Skip to content

Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins make their power play

V. Jackson4 Getty Images

On Sunday afternoon, Florio alerted PFT readers to the possibility that Patriots guard Logan Mankins could possibly hold up CBA talks by demanding free agency as one of the antitrust plaintiffs.

Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reports that Chargers wide receiver Vincent Jackson is in the same boat as Mankins, and that the two men have made specific requests to the league: They either want to be declared free agents, or they want $10 million for last season.

Yeah, this request probably won’t go to go over well with the NFL.

Greg A. Bedard of the Boston Globe confirmed the story and got someone from the NFL’s side to talk.

“Two guys are going to hold up a huge pay day for 1,898 other guys? After two years? When neither ever went to a meeting, a hearing, a mediation session or even showed up in court? Good luck with that,” the source said.

(Jackson did go to a meeting in Minneapolis.)

So could this really be a huge stumbling block or is it a case of some players trying to get what they can, because it doesn’t hurt to try?

We’d lean to towards the latter, especially in Jackson’s case.  Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote an article Monday evening with a lot of opinions that said Jackson was unlikely to go anywhere.

“Indications from those close to Jackson have been that he would accept the franchise tag – and the accompanying $11 million-plus for one season — if he had to,” Acee writes. “But Jackson’s willingness to be a part of the antitrust lawsuit was with an eye toward getting the franchise tag abolished or possibly being exempted from the tag.”

If Jackson is willing to accept the franchise tag “if he had to” then he’ll probably wind up accepting the franchise tag.

Permalink 54 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New England Patriots, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
54 Responses to “Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins make their power play”
  1. realitypolice says: Jul 19, 2011 9:29 AM

    Absolutely no chance this holds up the agreement.

    Just two desperate guys making a cash grab because they can.

    Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

  2. grpatriot says: Jul 19, 2011 9:35 AM

    if Jackson is willing to accept the franchise tag “if he had to” then he’ll probably wind up accepting the franchise tag.

    Huh?

  3. touchdownroddywhite says: Jul 19, 2011 9:35 AM

    And people really support these guys? Seriously?

  4. readimgram1 says: Jul 19, 2011 9:36 AM

    Only 11 Million for one season! I would be enraged too!

    NOT

  5. realdeal12 says: Jul 19, 2011 9:37 AM

    All I heard yesterday was that these 2 are part of a class action lawsuit and must act in the best interest of the whole class. I heard this from a lawyer who called into sirius. so I am confused as to how this can be possible if what I heard was correct?

  6. meyerla says: Jul 19, 2011 9:38 AM

    I actually agree that the franchise tag shouldn’t be able to be used in consecutive seasons. We all know if the player suffers a career ending injury in one of those years they’d be gone. At some point the team needs to pay up and give the player a long term contract with the signing bonus. And if the player truly doesn’t want to be there after serving his rookie contract plus an extra franchise year then he should be able to choose his team.

  7. AlanSaysYo says: Jul 19, 2011 9:38 AM

    Stupid on so many levels. I have generally sided with the players during the lockout, but I have no respect for these two clowns.

  8. CKL says: Jul 19, 2011 9:39 AM

    It “may not hurt to try” but it’s not a good move IMO especially as both those guys refused to sign their tenders until they were about to lose a year of service. Had they both signed and reported immediately and were mishandled by the team, that’s a different story. You two were RFA in 2010 with those rules, MAN UP AND DEAL WITH IT AND MOVE FORWARD.

  9. Davo says: Jul 19, 2011 9:39 AM

    This is the time in the negotiation process where the NFL puts its last, best offer on the table, walks away and says “sign it, if you want it” as they leave the room.

    There’s nothing else to argue here, the players got the revenue model they wanted, they got the safety / health model they wanted, they got the retiree benefits, they wanted. Time to call their bluff and see how the rank and file react.

    This is the perfect time for the owners to pose the question to football fans: “Do the players really want to ‘just play football’”

    (and I’ve been squarely in the players corner up until this week).

  10. lucky5934 says: Jul 19, 2011 9:40 AM

    I bet the players pull a Full Metal Jacket on those two with the bar of soap in the sock. No way the NFLPA will hold up a deal because two players are sad about their situations.

  11. gtmann says: Jul 19, 2011 9:41 AM

    Greedy B A S T A R D S……………Fine let them be free agents . Would any ream sign them after this ? Yeah Dansnyder or Al Davis probably would !!!!

  12. eagleswin says: Jul 19, 2011 9:41 AM

    Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reports that Chargers wide receiver Vincent Jackson is in the same boat as Mankins, and that the two men have made specific requests to the league: They either want to be declared free agents, or they want $10 million for last season.

    Acee writes. “But Jackson’s willingness to be a part of the antitrust lawsuit was with an eye toward getting the franchise tag abolished or possibly being exempted from the tag.”

    All those people who said that we shouldn’t roast these players before we knew that they definately were holding up the proceedings by trying to extort money can now get out their pitchforks.

    It goes to show you that most of the named plaintiffs didn’t put their name on the suit to help the NFLPA, it was purely to extort personal concessions from the league in the new CBA.

    They both want $10 mill to sign off on the new CBA. Incredible.

  13. mightymightylafootball says: Jul 19, 2011 9:41 AM

    “…he would accept the franchise tag – and the accompanying $11 million-plus for one season — if he had to”

    If he “had to”?

    Wow, what a martyr. Latrell Sprewell wwant to know how Jackson will ever be able to feed his family.

  14. austskate says: Jul 19, 2011 9:42 AM

    Call their bluff.

  15. djstat says: Jul 19, 2011 9:46 AM

    Enough is enough. The players have received way more then I ever expected. The judge could easily throw this stupid lawsuit out.

  16. SteveBeans says: Jul 19, 2011 9:48 AM

    As a Pats fan, I’ve been able to witness Mankins cry and stomp his feet about money for the last year+ or so. This is nothing new for him.

    When he was drafted, I thought he was going to be one of those classy guys who isn’t going to put up a stink over money every chance he gets, but boy was I wrong.

  17. twitter:Chapman_Jamie says: Jul 19, 2011 9:49 AM

    If these two clowns pull this crap then I hope they are blackballed from the league. This is ridiculous to say the least. They want 10 million for a year that has already passed where they both screwed their teams by acting selfishly? EFF THEM BOTH!

  18. horsecore says: Jul 19, 2011 9:50 AM

    LOL…I wish I could have the franchise tag.

  19. frankvzappa says: Jul 19, 2011 9:51 AM

    Mankins is such a whiny little maggot. His contributions on the field aren’t worth putting up with the divaness.

    -Pats fan

  20. weswelkerspornstash says: Jul 19, 2011 10:00 AM

    Ok, don’t get me wrong. I think that these guys are greedy as hell. I don’t think they truly care about the fans, etc…….. But I love the fact that Jackson just wants to be a thorn in the side of the most arrogant, know it all GM in the league..

  21. username54 says: Jul 19, 2011 10:01 AM

    They don’t want the money, they want to be free agents. They both practically sat out the season after (they claim) team management stiffed them by reneging on previous commitments made to them. I think they just want to be unrestricted.

  22. bradwins says: Jul 19, 2011 10:02 AM

    This is coming from a Pats fan: Logan Mankins is a tremendous Guard, but he is a piece of garbage as a human being.

    I’ve heard a lot of national media people last night and this morning address this situation by saying, essentially, that they don’t think Mankins would hold up the deal, but that Vincent Jackson….he could be a problem.

    These guys obviously don’t know Logan Mankins. Never has there been a more selfish, obstinate person than Mr. Mankins. If anyone has any doubt that he will use every ounce of leverage he may have here, let me go ahead and erase that doubt for you right now.

  23. mike83ri says: Jul 19, 2011 10:04 AM

    meyerla says:
    Jul 19, 2011 9:38 AM
    I actually agree that the franchise tag shouldn’t be able to be used in consecutive seasons. We all know if the player suffers a career ending injury in one of those years they’d be gone. At some point the team needs to pay up and give the player a long term contract with the signing bonus. And if the player truly doesn’t want to be there after serving his rookie contract plus an extra franchise year then he should be able to choose his team.

    —————————

    That would be great if either of these players were franchised last year. But they weren’t, they were restricted free agents, meaning they could have gone out and gotten a better contract elsewhere if they were deemed good enough to warrant the picks the other team would need to give up to sign them. These were the rules that the players agreed to in the last CBA. They gained something by giving up that right in bargaining last time, and are crying ‘poor me’ victims now because they can’t have it both ways.

    I’m a Pats fan, and I’m getting tired of the Logan Mankins crap. Dude is set to make 8 figures this year and keeps whining about the terms of the CBA that effected him, yet he’s willing to push for personal gain instead of looking out for the best interests of the players in a new CBA.

  24. biggerballz says: Jul 19, 2011 10:06 AM

    wow why do players whine about the franchise tag, i mean you get 11 mil for one year. Sure that’s the not same as a 20 mil signing bonus. But damn you get 11 mil this year, and 12-14 next if you get tagged again. God the greed!!

  25. jpb12 says: Jul 19, 2011 10:07 AM

    The *PA let Mankins in by naming him in the lawsuit.

    Now they can’t control him.

  26. turk2875 says: Jul 19, 2011 10:08 AM

    So we all knew Vincent Jackson was a diva receiver, but now there are diva lineman… what has this league come to??

  27. homelanddefense says: Jul 19, 2011 10:11 AM

    As a Pats can I have about had it with Mankins. On the field he is everything you want in a lineman….nasty, strong, consistent.

    But this is ridiculous. He willingly sat out half of last season because he didnt want to sign his tender…..the league didnt take any money from him.

    Then this year he is franchised, and will make 10 million….which is more than he would make if he signed a long term deal (per season anyway) because the franchise averages include all lineman salaries so TACKLES are included.

    He made a bad decision because he is a man of principle, and while I admire him having “principles” he needs to deal with the consequences of that decision.

    Its also worth noting the Patriots offered him a contract last year that would have made him one of the top 3 paid guards in the league.

  28. homelanddefense says: Jul 19, 2011 10:13 AM

    Oh, I will also add the FRANCHISE tag was something the NFLPA wanted added to the last agreement. Amazing how the players hate it when it was their baby…

  29. m2karateman says: Jul 19, 2011 10:16 AM

    If the players hate the franchise tag rules the way they are, then get them changed. Instead of doing away with the tag, just make stipulation that a team cannot franchise a player two years in a row.

    If the players want guarantees beyond that, tough. You’re in the NFL, and there are no guarantees for anyone, owners included. If the players want a long term deal, then start being more realistic about the money you get per season, and the bonus money included in your contracts.

    And just to keep the owners honest, I would say that any player who does get tagged is to get a minimal contract afterward. The owners should acknowledge that if they tag a player in 2011, that in 2012 the player automatically gets a minimal 3 year deal, worth 80% of the salary per year that they were tagged at, with 50% of that guaranteed money. Hence, a player in 2011 who gets tagged and will have a one year, $10M salary would get a three year deal (minimal) worth $8M per season and have $4M of that per season guaranteed.

    Suddenly the players wouldn’t be quite so willing to fight the tag all the time, and the owners would be sure to be more willing to offer a long term deal upfront, rather than risk losing a three year deal like that on a player who gets hurt during a tagged year. If the player doesn’t like the term of the minimal deal, they simply opt out and become a free agent.

  30. hit2hurt says: Jul 19, 2011 10:17 AM

    No offense.. but I tend to think that in an effort to be perceived as a forward thinker, this site floats scenarious that plant seeds in the heads of players that may not have thought of the idea themselves without the idea being served up on a silver platter.. Just my opinion.

  31. rays06 says: Jul 19, 2011 10:18 AM

    A little devil’s advocate:

    NFLPA approached these guys to be litigants and to use their free agency situations in the antitrust case. So they should be entitled to some extra compensation if they are just going to be in the same position they were in. They didn’t become plaintiffs just to get a new cba, thats stupid to think. So maybe the Patriots and Chargers are holding up the deal as well by not just saying fine, go.

  32. realitypolice says: Jul 19, 2011 10:23 AM

    eaglewin says:
    All those people who said that we shouldn’t roast these players before we knew that they definately were holding up the proceedings by trying to extort money can now get out their pitchforks.
    =================

    I agree. I was one of the people who questioned why everyone was attacking Mankins based upon what some writer theorized he might do.

    Now that they’ve done it- fire away, they deserve it.

  33. klunge says: Jul 19, 2011 10:29 AM

    username54 says:
    They don’t want the money, they want to be free agents. They both practically sat out the season after (they claim) team management stiffed them by reneging on previous commitments made to them. I think they just want to be unrestricted.
    ————————————————

    While that may be true, this statement doesn’t boil the issue down to the underlying principle:
    These 2 turds expect to benefit from all the parts of the CBA they find favorable, but demand exemption from the parts they don’t like – just for themselves, everyone else can remain subject to the regulations.

  34. birdcrazy911 says: Jul 19, 2011 10:34 AM

    I’m not sure if this has been stated but here is how I feel about this. Give them their free agency and in a quiet sort of way have the teams let them sit, then offer them a 1 million dollar contract for 1 year. If they don’t like it tuff $h!t.

  35. dbo2020 says: Jul 19, 2011 10:43 AM

    How exactly do 2 players hold any power when there’s like 1900 others that have a vote as well? What am I missing here?

  36. wizahdry says: Jul 19, 2011 11:00 AM

    I don’t see the problem with these guys looking out for their own best interest. Especially if the franchise tag is not going to be limited. These guys have both earned at least an opportunity to get a long term secure deal and their teams want to string them out year to year until all their prime years are used up.

    Teams will use every opportunity at their disposal to keep from giving a player the big payday they earned on the field. Teams also do every thing possible to keep a player from being free to choose their own team that will give that payday.

    Why criticize players who have come upon a rare chance to create a better financial situation for using it?

    This also benefits future players if Jackson/Mankins can force things to change. It could mean the next guy in this situation doesn’t have to jump through the same hoops after they have fulfilled their rookie contract.

  37. packerrube13 says: Jul 19, 2011 11:03 AM

    mike83ri says:
    Jul 19, 2011 10:04 AM
    meyerla says:
    Jul 19, 2011 9:38 AM
    I actually agree that the franchise tag shouldn’t be able to be used in consecutive seasons. We all know if the player suffers a career ending injury in one of those years they’d be gone. At some point the team needs to pay up and give the player a long term contract with the signing bonus. And if the player truly doesn’t want to be there after serving his rookie contract plus an extra franchise year then he should be able to choose his team.

    —————————

    That would be great if either of these players were franchised last year. But they weren’t, they were restricted free agents, meaning they could have gone out and gotten a better contract elsewhere if they were deemed good enough to warrant the picks the other team would need to give up to sign them. These were the rules that the players agreed to in the last CBA. They gained something by giving up that right in bargaining last time, and are crying ‘poor me’ victims now because they can’t have it both ways.

    I’m a Pats fan, and I’m getting tired of the Logan Mankins crap. Dude is set to make 8 figures this year and keeps whining about the terms of the CBA that effected him, yet he’s willing to push for personal gain instead of looking out for the best interests of the players in a new CBA.
    ————————————————–

    Except, in last year’s case, the CBA was in an “off year.” It had essentially expired, and the time needed to UFA was 6 years, instead of the 4 “they agreed to.” I only say this, because you said this is the CBA they agreed to. Your points are all valid, but they didn’t agree to last year’s uncapped, 6 year RFA situation. That was why they had their issue. I still think both are selfish B ast ards, but I just wanted to correct your otherwise great and valid point/points.

    I hate Logan Mankins and V-Jax. Ridiculous.

  38. mike83ri says: Jul 19, 2011 11:15 AM

    packerrube13 says:
    Jul 19, 2011 11:03 AM

    Except, in last year’s case, the CBA was in an “off year.” It had essentially expired, and the time needed to UFA was 6 years, instead of the 4 “they agreed to.” I only say this, because you said this is the CBA they agreed to. Your points are all valid, but they didn’t agree to last year’s uncapped, 6 year RFA situation. That was why they had their issue. I still think both are selfish B ast ards, but I just wanted to correct your otherwise great and valid point/points.

    I hate Logan Mankins and V-Jax. Ridiculous.

    ———————–

    That’s actually wrong. The CBA didn’t expire until after last year. The CBA that the players and owners had bargained for had terms that said in the final year there would be no cap and players needed 5 years of service to be an UFA. Please don’t try to correct facts with ignorant statements.

  39. goawayeverybody says: Jul 19, 2011 11:20 AM

    Dear Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankings,

    If you scuttle this deal just to pursue a long-shot settlement for yourselves I’m going to egg both your houses.

    Sincerely,
    NFL fan.

  40. munchkin420 says: Jul 19, 2011 11:22 AM

    Except, in last year’s case, the CBA was in an “off year.” It had essentially expired, and the time needed to UFA was 6 years, instead of the 4 “they agreed to.” I only say this, because you said this is the CBA they agreed to. Your points are all valid, but they didn’t agree to last year’s uncapped, 6 year RFA situation. That was why they had their issue. I still think both are selfish B ast ards, but I just wanted to correct your otherwise great and valid point/points.

    They may not have agreed to it but their representatives did.
    The players may not have liked the rules they were playing under but the terms were agreed upon. Were this not the case they would have walked last year. The teams would have had no leverage against them. They could have played for any team they wished.
    This is BS and I honestly don’t think Mankins is involved in this. I don’t think he is that selfish. He may have a bone to pick with the Pats and the NFL but he wouldn’t take money out of the pockets of other players, NFL team personnel and their families.

  41. clintonrb says: Jul 19, 2011 11:34 AM

    neither show up to a meeting but expect to be treated like this?

    really?
    mankins,v jax really?
    screwing your comrades and the fans?
    nice

  42. bradentonbuc says: Jul 19, 2011 11:54 AM

    Jerks! Let em play elsewhere

  43. jetsarestacked says: Jul 19, 2011 11:57 AM

    I love all the idiots calling vincent jackson stupid. Sure, he can sign a franchise tag and earn $10 million for one season which is a lot of money no question. What can be better than that? How about being able to earn two or three times that? Who in their right mind would give up the chance to double or triple their worth because of the BS that is the franchise tag?

    You all are a bunch of shills for the owners who basically mean nothing to the current success of the NFL and yet rake in far more than any player without doing squat.
    Get paid while you can. All of you would do the same. Bunch of flippin hypocrites.

  44. clear2me says: Jul 19, 2011 12:02 PM

    Nothing says union better than “I want, I need, ME, ME, ME!”

  45. tommyf15 says: Jul 19, 2011 12:18 PM

    homelanddefense says:
    Oh, I will also add the FRANCHISE tag was something the NFLPA wanted added to the last agreement. Amazing how the players hate it when it was their baby…

    LOL.

    You REALLY think the franchise tag was the NFLPA’s idea?

    You REALLY think it’s something the players want?

    Amazing.

  46. packerrube13 says: Jul 19, 2011 12:22 PM

    mike83ri says:
    Jul 19, 2011 11:15 AM
    packerrube13 says:
    Jul 19, 2011 11:03 AM

    Except, in last year’s case, the CBA was in an “off year.” It had essentially expired, and the time needed to UFA was 6 years, instead of the 4 “they agreed to.” I only say this, because you said this is the CBA they agreed to. Your points are all valid, but they didn’t agree to last year’s uncapped, 6 year RFA situation. That was why they had their issue. I still think both are selfish B ast ards, but I just wanted to correct your otherwise great and valid point/points.

    I hate Logan Mankins and V-Jax. Ridiculous.

    ———————–

    That’s actually wrong. The CBA didn’t expire until after last year. The CBA that the players and owners had bargained for had terms that said in the final year there would be no cap and players needed 5 years of service to be an UFA. Please don’t try to correct facts with ignorant statements.
    —————————

    I take it back, I guess you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    The rules of the old CBA had expired. 4 years to UFA, and a salary cap, went out the window because they didn’t extend in time. My facts remain true, IT WAS SIX YEARS TO UFA. Go do some research before you act like you know everything my man. 6 years, and that was my whole point. On a normal year, they would have been UFA, but because of the odd year, and the terms of the old CBA expiring (Yes the CBA expired this year, but the terms expired last year), they got caught in that limbo. Thus the anger and selfishness. I still think they’re idiots though.

    That is all.

  47. birdcrazy911 says: Jul 19, 2011 12:26 PM

    If you want to change the rule, than change the rule but they are tyring to extort their situation. I agree that each team a player goes to has the right to franchise them once. Sometimes this is to help a team keep them but need to manuver for a year to clear some cap space. To do it time and time again, yeah that is some poor play. My thing is lets get the season rolling. Then let the whinebags be free agents, that doesn’t mean anyone has to pick them up or better their current offer. Then they can piss and moan at home while we enjoy the season.

  48. descendency says: Jul 19, 2011 12:28 PM

    What’s 20 million when you made billions by changing the CBA?

    Sign the checks and move on with it.

  49. zerored78 says: Jul 19, 2011 12:36 PM

    I’d do what I could to get away from AJ Smith too.

  50. jbcommonsense says: Jul 19, 2011 12:40 PM

    I have a very selfish interest in this case: I’d love to see them on the Redskins this year.

  51. jagerbolt says: Jul 19, 2011 12:44 PM

    I’m a Chargers fan and F*#% Vincent Jackson. Same goes to Mankins.

    They should give them their Free Agency and then no teams make a deal to sign either of them.

    Let them sit on their asses for another year while the rest of the league enjoys the new CBA.

  52. psousa1 says: Jul 19, 2011 1:46 PM

    As a Pats fan: ‘F’ Mankins. Go to hell. This guy would be perfectly ok to go 0-16 and be the highest paid player on the team. Great run blocker: might be the best but I still can see the Jets, in last year’s playoff game and the Giants, in the ’08 Super Bowl sending every pass rusher and their brother over him and Dan Koppen. They did fine without him for the first 10 games last year.

  53. 808raiderinparadise says: Jul 19, 2011 2:18 PM

    As a OAK fan I hope you stay on the Chargers so Seymour gets a chance to chat with you at midfield after we trash you twice this year again.

  54. granadafan says: Jul 19, 2011 5:17 PM

    10 million dollars? Modern day slavery for sure!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!