OldSchoolSnapper

Unacceptable performance from Chris Hook

Yeah, that's a ton of money. What it isn't, is money that will let you sit around for 50 years. With bonuses and MLB salary, whatever the amount he got a nice windfall at a very young age. If he'd been at all reasonable with it, at least a nice starting block + a head start on a portfolio. It isn't really surprising though given most people get that wisdom from parents and dad didn't seem like the brightest star in the sky.

It's only greed in the public court when it's the athlete asking for more money. When it is the owner shaving a few million off the top, that's just kind of swept under the rug, because nobody is watching the owner on game day. I think they should all get theirs. I typically side with players when they're trying to extract money from people who would cut all ties at the first broken bone if they could. Much the way I think average people should look out for themselves and never feel loyalty to employers who'd lay them off to raise EPS 1/10th of a cent.

They were the 2nd best team in the East all year, that said, personally I thought they were a better matchup for the Bucks than Philly or Boston going in. Now, not sure they're a better matchup than Boston, but I did not like the Sixers-Bucks matchup. If you watched those Bucks-Sixers regular season games, they really gave the Bucks fits. Embiid was a nice Giannis neutralizer for them, not that he stopped Giannis at all, but he was capable of the same monster games. I think Giannis had a career high in the game we lost. The firepower of Philly's 1-5 concerned me. I just don't think Toronto has enough offense to keep pace with the Bucks. They'll probably take one of the first two again but I think it's Bucks in 6. I think the Raptors have to run at absolute max to beat the Bucks, and I just don't think they can do that 4 times. I don't think anybody can but Golden State.

Endgame remains #1 over the weekend, beating out Detective Pikachu's opening. Wildly impressive, no matter how dumb that movie looked.

I thought Captain Marvel, the movie, was OK. Just OK. Probably bottom 5 MCU, but it worked a lead-in for Endgame. I dislike the casting more than the character. There is something really corny about how she delivers a lot of those lines. But I can live with it. I think her "vulnerability" is naivety/compassion.

All that talk of Braun being DFA'd or benched is starting to look silly. I kind of figured he'd be the same guy he's been for a while. Terrible in relation to his salary, but still an aging OFer flirting with an .800 OPS. You can do worse.

I think it becomes a really dangerous game when you have a 60 win team to start playing meta-games with the roster, deciding what you can replace with spare parts. I feel like Middleton isn't a max-tier player, but he's also at the same time unervalued by a lot of people. He brings more than a little bit of everything to the table. What is Middleton worth? What is he worth to the Bucks vs what is he worth to some hypothetical other team? When you (not 'you', but 'you' as in 'people') start saying 'we can replace X player's production with Sterling Brown and DDV and Wilson and Connaughton... I get concerned those guys are young, unproven, or old and bench players. (and yes, 26 or 27 is "old" in basketball parlance if you're still riding the pine, IMO). I'm just not ready to think you can seamlessly slide DJ Wilson into Lopez's spot, or Sterling Brown or Pat C into Middleton's spot and not expect a big dropoff. I could be wrong, and again, it's not my money. Tough decisions ahead. If the owners see fit to spend to keep this core together, I'll be more than happy. If a piece or two has to go, I'll trust Bud to spread the minutes out and bring the younger guys up to speed. It's just been really nice having a team this deep for once. We're having two different conversations here. I think Mids is worth more to the Bucks than anybody, and nobody thinks you can just slide DJ Wilson into another guy's spot, but it becomes a necessity to replenish because you also can't just keep everybody forever. I also think it would be naive to think that even if the Bucks did bring everyone back, that they'd be as dominant again. I think it's just smart to accept reality that some of these guys will leave and plan accordingly. Even if they did bring everyone back, it's probably pretty likely that at least one of those moves will end up not working out.

Yes but it becomes a question of incremental value. I don't know that Middleton is worth that much money because I think the returns diminish on what he provides vs. what you can get as a replacement. And obviously, when you have Giannis, you have some flexibility in creating offense. If you let Lopez walk, it's reasonable to think you won't find another 7 footer that can nail threes. Replenishment of talent also becomes a factor. It's hard to replace anybody good, but probably easier to find the next Middleton in the draft or plucked off someone else's roster vs. the next Bledsoe or Lopez. In a perfect world he stays. But if he is actually getting max offers, not sure that is a smart move.

It's so exhausting to me when people compare athletes to factory workers and lament they should be grateful for making so much money because so many struggle. They are living in a different universe. There is nothing wrong with them saying "pass" because they don't think the offer is right. They're free to be delusional about it if they want. If you had already banked millions you'd have the same privilege. They don't have to accept a club's best offer is it's not up to snuff.

They couldn't extend Middleton until he officially opts out of the last year of his deal, so there's really nothing you can read into it. 100% agree that he would be easier to replace though - not so much because I think he's not good, but because they already have so many wing options on the team. You lose Brogdon or Middleton and the other one steps up and gets a few more shots, while Pat C, Brown, Snell, and DDV provide quality depth. But Hill and Bledsoe are both crucial. Basically when you're a contender, you make decisions based on need, and Hill is needed. I agree with Homer that I wouldn't sign him long-term, but his injury history doesn't concern me at all because he hasn't had any injuries that have a lasting effect and he looks to be almost as good now as he was in his prime. If he was showing signs of decline, I would be more concerned. Brogdon and Khris, for example, both seem to have lost more quickness and athleticism in recent years than Hill, even though they're quite a bit younger. Khris's torn hamstring and Brogdon's growing list of leg/foot injuries are much worse injuries than anything Hill has had that I'm aware of. I never really read about contract intricacies in any sport so I didn't know that. I just can't fathom him as a max player. He's just not that good. And I like him and think he's good. He's just not THAT good.

I honestly think if one of these guys walks it's Middleton. It's a bit suspicious that they did Bledsoe so early without Mids signed. Pure guessing, but I think they view Middleton as the skill set most easily replaced. Bledsoe has his warts, but he brings a pretty rare set of skills. I am not as sure that Middleton is worth a max deal. You can find scrap heap type guys to hit 40% of their threes. I don't mean to demean what Middleton's done, it's just kind of how it is. 7 footers that nail threes and linebacker guards are just a lot harder to come across.

I don't think they're in a hurry after how things have settled down a bit. I give them credit for not over-reacting to the staff getting shelled in April by a bunch of top offenses. I would have freaked out and signed him if I were running things.

Maybe recency bias but I don't think either of those teams is beating the Bucks. Neither one has as many dimensions and they are both getting beating up and worn down. I thought the ECF would be two teams that had already been through a gauntlet but the Bucks have made it look laughably easy. Boston/Philly were the two teams I was most concerned about.

The longer he sits around without a team the easier it is for the Brewers to sign him if he's willing to commit to just one partial season.

Sounds good, also sounds precisely what one would think of Chinese food. If you eat authentic Chinese food maybe. About 90% of the US population thinks China is stuffing its face with General Tso every night. I was only pointing out that it's not a China Buffet experience, which is the average person associates with "Chinese food."

Highest grossing film is obviously peak, I just think they can keep making $600m-$1B films for quite a long time. I don't think that is a fad on its way out.

Homecoming grossed $880m, but I think you are way off on this. I think this will pull Iron Man 3/Civil War numbers with relative ease. MCU hype is at peak levels, Holland’s Spiderman is the most popular version ever of a hugely popular hero, an A-lister is introduced as a major Marvel villain. The trailer broke the studio record for views at 135M. Whatever is right beneath “lock” I would say that’s where Far From Home is for $1B. Should be highest grossing Spidey film easily. I don’t think MCU madness has reached peak levels as far as I don't see the films dropping off sharply as a group. One film has probably and obviously, every successive film will not do Endgame money, but they have barely scratched the surface of source material and Thanos is not even an upper tier villain in the MCU. IMO there is a loooooot of wind left in those sails. Decades of wind if they time stuff right, which they have done really well thus far; there are no MCU movies out for a year after Spiderman.

...in a film that had been scheduled for a March 2018 release, but still isn’t out, based on the same source material (Dark Phoenix Saga) which forced the studio to reboot the franchise, written & directed by one of the same writers who screwed it this story the first time around. Since I can’t actually get my money back from seeing Apocalypse in the theater, the best I can do is avoid making the same mistakes twice (unlike the studio). Yeah this isn't a Disney film. Only on technicality. It's the old Fox regime that Disney has to market since it's already done thus the mostly same cast. But they will 100% reboot it eventually within the MCU.

X-Men is almost definitely getting rebooted, eventually, under Disney since they acquired Fox's film division. You don't think Spiderman will make $1B, or you mean after this year?

Since you insist on being so literal, I never said that either. I did react to a specific person who insists on tailing me around the entire site just to nitpick every little thing I say. Also, just to be crystal clear, since that's apparently how we're doing things now, you do realize that the $200mm profit of English Patient in 1996 isn't at all the same as a movie doing that in 2018? Yes those lower budget films have nice margins, but part of my point was that they aren't doing it as often and typically not as large. Sorry guys, ok, low budget films make money in 2019, but they are not doing enough to sustain theaters or studios. That's why so many of these are getting made. Does that pass inspection?

The resources are limited at some point, you and I don't know what it is. That has nothing to do with a "small market hook." You keep bringing that up, and have for months, and it's getting old. Everyone has limited resources in the sense that the money isn't endless. You can't just go out and get every player you want, and they probably had Grandal high on that list. Have you also considered that Grandal and Moose can be unloaded if the team is losing? You can't exactly do that with a locked up FA SP if he's not playing well. Those guys are on one-year deals. Also, we don't have a clue what their finances are. And assuming that they rebuilt the spring training site with player contract money? We have no clue how any of that stuff works. That facility is likely financed and was planned years ago.

I didn't change my "argument." I was never in an "argument." I made a hyperbolic statement in response to a rhetorical question as to why those are the "only" movies being made now. I assumed, incorrectly, that most people could figure out that, no, those are not the only movies being made now. But it's not a coincidence that you can see a superhero in a theater basically any month of the year. One poster in particular regularly does this smartest guy on earth bit, picking out exaggerations and playing the role of "well, actually" guy. It's annoying, and I don't feel like being nice about it anymore.

There's time for things to improve. I don't play the "We wasted money on Grandal" game because if we don't get him we may be in an even bigger hole if/when things get better. We starting Pina then and have what, Kratz getting backup time? How much worse does a bad lineup look then.

The thing is, at some point they were going to move those guys into the rotation and if they believed they were all ready, which they seemed to be for the most part judging their MLB performance last year, then they should have done it. If you think they're ready, you can't go out and sign a bunch of stable starters because those guys will expect to be SP. If the guys can't play, they can't play, and we would have learned that the hard way whether it was in 2019, 2020 or 2021. Their goal is be competitive sustainably, so there is really no difference in when those young kids play, IF you believe they can. I would have liked to see them sign 1 veteran SP to stabilize things, absolutely. But again, with limited resources and confidence in your young guys, I can see them maybe believing it wasn't a great use of resources to do so. I think it all comes back to the worst case scenario unfolding. I'm really doubting that having one vet around would make a big difference in this. There's no guarantee that guy's playing well, and with how bad everyone has been, this is a bigger problem than that.