coolhandluke121

Nope. Unlikely but possible that the protections kick in a few times and they don't get a first rounder at all. It would be two second rounders in 2025 in that case. The Bucks must own someone else's 2025 second rounder.

Yeah, seriously doubt that pick goes to Phoenix this season unless Giannis gets hurt and Middleton is going full Vin Baker before our eyes. Which I think he is, but still... the Bucks are not falling to the 7 or 8 seed in the East. It's top 7 protected for 2020, so there's a very strong chance that's when it goes. That means the Cavs can't get the Bucks 2021 pick, even though that's the original terms of the trade. Basically the 2021 pick was sent to the Cavs contingent on the 2019 pick going to the Suns, but the 2019 pick won't go to the Suns. The Cavs wouldn't get the Bucks' first rounder until 2023 if the Bucks pick in the top 7 in 2020, meaning Phoenix had to wait until 2021. And even then, the Bucks protected the pick they sent to Cleveland. Basically it's a very good use of picks on both counts (Bledsoe and Hill/cap space). They took a slight chance of giving up a really good pick to close the deals, but it was so unlikely to be a good pick that it was well worth the risk.

George Hill and Jason Smith are useful players and perfect fits, unlike Dellavedova and Henson. And they have expiring contracts. Well, Hill has a $1m buyout, but that's peanuts. I mean it's lots of peanuts to you and me, but not a lot for an NBA team. The pick can't convey this year because next year's pick might go to Phoenix and you can't make a trade where you put yourself at risk of having two consecutive future drafts without a first round. And it can't convey next year because the Phoenix pick is still owed. Basically it probably can't convey until 2021, but the Phoenix pick probably goes in 2020 so that means the Bucks have to keep their 2021 pick and convey the pick in 2022. It has solid protection against disaster though. You can't acquire guys just to use their salary to facilitate other trades that would otherwise be illegal, so that's why you have to wait 2 months to combine them with other assets in a trade. That's crucial because the Bucks will have one day at the deadline to package, for example, Brogdon and Hill and DDV for a guy like Beal. That's a long shot obviously but the point is not to suggest a realistic trade; it is to show the financial implications of closing this deal on the 7th.

It's really a tough call with Middleton because we have seen on countless occasions how good they can be when he's playing hard and playing well, and he's a perfect complement to Giannis in so many ways. They're consistently much better with him on the court than without, and it's partly due to the gravity created by his shooting. In fact, he often has better adjusted on/off stats than Giannis, though on/off stats sometimes reward being an ideal x-factor more than being a better player. It's all a moot point if he won't stay in shape and play hard on a regular basis though. That next contract is a little scary. It's just amazing that he would continue to pull this b.s. when they have such a great opportunity this year. I mean, I don't like it when players like Redd do this on a bad team, but it did have a certain logic to it because they had no chance to compete. I just thought being part of a potential finals team would shake a guy out of those doldrums. Rumor has it he smokes a lot of dope, and you can tell by just watching him that he can be extremely lethargic, which calls his conditioning into question. He also has gained a fair amount of weight since getting his current contract. It can be hard to see on a guy with such a tall, slender frame, but it's definitely an issue. You can see it by his effort and lack of tone. It's just so frustrating because all it would take is being in better shape and having better habits. It's not like Jabari, where conditioning and effort were just one of many significant problems including instincts, fit, and injury. It's also hard to find a trade partner. I mean, who's trading for him as a possible rental except other contenders, and what are they going to give up that helps you remain a borderline contender this year? I think they ride it out and try to make the finals this year, unless a Beal/Lillard opportunity comes along... but why would their teams want to rent Khris if they were trading away their best players in the first place? You'd definitely have to include Brogdon to get either one of those guys. His restricted free agent status and low cap hold make him very appealing, but then again he's perfect for the Bucks too.

Yeah, I kind of wanted to take that gamble too. Mainly because of the age thing. Look what Gomez did at a similar age after being terrible and wildly inconsistent for years.

It's almost as if the Brewers don't want to win.

He wasn't himself though. Not much better than Aguilar really, which is my point - if Goldschmidt's struggles at the start of the year are a very early indicator of some decline, then he might not be much better than Aguilar next year, which is why I don't blame the Brewers for taking this gamble. They should be focused on what went wrong with Aguilar and why he couldn't stay effective all year. Spend the money on more trainers and dietitians instead of giving up prospects for Goldschmidt (half-kidding, but I do think that's part of the problem with Aguilar). I would buy that Pujols was a little over 31 in 2011. I also think it's just as likely that he was on PED's and stopped taking them when he got a huge contract.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. If they win the championship they aren’t an inferior team. That's exactly what I'm saying. Even though Oklahoma snuck in as a 4th seed this year and didn't really deserve to play for the title, they would finish with the best resume if they win it all. But a 7 or 8 seed could win it and still not finish the season with the best overall resume. Some people are so concerned with certain teams not getting a chance to play for the title, but in my opinion they did get a chance. That's what the regular season is in college football, and I prefer it that way. I choose not to regard bowl games as boring or meaningless just because they don't have title implications, and a bigger tournament would just shift some of the drama and "meaningfulness" away from the regular season and on to the post season. Bit of a zero-sum game in my opinion. With all due respect, the crux of my argument continues to go over your head every single time. The most deserving teams are the ones that had the best regular season. They are not the ones that are capable of winning the title regardless of whether they earned the right to play for it. A team that didn't have one of the best regular seasons but is still capable of winning it all does NOT deserve a spot. They already had their chance to win it all and they blew it in the regular season. Since sometimes there are more than 2 teams that can make a case, you have to have a 4-team playoffs, but it would be extremely rare for the 5th seed to be able to make the case that they were top 2 in regular season performance. The fact that they might win the tournament doesn't mean they deserved to be there based on their season-long performance - it just means it's a sport and that's what happens sometimes. How can anything be more exact then playing the game? Uh, playing 12-14 games and making use of all that data to determine who had the best regular season and therefore earned the right to compete for the title? You know, so you don't get people making a case that Purdue proved themselves against Ohio State or crap like that?

The ease with which teams are acquiring solid 1B's like Aguilar and Choi is part of the reason the return was so light for the D-Backs. How much are the Brewers really going to give up for a 1-year upgrade from Aguilar to Goldschmidt, especially when they can't be sure they'll be able to flip Aguilar for anything that helps the team now? It's a bit like acquiring Yelich and Cain and hoping you'll be able to trade Santana for something, except Yelich and Cain had 5 years of team control and Santana had an option, which is a pretty big difference for roster planning. I probably would have beaten the Cardinals' offer anyway, assuming the D-Backs happened to like a comparable offer from the Brewers (which is not a given by the way - it always comes down to what the other team thinks of them, not how much the average observer values them). But that's because I still don't trust Aguilar to be anything more than a flash in the pan, even though I can't blame the Brewers for wanting to give him another year. That was surely part of the equation here. Lastly, lest we forget, Goldschmidt started the year wretchedly. He had a .719 OPS through May in a hitter-friendly park. That's awful for a 1B. The last superstar 1B I remember starting a season so poorly without an injury issue or just being well past his prime was Pujols in 2011. They both turned it around, but I think there were some warning signs there. Incidentally, Pujols was 31 that year and Goldschmidt just turned 31. The Angels chose to ignore the warning signs and signed Pujols anyway. The Cardinals aren't taking nearly the same risk, but the point is not to say that it's a bad move for them; the point is that they might not have improved as much as people think, and that Aguilar might be better than Goldschmidt (at least at the plate) as early as next year.

Just for arguments. In 2 of the 4 playoffs so far the “4th best team” as determined by the playoff has won it. So if the 4th best team can win its hardly out of the realm of possibility that the 5th place team can it, especially in years like this when the difference between four and five is minuscule. If the 4th seed wins, they would now be the #1 team anyway, so there's no issue with an inferior team winning the title. There would be with more teams though. And sure, the 5th seed could win, but they didn't earn the right to compete in the national title game. Sometimes it's possible that the 4th seed didn't either, but I'm fine with the hair-splitting between 4 and 5 under the current system, because it's almost inevitably their own fault that they're in that helpless position. Not for everyone though. Some teams can lose and still make it while others can’t. Some teams can make it without even winning their conference, yet others can’t. It’s such an inexact science that the fairest way to settle it is on the field. I realize 8 teams is probably is big as you can go, although other divisions go bigger, which is why the solution I proposed earlier, with six conference champions and two at large teams seems like the obvious answer. It eliminates much of the inherent bias that exists when picking these teams. I actually think it's much more of an exact science than conference titles. There's a lot of solid analytics that goes into analyzing strength-of-schedule, margins of victory, and inter-conference games to get some idea of what an 11-1 record means in the SEC compared to a 13-0 record for UCF. I know the top programs have a huge advantage, but I see no problem with trying to make sure you get the best match-ups and don't let any pretenders in. I mean, what if Northwestern upsets OSU this year? I think it would be a joke to have them playing for a title. I really like the bowl system, which gives you a chance to get the match-ups people want and makes it a bit of a holiday, while still honoring the right of the very best teams - and only the best - to play for a title. Also, not directed at you, but the idea that it's a totally biased system because Alabama or Oklahoma gets in is kind of ludicrous. I mean, they get in over OSU and Georgia and teams of that ilk - is there really a bias against those teams? Come on. There is not parity, but there is no conspiracy in the selections. I think they've done a great job picking the most deserving teams every year.

The SEC has proven itself time and again when it plays other conferences in bowl games and head-to-head competition. There are competitive imbalances due to recruiting and funding, but that's a separate issue. The bowl system is fine. The only change it needed was to make sure the two best teams get to play for the national title so you don't have situations like when Nebraska and Michigan split the title without playing each other. But since you can't always determine who the two best teams are, you expand it to 4 and play a mini-tournament. 4 is enough because it's so unlikely that a 5th team can make a case for being one of the top 2 performers in the regular season. Bottom line, the regular season already is a do-or-die tournament, and you just water it down by letting more and more teams play for the title. College football isn't meant to have a lot of games, and therefore each game is critically important. I strongly prefer a regular season that matters so much, and I think they should get rid of some of these stupid extra games they keep playing. It used to be 11 games for everyone, and then maybe a bowl game. D-II and D-III play what, 13 games at most if they advance to the finals? And I don't think they start playing before the semester starts and keep playing after it ends. These are college athletes who will almost all do something besides football for the rest of their lives. There's no need to keep adding games for fans who seem to think that the players exist for their entertainment pleasure.

Great post. That's what it comes down to, on both counts: teams like UCF could only be expected to beat legit title contenders about 33% of the time, and that's only when they play weak ones, like Boise State against TCU. The fact that they do occasionally get a win in now way refutes the point that their strength of schedule and average margin of victory do not a deserving playoff team make. And the point about actually having the best team win is a great one. Thanks for adding that. It's not as solid as the NBA, but it's a lot better than almost all other post-seasons. NHL is probably up there though.

And yet last year, when you could have made the same argument, UCF goes and beats Auburn, the school that beat both teams who ended up in the NC game. That alone in an indication they could have been competitive in the playoffs. Nobody is suggesting they would have for sure beat Alabama. But you similarly for sure can’t claim they would have lost to them. There’s a reason games should be played on field instead of on paper. What games are you looking at? 2007 Fiesta Bowl: #8 Boise State 43 #10 Oklahoma 42 2010 Fiesta Bowl: #6 Boise State 17 #4 TCU 10 2014 Fiesta Bowl: #20 Boise State 38 #10 Arizona 30 Every time Boise State made a BCS or New Years Six bowl they won, twice beating higher ranked teams. Now I do remember teams like Hawaii and Cincinnati getting blown out in BCS but it’s hardly fair to claim UCF doesn’t deserve a chance because Cincinnati got blown out by Florida in the Sugar Bowl 8 years ago (Cincinnati’s coach left before the game, nkt that it would have necessarily made a big difference but relevant). Why not? I’m just curious. Because I still care a lot about the Rose Bowl and other big bowl games, just like I did before there was a national title game at all. I don't see how the existence of a national title game diminishes those bowl games and conference titles any more than when the Rose Bowl had no national title implications for other reasons. Which bowl games had title implications in the past was kind of an accident, whereas now it's scripted, but that doesn't change the fact that only a few teams were playing for the national title every year and everyone else had to find meaning in whatever they did accomplish. Nothing has changed in that regard. Winning the Big Ten title and going to the Rose Bowl, with no national title implications, is no less of an accomplishment now than it was in 1994 IMO. You're right about BSU. I might have had them confused with someone else, or maybe some regular season losses they had in other years where they were making a case for a top-10 ranking. I'm also conflating it with lots of bowl games against mid-majors with predictable results. Anecdotally, I feel like most mid-major bowl results have reinforced the notion that strength of schedule is a huge factor in their success, notwithstanding a few good performances here and there.

Again, all I can say is that the idea that you can't stay interested in conference titles, bowl games, and the postseason when you're out of the national title hunt is a choice that some fans make. In now way is it a necessary effect of having a national title game. It was never that way before and doesn't have to be now. The Rose Bowl was granddaddy of them all for decades, regardless of whether it had national title implications.

I don't believe that. The teams with all the marketing are also the team's with the great recruits and tons of money from boosters, and that's why they're always in. That's not an issue with the playoff format, it's just a corollary for obvious reasons. They already have an elaborate postseason system, and the only problem with it is that you can't ensure that the 2 most deserving teams get a chance to play for the title. By having 4 teams in the playoffs, you fix that, and that's all you need. Conferences and bowl traditions are still important. There's no need to revamp them completely. Some teams already play 15 games. That's already kind of stupid IMO. This isn't the NFL and playing football isn't their only job. I hate how they keep adding games. The regular season is like the playoffs because you can't afford to screw up royally if you want to compete for the title, and I'm glad they're keeping it that way. You could easily argue that we already have a 13-game tournament to decide the Final Four, so the talk of adding to the playoffs completely misses the point.

This is almost the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm not saying I can definitively say who deserves it more, Oklahoma or OSU; I'm saying I don't really care because neither team deserves it and they're just lucky you have to have an even number of teams in the playoffs. Tough luck to whoever gets left out after the hair-splitting. I only care about making sure the top 2 teams get to play for a title, and neither of them can make a case. But Clemson, Alabama, and Notre Dame can all make a case for top 2, and that happens a lot, so they got rid of the stupid BCS title game and went to a 4-team playoff. The whole crux of my argument, and the committee's (which thank goodness they aren't going to change on short-sighted whims), is that only the TWO most deserving teams deserve a chance to play for the title. The only reason for a playoff at all is that sometimes there's 3 or 4 who can make a case, but I can't ever remember a season where there were 5 teams who could all make a case for being one of the top 2 teams and deserving to play for the championship, so including 4 teams in the playoffs is sufficient. They already have a good postseason system with a lot of tradition and a lot of meaningful games in great destinations. If you choose to all of a sudden stop caring about bowl games just because there's a national title game now, that's your loss. It's no different than it's ever been. Again, everyone knew UW and UCLA weren't playing for a title in 1994, but it would have been incredibly silly to pout about that. They are keeping nearly all that and adding just enough to crown a true national champion, but no more. And who cares about UCF, seriously. There's no indication whatsoever, based on strength of schedule and average margin, that they could be competitive in the FBS playoffs. We've been through this whole thing with teams like Boise State in the past, and they often get exposed against the best teams. Stop barely beating Memphis - the only good decent team they regularly play every year - and they might have a little more of a case, but I still don't think they'd be competitive, and most people don't want to see the Boise State's and UCF's of the world get beat by 31 every year in a total waste of an important game.

What kept fans interested before there was any national title game at all? They're going to continue to preserve the bowl system while trying to crown a true, deserving national champion based on regular season results, as they should. Letting 8 teams in the playoffs gives undeserving teams a shot.

Yeah, that Rose Bowl in '94 was totally meaningless since the Badgers lost to Minnesota in week 7 or whatever. I enjoyed it so much, but in hindsight I should have just pouted all year because I knew they had no chance of winning the title.

UCF has no beef. Can't reward being the big fish in the small pond. They haven't been especially impressive when they played other good teams. I agree completely about expanding the playoffs. The regular season is the playoffs. You want in? Play a strong schedule and don't lose more than once. Don't lose to bad teams. That's it. Otherwise you're playing for a bowl game, like nearly everyone else. If you think the season is over because you're eliminated from title contention in week 6, that's your problem. The Badgers were eliminated from title contention when they lost to Minnesota in 1993 and that Rose Bowl year was still the most unforgettable sports experience of my life. Football is not a tournament-style sport - especially not when most players are students first and will never play football again after they graduate. I think it's kind of asinine to act like you can just keep expanding the playoffs. It would be a crime if some 3-loss team snuck in as the 8th seed and won it in a fluke way, beating a much better undefeated team in the final. I would not recognize them as the champion. That may be how it works in basketball, but the regular season actually counts for something in football and I want to keep it that way. The point of all the national championship formats they've tried in the last 25 years is just to make sure the 2 best deserving teams get to play for a title. It's to avoid Nebraska-Michigan situations with split national titles, to take the title out of the hands of stupid voters, and move on from the foolish BCS title game that often left one team out in the cold when 3 or 4 teams could make a case for being in the title game. Bottom line - you don't have a 4-team playoffs to ensure that the 4 best teams get to play for the title; you have it to ensure that the 2 best teams get to play for it a title. You have it to ensure that Clemson, Alabama, and Notre Dame get to play for the title this year. You have it so Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia get to play for the title last year. It's working exactly how it's supposed to. The real issue is not that Ohio State, Georgia, and Oklahoma all deserved a chance this year, or that Ohio State and Alabama both deserved a chance last year. The real issue is that none of them did, because none of them could make a case for being one of the 2 most deserving teams. But you will often have at least 3 teams that can make a case, and you have to have an even number of teams, so you let one of them in and tell the others to stop complaining and do better next year. And if that team wins the playoff, they probably end up with a better resume than the 3 teams that were seeded ahead of them, so they deserve the title even though they snuck in as the 4 seed.

Sounds like putting Shaw back to third isn’t his top choice and that he would like to see him remain at second base. To me, it sounds like he’s looking at someone else to play third base, which I am all for. The lineup needs a shakeup since they were still fairly inconsistent this past season. It doesn't mean it's his preference in my opinion. It just means they'll do that unless some better option comes along, which basically means they plan to put Shaw back at 3B but they're flexible if they find a 3B who can improve the team by keeping Shaw's bat at 2B. Personally I can live with Shaw at 2B against RHP's. His bat isn't much of a plus at 3B, but it's huge at 2B. The shifts and the presence of Arcia make it something you can live with on defense.

I'd be willing to bet that the Mets have Cano fill the hole at 1B. I think 3B is a hole for them too. Let Frazier hit against LHP's and find a 1B somewhere else. It shouldn't be that hard to find someone who can OPS .850 for them. Look at how the Brewers practically gave away Choi just a few months after picking him up for nothing.

Not if they win the East the next 2 years, which is very possible. Clearing Bruce and Swarzak makes this a lot easier to stomach if you're a Mets fan. Yeah, Cano's going to be an albatross in a few years, but their window is now anyway. The real gamble is whether Cano declines immediately. Personally I don't expect him to. He seems to have a great deal of natural talent and athleticism, like the Beltre of 2B's. I think he's going to help them a lot next year, and with that rotation, it makes sense to take a gamble like this. It is a huge gamble though, and I normally would hate it except under perfect circumstances.

I doubt they are opposed to LOOGY's. They are opposed to ineffective LOOGY's. What does that have to do with Cedeno or Jennings?

I hope the goal is to find something better and not to go into the season with 11 RHP's on the roster. I can understand why they'd want lots of relievers who can go multiple innings, and I can see the logic in saving a roster spot for guys with more upside, like Williams. But when all is said and done, if you look up and Hader is the only LHP in the pen, you're going to have a problem with match-ups. Even if every RHP reliever you keep is more valuable than Cedeno in a vacuum, that would constitute failing to see the forest for the trees. Another thing is that even though you don't get a lot of use out of LOOGY's, just the threat of having one is a factor opponents have to consider when making their lineups. Start the season with a pen of Knebel, JJ, Williams, Barnes, Woodruff, Guerra, and Hader and opponents will have too much freedom in where they put their LHB's in their lineup on those many nights when Hader is unavailable.

It would be hilarious if the Brewers' bullpen innovation last year contributed to teams suddenly valuing starters a lot less and the Brewers took advantage.