Friday, April 9, 2010

17 comments It's a Peter King Mailbag!

I am not going to do my normal whining this week about Peter King's mailbag being too short, even though I probably just did whine a bit by just making that statement. Today he has a 2 page mailbag because the Eagles made a huge trade and he needs more room to discuss this trade that has elevated the Redskins from not being a playoff team to an outside contender for a Wild Card spot. The entire balance of the NFL has changed, don't you know?

Today, Peter talks about how the Redskins got McNabb, which is something I know at least 10 people are interested in. Peter is great at telling how things happen AFTER they occur, as opposed to actually getting information BEFORE things like this occur. If you ever need someone to give a recap of an event after it has happened, then Peter King is that. If you are looking for someone to actually break NFL news, then Jay Glazer is your man.

I am shocked he didn't tell us that Brett Favre's daughter had a baby in his mailbag (not literally a baby IN Peter's mailbag, though that would be interesting and possibly the highlight of Peter's life), I thought this would be something he would feel the need to share with the world. I wonder if he asked for the baby to be named after him?

While we can debate the wisdom/insanity of trading an in-his-prime quarterback within the division to a rival that desperately needs a QB,

And better wide receivers, an offense line, and probably a few cornerbacks as well.

we won't know for two or three years whether Eagles coach Andy Reid did the right thing for his franchise Sunday night in dealing Donovan McNabb to the Redskins.

This is somewhat factually incorrect. Kevin Kolb should be able to step in right away and play well and so should Donovan McNabb. We should actually know this year if Reid and the Eagles made the right move based on how these two quarterbacks perform. We may not know if the compensation for McNabb was satisfactory this year, but we will at least know after this season how the move from McNabb-to-Kolb worked for the Eagles.

From the fans in Philly unhappy with getting "just a second-rounder and something next year'' for McNabb, I'd say that's a pretty silly way to look at it.

You can trust Peter King on this as proven by the fact he is almost never correct about anything he predicts or says.

The third/fourth-rounder next year is currency, a chip for a Philadelphia team that aggressively trades picks and players and is married to no one.

They are married to no one except for their head coach that traditionally mismanages the clock and absolutely refuses to run the ball. Other than him, they are married to no one.

Let's look at the value they acquired using the draft chart first put in play by the Cowboys 20-some years ago to help Dallas make quick decisions on draft-day trades by assigning every pick a point value,

Yes, let's use the draft chart from 20 years ago that is semi-irrelevant in measuring draft pick value in today's NFL. That sounds like it would be an incredibly inaccurate thing to do.

with a slight twist.

Teams of Peter's choosing have their draft picks get a higher value based on Peter's perception of how smart those teams are? Each of New England's 2nd round draft choices are worth 10,000 points on Peter's draft chart.

The draft-day chart makes no allowance for a good or bad draft. Because this year's draft is clearly above average, I'm going to inflate the 2010 second-round pick by 10 percent.

Somehow he managed to make this even dumber than what I jokingly suggested.

So because this NFL draft is "supposed" to be a good draft, we are just going to assume better players will come from this draft and make these players more valuable compared to a normal pick on an average year would be? From the start, Peter has absolutely ruined the ability of this to be a relevant or accurate measure of whether the Eagles got trade value out of McNabb.

My point is we have no idea if this year's draft actually is better than an average draft, so it is a bit unfair to bump up the values based on a perceived value of the players that can't be proven.

And to assign value to the 2011 pick, I'm going to arbitrarily give the value of a sandwich pick between the third and fourth rounds -- the 97th pick overall.

It's fine to arbitrarily give this pick a value, but throwing in the fact Peter is giving the 2nd round pick more points based on a perception of more value and he is just randomly giving this 3rd/4th round pick a value...I can't say his conclusion is going to be terribly accurate.

The total value, then, from the McNabb deal is 695 points. That translates to about the 26th overall pick in the draft. (This year, the Cards pick 26th, with a value of 700 points for the pick, and Dallas picks 27th, with a value of 680 points.)

So basically the Eagles got a 1st round pick for McNabb.

I understand that if I'm inflating this year's pick, it stands to reason that the 26th pick would have an inflated value too.

Right, so the 26th pick would have a value of 770 points, which means a pick of 695 points on Peter's "inflated for the 2010 draft" chart would have a value between the 29th and 30th pick, which have 682 points and 704 points respectively. So the Eagles essentially moved up 7-8 spots from the 37th pick by also getting a 3rd/4th round pick.

But I inflate because I know the Eagles could well use the 37th pick as trade bait, and there's a good chance it will have more value in dealing for a future pick (a first-round pick in next year's draft, for example).

So I don't really know what this means. Trying to predict and inflate the pick based on what Peter "thinks" the Eagles will do seems pretty fallible to me.

Philadelphia has dealt a second-round pick for a one the following year.

They haven't done this yet. They have traded Donovan McNabb for what is a late-1st round pick. That's all they have done at this point. Speculating what they MAY do is what causes this example Peter gives to be inaccurate.

And with such a strong crop atop the draft, it would stand to reason that the 37th pick in 2010 would be worth a first-rounder in 2011 to many teams. So if McNabb ends up being worth picks in the middle of round one and middle of round three, for example, in 2011, then we'd be talking about much greater value than we're talking about now.

Peter is getting a little separated from the real value the Eagles have gotten RIGHT NOW for McNabb. Fuck what Peter believes they will do with the pick, it is important to know what the Eagles got for McNabb right now. He needs to quit with the bullshit hocus-pocus prediction crap and focus on what has actually happened.

If McNabb ends up with that value of a 1st and 3rd round pick, then there is greater value, that's true. The problem is the Eagles don't know the value of the 1st round pick they have acquired until next year's draft, so we won't know the real value of McNabb until that point. If they trade the 2nd round pick for a 1st round pick that ends up being 31st or 32nd they have actually lost value according to Peter's messed up chart. The overall haul of what they got for McNabb was worth the #29 or #30 pick this year, but remember Peter has already inflated the worth of this 2nd round pick because the 2010 draft is filled with so many better players, so I don't know what a 1st round pick for 2011 would be worth in regard to a #37 pick in 2010 without Peter's inflated value.

Last year the Carolina Panthers traded their 2010 pick and for the #43 pick and I they got a 4th round pick back as well. I am not sure the Eagles would be able to trade a 2nd round pick at #37 straight up for a 2011 1st round pick. Obviously it could happen, but this is all speculation. Right now the Eagles traded McNabb essentially for a late-first round pick. Peter can talk his way around it all he wants, but we can't predict what will happen in the future.

He should focus on what the Eagles got in return right now for McNabb...and possibly quit randomly inflating a pick's value by 10% based on a perceived increase in value based on how strong the draft is supposed to be.

If I told you that you could get the 26th pick for a player you felt like you really wanted to trade, wouldn't you think that's a good deal?

Yes, I would. I don't get why Peter isn't inflating the value of the 26th pick in the 2010 draft if he is inflating the value of the 37th pick in the exact same damn draft. If you inflate one pick's value, you have to inflate the other pick's value. So the pick the Eagles received is actually 29th or 30th because he has to inflate the worth of the 26th pick in the 1st round. He can't just assume the Eagles will trade the pick.

I would -- even if the player ends up on a division rival -- if you're confident the player you have is better, and if you're confident the player you're trading has enough inadequacies to his game that you don't think he can hurt you.

Not to mention they just traded McNabb to a team that was not very good last year. Maybe I am underestimating McNabb's value to the Redskins, but I have a feeling this will end up being a great trade for the Eagles.

I appreciate the flood of e-mails and Tweets about my Donte Stallworth story Monday. Some of you thought I was balanced; some thought I was too pro-Stallworth.

Not shockingly, no one thought he was too hard on Stallworth. I think Peter King could have given Pol Pot the benefit of the doubt in an interview and believed what he was saying when he says he didn't mean to kill a ton of people.

Many of you wrote to say you didn't believe that Stallworth could have tested at a blood-alcohol level of .126 by having, as he said, four shots of liquor and no other alcohol, and then being tested after the death of Mario Reyes -- about three hours or so after he consumed the alcohol.

Probably because this is pretty much biologically impossible. Though Stallworth did run a 4.4 40 yard dash for the Ravens, so maybe he is the exception to the rule that goes for nearly every other human of his weight and size.

From Brian Geraghty of Berkeley, Calif.: "Hi Peter, thanks for the great columns each week.

Well we know from the get-go this guy is a delusional idiot based on this statement. Let's proceed with this knowledge.

I don't think I can believe Donte Stallworth is trying to change his image when he's obviously not being truthful about the night he drove drunk and killed another human being. The guy weighs 200 pounds, had four drinks in four hours and took a nap in between and still blew a .126? Ridiculous. I'm a California Highway Patrol Officer and know that you'd have to be a 100 pounds to have that BAC after 4 hours. Let's be honest and say that Mr. Stallworth is trying to rehab his image because he wants to get paid more money.''

Or I could completely change my mind about him and say that Brian from California is absolutely correct. As an adult human being, Peter King should know that Stallworth's story doesn't check out no matter how sincere he seems in telling it.

I wish I had been raised in the Peter King household. There is an untold amount of shit that I would have gotten into and then lied myself out of it. Peter seems to believe whatever athletes tell him, there is no way this doesn't go for his personal life too.

"No dad, I wasn't smoking pot in my car. That's incense. I don't care that you found a bag of something that looks like and smells like pot. What you think is pot is really part of a plant I plan on putting along the side of the highway in honor of those who have tragically died in car accidents. And no, that's not cocaine either. It's really strong sugar I put in my coffee. You know how us Kings like our coffee strong!"

PK: Fair point.

No. This is a factual point that really can't be argued.

I checked out the California Highway Patrol website and used the chart that can estimate blood alcohol content after a certain number of drinks, and the BAC would read about half of .126. I reached out to Stallworth on Monday night, told him of the skepticism, and asked him for a response.

I can see Peter King pacing the living room and sweating for a bit at having to confront Stallworth (via text message by the way) over this inaccurate drink count. I bet Peter downed at least 9 lattes before texting Stallworth.

He said via text message: "Regarding the officer, I think I'll just let my words stand on their own. I'm trying to move past this and I don't want to go back and forth with every person who has an opinion that really doesn't know the facts.''

"I'm not going to change my story at all because then I will look like a liar. I am not going to argue with people who try to point out my story doesn't make any scientific or factual sense. There are circumstances this man can't understand, like I need to make more money by playing football, and would prefer if I can tell my story without someone trying to poke holes in the obvious holes in my story. That's the reason I did the interview with Peter King. He doesn't question anything."

You'll have to judge for yourself whether Stallworth was more than just marginally impaired when his car struck a man and killed him in the pre-dawn hours of March 14, 2009.

Because it is pretty obvious how much Stallworth had to drink and Peter is too chickenshit to publicly acknowledge Stallworth lied to him and he bought it.

Sorry Peter, I believe the highway patrolman. He has probably heard every story under the sun for every possible traffic violation in the book. You can't really bullshit a cop and if this cop calls bullshit, I believe him.

From Andrew Lane of Brandon, Manitoba: "Thanks for the story about Donte Stallworth. Like so many things, this story is not clear-cut; you did a great job of presenting the story without judgment, yet with a deep sense of the emotion that this tragic event generated for all involved. I wish Mr. Stallworth well and I extend my condolences to the family of the man who died in the accident.''

I am with commenter Dylan. Stallworth hit a person and killed a person while driving drunk and that is about all there is to say about the situation. Sure, there are intricacies to the story, but the bottom line is that he drove drunk (and supposedly high) and a person who wasn't being cautious in traffic died.

From Steve of Fairfax, Va.: "I am curious to understand what the Eagles will do with Mike Vick and his $5.6 million contract if he is not the starting quarterback.''

He'll be the NFL's most expensive toy that gets used 3-4 times per game to throw off the Eagles' offensive rhythm and prove that Reid nor the Eagles made a mistake in signing him. Basically, Vick is a luxury on a team that probably doesn't want him being the true backup.

PK: He'll be the backup to Kevin Kolb, and play his 2009 changeup role at least a few times each game -- and more if Kolb is either injured or lousy.

I've made jokes about Vick in the past, but do Eagles fans really feel comfortable with Vick starting for them? Vick is a great change-of-pace, but with those weapons on the Eagles offense does Andy Reid really want Vick getting them the ball? Roddy White blossomed in Atlanta after Vick was no longer the QB, that tells me a little something, and I still don't believe Vick will be a great throwing quarterback at this point in his career either.

From Craig Ikens of Chicago: "As a lifelong Lions fans, I've been very impressed with the work of Martin Mayhew since he took over for 'he-who-shall-not-be-named.' It's already been a very business offseason (Corey Williams, Kyle Vanden Bosch, Nate Burleson, Chris Houston and now Rob Sims). What are the impressions of Mayhew around the league and your impressions of his work to date?''

Apparently overpaying (even though they had to, of course) for free agents is something that impresses the Lions faithful. Mayhew has done a decent job, but Vanden Bosch isn't the player he used to be, Chris Houston has underachieved, and Nate Burleson is really a #3 receiver. Mayhew hasn't done a bad job, but it hasn't been his free agent signings that are the key to the Lions potential turnaround. It's his draft from last year.

PK: Mayhew got high grades among his peers for the compensation he got from Dallas for wideout Roy Williams (first- and third-round picks),

Cowboys fans everywhere are slapping their hands against their head in frustration right now.

and his first draft -- I believe -- will go down as a very good one, with a quarterback, tight end and safety who should all be cornerstone players. Louis Delmas, as you've seen, is a terrific tackler and rangy cover player in the secondary. The reviews so far are very good.

Notice how Peter didn't say anyone had given good reviews for the Lions free-agent signings, but only listed their draft choices for last year. They have so many good options in this year's draft, they can't help but get a good player.

From Rich of Minneapolis: "I don't think enough attention has been made to the Lions possible drafting an OT. You mentioned it in MMQB, but most mock drafts have the Lions penciled in taking Ndamukong Suh or Gerald McCoy, defensive tackles.

Enough attention hasn't been paid to the Lions drafting an OT at #2 because it would be stupid for them to do this. Both McCoy and Suh are bonafide potential Pro Bowl defensive tackles and no-brainer picks for the Lions. Why in the world would the Lions reach at #2 to get an offensive tackle when they still have a need at defensive tackle and the defensive tackles available look like they could be great players?

I don't think it can be underestimated that the NFC North has three very legit pass rushers (Julius Peppers, Jared Allen, Clay Matthews) and the Lions can't afford to have Matt Stafford on his back as much as he was last year. Don't you think it's possible that even if they stay at number two that they take Russell Okung, the tackle from Oklahoma State?''

First, off Clay Matthews is a linebacker in a 3-4 defense, which means he doesn't always rush from the side of the left tackle. Julius Peppers is going to be moved around in the Bears defense so they are going to focus on the matchups they like on the offensive line. Basically, drafting Okung for the specific purpose of blocking these three players may end up being fairly futile, so it is not exactly smart to do this.

All this aside, it still doesn't make for the Lions to ignore drafting the best available player at #2 since they have many needs on that team.

PK: My belief is the two defensive tackles -- a position of great need for the Lions -- are such strong value that Detroit would take their DT of choice at two and then take an offensive tackle with the second-round pick.

For once, Peter is right. McCoy and Suh are such good players, or at least seem like they will be, no team in the Top 10 should really pass over them (outside of a team that has another huge need) for another player.

Maybe this is why the Lions have suffered over the past many years so much. Maybe the GM's think like the fans and want to draft a guy who isn't as good as other guys available because the Lions want to match up with other teams in the division.

-I have to add one more thing I found on ESPN.com and it just made me laugh pretty loudly. Nick Turturro tells Scoop Jackson he can save Major League Baseball.

I know you are thinking, Nick Turturro, who is that? He is an actor of course.

Here are his thoughts...and he is serious.

"They need a guy like me to come in and loosen up the sport," Turturro said while walking to down the streets of Boston. "Humanize it."

Right, because nothing humanizes the sport of baseball like an out-of-work actor coming in and trying to hang out with athletes.

Turturro said today's players act like movie stars.

So they need a television star to show them how not to act like a movie star?

"A-Rod, he's like a robot. They should let me come in and loosen him up, give him a massage or something."

It sounds to me like Nick Turturro just wants to hang out with A-Rod and needs any excuse he can find to do so. Also, offering to give A-Rod a massage is incredibly shady. If someone told me they wanted to do this, I would probably laugh in their face for a minute or so.

"Albert Pujols? He's another one. I'd take him dancing. I'd take him to a Dominican club, make him do the merengue, get back to his roots. See if he still has that DR rhythm," Turturro said.

This is so very stupid. Like taking Albert Pujols to a Dominican club would loosen him up and make baseball better as a whole. Not to mention, why the hell would Albert Pujols want to hang out with Nick Turturro?

"I love Ozzie Guillen. He's what the game needs. But I'd take Ozzie out for some Cuban food. Chill with him in his element and talk baseball with him. See how he really feels."

It sounds to me like Nick Turturro just wants to hang out with baseball players and annoy them with questions. Ozzie Guillen would tell Nick Turturro to go fuck himself if Turturro presented this idea to Ozzie. I wouldn't mind watching Ozzie say what he thinks of this idea to Turturro either.

"I want to bring the players back to earth and the game back to the days where you'd see superstars like Willie Mays in the neighborhood, playing stick ball or wiffle ball, connecting with the people.

Will all the children be riding ponies and will there be cotton candy being handed out by a kindly street vendor?

It's still a kid's game. They just forgot. That's why baseball needs me. To come in and remind the players of this, to bring them back to being human."

By massaging them, taking them dancing and then seeing how they really feel.

Shut up and go back to not acting.

17 comments:

Dylan Murphy said...

The problem with the draft value chart is that it assumes certain value for each pick, regardless of the talent pool. Many years the best player does not even get drafted first because theres such a high value placed on QBs. If it could be adjusted somewhat for this, I'd trust it a little more. Although for picks in the second round and above, I would say it generally works.

Bengoodfella said...

Dylan, that's a good point. Sometimes the best players are taken out of order. I would agree later in the draft the value chart is probably more accurate, but I don't know about randomly adjusting the chart 10% because of a perceived increase in ability of players from this draft.

KentAllard said...

I'm starting to get tired of hearing how great this draft is, since drafts always look great until you know who will be the busts. A few years back, a friend of mine theorized that never before had so many potential HoFers been in MLB at the same time. My rebuttal was there were always a lot of "potential" HoFers who flame out, you just don't know who will at the time. Since he was a Braves fan, I mentioned Bob Horner, who looked like a lock for the Hall in 1982, and a candidate to hit more home runs than anybody. In 1983, he suffered a severe injury pulling on his socks, a series of other injuries followed, and few remember him today. The draft is the same way, we won't know for years how great or lame it was.

I was going to make a smart remark about Nick Turturro, then remembered who his brother is and stopped. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.

Bengoodfella said...

I think the draft looks pretty good, but I do have to agree with you. There are drafts that look good and they turn out to be not good.

I regret you bringing up Bob Horner. As a Braves fan, I remember him. There are a bunch of guys that look like HoF, but Penny Hardaway looked like a HoF at one time too. Sometimes things happen and players don't become what you thought they would. That's why I think inflating the value of picks by 10% is dumb.

I will take on the Turturro family. I don't care. That was a stupid article...though I do like John.

HH said...

Peter would never think of this himself, but I will come to his defense here. The draft value chart badly undervalues later picks because it doesn't take into account the salary cap. The #1 pick gets paid so much that it reduces your ability to get quality players to round out your roster. There's a reason the best teams tend to trade down [Philly, Dallas, New England], and there's a reason that consistently drafting in the late first hasn't hurt perennial contenders. Meanwhile, someone like Oakland is now stuck with Russell's massive salary cap number, limiting the moves they can make to help their roster. When picks are in question, I'd say it's fair to inflate the value of lower picks.

Martin said...

I'd go so far as to say that the chart actually over values high picks now, for exactly the extreme high cost of "lottery" draft picks AND the fact that they are very hard to trade now. You constantly hear on sports radio and local sports shows how the local team needs to "trade down and get some extra picks". The problem being that everybody wants to do this now. It's become very hard to trade them for what was the old "value" on the chart. Nowadays people are more likely to flip flop, and then maybe give you a 6th round the next year, or some such.

KentAllard said...

HH's point about the salary cap is a good one. I think in general sportswriters still haven't grasped the significance of the cap, while GMs make all their decisions based on it.

Bengoodfella said...

HH, that's a good point. I don't think it is fair to inflate the value based on the perceived value of the draft though. Peter is giving this draft more value based on how good he thinks the players will be. I find a little fallacy in that.

While I do think it is a good point that lottery picks aren't very valuable b/c of the cap hit...so I can agree with that. I would much rather have late 1st round or 2nd picks sometimes than lottery picks. Depending on the team of course.

I thought Peter was inflating the value of all picks for this year's draft.

HH said...

He was. Peter is basically inadvertently doing the right thing. He's inflating the values of lower picks, just for the wrong reasons. His results, basically, may still be right, but his fifth grade teacher would still take off points because he made major errors. That's why you have to show your work.

Anonymous said...

Hue Jackman was responsible for Roddy White, not Vick leaving.

-shah8

And yeah, I actually remember Vick okay, and I strongly suspect (and I think the Eagles organization suspects) that if Vick is anything like 2006, he's going to have a very good chance of starting. Until I see how he does with against real defenses, Imma gonna label Kolb Detmer 2.0. Waaaaay too many similarities for bells not to be ringing.

Bengoodfella said...

So I guess Peter just stumbled into being correct. Damn him!

Anon, I blame everything on Mike Vick. Global warming and even the rise of terrorism in the new century. Point taken though.

I am not down on Kolb like you are. I don't think he will be McNabb or anything, but McNabb had put up with so much shit over the years it was time to move on.

The Casey said...

Was Willie Mays really still playing stickball in the street once he was a Major League CF? I don't really need to be 'pals' with baseball players (or any other athletes), I just want them to play their game at a high level. I don't really care what they do off the field until it affects their game performance.

Also, the issue with assigning values to draft picks is that there are a lot of variables that go into it. The reason it worked for Jimmy Johnson at Dallas was because that's what those picks were worth to the Dallas Cowboys, with Jimmy & staff making the decisions. Do you really think, say, the number 22 pick in the first round has the same value to the Raiders as it does the Patriots? It depends on the individual team's needs and decision-makers.

Bengoodfella said...

I don't know if Mays was in the street playing stickball or not. It seems like he probably didn't do this, but I don't have evidence one way or another.

Nick Turturro's comments were just idiocy.

That's also a good point of the draft value chart being how the Cowboys valued the picks they had. Draft pick value is relative to each team choosing.

Matthew said...

I used to bartend in Miami Beach before I was an attorney and I think Stallworth is believable in that the California Highway Patrol chart is based on a 'drink' being 1.5 oz of 80 proof liquor. If you pour 1.5 oz of liquor in a highball glass you will see how small that is. Most shot glasses are 2.5 oz or more and a South Beach club charging 15 bucks a shot to a semi famous athlete like Stallworth would definetly be 'hooking it up' and giving him long pours. I have seen some bartenders giving out 4 oz 'shots' in an effort to get higher tips. 1.5 oz won't get you much of a tip on a 15 dollar shot of Patron. If anything it gets you an angry look and a demand for more. So if he had 4 shots of around 2.5-3.5 oz then it would be 9 drinks on the CHiPS site which would be in the proper range.

Bengoodfella said...

Matthew, you can take examples from your life and use it for sports situations fairly frequently can't you?

I think I might have to commission a study to see if Stallworth is telling the truth or not. I didn't even think that his shot may have been larger than the value the California HP uses on their chart. Either way, he shouldn't have been driving, but if he did get that much alcohol then his BAC could have theoretically been at that amount.

I feel like you are a defense attorney in some fashion. It's just a feeling. If not, I hope I didn't offend you.

Matthew said...

Bengoodfella, No offense taken at all. You are correct, I have been a criminal defense attorney for the last six years and I had bartended my way through college and law school in Miami. And I do like to apply my life experience to articles on sports, particularly when they touch on legal issues.
The issues of athletes and the law and the media coverage of arrests of athletes fascinates me.
The CHiP officer and I would certainly disagree as we are on opposite sides of the DUI argument but we have those charts in Florida as well and they are often debunked on the basis that 1.5 oz isn't used as a measurement by either bartenders or people mixing drinks at home. It sounds more damning for the State/police to present evidence of 10 drinks in 2 hours using their math than to say 4 drinks using my math.

Bengoodfella said...

Matthew, I could sort of guess that may be the case. I didn't want you to be a prosecutor of some type and have you get insulted by calling you a defense attorney...if that is even insulting.

I hadn't even thought about the fact a shot isn't standard or if the chart from California is representative of large of a shot. Regardless, he shouldn't have been driving, but he may actually be telling the truth if he took 4 super-sized shots.