HiAndTight

I don't think Nelson is ever going to be more than a middle/back of the rotation arm again. You can just see it in how the balls move for him now. I don't think this is something that's going to get better with time. He may well learn to pitch better and adjust, but his stuff is not coming back. You see it in the FB by far the most. His fastball had late life..and the fact that he could hit 97 didn't hurt. Not saying his career's done by any means, he's competitive enough that he'll figure out a way to be effective with the stuff he has now. But I was really hoping we'd see a version of the older Nelson and that with time he'd get most of the way back. I don't think there's much hope of that now. Of all the injurys you dont want a pitcher to get its a labrum. Many never come back from that. I would much rather see a Tommy John. Absolutely.

Please tell me more about how poorly run this organization is? And what's this "prioritize personal relationships" nonsense? They simply didn't want to give up on a guy who's been one of the most productive 3rd basemen in the game the last couple years after a bad couple months. There's isn't much to get other than he's been really-really good, now he's struggling and they're hoping he bounces back. They've got Hirura ready to go whenever they want to bring him back. Someone help me out, does Shaw still have an option remaining? If so, that's the solution. If not, then..opps, that wrist is bothering him again(and it may actually be, you seldom seem hitters drop off this much).

I don't think Nelson is ever going to be more than a middle/back of the rotation arm again. You can just see it in how the balls move for him now. I don't think this is something that's going to get better with time. He may well learn to pitch better and adjust, but his stuff is not coming back. You see it in the FB by far the most. His fastball had late life..and the fact that he could hit 97 didn't hurt. Not saying his career's done by any means, he's competitive enough that he'll figure out a way to be effective with the stuff he has now. But I was really hoping we'd see a version of the older Nelson and that with time he'd get most of the way back. I don't think there's much hope of that now. Which is fine but we simply do not need yet another low 90's nibbler in the rotation. It really is sad. No, I'd go with Burnes over Nelson right now. At least with Burnes, if he figures it out, he's right there with Woodruff as two young TOR type arms. But you do have to feel bad for Nelson. Just such a unlucky turn of events. I think the idea that they trade and away guys and become sellers at this point is WAY-WAY premature. They were in 1st yesterday and that was after a long losing streak. They're struggling. They'll come out of it.

You don't just dump a guy who's produced ~8.5 WAR for you the past two years. Arcia has to stay. He's hit the ball real hard right at people during this little slump, but his defense is too good. Aguilar got here in a pinch hitting role, so fine, he can move to the bench. Send Shaw back down and give him a few weeks/month. But he's been too productive to just get rid of.

I don't think Nelson is ever going to be more than a middle/back of the rotation arm again. You can just see it in how the balls move for him now. I don't think this is something that's going to get better with time. He may well learn to pitch better and adjust, but his stuff is not coming back. You see it in the FB by far the most. His fastball had late life..and the fact that he could hit 97 didn't hurt. Not saying his career's done by any means, he's competitive enough that he'll figure out a way to be effective with the stuff he has now. But I was really hoping we'd see a version of the older Nelson and that with time he'd get most of the way back. I don't think there's much hope of that now.

I think the Bucks have all of the 5.4 million or whatever the exact figure is that they can use to trade still available. So how much do picks cost? If the 40th pick is 3 million and the 50th pick is 2, depending on who's available, I'd certainly like to see them do that. I think you posted a link about a D-2 guy who the Bucks worked out and drew D-Wade comps. He'd be a good guy to bet on with a mid 2nd rounder, that Jontay Porter who has had knee issues, but projects perfectly in this system would be a good pick. Both would have been reaches in the 1st, but solid chances in the 2nd. You need to find a way to keep swinging for the fences. Also, good teams find players in the D league. Seth Curry was there, Christian Wood, a guy who'd likely be on the Bucks came out of there(he'd likely be on the Bucks if Brogdon had not gotten injured, thereby creating a need to add depth to the backcourt and forcing them to waive someone). Deal's done, the Bucks are one of the favorites to win the title next year and Horst traded for Mirotic and gave up a bag of used basketballs. So they've shown they can work within the confines of their situation already. I feel better about their future if they renounce Mirotic and use the cap space they'll have on Lopez and a PG.

This is too bad. Lawrie seems like his issues are more than just physical. It's a shame. I thought he was going to be a helluva baseball player for a long time. I pretty much thought he was a more athletic version of Keston with an inferior hit tool, but a better arm and more versatility. But he doesn't sound well.

I won't advocate for Bauer because he literally stalked a girl on Twitter for 72 hours because she said something mildly mean about him in one Tweet. Bumgarner, I would understand if the dude was just a "fiery competitor", but it's not about "letting kids be kids" and letting "madbum be himself", he is literally pitching a fit because people on the diamond won't conform to imaginary rules that he has created in his own head. It's stupid, silly, and absolutely unnecessary. That doesn't make him a fiery competitor, it just makes him a super intolerable jerk who behaves like a red-assed immature baby. The other day Max Muncy hit a massive drive, LAID his bat down, took two walking steps, and Bumgarner was screaming at him to RUN, DONT WALK, until the cords on his neck were standing out, and the umpire had to get between him and Muncy. I mean......why?? Just to show everyone how fiery and awesome and what a protector of the game he is? What even is the point of that? If his feelings are that hurt by bat flips and guys watching homeruns, maybe he just needs some frickin anger management.... Isn't this most of the best white pitchers who do this? Or actually just more established pitchers? Especially against your biggest rival. I don't care enough about the yelling at guys to run or stupid baseball unwritten rules to nix a trade for him. I mean..I care in that I hate that pitchers whine about it and I hate that hitters have to do their stupid little bat flip and then some of them take SOOO absurdly long to get around the bases(Machado) that you do kinda want to smack them. But this is Baseball. Dealing with grown men throwing temper tantrums whilst making millions of dollars playing a game is pretty much standard. It's stupid, I agree. I was always on Gomez's side, but I'll still take an older vet like him. We can't just close off our list to pitchers we like. That's CC and...I don't know, Kershaw seems like a pretty good dude?? Obviously, there are others, but a lot of pitchers act like idiots.

I see almost no scenario in which Vegas is going to be able to support all these major sports franchises. The Raiders...fine. They're just a draw. 8 games, people will go on vacation or it will give them a reason to make the trip from LA, Oakland, wherever. The Rays to Vegas though? They're already struggling playing in a place that a large pct of the population moves to. If Montreal would build a nice stadium, that'd probably be the best route for everyone. They're such a well run organization, if they had an extra 20-30 million a year, they'd be that much more dangerous.

They are reportedly shopping Ersan as well for cap relief. I share your concern about the big men, especially if they do move Ersan. Becomes critical if they lose Lopez too. I'm hoping since they're trying to move Ersan they're pretty confident they can bring Lopez back. All that said, chances are very very slim to none any big man at 30 would be in the rotation. I don't think anyone thought a big man would be in the rotation this year. It's going to be more troublesome in 3-4 years when Giannis is right in the middle of his prime, we're well into the luxury tax, Middleton is on the downside of his prime and the Bucks have very little in the way of young, cheap players to fill in for the older players we'll be losing. You measure that against keeping this team together right now, and obviously keeping this group together right now is more important as Giannis may not even want to stick around if they can't, but I see the concern of having so many future 1st and 2nd's gone.

The Bucks can actually create salary cap room...for a short period of time. So they could sign Lopez and then move onto someone like a Frank Kaminsky(who wouldn't really solve you issue with a legit big who can bang around and rebound). Maybe the quickly snatch up someone like Dewayne Dedmon if they don't have a good feeling about Lopez. I don't know, but I trust they have a plan and have to have a pretty good idea of what it'd take to sign Lopez given how much talk they've given to making re-signing him a priority.

Not a particular fan myself. I initially thought he could be protection if we lost Lopez and Mirotic. A stretch 4/5 who can help Giannis. That was based on my memory of him as a Badger. He has not been a good 3 point shooter in the NBA. I saw the debate about draft picks vs cap room....I'm with Patick on this and OTB said he'd be in favor of it if we could get someone of value for Snell and a 1st. Instead, we got just...a guy. Maybe if we extend him, he rediscovers his 3 point shot that he had in college and to be fair, he only attempted more than 1 per game three times in his career and he shot 47 pct, 38 pct and then 29 pct roughly and he's a good rebounder. He's also played on teams that don't exactly use their bigs in that type of role in Memphis and then in Detroit. Snell though...he's underrated. He's a guy who can defend the guards and forwards, he's long and he's a 40 pct 3 point shooter during his time in Milwaukee. I feel like if you're going to make this deal, you should be getting back someone better than John Leuer and you should at least get a 2nd rounder coming back. But I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this one. Pretty clear sign that you have an agreement in place with at least Middleton though. I can't see moving Snell, the guy who would be best suited to take over for Middleton(though obviously not as good) to dump salary if you don't have a deal in place with Midds. Yes your value on Snell is drastically off from the league. He was for sure one that you had to attach something in order to dump his salary, not one to get anything back. Granted, he's probably gotten too bashed here as he is a competent NBA rotation player and at this point we all view him so badly that we think he's unplayable (you know, ignoring that he just did play a bunch for a 60 win team). But at 11ish per year it's way out of line and why you had to attach an asset to move him. I didn't place a "value" on him. I just stated facts. He's a 40 pct 3 point shooter and he's a good to elite defender. A 3 and D type player. But this is the same league in which we just traded two inferior players making similar money and a future 1st round draft pick and got back almost a fully non-guaranteed contract and they threw in a player who ended up being a nice player for us in the post-season. Timing is the key thing here. You're not likely to have nearly as many teams interested as they're drooling over the upcoming Free Agent class and the Bucks can't move 1st round picks after tonight. This trade will work out a lot better if the Bucks just stretch out Leuer's deal, use actual cap space(I have it at ~19 million if they renounce Mirotic) and sign Lopez or someone else. There are a lot of moving parts here though. Middleton and Brogdon have to agree to deals and both agree to wait to sign them. Lopez has to be willing to stay for maybe...3/24? And he had to be willing to sign quickly. And whatever PG you want to sign has to sign rather quickly. Hill has already said he doesn't care about money, he cares about winning. I believe the later, not the prior, so lets say 2 ~19 for Hill with the MLE. Beverly is going to meet with 5 teams, most of whom are going to wait to sign him with the MLE or at least wait and see if they can sign bigger FA's first. I'd love the attitude he'd bring to our team. Others like Rondo or Rubio would likely be able to be signed later on. You then have your whole team back and as long as you can keep Brogdon at ~13-ish, you might be able to make it without going too far into the tax...something you might be able to remedy during the season anyway as you know they'll be in the tax in future years.

I think its too early to say they hit on DJ or Sterling. Both contributed very little down the stretch. Wilson had a handful of good games, but thats not enough to say they hit on him. But to criticize all of the picks wasn't really my entire point. My only point is for the draft only its more important to resign as much as they can from last year. I'm happy with the move, but the savings from this year isn't going to really help resign anyone. Overall, I hope Horst will learn from Hammond's mistake and when you trade for someone who hasn't done much in Chicago, has a big final 25 games of the season after the trade in a free agent year, it rarely works to sign him to a big extension. Well, that's part of the problem with going back just 5 years. It takes a while to figure out if you hit or miss on anyway. I'm not a big Brown fan myself, but we'll see. You're right about needing to clear salary cap room in order to sign our own players now, but we didn't clear much from this year and while everyone else is going to have young players cycling in, we're not even going to have a chance to hit on some picks. But the choice between attaching a 1st to be able to re-sign Middleton and Brogdon, I'm on board with that.

It's almost always underwhelming when a top 5 player in his prime gets traded. It rarely happens, but even then, it's rare. But I don't recall any superstar getting his former team this type of haul. You may not like the young guys, but their upside and talent is totally undeniable. And having a guy like Lonzo Ball running the point for your team gives you SO many options in the backcourt. If I'm the Pelicans, I'm all over the Vandy Guard Garland. That guy only played 4 games last year, but had he played more, I think he'd be in the discussion for 2nd pick with Ja. And you can play the two together because Ball can guard the larger guards(very well) and he's such a great passer your other guard can be the type of player player that's usually forced into playing "PG" because he's not big enough to be a 2. That's one thing that Giannis has done for us. We don't have to worry about positions as much. When Parker was here, it wasn't as important if he was the 3 or 4 because Giannis could handle the tougher assignment. Same idea here. There was one team last year in the West that I thought had the chance to really become the next home grown powerhouse, the Kings. They are SOO dangerous. I think the Pelicans could be in that group if Garland ends up being as good as I think he could. And UN-like the Bucks, when their core is hitting its stride, they're just going to keep getting extra picks. Those picks could be top 5 picks or they could be picks in the 20's. The Lakers paid the price for impatience here. They wanted AD this year rather than wait until next year in free agency. Oh, and what got me thinking about this again, the Pelicans have them over a barrel again because the Lakers weren't smart enough to make this trade official at the end of July instead of July 6th so they could have enough room to sign another max contract. So now they have to go back to the Pelicans after they gave them everything they had except for that second kidney and try to sweeten the pot even further. The Pelicans will probably end up getting the Lakers 1st rounder from last year or ~5.5 million from the Pelicans. And honestly, if I was New Orleans, I would pass. With so much young talent either on that team are coming into that team, and the disdain that the owners CLEARLY have for the Lakers, I would just straight out refuse to help them acquire another superstar. There is a very real chance that in 3 years the Pelicans are a contender. You want to be playing the Lakers with a 38, but still great LeBron, a prime AD and Kemba Walker/Kyrie/Jimmy Butler or whomever they get? Because if they could get another guy who can handle the ball and defend, I'm thinking Butler in particular, you could REALLY save a lot of milleage on LeBron. If you can't and you're forced to bring in second tier players, LeBron's gonna have to do what LeBron does and it's just going to take that much more of a toll on him. And of course, there's always the risk to AD. So actually, I think if I was the Pelicans, I'd be really difficult. I'd make them give up Kuzma also if the Lakers want them to help accommodate them in adding a 3rd superstar.

I guess it gives you an expiring deal that you could possibly turn around and trade at the deadline as well.

Not a particular fan myself. I initially thought he could be protection if we lost Lopez and Mirotic. A stretch 4/5 who can help Giannis. That was based on my memory of him as a Badger. He has not been a good 3 point shooter in the NBA. I saw the debate about draft picks vs cap room....I'm with Patick on this and OTB said he'd be in favor of it if we could get someone of value for Snell and a 1st. Instead, we got just...a guy. Maybe if we extend him, he rediscovers his 3 point shot that he had in college and to be fair, he only attempted more than 1 per game three times in his career and he shot 47 pct, 38 pct and then 29 pct roughly and he's a good rebounder. He's also played on teams that don't exactly use their bigs in that type of role in Memphis and then in Detroit. Snell though...he's underrated. He's a guy who can defend the guards and forwards, he's long and he's a 40 pct 3 point shooter during his time in Milwaukee. I feel like if you're going to make this deal, you should be getting back someone better than John Leuer and you should at least get a 2nd rounder coming back. But I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this one. Pretty clear sign that you have an agreement in place with at least Middleton though. I can't see moving Snell, the guy who would be best suited to take over for Middleton(though obviously not as good) to dump salary if you don't have a deal in place with Midds.

Surplus value will fly right out the window if there's a bidding war. I don't think either of the proposed deals will work, I think it would take closer to Lutz. Not saying I think we should do that, just that I expect that to be the market. I highly question how much a GM will measure a trade using the surplus value in this way, to begin with. They have their own rankings, they obviously aren't looking at WAR literally, they're looking at how a player figures into a team. Example, if Kimbrel comes back and pitches well, he's going to save the Cubs a LOT more games than whatever his projected WAR is. I don't think they're assigning a dollar figure on OF'ers who have certain grades on them as we speculate on here nor do I believe they assign a fixed value for the #80th prospect in baseball. I think WAR is the pre-eminent stat for comparing a players value. It's imperfect but as good as you can get. I do not believe it's anywhere near a real translation or that you can really value it in actual dollars and cents at the trade deadline when talking about trading for rentals and prospects. I don't think a team's going to pass on Will Smith for example because even though they may agree on the prospects, when you break down projected production the other team comes out ahead with 3 million in excess value. But I also don't believe there's going to be the bidding war that others do. I think this is going to be more of a buyers market. Obviously it's possible a team acts stupid and trades away two elite prospects they sell low on because they went on a 5 game winning streak vs one team before the All-Star break only to watch as one of those prospects hits ~.340 playing CF for one of the best teams in the AL all for a #3 pitcher who hadn't shown much more than that type of upside in a few years, but we could always get "Pirated" again. If you break it down by team, teams who are more likely to be sellers than buyers right now, you have AL East-2 Toronto and Baltimore. Boston would have to fall way back given the talent they have to sell. AL Central-I think you could reasonably see 4 sellers there other than the Twins. And even if it's just 3, Cleveland almost certainly won't be buying and adding salary. AL West-I think 4 is also very possible there. Say 3.5 as the A's tend to buy and sell in the same year while they're competitive. NL East-3 sellers. Maybe that number is only 2 if the Nats go on a run like they're capable of doing, but as positioned now, they're in the sellers category. If they become a buyer, it'll be whatever BP piece you can find though as they've got a GREAT rotation, very good lineup(potentially great with a healthy Turner) and literally one of the worst BP's in the last 30-40 years. NLC-2 Sellers, possibly 3 if St. Louis falls back at all. They're really counting on a bunch of guys in their 30's to start to produce. NL West-I think there could be 4 here as well. The D-backs are in a rebuild...and while they're staying around .500, they know they're not going to do anything in the playoffs. Doubt they give up anything of substance via prospects or money just to MAYBE get into a one-game playoff. The Rockies actually look like they're in a pretty good situation, but they're not going to be willing to spend much money. So lets just say 3 and assume the Rockies are in it. Now the buyers. ALE-The Yankees might buy, but they don't really need much. Maybe the Yanks go out and get a starter for depth, but I don't think we'd be competing against them. The Red Sox would be a team we'd have to bid against as they have a need for BP help, but they have multiple needs. The Rays are usually very conservative. ALC-The Twins look like they may actually be buyers this year. And given the offensive explosion(which I expect will regress significantly) they seem like they could be one of the most aggressive teams. ALW-Astros-That teams is so absurdly talented, I don't see much need to add there. NLE-The Braves are cheap and already added Kuchel. I don't think they'll be real aggressive. NLC-The Cubs made a big move to get Kimbrel. They have been worried about that Luxury tax. They could still big against us, but I don't think they can afford to be that aggressive, nor do I think they'll need to be. NLW-The Dodgers are likely to want to add multiple relievers, but I think we stand a better chance of pulling off a deal with the Giants than the Dodgers. Even if the Dodgers make a slightly better offer. I think in the past teams have been more aggressive in fighting just to get that final WC slot whereas the past few years I don't think GM's are willing to part with valuable pieces JUST to play one game and risk going home. That's why I think teams like the D-backs, Rockies, Indians won't be aggressive and the A's will likely go on their usual second-half run, but they'll still probably sell a piece or two. I think you're talking about 7-9 teams who will be buyers, not all of them have the same needs we do, and 16-18 teams who will be sellers and then a couple of teams who may just play it out and maybe make some smaller trades. I think this is sorta what played out last year when we were able to acquire Soria and have the Sox pay some of his salary despite the fact that he was performing extremely well as a closer. But all this is what makes baseball fun. We'll have to see.

A torn Achilles is second only to neck/back injuries that you hate to hear about as an athlete. Even worse a BB player or a skill player in the NFL. Or just someone who loves to run. I consider myself extremely lucky. I'll hit my 20'th surgery before too long, but I never hurt my neck, back or an Achilles and because of that, I can still lift, play/coach and do whatever I want.

I'd be absolutely thrilled. It's really not hard to envision a scenario in which the picks they end up getting from the Lakers are like the Picks the Celts got from the Nets. In 2024, LeBron could be doing his swan song in Cleveland or playing for LAL with a banged up AD. And in the short term, they got some EXTREMELY talented players. Somehow the Pelicans managed to get a better deal from the Lakers then they were getting at the deadline. And I'm a big fan of Kyle Kuzma, but all the draft picks they got instead? I also like Alvin Gentry a lot and I really hope Lavar Ball can keep his mouth shut because his kid actually seems like a pretty good kid and he could be the next guy who averages a triple-double. Ingram, the upside if there. Don't know about the desire, but there's really no reason he can't become a Kawhi-like player. Of course the same is true of dozens of players and it takes an obsessive like a commitment to the game, but he's got that first step, those long arms..he also has a nice shot. The question is does he think he did something special this year or, like Giannis at that age, does he look at the 17/18 PPG he scored and know how much room for improvement he has. Because he does have a lot in common with Giannis at the same age. Giannis was more well rounded and obviously just more talented, but still, they're similar.

Actually worse for Durant with the torn Achilles. The ACL you come back from now almost 100 pct if not 100 pct if you put in the time. The Achillies you never come back 100 pct from(or almost never). And Durant will be 32 now the next time he plays(most likely). The question now is should teams still be offering the max for KD? If I'm a team like the Knicks, I'm definitely offering. I'm tanking this year again then, then next year maybe try and bring Davis in as a FA. FWIW I think KD's going to come back and be a great scorer. I mean, he's a 7 footer who can get his shot off against anyone. He'll be able to play in this league for a long time if he wants. But the rest of his game is going to struggle. Would a great story line would it be though if both Klay and KD rehabbed from their injuries and then came back next year with about a month to go in the season with Steph dragging the Dubs into the playoffs and then they get those two back and go on a run?

This is the stupidest non-issue EVER. It's the media and twitter that care and I don't even believe they do. What's the FIRST tiebreaker in soccer? Goal differential. What did Thailand do to Indonesia? They won....13-0. But these women are supposed to what, not try when they get a big lead? Bunting to break up a no-hitter is very different. This is another issue driven by twitter that's now getting media play...and it blows my mind. How about we just enjoy USA Women playing great? To be clear, I think this is a stupid controversy, not topic to be posted here. Since others are weighing in, including yourself, I guess it is a good topic to be pisted here. But you're welcome to apply for a job as a mod. Hey, next time read a little closer before piping in with a snide comment. I even made sure to clarify that I thought the controversy was stupid, NOT the thread about the controversy.

That’s exactly where I was coming from. If Pop thinks he can play, then who am I to doubt the ultimate players’ coach? I’m not sure how much Pop was involved in that decision (if at all), but the SAS organization has built up a lot of goodwill. I believed them over Uncle Dennis. I thought Pop sat down and talked with him. I doubt that the genesis of this was them going to Kawhi and asking him to take less than the Max. Everyone knew Kawhi was a superstar. Now on his own without 3/4 HOF'ers playing with him, we see he's probably the best player in the world right now, but even then, he was at least a top 5 player. Certainly possible though.

I'm still sour on Kawhi after that. His situation and KD's are so different. Kawhi had some mysterious injury and the team cleared him in January, a notoriously conservative team. When KD got hurt, I don't think anyone believed it was a calf injury. I know I didn't and said as much on here and that was hardly a hot take. I hoped it was because the NBA is just better with players like KD in it. I'll take the Spurs side of the story on this one. Though I get where you're coming from. It's almost never a good idea to try to guess how badly injured a player is or when he should come back from what you've seen. Two guys have the exact same injuries and you never know how they're going to bounce back. People's bodies are so different. I tore an ACL, was supposed to be out 6 months, rehabbed it and strengthened the muscles around it and I was back in 6 weeks...and I wasn't toughing it out, I just didn't have any pain. My buddy had the same injury, opted for surgery, came back 100 pct and ended up tearing it three more times. I am glad we've got Bud in Milwaukee. One of the reasons he's so well liked by the players is because he's very cautious with them(A Pop disciple). There were reports he likes to take when the trainer and player says he's ready to come back and add about 2 weeks to that to make sure. He did that with Snell last year and he did that with Brogdon(maybe not exactly two weeks, but you get the idea). It really is a shame to see KD down and likely out all next year. I wonder though, if you're the Knicks, do you still go ahead and give him a max deal? You can sign him, add a guy like RJ Barrett, a player who I think will be better in the NBA than college, have another bad year, work the cap so that you still have room to add another max contract and then you have a top pick, a potential ROY candidate and maybe a guy like AD coming into NY next year. Given their history, if I'm them, I'd still be willing to pay KD and put him on the shelf for a year.

This is the stupidest non-issue EVER. It's the media and twitter that care and I don't even believe they do. What's the FIRST tiebreaker in soccer? Goal differential. What did Thailand do to Indonesia? They won....13-0. But these women are supposed to what, not try when they get a big lead? Bunting to break up a no-hitter is very different. This is another issue driven by twitter that's now getting media play...and it blows my mind. How about we just enjoy USA Women playing great? To be clear, I think this is a stupid controversy, not topic to be posted here.

We've seen a lot of small markets have some of the highest payrolls over the past decade. OKC, Portland, and Cleveland have been near the top on several occasions. I'll grant that there's a limit but I would certainly hope they'll go into the top 5 in payroll. Most contenders do when it's necessary to keep the team together. It is unusual to have so many guys that need to be paid though. There's another argument in favor of Hill, and that is avoiding a long-term luxury tax commitment. The repeater tax is brutal, and it's not just about the rich owners' money. If you waive Hill and keep Khris, Lopez, Mirotic, and Brogdon, you're committed to a high tax bill for years. That means you lose the BAE, which is how you got Lopez in the first place, and you are stuck with the tax MLE every year. Giannis comes due for the super-max and you're in trouble. I think keeping, say, Mirotic, is worth the difference between the full MLE and the tax MLE for one year... but is it worth losing the full MLE every year and losing the BAE? The same thing applies even to Khris or Brogdon considering the wing depth they might have with Brown, DDV, and Pat C. I have nothing against Khris in terms of his value on the court (even though I've talked extensively about how I think he could be better), but if he gets 4/$140m from someone else, I could easily talk myself into being glad they can keep everyone else and get comfortably back under the luxury tax when Hill and Ersan are off the books. Just estimating, but I believe if they let Khris walk, they could probably use the full MLE every year for 3-4 years (plus use the BAE every other year during that time) before they go over the tax apron again, even with a super-max extension for Giannis. That's potentially appealing because there will be ring-chasers like Pau Gasol this year, only better, and because needs change and injuries happen, which the flexibility of the full MLE helps you address. I agree with this. Then draft a player that is similar to Kris (Louis King from Oregon is my choice and should be available). Between Malcolm, Donte, Hill, Connaughton, MLE, and the draft pick not to we should be able to shoot threes at an efficient rate from our twos and threes. I hope they can resign everybody, but I think Kris needs to be reasonable. It is kind of like do you want to play with Giannis and be the number two guy and have a chance for a ring or two or some team like the Knicks, Mavericks or Hawks and be the number one guy and win half your games. I don't look at him as a number one guy, I just hope he wants to be the number two guy and stay put hear in the MKE. Would you take about 40 million less than you could get? I think asking him to take less money to stay and play for your team is more unreasonable than if Middleton decided to leave and take the max. I already addressed how I think it's unreasonable to just list all of our wings and say they could fill in for Middleton, but in this scenario, you're paying Hill 19 million. Well, just from a money standpoint, that's hardly reasonable. Plus, he's a 6'3 PG. Not a 6'8 SF. DDV played very little this year. Hard to count on him to help replace an all-star. Brogdon is already on the team, so he's not helping to replace, but he does now need to take on a bigger role and we have no idea who that MLE may be. I'll agree that our shooting would be alright...in the regular season, but you really don't have a viable 2nd option. The second problem I have is you're also assuming he has to give up the chance to contend. Throw him on the Kings for next year, a team that has the money to give him a max deal and a lot of good young talent and he's on a contender. Especially with so much up in the air around him. That team on paper would be competitive with almost anyone and they're still so young and have so much more room for growth. Even throw him on the Hawks with Trae Young(who I was very wrong about as I thought he'd be a bust, but is a really good PG and can really pass well). That's a team that's interesting and got some good young pieces. You can't just draft "someone like" Middleton. He's not a superstar, he probably shouldn't be a "max" player, but a lot of players shouldn't be and are. If you get rid of him, the Bucks next best player is???? It goes from having a clear cut #1 in Giannis, a clear #2 in Middleton and then a number of guys who can be that 3rd options on a given night. That's a formula that I think can win. It's a bit rarer in the NBA, but teams like the Mavs, Pistons, and others have done it. But if your second best player is a guy like Bled, Brogdon, or whoever else, you're in a lot of trouble. You've got a core that's mostly in their 20's, their mid 20's. I think it's foolish to let them go when you have Giannis. I wasn't alive the last time the Bucks had a player this talented and even though I'm still fairly young, good chance I won't be the next time they do(and if I am, very little chance that player will be so eager to stick around Milwaukee). You cannot waste this chance.