coolhandluke121

That has nothing to do with this team or this year. I'm sorry but I'm kind of tired of people (mostly in the media) acting like it does. Golden State missed the playoffs (in a league where more than half the teams make it each year) an almost unbelievable 17 out of 18 seasons after 1994. Then they made it a few times and steadily improved, like the Bucks the last few years. Then they became the best team in the regular season, like the Bucks this year, and won 3 titles in 4 years. Also, Detroit is awful. One of the worst playoff teams this century.

That's what a lot of us said about Williams and Barnes. I don't think it's safe to assume that your best pitching prospects are automatically good enough to hold their own in a contender's bullpen in their first stint in the big leagues, even if they are Corbin Burnes and Brandon Woodruff - let alone when they're a tier or three below those guys as prospects.

Orlando too! Beware the young upstarts...

Philly has been less than the sum of their parts all year. No reason that would change now. Simmons can't shoot outside, Embiid shoots outside too much, and there's not enough shots for everyone. This is also why I didn't want to play Brooklyn. I was hoping they would be the 8 seed at first because Barclays is within walking distance, but then I though it's too much of a risk of them breaking out. They couldn't beat the Bucks, but they could have stolen a couple. Still think it's GSW all the way though. I know chemistry can sometimes undermine a great team, but the on-court chemistry in terms of moving the ball and complementing each other is still there. It's when the chemistry is messed up on and off the court that it becomes an issue, like with Boston. The Warriors are going to be able to shorten the rotation and play their death lineups more and be as good as ever I think.

Haven't both those guys been all-stars? And they're not old or anything... I'd do either of those trades, but I think Chicago could do better. I think the Brewers should be looking at one or two tiers below guys like that, because that would still be a big improvement over some of the guys they're relying on. I'm not looking for leverage guys; I'm just looking for a few guys that aren't leverage for the opponents. Soria was 34 and making $10m when the Brewers acquired him. Swarzak only had one good year under his belt. That's the type of acquisition that wouldn't cost much, and I think it would make a big difference if they could pull a few trades like that because there is such a thing as anti-leverage, which is a lot worse that average-ness, and the Brewers have a lot of it in the pen right now.

If you're looking to trade for high leverage relievers two weeks into the season, you're desperate and the cost will be exorbitant and we don't really have the prospects to pay an exorbitant cost unless you're willing to trade Hiura or maybe Brown. I was referring to the debate about trading Corey Ray for bullpen help. I don't expect a great reliever for that, but I'd like to see them go after a couple Soria types earlier than later this year even if that means paying a little more than you'd pay at the trade deadline.

I haven't supported very many "win now" moves but I would lean towards it now. The ability and talent is there to contend and you don't want a few weak links to undermine an otherwise good team. The cost won't be exorbitant, and I believe this team is very good at differentiating between those prospects that are truly rare, coveted commodities (Burnes, Woodruff, Hiura, Peralta) and those that are likely to become eminently replaceable major league players (Brinson, Phillips, Ortiz, probably Ray).

Before I say why I think this is a good match-up, let's just be clear that it doesn't mean I would be worried about losing any other first-round match-up. It's just about being able to rest guys and end the series early, even if someone gets hurt or ejected or something like that. You know exactly what you're getting with Detroit, and it's not enough to make the Bucks sweat. Teams like Orlando and Brooklyn have better youth and upside, and you'd hate to see them have a breakthrough and make it a needlessly taxing series like the Bucks did against Toronto a few years ago. It is likely to be an incredibly boring series though.

Keuchel gets to decide, not Boras.

He also pitched over multiple innings more than he's used to. I'm not sure that's good or bad for relievers, but I'm under the impression that most of them prefer to only pitch one inning because coming back for the next inning just requires extra warm-up pitches and preparation. He also was a beast in the late push to catch the Cubs. They used him a lot in September. I think he was running on a lot of adrenaline and pitching his heart out, but then when the season lasted 3 more weeks he had nothing left in the tank after the late season push. Imagine running a marathon and maxing out to take the lead at the finish line, only to see the finish line moved half a mile back.

Yeah, I'd do a big one-year deal. He would be asking for a pretty high salary, and rightfully so, but I think it's ultimately going to come down to holding out until the comp pick is a non-factor and choosing a team he wants to go to, with multiple teams making similar offers below his fancy.

It has nothing to do with media bias or conspiracy and I have no small market victim complex. If they can make a case for there being an MVP debate, they are going to. That happens all the time, and then the actual MVP vote is rarely in doubt. Supposedly 9 out the 10 people who actually have a vote and went public with it have gone with Giannis, but I am having trouble finding that again. A quick Google search reveals a number of writers saying exactly what I am saying about defense and team play factors. No FVBrewerFan, we aren't arguing about something we agree on. He thinks Harden is basically just as worthy as Giannis for MVP, and I don't agree at all.

It's not even remotely a conspiracy theory. Any media member would openly admit that they have to get clicks and write articles that people want to read. They will always milk things like the MVP debate as long as they can, even after Giannis has pulled ahead.

The media always try to do that. Less debate = less clicks. They're trying to keep it a race, but I don't think there is one.

I think you can use urgency of being a contender now as justification for over-spending. You just can't use it as justification for trading away prospects who are crucial to your future success, because that's a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e., making moves like that is the main reason your window won't be open long in the first place). If Cain declines, that is a pretty huge loss. Chacin could be priced out of their market when his deal is up. Grandal could be gone. A lot of other guys are solid as part of a deep lineup, but none of them have emerged as true stalwarts like Cain and Yelich at the top of the order. Hiura could replace Cain's bat, but Cain's CF defense is a huge part of his value. I think it's fair to point out that nothing is guaranteed and you should pounce on a chance to contend now, even though they are pretty well situated for a long run of averaging ~90 wins.

I'm not trying to convince you that Giannis is MVP. I'm trying to convince you that it's not dismissive or disrespectful to Harden to say Giannis should clearly be the MVP. There have hardly been less question marks about a guy's worthiness to be MVP in the history of the game. Only his reduced minutes and games make a case, but I would argue it's actually an argument in your favor when you can carry your team to the best record in the NBA and a historic scoring differential while still getting plenty of rest to stay fresh for the playoffs. Harden has a few legitimate questions. Like Westbrook's first triple-double season, I believe history will vindicate the criticism and continue to solidify Giannis's status while putting Harden's in context. Doesn't take away from his all-NBA status. Does make him a clear notch below Giannis.

Harden is in the perfect situation. Giannis is the perfect situation.

The Iverson MVP was all narrative too. How does taking them to the finals make him more valuable than Shaq, Kobe, KG, or Duncan? He was just lucky to be in the east. It was a question of favoring flash and scoring over other aspects of the game.

Put him on GSW instead of Curry or Durant and they'd get worse. No place for that kind of ball-hogging on a fully functional offense. The value of that kind of ability to play hero-ball is totally dependent on needing hero-ball. A team that doesn't need that would make him an MVP afterthought. I think comparing him to Durant or Curry is informative. There you have 2 MVP's who found ways to adapt and still be among the 3 best offensive players in the game despite fewer fga's. They also have improved their defense a lot. I would easily take either one of them ahead of Harden when building a team from scratch, because I wouldn't want to be obligated to build a Harden-ball team to maximize his value. I would also note that we saw the same thing in the all-star draft. Giannis and Lebron didn't care about Harden. Why would they, or any good team, want someone on the team whose greatness is somewhat dependent on the narrative that he has to play this way because the rest of his team isn't good? Now I know the all-star draft was mostly entertainment, but they were still paying respect to the guys they thought deserved it the most. This articles touches a little on what some other players think of Harden: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26031800/giannis-harden-mvp-question-dividing-nba

I don't think that's dismissive. I know nobody else could be doing what Harden is doing in the situation. What I'm saying is that his MVP case depends totally on being in that situation in the first place. Like Iverson, he needs to be on an otherwise "meh" team with a dearth of scorers to get the ultimate green light and be a legitimate MVP candidate, and it's highly questionable whether his approach is as helpful in bringing a team to contention that would otherwise be as far away as the Bucks without Giannis. I would also argue that it's dismissive of the importance of defense and team play to base an MVP choice on pure isolation scoring ability.

Even Drake had a 1.125 e.r.a. until the middle of April last year. Also, last year's pen collapsed in part due to having so many games right before the ASB. Wasn't it 22 games in 21 days? This bullpen is showing signs of falling apart just 11 games in. That's not good.

I'm not saying I'm ready to bet big money on them being terrible. "Bullpens are volatile" is a good mantra. But I find it hard to picture this group being successful. Guys like Fields, Petricka, and Claudio with a couple good years to their name remind me of how Barnes, Williams, Jennings, and even Drake had some promising statistics to pick from going into last year. There might be a few trees worth looking at, but the forest as a whole looks pretty ominous. There's just not a lot of real talent there.

He's not really extremely efficienct compared to other great scorers though. Curry and Durant represent extreme efficiency and have shown the ability to get their true shooting close to 65% or higher by being able to integrate seamlessly into a team concept and taking less difficult shots. Their combination of volume and efficiency is more impressive than Harden's. Harden, on the other hand, is basically always around 60% because his production is dependent on excessive isoball. He can play with Paul and Gordon and he doesn't change into a great team player. Like I said, other iso scorers like Kyrie and Lillard have pulled 60% or close to it before. Great 3-point shooters like Klay has come very close without the benefit of being the isoball guy who gets to hog the ball and get to the line all the time. Ray Allen did it without hogging the ball. So did Reggie Miller. Redd came very close to 60% in 2003. Pierce did it a few times. Numerous 3-point specialists who weren't all-stars have done it with low usage. And Giannis is at an astounding 64.4% while being arguably the most impactful defender in the league. Harden's case is being able to score like that despite taking a lot of difficult shots, but it doesn't make him any more valuable than scorers whose style of play doesn't require them to take and make such difficult shots to be an MVP candidate in the first place. So being able to turn difficult shots into good offense is just an excuse for taking more difficult shots and increasing your volume, whereas guys like Curry, Giannis, George, and Durant improve their efficiency and defense when playing on better teams, which is harder to do and more valuable in my opinion. I just can't reward Harden for being a guy who can make a bunch of difficult shots that the best teams wouldn't want or need him to take in the first place. His MVP case actually depends on being on a team where he has a ready-made excuse for playing his style of play. If he became a more efficient player and better defender when guys are there to lighten his scoring burden, I would be more inclined to give him a nod, but I would honestly pick him after Durant, Curry, and George (let alone Giannis) if I were trying to build a contender this year.

I know it was bad last year too, but this year I think it's worse. I understand how bullpen fortunes change, but there's not much in anyone's history besides Hader to lead one to expect pleasant surprises. There's also not as much talent to call up from the minors.

I'm pretty confident Giannis will win it. I think Harden's stats are starting to be old news, kind of like Westbrook's triple-doubles. I think more people are realizing that the statistical context is totally different these days, and gaudy stats are less impressive. Harden has 5 to's per game and he's still a liability on defense (his deflections and steals are a direct result of getting so many opportunities precisely because opponents like to exploit his perimeter defense). Curry and Durant are consistently much more efficient on offense, and even Kyrie and Lillard aren't too far behind Harden's efficiency. Reggie Miller was more efficient in his prime. Harden is extreme volume with good efficiency. It's more a reflection of how the game is played and officiated these days than it is of his greatness. He's just the first person perfectly suited to capitalize in the extreme on the new paradigm, in a situation that's also a perfect storm for building a phony narrative. The Kurt Warner of the NBA, if you will. Giannis is timeless greatness right now, being a top-7 player on both ends of the court and carrying the team to the best record in the NBA and a historic scoring differential. He also finished much stronger. Harden would have won if the season ended at the ASB, but I think Giannis will win by a surprising margin.