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 beasleyrockah on Feb 1, 2019 11:25:30 GMT -5
Are the Lakers actually offering all those pieces together? It says they've proposed five trade scenarios, which include those four players and the first rounder. If those guys are all on the table together in one package why would they need five different proposals? New Orleans would take the "everyone/everything" package over the packages that included less players/picks. That article reads to me like they've offered different packages, and those players are on the table in various combinations, but none have all those pieces together. I've read in multiple places LA doesn't want to enter a bidding war, yet we're supposed to believe they've put all their assets on the table for this trade? Isn't that what you do in a bidding war?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 27, 2019 11:55:56 GMT -5
As far as the spending at 1B goes I'd talk about Moreland before Pearce. I realize Moreland was signed last year, but that deal felt questionable at the time given the market and they knew they'd be strapped for cash in year 2. Once they sunk the money into Moreland they still needed a platoon match for him and there are few better options than Pearce. I'd rather unload Moreland's salary even if you had to eat 1-2m than lose Pearce.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 26, 2019 16:26:24 GMT -5
The Tony Watson argument is tough for me for the fact that his stock was down as a free agent and then he rebounded in a big way last season. Credit him for the improvement and the Giants for the scouting/coaching, but it's not like he was some sure fire impact reliever. He came into FA with 7.16 K/9 + 2.70 BB/9 the prior season, and then posted 9.82 K/9 + 1.91 BB/9 last year. It's not like his 2017 season was an outlier, it looked like his 2016 season without the BABIP luck, and he seemed like another former good reliever who was cruising towards replacement level as he entered his mid-30s. He certainly represented an upgrade over Poyner/internal options, and they could've used a credible lefty, but I can't fault them for passing on a multi-year deal for a veteran reliever who appeared to be in decline when they'd already spent so much on the rest of the roster. If the argument is the Red Sox should identify a cheap veteran reliever who will revert back to form and outproduce his contract, sure, but that's kind of tough to do right?
This offseason does kind of feel like 2012, when they gave themselves so little flexibility financially they couldn't take advantage of seemingly good value buys in free agency.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 21, 2019 19:24:48 GMT -5
The NFL is the only pro football league in the world. There are just over 1500 jobs out of Ten of thousands of would be applicants. Pointing out that a couple of Hall of Famers have beaten them is not seeing the forest for the trees. Football isn't that complicated. It has changed into a passing league for sure, but none of these teams run things that other teams don't know. It is a copycat league, by admission from all people who participate. I never played the game, so I don't know what it is like to put together a winning strategy, but I have been watching for years and I conclude that, as great as Belichick is (and by extension Brady - all due credit to both), the problem is their opponents preparation and execution against them in playoff games. You look that the 7 of 8 quarters this year, against 2 - 12 win teams. It is embarrassing. If not for the Chiefs 4th quarter, it would be disgusting. As rjp mentions, the system isn't set up for this kind of success. Ipsofacto, this should not be happening, particularly at this point in the league's evolution. There isn't a discernible talent difference ( they do appear to get very lucky at times), they don't have more resources than other teams, they don't play all their games at home or play them 11 on 10. I stand by my reasoning, the people who are supposed to beat them, have failed in historic fashion, brought on by leadership issues for the other franchises. I can confidently say, if Belichick coached when I was growing up, against Knoll, Shula, Landry etc..etc.... this shit would not happen Yeah if only there was a good coach like Tom Coughlin who could've been a worthy challenge for Belichick. Chuck Noll was great when his team was loaded with HOF players, but not so great when they left. He won 10 games exactly one time during his last 12 years, so I don't think this era would be too kind to a guy who only won when his talent was clearly superior, that doesn't work in the era of FA. You were the one who argued the competition is poor in today's NFL, while also suggesting it used to be better. Since the Patriots won their first SB the NFL has had 10 different franchises win a title (not including NE). In comparison, from the Cowboys first title (1972) through the end of their 90s dynasty (1996) only 8 franchises won titles. Many franchises couldn't field competitive teams in the pre-free agency era. During the Patriots run they've beat four teams who were on their own path toward a dynasty run (the Rams, Colts, Steelers, and Seahawks). So yes, the Patriots have faced champion teams during impressive runs and beaten them most years. They've also lost to a bunch of worthy one year wonder teams, the type of teams that were extremely rare in the 70s and 80s pre-free agency. As far as your comment on roster spots/jobs, ok, but QB is a bigger deal than other positions. The two guys I mentioned are their most frequent opponent, so it matters more than the 1500+ players that comprise the league, especially with how long each played with their respective team. Peyton Manning faced the Patriots five different times in elimination games, and each time his roster was stacked and his team was extremely successful against the rest of the league. Are you suggesting his Colts and Broncos teams were lesser competition than Shula's Dolphins faced or Noll's Steelers faced? If so please provide an actual example of when this occurred. Imo it's the complete opposite, the Patriots have won in the more competitive era. If the competition wasn't so fierce the Patriots would've won more titles, they've come up just short so many times. The Patriots have never played in a blowout SB, each one was hard fought and even. There's overwhelming evidence this era is tougher to sustain success than any era in NFL history, but if you have any examples to counter that I'm open to hearing it. The closest thing the Patriots had to an easy title path was 2016, and even that compares favorably to the easy path the undefeated 72 Dolphins had to the SB.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 21, 2019 13:31:17 GMT -5
The league is bad. There really isn't any other conclusion to reach when you have one team with this kind of sustained success. The people tasked with beating them are woefully inadequate. No way you would see this in the old days. There might have been only a few teams the had a real chance, but they wouldn't have allowed this to happen. So, you think the Patriots would've had a harder time if you eliminate the salary cap and have less teams? Belichick would get to groom players for their entire careers while not worrying about maintaining the culture with the constant roster turnover, and wouldn't have to worry about getting his best players poached for top dollar. This team would get Akiem Hicks, Cooks, Chandler Jones, etc. No team gets more talent poached than the Patriots. It was so much easier to sustain success in the NFL during the 70s-90s. The Patriots didn't win a single title between the 04-05 and 2014-2015 seasons, so it seems like things were fairly competitive for a while, right? Or is the league only bad when the Patriots win? As far as the "people tasked with beating them", there's Peyton Manning, who did beat them three times in the AFCCG. If not for Tom Brady and the Patriots it's a lock that Peyton Manning would currently be viewed as the GOAT. Ben Roethlisberger has routinely been tasked with beating them, and while he's a notch or two below Peyton he's a two time SB winner and a clear HOF talent. Moving on, the Patriots have lost three SB's and have been in one possession contests every single time, which is hard to do without strong competition. For perspective, the Red Sox have been in four World Series recently and have lost 3 games total in those best of seven contests. Were the Red Sox just that good, or has the NL simply produced woefully inadequate teams? If you're going to argue the Patriots dominance is a product of an inferior league you'd by default believe the Red Sox dominant WS wins are just a product of inadequate NL competition. Back in the old days there surely would've been an 86 Mets or 75 Reds that would've beat the 2013 or 07 team, right? The only conclusion to reach is Bill Belichick's the most valuable person in sports. The amount of time he's invested in this operation has created a nearly perfectly run team. Despite that, most years, the NFL finds a team that actually can beat them somehow, and even then it's by the thinnest of margins with very few exceptions. Trying to discredit this Patriots run in any way is like trying to discredit the intelligence of Einstein, or the musical acumen of Beethoven, or the wealth of Bezos.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 20, 2019 11:56:40 GMT -5
I get the fear of losing Mookie, but have people watched the free agent market at all the past two years? If there's one "renegade" team not afraid to spend money it's the Red Sox. If Mookie wants to leave or if the Red Sox have some long term concerns with how he'll age that's one thing, but I can't see them simply getting outbid at this point. Free agency is no longer some boogeyman to fear, especially with the Yankees and Dodgers ownership currently caring more about falling in line with the league's effort to curb free agent spending than improving their team. I'm not saying it's collusion, but I don't believe every owner simultaneously realized long term FA contracts tend to have a high bust rate.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 17, 2019 18:18:53 GMT -5
The Red Sox face a budget crunch and will lose key players from their lineup and rotation even if they extend their payroll over the next few years. They need to find undervalued/cheap players to provide an impact somewhere on this roster, you simply can't have an expensive bullpen AND the most expensive rotation and lineup. It's not ideal to have such a cheap/unproven pen on a contender, but it's the best spot of the roster to gamble on. The farm system isn't likely to provide much help to the rotation or lineup over the next year or two, but they have a real shot at delivering bullpen help.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 14, 2019 17:23:32 GMT -5
If you’re Murray, you can go back to baseball at any time. I wonder if a team would even let him still play baseball. Why not get drafted in the first round or second - get a bunch of money and try it out? Endorsements are easier to come by in football too. Baseball season is during NFL OTA's, training camp, preseason and regular season. There's no chance he can do both while being an NFL QB. If he was a cornerback or running back it'd be difficult, as a QB it's virtually impossible.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 8, 2019 14:04:05 GMT -5
The Patriots picked 12 players in back to back drafts (2009-2010), and I'd argue their roster is in a similar spot now. Due to lost picks and bad drafts they desperately need a large influx of young players on rookie deals, and they have less roster locks than normal for next year. I'd be shocked if they stayed put with their picks (and didn't do multiple pick for player + lesser pick trades), but selecting 10+ players is probably the likely scenario this year.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 8, 2019 13:54:50 GMT -5
This is the best Colts team of the Luck era but I'd say the 2006 Chargers (and probably 07) were clearly better/more talented than this current Chargers team, not that it has anything to do with this game. So much depends on Melvin Gordon's health (and to a lesser extent Ekeler), Jackson is a capable back but if Gordon looks like he did against the Ravens their offense is much less dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 31, 2018 17:37:38 GMT -5
I count QB, WR, TE, DT/DE, LB, S as the positions that could most use a first round talent. It'll be tough to land a QB with a first round grade late in the round, so I'd guess the most likely pick would be a DT, DE, TE or WR, but I wouldn't be shocked to see a LB or S being picked either. I guess an offensive lineman could be in play if Trent Brown departs but that would be disappointing with Wynn returning. The OL and CB groups project to be in very good shape moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 28, 2018 13:30:56 GMT -5
I'd add that the Day 2 and 3 players drafted into the NFL are also years away, yet ratings are still good when the 'development' players get picked. Really you don't think there'd be more interest in an MLB offseason draft even though players are years away? Yeah its not 100% the same as other sports, but the similarities are greater than the differences. Strong disagreement here. College football and basketball are extremely popular, college/high school baseball is not.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 11, 2018 13:30:58 GMT -5
I really hope they move Vazquez over Swihart. Idk if that’ll happen, or if Swihart still has some cache with his pedigree that might make him a good trade candidate over Vazquez, but I’m pretty convinced Swihart can be an average-or-better regular defensive C, and i think his offensive upside is still FAR greater. He’d also be cheaper (not much, but it does matter), and have similar control time, as well as being a year and a half younger. Swihart has 1.6 fWAR vs 1.3 fWAR for Vazquez, despite playing 60% as much (essentially 600 PA vs 1000), which would also suggest via the Ted Williams hypothesis that we pretty much know what Vazquez is as a hitter, but that Swihart (and all of the injury time probably magnified this) has plenty of development left as a hitter. With Leon on board, the Sox have a terrific game-caller and defensive specialist. Add tutor to those duties. I’d much prefer Swihart’s upside over Vazquez’s more-defines mediocrity. They went to the WS with awful catching last year, I can’t imagine the downside risk to Swihart catching the bulk of games could really be much worse, and there’s a real (good, maybe even significantly so) chance he’s markedly better. If 3/10 or whatever Vazquez has left is a starter for a trade for a cost-controlled young 7th inning pitcher, I’m all for it. I don't think the MLB playing time is a fair comparison of their remaining upside. In 2017 Swihart struggled mightily in just over 200 PA's in AAA coming off his injury, yet those numbers aren't a part of this discussion because he didn't earn an extended MLB opportunity. Coming off his major injury Vazquez was productive in AAA, so he earned the chance to struggle mightily over nearly 200 PA's in the MLB. In this case we're either rewarding Swihart for being so bad in AAA that he couldn't earn a promotion, or punishing Vazquez for being good enough in AAA to earn MLB playing time. If we gave Vazquez a break on that year while including Swihart's 2017 AAA sample the equation would flip in the opposite direction. Both players have shown flashes of being a league average-ish hitter, but both players best stretches (Swihart's 2015 and Vazquez's 2017) were equally aided by unsustainable BABIP luck. Steamer has them as similar hitters for 2019 with Vazquez having a slightly better line, and for some reason it looks like ZIPS skipped Swihart (EDIT: they added Swihart and he's well behind Vazquez, and for insult behind Leon as well). I can't imagine a team in clear win now mode would enter 2019 with just Swihart and Leon at the position, especially with no viable MLB-ready catching depth on the farm. Personally I'd move Leon and try to make Swihart the regular backup, and if he earns more opportunities they can ride the hot hand. If I had to bet on who the club would deal it'd be Swihart, they just didn't give him enough of an opportunity last year to all of a sudden give him such a huge role for 2019 (unless they acquired a legit starting catcher rather than only Leon ahead of him). Last we saw this team they barely used Swihart while they basically treated Vazquez like a regular catcher, and I don't think an offseason program is going to change that. I'd like to make it clear I'm rooting for Swihart, but his tools (or at least his pre-injury tools) can't be confused with his performance/production, and it's been a while since he produced at any level like a solid average hitter or better. If he was the clearly better present hitter I think they'd consider waiting on him to develop, but he's not a lock to hit better than Vazquez next year and he's clearly inferior defensively at this point. 2019 isn't the year to let a guy grow behind the plate, and this isn't the pitching staff that will tolerate growing pains.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 6, 2018 12:00:17 GMT -5
There are a few side benefits to this. You'd probably want to be Happ or Kuechel at this point. It increases the competition for a shrinking pool of starters and they're floating at the top. They will be a bit pricier also, so the winner on this reverse lottery will be shelling out a bit. It also spreads some good will throughout the clubhouse, as the players see the Red Sox extend to keep a key player despite an already huge payroll. I'm not delusional enough to think players will take team friendly extensions just because they brought back Eovaldi, but this move has to be extremely popular with the team. Eovaldi put the team first during the postseason and was rewarded for it, it'd be a tough sell to the clubhouse to use him the way they did and not reward him for it, especially if he pitched great elsewhere next season. If Eovaldi can't stay healthy or turns into a pumpkin it won't matter for long, but the team has to be feeling good about 2019 and the FO/ownership right now. Hopefully this deal works out better than the Mike Lowell post-WS MVP contract (at least age is on our side this time).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 18, 2018 18:02:03 GMT -5
Divisional weekend is the round played after Wild Card weekend, there is no avoiding the Divisional weekend unless you get eliminated.
Just last year the Patriots had to win a late season game in Pittsburgh in order to get homefield advantage against them in the inevitable AFCCG showdown. Since it's NFL football the Jaguars got there instead.
The most successful Patriots teams generally face adversity on their path to the SB, and the two hottest early-season Patriots teams fell short and were running on fumes by late in the year. There's reasons to worry, but this is far from unprecedented. If the Patriots get right they can win anywhere, if they don't it won't matter.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 12, 2018 11:19:37 GMT -5
It's one game people, good lord. If Belichick sticks around this team will remain a contender and sleepwalk to an AFC East title. No one has won the SB yet, if the Patriots can get themselves right they'll be capable of beating any team.
I am concerned with Brady, he's looked like a mid-tier QB most of this season. He struggled down the stretch last year before getting right in the postseason.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 11, 2018 15:42:10 GMT -5
The defense (in particular the defensive backs) hasn't been good enough, but they've been put in a tough spot with poor field position and the offense's inability to hold the ball for any type of sustained drive. This is the 2018 NFL, 10 points isn't good enough to win any type of game, but plenty of teams win games while allowing upper 20s/lower 30s in this environment.
Also, the kick coverage sucks for this team, they need to boot the ball out of the end zone for the rest of the year.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 6, 2018 12:58:03 GMT -5
I don't get the Britton love at this point. He's a nice depth piece as a ground ball specialist, and there's some chance a healthy offseason will get him close to his previous form, but his contract estimates feel like the definition of paying for past performance. On a one year deal he's an interesting gamble, but it'd be crazy to bet on him for three years at mid-tier closer money.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 3, 2018 10:52:47 GMT -5
I'll be happy if the team doesn't give any reliever significant money on a deal longer than two seasons this winter.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 30, 2018 15:18:02 GMT -5
The Patriots could've upgraded many different areas of the roster, but I'm not mad at holding the picks. This roster desperately needs a young talent infusion for 2019 and beyond, and even though they'll have a few comp picks they'll be picking near the end of each round so it's not like they'll have elite draft capital. They'll have a number of currently injured 2018 draft picks to help next season, but they need to nail this next draft to be a sustainable winner past 2020.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 30, 2018 12:11:52 GMT -5
Rob Gronkowski returning to form as an elite player, rather than merely a very good player, would be bigger than any acquisition they could make right now. I really thought Gronk would be an impact player last night after a week of rest and a game near his home town but it didn't happen. He's still one of the better TE's in football but his play has noticeably dipped across the board.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 28, 2018 22:47:49 GMT -5
The players are incredible, but shout out to John Henry. They've won titles with three different GM/manager combinations, and this ownership group does all we can ask for as a fans. Outspending the Dodgers and Yankees this year was a big help. These owners have done so much for our favorite franchise.
Also, shout out to Dombrowski for putting so many resources into this team during a year the other big market teams were showing unusual restraint. He may have shortened this core's window in order to "go for it", but he picked a great time to do it, and it worked better than anyone could've dreamed.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 23, 2018 11:49:19 GMT -5
Patriots are exploring a deal for Patrick Peterson according to Peterson himself. Also, Belichick stopped talks once Peterson told the world. 😂 They'd have to make a move or two first to clear the cap space, and I'd put cornerback relatively low on the needs list, but he'd change the entire defense. It still feels unlikely, but Josh Gordon seemed unlikely too, so we can dream. The Gilmore/Peterson tandem would likely be the best CB pair in the Belichick era. The Gilmore signing really doesn't get enough credit, he's the rare big ticket FA at a glamour position that has been worth the money (even with his shaky start).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 21, 2018 11:55:06 GMT -5
Just for perspective, Daniel Murphy is only two years younger than Steve Pearce.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 18, 2018 14:44:23 GMT -5
If Smith didn't handle his latest injury so poorly I'd consider him a near lock to be brought back at that number. If Smith has been a pain to deal with since he got here and the club simply doesn't want to work with him going forward, fine, hit him with the non-tender. If that whole thing was an isolated incident from a frustrated player I'd definitely like to see what he's got in ST, especially if they plan to build the bullpen/replace Kimbrel on the cheap.
Even though Smith has missed even more time than Thornburg I'll take his list of injuries over thoracic outlet syndrome, and he at least showed an ability to miss bats in his extremely brief 2018...plus, if we're pinching pennies his salary projection is listed for half as much, so there's that. It's just tough for me to see how a Thornburg flyer would be worth $2.3m but Smith at $1.1m isn't worth it, barring medical/personality issues that admittedly could change the equation in a big way.
|
|
|