players to big deals this year, as they all seem to be holding back and saving up for a potential lockout. We on the other hand have not dealt with this offseason in such a manner. You want to argue that we have not spent a huge amount over what we normally might. Fine. But the real comparison is against what other teams have spent this offseason IMHO, and that shows us in a much better light.

 

At some point you just have to admit it. You expected this team to go the cheap route and save the pennies, like most other owners. If the bears did what most other owners have done this off season, you would have screamed how cheap we were. Instead, we went out and got probably the top FA on the market, and then added a few more FAs as well. Rather than give the team credit for spending when no other team was, you still try to create an argument to cast the team in a cheap light. Come on man. Its one thing to call the team out when they are being cheap, but to try and continue the argument when they are one of the only teams actually spending money really is a weak argument.

 

i forgot about vasher. here is his 2009 numbers:

 

Nathan Vasher $4,866,666

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/nathan_vasher/

 

so that kicks the number down to $12.22 mil in difference. once you deduct what would have possibly been paid to 1st and 2nd round draft picks and the probable rise of what would have been paid for the salary cap and there is not really a huge amount of extra money spent this season in free agency above what they normally would have spent anyway.

 

next season there should be a large drop in cap hit for this years new free agents so i really don't see why they can't pick up another quality free agent if they so desired and put his guaranteed money on next year or the year afters salary cap commitment.

 

EDIT: also if i am not mistaken cutlers contract was laden with incentives. unless he made them, and it seems unreasonable he did, that money rolled over into this season to spend. plus add the money NOT spent last season to be used for a kicker in case of injury etc. that expired and CAN be used in this uncapped season there doesn't seem to me to be a lot of money gone out that wasn't saved already.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

Just a couple points.

 

1. You talk about salaries we dumped and salaries we added, but that is the same every year. When it comes to salaries, we are pretty close every year. The key this year is bonuses paid out. Say what you will, but the team shelled out a lot of cash this offseason. Yea, I get your argument that it all works out in the end, but sorry, it comes back to yearly budget. A company has X amount they can spend any given year. Just because they may not have to spend as much in a future year doesn't mean they can go way over budget today.

 

i guess i don't understand what you are saying. you seem to be arguing one point and justifying it with information that i posted to support it. what is the difference whether you pay it out in "bonuses" or salary when your final "yearly budjet" amount is >reasonably close

 

2. You said,

 

next season there should be a large drop in cap hit for this years new free agents so i really don't see why they can't pick up another quality free agent if they so desired and put his guaranteed money on next year or the year afters salary cap commitment.

 

First, I believe there is an actual league rule that prevents this, though I can't recall what it was. It was discussed by Lt2 and others previously. Second, how many players do you think are going to be willing to sign a deal which pushes the majority of money to a year which, at the moment, may not even happen. If a player does that, it would allow a team to simply cut him.

 

first... if there is a league rule that states you can't extend guaranteed salary bonus money etc. in a new acquisition to future years then obviously it couldn't be done. so why don't you state what the rule exactly states and how teams do business with this rule in effect? inquiring minds want to know. don't YOU believe what i stated about next years cap hit should be very good once most of the bonus money for these new FA's has been paid this season?

 

second... i'm not so sure i understand how a team that gave a player a written contract, whether there is a CBA in effect or not, can permanently circumvent said contract because the CBA is being negotiated and not in effect that season. does this now mean that next season we can cut every/any player on our team that has bonus money due if there is a lockout and owe them nothing?

 

3. Finally, and this was one of my bigger points, don't just look at what we have done this offseason on an island, but compare it to what other teams have done. This is an uncapped season, and I think it fair to say many (especially players) thought owners (especially those like Jones/Snyder/etc) would go hog wild. If these owners found ways to shell out huge contracts when contrained by a cap, what might they do when the restraints came off. Well, they went against expectations and have avoided the big deals. Teams simply have not been signing players to big deals this year, as they all seem to be holding back and saving up for a potential lockout. We on the other hand have not dealt with this offseason in such a manner. You want to argue that we have not spent a huge amount over what we normally might. Fine. But the real comparison is against what other teams have spent this offseason IMHO, and that shows us in a much better light.

 

At some point you just have to admit it. You expected this team to go the cheap route and save the pennies, like most other owners. If the bears did what most other owners have done this off season, you would have screamed how cheap we were. Instead, we went out and got probably the top FA on the market, and then added a few more FAs as well. Rather than give the team credit for spending when no other team was, you still try to create an argument to cast the team in a cheap light. Come on man. Its one thing to call the team out when they are being cheap, but to try and continue the argument when they are one of the only teams actually spending money really is a weak argument.

 

what difference does it make what other teams have or have not done? because snyder or jones don't get active in FA is that the gold standard now we and the rest of the nfl should be forced to follow?

 

my post was in regards to a statement by another poster, BearFan NYC, in which he stated "All of this aside, Mankins could just be looking for too much money, and all this talk of Angelo having room for a stud OL is moot because it presupposes a certain cap hit and maybe Mankins is just out of that range.".

 

i am not "arguing" whether we have spent a huge amount of money or not. i stated the >facts

 

i "have to admit" what exactly? i never once stated the bears were cheap or not in regards to this FA offseason as you seem to want to read into this. but now that you mention it...

 

1. why is lovie smith still employed in chicago as opposed to hiring shanny or cowher?

2. why is jerry angelo still employed in chicago?

3. why do we have a president of football operations who knows nearly NOTHING about football operations instead of mike holmgren or someone like him?

4. why do you think alex brown was released when he clearly would have been the 2nd best DE and arguably the 2nd best DL on our entire roster? did we make our team better by releasing him?

 

 

 

 

[LT2_3]

Just a couple points.

 

1. You talk about salaries we dumped and salaries we added, but that is the same every year. When it comes to salaries, we are pretty close every year. The key this year is bonuses paid out. Say what you will, but the team shelled out a lot of cash this offseason. Yea, I get your argument that it all works out in the end, but sorry, it comes back to yearly budget. A company has X amount they can spend any given year. Just because they may not have to spend as much in a future year doesn't mean they can go way over budget today.

 

2. You said,

 

next season there should be a large drop in cap hit for this years new free agents so i really don't see why they can't pick up another quality free agent if they so desired and put his guaranteed money on next year or the year afters salary cap commitment.

 

First, I believe there is an actual league rule that prevents this, though I can't recall what it was. It was discussed by Lt2 and others previously. Second, how many players do you think are going to be willing to sign a deal which pushes the majority of money to a year which, at the moment, may not even happen. If a player does that, it would allow a team to simply cut him.

 

Mankins would never agree to a deal that puts off his big money to next year. That's kind of the problem he's having with the Pat's. They have offered him a REALLY big deal and he isn't impressed with either the total dollars or the structure of the deal. I'm pretty sure that a proposal to pay him his $3.28 million tender amount and then more money next year would fall on deaf ears.

 

The next thing to worry about is that nobody knows what the cap will look like next year. They've frontloaded a great deal of the contracts for our 3 big FAs, but there is only so much leeway playing in the margins of what may or may not be.

 

Then there is the 30% rule in effect for this year where contracts cannot increase more than 30% from year to year. That means you have to start pretty high if you want to be able to even match the Patriot's offer that averaged over $7 million per year.

 

3. Finally, and this was one of my bigger points, don't just look at what we have done this offseason on an island, but compare it to what other teams have done. This is an uncapped season, and I think it fair to say many (especially players) thought owners (especially those like Jones/Snyder/etc) would go hog wild. If these owners found ways to shell out huge contracts when contrained by a cap, what might they do when the restraints came off. Well, they went against expectations and have avoided the big deals. Teams simply have not been signing players to big deals this year, as they all seem to be holding back and saving up for a potential lockout. We on the other hand have not dealt with this offseason in such a manner. You want to argue that we have not spent a huge amount over what we normally might. Fine. But the real comparison is against what other teams have spent this offseason IMHO, and that shows us in a much better light.

 

I think quite a bit of this has to do with the economy. I've read that Jerry Jones is paying a huge debt service on his new stadium and doesn't have the cash flow to buy every top player on the market in an uncapped year. I also think that Snyder has been having trouble too. I read something about his six flags business is near bankruptcy. On top of that, the talking heads are saying that they both had spent money in past years that pretty much maxed out their cash flow this year just paying the salaries of the deals they had already signed.

 

 

 

[madlithuanian]

Bait taken! ...or maybe not so much as just my 2 cents. (I can't help but chime in on anti-Smith sentiment...)

 

1. Good damn question. Cheap? Certainly would appear so to some... Vriginai loves him for some reason. Nice guy, crummy coach.

2. Another good question. Riding on a handful of late round picks and mid round picks that did well. But doesn't make up for plethora of early round busts.

3. You're on a roll! His hire was a favor for the stadium deal. And at least got Mikey boy out of the spotlight. It's time for someone with real knowedge to run this team correctly.

4. It boggle my mind personally... We let quality go for a few bucks. Now, peppers will be doubled, and Anderson will watch AP and others run past him for huge gains.

 

 

1. why is lovie smith still employed in chicago as opposed to hiring shanny or cowher?

2. why is jerry angelo still employed in chicago?

3. why do we have a president of football operations who knows nearly NOTHING about football operations instead of mike holmgren or someone like him?

4. why do you think alex brown was released when he clearly would have been the 2nd best DE and arguably the 2nd best DL on our entire roster? did we make our team better by releasing him?