Mr Southpaw

It is like Goldilocks and the Three Bears...three days is way toooooo long. one day is toooooo short, and two days is just right. I would like to see the NBA try to reward teams for not going to game seven. Maybe like scheduling Game 7 on Thursday or Friday nights then have Game 1 of the next series on Saturday or Sunday with an early start. They still get two nights, but the team that can finish off their opponent gets a minor advantage. I know, I know the NBA wants Game 7 because off the money.

Rasmussen has now pitched for Wisconsin and done pretty good. I have not seen anything about Kirby yet.

It is really hard not to like a healthy Adrian Houser. Big, strong and we hope durable. Zach Brown is a no brainer. My third choice, all he does is pitch like he belongs, Bubba Derby.

Batting fourth in the SA lineup and already showing good contact and power. I like Gamel, but will he get the first shot over Ray when Braun get hurt?

I also didn't recall where the Bucks were before acquiring Hill. You seem to be making the numbers fit your agenda, one I honestly don't even think you're that invested in, or rather were that invested in until someone had the gall to challenge you. The Bucks were 17-8 and coming off a win vs Toronto before Hill was a part of the Bucks, their second of the season. As for the "blowout loss" to Portland that you include when you say it's "no exaggeration to say their promising season was falling apart," why neglect to mention they avenged that loss to a very good west team, one of their only blowout losses(15 points) by either mentioning that their very next game they beat Golden State by 23 resting their starters in the 4th quarter they were up by so much; http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=401070847 Or that they came back exactly two weeks later and beat Portland by 43 points http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=401070940 So it seems to me that they were playing pretty well, and while maybe the trade wasn't exclusively about dumping Henson and Delladova's salaries, I think just about everyone both now and then concluded it was the driving force behind making such a trade, otherwise they likely wouldn't have had to include a future 1st round trade. None of this means that Hill hasn't been an asset to the Bucks, but it does show you're trying to manipulate the numbers in order to fit your narrative, and that the discussion is just a tiny bit more complex than the two options being "keeping Hill or not keeping Hill." To the Bucks owners, I'm sure the extra 18 million dollars alone might mean something to them and the franchises future. Then when you factor in that the 18 million could end up costing over 60 million and I'm sure it's not hard to figure out that the decision isn't as simple as you've proposed. The Bucks have two young point guards in Brogdon and Bledsoe. Sterling Brown has shown signs of being a solid NBA 2 guard which would mean one of the two could play when the other isn't and the Bucks could look to trade Ersan, their 1st round pick this year or do what many contending teams do, bring in an aging vet to be their 3rd point guard. Those are also other options to "signing Hill or not signing Hill." I agree with what you are saying in this post.

No, he strongly disagrees with me about keeping Hill and he's implying that I don't understand how the CBA works because I'm advocating it. He's the one who said they should use the money to keep their other starters instead, even though I've clearly laid out how the system helps you keep them all. That's a false dilemma unless you support the owners being cheap when you have a chance of contending. The idea that I'm the one who needs to read that article to understand how the NBA financial structure works is beyond ridiculous. I've literally read the actual CBA itself, or at least the parts that pertain to player transactions. I've addressed the nuances of the CBA as it applies to this situation many times and he never addresses or acknowledges that. He just keeps saying Hill is not worth that much money, like a broken record. The idea that you spend the money on starters instead shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the CBA works, which is fine because I'm happy to explain it, but then he acts like I'm the one who needs to brush up on it. By reading an article that he didn't even notice was clearly outdated. In the NBA, you can and should pay to retain as much talent as possible when you're a contender. Small market owners have paid some of the highest payrolls in recent memory. After these new owners got a new arena and have a chance to bring Milwaukee its first major title in about 50 years, it would be a crime to start worrying about the luxury tax. For crying out loud they're not even paying the luxury tax at all this year! I have acknowledged that there is a point where the luxury tax would be prohibitive, but the Bucks are nowhere near that point yet. They have to give Mirotic and Middleton pretty big raises, but a non-tax team can afford that. They will have to give Brogdon a big raise, but his RFA status and his injury history, which incidentally is the reason he fell to the 2nd round of the draft in the first place, will keep that manageable. And they have to give Lopez a raise, but can only pay him the MLE anyway. And even if they overpay a lot next year, Hill and Ersan would be off the books in 2020, but with full Bird Rights to keep them at a more reasonable salary, so it would only be one year of a huge tax bill. No I was not disagreeing with you. I was agreeing with what Hi and Tight and his wonderful take on the financial decisions the Bucks have to make this summer and how I enjoyed reading the article he posted. It put clarity in the fact that Hill is not worth the extra $18 million next year should not be retained next year.

You are missing the vastly overpaid part, he isn't worth it. He is 33 and the basketball version of Curtis Granderson. He is fine to have on the team for the playoff run but is easily replaceable next year contrary to what you and Luke believe. I think he's a little more than Curtis Granderson, but your point remains. I just don't see teams going as far into the luxury tax as others do. I'd be willing to bet just about anything they decline that option without giving it a second thought. Contending teams like the Bucks can draw players to them, especially if they're playing alongside a superstar like Giannis and they make a run to the finals. I think Hill is the type of player who it'd be nice to bring back next year, but he's going to be 34, and despite the supposition that his 18 million dollar option won't impact other signings, it almost certainly would. Even if they can trade Ersan(and they should be able to and maybe even get something for him....like some guard depth) and Snell(they'd likely have to throw in a pick if they trade him this year, the following year IIRC he's on an expiring contract, so they could trade him then for a decent but overpaid player) that would only mitigate the tax hit. The owners have said they're WILLING to go into the luxury tax if they're in a position to win. They never said they're willing to go in it to the point where a 34 year old backup will cost them potentially 60 million dollars. And then the following year you have Giannis who could sign for about 44 million and the luxury tax penalties don't get easier from there. I'm generally not a fan of this site in general, but found this to be a pretty good breakdown of what lies ahead for the Bucks and a pretty good breakdown. You may disagree with the moves(this doesn't really even debate Hill, it just has the Bucks cutting him, but I've frankly yet to see an article that does even debate the merits of bringing him back for an additional 18 million as, again, I think it's always been a foregone conclusion that his option is just declined. https://www.brewhoop.com/2019/2/20/18229673/time-is-money-looking-at-the-milwaukee-bucks-summer-of-2019-nba-draft-free-agency-salary-cap-cba Thank you for your in depth analysis. You have brought some order to this kangaroo court. Nice article about the CBA procedures for anyone who does not understand how the NBA financial structure works.

They can do that anyway. If you're saying this, I don't think you understand the CBA. And they can not do that anyway. George Hill is not worth $19 million next year. My opinion and stop talking down to me.

Absolutely, he was their diamond in the rough and they let him go for nothing.

So you'd rather he just not be on the team? No Did you not notice how much of a different team they were when he was hurt? Do you remember how much they struggling right before they acquired him? He has done a good job It would be a terrible idea to cancel his contract just on the principle of not over-paying him. Sorry I have a different opinion They can't spend the money they save on anyone else. They can use it to keep their other starters But hey, maybe next year they can make a 3rd-place-in-the-East banner with a note at the bottom saying "yeah but at least we didn't overpay George Hill". Really My reasonable thoughts... George Hill is a nice backup piece on this team.

If they don't pick up his option, I'm almost positive they won't have Bird Rights to re-sign him. That means either a veteran's minimum contract, which I'm quite confident he can easily beat on the open market, or the mid-level exception, which they probably want to offer to Lopez. Picking up his option, even though it's a big over-pay, is the only way they can keep him without compromising their ability to keep other personnel assets (the only asset it would cost is money from the owners' pocketbooks). If that is the only way to keep him, then don't over-pay.

1 Keston Hiura, 2B 2 Tyrone Taylor OF 3 Zach Brown,P 4 Jacob Nottingham, C 5 Derby, Bubba P 6 Mauricio Dubon, SS 7 Brice Turang, SS 8 Corey Ray, OF 9 Lucas Erceg, 3B 10 Tristen Lutz, OF 11 Jon Olczak RHP 12 Braden Webb, RHP 13 Aaron Ashby, LHP 14 Trent Clark, OF 15 Adrian Houser RHP 16 Cody Ponce, RHP 17 Trey Supak, P 18 Jake Gatewood, 1B 19 Caden Lemons,P 20 Troy Stokes Jr., OF 21 Peyton Henry, C 22 Marcos Diplan, RHP 23 Michele Vassalotti RHP 24 Cam Roegner, RHP 25 Carlos Rodriguez RHP 26 Quintin Torres-Costa RHP 27 Clayton Andrews LHP 28 Wes Wilson, 2B 29 Max Lazar, P 30 Chad McClanahan, 1B 31 Mario Feliciano, C 32 Wilfred Salaman P 33 Je’Von Ward OF 34 Jon Perrin P 35 Joantgel Sergovia OF 36 Micah Bello OF 37 Drake Owenby, P 38 Joe Gray OF 39 KJ Harrison, C 40 Jess Smith, SS

It's hard to think of sign-and-trades that work. For one thing, the NBA has gotten a lot stricter about sign-and-trades. Teams were abusing Bird Rights in sign-and-trades, and they put a stop to that. Then you have the fact that the Bucks would be looking for immediate "win now" help, but any team trading for Khris is doing the same so your interests are in conflict. It would typically be easier to sign and trade Khris to a wannabe contender for an expiring contract and a draft pick, which doesn't make sense when your contention window is wide open... and wannabe contenders don't like giving up the type of players who can help a team win now, which is what the Bucks would want. If they move on from KM, the expiring contract and draft pick might be worth more than the nothing they get if he sign outright.

I think it will fall very close to this for Opening Day. I think we can win 60% with that Starting staff, considering our bullpen is so strong with two closers. There is a lot of play with names not listed on the Opening Day roster. Nelson can be inserted as a 2 as soon as he is ready with whoever is the weak link being removed. Jeffress and Barnes are also available in the wings to back up any failures in the Bullpen. Starters 1. Chacin 2. Burnes 3. Anderson 4. Davies 5. Peralta Pen C. Hader C. Knebel 8. Woodruff 7. Albers 6. Claudio 5. T Williams L. Guerra That Leaves Nelson Barnes Houser Jeffress Petricka

Homer mentioned max deals. That post had nothing to do with you. I would not give him a max deal. Even so, long-term financial health is just money in the owners' pockets. If you really understand the CBA, you understand that. It has almost nothing to do with payroll flexibility. You have the right to spend a lot of money on Khris or not spend it at all. There's no "I'd rather spend it on someone else", and there probably won't be for many years. It would be a question of letting Khris walk on principle and starting a much worse player instead. I don't think you have to give him more than 4/$100m, which is fair. I'd probably explore other options if it gets around 4/$120m. And to be clear, if I'm starting a team from scratch, no way I'd give him either of those contracts, but the context could not be more diametrically opposed to starting from scratch right now. 4/100 seems fair. Less years with more per year would probably be better like 3/80.

I said......Long Term Financial Health. I am not saying "do not sign KM". I am saying "don't sign him to a stupid contract". You said.....I very much doubt Khris gets a max deal I equate Stupid Contract with Max Deal. Do you think a Max Deal for KM would be a Stupid Contract for the Bucks? What do you think is a reasonable contract for KM should be?

I think experience matters a lot. Young guys might seem to move around better and look more flashy, and you still have that outside chance of them being really good because they're not known quantities yet. But team record and on/off stats usually show that you're better off with an experienced veteran like Hill or Ersan, despite their limitations. I don't know if you're suggesting that you're fine with letting Khris walk and starting a young guy, but even if you do think they'd be good enough, why not just keep all of them and continue to have the best bench in the NBA? I like DDV and love Wilson, but they both have to shoot the 3 more consistently well to beat out Ersan, Hill, Snell, or Gasol, let alone Khris. That's a skill that often peaks in a player's late 20's, and even then it's subject to a lot of variance. I expect them both to be good enough to be solid top-8 rotation guys on a contending team within a few years, but I don't think they're there yet. And neither one is really a true sf, so they don't make Khris expendable. And even if they eventually do, then why not wait until they prove it in a bench role for a year or two before you trade Khris? He's not old or anything, and I don't think his next contract is going to be an albatross. Brown is a sf, but I just don't think he's good. Just seems out of touch with the team concept or something, even when it seems like he's doing a lot. Regular breakdowns are very costly to a team's chances of winning. As an example, even when Jabari was scoring 20+ ppg on solid efficiency, the team was generally still better with him on the bench. Being lost on defense gives the opposing so many easy buckets every game that it's almost impossible to make up for it by doing other things really well. Long Term Financial Health. I am not saying "do not sign KM". I am saying "don't sign him to a stupid contract".

Yeah, he gets too much credit for hitting 40% of wide open 3's on such low volume while being a liability in so many other areas. You're lucky if you get a neutral performance out of him overall, even when he's strictly a 15 mpg back-up at one position. Sterling Brown brings much more energy and contributes in other ways, but I think he gets completely lost on defense constantly and the team suffers when he plays, despite him looking like he's having a positive impact. If you could combine Snell's discipline with Brown's energy and toughness, you'd have a pretty good sf. D.J. Wilson is quick enough to guard sf's. I could see him being a really good player soon. But even then, it's not like you're choosing between him and Khris. You can easily have both, or you can just let Middleton walk for nothing to save the owners money, with no other way to spend the money saved on other talent. I am ok with any of these three starting Wilson and Brown can both get better. Snell is what he is, but he does have a certain chemistry with GA that you have to like. Also DDV is unproven, but very talented. There is a bunch of depth on this team. They really don't seem to need Hill or Gasol, but I am glad we have them.

+1 Mirotic first because of his age Lopez second because of his stretch 5 talent Brogdon third he is a great glue player maybe not the physical tools, but he does everything good Middleton fourth heck put Tony Snell in that starting spot and your percentage doesn't go down that much. Just checked, they actually go up.

If I had to bet today, I would agree with you. I think his ego is too big and the Bucks payroll is too small.

I don't know how much you watched him when he was first breaking out, but he was a great intangibles guy. His perimeter defense was some of the best in the league, and he could guard all wings and many pf's. His switching and rotation was a huge weapon for the team when they surprised everyone and made the playoffs in Kidd's first year as coach. He got his offense in the flow and never dominated the ball. 34% of his fga's were 3's and he shot a career high 41% on them. Then he got his contract and promptly showed up to camp out of shape despite being only 23. He spent a few months playing lazy isoball and wrecking the team's flow before Kidd finally benched him for lack of effort a few months into the season, which has become an annual thing at this point. We suffered through a few years of growing pains while he concentrated on adding a 90's style isoball, 2-pointer heavy approach to offense while neglecting all the defensive effort that made him a very good player in the first place. He did improve his play-making a little, but still doesn't have the energy and spring in his step to follow through on his attempts to create shots. I believe if he was in shape, he could be like Paul Pierce - not quite as good on offense, but better on defense. But at his current level of effort, he's not helping much, and they'd be better off with a guy like Hield who knows his role and doesn't try to be Kobe. This sounds like you do not think we should resign him...or at least at the max amounts people have been saying. I agree with not signing him to a max contract. I always like to attach numbers in situations like this, which I have in previous posts. My max would be 4 years at $110 million, maybe less if the rest of the year is pedestrian.

If anything, I think this makes it more likely that they keep the team together. Bledsoe's salary next season is now going to be about $7m less than his cap hold would have been, and that's a lot of breathing room under the luxury tax line. This also signals that they're probably prioritizing retention, as opposed to decimating their supporting cast around Giannis in a foolhardy "grass-is-greener" pursuit of another superstar. The Bucks' intentions are at least as crucial as any player's intentions when it comes to predicting how the off season plays out. This could also be seen as the first domino. If Mirotic, Bledsoe, and Middleton all go to unrestricted free agency, any one of them could have doubts about resigning just because they can't be sure the other two will resign as well. Bledsoe committing takes one ball out of the air, making it a lot easier to juggle the other two. We know players love to play for a contender and are often willing to make some personal sacrifices to do so. With Bledsoe officially on board, the other free agents can be a little more confident they'd be returning to a contender if they decide to accept a reasonable offer instead of maximizing every dollar they can get by working free agency for all it's worth, regardless of destination. Middleton, when he made the all-star team, unequivocally said he wants to stay. The reason there's uncertainty there is because he has a player option and can't sign an extension for fair market value under the circumstances. It's just a nuance of the CBA that requires him to go all the way to unrestricted free agency to get a fair raise (let alone an exorbitant one). The questions about fit are legitimate. In particular he doesn't always like to play at the tempo the Bucks like and hasn't embraced a role shooting open 3's off the ball, preferring to iso against his defender with the offense revolving around him on those possessions. But they should make a competitive offer; it's a risk they have to take. He's not old or anything, and his game doesn't depend on athleticism. He may be a bad contract, but I don't think he'd be a terrible one, and you can always just trade him for a player with a bad contract who fits better. More importantly, you can't just spend the money on someone else. You have the right to go way over the cap to keep him, and you lose that right if you don't keep him. It would be foolish to be stubborn about money and lose talent for nothing that way. Mirotic and Lopez are the biggest question marks to me. Mirotic plays the same position as Giannis and could eventually be an all-star. How do you sell him on staying if he can make significantly more and be a 35 mpg starter elsewhere? Lopez is in a similar situation, as he's the nominal starter but might regularly lose minutes to guys like Mirotic, if he stays, and eventually Wilson, who are better fits for the modern NBA. And the Bucks aren't allowed to pay him more than the MLE (if that). Their decisions probably depend on each other as much as they do on the market. Pay Mirotic first period. Pay Middleton second up to the point I stated above. Do the best you can with the rest.

So how are you thinking the rest of the off-season plays out? It seems less and less likely that we bring back Middleton for much short of the Max with teams like the Lakers, Pacers, Nets and others reportedly interested. He's not a legit max level player, but if you let him go, you don't have money to sign any Free Agents of substance with Bledsoe and the Middleton and Mirotic and Brogdon holds...and can you afford to NOT re-sign him with Giannis due to become a FA in 2021? Love that we have Bledsoe back, but the short term future of the Bucks would SEEM to rest on the Middleton decision looming over us. And while I didn't think Bledsoe would take a discount, it doesn't sound to me as though Middlton is willing to take another discount. Middleton is a good all star type player with some skills other than shooting threes. He is a good second fiddle next to GA. That being said anything over $110 million for 4 years make no sense. The Bucks can sign all of their players as long as they don't go over this amount. I think Middleton's new contract will be around $80 for 3 years. It just depends how big his ego is.

Mirotic just went to the top of my free agent wish list for next year. Long, athletic, and can drill the three!

And an average of 18 Ks a game! But dingers!!! But we would have a good shot of taking 2 out of 3 with the Marlins.