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 26, 2017 19:27:03 GMT -5
And if you're gonna be silly enough to bother howling about 'real world', here:
When, historically, have the Patriots -ever- talked about any potential trades to the media, ever?
The simplest way to avoid all this 'we're not conspiring, honestly', is to _NOT TALK ABOUT IT AT ALL_.
Who actually benefits from all this 'talk' out there?
The Saints, of course. Because they don't want to give up that number 11 pick. And they want to get enough pressure on the Patriots to ensure they can get Butler at their price.
It's possible, entirely possible, but it certainly isn't going to happen the way you describe it because it is so totally -not- like the Patriots to do all this public posturing. At all.
I mean. BILL BELICHICK. The simplest thing for him is to NOT talk about it at all.
Real world, my rear patootie.
The real world is the Patriots just -don't- leak at all what they're gonna actually do.
The sheer stupidity of saying this is all public posturing by the Patriots when the simplest and most common thing the Patriots do is NOT LEAK ANYTHING REPORTWISE.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 26, 2017 19:09:49 GMT -5
www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/new-england-patriots-michael-lombardi-malcolm-butler-will-cost-saints-no-11-pickI put far, far more credibility into this analyis beause it -actually- matches up with what we actually know of the process -and- with everything the Patriots have done and said. You're relying on a whole lot of speculation and you have the nerve to call it 'the real world'? By -all- reports, all the activity here has been on the Saints' part, the Patriots haven't said a -damn- thing in all of this, period. Which seems to me to be that -you- are the one speculating on facts not at all in evidence. When you talk about the real world, you're talking about that real world where there's one set of rules for the Jets, and another set of rules for the Patriots, right? Because then you wouldn't be stupid enough to bring up the Revis tampering case as though this were perfectly okay for the Patriots to do. I mean, Goodell -smacked- the Saints for Bountygate, and the Patriots on Deflategate and Spygate, for a whole -lot- less than this, and you think it's realistic they'd take that risk again for -this-? There is literally NOTHING the Saints can do except do what they've done: posture and hope public pressure will get the Patriots to trade Butler to them at their price. Or just pay the price. Either way, there isn't anything that the Saints can do right now except a) make an offer or b) wait for Butler to sign an offer. And at that point, it's entirely the Patriots' decision. If Butler signs that offer, I think, it's entirely likely that Butler remains a Patriot home opening day.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 26, 2017 16:43:56 GMT -5
I'll toss this in too - it's not that umassgrad's conclusion about Butler most likely ending up with the Saints is unrealistic. It's quite likely. It's the analysis of how they get there that's completely at odds with how the RFA process works, and it relies on a whole -lot- of presumptions that the Patriots will do exactly what he thinks they will.
Pedrofan45's -point- is correct. The Saints really have no leverage at this point unless the Patriots -agrees- to it, and so far, I have seen nothing out of the Patriots that actually indicates they -are- doing anything about Butler other than to let the RFA process plays out.
If the Patriots decide they'd prefer to have Butler at 1 year 4 million, and they likely do or they wouldn't have tendered him in the first place, then there's no trade, and that's that. If another team offers him a contract, he accepts, the Patriots match the offer, then the Patriots keep him for the contract. That's that.
The Saints really have no leverage in this case to do anything that the Patriots don't agree to.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 26, 2017 16:31:24 GMT -5
You keep failing to understand something simple, which is at the core of why all the speculations and your breathless analysis mean less than nothing:
The Patriots CANNOT TRADE A PERSON WHO'S NOT UNDER CONTRACT.
They can't -even- talk about trading someone who's not under contract. Belichick has said so explictly publicly when addressing those same reports you keep citing.
So when you cite the Patriots 'trying to trade Butler for Cooks' as prime evidence that the Patriots want to trade Butler, I circle back to:
YOU CANNOT TRADE SOMEONE NOT UNDER CONTRACT. That's not how RFA works.
Any reports that the Patriots were talking about trading Butler for Cooks should be disqualified on that grounds alone. You are buying way, way too much into those reports. The only thing -likely- in there is that yes, the Saints don't want to give up the number 11 pick. But all of those reports mindlessly repeat 'trade Butler' without considering exactly what the Patriots have the right to do in RFA.
Pedro's correct in the Patriots having the leverage. The Saints have no way of getting Butler at -their- price without the Patriots agreeing to it, which is why the leverage is all the Patriots.
Yes, Butler can sign the tender. At that point, the Patriots -could- agree with a lower package, but there is -no- way the Saints can give up a lower pick package -without- the Patriots agreeing to it under the RFA offer rules. And the Patriots would, at that point, be in control of a 1 year 4 million contract for a cornerback.
At that- point the Patriots decide, not the Saints, what they want to do. They can easily just trade Butler to, say, the Cowboys, and the Saints can't do anything about it. Which is why the Saints have no leverage in this case.
The Saints' only recourse -under the current circumstances- to being absolutely guaranteed they get Butler is to do the RFA rule: Sign Butler and give up their first round pick.
All the rest is speculative.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 26, 2017 15:38:32 GMT -5
I did. I agree with him that the Patriots aren't going all-in.
I don't see anything that indicates they're going all-in, this just seems like SOP for the Patriots. They zig when people expect them to zag, but otherwise, their moves seems pretty much in line with what they've done in the past, 2007 included.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 26, 2017 15:21:28 GMT -5
I think Broncos went all in, but they didn't put all there chips in. They could have traded picks for Vets to help them. The only thing they did was use cap space. You just can't go completely all in like Rip is saying, sports aren't poker. They replaced Ryan with Gilmore as of right now, that's an all in move. They gave Gilmore more than double what Ryan got. What pass rusher was better than Elay to be our third DE? A player like Sheard wasn't going to resign to be our third DE. How is it a negative that Allen is younger? In football that's a positive. Gilmore got paid 4 million more than Ryan. Gilmore is someone they projected to be a #1 CB, Ryan an #2 CB. As to who would've been better? Let's see... Ealy was available in the first place because Carolina signed Julius Peppers. Someone who, you know, would have been a lot more -reasonable- to sign because he at least had proven productions. A LOT more proven last year too, as Ealy slumped. Hell, they could simply have signed Sheard -instead- of Ealy, since Sheard -actually- was a better player last year. And if you're actually arguing 'putting all their chips in' means including trading chips, then I don't see it with the Patriots either. They got younger, they got better, and they didn't really give up anything major other than their first round pick, which I'd argue is fairly common with most teams, and they got a -twenty-three years old WR- they could keep for a while. The Patriots still have what, SEVEN picks in this year's draft? They aren't going all-in. \
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 26, 2017 15:12:14 GMT -5
Per NFL rules Saints and Patriots can't talk Butler trade because he hasn't signed tender, but we all know they have. Teams do it all the time because they don't get in trouble for it. Just look at Jets and Revis. What did they get a fine? He made those comments in public and it was easy to prove. It proves exactly what I said before, Saints can trade down and get Butler plus more, rather than just giving up the #11 pick. These are not my words, but from a sports writer. We are not getting the #11 pick or multiple picks that equal pick #11 for Butler like Pedro thinks. No, we don't know they have. Your article and what you're putting blind faith into is based on -speculation-. There is not one thing factual in there, and you cannot claim 'we all know they have', because that same article quite specifically says the Patriots and the Saints cannot talk trade because Butler -is not under contract-. Pedrofan45 over there is dealing with an absolute reality: The Saints cannot -make- an offer sheet without that 11 pick. Period. Which means the Patriots are within every right they have to demand at least that 11 pick if the Saints make an offer sheet right now. You're relying on 'speculation that the Patriots have talked' here. And to be frank, that is stupid as git, because if 'everyone knows the Patriots and Saints have talked', you can bet that the NFL would know, and they would have like, zero compunctions about punishing / suspending Belichick for doing -something- they weren't supposed to do. And if you think 'everyone does it' is a perfectly safe excuse, let me remind you of Deflategate and Spygate, then tell you you're absolutely nuts for thinking the NFL'd allow this sort of 'agreement'. That sort of 'nothing to see' treatment applies to the Jets and the Giants. NOT the Patriots. Also, Belichick has been on the record as saying they cannot discuss trade with Butler when Butler is NOT under contract and have NOT been talking contract, which is something more concrete than any 'we know they've been talking'. And really, honestly, while I agree with umassgrad that Butler is not being traded for the number 11 pick or equal picks, the reality is Pedro is correct on that the Saints -cannot- acquire Butler by trading down picks. The realistic scenarios, putting aside media speculations, under the current rules for RFA: 1) The Saints: have to give up an offer sheet -and- the number 11 pick (or better) to acquire him right now. At that point, the Patriots can match the contract offer OR accept the 11 pick. The Saints would have to be stupid to do that. And even if they managed a contract that was low enough to account for the value of the number 11 pick, the Patriots could just match the contract and KEEP Butler. 2) Butler signs the tender offer. At that point, the Saints -could- make an offer that's definitely lower than what the Patriots would expect. But at that point, the Patriots can do -anything- they want, including keeping Butler at the tender offer of 3.49 million. And I think that's what they would do. I think they're extremely malleable, though, in that they're just waiting to see what will happen with Butler before they decide, not pre-determine a path of 'trade him NOW' when they have a) no idea what the contract they'd have to match is and b) whether the Saints are actually silly enough to offer a contract -right now-. What the Saints cannot do right -now- as long as Butler remains unsigned, because of how the RFA rules work: 1) Trade down the number 11 pick and then offer Butler a contract. At that point, they're disqualified from making a contract offer because they do not have their original 1st round pick to offer. 2) Ask another team to sign Butler, then trade picks for Butler's new contract. (To say nothing of what happens to that trade if the Patriots simply match the other team's contract.) You need to have Butler -signed- by the Patriots in order to have the Saints work out a deal with lower picks. And at that point, the Patriots are going to do whatever they want.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 26, 2017 14:50:33 GMT -5
An example of a football team going all-in would've been the 2015 Broncos. They couldn't afford to keep all their players.
If the Patriots were going all-in, they almost assuredly would have signed in-his-prime Logan Ryan for what he cost, signed a few pass rushers who were almost assuredly better than a gamble in Ealy, signed Martellus Bennett for what he got rather than trade for a younger Dwayne Allen...
The moves the Patriots have made this year really doesn't seem all out of the norm, as they've been all made with similar fiscal analysis they've made in previous years. The only real outlier here seems to be Gilmore, but even -he- matches up with the Patriots paying Ty Law and Darrelle Revis as high-end cornerbacks.
This team actually got -younger-. It seems more like the Patriots took advantage of a different marketplace.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 26, 2017 14:22:34 GMT -5
And what is that link supposed to prove?
The rules are very specific on this point: The Saints cannot make an offer sheet without that number 11 pick or better.
They could, in theory, negotiate a contract with Butler -and- then negotiate compensation with a lower pick. But they cannot make an offer sheet to Butler that Butler can sign WITH a lower pick.
If the Saints were to make a trade right now with their number 11 pick, they would be disqualified from making an offer sheet IMMEDIATELY because of that rule.
And they cannot discuss a trade with a player that's NOT under contract, so Butler would have to sign that tender. At that moment, he becomes Patriots property, and the Patriots do NOT have to trade him.
The Saints would, actually, in that scenario presented in the article, be in violation of the NFL rules because they cannot discuss trades with a player NOT under their control.
Why would you link that without even thinking about the implications? The rules are pretty specific on that they cannot offer a contract without their own pick. What makes you think they can collude with another team to offer the contract???
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 26, 2017 11:03:29 GMT -5
Malcom Butler can't get traded unless he signs the tender. Which he won't do, unless he gets a offer sheet. Your reports that the Saints won't sign him to a offer sheet are completely false. patriotswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/20/malcolm-butler-saints-playing-high-stakes-game-of-chicken/You really don't know how this works. He can sign tender and then get traded or Saints can sign him to an offer sheet which Patriots can match. It's a one or the other, not one leads to the other. If he signs an offer sheet with Saints there is no signing the tender afterwards. The offer sheet is his new contract. He would play under offer sheet for Saints or Patriots if they match. The Saints won't sign him to offer sheet right now because if Patriots didn't match, they give up pick #11. That's why if they go the offer sheet route, they would trade down from pick #11 first. That's why a likely Butler trade will happen after he signs his tender, with the knowledge that Saints and Patriots have a deal in place. Pedro is correct that the Patriots hold the cards in this scenario, because the rules requires that the Saints offer their own pick or better. They cannot trade down and then offer a lesser pick for signing Butler. The only way the Saints can sign Butler and offer a lower pick in trade is for Butler to sign a tender with the Patriots. At that point, the Pats can do whatever they want, including trading for a lower package, or just keeping him at that tender, but they cannot trade down then sign Butler and offer the lesser pick.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Dec 11, 2016 21:13:20 GMT -5
For anyone to say that DD is marketing wrong guy doesn't understand how this works. It's Nick Cafardo. When has he ever written something that actually shows he -understands- these things?
|
|
|
Post by digit on Aug 3, 2016 9:33:34 GMT -5
Chrissakes, deepjohn, can't you at least -make- your argument without re-writing commonly-used terms into whatever you want them to be? Contrarian viewpoints should at least be rooted in some sort of -sensible- arguments, not rewriting stuff to suit your needs.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Jul 31, 2016 12:15:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by digit on Jul 20, 2016 19:18:42 GMT -5
If this is the Hanley we get going forward with him being healthy/recovered from his shoulder injury, I -would- like to see his option vest.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Jul 16, 2016 23:01:39 GMT -5
Personally, I'm hoping the addition of Brian Bannister will show its results -down- the road, but it's probably a bit too much to expect him to turn things around immediately. The impression I got was that there's some sort of pitching philosophy that needs changing.
Just so long as we don't trade any more, I think this rotation will be together a while so we'll have -time- to develop that young pitching... something we couldn't have said with any confidence pre-trade.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Jul 16, 2016 20:57:44 GMT -5
The same can be said of Henry Owens, but, you know, I feel like the Red Sox's patience with having -two- tall lefties trying to figure out their stuff is going to be fairly low with Dombrowski.
I'm just hoping Dombrowski's experience trading Randy Johnson will help give him -some- patience for these kind of guys.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Jul 16, 2016 20:46:21 GMT -5
I don't understand the logic. Either Devers is one of the top bids, and you risk having to actually make a trade you don't want to. Or, he's not, and it doesn't make a difference. You're making the assumption that the person who thinks Teheran is an ace worth giving up Moncada and Benitendi actually has sound logic. The presumption here is 'by bidding something that you are absolutely certain that the other person will not accept, you're helping drive up the price'. This, however, only really helps to drive up the price -if- you're an early bidder trying to set the market. If you jump in with a bid -so- high that nobody tops it, you run the risk of being left holding the bag. And if you're a late bidder, you're running the risk that you actually -have- the very piece that the other person wants. It's a damn foolish idea to be so certain that the other person won't accept that you make the offer, but then again, like I said, you're trying to perceive the logic of someone who argues Julio Teheran is an ace. This all smacks of someone who's tried pulling this trick on people in too many fantasy sports leagues, and that works -only- when people don't actually know you, I think. People who -do- know you, over the years, are going to get wise to you, spread the word, and presto, you suddenly have a much much harder time making deals, and eventually, on your way out of the league.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Jun 2, 2016 18:37:46 GMT -5
Man, a lot of the arguments for assembling this superteam sounds suspiciously like the same sort the Yankees made a decade ago. One zillion dollars of free agency and a bankrupt farm system later...
|
|
|
Post by digit on Dec 22, 2015 17:20:25 GMT -5
I think you have to evaluate catchers on a different scale than shortstops, just because they generally develop slower (due to needing to spend more time working with pitchers, etc, let alone hitting.)
Him reaching the majors at 25 would be -better- than Marrero reaching the majors at 25, frankly, and would be a bigger win than you think.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Dec 11, 2015 15:26:48 GMT -5
To clarify... Peter is offense and Paul is pitching. I'm very excited about Peter this year. As long as the corner infield isn't Judas. Judas joined the Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Dec 6, 2015 18:43:08 GMT -5
More like this is what happens when you lose your top two receivers.
|
|
|
Post by digit on Dec 5, 2015 14:58:32 GMT -5
Not particularly - the Diamondbacks traded him to us for Allen Webster and Rubby de la Rosa, so they'd probably value him roughly around that range. Them going for Leake seems like they want someone who could be a #2, and I have a hard time thinking they'd trade a package like that for him.
|
|
|