HiAndTight

I really thought that signing was a good one. Maybe it would have been here, but I looked as his stats in Coors, his peripherals and then his name rec and the contract he was likely to get and was really hoping we'd sign him to a 3/27 type deal. And he has been just awful. I kn. ew he had walk problems, but he also got a lot of GB's and K's. And Darvish...I haven't even checked in to see what he's done this year. I know he had a bad start already, but god we dodged a couple bullets that year. I have a feeling we'll be saying that about Kuechel in a few years as well Sometimes it's a lot of fun to be wrong.

Michael Brantley would have been a big help at a very low price for several years. Same goes for Cain departing in the Greinke trade. I personally think the Brewers lost more chances to make the playoffs than they gained by making those two trades, and I think what they're doing now reflects the fact that Mark A learned his lesson (he has even said this, in so many words). If it's a last-gasp effort to win a title, by all means pull out all the stops, but they were doing this stuff when they had a great young core and a chance to have sustainable success. They weren't terrible trades or anything, but I think they were kind of short-sighted. Now we don't see them giving up much value for short-term patches. Moustakas, Schoop, Claudio? Fine. But they aren't giving away excessive surplus value for short-term rentals anymore, and I'm very glad for that. The Yelich deal is exactly the type of opportunity you hold out for. I've never seen Mark A say anything negative about any of those three trades. Perhaps you could jog my memory and show me where he has said that or even hinted at it? Every time I've heard Mark talk about the trades, namely for CC and Greinke, he's spoken glowingly about them. I'd be interested to hear him say he learned a lesson and it was to not make those types of trades again.

Michael Brantley would have been a big help at a very low price for several years. Same goes for Cain departing in the Greinke trade. I personally think the Brewers lost more chances to make the playoffs than they gained by making those two trades, and I think what they're doing now reflects the fact that Mark A learned his lesson (he has even said this, in so many words). If it's a last-gasp effort to win a title, by all means pull out all the stops, but they were doing this stuff when they had a great young core and a chance to have sustainable success. They weren't terrible trades or anything, but I think they were kind of short-sighted. Now we don't see them giving up much value for short-term patches. Moustakas, Schoop, Claudio? Fine. But they aren't giving away excessive surplus value for short-term rentals anymore, and I'm very glad for that. The Yelich deal is exactly the type of opportunity you hold out for. From 2011-2014 the Brewers got 16.9 WAR out of Carlos Gomez. Brantley was 12.4 WAR over that time frame. Cain was 14 WAR over that time frame. We got better production by trading these guys and getting Gomez. I don't agree that we cost ourselves anything by making these trades in terms of future playoff performances. I think we likely would have just cost ourselves the two we did make(though I hated the Marcum trade because of who we got back, just never a fan). But the example you're using doesn't make sense to me. We could have played both Brantley and Gomez and had a really good OF. It's not like Gomez was traded for someone we acquired for some we got in one of these trades. We got lucky and Gomez was good for us. There's no direct correlation to those actual trades though.

I wouldn't agree with your brother, but I did think we should have been trying to acquire Grienke at that time rather than CC. He was on the block and could have been traded and given that our AA team was so stacked with prospects that we now kinda forget about because they flamed out, we easily could have gotten Greinke for IIRC 4 years and kept out window for competing open longer. And it wouldn't have cost Brantley....who nobody foresaw becoming an all-star anyway. I think it was Gammons or Tim Kurk-not gonna try to spell it-who said that some rival executives said that AA team was one of the most prospect laden teams they'd ever seen. Angel Salome was hitting like .360 that year and looked like a future Pudge for instance. I'd never agree with your brother. The CC trade was a awesome trade. But I did think at the time that I'd rather get guy who could become a fixture rather than a rental. And I fell in love with Greinke after he became a reliever and pitched against the Brewers. It was the first time I'd ever seen him pitch and his fastball, a mid 90's fastball had such ridiculous movement to it. Anyway, it clearly wasn't a bad move. That's the bottom line.

Um ... what? You don't consider it a win already? It's a probable win, but if Brinson, Diaz, Harrison, and Yamamoto become good assets for the Marlins, the deal gets closer to a draw. Getting Yelich for another four years tips the balance more clearly in the Crew's favor, IMO. Just the suggestion that this could POSSIBLY not be considered a MASSIVE win for the Brewers at any point is almost infuriating to me. People are literally talking about if this is one of the greatest trades of all time and you're worried that Ymamamota may become a good asset for the Marlins making this deal a draw?P My god people.....just enough. Enjoy watching one of the greatest runs you'll ever see a Brewer player put together, understand it's going to come to an end and this man is GOING to struggle again at some point, but that it's absolutely a win and that won't change if the 4th guy we traded to the Marlins becomes a back of the rotation starter! We fleeced them! I still believe Brinson will become a good player. We still fleeced them. I like Diaz and Harrison. Fleeced them still. MVP player-prime years-extremely team friendly deal. It's the type of trade people on here suggest and then it gets dismissed because it never happens. We just happened to get Yelich one year before people would have started to suggest it. I cannot think of one single good reason to spend 7 years and 210 million on a player who is 27 and who we control for 4 years yet. You're basically paying him what he'd likely get as a FA in AAV.

First of all neither 50K nor 150K will set me up for life. That's the biggest difference, either 100M or 300M is life changing money. If I sold that collectable for 100M and someone else flipped it for 300M in a few years I would be just fine. Going year to year is still a huge risk, he's only making near league minimum for 3 years, more than enough time to end up either with a career ending injury or somehow end up a bust. Also you don't know that the Braves had any interest in a deal without buying out some FA. That's the whole benefit for them. If Acuna wouldn't do it, they might have rather just gone year to year. Yes the odds of him getting a big deal are better at 28 than 31 but that difference doesn't prevent him from necessarily getting another great deal in his 30s like guys such as Goldschmidt, JD Martinez, Cain, etc, have all gotten. How about if we turn this around. Which would make you feel more sick to your stomach? Turning down the shot at 100 million at 21 years old to maybe make 300 million later on and then end up having some car accident, catastrophic injury, whatever it may be, and you never make that 100 million, or being so successful in your profession that you made 100 million, but you could have made significantly more? I wouldn't be fine with it like you adambr if I lost out on 200 million, but as I was sitting in my mansion and able to provide for my family, I'd cope. On the other side, if something awful happens and he's out of baseball in 3-4 years, I'd be pretty happy I signed that deal.

Maybe I missed it. What exactly did Jeff Passan say in reference to this contract that would "remove all doubt" that he's an idiot? Also...if you're going to quote Lincoln, better to quote him accurately. Pretty sure old 'Abe didn't call anyone an idiot.

By the math, a 60 percent chance at $300 million is worth $180 million. I can see why someone would sign the deal. But it's still worth much less than he could earn taking the other route. The Braves are delighted to do this. Less than he COULD. How much is the certainty worth to him? How much is it worth that he can map out the rest of his life now knowing what he'll have? How much is it worth that he can just go enjoy the game he loves to play for the next 8 years and not worry about what will happen if he doesn't perform? How much stress does it add to the life of a pre-arbitration player when you get into a slump, you haven't gotten a long-term deal and you start to question if maybe you're not as good as you thought? How much sleep does it cost you and how much do you press and worry about it? Is his life really going to be of less quality and happiness if he has to retire in 8 years with 100M and could have earned 300M if he had played his cards right? There are so many more intangibles at play than just "this is what the chance is worth at this percent because this is the potential dollar amount." You're 100 pct right. He's at the very least made generational money for himself and his family. I do believe he's a generational talent. And for the record, it appears that phrase is being thrown around a lot because there seems to be more players doing things from ages 19-22 that are extremely rare than ever before.

Well that's good, right? Both guys have had elbow issues, not shoulder issues if memory serves, so getting back to 100 pct health isn't as far fetched as it'd be if they'd had continued shoulder issues(though I could be wrong on that with Kirby). Two guys who were elite college arms back in the system this year. Maybe they just convert to relievers and actually end up doing something for the Brewers.

Because he would slot into the closer role and then Hader could be used in the role that seemed to best suit him last year.....or because you believe he's worse than the other relievers we have? From Fangraphs; I guess if the Blue Jays basically gave him to us, or took back a couple low end prospects at most, fine. But for 6.5 million....I'd rather let it play out. I'd feel better about guys like this is DJ were still around. But hey, he has a -.43 FIP so far this year....kinda hard to beat that, right? And I'd put that in blue, but I think I saw someone citing our BP rankings after 4 games.

https://sports.yahoo.com/report-bud-norris-repeatedly-harassing-cardinals-rookie-manager-doesnt-seem-care-much-234600367.html Sounds like Matheny was all on board with this. I get that he was an unquestionable tough guy as a player, but this just seems stupid and counter productive to me. [sarcasm]Hicks certainly seemed to just LOVE the mentoring by Norris.[/sarcasm] Still, I stand by what I said. If he was better, I'd be able to see past this. This crap wouldn't fly in Milwaukee...but agree with everyone else, why bother bringing in a rehabbing vet who's just not that good to possibly mix it up in the clubhouse.

Also the dude that tattled on Jordan Hicks last year when he wasn't up to Norris' professional standards. Hard pass on this dickwad. The first part of full of dog whistles, but maybe I'm just desensitized to it. He DOES talk about how it's good that more people are coming over and playing. I'm not 100 pct sure who the "We" is that he's referring to and it's annoying that he's speaking as though he had any part in opening said door to those players. And for someone who wants people to understand the history of baseball, tell me, did Clemente play in the last 10-15 years? He comes off as a clown in there as the self appointed "unwritten rule" just echoing what a lot of people say about Latin American players, they tend to be more affable, outgoing and they have big personalities and celebrate when they do something well...like in pretty much every sport. Not just the Puig's, but guys like Lindor...some people don't like that. Actually a lot of people don't like that. Not sure why, it's usually the same people who complain about grown men playing a kids game wanting to get paid more. Lindor really comes to mind when I think about how much someone just loves to play. So that's not disqualifying to me in and of itself. Not sure what he did with Hicks. 21 year old pitcher isn't doing something right, it's kinda on the vets to take care of it, but again, I don't know what the story is. Beyond that, he just really isn't good enough is he? I can overlook that stuff...and again, maybe that's just because you hear so much worse from certain individuals on a daily basis about the people he seems to be referring to. I could get past the Cards-like righteousness as well. For instance, if Kimbrel had signed and said these things, not sure people would be too upset. But you need to be better, be healthy and then sports fans will tolerate stupidity. At least that's my experience in watching sports.

I agree with that. It's surprising to see entire teams built like that. Coach K for a while was doing it with a core, the glue guys, the vets and then bringing in some stars. Just look at who has come out of Kentucky the past 10 years. It seems like every good big has come from UK. Now you have a draft in which 3 freshmen will go in the top 4(at least that's how it's now projected) all from the same school, plus a 4th who could be a lottery pick or at least a 1st rounder from Duke...the coach who seemed to dislike the early entries more than most.

I doubt it was intended, but that phrase suggests something that you can't really foresee. Couldn't everyone pretty much foresee this coming? I also don't think the 1 and done will change by letting guys go straight to the NBA. I think it should be similar to baseball. Either 3 years or go pro. Except I'd go 2 years. You're still going to see the top available talent going to Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Kansas and the like getting all those top talents.

Yeah, I'm good with that. I guess that foe tab is there for a reason. It just does get a little old anytime someone doesn't agree with another, we hear that person explain how they're an expert and talk down to others while others just don't understand. Anyway, I'm loving it. You've Middleton, Giannis, Beldsoe all struggle badly at times and you see someone like Pat Connaughton come in and make a difference on both ends with his surprising athleticism, or Sterling Brown, or Wilson. All guys you expected very little from coming into the season. Frazier even looked good last night. He has the quickness and it appears the ability to be a viable NBA PG(still preferably one who you don't have to count on unless guys go down as they have recently, but still, he's shown a little bit recently). I'd definitely still rather have Christian Woods, but that's only because of 4 games in NO. I didn't get to see him enough in Milwaukee to form an opinion.

That was not the "entire point" at all. If it was, they wouldn't be playing him so much, and they wouldn't be a much better team with him. If you don't remember how they struggled without him, you should research it a little and not hold such a strong opinion about what he's worth until you do. They had gone 9-8 in a 17 game stretch before acquiring him, including losses to Phoenix, NY, Charlotte, and Memphis and one of their only blowout losses all year (Portland). It's no exaggeration to say their promising season was falling apart due to the lack of a capable backup pg. They also lost to Cleveland and Phoenix when he missed games later in the season. Others have pointed out their record with and without him and some of the key on/off stats as well. They are literally one of the dominant regular season teams of all time with him, and an ordinary 50-55 win team without him. I think the reason it's hard for some people to realize how important he's been is twofold. One, he's simply effective (as opposed to sensational) and he makes much of his impact on defense and intangibles, which casual NBA fans are notorious for ignoring. Two, you're probably ignoring just how bad the backup pg scrap heap market is. They've been trying to solidify their pg depth for years, and the list of guys who have earned minutes there is vomit-inducing. To act like they could just find someone on the scrap heap shows you have not been paying attention to what's actually been going on for years. They can't and shouldn't run that risk when they are a contender with an MVP just beginning his prime. Don't evaluate him in a vacuum about who he is and what he's worth. Personnel moves don't work that way in the NBA at all. It's not at all like baseball; you have to look at the entire situation. And I know they probably won't keep him. That's not my point at all. My point is that they should, rather than being cheap, because he makes a huge difference in their chances of contending. Again, don't look at his ability in a vacuum; look at the drop-off between him and the other options they've had over the years. People keep suggesting that they don't need a good backup pg, but that's been proven wrong time and time again. It's not about the difference between George Hill and the average player making $18m; it's about the difference between George Hill and the average scrap heap backup pg. Wow...I really didn't think I'd held that strong of an opinion. And I honestly didn't recall how poorly they were playing. All I remembered was some big wins early in the season and the fact that they hadn't lost back to back games. I didn't remember the exact date of the trade. I didn't have the time nor did I really care enough to go as deep into this as others have. My strong opinion comes from the fact that it's almost a foregone conclusion that he's going to be waived and his 18 million won't be picked up. And to be honest, I really didn't even pick up on the "ordinary" 50-55 win team with him. That by definition isn't ordinary, but it's also just pure conjecture. I'm honestly not sure what I did to draw your ire here other than just say I honestly don't recall how poorly they were playing at the time of the trade because, again, I didn't remember when it happened exactly and the fact that they've been atop the East pretty much all season without a back to back loss until recently. There are other things I disagree with, namely that they're one of the most dominant teams regular season teams of all time. Point differential is a very good stat to tell you how a team has played in a given year vs the competition they've played. This isn't exactly the East of the 90's with Jordan, the Piston's, Pacers, Knicks or even last year when they had Lebron. If they win out they end up a 62 win team and that's assuming they beat a Sixers team fighting for home court, a Brooklyn team fighting for seeding without Giannis likely playing and one of the better teams in the West with OKC. So the that "ordinary" 55 win team doesn't really sound like it'll be that far off from where we actually end up. And finally, since you are a CBA expert, you should know how much he could end up costing the Bucks. You really think it's fair to call them cheap to not want to spend 60 million or more on an aging PG, even one who's been effective and is a great team play? Heck, even if they are not a luxury tax team, do you really think not spending 18 million on a player you've deemed extremely overpaid would even be cheap? I'll hold off on my opinion on the Bucks owners being cheap until I see what they do with the actual core players, Brogdon, Middlton, Lopez and Mirotic. If they end up letting Middleton walk over a few million or any of those guys, I'll be upset and call them cheap. If they decline to effectively spend 60 million on a 33-year-old PG who may end up signing for a very cheap deal with a contender. We're a long way away from knowing how things are going to end up right now anyway. Maybe we make a trade with Snell, throw in Brown and get back a future pick or to a team with cap room and they can get a trade exception back and sign him for a more reasonable figure. I really don't know all the ways they could bring him back and I'm not that worried about it right now. But there was a lot of animosity in there for me simply saying I really didn't remember the Bucks struggling badly this sesaon before Bell.

So Tom Haudricourt is mad at Brewers Twitter and Brewerfan.net, so he's teamed up with Brewers Owner Mark Attanasio to put out a story to insult the portion of the teams fanbase who wants them to sign Kimbrel? That's a little bit out there ... Didn’t literally get together with mark no, I think you know I was being facetious. But yeah he’s irritated at brewerfan. Can’t say I blame him, he is crushed a lot here. Read beginning of article and tell me there’s no condescension. I don't like the guy, but this is kinda tin hat type thinking. It's more than just this site that wants Kimbrel. I do agree the article was a bit annoying, but I highly doubt he gave this site a seconds thought when writing this article, he was probably just addressing the fact that the Brewers fans seem to be very eager and excited to hear about Kimbrel and he wrote his opinion. One thing you don't need to keep in the back of your mind, even if we sign Kimbrel, there's no guarantee he's going to be the dominant pitcher than Knebel was MOST of the last two years or Jeffress was last year. He struggled in the 2nd half and wasn't great in the post-season last year. We need to do something and we need to do it earlier in the season, but even if we sign Kimbrel, we're guaranteed to get the 1.20 ERA Kimbrel. And given that he likely won't be ready for a few weeks..... I don't think there's a big concern he is like Holland either though. Had the Cards just waited on Holland, they'd have been fine as he was dominant at the end of the year. After filtering through all of this, my take is the Brewers are still in discussions with Kimbrel, but they've probably given his team an idea of what they want to spend and they're waiting for them to get back to us if and when they're willing to take a shorter deal. I feel good that it's just the Brewers and the Braves in it. The Cubs pen is awful, but they don't seem likely to go up over the luxury tax, the Braves are not big spenders. I'd bet if we had the Braves revenues, we'd have a payroll that was right near the tax with Mark A. I think the biggest threat to us is a team like Boston panicking a bit and bailing him out, but their pen has been fine so far. It's their starters that have been roughed up. Anyway, we're 3-1 after a 4 game series vs the Cards while dealing with catastrophic bullpen issues. They just need to keep finding a way to get by until they add to this pen.

In his defense I don't think he foresaw either of those guys signing one year deals. No one did. That's not the point. The point is he suggested we didn't have the money to spend and just basically writes how things unlikely to happen, probably won't happen. As for Moose, I don't see anymore why people would be surprised by his deal. He's gone into free agency twice now hoping to get the big deal and he hasn't gotten it. I wouldn't have expected the Grandal deal, but I haven't expected any of the deals the Brewers have made. I just don't place any value on Tom H's insight. I don't think there's some conspiracy for him to make us think we have less to spend than we do, I don't think he has a clue. Also, what fans honestly expected us to sign BOTH Kuechel and Kimbrel? His article IS written in an obnoxious way and you don't compare a MLB teams salaries to your own personal finances. Or...hey, maybe you do. I had an opportunity to invest in an apartment building because I knew the owner had died, his father owned several 20-50 unit buildings and he needed to sell. So maybe that's a more appropriate comparison. You don't spend on things you can't afford except on the rare occasion when several things line up.

Oh..thank you. I'm not saying I even disagree with his article, I just don't respect him as a Brewers beat writer. The "it's not gonna happen," didn't come from anyone on the team, it just came from him saying so. In fact, if you read what Stearns says, he doesn't in any way dismiss it. He talks about having backup plans and how there have been some unforeseen developments.

Burnes seemed like he was pitching with a little bit of that BP mentality today. He looked great for the most part, but maybe he can incorporate that curve or the change he said he'd been working on, pitch backward a bit more, get some soft outs early and save the extra effort for the big spots when you really need a K, he'll move closer toward what you're talking about. I pretty excited by all three of our young starters. I realize they weren't great the first time through, but they're young pitchers. I think they will all progress. They've all got good stuff. Woody might be the best BP options when Nelson comes back, but I really like him as a starter also. This is the only thing to me that's more fun than watching playoff baseball. Watching the Brewers develop young players and watching them succeed here. We haven't had much luck with starting pitchers, but it's POSSIBLE that we could have 5 that we developed, 4 that we drafted or signed in our rotation this year in the highly unlikely event that for some reason Nelson is in the rotation and they callup Brown for a start like they did Peralta last year. When was the last time we've had home grown starting pitching this talented? Neugabauer and Sheets?

I only trade up if I can get Allen or Bosa. And even at 12, I hate the idea of taking Bush. Maybe White, but Bush was a 2nd round pick before his 40 time. I think both have the potential to be busts. And I don't like a MLB'er that high. But that's just me. You trade up ONLY if you can get UK's Allen or OSU's Bosa. If not, I'm 100 pct with you, Oliver works, Hockenson works...Fant looks like he'll be gone at 30, but you never know. We can do BPA, and if those BPA are offensive studs to give Rodgers more weapons, that's great. Both Smiths mean we don't HAVE to take a pass rusher(though it'd be really great to add a 3rd and keep them fresh or move Za'Darius inside on passing downs with Clark and Daniels. I would have agreed with you before they got the smiths. I guess you can never have enough pass rushers and I am not against using the pick the saints have us to move up. My point was there are more pressing needs now that can be addressed at 12 and 30. I'm only saying this because of the little I've seen on tape, how good he looks, and how good he projects to be. Edge rushers, the real elite prospects seem to hit more than any other position save for maybe OL and even there it's mostly guard and center. Hockenson looks like he's going to be at worst a serviceable TE. Coming into the draft season I knew next to nothing about Allen. I'm just an advocate of taking a position of strength and adding to it if possible. Not to the detriment of other positions, but I think we're solid just about everywhere. No massive holes that can't be addressed. If we can get a pass rush that's not just solid, but elite and one truly dominant edge guy, I'd go for it. The idea of moving up into the #15 range if there is a run on QB's and nabbing both Hockenson and Oliver sounds good to me. I'm not understanding the reason for Oliver to go sliding down the draft board. He WAS being talked about as the top overall pick since he was a recruit. He was the top overall recruit, he dominated at Houston, people talked about if he was going to play this year. He did, but when you're playing no to get hurt and then you get hurt....I guess with him it just sounds like he was looking forward a bit and if he was that great of a talent just months ago, I'd be pretty happy with getting him as well. Clark to me is a defensive centerpiece. He can rush and play the run. Daniels may well be gone after this year, though I'd like to see him back, but if Oliver really is even 75 pct of Aaron Donald, that's a pretty nice pick at 12.

I only trade up if I can get Allen or Bosa. And even at 12, I hate the idea of taking Bush. Maybe White, but Bush was a 2nd round pick before his 40 time. I think both have the potential to be busts. And I don't like a MLB'er that high. But that's just me. You trade up ONLY if you can get UK's Allen or OSU's Bosa. If not, I'm 100 pct with you, Oliver works, Hockenson works...Fant looks like he'll be gone at 30, but you never know. We can do BPA, and if those BPA are offensive studs to give Rodgers more weapons, that's great. Both Smiths mean we don't HAVE to take a pass rusher(though it'd be really great to add a 3rd and keep them fresh or move Za'Darius inside on passing downs with Clark and Daniels.

I could see both Lang and Nelson as guys who the Packers call should problems arise. But more importantly, they were both good players, really solid team guys from the sound of it and just hard-nosed players who drastically out-performed expectations. As for Jordy, I think it helps to have a great QB, but he had such good speed, was such a great route runner, and his body control was so amazing, I believe he'd have been a very good WR'er wherever he went. He was a unique physical specimen. Kinda like the Murphy who hurt his neck returning a kick in the final pre-season game the year the Packers drafted Rodgers and Collins IIRC. A 6'2 guy with great speed. Jordy was a bit taller, a bit slower. One of my favorite Packers though. Happy to see him hang it up while he can still play. Never like watching a guy trying to hang around too long when they were as good as Jordy. Lang, on the other hand, may have been a much better signing than Billy Turner. That one is still a head scratcher to me...though from the sounds of it, the Packers have rebuilt their personnel department and it's again one of the best in the league, stealing away top guys from the Ravens and other well run front offices. So....maybe Turner is better than his resume suggests.

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

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. Suggest a replacement on a veteran minimum salary. We will wait. Nobody is missing your point about him being overpaid. You are missing the point until you answer this: why would a fan care if he's overpaid for one year if it makes the team better and doesn't negatively affect any other roster moves? That is not a rhetorical question by the way. It's an impossible question to answer and you know this. You have no idea what the buyout market will look like next year. If they're going to pay Middleton 25+ a year, Mirotic and Brogdon are likely to get 15 million per, Lopez the MLE, the Bucks are then looking at a payroll of 150 million and will have to fill in the rest of the roster. If the Bucks are 20 million over the cap, they pay 3.25 dollars for each dollar they are over the cap. That means Hill costs 60 million dollars. Even if they find some way to say less than 15 million over the luxury tax, you're STILL talking about Hill costing us 45 million dollars next year. So....you're making a HUGE assumption that it won't impact other roster moves. I don't even think this is a discussion. The whole point of adding a pick when trading Delly and Henson was so you could get back what is essentially an expiring contract. I like George Hill, he's a nice player, but it's easy to spend the owners money, but it's almost a given that if for some inexplicable reason the Bucks chose to pick up Hill's 18 million dollar option, they wouldn't bring one of the younger players back who are going to have a much longer impact on this teams future success.