HiAndTight

I do think we'll win the series. I just think it's more like a 85%-90% chance rather than the mortal lock that some seem to. I think collectively we tend to overuse the "this this and this all went wrong and we still almost won" arguments. I'm losing count of how many times we've played the "our worst night" card in the playoffs so far. Each game is it's own animal. Giannis might go for 40 on Tuesday and Kawhi might go for 50 and we lose by a point. One of Giannis' best games this season, I recall, was a home loss to Philly. Toronto will probably be favored to win on Tuesday, as they were today, and then if the bounces don't go your way all of the sudden you've got a best of 3. Now hopefully we can put that all to rest on Tueaday, but we take way too much for granted against a 58 win team. Leonard could go MJ on us the rest of the series, we just don't know. Again, I do think we'll win this series. We just seem to assume an awful lot for a team that hasn't been to the Finals in almost 50 years. We're not the Warriors -- not yet anyway. Well, it's only been two times really that we've talked about everything going wrong, Game 1 vs Boston and then last night. Second, I hate when people talk about the history of a franchise when the oldest player on the team wasn't even alive when this run of 50 years started. It has nothing to do with Giannis or Lopez or anyone. And would it somehow be more likely if Big Dog hits that shot in the last seconds vs Philly and the Bucks get routed by the Lakers? Then it'd be a team that hasn't been there in 18 years. I would agree, we are probably a bit TOO confident. The Raptors are a really good team and Kawhi is a freakishly talented player. I think the very few small warts Giannis does still have in his game can be exposed with Kawhi on him and if Middelton isn't hitting his shots, things could go the wrong way. 85-90 pct confidence though is pretty damn high. And Warrented given how the stars had to align for Toronto to beat us.(and Kawhi getting away with the double dribble to essentially put the game away) I've seen crazier things happen in sports. But Toronto winning 3 of the next 4 with 2 in Milwaukee seems unlikely to me.

It's just this myth that the Bucks were falling apart without George Hill that's so ridiculous. We got off to a red hot start, we lost a few close games, an OT game by 2 to the Knicks, we lost out West by 2 to the Suns and now suddenly at 17-8 our season was on the verge of collapse. I get it. I like Hill. I'd like him more if someone didn't try making this and then Hill had the best series of his NBA career and that person now has to thump his chest in every-other-post he makes about him. But he's a nice player. He sure as heck isn't our second most important player and even if you want to argue that he is(because I'm kinda done banging my head against that wall) there is no logical argument you can make that he's their most important player moving forward over the next 4 years. That's the period of time these guys will most likely be signing for. And you can believe all you want that if the Bucks are deep into the luxury tax before Hill, the owners are going to pony up 3.25 million dollars per million more we spend, meaning Hill would effectively cost us 60 million dollars, but how many owners are going to do that? Where have you heard of a team or owner willing to do that outside of Dan Gilbert in Cleveland willing to pay that type of stupid money for JR Smith because LeBron wanted him and he had to keep LeBron happy as long as he could? So that's why Hill figures in last. Because he's the oldest and least valuable going forward in building what's going to be the core of your team over the next 4 to 5 years, ie, Giannis prime years. Middleton, Brogdon, Mirotic, all in their primes. Or you go with what CHL is suggesting, prioritize Hill, lose Brogdon or Middleton in the process so you can keep an older PG as a backup.....at 19 million dollars next year. Again, a really nice player. Really good role player who has just probably played the best 4 game stretch he has in a few years, but he's a luxury, and one I highly doubt the Bucks are eager to pay.

Saying so doesn't make it true. No way someone who watched all their games in November would argue that they weren't playing much worse than they did all year. They went 8-6 in November, losing to the Suns, Hornets, and Grizzlies, and then gave an encore by losing to the Knicks on December 1st. Just business as usual for one of the greatest regular season teams of all time, right? Don't try to "point out" that they were playing well until you go back and watch the replays of those games. Enjoy watching Dellavedova play PG again. Really odd time to argue that I've been wrong about Hill all along by the way. You sure seem to think it does. And I know it may seem like an "odd time to point out you were wrong about Hill," since he had a great series and I think you have made it a point to mention him in every other thread, but you can't just make things up and pretend they didn't happen. Teams lose games throughout a regular season. You LOVE to point out how they lost to a couple of bad teams. They beat Portland by 43 points. They beat Philly by 15. Toronto by 15. Golden State by 23. Denver by 7. Denver by 6. Toronto by 5. The four games you mentioned, they lost by a combined 10 points. Tell me again how their season was falling apart. Hill made them better. Just making things up and pretending their season was falling apart before we traded him again doesn't make it so.

That would have been SOOO much better than the years of rotating in role players who scored a lot of points on bad teams. The Corey Maggette's, the Stephen Jackson(who was a good ROLD player), the...basically Jabari Parker types who you depended on to be your #1 and was just not awful enough to help you get 35 wins and end up on the edge of the lottery or playoffs(in the East). We just got incredibly lucky and got our generational talent 15th. Something that rarely happens. That was why Bucks basketball was nearly dead. If not for Herb Kohl, the Bucks would likely be gone. Of course, he was the one pushing them to be so consistently mediocre. There is tanking in every sport. I don't really see why it's an issue in basketball. And I also agree, if people think the lottery was fixed for the Pelicans for letting AD leave quietly, then I don't think there was an acceptable outcome. The outcry for the Lakers and particularly the Knicks-given that's genesis of this whole theory would have been ridiculous. If Memphis gets it, people would be saying, "this was for not trading AD to the Lakers." I do think RJ Barrett is going to be a stud in the NBA. It just might take a while.

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. Excellent post. I could not agree with you more. I'd also add that people seem to conflate "value" with "importance." Christian Yelich isn't more important than a good teacher, Very few things in the world are more important than a really good teacher who motivates you. But not only is it difficult to rank a teacher, but it's also just simple economics. Teachers, as important as they are(or Cops, your FD, whatever it may be) simply don't bring in 11 billion dollars to be divided up among the 1200 people(just using 40 man roster and 30 teams for the easiest number). I think you nailed it though, the biggest reason why players get bashed while owners don't is because you can see the players fail on the baseball field.

The feed my family one is particularly annoying. The other one can be absolutely infuriating depending on how it's used. There are times I actually understand the point they're trying to make(moreso in the NFL, but in sports in general). Not when it comes to them negotiating a contract and wanting more money. And to be honest, I actually do feel bad for the ones who have a lot of money and end up squandering it. The Antoine Walker's. It depends on a multitude of factors, but there are a lot of players who just simply did not get the education needed to know how to invest, they don't understand the taxes and other extreme financial burdens that come with them, if you're a young kid, you often have a lot of adults taking advantage of you, not to mention a lot of friends. This happens even more in the black community if they're coming from poverty. I realize logically, it's foolish for me to worry about athletes who had that much, but still, in my mind, having that much and losing it without having a college degree or a skill other than the sport you were good has to be really depressing. Now, of course, these leagues have pension plans where you can start getting more than the average person gets in their pension plan if they've worked for 30 years in your 40's or you can wait and get a couple of hundred K a year if you wait for the normal age of retirement... I agree with your last line very strongly and I know most leagues, the NFL for example, they do try to do that. And some agents are even better about it, but still, they can't control your money.

You're welcome. I like how I say Dubon looks like a utility guy - and then he goes and pops 2 HR and raises his OPS by 40-50 points. I don't see "utility guy" as an insult. First, you have to be good enough defensively to play up the middle, which he is. Then it's a matter of playing some 3rd(I don't know exactly how good his arm is, but even if it's average to below average, that's fine) and then some OF. These are the types of players that can help keep our payroll down, allow us some flexibility and have the potential to develop into something more.

C'mon....Roegner got a vote over Keston Hiura? I could see Turang given what his draft status was, or even if you like upside, but a low upside, soft tossing lefty? He must have a brother on this side. Not that he hasn't pitched well.... Anyway, appreciate you compiling all this. I haven't participated in a while because I just don't follow everyone outside of the top 10-15 close enough. But I see a system that has a couple of potential stars, quite a few potential role players and a potentially loaded BP for years to come. Not all that sexy of a list(though Turang is making it more of one and I think could be a mid-season top 50 type prospect). But again, thanks for all the time and effort!

Why is that? I don't really have a rooting interest one way or the other, but it has to be frustrating when your prime years are while you're under organizational control and your salary is up to the team the first three years, then arbitration, then when you're set to become a FA, the landscape has changed and while other lesser pitchers got paid more, you're not getting the deal you want after watching the Chapman's of the world getting mega deals. It makes sense obviously for the owners, but it's still gotta be frustrating. That and watching the piece of the pie the players get continue to shrink. Either way, I don't or won't get any joy out of them failing to sign a reasonable deal this year. If they're not pitching for the Brewers, I really won't care one way or the other. I can't wait until we find out what we actually offered Kimbrel though. I hope we don't find out it was low ball offer for ~ 9 million or something on a one year deal as it was rumored. I'd assume it was probably in the 12-14 million dollar range, otherwise, the conversations were even more pointless than they turned out to be. Milwaukee and Kimbrel really did seem like an ideal match though given the need and opportunity to step right in.

He was literally acquired off the scrap heap? I thought we just signed him after he was released after 3 innings one year and then traded for him another time, but if they have talented pitches just piling up on a scrap heap somewhere, let's try them out first!

Giannis has the best personality of any NBA superstar IMO. I was just reading an article by the old "un-named" executive, and he was talking about Giannis, and he basically said, he's almost certainly staying in a small markete. He doesn't care about the bright lights...a phrase I don't really get, we've got some bright lights as well, but moving on, he doesn't care about the market, he likes Milwaukee and as long as they're a team that's competitive, he's happy to stay there. I'd assume this guy knows this from talking to agents who are either Giannis' agent or know his agent. So he's good staying in Milwaukee. That jives with everything we've heard. He's extremely loyal(see reaction to Kidd firing, Thon trade). That's always a good thing. He's got a good relationship with Bud it appears. He's got a good sense of humor and he likes to play around...most of his commercials are funny. But on the court, he's an absolute killer. He doesn't have that Jordan mentality, I don't think I've ever seen anyone who does, but he's there with other greats like KG and the like. And finally, he doesn't talk a lot, but when he does, it's funny as hell. Like when he was asked about the impact Marcus Smart had on game 4 and Giannis took about 30 seconds to look at the stat sheet, Middleton giggled, obviously knowing what Giannis was doing...as it was pretty dry, and then he goes on to praise him effusively, talking about how he's their heart and soul. So you can't put up anything on the bulletin board, he didn't say anything...but he made his point. The Celts savior wasn't saving them! We genuinely may have the best Football player, Baseball player and Basketball player in the game at the same time(you have to kinda play around with the time frame to make Yelich the best baseball player when Trout is playing, but it could be argued at least). Great time to be a Wisconsin sports fan!

Well, it'd have to be a team with salary cap room, and I'm guessing you'd have to give up your 1st. I don't really like that idea as you REALLY need to keep trying to infuse young talent into this roster. I'd like to see them move Snell and Ersan this off-season. Ersan not because he's vastly overpaid, but because he's actually got value, but because I'd like to see Mirotic re-sign and stick around and because I think DJ Wilson will eventually slide into the role that Ersan plays. Ersan is such a smart player, that'd be a concern, but Wilson seems like a pretty savvy BB player as well and he's younger, cheaper and more athletic. Ideally, we trade them together to a team that's tanking and pick up a useful vet like we did this year when we dumped Henson and Delly's deals for a 1st round pick.

I think it's pretty simple. 1-This off-season is going to establish what the Bucks look like for the foreseeable future. Meaning the next 5-6 years. Giannis is going to be making nearly 60 MILLION dollars in the 5th year of his contract extension that we're all hoping he signs. You seem to be looking no further than next season, ignoring the fact that we have very little in the way of assets moving forward to acquire players or to add the players we'll be losing. And with Hill's injury history, I'd assume you're not counting on him for 4+ years like you would anyone else on that list sans Lopez. SO, who and WHAT do you prioritize? Your core. Khris Middleton isn't a Max level player. But he'll get max level offers. We don't have much choice but to offer that to him. MAYBE he's willing to take a little under the max, save the Bucks a few million, but I don't think that's likely with Indy and Brooklyn lurking and reportedly interested in him. So for the next few years, almost all of your main pieces are going to be the players you bring back from this current team. There's always the vet who may come in on a cheaper deal(Hill could possibly be one of those guys, maybe we sign him to the MLE before we sign the other players) via a buyout, but that's just rounding out the roster. You're not going to have a chance to pick up talent like Middleton, Mirotic, Brogdon moving forward. We won't own our 1st round picks and we've traded most of our 2nd round picks for the near future as well. So it's this core. You either try to keep them together or you believe that Giannis is so good we can just find guys like Middleton, Brogdon and Mirotic off the scrap heap without the benefit of many draft picks in the near future past this year. So which players do you want? You want to move on from one of your core players, a younger player like Brogdon who just put up a 50/40/90 season, is a good, versatile defender and who despite not having a great first step, has the size and physical strength to get to and score at the rim for the next 4 years in favor of Hill, a backup PG who is 33, and who will be here for one season? You're hurting your team for the next 4-5 years in favor of what MIGHT be an upgrade for one season. Of course Brogdon is just the 8th player in NBA history to put up a 90/50/40 season, he's a very good defender, he's physical at just under 6'6 with a big wingspan. He's not the on-ball defender Hill is, but he's a bigger, stronger and he fits into the Bucks offense perfectly. But now, you let Brogdon go in order to pick up Hill's 19 million dollar option to play 20 minutes as our backup PG and then the following year you have neither of them. I mean, sure, you do have Hill's bird rights at the point, but now he's a 34, with an injury history. And if you want to keep lamenting Brogdon's injuries and using the suggestion that he's got foot issues, he had one foot injury in college 6 years ago. He came back and didn't miss a beat. This isn't Bill Walton we're signing after he played with the Celts for a year. the "toll" injuries have taken on him have been greatly exaggerated by one person. The players who struggle with that type of injury are the ones who keep hurting it, it never heals, then you develop ancilary problems and they're usually because of abnormally large feet. Like Yao, Oden or the aforementioned Walton. This latest injury was a completely different type of injury that's a very common injury in sports. Then, there also seems to be this idea that you can just replace guys like Middleton because you have wing depth. No, you can't. You can't just replace an all-star who does everything pretty well and can shoot, and who is a perfect fit with Giannis by committee. You need that guy who's capable of hitting the tough shots with players in his face in order to keep some of the pressure off Giannis. Middleton is the perfect complimentary star next to Giannis. He gets his touches, but he seems to have his ego in check and doesn't question who the leader of the team is. That's the problem with one guy being an all-star and one guy being almost an afterthought in a trade to free up cap space in a trade when they both play well in the post-season. The expectations are so VASTLY different, that when Middleton plays 33 MPG, shoots 47 pct from 3 and hits over 90 pct of his FT's while scoring 20 PPG, it gets overlooked because that's what you expect your #2 star to do. And he did that while having to play Heyward, Tatum, Brown on defense and he did a very good job with all of them. Meanwhile, Hill plays a little over 20 MPG, shoots extremely well and plays extremely well, but we're going nuts because he's a guy we got in a salary dump and we don't expect it. George Hill going up for a lob, that stands out more because he's a backup PG who is playing the best series of his career. And thank god he did because Bledsoe shrunk at times on the offensive end. I don't think the series is any different if you replace Hill with Brogdon. Certainly not if Brogdon out-performed his regular season shooting to the degree that Hill did. And again, that leads to people saying things, like, "I forgot Brogdon was out, but I guarantee you would notice Hill's absence." Do you? First of all, when you win 4 straight by 10+ points, it's a little easier to not worry about your teams best shooter being out. But if this would have been a closer series, if Kyrie would have just played average, not had the worst shooting slump of his career, and had Giannis not dominated the Celts, I think you'd have noticed that Brogdon wasn't playing. That's just a ridiculous thing to say in my opinion. Hill had the best series of his life, but he's not the Bucks 2nd most important player. He's not more important than Middleton, the only other reliable scorer who can take the pressure off Giannis, he's not more important than Bledsoe, he's not more important IN MY OPINION than Brogdon.....especially not to the future of the Bucks franchise. And if you're one to worry about a player injuring one foot as a Soph. in college, coming back completely healthy and then injuring his other foot in a totally different manner 6 YEARS apart, how are you not worried about George Hill's long term health prognosis when he's dealt with back injuries? Not that I think the few injuries he has are all that important, but using your criteria....which remember, at one point was how it was becoming almost an emergency situation that we needed to get rid of Brogdon(don't recall the exact words, but that was essentially the point). But here's the most important thing. Even if you were to agree that Hill is more important than Brogdon...and I'd suggest looking past the recency bias, but that's hard to do. But assuming you are. The difference is hardly a significant one and certainly not one where you choose to re-sign the older guy for ONE year rather than hold onto the 26-year old for the next 4. The only reason Hill would win out in that scenario is if you believe the Bucks are likely to lose Giannis....and I'd argue, given how he's taken the losses of players like Thon Maker in the past, he'd be rather upset if we lose key players from this team, especially Khris Middleton and Malcolm Brogdon who are both core pieces and should be for the next 4 or 5 years. I love the spark that Pat Connaughton, Sterling Brown, Ersan, and especially George Hill have provided the Bucks this post-season. They've held serve while Giannis has gone to the bench in foul trouble or just needed a breather. But lets not get it twisted. Just because you're accustomed to Middleton playing at a high level and you're not used to seeing Hill play as well as he has this series, Middleton or Bledsoe are the 2nd most important players in terms of winning or losing. In game one, Bledsoe played so poorly on both ends, he helped the Celtics get into a rhythm and we saw what they were capable of. The rest of the series, he was sporadic offensively, but he was incredible defensively. And I love George Hill. I liked him 5-6 years ago(not as much as Indy did when they traded Kawhi for him) and I like him a lot now. But he didn't turn around this season for the Bucks, that argument has already been debunked. The Bucks weren't ready to implode. They had blown out multiple good teams, including Golden State and they were something like 18-9. Hadn't yet hit their stride, but they also hadn't lost back to back games and they were playing good basketball. I remember one of the reasons why they were "literally on the verge of imploding" was because they lost to Portland. Yes, the same Portland team now that's a game away from advancing to the WCF's...and actually, it was a better one as they've lost Nurkic since then...and they were leading the west at that point. They lost to one of the best teams in the West, possibly a team they'll see in the finals, they also beat that team by 43 points, they blew out Golden State as I mentioned, they lost 4 or 5 games in OT or by a couple points and they beat Toronto a couple of times, Denver twice, again, Portland. What part of that suggests the season needed to be "turned around?" That's just a false narrative that only one person is pushing. And as much as I'd love to see the Bucks bring back this entire roster, this isn't NBA 2K or whatever where the money isn't real. Assuming you sign Middleton to ~30 million, Mirotic and Brogdon to ~25 combined(which I think is a safe assumption in terms of what they'll get, not that we'll sign both per say) you're going to be well into that luxury tax. And yes, I do count Hill last because...call me crazy, I prioritize keeping the younger players who will be here for multiple years when the Bucks are hopefully winning multiple titles. In that scenario(or really any), the team's almost certainly not going to bring Hill back at 19 million dollars. Of course, maybe we'll be able to test out lukes theory and Middleton will sign with another team, regardless whether the Bucks offer the max. Maybe then we'll see if we can just replace Middleton with our depth of relatively unproven wings and see if Hill really is the 2nd most important player on this team. I'd prefer to not have to find out....especially given how Giannis wants to win and this would be the year he has to make his decision. If this was baseball, this would be an easy decision. Turn down the team option and negotiate a reasonable 2-3 year deal with him. But it's not and nobody is paying George Hill 19 million next year. It's just realistic given the nature of the CBA. But if they really want, sign him to that MLE. So for now, I'm going to enjoy watching him and hope he can continue playing some of the best basketball of his caree through the next round of the playoffs.

As I pointed out, there really wasn't a "rough stretch" before they acquired Hill. You've REALLY turned that rhetoric up since he's had his huge playoff series. The Bucks were playing well when they acquired Hill, including a blowout of the Warriors. But I'm curious, I've read the last couple pages....where is it that you come down on George Hill again? LOL...my god. He's a very good backup PG and he's played his best Basketball in the playoffs. Which isn't a huge shock I guess as he's played in playoff teams nearly his entire career and came in and steadied the team after that ugly game 1 loss. But the recency bias. Hill being more important than Middleton? Hill is the second most important player on the team? Talk about recency bias. George Hill's a very nice player. But my god, you'd think he was Oscar if you just read your posts from this thread. Hill's best strech of playoff basketball+Bledsoe looking bad at times+Kyries worst stretch=Hill going from underrated to overrated due to recency bias.

I think Denver does. They've got a unique superstar who I think Golden State is gonna have all kinda of problems with. I don't think they lose, but I think they have a better chance. I just don't think Portland has the firepower to beat Golden State when they play a similar style of basketball, but with inferior shooters. And that's obviously not a knock on Lillard(or CJ for that matter). I think it was Marc Jackson who said that they have the best shooting backcourt of all time back in 2012 or '13. People scoffed, and it still may not be true. I'd love to see what Jerry West and Gail Goodrich would have done in the modern NBA, but like all sports, we don't. Anyway, Denver just plays a little differently than I think Golden State is used to and I could easily see Jokic getting Looney into foul trouble, Denver can definitely shoot. And who else can score for the Warriors right now? You have Steph, if healthy, he can always get his own shot...Klay can hit contested 3's, but he's kinda like Middleton in that area. He can't really take it to the hoop on his own, he doesn't excel in that area, beating his guy off the dribble. The win by creating chaos plays, tap outs, second chance shoots, getting Steph and Klay open that way, or in transition, guys lose track of their man and Steph comes down and hits a 30 footer 3 seconds into the shot clock. This Warriors team is extremely dangerous, but I think it's more likely that a team that plays a slower place and is better in the half court is more likely to beat them than one who plays very similar to them.

I did just read a statement that Johnson made. He went and talked about how at AZ, Miller, who if he's not in jail by then, will let him push the ball(he didn't mention the jail part, I'm just adding that). How Duke means a lot to him because they've been in there since he was a freshmen and the atmosphere down there is just crazy. He talked about how he was just in awe in general at Kentucky and how much he loved that slimy snake oil salesmen(though.....to be fair, looking at the NBA, his snake oil, in this case, is actually a pretty damn nice product for a prospect of his caliber. But then what he said about the Badgers...I'm sure he didn't mean it how he said it, but it was kinda like, "going to Wisconsin would be like a dream, my family and friends would be able to come, he loved the campus, and the atmosphere at the games would "put them ahead in the end." I'm sure he meant "in the end, that would be the best fan base for me," just talking about that in particular as he mentioned the atmosphere at the other places during the games, but that made my confidence level about 35 pct, up from 15. I wanted to link the article, but I was on another computer and forgot which site it was on. It's at least something that tells you he's really considering playing for UW. Hopefully Gard can sell him on the fact that they've played a faster pace when they've had the pieces to do it and if the Hausers come, he can push the ball and have enough shooting to spread the floor. I wonder how many guys we've lost out to because of our style of play. One would have to think that played a part in the decision for Hero to go to Kentucky. A style of play that shows off his abilities better for NBA teams. Now he's on the verge of being a first-round pick.

Lewis Brinson and Keson Hiura's profiles are about as different as can possibly be. And to your point, Yelich could post a .550 OPS over the next 140 PA's, but that's pretty unlikely. Not that I'm comparing Keston and Yellich, just saying baseball's a difficult game and comparing one players strugles struggles to another is a fool's errand. But your post is just full of false narratives. Nobody said he's going to be the next Ryan Braun and Lewis Brinson's struggles don't reflect upon him at all. Brinson was always a boom or bust type prospect. I've always thought that Keston would make an immediate impact. His K rate this year is giving me a little reason to pause, but without watching him, I don't know if it's a result of him trying to hit for more power and chasing or the pitchers in AAA who know how to pitch, but don't have the stuff of the guys in AAA are finding holes. Still, his production can't be ignored. He'll likely provide a spark at some point, but it's pointless to get worked up because it didn't happen for 3 games and then send him back down. And for the record, the Brewers may very well have lost the first game vs the Cubs without that run scoring play Perez made. That would have tired the game up if he hadn't knocked it down, but he not only got to it, he made a great throw from short right to get the runner. I realize we went on to score 2 in each of the final 3 innings, but if the Cubs rally there, that changes the entire complex of the game. Big, run-saving defensive plays often do. So he has hit a HR and made one huge play along with a couple of other really nice defensive plays in the first two games. Not sure that for a 3 game series, we'd have been that much better served by bringing up Keston.

You don't send just send a guy like Shaw down vs the Cubs because he's struggled vs them. If you'd send him down, it'd be because he's struggling in general. Not because of 23 games vs ONE team. That's absurd. Again, back to back 4 ~4 WAR seasons. I wasn't against bringing up Hiura for the Cubs series and then sending him back down, but Shaw shouldn't be the one to go down. Not yet anyway. He's earned the right to get himself straight here. If he's still struggling in another month, that's a different story. Send him down with the understanding that it'll be for 5-6 games, 10 at the most and then he'll be back up. If it's July and he's still hitting this poorly, then you have your solution. But I suspect he'll turn things around as Aguilar has very slowly started to. Also, just annoying taking a shot at the Brewers analytical staff. They've MORE than proven themselves. Their defensive ranking along justifies what they do. We're not among the best in the league defensively(or the best as we were recent) because we've got 8 Simmons type defensive players playing for us. We've got a guy who would have been nearly unplayable at 2nd base 10 years ago doing just fine there now because of how they position their players.

So....after 4 starts in which he was incredibly unlucky with a .452 BABIP and gave up an incredibly high and unstainable HR rate, the ONLY two options that now exist for Corbin Burnes are to either pitch 2 innings a few times a week or "stink it up once every 5 days?" How many ace pitchers would have been relegated to the pen if we used this type of absurd logic using his age, his pedigree, and the absurdly small sample size? Roy Halladay gave up 14 HR's in 60-some innings at roughly the same age and had a 10 ERA. He was a hard thrower. I wonder if he'd have been better in the pen? Greinke struggled early on and moved to the pen. I wonder if he'd have had a better career and been more valuable had they not moved him back to the rotation? And there is still a significant difference between being a starter and being a reliever. Starters are far-far more important. If they weren't, you wouldn't see the top reliever in last years game sign for 3 years and 27 million like we saw with Ottavino. They'd get paid closer to what Patric Corbin got paid, 6/140. And yes, being a starter or a reliever DOES absolutely matter. This is akin to saying, "I don't care if Keston Hiura comes up and is able to start every day at 2nd base," --and then after 10 games of him struggling and being moved to the bench where he starts to thrive--"I just care that he gets us 6 good at-bats a week." It seems because we did such a great job(by we I mean CC managing the pen and Stearns putting it together) or getting through games last year during that relatively short playoff push and then the post-season, despite not having the Walker Buehler, Kershaw-types, some people on here are greatly diminishing the value and importance a reliable starting pitcher brings, much less one who's capable of being a #2/3 or higher if we're just looking at his ceiling. You can't expect to contend if you can't get good innings from your starters, and you sure can't develop starters if you just relegate them to the pen because they struggle a bit in the first two weeks they start. It's great to have relievers like Hader. But if the Brewers thought Hader was closer to Chris Sale, he'd be starting games most likely. And we can still develop them. But you don't turn a guy into one until he fails in the rotation and I need to see him given more than 4 starts before I'll believe he can or cannot succeed there. There were a lot of people who wanted Woodruff to pitch in that multi-inning type of role in the pen, but we're definitely lucky to see him in the rotation. Hopefully, a year from now when we've got a healthy and better stocked BP, Burnes will be pitching as well as Woodruff is.

Agree with all this stuff.... he is probably 8 or 9 in the rotation totem pole. He can look to start again next season. Then again, if he is lights out as a reliever again this year, just Hader him and say your role and nitch is set. Another multi inning option in the pen is a great weapon to have. A niche role is Daniel Brown as a left handed specialist. Not a power righty who throws multiple pitches being a reliever just because you pulled the plug on him after a handful of starts early in his career. I'd hate to imagine what Roy Halladay would have become had this been the route he took. And we've got a ton of options just in house for the pen next year. Guys who are not quite ready or might be ready by the end of this year and then two big time power arms coming back next year in Wahl and Knebel.

His attack mode led to what, 11 HRs, mainly on fastballs that were heartland. The key is throwing the other stuff for strikes and getting ahead in the count. Relief probably gives him a couple more mphs on his fastball, along with better handpicked matchups from CC. The opportunity for his success is greater. He also seems comfortable with the role of high leverage situation relief pitcher, getting that experience down the stretch and in playoff games last year. No, hit "attack mode" is definitely not what led to him giving up 11 HR's. His lack of FB command and poor luck led to 11 HR's giving up to fastball's that were belt high. It'd be really stupid on the Brewers side if that was the last chance he got to be a starter(and I don't think the Brewers are stupid). Also...his matchup's weren't really handpicked last year. He was coming in to face whomever whenever they needed him and he was throwing multiple innings. He's got the makeup and the stuff to be a starter. If he can be better used as a reliever this year again, fine. This year is a bit of an aberration with Wahl/Knebel both going down and Jeffress not looking good, but just looking ahead to the future, he should be a starter again. The very limited number of starts doesn't really tell us anything about what his ability as a starter is.

Two things stand out to me in this article. The first; I think that's better than having a second, separate injury. It's more encouraging. The second part though, he wants to throw a slower pitch. Great. Wonderful. That'd likely make him much more dangerous. Too much velocity, not usually a problem, but if he could extend the range from 80-81 to 99, that's much better than 89-99. But PLEASE tell me someone is encouraging him to go with the curveball and just not even try to screw around with the splitter. There's no reason for him to start throwing a splitter now. It's the worst pitch, puts the most strain on the elbow and forearm and it's just not necessary. Flip up a few curve balls. He's a pitcher, I'm sure he can already throw a curveball, it's probably just not developed.

Signing a 1-year deal this far into the season is likely a complete no-win for both of these guys. No team is going to give them a huge salary at this point, especially since we're looking at probably June before they would be available. Plus, if they were to sign a 1-year pact and not pitch well, it's going to hurt their chances of signing a long-term contract this coming offseason. Sure, they could both sign a deal and pitch well, but would that really increase interest and get a team to take the plunge? Both are coming off solid to above-average seasons and couldn't find the deals they wanted. The only way that is going to change after signing one-year deals is if both pitch like Cy Young candidates in their abbreviated seasons ... and I'd say the chances of that happening are slim. They would just be assuming too much risk at this point. They'd be wise to take a 2 year deal with an opt out after this year. That's the only way I could see them signing a short term deal at this point. Craig Kimbrel has expressed a desire to break the all time saves record...and realistically could. But a team that was one win away and in need of a closer(still in need of a closer for that matter as I hate seeing Hader in that role) would seem to be a pretty good fit. I mean, by the time he'd break the record, very few people would care about the record, but that's fine. As long as he does.

Agreed. The average person is the average person for a reason. They're not among the best in the world and working in an extremely exclusive group which creates 11 billion dollars of revenue. It just comes off as bitter. And there are plenty of reasons for people to feel that way, plenty of ways people can be wronged just feels like wasted energy. If you're one of the best in the world at anything, you get paid like it. You're likely to be very very rich.

Thank you. I'm guessing they were operating under the assumption he'd be able to get a medical hardship for that year given that pretty much all the criteria need is listed in that article. Injury has to be season-ending, has to be during your college career or your Sr year of HS(I think it has to be your Sr year, not 100 pct on that, but I believe that's the case), and you can't have played in more than 30 pct of the season. All of which fit him. Anyway, back to the actual basketball side of it, how do the two Hausers compare with Decker? I don't watch a lot of Marquette BB, but they seem to be at least somewhat similar. Have similar games. I'd guess Decker would be more athletic but I don't know that to be true. Long way of asking if either of them can hope to have NBA careers. I realize Decker hasn't lit the league on fire, but a lot of that is injuries.