HiAndTight

Well, I did say there wasn't as much downside as some people suggest. I know there is some, but I think the benefits far outweigh that. Matching up with the staffs of Chicago and LAD is thinking way too far ahead IMO. You have to get there in the first place, and more LHB's helps you do that because you will face far more RHP's throughout the year. I also think there was a flukey quality to their struggles against LHP's. I see no reason they shouldn't be able to hit them well. And I'd take Marwin too, but I think he will get 2-3 times as many years and 3-4 times as much guaranteed money. I guess it depends on what Moose gets, but I think it's just as likely that he too(Marwin) overplayed his hand in the market a bit. He's a great fit here because he's versatile, but he is still a pretty mediocre offensive player. I guess if Moose takes a 1 year 8 million dollar deal I'd agree with your figures, but at 29 with ST'ing coming up pretty quickly, I don't think he's getting a huge deal. Isn't Bregman injured to start the year? Or at least injured right now and likely to be limited during ST'ing? I wonder what the chances are that he ends up back in Houston for another year and then comes back at 30 and tries it again.

After they sign Machado and Harper.... And game 6 ends in Miller Park with Hader striking out Machado looking and Harper flailing!

Not sure if the MVP part was supposed to be in blue, but I do think Braun will be a much more productive hitter this year. He altering his swing and he hit into very poor luck last year. I think he'll help pick up some of the slack that Yelich will inevitably leave from last years performance. I also feel good about Aguilar bulding on last years break out. He said himself he pushed once he started neaering milestones. Hopefully with that self-awareness and another year of maturity, he can become a productive hitter all year long. As long as he keeps that short approach and takes the ball to right when it's pitched away. If he does that all year, I think he could be a .290/.380/.500+ type guy.

Didn't you literally just say, "hard pass for me," because of his injuries? I think Harper is a really good player, and it'd be great to get a LH'ed bat in the lineup who can hit 40 and post a .400 OBP, but I don't see this being even remotely possible. I don't think he'd take this and I doubt the Brewers would be willing to add another 25 million this year AND commit to 10 million per year from 2022-2026.

Are you just flat out opposed to signing him at all, or are you against signing him for what you believe he'd get? Take out the two outliers, a .9 WAR season in 2015 and a 6.4 WAR season in 2017 and he's been about a 2.2-2.9 WAR pitcher for the last 5 years, prior to which he was significantly better. As long as we could get him for less than 5 million, which, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I'd rather try bringing 2-3 pitchers who were terrible, but could bounce back on minor league deals like we did with Miley and Yo last year. And it would sure as heck beat giving Kuechel a 4-5 year deal.

I really hope that Nelson isn't still rehabbing at this point. It sounds like he'll be ready to go for ST'ing last I heard(though it makes sense to play it safe with him). As for Shields...sure. I'd rather it be a Minor league deal though. I'd really prefer it be Gio than anyone...though I haven't been paying attention the last 4-5 days...he could have signed with someone.

I think it really helps the Pats to play in a dumpster fire of a division - Jets, Dolphins, and Bills? When you basically guarantee the Pats at least 7 wins a year and a division title before every season starts, it just really enhances their opportunities to be consistently great. I also feel like, overall, the AFC has been consistently mediocre or boneheaded outside of NE and the Steelers (prior to their skill position player drama). It seems like the NFC organizations overall are much better at rebuilding/retooling rosters to avoid extended periods of being awful. That starts with most of the teams in the NFC having pretty darn good to great QBs. I don't really understand the idea that the Patriot's dynasty is because their division sucks. It does, but that only gets you to the playoffs. You still have to beat really good teams to get to and win the Super Bowl. I see where it helps...it helps them get HFA, it helps them get in every year. But this team was NOT nearly as talented as any of the final 4 teams from 1-54. I believe it's the greatest coach in NFL history...which makes me sick to say and the greatest QB. They just keep trading away pro-bowl players and ending up right back in the mix. Chandler Jones would easily be our best defensive player. They got rid of him in his prime. I don't know that any of their skill players would make the Packers save for Gronk. Yet Edelman ends up with 10 catches and 141 yards. I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to put their finger on it. I mean...Brady is great, but they've won as many SB's with him being average as they have with him being great. 13-3? It looked like they had a terrible D early in the year...they go on to give up 3 points in the Super Bowl. It's amazing. I don't think we'll ever see anything like this again in the NFL. And it's absolutely sickening. Even a team like KC. I bet within 3-4 years they miss the playoffs at least one year and have a 6-7 win season. And they should be set for the future(just like it looked like the Packers were after 2010). I still think those two jokers end up with one more SB. Nobody will be able to match 7 Super Bowls wins and 9 trips.

By the way, has anyone heard, or does anyone know when we'll find out if we get Mirza's money taken off our cap? It should be foregone conclusion, right? That is if it hasn't already happened. Giving us ~24 million in cap room this off-season.

I'm just trying to find a single reason why the Pelicans would POSSIBLY be on board with this? What the heck do they gain by making this deal? They save a little money this year, right? Is that all? I'd have to think they could have gotten more. They got 4 future 2nd round picks, including 2 of Washington's that could be early. With Mirotic a FA after the season, and Pelicans rebuilding... that seems to be an ok get for someone they'd probably let walk anyway I hadn't even looked elsewhere for details of this trade than on this forum. I was unaware that picks were involved. I don't love giving up MORE picks as I don't want to end up like the Cavs with a superstar and so little in the way of current or future assets, but in this case, a couple 2nds seem fitting. He's got about 1/3rd of a season and the post-season to earn a contract for next year. Either way, really nice to see the Bucks get a really solid player and a great bench player for next to nothing.

I'm just trying to find a single reason why the Pelicans would POSSIBLY be on board with this? What the heck do they gain by making this deal? They save a little money this year, right? Is that all? I'd have to think they could have gotten more.

No. That would be asking an awful lot. But a lot of those guys don't want to chase him all over the arc, and in this day and age that probably trumps low-post scoring. Well, I don't expect him to be able to do it all for two guys that had no business playing on this team, but we're gonna have to put SOMEONE on Horford assuming we see the Celts(and I still think they're the frontrunners in the East) and Ibaka and the Raptors are obviously still a factor. Wilson seems a bit thin yet to be able to deal with Horford in the half-court game. Is he going to be our best option? Lopez is going to give you effort, but Horford just crushed us last year and came up with so many big shots....that seems like the biggest thing missing from our team. It'd be a niche role, defending other bigs. This probably ends any hopes I had of a DeAndre Jordan signing....though those were likely ended when the Knicks for some reason, despite obviously going for Zion or JT AREN'T going to buy him out. Either way....we just took two pieces of figurative garbage from our roster and turned them into a really nice rotattional piece. I thought we'd got less for Thon than we could have, but perhaps this move was already in the works as it was decided pretty quickly after that trade that Johnson would be traded also. This HAS to be an A+ for the Bucks, right?

I didn't bring up anyone in that post, nor do I even remember who said the Bucks didn't make a ton of bad decisions. Brogdon's flaws are very different from Ingram's, Kuzma's, and Ball's. Just because he's slow and unathletic doesn't mean I have to like all players who aren't. All of them are kind of overrated for a variety of different reasons. Brogdon is the best of them, but that doesn't mean I want to have to match a Tyler Johnson offer sheet for him. It could be even worse than that. Lets at least try to be intellectually honest here. You quoted me for half the sentance in taking a shot at me, then changed the rest of the words to deliberatly mis-represent what I said. Saying you didn't know is just disengenious. As for Ingram and Kuzma in particular, I am a far bigger fan of Brogdon than you obviously and see no reason why his foot would suddenly start causing him problems this long after the injury(unless he were to injure it again, but that's no different than the risk any player deals with). And I still believe those two have far more trade value than Brogdon. First of all, they're both several years younger. Ingram is freakishly long and athletic. Both have shown flashes of greatness. Ball I like as a big, physical pass first PG, but I don't think he still has the untapped upside the others do. For the record, I'd be willing to give Brogdon a deal in the range of Johnson. Preferably 2-3 million AAV less, so 4 years maybe 46, but I don't believe he's unathletic, or close to breaking down as you do. I'd also love to have Ingram on the Bucks as I think he has a ton of upside, moreso than Kuzma. So I guess we just don't agree.

I'm absolutely thrilled about this trade because I never would have thought those two players would net us a guy who could very easily become our 6th man. The only question I have is I've seen him play a little bit...I haven't seen what his defense looks like vs other bigs. Guys who gave us all kinda of trouble last year, Horford, Ibaka. Is he physical enough to stay down there and play them tough?

Kinda stunning the Bucks were able to pick up a guy like him for garbage pieces on their bench. He's going to be a FA I believe, but he's a really nice player. A stretch 4 who can play a little bit of D. Another athletic big.

I apologize for asking you to explain what seemed to be a contradictory opinion wherein you say in on breath that Brodgon looks so slow, old, thick, unathletic(all things that Ingram in particular certaily is NOT, nor is Kuzma or Ball) and then just tell me that Ingram and Kuzma in particular have less trade value just because. Also, YOU brought ME up out of nowhere when you just flat out made up a comment and tried to attribute it to me. Never once did I say the Bucks didn't male poor personal decisions over a prolonged period of time. But that's fine. That'll be the end. I asked for a justification and I got, "just 'cause" basically.

That was more up-tempo basketball, fast breaks, etc. I think you also had good ball movement, with unselfish superstars like Magic and Bird setting the tone. I liked that brand of basketball too. It's not the high scoring I don't like; it's scoring so much on 3's and ft's that kind of bores me. There's a place for that, but it shouldn't dominate the game. I don't like how otherwise mediocre players and teams can overachieve just because of shooting. If Hakeem played today, he would probably have had to learn to shoot 5 3's a game and post up a lot less. That would be a tragic loss IMO. It also encourages guards to be chuckers. I don't want anything close to the 90's, but a think making 3's a little longer and cutting back on the ticky tack calls would reward/encourage more compelling basketball with more diverse approaches. You had the same type of mix that you have now. Now you have guys like LeBron, Simmions and Giannis who are unselfish. Back then you had guys like King, Dantley, McCadoo, Dominique, Mark Acquire and the most obvious was Jordan who were for long parts of their career very selfish players. There's always going to be a mix like that. I would be curious to see if there actually was more fast break basketball back then...because it seems to me that just about every successful team gets out and runs now as much as they can. There was an actually interesting article in ESPN the mag about how the game has changed(Which is obvious) and how Boban Marjanovic would have been a dominant scorer before the stretch 4 and stretch 5's and now you can't find a way to get him on the floor. I think Hakeem would have adjusted and would be a better version of Embid, but it'd be interesting to see how you'd find room for some of the other bigs who weren't as athletic. And at a time when legends like Larry Bird are actually talking about a 4 pointer, I'm not sure if it's possible to fix the problem(assuming you agree it is one). Teams are using analytics in every sports and it obviously makes more sense to stop shooting the long 2's and try to shoot exclusively 3's, or shots at the rim. Moving back the line may help a bit...but guys are just gonna get better at shooting from 25 or 25.5 ft. Cutting back on the soft calls and maybe bringing back hand checking might move the game closer to these goals than anything else.

If you're going to go to a move that extreme, I'd like to see hand checking brought back. The ability to play a little more physical on D rather than penalizing guys like Giannis for example would serve to both limit scoring and at least lessen the chances that you're going to get the top players in the game in foul trouble. The reason the NBA is never going to go back to 5 though is because the last thing they want is for any of the big stars to get into foul trouble, perhaps even get a 3rd foul in the first half and then play the whole 2nd half scared of fouling out. Then in a sport that people are notoriously skeptical of for both legitimate reasons(Donaghy) and IMO illligimately reasons(the Knicks/Ewing) can you imagine a Milwaukee V Philly of Milwaukee V Boston Conference finals matchup where Giannis is hit twice in the first minute? You could hear the screams now about how they wanted Boston or Philly to play GSW instead of the small market team. Of course that's always there, but that would only be exaccerbated by the 5 fouls vs 6.

Thinks he has more trade value than Kuzma and Ingram? Also, conflating Brogdon's broken navicular bone with Walton's is just innaccurate. The problem with that bone is that it has very little blood supply and often doesn't heal fully which was the case with Walton, and it's an even bigger issue with big men. Brogdon hurt his in college and hasn't had issues with it since. Of course we're saying both that it's almost an emergency to trade him while saying he's more valuable than two young, dynamic 20 point scorers(I'll leave out the pass first PG, though I do think Ball can develop). Is this just one of those where you take every side of the issue and then later say you were right again? If Brogdon is SO slow and and bulky(I guess having physical, not rail thing PG=bad, but whatever) and such an immediate danger with his Bill Walton-esque feet issues that haven't played out yet and there's almost no reason to suggest he'll be similar to a guy from the 70's and 80's who had constant injuries, but lets argue he is...how do you THEN argue that he's more valuable than Kuzma/Ingram and hell, even Ball who are not free agents this year and all extremely talented young players? Both statements can't be true unless you just flat out believe Ingram and Kuzma are garbage and have not only shown nothing, but don't have much of any upside. Stop quoting me. You misrepresent everything I say and it only leads to an argument. I can simultaneously believe Brogdon is not one of the 4 best players on the team and still think he's better than Kuzma and Ingram. That's not calling anyone garbage. The Lakers are terrible without Lebron and there's a reason for that. The hype about Ingram, Ball, and Kuzma is disgusting ESPN-style pro-LA media bias. They are not garbage, but they certainly aren't good. There's absolutely no basis for rational discussion with someone who calls them "extremely talented" young players. Holy PPGZ bias batman. Incidentally, what did you think of Jabari? I'm literally using your words. You said Brogdon was more valuable than anyone the Lakers were offering. The guy you said THIS about; Is still more valuable than Kuzma, Ingram and Ball. And OF COURSE the only reason I'd think that those guys were worth more than a guy who is slow, unathletic, bulky and whom who looks SOOOO bad that it's actually almost an emergency that we trade him is because of their PPG. It couldn't be that two of them are 21, the old guy is 23, Ingram is extremely athletic, longer than Giannis, Kuzma is a stretch 4, and Ball is a great passing PG. And by the way, if you want to whine that I'm mis-quoting you, despite using your exact words, please show me where I argued with this; Seems to me your wildly inconstant and you like to speak in hyperbole, but take offense to someone using your exact words while at the same time intentionally mis-representing what someone else said. I said it was hyperbolic to say that the Bucks did not make one single good move in a 4 year period. This dates back to the time the Bucks drafted Giannis IIRC, and that was dismissed much how the Packers drafting of Rodgers gets dismissed because we got lucky he fell to us. But that's all beside the point. I'm more interested in hearing how YOU believe that someone you think is in SUCH poor physical shape that the Bucks should be almost desperate to trade him, has LESS trade value than Kuzma and Ingram in particular?

Yea, but have you seen what the Lakers are rumored to be offering? Basically their whole roster not name LeBron and 2 1st round picks. Bucks don't have the ammo to compete with that. Can't compete with what the Knicks can offer either. That's ok though. I would love to have him, but if the Bucks can get everyone back next year and tweak the bench a little I'm fine. The rest of the Lakers' roster is totally meh. If you watched them and didn't know how high Ingram and Ball were drafted, no way you'd think they have much trade value. Trading all their young guys does probably add up to a better deal than the Bucks could offer, but it's no slam dunk. Brogdon for example probably has more trade value than anyone the Lakers are offering. The problem is that the Bucks have the best record in the NBA and are loathe to trade away too many contributors, which is a good problem to have but also one the Lakers don't have. I do expect them to gut their team and wait for the off season to build a superteam around Lebron and Davis, but the Pelicans could easily turn up their nose at what they offer and might be wise to do so. So the same person who said THIS about Brogdon: Thinks he has more trade value than Kuzma and Ingram? Also, conflating Brogdon's broken navicular bone with Walton's is just innaccurate. The problem with that bone is that it has very little blood supply and often doesn't heal fully which was the case with Walton, and it's an even bigger issue with big men. Brogdon hurt his in college and hasn't had issues with it since. Of course we're saying both that it's almost an emergency to trade him while saying he's more valuable than two young, dynamic 20 point scorers(I'll leave out the pass first PG, though I do think Ball can develop). Is this just one of those where you take every side of the issue and then later say you were right again? If Brogdon is SO slow and and bulky(I guess having physical, not rail thing PG=bad, but whatever) and such an immediate danger with his Bill Walton-esque feet issues that haven't played out yet and there's almost no reason to suggest he'll be similar to a guy from the 70's and 80's who had constant injuries, but lets argue he is...how do you THEN argue that he's more valuable than Kuzma/Ingram and hell, even Ball who are not free agents this year and all extremely talented young players? Both statements can't be true unless you just flat out believe Ingram and Kuzma are garbage and have not only shown nothing, but don't have much of any upside.

I'm kinda indifferent to this move. I'm hoping that it suggests the Brewers have a better option in mind...but I don't think injuries were a big factor in leading him walk. He's been a really durable pitcher with the exception of that oblique last year. That said, I really hope this isn't a sign that Kuechel is a possible landing spot here as he's going to get a big deal. I'd rather just roll with Gio one more year for around 6-7, or better yet, pick up some talented young relievers with options left and try and replace what we're likely losing in the pen.

Great post. Those were some of the numbers I was thinking of, but didn't want to take the time to look up. I look to Shaw, a little to Braun, and then Grandal to help makep for Yellich who likely won't be a triple crown contender again this year(though still really good). Really, the only player I can think of RIGHT NOW on this team that might be an interesting discussion about extending would be Josh Hader. If you wait another year, his price goes way up....but he's also a max effort funky lefty and we've got him for 4 more years. I guess 4 more years of cost certainty and then 2 team options with good sized buyouts.

Great post. Those were some of the numbers I was thinking of, but didn't want to take the time to look up. I look to Shaw, a little to Braun, and then Grandal to help makep for Yellich who likely won't be a triple crown contender again this year(though still really good). Really, the only player I can think of RIGHT NOW on this team that might be an interesting discussion about extending would be Josh Hader. If you wait another year, his price goes way up....but he's also a max effort funky lefty and we've got him for 4 more years. I guess 4 more years of cost certainty and then 2 team options with good sized buyouts.

That's kinda what I was thinking. This was the first guy I thought it might be a good idea to sign, but if he has any confidence in himself...and I'd assume he would, he'd do far better going year to year. And he's a candidate for a bounce in numbers this year as he was actually a bit unlucky last year. I actually think Shaw's a little underrated, even on this team. I mean...Marwin would look good at the hot corner on occasion vs some tough lefties, but I still think Shaw's a very good 3rd basemen.

I don't know if I agree on this part....just far, far too many unknowns at this time, but I like the direction we're moving and feel like Stearns is going to keep that window open year in and year out. But I'll just say across the board, I don't see any reason to extend ALMOST any reliever with whom we have multiple years of control left. Look at how many guys we've had who've dominanted and then struggled BADLY shortly after. Axford, Kolb(to a lesser degree, but he had a good year), Turnbow. There seem to be about 40 relievers in baseball each year who were great the year before who become terrible and 40 who go the other way. That's a bit of hyperbole, but still. It's just too volatile a job and we have him through him prime for 3 more years. That's perfect. Why take on ALL the risk ourselves?