RedRamage

Just did it again for a full 7 rounds... note that I only accepted trades that were offered to me. I did NOT propose or force anything.

I tried Profootball Network's draft sim... um... I think it's kinda broken. I got offered so many trades, here's the results of round 1: Note also that the Lions also picked up a few picks for next year: Jets' 6th round pick Panther's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th round picks.

The other Grand Jury was denied?

Hmm... Maybe the Browns hold onto Mayfield a little longer??

The value of draft picks has just dropped like a rock this off season. So many huge trades with multiple picks being exchanged. Is this the NFL (over?) reacting to the Rams getting a SB championship by giving away all their picks?

After a LOT of phone calls and and wheeling and dealing, I think this sets the Lions up for a lot of success in the future. The 2nd round really has been a great spot for the Lions in the past after all.

I just watched a bunch of Willis highlights on youtube and I can't say that I'm overtly impressed. It's not that he was bad... not at all. But I just wasn't wowed either. Of course, that's my opinion as a just who watches the Lions and very little else so I'm certainly not an expert.

This is guys... I found clearly the best mock draft by clearly a well informed, super heavily researched writer: https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/eagles/2022-nfl-mock-draft-eagles-get-help-wideout-defensive-line With all those holes to fill, clearly we should draft a player to perhaps the strongest position on the team. Makes perfect sense.

A 3rd? Look, I know Ryan is sorta past his prime and all, but with the prices being set by Watson and Wilson that seems like a HUGE discount.

I read or heard somewhere a number of years back that when players rise and fall in the mock drafts that this isn't the player rising and falling in NFL team's opinion, but rather it's based on what the media is hearing. The teams have mostly decided how they are rating players obviously some fluctuation based on new info... but the majority of the movement is just that leaks* are happening that make the media go: "Oh, this guy is now being highly rated so he should move up on my mock draft!" *And of course some of those leaks might be false leaks as well!

That's pretty interesting if true... and pretty smart of them (Watson and his agent) as well. The thing is when you trade that much future capital away you're kinda in the "win now" mentality. If Watson could miss a half season or more that makes it hard to win now. I guess Watson is still pretty young (only 26) so there's time, but without a first round pick for the next three years (or two if they get one back for Baker-Mayfield), that's going to be a bit of a talent drain.

That's why I said "At the very least." Most owners view this as a business and expect a profit. Some might be willing to shave the profit line down because they really want a winner, but most won't. Every once in a great while you'll see someone like Mike Ilitch who seemingly was willing to take a loss (maybe) because they want to win very badly. Your comment, while true, does nothing to support or counter my comment that most owners, while capable of running their teams at a loss, won't do that.

Sure they can... but that doesn't mean most will. The vast majority of sport's team owners do not dump money into the team without expect (at the very least) for it to break even on revenue. Just because fans want owners to be willing to operate the team at a loss doesn't mean it'll happen.

Do the Marlins have any power hitters from middle America?

Yeah... the owners see it as an ok way... and obviously the players do as well because they wanted it and fought for it to be bigger. I just don't see it as a decent want to address the problem because I don't think MLB teams regularly tank for a higher pick. I'm sure a team isn't going to be unhappy getting a higher draft pick, but I just don't see teams deciding to be bad so they'll get the #1 pick the following year. Draftees generally take a while to move up to the majors so it's not an instant boon like in football or basketball. I'm not sure when the last time... if ever... a rookie draftee was on the opening day roster of the major league club. Add in the timing of the draft and it's even less likely. What I mean is if there's college football star teams are seeing that during that year, seeing the hype, seeing the production and can tank that year to get a better pick. In baseball if there's a college or highschool guy who's lighting it up during this spring... well, draft order is already set from last fall. Obviously I'm just some sport fan on the interwebs so maybe I'm completely wrong. I just can't see a team tanking primarily for a draft pick slot. At best the it's the 3rd biggest drive imho.

It's probably more accurate to say tanking for draft picks doesn't really happen in baseball. A team won't try to deliberately lose in order to draft that star player. Instead I think MLB teams are just more likely to not spend much on payroll to make more money for the owners. This is why I think a draft lottery is a silly way to address the problem.

I'll bet you 1 million rubles.

I get the feeling that the anti-trust exemption is more of a figurative trophy than a real-life treasure. That's not to say that things might not change if MLB is stripped of it, but I don't think it will radically change the majors nor will it radically change the bottom line for the MLB teams. The other major leagues (NFL, NBA, NHL) have obviously shown that a major sports league can be successful without the anti-trust exemption. It feels more to me like something that congress and threaten MLB with if they want MLB to do something, and then the MLB (appears) to do the thing to make congress happy. It's just a show... congress gets to appear like they're doing something, MLB pretends to be majorly worried about it so congress can feel like they have all the power still. The fans just sit back and roll their eyes.

Interesting things I found in the CBA (or at least the summary on this page). YES! I'm happy with both of those things. Not a fan of this very much... I mean I don't anticipate major changes to the game play during a season, but in theory this could happen. I would hope that discretion on this would be used, but I'd hate to see a team build their roster a certain way and have success, then suddenly the other owners don't like that they succeeding and change the rules half way through the season. Meh on the base size... I could take it or leave it. I like the pitch clock though we'll have to see how it's implemented. Hate the rule against shifts... though it theory I dunno how much of a real change it'll be. If the SS in a shift normally plays five feet from second base, now he just plays right on the other side, then scoots over a few steps as the pitcher throws. I don't see this as being very effective. I guess depending on where those picks are it might make a difference but I can't see any team saying: "I can either manipulate service time and keep this player longer at a lower cost... or I can promote him and maybe he'll do good enough to earn me some picks that maybe will turn into something like 5 years from now... maybe." Not a fan of the lottery personally. I just don't think there is enough incentive to NOT tank because I might not get the 1st draft pick. I don't see the draft as being as important in MLB as in the other leagues. Maybe I'm wrong... maybe this will be a driving force but I don't see if right now. Maybe if draft position also applied to the international that is, the same lottery results for amateur hit for international... heck maybe in Rule 5 draft as well.

I don't watch NBA, so no reference. I suspect that in a year or two I won't ever notice it anymore as odd but for a while I'll feel the "purity" of baseball has been shattered.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/03/mlb-mlbpa-reach-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.html Can't say that this makes me happy. 🤢

Yeah, I guess I'd agree with that.... going in if they are of the opinion that they MUST get a QB in the first round... use the first pick for it. However, I strongly hope that they are NOT going into the draft thinking that they MUST get a QB in the first round. Locking yourself into a situation like that is how you end up losing the draft. I can foresee a situation where they take Hutch or Thib at 2... and then like the 3rd best QB falls to 32 and they grab him, not because they MUST have a QB in the 1st but rather because they're surprised he fell there and he's the best option to help the team.

I wouldn't mind him not being in the division anymore. What the chargers offering? They picks next century? Do you think that maybe the Chargers will just keep trading away future picks and then just fold up and quit? Can a team declare talent bankruptcy and just not have to pay off their trades?

Not that I think athletes are saints... I mean give a 20 year old millions of dollars and make 'em think they are kings of the world and I think most of them will do at least a few stupid things... But something are stupid, and somethings are pretty despicable. I don't think I'd want someone on my team who has a pattern of repeated sexual abuse. It's gonna be interesting... he's got 22 suits filed against him. How many are real and how many are people just looking for a pay day? If all the cases are dismissed, then what? He's assumed innocent until proven guilty, but I have a hard time thinking 22 women are all making it up. Watson's lawyer has stated that some of his interactions with massage therapists did involve sexual contact but that it was consensual. At the very least we know that Watson, on multiple occasions, fooled around with massage therapists. At the very least we know that he has a hard time keeping it in his pants. Looking at it from the outside... it wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson tried to coerce a number of therapists into "happy endings" and probably didn't take the first 'no' for an answer. I'm not saying he straight up rape anyone... I don't think anyone is accusing him of that. But I suspect he probably did put some pressure on them both verbally and though "accidental" touches. All this said, according to his wikipage there are "18 professional massage therapists have since expressed support of his character, saying that the allegations contradict their experiences with Watson."

That's probably a valid argument. IIRC there were rumors that Bronco's where trying to get Stafford so there's inevitably going to be some idea that: "Holmes should have traded to Denver... look at how much more he would have gotten!" But this obviously assumes that they would have offered anything close to this last year.