Cool Hand Lucroy

Can't overstate the importance of Marquette getting a road W last night. Seton Hall is a team that I'm really high on just because of their balance and experience. I don't think they've played up to potential yet, but they're a solid tourney team and winning on the road against someone that good is a major feather in the cap. How good is the Big East? Everyone but DePaul in the top 100 in KenPom, and the worst team by conference record just posted the year's most impressive win after the year's most surprising one. I think MU needs to get wins against DePaul, Georgetown, and Saint John's (twice) and then split with Creighton to be in safe shape.

Last season he led our team in 3-point shooting percentage. Shot 32% in B1G play, he feasted on lower competition...was shooting 30% so far this season. I think we'll just end up disagreeing here. I don't think Trice is a world-beater, and I don't think he alone makes them a good basketball team. But just watching the tough early season games against Xavier, Baylor, and UCLA showed me that he's a useful piece. I don't think the argument is that Trice is an all-BIG player. It's that his presence in the lineup makes this team immediately more competitive. Seems like your point is that he isn't good enough, which is fine, but I have to admit I don't get the main idea if the argument is that Trice doesn't improve this team. His ball handling alone gives the offense a boost (no longer does Happ have to run the point!). And I don't think he's a true 30% shooter. His career mark is around 40, so we can quibble about sample sizes and which data set to choose, but if we split the difference and say he's a 35.5% guy, that makes him the second best shooter on the team, behind Aleem Ford, who's attempted fewer.

I thought Trice was a really important piece for the Badgers last year, and I was looking forward to watching him in a starring role. He is quick, can shoot, and is a much higher-quality option than Davison late in the shot clock. Right now, Happ is really the only option, and he's a bad guy to pass to with the clock under 10. He's a great post player, but it's at 8 seconds by the time he gets it, then he's got to go through the array of post moves and/or fight through a double team, etc. It's a turnover/blocked shot/desperate flip waiting to happen. The best case is a quick collapse and then an inside-out feed for an open three. But we know how that's worked with the guys on the floor. Trice changes that a lot. Does he make the Badgers a B1G title contender? No way. But he's a quality BIG piece, and I think he would do two things: 1) Decrease turnovers (Badgers turn it over 12 times a game, but keep in mind they play only about 63.5 possessions per 40, which means they are among the ten slowest teams in all of hoops and are turning it over on almost 20 percent of their possessions--ick) AND 2) Improve possession quality (this seems even more important--a healthy Trice equals better shots). King improves that equation too because he is a highly skilled, athletic offensive player. Again, I'm not suggesting this team is great with those two guys. I was wrong about the talent level of a lot of these guys early this year. But I do think Trice, King, and two-armed Davison make this team a tourney contender at least. All of those guys can contribute, and right now there are no real contributions in sight. I thought the Maryland game showed some positive signs, but the offensive droughts and lack of athleticism are really a problem against quick guard like Cowan.

That 1-3-1 really did shut down the Badgers last night. Happ is just not an ideal high post player in some ways because he isn't a jump shooting threat. If the defense can collapse quick enough, it's a turnover waiting to happen if he looks to drive. If he looks to pass, there just isn't a reliable shooter who can hurt the defense consistently. I agree with Surhoff that maybe Ford should have been on the floor, but I also wonder who on this team should be out there in that spot. Van Vliet? Thomas? AI? Schlundt? All those guys seem like trouble waiting to happen. This team is just utterly lacking in offensive personnel right now. I don't think King and Trice are world-beaters, but they are at least credible athletes capable of scoring from a lot of spots on the floor. With them, this team probably should have a win against Xavier. Without them, they're hopeless. Still, you do have to be disappointed in the lack of offensive development from anyone over the past two months. Usually, when defenses focus so much on Happ, there's a chance for one guy to get open looks and prove himself. This year, I see Gard trying everything to no avail. Plenty of blame to go around.

One thing that makes me optimistic, and some of this has been covered in the Yelich thread: It seems to me that position player prospects are a little easier to pile up and project than pitching prospects. On the one hand, that means losing three guys like Harrison, Brinson, and Diaz is a big hit, but they are also known as gamble guys. Plus, Corey Ray was a top 5 pick just a couple of years ago, and there are some good arms in the system. I also think there are lots of MLB contributors getting close to the big league level, and that's potentially huge. If there's a good success rate with guys like Phillips and Woodruff, you might buy a half-decade or so to stock up on and develop draft picks. Even if you're not trading talent for prospects and picking late, you may have bought enough time. I think the state of the franchise is strong. I'm most optimistic about 18-20. Beyond that, we'll see. Here's hoping for a pennant and more.

I appreciate the thoughts. I have been really happy with the DirecTV regional add-on, but it's getting to the point where my DirecTV account is basically just a ticket to be able to buy the regional sports package (I can watch all the CBK, the other sport I follow closely, I want much more cheaply with a cord-cutting service), so it's just one of those things where I'm trying to decide how much being able to watch 140 games instead of like 40 (looks the Vue trial will allow me to watch the Cubs, Sox, and Cards pretty regularly, and I think the Brewers have 3 with CWS this year) is worth. I will probably be investing in MLB Audio for the others (another service I really have had good luck with). Part of the problem is stupid MLB blackout rules and just the weird convoluted regional structure of the Fox networks here. FS Midwest, FS Wisconsin, FS North, and FS Kansas City all broadcast single team baseball, and I cannot understand how the "primary" RSN is determined. State boundaries don't seem to matter. We are twice as close to Wisconsin as Minnesota and are apparently assigned FS North. Odd. Maybe someday there will be blackout free baseball. EDIT: I'm sure the new ESPN deal will end up changing things too...anyone seen what they're planning?

That was my hunch initially. Does anyone live in IA/IL/MN and access the Fox Sports Go App? Are Brewers telecasts available to you?

I'm wondering if anyone could help with a few questions. I am in the Quad Cities (Iowa) and just signed up for the PS Vue trial. I was getting tired of 100+ dollars a month from DirecTV, but it is more convenient in some ways. My question is about the availability of Brewers games. I understand if no one knows, but I was curious. The Quad Cities are in blackout territory for the Twins, Brewers, Royals, Cubs, White Sox, and Cardinals. This means MLB.tv isn't really an option since you're basically missing half the games on the schedule, and I can never watch the Brewers. DirecTV allowed a work around that allowed me to buy a 10 dollar (after discount)/month add-on package from April to September that allowed access to the regional carriers of all those teams. On my Vue free trial, I have access to FS North and the generic Fox Sports Network. I also get NBC Sports Chicago. Basically, I'll get to watch the Brewers every time they play the Cubs for sure. I'm wondering about FS North. Does that usually carry Twins or Brewers games? Will the Vue allow me to access Brewers games through either FS North or Fox Sports Go? Or is it going to black me out of those games? It's a pretty small factor in our decision, but any insight would help. The Vue is like a $40/month savings. I add this here because I haven't been able to see, even in this thread, answers that address RSNs outside of Wisconsin but still within supposed "viewing territory" for the Brewers. If anyone has any insight into Iowa access to Brewers games, that's appreciated too. Thanks.

This. Braun signed his 5/105 deal prior to 2016, right? He needs to be worth what? 13 wins over those 5 years to have it be an even deal? He's at 4.8 fWAR and 4.7 bWAR with three years to go. I don't think it's crazy that he ends up around 10 WAR total over the life of the contract. That makes it an unwise deal in the end, but not so unwise as to be horrible. And there's probably something to be gained from having Braun around for some people. I wouldn't count myself as one of them, and I do think the deal is subpar. But it's not so bad as to be completely underwater at this point, and not so bad as to be a franchise-killing albatross. I don't think last year is the real Braun, nor do I think 2016 is legitimate to expect, but if he's a 2-win player for the next three years (and he is still a guy who can hit, I think), I think it's probably a C-level deal for the Brewers. Maybe the franchise can't afford C-level deals, but the reality is you're going to have them.

I thought effort was much better too, especially through the first 15 minutes of the second half. Davison has a wide open look to cut it to three, it doesn't go down, and then MSU brings it back up nine on the other end. Killer sequence there. Still, hard to care much about the result. Not to get too far into it, but the response of both Izzo and D'Antonio to the OTL report about the school's handling of sexual assault cases against football and basketball players was disturbing and just gross all-around. Any coach that never lets that happen at UW is a good coach.

I think this is a fair deal. Braun's deal expires in 2020, which means you're not going to have two big numbers on the books in '21 and '22 should Cain decline in performance. I don't think this is going to hamper our flexibility beyond the next few seasons, and I think Mark A. is going to throw in money and can afford to. It just seems like he doesn't mind paying when the results are there. I'm am getting pumped to watch this outfield run around next year. And there still may be more to come. One starter away (or maybe the FO is just really high on Woodruff and the young guys and is going to flip Domingo for prospects to replenish the system). I love the boldness of all of this. Let's do it.

Still not ready to go that far. But this may have been the worst game of the year so far. Iowa is a bad basketball team and to be non-competitive, even on the road, is horrible. Not nearly enough defensive effort, poor execution on offense, inability to handle the ball against pressure, just all-around ugly.

Do the Nats have the horses to trade for Yelich, though? Didn't the farm take some significant hits with the Eaton trade and some of their deadline moves? The Dodgers probably do, but they don't have the payroll space to take on much more than Yelich if they want to stay under the luxury tax line. I just keep thinking the Brewers are the best, most likely fit in terms of what Miami might want. Doesn't mean they'll get him, but unless LA is willing to offer up a few of their own big names, I'd be all about getting this thing done with the Crew if I were the Marlins FO.

I get leveraging an offer to try and start a bidding war. That's trade negotiation 101 in a lot of ways. What I don't understand is the feeling the Brewers are being used as pawns. That may have been the case for Darvish, who knew he could reel in bigger offers from Chicago especially if the Crew's offer became public. In Miami's case, you have to think Milwaukee is one of the PRIME targets for a trade. They are one of the few teams looking to make a big push. They have a ton of talent at all levels of the farm system. They have a lot of payroll flexibility. It just seems like they'd be silly to try and use Milwaukee as a stooge in this scenario. I much more buy that they want Milwaukee's best offer and are holding out for as much as they can get. Maybe DS is unwilling to give up what Miami wants. Maybe Miami isn't high on the guys DS has pitched so far. It may not work out, but I wouldn't give up on this thing yet. I just don't see a better landing spot for Yelich given the situation, our farm, and other teams that may be interested. There are like 5-6 teams with comparable/better systems, and only one of them (Yankees) really seems primed to go for it. I just don't see why New York would up the Crew's offer for another outfielder, especially when Yelich doesn't grade out best in CF, where they'll need him. We already know Atlanta balked at Acuna for Yelich, so who does that leave? San Diego? Maybe, I guess. Chicago, okay, but they're thin and getting thinner in the minors. Not saying this trade will happen, but I think Milwaukee is the target unless some other team really goes all out or the Marlins overplay their hand.

I think Yelich is worth a whole lot. About the only thing that would make me dislike a deal for him would be if Ortiz and Burnes were included. That seems a little nuts. Yelich is just so valuable offensively and defensively, not to mention he's exactly the kind of hitter the lineup needs. We'll see what shakes out. You have to think the Marlins have some incentive to move the guy. He's on a guaranteed deal and vocally doesn't want to be there. Based on HH's info, I have a sort of gut feeling this kind of driving up the price might leave Miami scrambling when they ask for the moon and find out it's not there. The Brewers diversity and depth of minor league talent, plus ability to pretty much immediately give the fans a young MLB OF in return, makes them pretty desirable trading partners from my perspective. It seems possible this doesn't come together quickly and then a week from now Miami is back hoping the Brewers best off still stands.

I've been on board with exploring the market for Santana for a while now, but I'm starting to wonder if other teams just don't see his value to the point that would make DS feel comfortable trading him. I have to think Santana would need to return a viable, #2, high-#3 type starting pitcher with some team control OR a strong offensive 2B to really be worth moving just given the roster right now. I guess it just seems less and less likely that teams are going to want to pony up for a very good hitting (though occasionally contact-challenged) OF, even one with four years of team control remaining, when pitching and offensive-minded middle infielders are such rare commodities. I'm starting to get a little worried that this team isn't going to be able to capitalize on its OF depth to fill a position of need. I don't want to lose Brinson or Phillips, but are they more marketable? If so, maybe a move is worth it if it brings back the pitching part...

In some ways I'm just as interested in the type of acquisition coming than who's involved (obviously, very curious about both). On the one hand, I don't see Stearns as an aggressive, all-in, 2-3 year high-level window type guy. Nor do I see Mark A as wanting to endure the multiple weak years that usually come after a peak window. That said, the surroundings are pretty weak right now, so maybe if there was ever a time to trade prospect capital, it's now. On the other, I feel (though can't prove) the team is in really good financial shape. If there's a way to swing a big acquisition that only costs $$ and maybe a bolster-move that allows trading from a position of strength (OF) for one of weakness (2B, SP), that would be pretty smart, especially given the really short-term rebuild the FO (with Melvin's help, it must be said) has managed to engineer. I think I'd prefer that route, but I'm really interested in seeing how the FO manages short-term versus long-term goals with the 2018 team.

Agree with most of the posters so far on Ueck, Levering's skill, the recent shuffle of PxP people, etc. I'm with hawing in particular on really enjoying the Levering/Lane G. pairing. They had great chemistry, were entertaining, AND did a great job with action-calling and statistical insight. That's a rare combo and one reason I was glad to see Jeff getting hoops gigs on BTN and FS1. I thought it meant he was more likely to stick around, even though his basketball skills aren't really up there with his baseball ones (he's kind of a reverse LePay, I suppose). Ueck deserves all the deference in the world as an on-air guy. But part of me will be really bummed if Jeff and Lane aren't the future of radio baseball in Milwaukee. If someone said they could be the team for the next 20 years but Ueck would never be heard on-air again, I don't know. I'd be tempted. It would continue the tradition of Milwaukee having a top 5 radio crew. They're that much better than anyone I've heard (I get to hear Cubs, Sox, Cardinals, Royals, and Twins fairly regularly).

Absolutely fair. Some of this gets into political/economic stuff that's just really hard to get a consensus on, even limiting the conversation to baseball. I certainly understand the argument that the owners invest risk and it's their money, etc., even if it's not one I personally subscribe to. The idea of accepting the risk of an overpay, though, is very important, I think. If not spending money is the only good way to run a team, and the FO is always afraid to pony up market value for a free agent, that could have (and did have, as you point out) a pretty direct impact on wins and losses. Maybe it's just about accepting that efficiency and smart management doesn't mean avoiding the FA market entirely and there is such a thing as a good deal that hurts a team 3 years down the road.

It is "smarter." I don't dispute that. It's also, however, a recipe for a work stoppage. I understand the wisdom of what Pittsburgh is doing, but the "Moneyball" idea of exploiting market inefficiencies is also becoming a way to justify not paying for production. If you're a really good player in the MLB, there's a strong chance you'll never get a big contract. Seriously. Teams will pay the arb salaries year-by-year, and then you'll hit 31 and they'll say, "You're past your prime." It's a shell game. Don't get me wrong. I don't feel too bad for a guy who makes 20 million in a six year baseball career. But when the owners are running up numbers in the hundreds of millions, even billions, well, it's all relative, isn't it? If I were a young MLB player, I'd be pissed. If I were Jimmy Nelson, I'd be scared. Eventually, the union will get tired of the benefits of the system going to the Stantons and Harpers and Kershaws, and then the owners will have to significantly change the system or face the possibility of a work stoppage. Players are held accountable for results and constantly evaluated. All I'm suggesting is that we see more information on how the owners are managing their obligations, and not just to "efficient spending" either. IMHO, paying guys what they are worth to the extent possible is part of that, in the same way taking care of the environment and giving miners fair benefits is part of a coal company's job. It's not the only thing, or even the biggest thing (certainly we'll all disagree about to what extent it matters--I personally think the social responsibility piece should be much more emphasized across society, but that's just me), but I think it has to be part of the conversation. Just talking about owners as "smart" misses the fact that sometimes they're also being "exploitative," at least relative to baseball, and I think that means we need to have the conversation about what the owners obligations are, understanding that Milwaukee and Pittsburgh are going to have different ones than LA and SF and NY and Chicago.

I think part of the issue is just not knowing the financial state of these teams. Pittsburgh is a great example. They are crying poverty, but their valuation has jumped 500% and they're posting strong operating revenues as far as I can tell. I just don't buy the idea that these are private business. They may not be full-on public utilities, but they're closer to that than they are to IBM or Target. If the Brewers operate at a 70 million payroll this year (I don't think they will), they'll end up pretty significantly profitable. I'd love to be able to see the numbers and do some basic math on the maximum possible profitable payroll threshold for each team. It seems to me simply requiring an ownership group to get within x percent of their max payroll would help at least a little bit, but MLB teams don't seem to want to release those figures. It seems a league with an anti-trust exemption (as was mentioned earlier) and public stadium financing should at the very least be held to some level of transparency.

Certainly could be that Purdue's just really good. Three 25+ wins in a row and two of them on the road. Granted, they're not beating world beaters, but UW isn't the only team being embarrassed. Could also be I'm just used to a little more competitive spirit. I'll say this. Defense was much better last night, and things look a lot different when 3s are falling. Amazing how much that allows Happ to get to work. Illinois has been very competitive too, despite the 0-fer in the BIG, so it's not like they utterly lack talent. Hoping for more signs of improvement as we get deeper into league.

I don't question Gard's recruiting ability at this point. As has been mentioned, the Davison, Reuvers, Ford, King class was one of the best I can remember in terms of ceiling and depth if not immediate impact. Let's also not forget that, though the Badgers were remarkably consistent under Bo, it really took pairing Dekker and Koenig (two once-in-a-decade players, I think--Dekker for sure, and Koenig was an incredible College PG) with an absolute Kaminsky breakout to make the team a NC contender. Yes, there was Gasser and Brust and the usual bruisers along the way, but the program's recent ceiling is unrealistic to expect at this point. I think Davison has some Gasser DNA, so we'll see what happens with him (and Reuvers looks like big, goofy, FY Frank, with the gawky mechanics and slow but sweet J--he won't be near the same player, but he's a contributor certainly). That said, this team is absolutely brutal right now offensively. Somehow still only 101 in KenPom (90 overall), but, man, I've seen MVC teams pretty regularly and they look better. Worst of all, there have been at least two games (OSU and Purdue) where the team hasn't looked ready to play, and that's on the staff. I get the talent level is low, but the effort level isn't great either, and that's inexcusable for a Badger team. You can sense Happ's frustration, and it's almost like they expected to be run off the floor last night. That's at least partially on the staff, and GG and co. do need to get it figured. That's my biggest disappointment so far.

I know it's weird and a little masochistic, but I'm interested to see how the Badgers perform at Purdue tomorrow night. Purdue is a 16-point favorite right now, which is warranted. Weird to see a Wisconsin line that high, though. I'm hoping they can stay competitive and maybe knock down some shots. Also, taking care of the ball and playing better defensively. Happ vs. Haas is a pretty fun matchup down low. Anyway, hoping for progress, though not counting on it.

This team will never win games making only 2 three-pointers. They need to get open looks and knock down outside shots to win. When no one is able to do that consistently, there will be problems. Pretty ugly performance. I think that's kind of to be expected when your second scoring option is a freshman point guard who's a more natural shooting guard and is playing functionally one-handed. I'm not so much annoyed at the loss as just the inconsistency so far in conference play. Four games in and each has been wildly different.