coolhandluke121

I couldn't do that soon enough if I was in charge and it were an option. The Brewers need to worry about a title. No, that doesn't mean trading Hiura for a reliever, but I think it would be stubborn not to part with any prospects. Their staff is stabilizing right now, but they should heed the warning signs we saw last month because there's a recent history of tremendous struggles and volatility for many of the guys who are pitching well right now.

Saying so doesn't make it true. No way someone who watched all their games in November would argue that they weren't playing much worse than they did all year. They went 8-6 in November, losing to the Suns, Hornets, and Grizzlies, and then gave an encore by losing to the Knicks on December 1st. Just business as usual for one of the greatest regular season teams of all time, right? Don't try to "point out" that they were playing well until you go back and watch the replays of those games. Enjoy watching Dellavedova play PG again. Really odd time to argue that I've been wrong about Hill all along by the way.

So you want to give the worst hitter of the 3 the most ab's by far, and get rid of the only one who's hitting at all? I mean, why stick with a .870 OPS at 1B when you can have the irresistible option of a hard platoon to combine for under .600, right? You just can't pass up an opportunity like that... Just play Moustakas at 3B, Thames at 1B (Aguilar against LHP's only), and bring up Hiura. Nothing about Shaw's long-term history should make him immune to being optioned at this point. He's looking like a total flash in the pan, as is Aguilar, and it's really not unusual for journeymen to have a random good season or two in their prime. This team is a contender, and they can't afford to waste time on this. Alternatively, go back to the great infield defense that helped the staff so much last year. Moose is better than Shaw at 3B, Thames is probably a little better than Aguilar, and Perez/Saladino are defensive wizards at 2B.

Other than a rough stretch just before they acquired Hill, I think the Bucks and Warriors have been on a collision course nearly all year. That has a chance to be one for the ages. Honestly I think I would prefer if Durant were healthy for it, too. But to be clear, the Raptors and Sixers are very good too. The Raptors have been really strong all year, and the Sixers benefit from shorter playoff rotations as much as any team in recent memory.

I said the option is fine. Beyond a year would not be all that wise. But whatever....I'm not worrying about this stuff until after the playoffs. I was responding to someone else who also mentioned age. I agree that he's not a multiyear piece unless it's a huge bargain, but I see no reason to worry about his age on a 1-year deal considering how he's playing now. In fact, one could argue that having him on an expensive but short deal is exactly what you want. It's the multiyear commitments that could really kill the payroll once Giannis gets the supermax. Lopez, for example, is a huge 7-footer with a history of foot problems. He's almost as old as Hill and might require a full 3-year MLE deal to retain, and I think any team that gives him that is going to regret it I love the financial meta-game, even during the playoffs. Not trying to derail the thread or anything but it's a great chess game.

I don't see why age should be a concern for Hill considering it's a 1-year option. He just turned 33 a few days ago and he's still playing very well. It's very rare to be a contender without multiple reliable veterans like him, although it's probably a disservice to call him a reliable vet (with the connotation that has) when we've seen him play like the Utah borderline all-star version of himself so many times in the past few months. In any case, just to illustrate the nuances of the Lopez situation, it's going to be really hard to keep the full MLE available for him. I'm sure you have to attach multiple assets to Snell to unload his salary, and some of those possible assets are already contributors on a contender (Brown, Pat C). And even if you did, as soon as Brogdon signs an offer sheet, it counts against their cap and forces them into the taxpayer MLE. And even if you give him the taxpayer MLE and he accepts, what if some other free agent leaves unexpectedly and you're scrambling for a replacement without even the tax MLE at your disposal? What if Lopez wants to shop his services before agreeing to return? There could be a full MLE offer from some other contender out there for him. It's a headache, and I think there are lots of other guys who could thrive playing off Giannis for this team. For all the talk about what Lopez has done for the team, let's not forget how much this system and coaching staff have helped him. You might lose some size and low post defense, but you'd gain other advantages with a more athletic big who can guard the perimeter (or just by playing Ersan and Niko with Giannis more). I think I'd just relinquish Lopez unless he signs up for a non-Bird raise of his current deal. Then use the taxpayer MLE on more of a niche player who can play the biggest centers in the league even if he rides the bench in favor of a more modern big against most teams.

They couldn't extend Middleton until he officially opts out of the last year of his deal, so there's really nothing you can read into it. 100% agree that he would be easier to replace though - not so much because I think he's not good, but because they already have so many wing options on the team. You lose Brogdon or Middleton and the other one steps up and gets a few more shots, while Pat C, Brown, Snell, and DDV provide quality depth. But Hill and Bledsoe are both crucial. Basically when you're a contender, you make decisions based on need, and Hill is needed. I agree with Homer that I wouldn't sign him long-term, but his injury history doesn't concern me at all because he hasn't had any injuries that have a lasting effect and he looks to be almost as good now as he was in his prime. If he was showing signs of decline, I would be more concerned. Brogdon and Khris, for example, both seem to have lost more quickness and athleticism in recent years than Hill, even though they're quite a bit younger. Khris's torn hamstring and Brogdon's growing list of leg/foot injuries are much worse injuries than anything Hill has had that I'm aware of.

You can't just restructure Hill's contract. I'm about 99% sure they lose his Bird Rights if they don't pick up his option. If you're thinking of examples of players who restructured in the past, it's because they had player options, not team options, or because the team could lose the player's Bird Rights and still fit the restructured contract under the cap or use exception money. Why is Hill viewed as the guy who would cost too much luxury tax, and not one of the other options? That's equivalent to saying he's the last priority. Everyone else comes first, and by the time you pay Hill you're now too far into the tax to afford him? Why isn't is that you have to pay Hill first, and therefore you would have to go too far into the luxury tax to keep Mirotic, Brogdon, or Lopez? Hill has been the 2nd-most important player of the bunch for a long time now. Heck, sometimes I watched multiple entire games and forget that Brogdon was even hurt until they showed him on the bench. Guarantee you we wouldn't fail to notice Hill's absence if we had to watch Brogdon, Frazier, DDV, or some minimum contract play PG 15+ mpg (and more when Bledsoe is being a headcase). Lopez was pretty good during the regular season but I saw some advanced stats showing the defense was often better without him. Having him anchor the paint and block shots is a way of compensating for his inability to defend the perimeter. His mobility is really bad and guys like that are getting played off the floor regularly. His contract situation also brings the most uncertainty and gums up the works for all other negotiations because they don't have his Bird Rights, and there's reason to doubt whether he's really as good of a 3-point shooter as he showed this year. I don't want to be paying him the full MLE when he reaches the current Pau Gasol phase of his career. With this system and coaching staff, I definitely think they can replace him with just the taxpayer MLE, and that's all I would pay him.

Hill is the most important for wins and losses even if you don't think he's the best player. They have great wing depth and could much more easily replace Brogdon or Middleton. Also, Hill's defense is elite, whereas Brogdon and Khris are just decent, and we saw how valuable that was against Kyrie. But it's mainly about PG depth, and you need Hill for those games where Bledsoe gets weird too. As long as you keep one of Brogdon or Khris, I think you're okay on the wing with Brown, Snell, Pat C, and DDV. And as long as you keep Mirotic or Lopez, you have another big who is a good fit with Giannis, to go with Ersan and eventually Wilson. But the PG spot could completely undermine them without Hill. Plus he could be putting up better numbers, and does when the team needs him too, so it's not like Khris and Brogdom are that much better than him at scoring even if the raw numbers suggest they are. The real question is not who they prioritize but how much tax they will pay though.

Not to shabby for a guy who a few fans were tossing around as a "throw in" at the trade deadline last year. His dominant run as a reliever in August-October seems to have given him a lot of confidence. Also worth noting that having him the pen for a few months didn't seem to stunt his development in any significant way. I mean, I get that he wasn't getting as much work on all his pitches and pacing, but that's just a detour in his development, not a road block. So glad they have Burnes and Peralta in modified roles again. They'll get plenty more chances to start.

I'm just saying he wasn't considered a blue chip guy like Burnes coming up. No question if he keeps improving he will be very good. It's kind of like saying de Grom wasn't as blue chip as Harvey or Syndergaard coming up. It's true, but it doesn't mean he didn't end up being the best.

I was totally on board giving all the young guys a chance, but in hindsight it shouldn't be surprising that Woodruff appears to be the only guy who was ready. He's had more time to shore up his command and his offerings. That stuff matters a lot, regardless of raw talent. He looks kind of like Nelson in talent (not quite blue chip, but still good)except with a shorter "figuring it out" phase. It would be a good argument for giving Burnes and Peralta more seasoning in AAA if the Brewers weren't contenders who desperately need them in the pen.

I don't think Brogdon has been as athletic since his injury last year but yeah, he does have a decent vertical. He's slower off the ground than Pat C though. Toronto is really, really good. They have been easily the 2nd-best team in the East all year, and probably 2nd-best in the NBA (but only because GSW doesn't care about the regular season much). Despite what all the major media markets and Kyrie/Tatum/Simmons/Embiid hype men keep trying to tell everyone, Toronto has flat out proven to be better in everything except jersey sales. We can't simultaneously be annoyed at how much the Bucks are overlooked by certain parties because of market size and "star power" and fail to notice that the exact same thing is happening to the Raptors. Yeah, they have looked bad a few times in the 2nd round, but so did the Bucks, and in the end what happened is exactly what anyone who watched the Bucks all year and knew how good they were said would happen. I'm going Bucks in 7. I think Toronto earns 2 games and the Bucks have one of their mysterious total duds at some point. Also, Kawhi is better than Durant. Not a hot take.

Kyrie promises no more 8-22 games after Friday's loss. Man of his word. Unfortunately has his "less than"/"greater than" symbols backwards like a 5th-grader. Kyrie, the crocodile wants to eat the value that's greater. >>>

Would you say he projects as a right-handed Hader?

Owning your shortcomings and not being delusional about your status is more important than acting more confident than you deserve to be. See Kyrie in this series for an example of how much that kind of thing can screw up a team's chemistry.

Blue font? Can't imagine any reason anyone would question his drive!

I wonder if Jabari still thinks he deserves to be one of the stars of the team.

Yes, but isn't that kind of circular? Teams aren't constructed that way because they are built for the status quo. Then you can say it's a foolish idea because it wouldn't work for most teams. There are lots of teams without great starters who might benefit from constructing their team the way the Brewers have. There may be too much emphasis on labeling guys either "starters" or "relievers". The fact that many successful relievers are just failed starters, and yet often have better numbers than starters, is evidence that many starters are pitching too much and relievers not enough. I think the main reason it hasn't happened is because most teams have starters who are clearly much better than their long relief options, so you try to maximize their innings even if they go 3-4 times through the order and, in the NL, bat 2-3 times almost every start. But then there's a market inefficiency for over-paying the limited number of proven "starters" when fringe starters could be just as productive in some sort of piggyback paradigm. If you can get Davies, Anderson, Guerra, Houser, and Gio for the price of one Chatwood, that should be the plan. Then get creative with usage to make it work.

Wilson had the yips on his shot like nobody's business, and that would only get worse in the playoffs. Hope that's not a part of his personality because he needs to work that out to be playable. I think he has a ton of potential but my spaz alarms started going off after seeing him in a few dozen games.

I didn't follow every post in the debate but I thought I saw a lot of people belittle the idea before the tone really shifted. Being in an overwhelming majority often seems to lead to that dynamic in my experience, and I think the majority didn't really listen to all the subtleties of the argument before implicitly dismissing it as some harebrained scheme that should not even be discussed. I think that kind of response immediately puts the minority on the defensive, and it happens so fast that it's easy to miss how the tone got there in the first place. There was also the crazy semantics argument about what "piggybacking" actually means, which I still don't think is resolved. The people who still want to dismiss the idea are probably still saying it means something just as rigid as set rotations, which I don't agree with at all. I would also be quick to note that it's incredibly easy for an overwhelming majority to say it was the person in the minority who messed up the tone. Not sure that's what happened here, but it was my general impression. In any case, may that cycle end soon so we can all keep doing our best to be proven right in as gentlemanly a way as possible.

He doesn't have much to work with. Not his fault Tatum went to Kobe for advice on chucking and Ainge sold their basketball soul for Kyrie. You can only be a great coach when guys are coachable, as the Bucks have been this year.

TBBC has made some great arguments about the future of pitching and has great data and reasoning to back up his ideas. Just because it hasn't changed overnight doesn't make him wrong. It's regrettable that the conversation got so tense so many times because it has always been a really fascinating discussion. Personally I feel it all took a turn for the worse because people called his ideas ridiculous and relied on being in an overwhelming majority to refute his ideas and used logic like "teams aren't doing it for a reason" (as if every innovation in baseball history was not once something "teams just don't do") and there's not enough personnel to make it work (even though he and I have both explained countless times how it could work and how certain situations make it a good idea). Most people have also failed to even acknowledge that there are all kinds of flaws with the status quo (pitchers facing the order too many times, not getting enough innings out of relievers, too many plate appearances by starting pitchers, not having the right platoon match-ups because of rigid rotations), but people just accept them instead of thinking of creative ways to mitigate them. For ever hypothetical worst-case scenario flaw you can find with TBBC's ideas, you can find at least one - and often two or three - with the current status quo. I've been a believer in these ideas since their innovations in the 2017 stretch run, as well as some of Tampa's ideas that same year. I've pushed them as well, independently of hearing anyone else advocate them. And a few of the most innovative, analytical teams in baseball are dipping their toe in more and more. The reluctance to dive in headfirst is understandable, but I think it's a shame that it has to turn in to this "see, you were wrong, the Brewers aren't doing it so don't ever come up with any crazy ideas again" tone. And I love the fact that the Brewers are clearly willing to try it if other options fail. I still think they should have tried it more from the start, and I understand that if some starters separate themselves from the pack and pitch very well, they will get 6-7 innings regularly, but I think they are likely to milk a few extra wins out of this limited staff by doing more of what they did last night. Davies Chacin Anderson Gio Nelson --- Woodruff Burnes Peralta Guerra Houser That's quantity over quality for SP's, and when you have that, you may as well use more of them to keep everyone fresh, manipulate match-ups as much as possible, limit times through the order, and use several of them in the bullpen (most of them are more talented than the average middle reliever, even if they are questionable as traditional starters). Several of them have options and have looked much better out of the pen. You can adjust to situations more if you have less rigid rotations. It just makes too much sense to not happen unless 4-5 guys pitch great and lock down traditional starting spots (though I would argue it's much more likely that some of them will look great precisely because the Brewers stop trying to force them into a traditional rotation role).

I'd give up something of value to unload Snell if that's what it takes to keep everyone. I still say they should keep everyone anyway, even though it would be a huge tax bill. They got an arena from the taxpayers and they will be building their brand, which will help recoup some losses. Anyway, I think it will take some serious sweetener to unload Snell's salary, but I'd be certainly be happy if they could trade Brown or Pat C, plus the #30 pick in the draft, to unload him. Their window is now, and I'm not sure there's enough playing time for everyone when Brogdon and DDV are healthy. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's not. So giving up the future potential of Brown and a pick is an easy choice to retain someone really important to their current chances of a title, like Hill. If a team asks for Wilson or DDV, it would be a tough call. Would rather they just pay the tax, but it's not up to me. I could live with it if it means keeping Mirotic, Hill, Brogdon, and Khris. I think it's going to be really hard to keep Lopez.

Giannis missed 10 games. Khris missed 5. Brogdon missed 18 and hasn't played in the playoffs. Brown missed 24 games. Ersan missed 15 games. Snell missed 8 games. DDV missed 55 games. Hill only played 47 games for the Bucks. Mirotic only played 14! I know some of those guys aren't core pieces, but a lot of them were out at the same time, which was an issue. And yet, the Bucks had an all-time top 20 season. That's pretty incredible. Imagine what they could do if they brought everyone back.