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 May 11, 2020 12:44:58 GMT -5
I know, I literally said that in my last comment and mentioned most of the other aspects of local revenue. Your article mentions less of them than I did, but literally the second example is concession sales…how will those sales be without fans? I count zero dollars to be made without fans. How will the local corporate sponsorship opportunities be with empty stadiums compared to full stadiums? Most of the aspects of local revenue are directly tied to ticket sales and having fans in the stadium. Also, your local Pro Shop merchandise sales (which I believe aren't shared with the league like NFL.com sales are shared, but I could be wrong) will drop significantly without having fans at your stadium. Also, If preseason games are scrapped you lose the local TV revenue from those broadcasts, as preseason games are usually local broadcasts. You lose all the promotional opportunities that come with a full stadium which will hurt your local advertising revenue. Yes, ticket sales are only one part of the local revenues, but without any ticket sales other aspects of the local revenues are directly affected. You certainly can't just deduct ticket sales and think the other aspects of local revenue will be normal without fans, that doesn't make any sense. The only question is how much money the NFL will lose without fans, and if the cap effect will be minor or significant. Expecting some huge increase in national ad revenue from an increase in TV ratings to offset all these losses is delusional imo.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 10, 2020 17:36:53 GMT -5
overthecap.com/what-could-happen-to-the-salary-cap-in-2021/Jason Fitzgerald (Over The Cap) has suggested local revenues are about 45% of the pie. He says a 40% decline in local revenues would trigger a 31m drop in 2021 cap space. Ticket sales are only one part of the local revenue equation. There will be no concession sales and no more fans flooding the pro shop before and after games. Having no fans in the stadium drops the local advertising opportunities, plus all the promotional stuff teams do during a season. All the benefits that come along with fans flooding your stadium are gone (Patriots Place will suffer for sure). Plus, it's very likely the preseason will be scaled back if not cancelled entirely. Can anyone really imagine each team playing all four meaningless football games in such a difficult environment? They need some type of ramp up, but team scrimmages in a controlled environment away from the scrutiny of TV cameras makes more sense. Losing those preseason games will have an impact.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on May 9, 2020 13:02:15 GMT -5
There's a real chance the 2021 cap could be significantly lower than we expected it'd be before COVID-19. If there are no fans and/or cancelled games the cap numbers could drop significantly even if they decide to spread the adjustment over a few seasons. The Patriots have a lot of key FA's after this season which is partly why they'll have so much cap space, but it's a great time to have thats flexibility. Next offseason we could see a lot of players being forced to sign bargain deals, as a lot of teams could be hard against the adjusted cap.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 30, 2020 14:05:23 GMT -5
The huge variable is the pandemic. If the season doesn't resemble a normal NFL season anything can happen. If the season resembles a normal NFL season, I'd project the Patriots for between 8-11 wins. Of their 8 home games, only two project as superior teams, so I'd predict 6-2 at home. On the road, 6 of the games project to be winnable, so I'll say they go 3-5 on the road for a 9-7 record. For specifics: they'll beat the Jets, Chargers, and Rams on the road and at home they'll beat the Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Raiders, Cardinals, and Broncos. A 9-7 record would be fringy for a division winner, but it'd give them a 4-2 division record so it'd likely come down to tiebreakers with the Bills (and it could/should be good enough to make the new 7th seed if not). If somehow Stidham proves to be more than a game manager and is a solidly above average QB year 1, with good team health I'd expect 11-5 (which is really good considering this year's tough schedule). Given there's still time to add pieces, I wouldn't be surprised if prediction bumps up to 10-6 before the season starts.
Looking at last year's results, if they had Hoyer or an average game manager they probably would've gone 11-5 instead of 12-4. You can really only argue Brady's performance was essential for one win, and that's the second Bills game (and that's generous considering the defense allowed only 17 points at home, QB's should win that game, but I give extra credit for that supporting cast). Then again, you can look at the Miami and KC losses and wonder if it'd be a win if Brady had been just a bit better, so it works both ways.
People discredit Cassel's 11-5 year because it came after the 16-0 year. That's true, but it ignores the following year when Brady went 10-6 with at least the same quality (if not better) offensive cast as Cassel had the year before. Cassel only lost 5 games: 3 were squarely on the defense, 1 was an OT loss (again, squarely on the defense, the offense didn't touch the ball in OT) despite Cassel being their leading rusher, throwing for 400 yards, and throwing a clutch late game tying TD. Only one loss that year (vs. IND) can be put on Cassel, and it's easier to point blame in Brady's direction for specific losses in 09 than Cassel in 08. Despite saying all of that, Brady was better in 09 than Cassel was in 08, and the point is people can overrate the importance of the QB to an individual season's W-L record. Last year, Brady just wasn't essential to the team's W-L record, so losing him isn't as big of a challenge as it would be if this was a team led by its passing offense. Even without Brady, the passing offense shouldn't be much worse than last year (and it could actually be better, even if Stidham won't be as good as Brady was last year).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 25, 2020 13:37:38 GMT -5
Thanks Mobaz. Just found it myself. Guess the 3rd best comment was HIS opinion not industry. It's also such a cop out to include last summer in this discussion. No QB in this draft has had the ability to greatly increase their stock by playing preseason NFL football (or have the GOAT coach vouch for him). Stidham was not going to be a first round pick in any QB class after his final year at Auburn. Adding his NFL time to his hypothetical draft stock is stupid, that's not how it works, if we're going to hypothetically put him in this draft class it'd be based on his Auburn tape, not his Patriots NFL preseason tape. Saying he'd be "no worse than 3rd" suggests there's some argument of Stidham over Tua. Maybe the Patriots would've actually felt that way, but I'd bet the other 31 NFL franchises wouldn't agree. Tua went #5 overall and Herbert went 6th, I'm confident zero franchises including the Patriots would've considered Stidham in those slots. I'm hopeful on Stidham being an adequate starting QB, but the Pats media needs to relax on this guy.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 11, 2020 13:19:25 GMT -5
What you see a lot more of now than before is like the Cooks trade Houston sends a second, gets back a fourth. That equals basically a third, yet teams would rather trade the second and get the fourth than just send the third. They don't lose picks that way. If I'm Houston I love that type of trade, not so much if I'm the Rams. I'd rather have the third and fourth round picks. Yet that's just me, the drafts a crapshoot. I want as many picks as I can get, espically in the top five rounds. It's why if we trade our first I want extra higher round picks, not just upgrading our picks. I want more chances, not just ungraded chances. The fourth round pick Houston is receiving is for the 2022 draft. Picks are roughly downgraded one round for every year you have to wait, so the 2022 4th is closer in value to a 2020 late 5th or 6th round pick. As far as the 2nd rounder vs a 3rd and 4th, the Rams could always use that pick to trade down and add more picks. According to the Rich Hill draft value chart, the 2nd rounder is worth 95.73 pts, while the Texans 3rd and 4th (originally from Miami) would've net a combined 73.16 pts. I do agree that the 3rd round is the real sweet spot value wise in this draft, especially the beginning/middle of the 3rd (the quality may drop off a bit by the end of the 3rd where the Pats comp picks sit). The other value will come in the form of UDFA's, there will be a ton of draftable guys available after this draft.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 6, 2020 16:18:25 GMT -5
This draft is going to be fascinating, and I expect complete chaos and multiple clock stoppages as teams have trouble getting the information in on time. The lack of war rooms will be much more of a problem for teams with shared decision makers than the Patriots. I wonder if all else is equal, would Bill rather load up in this draft or push picks into 2021? There are arguments for both sides.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Apr 2, 2020 14:00:43 GMT -5
Bill Simmons seem to think that Edelman could be on his way to Detroit soon. The Lions re-signed Amendola and already have Jones and Golladay, it doesn't seem like a fit.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 29, 2020 23:03:12 GMT -5
Elway and Manning were draft prospects that hadn't signed their rookie deals yet. They were in a different situation than a QB in the middle of his rookie deal. If Burrows made a leverage play to avoid the Bengals it wouldn't be as shocking, because there's precedent with Elway and Eli. Watson can make it known he wants out, but to really force their hand in the short term he'd have to do something extreme, and that would hurt his own stock and reputation. Given Watson's reputation it doesn't seem very likely.
Back to Burrows, it's interesting to me that Mike Florio keeps speculating there's a chance Burrows doesn't want to play for the Bengals. A move at #1 would really change the mocks, I'd guess the Dolphins would be the favorites to trade up. It's still most likely Burrows will go to the Bengals, but this draft will be must watch television for many reasons (leading reason: there's no other live sports content).
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 29, 2020 18:18:40 GMT -5
What team has done what you are saying? Timing matters on the players part for sure, but if he wants out, they are going to move him and timing won't kill it. Just makes it harder, yet teams would line up to trade for him. Yeah he'll have to lose money or at least be ready to. You can't have the leader of your team request a trade, threatening to sit out and do nothing. You either get him to change his mind or move on. Dragging it out would hurt both sides. This isn't the Steelers and Bell. They couldn't get a massive haul of picks for him. Like I said before, no quarterback has ever done what you're saying... no team has ever been in that position before. How would I find an example if no quarterback has held out like this? Forget a hold out: name the last franchise QB to publicly ask for a trade. The quarterbacks who've asked for trades wanted more playing time (like a Jimmy G or Foles situation), or got replaced (like Sam Bradford after Wentz). The only QB's to hold out were draftees signing rookie deals. You're suggesting the club would need to change his mind or deal him, and I agree, but they have plenty of time. Changing his mind would undoubtedly come through a contract extension. How can they change his mind if they immediately give in to his brand new trade demand? There's a difference between "dragging it out" and not immediately dealing your young franchise QB at his first request, especially given the current timing. What constitutes dragging it out, not reaching a deal within 30 days? The Texans couldn't extend him last year if they wanted to due to the CBA, and it would've made no sense to open this offseason by discussing his extension, that's something you do before or during camp. To have worthwhile contract discussions you'd at least have to go through this draft, and once this draft takes place it'll be even tougher to make a trade before the season starts. Since to my knowledge Watson hasn't done anything except quote Drake lyrics and be cryptic on social media, I doubt it'll come to this. If anything, the Hopkins trade gives them more flexibility to sign Watson to a huge deal. My main point is the Texans have more leverage here, they can control Watson for years to come. I don't see Watson trying to pull some watered down version of 2019 Antonio Brown to force his way out. He can sit out games, be a public malcontent, and he can even retire, but I don't consider self sabotage to be a credible or reasonable strategy. This is all distracting from my first point as it relates to the Patriots and Tom Brady: Watson is not a free agent at the end of the year, because the Texans will exercise his option for 2021. After that, they'll be able to franchise him. In the unlikely scenario they trade him in the next 12 months, I'd imagine the Patriots will be the last non-AFC South team they'll want to send him. It's outrageous that Watson is listed as the betting favorite to be the 2021 Patriots quarterback given the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 28, 2020 20:49:03 GMT -5
Hopkins was under contract for three years being paid money that was the 7th highest for a WRs and got traded because he was going to sit out and not report. If Watson really wants out he can get out, like what are the Texans going to do if he sits out games? It just doesn't seem remotely plausible. Any decision to sit out requires him to come back during the season or his contract will just toll. What's he going to do, sit out and come back, do the same thing the following year, and then get dealt after the Texans franchise him? He'd lose game checks in the short term and it'd almost certainly cost him in the long term. His reputation would take a significant hit. And from the Texans perspective, what type of trade could they make if he's sitting out once camp starts? The draft will be over and the QB jobs will be filled, it'd make more sense to squat on his rights than deal him at that point. It's not logical timing for either side to make a trade or hold out. Yes, it's theoretically possible for Watson to crush his team and become completely uncooperative to force his way out of town, but I can't think of one non-rookie franchise QB to sit out. It'd be entirely unprecedented unless I'm forgetting someone. Comparing a WR like Hopkins to him just doesn't work. The Texans are in position to pay him, but they have no incentive to do it until the Mahomes contract is done. Watson should want him to set the market first too. If the Texans offer him the biggest non-Mahomes deal he has no incentive to leave. The Texans are extremely invested in Watson, and there's no reason to assume they won't pay him.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 26, 2020 15:54:12 GMT -5
In 2021 the patriots are getting 4 more picks, plus will have over 100 million in cap space. One more thing Deshawn Watson is pissed at the Texans and has one year left. This has been a popular subject but the Texans have an option year for 2021 that will certainly be exercised. They can franchise him in 2022. The truth is Watson has no leverage to leave and the Texans can easily keep him for the next three seasons.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Mar 4, 2020 11:36:16 GMT -5
So multiple connected people (Curren, Perry, Floria, Deion Sanders . . .) are throwing around the idea of Brady to the Niners with Jimmy G coming back here (separate transactions of course). While I HATE the idea of agreeing with Felger, he did take his schlock jock hat off for a minute to say that sometimes connected people are given information by sources but are told that they should formulate it as an opinion not a report. He says he knows that Florio has operated this way before. And the idea that a number of people (who are legit in one way or another) are coming up with this all of a sudden could mean that they are being fed it. By whom and for what purpose remains the question. I'd be all about this. There has been a lot of Jimmy G bashing post-Super Bowl, but the guy had started 10 games before this season and was coming off a torn ACL. He looked as good or better this year than Brady did in 09 coming off a torn ACL FWIW. At this point t I think Brady is a marginal upgrade in the short term, but at his age I wouldn't be surprised if Jimmy is as good or better by next season. I also don't think Shanahan is the coach who wants to turn over his offense to Brady and implement his scheme. I imagine this is wishful thinking leaked by the Brady camp as basically every report and rumor has been so far. The fact that it's Curran and Florio suggesting the 49ers definitely points in Brady's direction.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 11, 2020 13:34:24 GMT -5
If expansion to 7 teams is a must, I'd like to see a tweak: give all three division winners the "bye" straight to the ALDS, and make the four WC teams play two rounds of single game eliminations (3 games total in each league). The best WC team vs the worst, and the #2 v #3 seed. The winners move on to the next single elimination game against each other, with the winner earning a trip to the ALDS. At the conclusion of that game, the #1 division winner will choose their ALDS opponent (likely the WC winner) live. Then, expand the ALDS from 5 to 7 games.
This format would give more teams contending September baseball, it'd put even more importance on winning your division, and it'd make the ALDS less flukey (5 games vs 7). It waters down the Wild Card for sure, but the trade off is worth it imo while understanding the arguments of those opposed to it entirely. There are still Yankees fans who complain about 04 because the wild card Red Sox team wouldn't have even made the playoffs under the old format.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 10, 2020 21:40:20 GMT -5
Don't get caught up on the "reality tv" headline - this is as old school as it gets. Calling out your opponent, your squad against their squad, it's literally how every kid grows up playing sports. Fans complain about how players get along too well now and the hatred/competitiveness isn't there. An easy way to spark bad blood is to tell a team "we think you are the easiest opponent". It attracts attention to each series, generates free publicity for the league, helps alert the casual fans the playoffs are starting, and rewards the better teams from the regular season. The best team should get the advantage of choosing their opponent. The 2018 path through the Yankees and Astros was epic, but should the 108 win Red Sox have been forced to play the 100 win Yankees while the lesser Astros got the 91 win Indians? This process will be more fair, less arbitrary, and generates attention for the MLB playoffs. It's not like you have to watch the selection show, but I could easily see it being must watch tv, as coaches/executives or players are always so careful to not insult their opponents. It'll be fun to see them sweat and try to rationalize why choosing that team over others wasn't actually an insult.Insincere diplomatic language that aims to minimize conflict. Thrilling. It's not meant for people who post about baseball on Internet forums though. It's meant to attract interest from people who aren't currently watching the MLB playoffs. It's not going to fix all their issues, but the MLB needs to market their game better, and this is an easy and free way to attract some attention. If it's not your cup of tea don't watch, the selection results will be posted to Twitter instantly. I'd gladly trade the Red Sox Truck Day parade float for this.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 10, 2020 21:01:28 GMT -5
I'd have to know more, but on the surface, I don't care for the whole "reality TV" aspect of it. I'm old school. Don't get caught up on the "reality tv" headline - this is as old school as it gets. Calling out your opponent, your squad against their squad, it's literally how every kid grows up playing sports. Fans complain about how players get along too well now and the hatred/competitiveness isn't there. An easy way to spark bad blood is to tell a team "we think you are the easiest opponent". It attracts attention to each series, generates free publicity for the league, helps alert the casual fans the playoffs are starting, and rewards the better teams from the regular season. The best team should get the advantage of choosing their opponent. The 2018 path through the Yankees and Astros was epic, but should the 108 win Red Sox have been forced to play the 100 win Yankees while the lesser Astros got the 91 win Indians? This process will be more fair, less arbitrary, and generates attention for the MLB playoffs. It's not like you have to watch the selection show, but I could easily see it being must watch tv, as coaches/executives or players are always so careful to not insult their opponents. It'll be fun to see them sweat and try to rationalize why choosing that team over others wasn't actually an insult.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 7, 2020 13:17:21 GMT -5
I don't know how the Red Sox can argue "we still want the player (Graterol), but we now think he's worth so much less that *insert significant piece(s) here* has to be included too.
You either want Graterol or you don't, and maybe medicals can get them to add some very minor consideration to the deal, but the only way you can get a different significant piece is reworking the deal without Graterol. I haven't seen any report claim the Red Sox no longer want Graterol, they just seem to want something significant with him, and that feels very unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 5, 2020 15:39:18 GMT -5
"He throws strikes" is commonly used to indicate someone with good control. You seem to be using it as shorthand for "his control isn't a negative." Not a big deal, but it's more than a pedantic difference and there was definitely a communication issue, which is where the disagreement came from. This is the second time you've used "being emo" to lash out at people who you disagree with. Let's not do that. This. I mean, I'd push back against someone who would say a batter "hits baseballs" but rocks an average or worse K rate. I mean sure, technically he does hit baseballs, but it's a weird way to communicate. It would be even stranger if it was followed up with "well at least his K rate isn't 35%".
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 5, 2020 14:23:49 GMT -5
Yeah, but you're moving the goalposts by comparing him to guys who don't profile as viable starters. Who cares if he's a better bet to start than a guy like Darwinzon? The question is if he'll be a starting pitcher, and that's very much an open question right now. I'm not sure why we'd compare him to guys who profile as relievers instead of comparing him to similar prospects who became good MLB starters. Nothing in his profile, scouting report or statistics says that he can't be a starter because of his control. So why are we talking about it? It's all about developing his changeup. He made the majors at age 20 because the Twins were in win-now mode and no other reason. In 2018 when he was a full-time starter, he threw 102 innings, struck out 108, walked 28 and gave up 3 home runs. Bashing these guys because people didn't want to trade Mookie is already super aggravating. We were talking about it because a poster suggested his walk rates were good, and then me and multiple posters pushed back against that. Then, the poster moved the goalposts and said well his walk rate isn't as bad as guys who profile as relievers, and I questioned why that's important. I never said his command is what will keep him from being a starter, I'm more worried about his delivery being sustainable as a starting pitcher. I wasn't bashing him at all, and if you think he's a lock to be a starter good for you. The Twins own pitching coach called his delivery "violent" and literally said they were trying to make it more healthy. So yeah, I'm skeptical he'll be a starter but I'm rooting for him. He's talented and certainly could do it, but questioning if he'll be a reliever is not bashing, in fact prospect lists who rate him highly suggest he could ultimately be a reliever too. He could be an excellent reliever with real value.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 5, 2020 14:02:59 GMT -5
People who walk 5 batters per 9 aren't starting pitchers though. True, and that’s a good thing he doesn’t do that Yeah, but you're moving the goalposts by comparing him to guys who don't profile as viable starters. Who cares if he's a better bet to start than a guy like Darwinzon? The question is if he'll be a starting pitcher, and that's very much an open question right now. I'm not sure why we'd compare him to guys who profile as relievers instead of comparing him to similar prospects who became good MLB starters.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 5, 2020 13:52:22 GMT -5
His walk rate between Double-A and Triple-A last year was 10.1%. That's not troubling or anything, especially considering his plus stuff, but it's not also in the range where I'd say his control is good. Well most people with his stuff walk 5 batter per 9, so I’m glad he keeps it between 3-4 per 9 at the higher levels. He throws strikes. He throws them at 100 mph with movement. I didn’t say he was Zack Greinke. People who walk 5 batters per 9 aren't starting pitchers though.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 5, 2020 13:46:13 GMT -5
Let's say they threw all the money in the world at Mookie, like some of you seem to be suggesting they should have. If that's the case, they probably can't extend Devers. Unless you just want to have those two and a bunch of 0.5 WAR guys. You can't win without stars. Obviously. But you have the luxury to trade your star and sacrifice wins in 2020 when you still have two more young stars that are already really good that give you a window in 2021 and on. It sucks to lose Mookie, but it'd suck to lose Devers too. This just isn't true, at all. It wouldn't be "all the money", it'd be ~$35m annually. The wasted money on Sandoval and Hanley exceeded that, and that didn't stop them from signing Sale, Eovaldi, Bogaerts, etc. Also, how does this trade give them a window for 2021? The only scenario where they can contend in 2021 is if Sale, Eovaldi, and others rebound along with some breakouts, and in that case they likely would've contended this season with Mookie and Price. If you didn't believe in this team this year I can't understand how 2021 would look like a contender.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 5, 2020 12:26:45 GMT -5
Burn it all down with no regard for this season or next. Trade literally anyone on the roster if you think it's good value. Who cares, this team isn't good, and if they didn't believe this core could contend with Mookie and Price there's no reason to believe the 2021 team should contend either.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 5, 2020 0:35:29 GMT -5
I hope ownership knows they won't have next year's first round pick taken, as there's obviously a decent chance it'll be quite high. Olney recently suggested the investigation is very much active and the league thinks they have something, so I don't know how they could be so confident. Having a 73 win season while watching the first round pick get taken is some added nightmare fuel.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Feb 4, 2020 22:58:21 GMT -5
I don’t understand why people don’t get it. Mookie was hellbent on testing FA. offering him a 12 year 400+ million deal is stupid and would cripple The Sox for years. This wasn’t like Lester. They offered him 300+ million last offseason (before this past season) and he turned it down. You let him walk at the end of the year and you get pretty much nothing. This wasn't like Lester in the sense that Lester refused to counter or negotiate after the Red Sox low initial offer. Mookie actually countered the Red Sox offer.
|
|
|