SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Recent Posts
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 12:09:11 GMT -5
True enough, I'd forgotten Buddy Hield was held in much higher regard by Sac. than by the league. Although part of it was that they were in a rush to get him traded before the owner changed his mind again, if I recall.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 8:59:04 GMT -5
Pats Pulpit -is- a great read.
And I think Bill would franchise Jimmy for one year, easily enough, if he felt Brady was gone after two years, but I have a hard time picturing him doing so two years in a row. He'd be negotiating a long-term contract after the first tag, I imagine.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 8:15:53 GMT -5
Last night's loss annoyed me - they should have won that one.
Also, I believe they were trying for Butler and George, but they were asking a ridiculously -high- price for them.
Cousins... he was available cheaply, it seemed, but apparently the Celtics didn't want him because they felt he was a bad fit personalitywise for them, enough that they decided it was too risky to integrate him into the team. And I believe Ainge wasn't interested in giving away assets for what amounted to 'rentals'.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 30, 2017 8:11:01 GMT -5
Part of the reason the Colts had not very much of a chance was that they went all-in for Manning. They came away with one title, and ended up with a thin roster when they -did- luck out on getting another franchise QB. They put all their money and made their roster top-heavy, which resulted in no depth when the inevitable injuries hit. They're -still- digging their way out of that one. The reasoning was exactly the same as you're grousing: 'they didn't know how long they would have Manning, so they went for it, because they didn't want to cost themselves a chance at an extra title or two'. And that's exactly how they ended up in that situation when they -did- luck out and had Luck.
The Packers didn't do the same for Favre - they kept the roster stacked, let Favre go, and played Rodgers because by then they felt that Rodgers gave them a better chance to win long-term.
Also, the sheer ridiculousness of franchising a QB so you can make him play backup two years is... well, a very good way to thin the rest of the roster and NOT give either QB a chance to win. Tagging a QB like that for -two- years would cost like, about 40+ million over that two years. It would -not- be worth it. At all. That kind of money would cost you perhaps half the depth of the team, and actually make you exactly like the Colts.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 14:56:45 GMT -5
I just want them to have the number 1 seed. It's no guarantee of success, but it at least gives them a bit more better chance. At the least, it's hopefully at least one -less- 'home cooking' game for Lebron.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 14:27:48 GMT -5
I didn't even think 2013 and 2014 were indicative of his true talent levels - isn't the rest of his career, both in the majors and the minors, enough to say that those were outliers?
He did well enough batting sixth that I'm not even sure attributing his stats to him batting 9th is enough justification for doubting that .262/.345/.489 isn't in line with his ability.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 13:30:57 GMT -5
The Packers didn't -know- for certain that Rodgers was 'a better QB' till they gave him the chance. They just felt they could not handle the 'year by year may or may not play' uncertainity, and went for the surer long-term bet with Rodgers.
And while yes, Brady -is- the better QB now, you can't say with the same certainity that he -will- be a better QB than Garoppolo a year from now, which is pretty much the point rjp313jr is trying to make. Anyone who can say that he -is- the better QB for the -future-... well, he probably -would- be very rich playing the stock market.
Also, Garoppolo's injury 'kept him out of many games'? He backed up game 4, which meant he was at least considered viable enough to play then, which means basically he missed one game. They elected to go with who they thought was healthier. To say 'many games' is alarmist just so you can justify the 'red flag'.
I will say, 'do you know when that will happen?' is basically sidestepping the question at hand: which is -more- probable, Garoppolo being a good QB for a long time, or Brady being a good QB for the same duration?
I don't see why the former is 'less likely' than the latter. The former seems like a better bet than the latter, simply because there haven't been that many QBs who has played like Brady has in their 40s, while there -are- examples of good backup QBs who became great when given the starting jobs.
And to be frank, it doesn't matter whether it's yours or mine that matters. It's Bill Belichick's, and if he's holding on to Garoppolo that strongly, then it's probably a good bet -he- thinks Garoppolo is a QB worth keeping. The only question after that is, does he believe strongly that Garoppolo is the future, or does he believe that it's better to have a strong backup QB over those picks? In either case... if he believes in Garoppolo, then yeah, -he- may not value those picks one single bit as much as having Garoppolo on his roster.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 12:09:38 GMT -5
How do you define the word 'is'? To be all zen: Is... is.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 12:08:45 GMT -5
If you're so worried about Garoppolo's health issues, how do you THEN trust in a 40 years old QB to actually stay healthy for three years? I wouldn't have that much faith that Brady is any more likely to stay healthier than Garoppolo, and at least Garoppolo is much younger.
At that point, it should at least be understandable -why- Belichick may not want to trade Garoppolo for anything other than what would be a huge overpay, and why rjp313jr (and myself) would be skeptical over keeping Brady for more years beyond next year.
Why give away Garoppolo if you think he'd drop off? Why not just -let- Brady go after the next year and keep Garoppolo for another -10- years? In that scenario it'd be "Brady for 3 years, optimistically" versus "Brady for 1 year, Garoppolo for many more years than that".
The team already won a super bowl, they're young, and they can keep going around Garoppolo for more years than going 'all-in' on a declining Brady. Why isn't that a better option for the -team-? Forget the fans, forget the history, what is a better option?
At some point, the Packers moved on from Favre to Rodgers. Favre roamed the NFL for three more years while the Packers kept going with Rodgers. Why isn't that a viable option for the Patriots?
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 10:12:49 GMT -5
I guess aliens could abduct him also. How do we know he's not one?
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 9:36:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 9:33:37 GMT -5
If he can't know or control it, then why is it an outlandish idea that Belichick is the type to err on the side of 'go with the younger player'?
If Belichick's goal is to build a perpetual contender, then at some point he cannot leave that decision solely in the hand of Brady, because at some point he actually -needs- to have a succession plan for Brady. He's already stated he doesn't want to be like the Manning Colts, where they had no backup because they built that team entirely around Manning and were stunk without him.
If that succession plan is not Garopollo, then it needs to be -someone-. If Brady is playing one more year, Belichick absolutely has to keep Garoppolo. If Brady is playing two more years, Belichick -may- keep Garoppolo anyway.
If Brady is absolutely likely to play more than 2 more years, then trade Garoppolo -and- take Brady's heir this year with one of the picks.
But being 'certain' he can play 4-5 more years at the age of 40 is, to be frank, gambling on high odds. Belichick has been the GM who would prefer to let a player go one year too early than one year too late, so from that viewpoint, it seems like you'd have to be weighing -all- the odds on Brady, on Garoppolo, and on whether you can find a heir in this year's draft (or next year's) or whether you have already picked up an alternate heir in Brissett.
It's pretty damned difficult to weigh all those from an outside perspective, but I think Belichick has a lot of probability calculations to sort out with all those scenarios, and I don't think he's going to weigh 'Brady will play four or five more years' terribly high with all the other options available.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 9:03:17 GMT -5
This isn't the first time you've talked about Patriots trading Brady. Well my post he quoted never talked about trading Brady but yes I've stated that wouldn't shock me if that happened at some point and I still feel that way. And you know who agrees with me? Tom Brady so to act like that's some outlandish thing is odd to me. I'm not sitting here saying Brady should get traded or even saying he will. From what I recall, Brady said it could happen to anyone ( ftw.usatoday.com/2016/11/nfl-new-england-patriots-tom-brady-bill-belichick-trade-jamie-collins ), and I recall his dad saying he wouldn't be surprised if Belichick traded Brady. It doesn't feel impossible. Kraft loved Bledsoe, and yet Bledsoe never got the chance to get his job back. Belichick traded him and that was that. That said, I'm fairly sure Belichick isn't even going to trade Garoppolo without being comfortable with his backup plans. He's been on record as saying he doesn't want to have a team built like the Manning Colts, where they were absolutely sunk without him as a QB. Yes, I know, conventional wisdom thinks you should max out and benefit from your franchise QB when you can, but c'mon, since when has Belichick followed convention?
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 8:31:06 GMT -5
Smart was a terrible free throw shooter, but he's been improving here and there, and I don't think Jackson's mechanics is so broken that he can't improve.
Also, Jackson strikes me as someone who can swing between small forward and power forward (in small ball), while Jaylen Brown is more of a shooting guard/small forward. I think you can find minutes between Jackson, Brown, and Crowder -as long- as you trade either Smart or Bradley.
Fultz's a pretty good player and all, I just feel like it's probably easier to find point guards over the long run than it is to find really good well-rounded wing players.
Still, wouldn't complain about Fultz instead of Jackson. The one player in the top four that kinda makes me cringe a bit is Ball, and I think that's mostly due to his dad.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 8:14:36 GMT -5
Eh... don't get me wrong, I would love to see Brady play his entire career for the Patriots. It's just that it's such a rare situation under Bill Belichick... I think, offhand, only Tedy Bruschi and Troy Brown played their entire careers as Patriots under him.
Belichick just seems to, however, not like being caught without depth, and trading Garoppolo would seem to do that, since I'm not terribly sure Brissett is ready. If Garoppolo were to be traded, I'd think, it'd depend on Belichick's assessment of Brady -and- Brissett's being able to hold down the next few years.
On the other hand, if you keep Garoppolo (and that would be highly dependant on whether they believe he -is- a Super-Bowl caliber QB), you could keep things going longer than what Brady would give you, in which case, you cannot keep Brady because the time window for keeping Garoppolo is narrowing. And to be frank, Belichick is the one person out there who would trade Brady without concern for the wrath of fans.
Watching this QB picture play out over the next few months (or maybe another year) is gonna be interesting as heck.
My guess here is that unless the Patriots are -really- overwhelmed by the offer for Garoppolo, they'll hold on to him until at least once they see how Brissett does in training camp. And if they -do- trade Garoppolo, they'll probably use another high pick on a QB, and shift the 'Brady heir' discussion a few more years, rather than go all-in.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 28, 2017 18:34:58 GMT -5
Yeah, good point. Won't happen. Overthinking the whole 'out of nowhere' thing.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 28, 2017 16:55:57 GMT -5
I know franchising a backup QB is "crazy" but there is one GM in the league that just doesn't give a F#[< and he happens to work in Foxboro. Anyways I know the argument for taking that package and I agree with it but I agree with the alternative too. That GM who doesn't give a A*^@&^ might also be the only GM with the balls to do something completely unexpected and unrumored and trade Tom Brady. If his true objective is to build something that actually lasts, then that is the move he should be pulling, if he feels Garoppolo is a good enough QB to replace Brady with. I can see Garoppolo being traded, but I can also, given Tom's age, see Belichick being the one GM in the NFL who would not give a *&%@&^@! about the media and just trade Brady for even better picks and just keep going with Garoppolo. And you know, I could also see Belichick simply deciding that one year of Garoppolo at a very cheap year -and- franchising him another year would be worthwhile to live with to make sure he's safe if Brady goes down. I think that's why Belichick basically doesn't have to do a dang thing if he doesn't want to unless the Browns -really- pay up that it's worth riding with Brissett as a backup. But dang, I -could- see him completely zagging and trading Brady out of nowhere to, say, San Francisco.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 28, 2017 8:41:08 GMT -5
I actually kind of hope Boston slips to #2, because I'd prefer to have Jackson over Fultz.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 27, 2017 20:05:20 GMT -5
I think that actually seems like what's gonna happen, if what Bob Kraft said today is any indication, but the best thing is, I think, that the Patriots have a lot of flexibility to go any which way they want with any offer for either Butler or Garoppolo now, and they'll just go with whatever they like best!
And that's what I think is great about all this. They've given themselves a lot of room to do anything.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 27, 2017 19:30:07 GMT -5
Considering the Patriots have signed Chris Hogan, Wes Welker, and Emmanuel Sanders as restricted free agents, I imagine Belichick has been already been through each potential outcome of a restricted free agent, and that the Patriots are not 'most teams'.
(Laveranues Coles was the last one lost as a restricted free agent for a first round pick, if that's relevant at all.)
The rub here you ask is 'if they want anything for him'.
Put it this way. What if they actually -do- want to keep him?
see, here's the scenario:
They can keep a pro bowl corner for 4 million and let him go in a year -or- franchise tag him, keep him for another year, and let him go after that (in which they would have already used up his prime years), or they can hold tight for any pick.
Do you really see any downside in just keeping him and letting him go after using up his prime years here? Is that worth the 32nd pick? Seems like it to me. The only reason NOT to would be to keep an unhappy Butler, but that's also a Butler who would be motivated to stay healthy and play hard to get his big payday.
Is that worth the 32nd pick? Well, they already decided Cooks was worth the 32nd pick for two years of control. Flip that on its head. Is keeping Butler for at least two more years worth sacrificing the 32nd pick?
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 27, 2017 17:42:38 GMT -5
You guys keep jumping down my throat for making assumptions, but your whole theory is based on one large assumption. That the Saints would trade Cooks for anything, best they could get and Patriots only trade Butler for X. We have no clue what X is, besides what reports say. What if the Patriots want to trade Butler? I don't think Saints would have just traded Cooks for anything. They wanted mid round pick, got late first plus more. For example I don't think they trade him for late second if that's all they get. They traded him because Pat's gave them a return they thought was fair. The Patriots can't market Butler the way Saints did Cooks, because of restricted free agency rules. That being said we have reports they talked trade with Saints. Also reports say Texans would give up second round pick for Butler. That's a bunch of chatter and sure does seem to support that Patriots are seeing what's available in a trade for Butler. Nevermind the report that you posted saying both teams are motivated to make this happen. When there's smoke there is usually a fire. If you go by the assumption that Butler wants out and Patriots would rather get more now in a trade than a comp pick next year, everything changes. Revis and let's say pick #32 is better than an unhappy Butler and a comp pick. The great thing about this debate is that time will awsner the question about who's right. Have you -actually- thought through the implications of all that smoke as compared to what the RFA rules gives the Patriots? Starting with the logic fallacity that 'where there's smoke, there's fire'... Sometimes, you know, smoke is caused by, not an actual fire, but someone trying desperately to -start- a fire. Or sometimes it's a smoke machine. Now where your whole premise falls apart is that you've taken all that smoke seriously, and you believe that the Patriots are seriously having talks over a player they CANNOT TALK ABOUT WITH OTHER TEAMS... -How- does it benefit the Patriots in any way to talk trade about a situation in which they control the player? Why -would- they be talking about a 'second rounder from the Texans' when they could get a first rounder simply by letting another team, ANY TEAM, sign Butler and just let him go? It doesn't benefit the Patriots one single bit. All they have to do is keep their mouth shut, -not- match the contract, and get a first rounder and that's that. I mean, seriously, if you bought the second round talk -and- that the Patriots want to trade him, then the simplest course of action for them to do is to keep their mouth shut, let a team sign him, and be done with it. Or just trade him -after- he accepts their tender, without saying a word. If the Patriots, in fact, -actually- want to trade Butler, then the simplest question, based on the smoke you keep citing as supporrting your theory, is... why don't they just keep their mouth shut and -let him go- under RFA rules? The draft pick they get would almost assuredly be better than the 32nd pick they get from the Saints. There is, in fact, no need to talk trade. Just let Butler go, or trade him -after- he signs the offer. Not before. And almost assuredly for a pick better than the 32nd from the Saints. Since that's their own pick and the lowest they can get in the first round, by defintion, ANY OTHER PICK in the first round is better! So the next question is... Who actually benefits from all that 'smoke'? The Saints, who are trying to get the Patriots to trade Butler for their price? Why yes, it would. In fact, if you buy the whole 'second round from the Texans' bullcrap, then by comparision, golly, the Saints's 32nd pick look better! Never mind, oh, having Dallas sign Butler so that the Patriots end up with the 28. Or the Steelers signing Butler, and the Patriots ending up with the 29th. Both teams of which actually -have more cap room- than the Saints. Jeezus, the whole conspiracy bull**** that you have to swallow to believe that the Patriots are actively trying to trade Butler doesn't even -give- the Patriots the best potential draft pick they could have if they just STAND PAT AND LET THE PROCESS PLAY OUT.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 27, 2017 14:21:11 GMT -5
The problem with something that glib as 'taking so many 3's is that it's easier to do in non-game situations, but a whole lot different in live-action play. I seem to recall Shaq being able to shoot free throws fine in practice, but doing it in gametime with thousands of people cheering or booing you isn't easy to simulate in practice.
I'm just hoping he gets his clanks out of the way in garbage time to get him into a rhythm.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 27, 2017 14:06:10 GMT -5
Yes, ignore what -Belichick- says in favor of an opinion article that assumes the Patriots, a team known for top secrecy, are agreeing to this public dance in full view. And 'imminent' was like, two weeks ago. And still counting.
Cooks differs from Butler because Cooks a drafted player who had a specific rookie contract that, when it expires, allows him to be an unrestricted free agent. There is nothing complicated in that case, either sign him when his contract expires, or lose him. They obviously chose to trade him before then. They can franchise him if they want to keep him longer, but that's not a desirable option for a team that has enough trouble with the salary cap.
The current situation with Butler is that because he came in undrafted, his contract he signed as a rookie means when it expires, it let him start free agency -earlier- than Cooks by a couple years, but because he doesn't yet have enough service time in the NFL, it means it's a 'restricted free agent'.
So in Cooks' case, he already has a contract he's locked into. The Saints control that contract and they can do whatever they want. They obviously choose to control said contract.
Oh, and the Saints had less leverage, too, at least when it came to finances. Why?
Because Cooks was due a bonus a few days after the trade. If the Saints wanted to not pay the bonus, they had to trade him before then. The Patriots ended up paying that bonus. -That- was the Patriots' leverage for getting the Cooks trade done earlier. Apparently no other team wanted to pay a higher price before that self-imposed deadline the Saints had.
If the Saints had wanted to keep him, they would simply have paid him the bonus and kept going, but to keep him for two years meant picking up the option. They could have, yes, but then they would have run into salary cap problems and they decided they would be best served allocating resources from offense to defense.
In the case of Butler, it's already been explained ad nauseum, but let's try this again from a Patriots perspective:
Essentially the Patriots have control over the following:
1) Butler can sign the offer and be stuck with the Patriots for another year at 3.9 million. This seems to be what the Patriots want. They well may value that one year at 3.9 million -and- a compensation pick far more than they'd value a first rounder at 32. Which is why I think pedrofanforever45 is more likely correct that the sticking point is they want a higher value than 32. The Patriots also have the option of franchise tagging him once that year is up, so for about two years, they'd be spending between 15-20 million... or 7.5 to 10 million a year. That's not too bad a price to pay for a cornerback like that. It's far, far too shortsighted to look at it as a straight-up 'compensation vs draft picks' issue. There's a whole lot more to the calculations than that, including that Gilmore replaces Butler -as- the number 1 corner -and- Butler replaces -Ryan- as the number 2 corner in that scenario. It's not a straight-up 'Gilmore replaces Ryan' calculation. If you're doing what's best for the team -this year-, frankly, I'd just wait out Butler and make him sign that offer so you can have him for one year and then franchise him, THEN let him go after you've used up his prime years at the money you want.
The decision for franchising Butler under -that- circumstances is the Patriots'.
2) The Saints can give him a contract -and- give up the number 1 pick they own. The pick is NOT at all negotiable if they give him that contract. The contract the Saints can give him is up to them, but under -that- circumstance, the Patriots get the number 11 pick. Period. This is the least desirable option for the Saints, and even then, at that point, the Patriots are the one making the decision between matching the contract OR taking the pick. It's the Patriots' choice there.
3) Butler can sign the offer, -and- the Patriots can trade him for whatever they want. At -that- point, the Saints can then make the offer of a lower draft pick and whatever they want. But New England does -not- have to trade him unless they like the offer. See point 1, though, the Patriots may well prefer to have Butler at 4 million for 1 year -and- a compensation pick than just the first round pick at 32. And that's the Saints' problem, they need to up the offer to get the Patriots to do said trade. At that point, the Saints -still- have to convince the Patriots that their offer is better than what they get with 1). The Patriots control whether they want to accept that trade or not.
There is absolutely -no- obligation for the Patriots to trade Butler at any point, no matter how New Orleans cries and begs. Which is why they control that procedure.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: Butler's Agent is having a hard time getting the Saints to cough up enough money -and- compensation -because- Butler is an RFA.
This is also at the core of why the Patriots don't just pay Butler straight up - because Butler wants to be compensated -like- a regular free agent, but the Patriots are simply -not- ripping up that 3.9 million dollar tender contract, because that represents -tremendous- value to them.
Otherwise this 'imminent' trade would have been long done long ago because the Patriots would have already extended Butler to a contract, not the Saints, since the Patriots are the team with much, much more cap space to work with than the Saints.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 27, 2017 13:34:41 GMT -5
Yeah, most shooters tend to improve. Sometimes, though, I wonder if Smart's style of play affects his shooting - like taking a few too many bumps might throw off his elbow just enough to miss something.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 27, 2017 9:29:53 GMT -5
If Marcus Smart ever finds his jumpshot, he'd be a legit superstar. As is, I hope he doesn't find his jumpshot until -after- he's signed a reasonably cheap contract with the Celtics.
|
|
|