coolhandluke121

Yes Shaw is that talented. He has an OPS over .800 3 out of the last 4 years and he plays good defense. We will need Travis to be good the rest of the year and in the future. He is very important to this team. The 3 most powerful forces in the universe are love, hatred, and regression to the mean. The question in baseball is, what is that mean? Shaw was a pretty ho-hum prospect for years. 7 years of professional baseball before 2017 did nothing to suggest Shaw is worthy of the performance equity people are giving him. He wouldn't be the first to bomb after a couple good years in his prime, and won't be the last. When in doubt, I trust the whole data set over the recency bias of 2017 and 2018. Incidentally, a similar force appears to be at work with Aguilar, and though I don't rail against him as much as I used to because anything can happen in baseball, it sure looks like regression to the mean wins again despite whatever magic pixie dust he had working for him in 2018. I'll grant that Shaw also wouldn't be the first player to be consistently good in the majors despite being consistenly mediocre in the minors for many years, but that is much more rare than a few good fluke years in a player's prime. Even his MLB OPS isn't that special considering he plays home games at Miller Park. Right now he's looking like almost a dead ringer for Casey McGehee, and I hope and trust they won't do the same thing they did sticking with McGehee's sorry butt in 2011. He will and should be optioned when Hiura is out of the Super 2 zone unless he turns it around dramatically in this audition.

I spent more time with my family, did some reading, got in shape, and volunteered at several charities over the last few days. It was awful. Thank god we're back!

And unfortunately they have the 22nd ranked OPS at 3rd base. I do see a way to rank very highly at both spots going forward though... Everybody sees a way to rank very highly at both spots going forward... I guess Super 2 gonna Super 2.

No. Go away.

I think it's going to be hard for any pitcher besides Hader to set himself apart from the other candidates enough to claim a spot. The Brewers already have 4 spots, and there's just not enough spots if every team has to have an all-star. Moustakas and Grandal are locks by default, but the competition at their positions is dramatically different.

Exactly. The NBA financial landscape is completely different from baseball. Except for the most egregiously high payrolls, you're not so much limited by being a small market as you are by what salary cap exceptions are available to you and whether you have a roster worth maximizing them. This team won 60 games and has a ton of exceptions to play with. A lot of people are talking about whom to prioritize, and I get it, but I still say they should just pay a buttload of tax and keep everyone who wants to stay. I do think some of them will be overpaid, but I don't think any of them will be awful contracts unless they get hurt.

Regarding all the free agents and the uncertainty, just another reminder that it can be very helpful to have contracts like Hill's expiring deal and solid players like Mirotic and Middleton just to make salaries work in mega-deals. The Bucks were one of just 4 teams on Anthony Davis's wish list, and it's easy to see why an outside star would view this as a great situation. Players like the coaching staff and Giannis seems like an easy star to get along with. And it's not the same as Durant joining a team that already had multiple stars, so a guy like Davis wouldn't have to worry about being discredited for that. And even if it's not Davis, it seems there's an unhappy perennial all-star or even a true superstar available every year or two these days. Keeping as many assets as possible can only help make something like that possible.

It seems so obvious that I just took it for granted, but I researched it to be 100% sure and couldn't find it anywhere. That doesn't mean it's not there, but I can't see anything about losing Bird exceptions for waiving a player with a non-guaranteed salary. It would seem really odd if the CBA allowed it though. The players union would probably be against it because they don't want to give teams incentives to waive players. Then again, allowing them to keep Bird Rights at least helps the player because it leaves a team with the right to go over the cap to sign him without using some other exception. It's not the same as declining a team option, so those rules have nothing to do with it. And it's not the same as renouncing a player, which is giving up their Bird Rights... although it's possible that renouncing Bird Rights is assumed to be part of the process of waiving a player. There are rules about re-acquiring a player you traded away after his new team waives him, but that's not the same. By the letter of the law, it almost seems like they could waive him and keep his Early Bird rights, because he did not change teams via free agency or waiver for 2 years (3 years would make full Bird Rights). But some other team could claim him on waivers and make it a moot point, and even if he clears waivers, he would be a UFA. He always gives non-committal answers when asked directly, but I think it's revealing that he slips into that when it's about the team. Giannis did the same when he said "we're going to be contenders for a long time."

George Magic Oscar Hill ---------------- $18m non-guaranteed salary with $1m guaranteed if the Bucks waive him This is technically not the same as a team option, a term I and many others are guilty of sometimes using carelessly It's complicated, but everything I've read indicates that Hill has to be waived to avoid the $18m salary I've looked everywhere I know of, including reading the CBA, but I can't find what waiving a player means for holding his Early Bird Rights Hill would not be eligible for full Bird Rights after just 2 years on his current deal Hill would have full Bird Rights in 2020 if the Bucks don't waive him His contract can't be extended or renegotiated (doesn't meet the minimum number of years for either strategy) Technically, I think waivers would make him eligible to be claimed by another team that wants to pay him $18m Otherwise, he's a free agent I know the CBA pretty well, but this is confusing as all heck. I really don't think the Bucks retain his Early Bird rights if they waive him, but I can't find anything that specifically says one way or the other. Furthermore, waiving would expose him to other teams. In any case, suffice to say that it may not be realistic to think the Bucks can keep him if they use the MLE on Lopez and waive Hill. I'm just not convinced that they have the right to pay him any more than a minimum salary. However, I am not 100% ruling out the possibility that they would still have his early Bird Rights, which would allow them to go well over the cap to pay him. Bottom line, I'm keeping him unless they have his early Bird Rights... and even then, I would be worried about losing him to a higher bidder. Getting his full Bird Rights in 2020 could come in handy. Furthermore, it would be incredibly stupid to waive him in hopes of keeping most of the other guys, only to end up losing other players anyway. You waive Hill, Lopez gets more than the MLE, and Mirotic leaves to start somewhere else.... or god forbid, Khris gets 4/$140m and you just can't bear to beat that... why lose all that talent just to spare the owners a big tax bill? Hill is the guy you're in control of retaining (beside Brogdon who's an RFA), the only guy who actually played better in the playoffs (whereas nearly everyone else played worse), and is a perfect fit on the team. They need him. After watching the lack of poise and experience against Toronto, I don't see how anyone can doubt how badly they need Hill.

I can see why anyone would be nervous. Normally when you get to the point where you're at risk of losing a lot of talent to unrestricted free agency, you've had a nice 3-5 year run. The Bucks could take a big step backwards after just one really good year. It really comes down to all the terrible moves they made after they bought the team. Henson, Teletovic, Dellavedova, and Plumlee all got 8-figure salaries (or very close to it) on 3-4 year deals. They gave Monroe a max contract and traded multiple picks for Greivis Vazquez. They drafted Thon Maker 10th when Sabonis was still available and was clearly a perfect fit. They drafted Rashad Vaughn 17th because he had the same agent as Kidd. They must have had tons of chances to trade Jabari Parker for something of real value, but they insisted on shoehorning him into the core even though he was a terrible fit and had shown all kinds of red flags. Imagine how good they could have been the last few years if they had just made decent moves half the time. The only good move they made before Horst was drafting Brogdon... unless you count Giannis's first extension, which should have been a no-brainer. All that said, like I've been saying all along, just pay the luxury tax and run it back. They got a ton of help on the arena and their investment is already way up. They can afford it. Don't let them tell you they can't. Portland, OKC, and Cleveland have had some of the biggest payrolls in the entire league in recent years. Revenue sharing is adequate in the NBA for small market teams to push the payroll. What really worries me is that there are lots of unrestricted free agents, and all it takes is one dumb, desperate team to overpay any given one of them. And even if they don't, someone could choose to leave anyway.

This thread is giving me serious deja vu. Not a figure of speech, but literal deja vu. Have we seen the "blame CC" -----> "blame global warming" progression before?

There's a special place in hell right next to Hitler for whoever made this decision. /Blue-ish font... I think? Go Travis! (You and your fat ass!)

The Raptors against GSW looked like the Bucks against the Raptors. Little brother should be able to beat big brother but has some kind of mental block.

I wanted to trade him because of his injury history and because of the Bucks' free agency situation this summer. I did say that I thought his bulk (muscle and a little body fat) contributed to his injuries, and luckily for all Bucks fans I think he probably understands that better than you do, hence his comments about shedding some weight. But I did NOT say him being out of shape was the reason they should trade him. In fact, I actually never even said or implied Brogdon was out of shape. Khris is the one who I said shows lots of signs of being out of shape; Brogdon just needs to get a little quicker and reduce some wear and tear on his lower body. You don't think it's a little uncanny that Brogdon had yet another pretty serious lower body injury just a few weeks after I said that? And that many Bucks fans who understand the CBA are now talking about how we realistically hope to only lose two recent borderline all-stars for nothing when we probably could have traded Brogdon for a good draft pick and retained everyone else? The argument about trading Brogdon is far from over my friend. This free agency situation is the future I was warning about, and if you think I'm annoying now, wait until his next injury.

That, and just the non-stop endless "I told you so" posts. Some of them so ridiculous we end up hearing someone bragging about being right about Michael Redd. And what about the endless "I told you not so" posts in reply? Takes two to tango bro. If a comment from the player himself supporting my assertion is not evidence for you, it's hopeless to have a conversation with you.

Classy. Again, why is it so hard to just say you learned something from it?

Just watched Khris's exit interview. About free agency, he acknowledged that the first time he was a free agent, he fell into the trap of not training enough because he didn't want to risk any kind of freak injury before getting a contract. I noticed that he came to camp a little out of shape in the first year of his $70m contract. Did you? If not, why do you find it so hard to stop arguing about conditioning when you obviously can't discern the difference anyway? I hold basketball players to a very high standard of fitness and conditioning. You should too.

What do they expect if I make an observation and they disagree with it and challenge me? Am I supposed to explain why I think it's the case - which by the way has now been confirmed by the player - or just say "oh, never mind, I guess I was hallucinating, thanks for correcting me guys!" And if I can tell by looking at him, what else am I supposed to say? It's pretty much gas-lighting to keep challenging my observation now that the player said it himself. Like I said, you really can't make this stuff up.

Nikola Mirotic ----------- Unrestricted free agent with full Bird Rights Cap hold of $18.75m unless the Bucks renounce his rights (150% of this year's $12.5m salary) A starting salary of over $15m would make him a "BYC" player, but he would be much easier to sign-and-trade than Brogdon or Middleton, whose salaries will more than double Really tough to judge this on. I think you have to look at his whole body of work and not focus too much on these playoffs. Look at how much better New Orleans got when Cousins tore his Achilles and Mirotic replaced him in the starting lineup. He was a great fit next to Anthony Davis and would theoretically be a great fit with Giannis. He only played 14 regular season games for the Bucks. He was bad in the playoffs, but he played way too many games out of position at SF for some dumb reason. Toronto was a terrible match-up for him because their small-ball lineups were murder on Milwaukee's slow big men, even when they weren't playing out of position, let alone when they were. Unless the price tag is unreasonable, I think this is another case of just retaining as much talent as humanly possible while you have the chance. It will be a long time before the Bucks have another opportunity to retain a bunch of free agents with Bird Rights and push the payroll way over the cap. When you're a contender, you have to jump at the chance. Revenue sharing is adequate in the NBA, and building your brand pays lasting dividends. They got a ridiculous amount of money from the state for building the new arena, and they owe it to the fans. Look at how GSW's ownership is building their arena entirely out of their own money. I respect that, and they're still making a killing on their investment. The Bucks' owners are doing the same, so don't listen to any bullcrap whining about the luxury tax bill. I would give him a small raise on his current deal and worry about fit and playing time later. That said, a sign-and-trade could be an option if you think Wilson is ready for more minutes and you manage to keep Lopez. I'm not even going to suggest any trades because there's too many moving parts this time of year and I'm not privy to any of the conversations teams are having about player movement.

Me: "Brogdon would benefit from losing a few pounds." bf.net: "You're wrong! What are you even talking about?" Reporter: "What are you planning to do to improve this summer?" Brogdon: "(other stuff) I'm going to try to shed some weight. (other stuff)" bf.net: "Whatever, you're still wrong!" Can't make this stuff up. Claiming Redd wasn't overweight just proves that you aren't discerning enough to tell when basketball player should lose a few pounds of excess fat. Here's Redd's account of his weight problem, straight from the horse's mouth. He even admits that he never had six-pack abs in his life. Isn't it reasonable to expect a professional athlete in his prime to get there? http://www.espn.com/espnmag/story?id=3593587 I will grant that I had the year wrong and showed the wrong picture as a result. It was a long time ago. The point stands though. Nobody ever said weight is the only factor in quickness or injury risk. Saying that Fred Van Vleet has more body fat than Brogdon but is still quicker, or saying that Shaun Livingston tore up his knee even though he was extremely light and skinny, is like saying smoking is not a risk factor for lung cancer because some non-smokers get it too. It's either a profound failure of elementary logic or an attempt to be deliberately obtuse for the sake of being difficult. There are countless testimonials from players about how losing a few pounds helped them get quicker and play with more energy. It should go without saying that the human body is subject to the laws of physics, even when playing basketball, but I'm saying it anyway. More mass means more force is needed to change momentum. If the mass is extra muscle, that often more than makes up for it, but even a thin layer of excess fat makes a difference. More mass also applies more force to bones and connective tissue, making it a risk factor for injuries - even though there are many other factors, including just bad luck. Brogdon's plantar fasciitis is a textbook example of a chronic overuse injury that can often be mitigated by losing a few pounds, which can make all the difference. Which is not to say that skinny people don't ever get it, or that fat people always do, but I've already corrected two similar logical fallacies and I gotta stop teaching logic for free since it's part of my livelihood. Someone said Khris is an ectomorph. Exactly - that's why it's so hard to see the extra fat. You have to look for the absence of definition. Look at Richard Hamilton and Reggie Miller as examples of ectomorphs who maximized their limited physical gifts by staying extremely fit and trim. And don't just look at their physiques, but also their energy levels and how hard they worked to run guys through screens and get open off the ball. Khris would help the team a lot by doing that. Look at Durant as an example about halfway between Khris and Hamilton, who was the gold standard of fitness and conditioning for players in that mold. Lastly, I just can't understand why anyone insists on having such a strong opinion about something they obviously know nothing about. It's like you don't care about the truth at all, you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Or you don't want someone you don't like to be right about something. I hate when people get like that on message boards. It just destroys the culture. Getting the facts and the truth should be what matters and the evidence is all there. "I really couldn't tell Brogdon had some weight to lose. I guess I learned something." Would that really be so hard to say? He said it himself. What more could you possibly want?

Thames actually has a much better overall track record in his professional career. Aguilar had an .800 OPS for nearly 10 years in the minors, and wasn't especially young at any stop. That is horrible. He also had a sub-.800 OPS away from Coors in 2017, with pretty favorable platoon chances to boot, so even this talk of him having 2 good years under his belt is completely overblown.

Out of respect for migraine sufferers everywhere, can we have a 48-hour moratorium on suggesting how urgent it is to get rid of a 1B with an .850 OPS to make room for 2 guys with a .600 OPS?

Khris Middleton ------------- Cap hold of $19.5 Bucks have Bird Rights to go over the cap and re-sign him Is eligible for 30% of the salary cap as starting salary ($32.7m) Bucks can offer 5 years with 8% raises (5/$190m total) Other teams can offer 4 years with 5% raises (4/$140m total) Will almost surely be what used to be called a "base-year compensation" (BYC) player BYC rules made it harder to abuse Bird Rights just to do sign-and-trades (Bird Rights are meant for keeping teams together) Bucks can only take back the greater of his current salary or half his new salary in a sign-and-trade (give or take 25%) unless they are far enough under the cap to make up the difference There has been a b.s. rumor all over the internet that you can't combine players in a sign-and-trade. Some second-rate basketball hype site started the rumor. The CBA continues to make sign-and-trades harder every time they update it, but I can't find anything anywhere that prohibits combining players in a sign-and-trade package, and arguably the best online resource for explaining the CBA even goes so far as to explain how combining players can help get around "BYC" restrictions on sign-and-trades. http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm Anyway, I think a sign-and-trade would be a cool option, but I'm not sure Khris is going to accept it. I think his last interview where he emphasized that family is the most important factor is usually code for trying to maximize earnings, which is fine. And I think some young team like Brooklyn, Dallas, or Orlando wants to take advantage of their cap space while they can, before extensions for some of their young players eats up their cap space. Those teams aren't getting Kawhi, Klay, or KD. They probably couldn't even get Kemba, though Brooklyn has a chance at Kyrie. But Khris is the most realistic target for teams looking to poach an "all-star". (What's with all the K's in free agency? Is this a Travis Shaw highlight reel??) I think the bottom line is that you have to take advantage of the opportunity to go way over the cap and retain as much talent as possible. Under no circumstances do I offer more than 4/$140m (if he wants to leave for the same money, let him), and I would be very reluctant to offer that. I suppose one can hope that Brooklyn, Dallas, and Orlando target other players, making ~4/$110m a viable offer. I think that salary is appropriate for Khris, and depending on the return, they would get some talent back while still taking advantage of the opportunity to play over the cap. I guess I kind of hope that's possible, though it's exceedingly complicated with his BYC status, even if you are getting cooperation from him and his new team. I think I'm pretty even-handed about Khris's impact. I don't get too down on him when he's slumping and I don't hype him excessively when he's hot. He's a pretty good player. However, I think I'd rather lose him than lose any 2 of Hill, Brogdon, Mirotic, and Lopez. And losing him would give you a better chance of getting back under the tax threshold in 2020-21, which is important for keeping the full MLE and the bi-annual exemption. *Edited to delete an incorrect interpretation of sign-and-trade rules - only "Rose Rule" guys are restricted to reduced max salaries in sign-and-trade deals.

I want Hiura to stay at 2B. What we've seen from Shaw this year kind of scares me. Reminds me of some the issues with Aguilar and, to a lesser extent, Thames. Basically you can talk all you want about how Shaw and Aguilar had two good years, but that doesn't necessarily trump all the mediocrity they showed for many years before that. I have more confidence in Hiura to help the team, even though he is just a rookie.

I'm absolutely rooting for Toronto. The fact that they beat the Bucks only helps because I really don't want people saying the Bucks were a huge disappointment. I've said all along that Toronto was getting really underrated, and while I'm disappointed in how the Bucks played at times, there's no shame in losing to this Raptors team. Their defense looked pretty solid again in game 1.