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 Jan 1, 2021 13:12:20 GMT -5
Harris had an injury in camp last year. It was minor, but rookies that miss time in camp fall behind initially. The Patriots had Sony, White, Burkhead, and Bolden all active when healthy, and due to roster construction adding a 5th active RB each week wasn't sustainable. Bolden played a core ST role and Harris couldn't fill that role. White and Burkhead were key in the passing game and weren't going to be deactivated for an untested rookie. Sony was the realistic guy to deactivate, and while he struggled last year he was a season removed from turning it on down the stretch and helping them win a championship. The bold move wasn't to bench Harris, it would've been to demote Sony and roll with Harris at the time. Yes, you can argue the Patriots could've activated all five, but remember both him and Sony wouldn't be contributing to the passing game, and after Andrews and both FB's went down the Patriots had a hard time running the ball. How many carries could each get, and would a 50/50 share get the best out of either player? Taking away from another roster spot in order to "upgrade" from your 2nd year first round pick with your 3rd round unproven rookie isn't some obvious move. If this was the Steven Jackson year when the Pats had trash RB's I guarantee Harris would've got opportunities, but they had a veteran group with established roles.
Vereen and White didn't play much as rookies either. They ended up having very successful careers, and now Harris looks like a legit player too. JJ Taylor is hopefully on a similar development plan. So while we can question if these guys could've contributed more as rookies, Bill ultimately developed Vereen and White effectively. I think too often fans and media rationalize strange or unpopular moves by Belichick as being caused by his "ego". If by ego you mean his supreme confidence in his own opinions and decision making, sure. But if you agree he's one of, if not the best coach of all time, don't you want him to trust his own judgment rather than defaulting to groupthink? He'll make his share of mistakes, but the process has been consistent.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 31, 2020 11:59:14 GMT -5
I would have an easier time buying this if it weren't for the fact that Stidham was the presumed starter until mid July. Not saying it's wrong, just have trouble buying into the idea that Stidham was all around good enough in July but isn't now. Cam has said all the right things and his attitude has been great this year, but his play doesn't justify him standing in the way of anyone's development. I'm not sure why mid-July matters to be honest, you don't play games then, and we have evidence since then that suggests otherwise. To compare it to baseball, I don't view the current hole in the Red Sox CF as evidence that the Red Sox are high on Verdugo as the every day CF, he's just the best option currently as the roster building phase is ongoing. Pretend the Patriots did believe Stidham was good enough to be the starter in July, and only signed Cam because the value was too good. What happened after that checkpoint? Hoyer won the backup job. Hoyer didn't become a new guy during camp, and Stidham was able to beat him out the year before as a rookie. Either Stidham regressed on the field, which is bad, or he wasn't carrying himself the right way and Bill wanted to send a message, which is also bad. For the record, I'm not arguing that Cam is in his way, I'm arguing the opposite - Stidham is in his own way. I'm leaning toward believing Stidham's own lack of development is the problem for Bill, rather than belief/loyalty to Cam. Fans think Stidham should get the job by default because of Cam's struggles, but it feels like Cam is only keeping the job by default because Stidham and Hoyer are just lesser options. I'd prefer to watch Stidham against the Jets fwiw, but I do think Stidham has the power to earn the job but simply hasn't done enough (again, in Bill's opinion). I don't believe this is a situation where Cam would always win out regardless of the other options, if Jalen Hurts was the backup instead of Stidham I'd guess we'd be seeing a lot of Hurts for example.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 31, 2020 0:11:25 GMT -5
My guess is Bill doesn't want to hand Stidham an opportunity to start until he's earned it (in Bill's view, of course). When Cam signed most expected he'd start, but Stidham still had a real opportunity too. Not only did Cam win the job, but Hoyer won the backup job, and Stidham didn't really "earn it" back as much as Hoyer just epically melted down and gave it back. Multiple Pats beat guys said the Patriots were disappointed with the way Stidham competed for the job this camp.
For the sake of discussion, pretend Bill knows he's ready to move on from Cam this winter. It would seem obvious to turn the page now and get an extended look at Stidham - unless Cam is notably outworking him inside the facility. Stidham should be hungry as the backup, playing time is the ultimate motivator. I'm not trying to suggest he's Ryan Mallett or a complete loss cause who doesn't compete at all, I'm sure there's gray area there. Ultimately, it just feels like the decision to stick with Cam even after being eliminated is more about Stidham as an alternative than blind loyalty to Cam. If this was 01 Brady or 2016-2017 Jimmy G, he'd have made the switch, right? There are limits to loyalty, and Stidham likely just hasn't done "enough" to get even the temporary promotion.
The team is likely to add a veteran QB to at least compete for the job if Cam is gone, and it's possible they can land a QB who will be the clear day 1 starter. Also, if value and fit line up, there's a great chance they'll draft a guy too. Depending on the level of those investments, Stidham could be in a tough spot moving forward. He needs a big camp next year.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 11, 2020 15:33:42 GMT -5
I'll nominate "the wingman" - he's the pitcher that comes in to help when his buddy (the opener) can't get any further on his own.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Nov 30, 2020 13:28:11 GMT -5
I definitely want to win the division games, if they lose to the LA teams in competitive fashion so be it. Even though 8-8 would be disappointing overall, going 5-1 against the division and ending on a three game win streak would be a nicer consolation prize to me than improving their draft position. It'd be a nice reminder to the division that even in their worst year the Patriots were still successful against the division. Also, the difference in picks for 6-10 vs 8-8 isn't likely to be as substantial as you'd think. Now, 5-11 would be different, but losing the last five games including to the Jets would not be a net positive for this team's development, the draft is important but not THAT important.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 26, 2020 14:25:44 GMT -5
The bottom line is that we need a good quarterback. He is available if we get cute. What if we lost all the rest of our games? That would make us 2-14. We would have to lose 2 to the Jets, which would put us in a tie with them for the worst record, but head to head we would get the better draft choice. That means we could draft Trevor Lawrence and get back to being a dynasty. Simple huh? 11 teams have the same or worse win percentage as the Patriots. 7 teams have 0 or 1 wins. Many of those teams are worse than the Patriots, and they don't have Belichick. There are so many teams that have been a dumpster fire all year, and before the last two games the Patriots looked like a playoff contender. The Patriots have no viable path to a top 2 pick in this season, short of intentionally throwing games.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Oct 26, 2020 13:51:57 GMT -5
Seriously? You, 6 posts above (3 hours ago) - "I guess I am in the minority as well bcs cora at no time with the red sox showed to be anything but an average coach." Average means hes a bad coach seems like your taking liberty with the phrase average. If I wanted to say he was a bad coach I would have said that. He's a typical MLB coach nothing special that does not make him bad just replaceable. You asked, "who said he wasn't a good coach"? He quoted your reply, which suggested he was average. "Average" is not "good". If you called player X an average pitcher, it would be clear you aren't calling him good, even if you aren't claiming he's bad either. It's the same thing here, just because you didn't call him bad doesn't magically change your "average" description to "good". As far as "taking liberty with the phrase", he didn't even use the word "bad" in his post, you inserted that word. If that's how you feel fine, but own the take or rephrase it, don't blame him for quoting you.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 25, 2020 22:35:37 GMT -5
]I said it was a fact they knocked on the door because Walker said they did. He said the police didn’t identify themselves but that they were pounding on the door. He even said Taylor yelled to ask who was it so it was long enough for them to get out of bed and him to get his gun before the door was kicked in. Those are his words so I feel comfortable saying it’s true. To be clear, I was trying to be clear that the second part that started with “Maybe” was speculative as a counter to what you laid out. It was not my account of what happened. It was just another option which is why i said “who the hell knows” and said we shouldn’t speculate. I understand what you're saying, maybe it's just arguing semantics - the difference between knocking on the door in an honest attempt to get the occupants to answer vs pounding the door with the intent to force it open. What's an acceptable standard for announcing yourself (how loud, how long, repeated how many times, etc)? It's ultimately just speculation to say the police did a poor job of making their presence known, but this specific situation should've been avoidable. At the very least we had the technology to document it and didn't, so we can't properly learn from it. My frustration comes from the lack of transparency and consistency we see in this case and so many others, along with the resistance to even minor common sense reforms. The police have a very tough job, partly because they're given so much discretion to navigate vague procedures and standards. They handle so many different situations, often with questionable training. They encounter dangerous people in high risk scenarios and they see acts of evil and violence, all while dealing with institutional forces that make their job even more difficult. The culture is intense, and with so many citizens criticizing the police it's easy to see why they've become more insular. For the earlier "incentive" comment, I was talking specifically about their goal with the warrant. The police officers individually have two incentives to identify themselves, professionalism and self preservation. The goal of the search warrant is to find evidence though, and obtaining a no knock warrant specifically implies more aggressive execution of the warrant. They scheduled it around 1AM for a reason, and it wasn't so she'd be alert and responsive. Ultimately it's a conflict of interest, right? Police want to apprehend them quickly and without a struggle, but they don't want to give them an advanced warning so they have an opportunity to destroy evidence. They want to identify themselves so they aren't mistaken for civilians, but they don't want to give dangerous suspects who mean them harm the upper hand with too much advanced warning. These individual officers are asked to balance these interests, and that's a tough job. It's important to note no drugs or money were found at her house. Police suggested they didn't search the house as thoroughly as normal due to the shooting, but I think that's an excuse for not finding anything to use as evidence. Even if she was involved at some point, she clearly wasn't some kingpin with elaborate stash compartments that police simply couldn't find in time. It's understandable why she was included in the investigation, but there's also evidence that her connection was based on outdated info. She most likely wasn't using some advanced code, she had a romantic relationship with a guy who sold drugs. Maybe it's unfair to question the police's information and surveillance, but it would've let them know her new boyfriend was inside. If they hadn't been following her recently the search was just a shot in the dark based on old information, so that's another problem.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 25, 2020 17:16:46 GMT -5
If you cut out the Majority of you’re first paragraph, I might completely agree with this post. You talk about a no knock warrant giving them no reason to announce themselves but ignore the fact that they banged loudly on the door and for long enough for Taylor and the boyfriend to ask on multiple occasions who it was. The thing about a no knock warrant is it gives no motivation to knock. But they did knock so what’s the point in not identifying yourself? Maybe they did and the people inside didn’t hear over their own voices and the banging on the door? Who the hell knows. This is the problem - we shouldn’t speculate on this stuff. Which is why I agree with the rest of your post. Cops need to be held to a higher standard and they need to be given better procedures and training. All cops should be wearing body cameras at all times to protect them and to protect us. Under cover situations are different but no knock warrants aren’t the same as that. The bolded part is speculation on your part though. You describe knocking as a fact, as if police definitely knocked on the door hoping the occupants would answer. You also suggest the knocking could've been so loud and consistent that the occupants couldn't hear three policeman shouting "police, search warrant" over and over, and the same police couldn't hear two occupants yelling for the "intruders" to identify themselves. I don't know about you, but unless you have a sound proof door that's pretty hard to do by just pounding a door repeatedly with your hands. It sounds more likely in this scenario that the "knocking" was not a knock at that point, but the noise of the battering ram or other tool hitting the door repeatedly until it gained entry. So why knock but not identify yourself? Well, what if they only knocked for 10 seconds or not at all and just went straight to the battering ram? How can we say this "fact" of continued knocking wasn't just the sound of them ramming the door to gain entry? At the risk of repeating myself, the police claimed there was no forced entry in their report, which was obviously not true. The police obtained a no knock warrant. After the incident, the police claimed even though they had a no knock warrant they were told to knock because Taylor wasn't seen as a risk for confrontation. It doesn't speak well of their warrant procedures if internally they don't feel the evidence should lead to a no knock warrant but were able to obtain one anyway, right? They lied about having no body cameras, and we found out later they just supposedly didn't turn it on. Yes, some parts of this case require speculation and reasonable minds can differ, but if anyone can't understand why some people don't trust this particular police department I don't know what to tell you. They haven't been completely truthful, to say the least, and the lack of public trust is undoubtedly their fault. There are many things we don't know about that night, but based on all the facts we do know I believe Kenneth Walker's account more than the police, while thinking the most likely account is somewhere in the middle but still closer to Walker's account. I think I need to make this point too: if police didn't announce themselves, or did but only briefly, it doesn't mean they had sinister intent to deceive. I don't believe the cops intentionally tried to conceal their identity, I think they probably just didn't announce themselves as well as their training told them to (repeatedly, loudly, even after gaining entrance and moving throughout the home). These officers made many mistakes that night, and I'm sure their adrenaline was high before breaking down the door, so once it became time to break down the door (perhaps prematurely) their goals of identifying themselves temporarily switched to knock down the door mode. It would not shock me if these same officers initially did identify themselves before quick knocking and an even quicker transition to the battering ram, but they should've been repeatedly shouting it even after gaining entrance and continued as they move throughout the home. Cops can make mistakes while having good intentions. What's amazing to me though is this police department and local government is literally in the process of changing their procedures and some of their officers to prevent this situation in the future, but nearly half of America wants to act like this stuff just happens and can't be fixed (I'm not putting you in that bucket, rjp313jr).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 25, 2020 13:34:42 GMT -5
"He shot at a cop" is a reductionist argument that ignores context. Her boyfriend wasn't a criminal, wasn't involved in the warrant, and was a legal gun owner. He lived in a red, stand your ground state. The police claim they announced their presence, but the boyfriend claims they didn't despite loudly yelling at the intruders to identify themselves. The police had a no knock warrant approved so they had no incentive to properly announce themselves. I don't completely rule out that the police announced themselves, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they are lying about it after the fact. The only reason police issue warrants at 1am is to catch them off guard while sleeping, the very timing of the warrant increases the likelihood of this scenario happening, and loudly announcing their presence defeats their objective. Ultimately, it's very hard to come up with a reasonable motive for why he would've deliberately fired exactly one shot if he really knew it was the police. Now, the legal argument is tougher obviously, because the laws make it very difficult to charge (and especially convict) police for any wrongdoing. If police served the warrant in a more professional and transparent manner, I highly doubt the officer would've been shot and Breonna Taylor wouldn't have been killed. The city agreed to pay $12m for the police's role, and they couldn't bring the boyfriend to trial despite shooting a cop. These aren't the actions a city would take if this was a normal incident. The boyfriend claims they tried to leverage his arrest to implicate Taylor in the drug scheme, which would not be a unique tactic. So, by law, maybe they shouldn't be held responsible for their death in a court room, because the law is written to uniquely protect police. The problem is, in reality, their actions directly led to her killing, and this is yet another example of a dangerous police procedure that unnecessarily puts lives at risk. The legal protections police have may be necessary, but with these protections police should be held to the highest standard and they've fallen so short here. Police generally fight against bans of no knock warrants or mandatory body cameras, and it takes tragedy for a state like Kentucky to issue these reforms. The officer who was shot got video access to another body camera from a responding officer, and his lawyer is using it to garner public sympathy. We know at least one officer who served the warrant was wearing a body camera based on the police's own photos, and we know the chief lied about this fact. We have no video from the warrant/shooting. The chief was later fired in June, after two cops involved in a separate shooting also didn't have their body cameras on as required (seems, dare I say, a systemic issue with that department). It's almost like the police use these tools to their own advantage, but systemically keep them off when they know high risk police activity is about to go down to protect themselves in case they violate protocol. In a he said, she said dispute they will always win. The law may have been applied properly, but that doesn't mean the laws are just either. Legally, even if it was proven the cops came in with no announcement and killed both occupants only to find no drugs, money, or other evidence, they could've still not been charged, and that's the problem. The police did a poor job in so many aspects: the supporting evidence for the no knock warrant seems questionable at best, the surveillance before serving the warrant was lacking, they most likely didn't adequately identify themselves, they didn't use body cameras to document the incident, and one cop fired indiscriminately after the initial shot. Then, they took months to release the nearly blank police report that listed "no forced entry", no bias, and no injuries for Taylor despite the fact Taylor was already dead. It's one thing to argue the law was properly applied, but to act like the cops incompetence wasn't staggering in this case makes me uncomfortable. This form of policing is a huge risk to society with minimal benefits. I don't want to get rid of police, but I want them to be better than these cops.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 20, 2020 15:13:06 GMT -5
Or put differently, if you go back to, say, 2005, the WS champions have been led by 1st round picks (and often high ones) almost every year. Giants 2010, 2012, 2014 Baumgarner. Cardinals, 2011, Chris Carpenter. Astros 2017, Verlander. Sox 2018, Sale and Price. Nationals 2019, Strasburg. 2013 and 2016 — Sox and Cubs, are exceptions in sharing Lester, a 2nd rounder. The Royals are the biggest outlier of all in 2015. 2009, Yankees, Sabathia. 2008, Hamels, Phils. 2007, Sox, Beckett. 2006, Cards, Carpenter. 2005 ChiSox slightly odd, cause Buehrle was their best pitcher, but Garland had almost the same WAR and was a 1st rounder... though hardly like the others on this list. My point is... since 2005, there have been 4 champions who didn’t have a premier 1st rounder fronting the rotation. Lester was a 2nd rounder. The Royals are likely the only team in that span to win without at least one elite pitcher (maybe the White Sox makes two). This year’s pick is not for this year. Indeed, one can look at this as the post-Sale pick. If he comes back strong, we should still assume he is not *that guy* in 3 years. So who is? Maybe Groome or Mata. But taking the next 1st roundrr to lead a title team seems like a good plan. Most of the players you named weren't drafted by those teams, which highlights there's no one formula for building a WS team. If you draft elite hitters you can afford to buy pitching. If you are a pitching factory, you can use your pitching surplus to acquire hitting. If you draft with an idea of filling a specific organizational "need", you are doing it wrong. Build your draft board and get the best value possible (acknowledging the bonus pool alters the pure BPA strategy somewhat). TLDR; I'm fine with drafting a pitcher as high as #1 if the player deserves it, but I'm also against forcing that pick just to chase the idea of an ace/unicorn pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 15, 2020 14:44:43 GMT -5
So in typical MLB fashion, the league wants to make a bubble but somehow include fans, even though the games will be held at neutral parks. I honestly don't know. Doesn't football have fans ? I assume it's still full contact. Only a few NFL stadiums are allowing fans, but the issue is the sites of these games. These tickets will likely be quite expensive, and they'll naturally attract fans from other states flooding the area to watch their teams play. The MLB switched to this neutral site plan because they worried regular travel (like they've being doing this whole season) would jeopardize the legitimacy and/or completion of the postseason. It'd be a weird move to introduce fans when teams won't be playing in their home market. If they don't trust teams to travel safely during the postseason they shouldn't encourage die hard fans to travel to the neutral sites either.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 15, 2020 12:51:39 GMT -5
So in typical MLB fashion, the league wants to make a bubble but somehow include fans, even though the games will be held at neutral parks.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Sept 14, 2020 0:49:19 GMT -5
I think I’m sticking with 6 wins right now. The offensive line looks like it could be a beast. But I’ve never seen people get so excited about 21 points against a bad defense. This secondary is special, but the front 7 is going to struggle against good teams. The dolphins are terrible. It's not just the 21 points, they fumbled out of the end zone and missed a field goal so it could've easily been 31 points and it wouldn't have changed the performance. Points aren't everything, they held the ball for nearly 35 minutes and consistently picked up third and short on the ground when the Dolphins knew it was coming. If they just had a few long plays sprinkled in with consistent 3 and outs the points wouldn't matter. I really hope Belichick realizes he should be going for two a lot this year. Extra points aren't going to be automatic, and this offensive line plus Cam is basically a lock to convert them at a good enough rate so what's the hold up?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 31, 2020 13:07:15 GMT -5
Philsbosoxfan has it right. Odor's deal is backloaded so the Red Sox would save more in terms of AAV. If the Rangers threw in cash and gave a real prospect it'd be worth considering even if they planned to immediately DFA Odor. The question is what prospect(s) are on the table, and how much cash would the Rangers kick in? Walking away from Eovaldi and gaining more financial flexibility while getting value back seems like a winning move, but if the prospect isn't of much value there's no reason to do it now.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 30, 2020 13:08:43 GMT -5
This might be my favorite Red Sox trade in a while based on the team's situation and value added vs. value lost. Even if both guys bust and never make the MLB, this is a very good trade in terms of process. Clearing a big role for Dalbec is a nice side benefit.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 19, 2020 13:14:19 GMT -5
Right now, it looks like Edelman-Sanu-Harry are the only locks, with Byrd, Gunner O, Meyers, and Ross fighting for probably two spots. Based on practice reports, I'd guess Byrd and Gunner make it as of now. I didn't think Gunner was an NFL caliber player last year but multiple people have been praising his performance so far, and until someone else wins the punt return job he's got the inside track.
Thomas should be easy to stash on the PS at this point.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Aug 13, 2020 17:16:25 GMT -5
Imagine the MLB claiming this season isn't legit enough to determine a draft order, yet it'll be good enough to determine playoff seeding and an eventual World Series champion.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 17, 2020 13:36:55 GMT -5
It's rather simple, seen reports owners are willing to split revenue 50-50, which would put the players a head compared to years past. The players want no part of it. Those articles are crazy funny, completely one sided articles that favor the players. Owners are rich so they can afford to take the extra loss. Players are willing to negotiate, but owners aren't which is crazy wrong. Players won't budge from making prorated salaries, even though the MLB will lose 40% of revenue with no fans. Now given the climate I can see players wanting a little extra, yet expecting owners to eat the complete change in revenue is greedy. The Player Association has been horrible for years. They are picking the wrong time to try and act tough. It's truly amazing how bad they have been for years and years. I could be wrong, but from what I understand the owners haven't been willing to open their books, so the players would have to trust the owners to self report accurate revenue totals. The owners themselves acknowledge players believe owners are hiding profits, and at least one owner suggests baseball "isn't very profitable". If the owners admit players don't trust them to report their own revenue, why would they make the offer in the first place? Without transparency, it's a clear non-starter. Any serious offer of a true 50/50 revenue split includes giving the players access to internal revenue reports. Maybe the owners have recently budged on that issue as I've stopped following the negotiations. If they want to operate in good faith and aren't hiding anything, why wouldn't they be transparent with the players to prove their doubts are misplaced?
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jun 13, 2020 11:35:13 GMT -5
Interesting to note Joe Girardi was fired at the end of this season despite reaching game 7 of the ALCS. The club underachieved their pythagorean W-L by 9 games and we know Girardi has been tough for some to work with so it was probably a justified firing - but it'd be classic Manfred to skip punishment as long as the club promised Girardi would be fired at the end of the season.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 15, 2020 14:10:21 GMT -5
It's an article of different projections for each scenario, he doesn't claim to know how the season will go. He also projects little or no revenue loss if there's a COVID-19 breakthrough in July, which is a different projection for a different specific scenario. If I project the Patriots to go 10-6 if Stidham starts all 16 games, but 3-13 if Lewerke starts those games, you could say I predicted the Patriots at 3-13 but you'd be ignoring the context of the projection (or that I made other projections for other scenarios as well). I don't want to get stuck in the semantics of predictions vs. projections though, so moving on... The projection you've cited ($40-85m cap decrease) is in the scenario of no fans and at least a small national revenue loss. National growth would lower those figures, as would stadiums of 33% capacity. The low end ($40m figure) looks like a reasonable baseline without fans. The high end looks too high if the national revenue only takes a small hit, unless you read the article and saw the mention that games may not be played in the home market. If NFL states don't allow gatherings sufficient for an NFL game and they have to play in a remote/bubble location it'll wipe out almost all local revenue (radio broadcasting fees and some local sponsorship deals would remain) and get near the high end figure. Maybe some states will operate in their home market and others won't, who knows? It would be negligent to assume every NFL state will definitely allow NFL games throughout this season. It's unlikely the NFL season will occur only at remote locations, but that's why it's the $85m figure represents a worst case scenario and not the most likely scenario. Yet he only gives cap projections/prediction on one outcome, the likely one that we were debating. An NFL season without fans. Obviously things can change, yet we were talking about the impact of a season without fans on next year's salary cap. There is zero chance they play a season and you get basically zero local revenue. I'd argue even without a season local revenue won't be close to zero. Unless you think fans won't buy merchandise from places like patriots.com. Is Gillette going to pull it's naming right for the Stadium? It's one of the biggest bargains in pro sports. I bet the Patriots would love it if they did, they would likely get 2-3 times more with a new sponsor. Even if some teams can't play in parks, most have too or there won't be a season. You can think this guy is great. I don't it's a sloppy article that makes it seem like all local revenue is based on fans coming to games. When well over 1/16 of the total NFL revenue is corporate sponsors that counts towards local revenue. It's likely the 2nd biggest chunk of local revenue and he acts like it doesn't exist. Yet in 2018 it was over $42 million per team. You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't change the facts of that article. I'll believe the guy who specializes in the NFL cap over umassgrad2005 with all due respect (*in Ricky Bobby's voice*).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 14, 2020 22:26:58 GMT -5
I think you need to go read it again, he says my guess $40 to $85 million. He's given a prediction. It's an article of different projections for each scenario, he doesn't claim to know how the season will go. He also projects little or no revenue loss if there's a COVID-19 breakthrough in July, which is a different projection for a different specific scenario. If I project the Patriots to go 10-6 if Stidham starts all 16 games, but 3-13 if Lewerke starts those games, you could say I predicted the Patriots at 3-13 but you'd be ignoring the context of the projection (or that I made other projections for other scenarios as well). I don't want to get stuck in the semantics of predictions vs. projections though, so moving on... The projection you've cited ($40-85m cap decrease) is in the scenario of no fans and at least a small national revenue loss. National growth would lower those figures, as would stadiums of 33% capacity. The low end ($40m figure) looks like a reasonable baseline without fans. The high end looks too high if the national revenue only takes a small hit, unless you read the article and saw the mention that games may not be played in the home market. If NFL states don't allow gatherings sufficient for an NFL game and they have to play in a remote/bubble location it'll wipe out almost all local revenue (radio broadcasting fees and some local sponsorship deals would remain) and get near the high end figure. Maybe some states will operate in their home market and others won't, who knows? It would be negligent to assume every NFL state will definitely allow NFL games throughout this season. It's unlikely the NFL season will occur only at remote locations, but that's why it's the $85m figure represents a worst case scenario and not the most likely scenario.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 14, 2020 16:29:10 GMT -5
Umm that article says 40% drop in local revenue $31 million, 100% 80 million. He projects a small drop in national revenue. Then projects a salary cap loss of 40 to 85 million in 2021. He is literally projecting zero local revenue on the top end of his estimate and that is 100% crazy. I got that because it's exactly what he says.I've never said there won't be losses and yes they will be in the tens of millions. Yet the 40% drop in local revenue is the ticket sales and concession revenue. Actually it's slightly higher, but there will be some other losses. $31 million is a fair number, spread out over three years is crazy small. Yet acting like local revenue will or even has a chance to be zero is crazy talk if games are played. He talks about that number and then actually projects it could happen. Each scenario isn't a projection of what he thinks will happen, it's to predict the cap effect in each possible 2020 scenario (normal season, lost season, shortened season, season without fans, etc). He actually believes a lost season is less likely than a COVID-19 breakthrough that would allow a normal NFL season with fans and only minor revenue losses. He's closer to an optimist than alarmist in terms of actual predictions of what will happen. Still, we have to admit it's impossible to know if/when a second wave will hit (or if they'll discover a suitable treatment) so it'd be foolish to assume this season will definitely be completed in full. The projection of a $40-85m salary cap loss is in the event of a 40-100% local revenue loss with at least a small hit to the national revenue, not his actual prediction of what will happen. Obviously, the only way they could lose ~100% local revenue is losing the season, or maybe playing a shortened season at a remote "bubble" location. His scenarios of teams losing almost all of their local revenue include seasons that are suspended, shortened, or lost. The 40% figure is closer to a full regular season without fans, but without disruptions and major issues. Without fans in stadiums or national revenue growth, this figure is probably a good case scenario even if the season isn't disrupted. Many of the elements of local revenue should be disrupted to some level without fans. Teams have been planning for substantial growth each year. Spreading the hit and borrowing against future caps will freeze the cap for at least two seasons. Leaving the cap flat will absolutely have an effect on player salaries. How can they continue to reestablish positional markets each FA class without cap growth. For example, how do the Chiefs reset the QB market with Mahomes and pay him ~$40m per if the cap won't increase? They can and will do it, but it'll certainly hurt other parts of the roster even more than it would've before. Scenarios allow for little cap change, or anywhere from moderate to significant changes…that's why the Patriots are in a good position to deal with any scenario. If they already had a lot of guaranteed money committed to 2021-2022 I'd say the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 13, 2020 20:43:54 GMT -5
My claim is no fans isn't going to tank next year's salary cap and especially if you spread it out over year's. Ticket sales are a small piece of the pie.All my preseason games are on CBS. Oh course you won't get a Romo. If that is local income it could be a good size loss, but let's cross that bridge when it happens. The article you used is crazy basically saying no fans no local revenue. That is just 100% false. The article I posted showed over a billion in local revenue is from corporate sponsors alone. That isn't going away if no fans. Nevermind some crazy other over the cap articles talking about 135 million drop. The NFL has been growing at 6% yearly. TV money is locked in as long as there are games. The salary cap is made up of 55% of TV money, 50% NFL ventures, and 40% local revenue. So how is national revenue going down if there are games? If people aren't going to go out and won't spend money of tickets I don't think it's crazy to say they could buy more merchandise, buy more NFL sunday tickets to watch games, that NFL.com sees a spike in ratings and add revenue. That seems more logical than no fans no local revenue at all. The article isn't crazy, and the author is one of the most respected cap guys who isn't an actual NFL employee. He didn't suggest "no fans means no local revenue", I don't know how you got such an extreme black and white take from that, it's obviously more nuanced than all or nothing. His sole mention of no local revenue was to reference the actual cap figure that specifically comes from local revenue. He didn't suggest he knows exactly how much local revenue will be lost (the 40% example was probably a guess), he just makes it clear there will be a loss, and that ticket sales aren't the only aspect of local revenue that will be regress in a season without fans. His article was certainly more balanced and informative than you make it out to be, but fine, I read more on the subject and only found similar opinions from all the other sources I could find (even though Over The Cap is great for NFL cap information). www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29165716/sources-nfl-teams-agree-raise-debt-limits-150m-clubSeth Wickersham also suggested teams could lose tens of millions in local revenue without fans (tens is vague, I admit), with the expected hit being a main factor in raising the debt limit by $150m for each team. In that same report, he mentions Patrick Riche "estimates the NFL would lose about $138 million in revenue from tickets and game-day fan spending for each week played without fans. A full season without fans could cost the league nearly $2.3 billion, Rishe calculated.". www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/no-fans-allowed-what-empty-stadiums-would-cost-nfl-teams-and-how-theyre-trying-to-solve-the-financial-strain/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/how-nfl-teams-and-players-are-preparing-for-a-major-salary-cap-hit-because-of-covid-19/Jonathan Jones of CBSSports is doing a three part series on the situation as well. He quoted an anonymous executive that doesn't believe any team can replace the local revenue losses, and I've seen similar quotes from executives in other articles on PFT and I believe Peter King. I really can't find credible sources that believe the NFL will make the same amount of money without fans this year, just by increasing other revenue streams. Almost everyone (like Jones) has given great ideas for new revenue opportunities during this time, but even then he expects "regression in even the most optimistic situations", because those opportunities aren't close to enough to offset the projected losses. Of course, we know a full season without fans is not the worst case scenario. Schefter (who is pro-owner/league, so take it with a grain of salt) suggested no fans all year would equate to a ~$100m drop in revenue per team, which matches the projection by Riche. Schefter said owners and executives expect a 30-80m drop in cap space (which would be negotiated and spread out). Mike Florio says there's no way around the NFL taking a revenue hit, and said he can't see how the NFL would avoid a 2021 cap decline in a season without fans. Florio made a great point that the NFL's best opportunity is the NCAA canceling the football season, but it's tough to imagine at least SEC football being cancelled in a world where NFL football is being played across the country. Even without a campus and students I'd expect that conference to play, they need the football money and have the right geographical location. If there's a significant cap hit, the players and owners will have to reach a compromise to mitigate the impact. The regression may not look significant at first (say 40% loss in local, national money remains around the 2019 level, and they spread the $31m cap drop over 3 years), but it ignores that teams have built their rosters assuming they'll have steady growth each year. Rather than getting the expected $10m+ increase each year, they'll get a decrease and/or a flat cap for a couple years. This is why it's uniquely beneficial at this time for the Patriots to have so many 2021 veteran FA's. They can build their future rosters knowing the new landscape. Teams that spent big money the past few years with the assumption revenues would continue to grow exponentially will be in a tougher spot. Teams who are already up against next year's cap will probably clench their buttcheeks every time a team employee has to cough. The national money is tough to figure out, I could see it going both ways but the sources I've read all expect it to stay flat or decrease. I've seen some suggestion that the national tv deals could be partially or even fully guaranteed without games, I have no idea if that's true but it'd obviously be huge. I think your idea that people are going to reallocate their ticket dollars to purchase merchandise is faulty (that'd be a separate lengthy discussion I'd like to avoid), but it's certainly tougher to predict the national impact than the local impact. I hope we have a full season so we can actually find out the results instead of discussing hypotheticals in this time of no sports.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 12, 2020 14:54:05 GMT -5
Concession sales is 3-5 million a year. That article doesn't mention a lot of what you do because they are a small piece of the pie. They play eight home games in front of like 70,000 fans. The big money is paid because millions and millions watch on TV. Also not all local revenues count towards the players formula, corporate boxes aren't included for example. I'd argue patriot.com sells way more gear than the pro shop and it's not even close. Patriot place isn't part of the formula and frankly will do all right without games. They have the bass pro shop. Nevermind players only get 40% of local revenues, yet 55% of TV money and 50% of NFL ventures that's were the majority of their money comes from. Football isn't Baseball were 40% of the revenue comes from games because theirs 81 of them at your park. The NFL is the best pro sports league at making money, I'm sure they can find a few ways to make some more money. Preseason games in Western Mass are on CBS Why wouldn't that be part of the TV deal?The link I shared claims preseason rights fees are local deals reflected in the local revenue, not the national money. Aren't the preseason CBS games on the local WBZ affiliate with the local broadcast crew, rather than the typical national broadcast? You keep claiming local revenues are a "small piece of the pie", but they are estimated to be ~45% of league revenues. So yes, the TV money is more significant in direct comparison, but that's not the discussion here. Forget the national money: if the local revenues drop just ~40% and the national money stays relatively similar, the cap number per team will decrease by ~31m in 2021. You seem to think the national money will greatly increase with higher TV ratings (and as a result, increased ad revenue) to offset the local revenue losses, and that seems to be the disagreement here. Maybe you also disagree that local revenues could drop 40%, but with no fans (and in the event of a cancelled preseason slate) that seems likely, right? Other than local radio fees, everything I've seen connected specifically to the local revenues are somewhat or entirely dependent on fans being present for the games. FWIW, the article claims losing 100% of local revenues would drop the cap by ~$80m. It also suggests the NFL should expect at least *some* drop in national revenue, so the idea it should increase might be misguided. These cap hits can be negotiated to be spread out, but it'll inevitably reshape the market to some extent and teams with flexibility will benefit. My original point was the Patriots flexibility moving forward is especially valuable in this uncertain time, and I stand by that as my main point here.
|
|
|