coolhandluke121

Haha Cain's thumb was the most realistic that would get you right away even considering the date because he did have a thumb mishap, but as you said after realizing it isn't true you would remember he played yesterday. I figured anything Yelich would get instant skepticism before clicking because that is too obvious of a target. I saw the sad viral attempt on Facebook is "Yelich to the Cubs for two first round picks". I keep tabs on who falls for it though because you would have to be a total idiot when it comes to baseball to believe that. It doesn't make sense...at all. I guess topper09 has a point about not making it too realistic. I'm used to 4/1 jokes being realistic and trying to catch people forgetting that it's 4/1, not catch people falling for something ridiculous. But I can see the merits of the latter approach.

Wasn't it the day before anyway? And the thumb has a UCL?? I admit I was slightly duped at first glance, but this wasn't a great effort considering the loopholes. I might suggest a Yelich PED test prank or something... feel like that could really leave a mark.

I'm not sure it's crazy. It's just a gamble. He's probably set for life anyway, so he can afford to play this high stakes game. It just depends on what it means to him. I don't like it either, but I could see an argument for wanting a contract that reflects his status as already one of the 3-5 best relief pitchers of all time, with perhaps a few more pretty good years left.

Look, I am sorry for being a little condescending but there is someone here who called my analysis a kangaroo court so don't just point fingers at me. If you don't want me to act like someone who knows a lot about the CBA, then point out what I don't know about it. Do you expect someone who knows it well to act like they don't? There may be some people who appreciate learning more nuances about the CBA, and I've pointed out many that are otherwise missing from this thread. I'm not even making that many assumptions. I merely challenged the myriad assumptions in that article. I know the tax bill is likely to be very high, but other small market teams have done it before. Cleveland and Portland have paid some pretty big tax bills. The Bucks have a new arena and their first chance at a title in almost 50 years. I want to see the owners show their appreciation, especially after all the ridiculous crap they put us through with the Kidd era. And my point about how much a few years of contention will build the Bucks brand should not be dismissed lightly. There's revenue in that. Who is anyone to say I am retro-fitting my analysis of Hill's value to the team to fit my agenda of keeping him? You don't know my motives. It's literally the exact opposite. You can find my skepticism about him many pages back when he first started playing for the Bucks, and I was as happy about the expiring contract as anyone. I was totally on board the "save money to keep everyone" logic of it. Then I watched him play for a few months. So no, my agenda is not driving my perception of his play; that's completely backwards from what's actually happening. If anything, I actually was biased against him, but they are a complete team with him and an incomplete team without him. I don't look at it as paying a ton of tax for an individual; I look at it as a ton of tax for a complete team. I did not say Hill is the only option at pg. I said the only options are keeping him or not keeping him. That's a trivial mathematical logic statement and it was clearly a joke about the meaning of the word "complement" (A is keeping Hill, not A is not keeping him, and all possible outcomes must include one or the other but not both). I've seen enough of Brogdon trying to play pg for one lifetime. He has some of the worst tunnel vision in the entire NBA, and he can barely even dribble with his head up. He often has to turn sideways or backwards to dribble against even modest ball pressure, and he can't stay in front of quick pg's to save his life. He's a complementary scorer and a very good one, so his faults don't hurt him in his role on the Bucks, but giving him a bigger role is a recipe for severe offensive stagnation. I can offer one alternative that could work for nearly everyone involved. It's using the MLE on Hill (after not picking up his option) instead of Lopez, since you might lose Lopez anyway. I'm almost certain it's the only way to keep him (other than a vet min salary, which ain't happening) without picking up his option. The uncertainty of Lopez's situation and the low limits of what they can legally pay him, combined with the depth Ersan, Mirotic, and Wilson provide as stretch bigs, could make him the odd man out. Hill is much more likely to be available for the taxpayer MLE, whereas Lopez would require all kinds of hurdles to free up the non-taxpayer MLE - and even that might not be enough, plus they might have to make a 3-year commitment to an aging big man who has already broken his foot once. I wouldn't argue in favor of this option if a big tax bill were the only consideration, but it's a decent option because it also makes the off season gymnastics a lot less complicated, with less dire consequences for playing your cards wrong.

When your swing is that beautiful and you're still getting stronger and more experienced, it would be foolish to put a limit on what you can accomplish. Gotta remember that he arguably wasn't even completely filled out and physically mature when he last wore a Marlins uniform. Ballpark effects are also pretty significant, lest anyone try to downplay them next time they quote the stats of someone on the Rockies or Padres or any other team with extreme park factors. Being able to hit LHP's so well says a lot about his pure hitting skills. I disagree that he's the hitter Braun could have been though. Braun was roughly the same all along, from his rookie year until he became so injury-prone. Yelich didn't start as strong, but might have more upside - especially when you consider his willingness to take the base on balls. Maybe call him the hitter Josh Hamilton could have been without so many off-field issues.

I don't know what to say. Time after time I see people use "compliment" on this board when they really mean "complement", someone finally has a chance to use "compliment" correctly and this happens. I was gonna say something, but then I decided it was technically correct. The complete set of possibilities includes keeping Hill and not keeping Hill. I want to keep him and he doesn't. Therefore he complements me.

Magic number is just 2. Win just one more game and hope Toronto doesn't finish 5-0 and you have homecourt. Not sure what the tiebreaker is with GSW, but they'd have to go 7-0 just to tie the Bucks if they win one more. Would have liked the win though. I was tempted to put a decent bet on 60 wins at the start of the season, half as a joke and half as a testament to how bad I think Kidd was as coach. Glad I didn't or I wouldn't have survived this afternoon.

Christian Yelich doesn't take PEDs. Christian Yelich is a PED.

You called this forum a "kangaroo court" and implied that people here need to read that article to learn more about the CBA, but I have already pointed out multiple nuances that aren't addressed in that article. And it's ironic that you would suggest other people read that article when you haven't shown a solid grasp of the CBA yourself. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about whether you even noticed that that article isn't up to date with Bledsoe's extension. The article all but assumes it will take a max or near-max offer to keep Khris. That's a questionable assumption at best, but I have already acknowledged on several occasions that I don't expect the owners to pay an unlimited amount of luxury tax. I do expect them to spend when they have a contender though. Small market teams like OKC, Portland, and Cleveland have paid huge tax bills in an effort to build a contender, and while they lost money for a few years, the valuation of NBA franchises and the money you save when you don't have a contender cancels most, if not all, of that out. Especially when you just got the city to build you a damn arena! Mirotic and Middleton aren't playing especially well and will be second-tier free agents at best. Brogdon is injury-prone. They can only spend up to the MLE on Lopez anyway. Which reminds me, that article also has the wrong value for the taxpayer MLE. Can you tell us what it is without looking it up? Or you can just look several pages back, where I gave the approximate difference between the taxpayer and non-taxpayer MLE as an argument for paying the luxury tax with little downside. The article also states that the Bucks have to be $9m below the apron to re-sign Lopez. That assumption completely drives the rest of the analysis, but he could accept the taxpayer MLE and that changes everything. The article doesn't even address the possibility. The article also says that the Bucks have to cut Hill to pay the other starters. Is that where you got that notion? Because it's patently false, resting on the assumption that the full MLE must be saved for Lopez (and that Lopez is a much bigger priority) - which they still might not be able to do even after cutting Hill. The other reason that most people just assume cutting Hill is a foregone conclusion is because they expect the owners to want to save on their tax bill. I agree, and I expect them to as well. My argument is not that they won't cut Hill, but that they shouldn't. It's great that you read the article, but if you really want to understand the CBA, read the actual document. That's what I did. That article is making too many assumptions, and it's outdated without Bledsoe's extension (or Khris's continued struggles, Nikola's struggles and subsequent injury, and Brodgon's injury). You can't assume you understand the situation just because you read that article, and you definitely shouldn't be implying that I'm the one who needs to read it to understand the situation. The Bucks should keep everyone. They literally have one of the best regular-season teams of all time. But Hill is actually much more needed than Lopez, since the Bucks have shown flashes of being just as good with Ersan, Wilson, Mirotic, or Giannis at center. And keeping Hill is a guaranteed option, whereas keeping Lopez would require them to give up assets to clear salary or cut a young player like Brown to offer the full MLE, and even then he could leave for a bigger offer.

No, he strongly disagrees with me about keeping Hill and he's implying that I don't understand how the CBA works because I'm advocating it. He's the one who said they should use the money to keep their other starters instead, even though I've clearly laid out how the system helps you keep them all. That's a false dilemma unless you support the owners being cheap when you have a chance of contending. The idea that I'm the one who needs to read that article to understand how the NBA financial structure works is beyond ridiculous. I've literally read the actual CBA itself, or at least the parts that pertain to player transactions. I've addressed the nuances of the CBA as it applies to this situation many times and he never addresses or acknowledges that. He just keeps saying Hill is not worth that much money, like a broken record. The idea that you spend the money on starters instead shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the CBA works, which is fine because I'm happy to explain it, but then he acts like I'm the one who needs to brush up on it. By reading an article that he didn't even notice was clearly outdated. In the NBA, you can and should pay to retain as much talent as possible when you're a contender. Small market owners have paid some of the highest payrolls in recent memory. After these new owners got a new arena and have a chance to bring Milwaukee its first major title in about 50 years, it would be a crime to start worrying about the luxury tax. For crying out loud they're not even paying the luxury tax at all this year! I have acknowledged that there is a point where the luxury tax would be prohibitive, but the Bucks are nowhere near that point yet. They have to give Mirotic and Middleton pretty big raises, but a non-tax team can afford that. They will have to give Brogdon a big raise, but his RFA status and his injury history, which incidentally is the reason he fell to the 2nd round of the draft in the first place, will keep that manageable. And they have to give Lopez a raise, but can only pay him the MLE anyway. And even if they overpay a lot next year, Hill and Ersan would be off the books in 2020, but with full Bird Rights to keep them at a more reasonable salary, so it would only be one year of a huge tax bill.

Good lord. Please don't tell me you've actually read my posts and still think there's anything in that article that I don't know like the back of my hand. It confirms everything I've said all along; keeping everyone would only cost the owners extra money, and the only roster implications would be having slightly weaker versions of exception money, which is an almost inconsequential difference compared to going into next season without a backup pg. Did you even notice that the article hasn't been updated with Bledsoe's extension yet?

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.

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.

I think they young starters will pick up the slack early in the season. Unfortunately that means burning up a lot of their innings, but at least it buys them some time to improve the bullpen. I'm not real optimistic about Knebel and Jeffress, but I honestly would be a little nervous about Kimbrel too, and he'd cost about 5-10x as much depending on years.

They can do that anyway. If you're saying this, I don't think you understand the CBA.

Unless it's a minimum salary, which is much less than he's worth, they would need cap space to sign UFA's whose Bird Rights they don't own - and I'm 98% sure they won't own Hill's if they don't pick up his option. They won't have any cap space unless they renounce Bird Rights to Mirotic or Middleton and probably the cap hold on the MLE as well. It would be foolish to lose one of them to sign Hill when you can just keep all of them by keeping all their Bird Rights. The cost is significant, but it's not prohibitive. The salary cap and luxury tax should not be viewed the same way as they are in baseball. Small markets can afford to do it when they have a contender. Revenue sharing is adequate. Building your brand helps recoup some of the costs. When deciding whether to pay a lot of luxury tax, the biggest factor in the NBA is not market size but rather whether you actually have a squad worth paying it for. The Bucks do. There is a point where it becomes prohibitive, but I don't think the Bucks would come close to that point unless Middleton and Mirotic get a lot more than I'm expecting them to.

If they don't pick up his option, I'm almost positive they won't have Bird Rights to re-sign him. That means either a veteran's minimum contract, which I'm quite confident he can easily beat on the open market, or the mid-level exception, which they probably want to offer to Lopez. Picking up his option, even though it's a big over-pay, is the only way they can keep him without compromising their ability to keep other personnel assets (the only asset it would cost is money from the owners' pocketbooks). If that is the only way to keep him, then don't over-pay. So you'd rather he just not be on the team? Did you not notice how much of a different team they were when he was hurt? Do you remember how much they struggling right before they acquired him? It would be a terrible idea to cancel his contract just on the principle of not over-paying him. They can't spend the money they save on anyone else. But hey, maybe next year they can make a 3rd-place-in-the-East banner with a note at the bottom saying "yeah but at least we didn't overpay George Hill".

If they don't pick up his option, I'm almost positive they won't have Bird Rights to re-sign him. That means either a veteran's minimum contract, which I'm quite confident he can easily beat on the open market, or the mid-level exception, which they probably want to offer to Lopez. Picking up his option, even though it's a big over-pay, is the only way they can keep him without compromising their ability to keep other personnel assets (the only asset it would cost is money from the owners' pocketbooks).

Give me Brooklyn in the first round. I can walk to their arena. George Hill is terrific. More important to know what you're doing than it is to be more young and dynamic. Especially when you're a supporting cast player on a contender. Pick up his option, pay the tax, and be the best team in the league again next year.

Pretty important injuries at a really bad time. http://

Yes, I think they can average five runs a game with their lineup. Which should take a little pressure off a Brewers bullpen that will in all likelihood sans A Kimbrel addition, be weaker, at least til after super 2. Forgot to mention that their strong outfield defense is a factor too. That can help a guy like Anderson, who depends on a lot of fly-ball outs.

It occurred to me recently that with the (probably) much-improved offense, maybe they can afford to give Davies and Anderson a lot more innings and live with their tendency to give up hr's when they're not on their game. They've both shown the ability to limit base-runners and pitch 150+ innings. If a typical start for them is 6-7 ip's, 8-9 baserunners, and 3-4 er's, that's probably not as unacceptable as it would have been last year when they had to strategize around winning more than their share of close games. More importantly, it might be better than what they would get out of their secondary relievers, many of whom are total question marks at best after being one of the better units in the history of baseball during last year's stretch run.

I don't think Mark A is the one holding anything up because of money. I'm pretty confident he'd sign off on a deal if Stearns told him it was a good one. This is just Stearns staying away from an excessively risky contract for a guy showing marked signs of decline. I do think they need bullpen help. I also thought they needed starting help last year, but that didn't mean I thought they should overpay Cobb, Darvish, or Arrieta, and it doesn't mean they should sign Kimbrel now.

Why would that be a cynical take though? I think it's exactly what they should be doing. Look how it worked out with Darvish. I hope the Cubs haven't learned their lesson and I hope they do sign Kimbrel for something remotely close to his asking price. And I hope to god the Brewers don't, but I'd welcome him on a big one-year deal.

Yes. If he really wants to leave and some other team wants to pay him, you can't stop him. But the fact that you have no leverage is also the very reason you won't be able to persuade some team to give you an expiring contract and draft pick in the first place. It would be a much less likely scenario than some other team just signing him outright. Teams who can sign him in free agency usually don't have much incentive to give up a draft pick to do so, unless they think they can swing a matching-salaries deal for him and keep their cap space for another free agent. Lots of moving parts in that scenario though, and it gives the Bucks back their leverage. I also don't see why the Bucks would settle for that with the best record and differential in the league, and with the purported super-teams all looking so vulnerable. Khris has been a disappointment, but has not been so bad that it's time to get rid of him for future assets when you're a contender now. By the way, the Lakers are the Knicks West and have been for a while. Look at what Russell, Lopez, and Randle are doing for other teams. Look who they have instead of them. Dear god.