UpandIn

That is encouraging. Woody is coming off a big year, he's a exceptional comp for Castillo. I'd just be talking to all 3 on what they're consider signing an extension for. I'd have a range in which I'm comfortable with. Woody I'd start at 6/110 and use Castillo as a comp, but then go to 5/110 with an TO/vesting. Burnes 5/115 go to 5/130 with a mutual option to maybe bring it to 135. Willy...I'd come in low there. 6/90. I just don't know exactly what you're getting and he'd likely turn that down. I'd also TRY and get these done ASAP with the pitchers. I've said I thought you'd see deGrom getting up to 45M a year over 3 years. A 3 year 135 type deal is not unrealistic given his talent, team and ownership. Verlander I think will get a Bauer type deal but beat it by ~5M a year. So I think it makes a lot of sense for Burnes to sign that first deal, get that security and then he'll only be 33 when he's a FA again. We run out 6 man rotations now. It's not the 70s where your Cy Young winner throws 350 innings, it's not even the 80s or 90s where they'll throw 280 or 130 pitches. Burnes throws 110 at most and then they ease off him the next day. More effort, so maybe, as I said, he needs TJ. We just saw Verlander get TJ, come back and have arguably the best year of his career ERA wise and his FB velo is better in 2022 than it was in 2012. A pitcher feels a twinge in his shoulder, they sit them down for a month or longer. A pitcher with his stuff, all the pitchers he has, I see no reasonhe can't throw until he's ~40. I also believe a 3 year deal with an inflated AAV is more palatable to teams than long deals. They'd rather pay more for a pitchers prime than risk it and hope for the best at the end of the deal. But we'll have to wait and see how this off-season plays out first.

I kinda think most people do. I guess you could have said in the last draft...although, if I was going to describe when the Packers picked Quay Walker, I'd say "last years draft."

I kinda think most people do. I guess you could have said in the last draft...although, if I was going to describe when the Packers picked Quay Walker, I'd say "last years draft."

Gerrit Cole's deal is one deal and an aberration. It'd be like using Aaron Nola's 4/45M extension with a team option coming off a ~10 WAR season at the same point Burnes is at. And sure, in two years I guess 6/180 would make sense. But that's 400+ innings and 2 years away. The fact that he's still got service time left means he's obviously not getting the same value as pitchers who are free to sign with any team. So asking how much I think he WILL get in 2 years...I have almost no idea. I expect deGrom, Verlander to get 3 year deals, possibly with vesting options. I would expect Rodon to get a 5 or 6 year deal in the 140M range, but again, he's a free agent. The deal deGrom signed when he was 2 years away from Free Agency should be the starting point for Burnes. ~5/137.5. But deGrom was far more dominant and just better in every way than Burnes at the time. So I think 5/130 would be a very fair deal to buy out his two arbitration years(~30M). That'd make it 3 years ~100M. But teams are going away from the long deals for pitchers. 6 years is on the long end for most pitchers. Burnes can look for a 10 year deal...I sincerely doubt any MLB team is going to give it to him. That'd be the longest deal a pitcher has signed in modern free agency.

Gerrit Cole's deal is one deal and an aberration. It'd be like using Aaron Nola's 4/45M extension with a team option coming off a ~10 WAR season at the same point Burnes is at. And sure, in two years I guess 6/180 would make sense. But that's 400+ innings and 2 years away. The fact that he's still got service time left means he's obviously not getting the same value as pitchers who are free to sign with any team. So asking how much I think he WILL get in 2 years...I have almost no idea. I expect deGrom, Verlander to get 3 year deals, possibly with vesting options. I would expect Rodon to get a 5 or 6 year deal in the 140M range, but again, he's a free agent. The deal deGrom signed when he was 2 years away from Free Agency should be the starting point for Burnes. ~5/137.5. But deGrom was far more dominant and just better in every way than Burnes at the time. So I think 5/130 would be a very fair deal to buy out his two arbitration years(~30M). That'd make it 3 years ~100M. But teams are going away from the long deals for pitchers. 6 years is on the long end for most pitchers. Burnes can look for a 10 year deal...I sincerely doubt any MLB team is going to give it to him. That'd be the longest deal a pitcher has signed in modern free agency.

Yeah, but not really. He left to get paid and little else. He joined up with Hakeem and Barkley, two players who were considered better at the time(he did not disabuse people of that notion). But he was always going to live in MJs shadow. When you think of Pipp, you think of Jordan. Where is Middleton going where he's gonna get out from Giannis shadow and establish himself without being tied to Giannis? We know he's not a #1. He's going to make less in every other team in the league unless we do some sign and trade. I would guess Middleton knows how much the Bucks need him and he wants 4 years+PO@ close to 40 AAV and the Bucks probably don't want to go longer than 3+TO. I assume they'll get it done though. Otherwise...if they have to, I'm alright with trading Middleton next year. Find a team that really needs a wing(Cleveland is the painfully obvious team, but not sure we want to load them up anymore). But I guess if he wants out and he wants to get paid, that'd be the only realistic avenue for him to do so. Not sure what the Bucks would get back beyond a 1st and then a few players who's salaries would come within ~8M of Middleton's salary. You'd likely get like a Buddy Hield or someone who a team doesn't want and in return, they get a veteran on a young team in the most likely scenario. I doubt that'll happen though.

I don't put a whole lot of stock into that BTV...BUT if you were a team like Baltimore who came off a 3 year run where they lost 108, 115 and 110 games in 3 full seasons(excluding the Covid shortened season) and then last year won 83 games in the toughest division in baseball...would YOU be excited to not only give up a pitcher who has Randy Johnson(sick of using deGrom as a comp) like stuff but as a RHed pitcher, PLUS the #2 overall prospect in baseball, PLUS this other pitcher who could be a future ace, but if he's not in DL Hall, will almost certainly be an elite SU/Closer? 18 years vs 2 years. If we're going to look at a 3-4 player package, we'd be better off maybe targeting one MLB ready prospect and then a couple more who are in A ball with a couple big tools. A big fastball, a 60 hit tool. Whatever. Tyler Black type prospects with higher upsides. Misiorowski type pitchers who maybe have 100 innings in.

I don't put a whole lot of stock into that BTV...BUT if you were a team like Baltimore who came off a 3 year run where they lost 108, 115 and 110 games in 3 full seasons(excluding the Covid shortened season) and then last year won 83 games in the toughest division in baseball...would YOU be excited to not only give up a pitcher who has Randy Johnson(sick of using deGrom as a comp) like stuff but as a RHed pitcher, PLUS the #2 overall prospect in baseball, PLUS this other pitcher who could be a future ace, but if he's not in DL Hall, will almost certainly be an elite SU/Closer? 18 years vs 2 years. If we're going to look at a 3-4 player package, we'd be better off maybe targeting one MLB ready prospect and then a couple more who are in A ball with a couple big tools. A big fastball, a 60 hit tool. Whatever. Tyler Black type prospects with higher upsides. Misiorowski type pitchers who maybe have 100 innings in.

They are 2 of the top 4 prospects in the game who are in AAA or the Major Leagues. That pitcher has a deGrom like profile and he's 22. Expectations should be high...but also realistic.

They are 2 of the top 4 prospects in the game who are in AAA or the Major Leagues. That pitcher has a deGrom like profile and he's 22. Expectations should be high...but also realistic.

That is WAY over the top IMO. He's going to make roughly 30M the next two years. So that's giving him 4 years and 150M dollars for his FA years? And if it nearly doubles after this season...you're talking about the largest deal for a pitcher ever. Burnes is a...very good pitcher. This is the type of deal you give deGrom if he was 25 and you're the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets(who probably won't need Burnes). Nearly 38M a year and we're taking on all the risk? 5/130. He gets paid now and he hits Free Agency again when he's 33 years old and he is in line for another massive payday.

That is WAY over the top IMO. He's going to make roughly 30M the next two years. So that's giving him 4 years and 150M dollars for his FA years? And if it nearly doubles after this season...you're talking about the largest deal for a pitcher ever. Burnes is a...very good pitcher. This is the type of deal you give deGrom if he was 25 and you're the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets(who probably won't need Burnes). Nearly 38M a year and we're taking on all the risk? 5/130. He gets paid now and he hits Free Agency again when he's 33 years old and he is in line for another massive payday.

Khris Middleton isn't big enough to get out from Giannis shadow. I don't see him going anywhere(maybe Cleveland, but for a fraction of the money and still not scoring more). Giannis sets him up. He doesn't sacrifice points playing with Giannis, Giannis helps him get his shot. He'd be leaving Milwaukee at pretty much the same point in his career that Pippen left Jordan(though in this case, it'd be his own decision). Did Pippen leave Jordan's shadow? Now...Middleton for Kyrie would be an objective upgrade in terms of talent. And it may very well tear this team apart like it did the Celtics and now the Nets. You'd also ONLY be able to trade Middleton to the Nets in this scenario and the Nets would only be able to trade Kyrie to the Bucks. So Middleton would just be going and playing with longer, bigger, better player with similar attributes to him.

You either pay him or you don't pay anyone though. Unless you include him in a trade for multiple players and maybe you get a young player back who has some upside and you end up hitting on him, that could be one way to use him. But if it's a question between just signing him or NOT signing him, the only thing you're doing is saving the owners money, not fixing the cap. And I think we're going to have a whole of trouble to attract a #2 for Giannis. What assets do we have? I guess if you...hypothetically got out of Middleton's contract and you renounced ALL rights and all options...meaning you'd lose Brook Lopez, Jevon Carter(a player who's really developing into a key player), Jordan Nwora, Wes Matthews, you'd be left with 7 players on the roster and about 11.3 million in actual cap space. So...just like last time, Khris Middleton may not be worth the contract he's going to sign, but he's worth it to the Bucks because it's not about allocating those resources elsewhere. It's about spending them on Middleton, or not spending them at all. I'd rather spend them on Middleton. And then...at least if you make it a new 3 year deal, in his 3rd year, you might be able to turn that into a nice, younger player that another team who's trying to create cap space is willing to trade for you for his expiring contract. But you really need t

I'm pretty sure they're not related. One is from Cuba, the other from Venezuela and they're 6 months apart...they do have similar profiles though.

No, I do not. I'll try and do this one more time and if it doesn't hit, it's just not going to. Moving Urias from 3B to 2B is a significant upgrade defensively. Moving Adames from SS to 3B is a significant upgrade defensively. Sliding in Turang at SS in place of Adames MAY be a slight downgrade defensively. So no, I don't see a "flaw" in that sentence. The cumulative impact of the moves makes your IF defense better as a whole. Now...disagree...fine. But if you want to keep playing dumb and pretending you can't at least wrap your head around the argument I'm making...well, then I can't help you and it feels like you're being willfully obtuse at that point.

Improving your IF defense as a whole while maybe or MAYBE not improving your SS defense...is very reasonable. But AGAIN as I said(a few times now)...this has been discussed ad nauseum and I'm...pretty much done with it.

Improving your IF defense as a whole while maybe or MAYBE not improving your SS defense...is very reasonable. But AGAIN as I said(a few times now)...this has been discussed ad nauseum and I'm...pretty much done with it.

It's "literally" not. I "literally" articulated the reasons probably a dozen times now... They're all readily available...it just requires reading almost any of my posts in this thread.

It's "literally" not. I "literally" articulated the reasons probably a dozen times now... They're all readily available...it just requires reading almost any of my posts in this thread.

Both fangraphs and MLB pipeline grade him as a 60 in the field. He plays SS. I'd say that's elite. Also...again, didn't say he was Adames(who...incidentally was graded as a 50 grade in the field and a 60 arm due to questions about his range...which would provide more credibility to him being more than capable of playing 3B FWIW). AGAIN...I'm talking about the cumulative effect. Turang=Very good defensive SS. Adames-SHOULD be an elite 3B with his hands and his arm...which is obviously very strong. Urias-Clearly best suited to play 2B. So you're probably/possibly downgrading at SS a little bit and you're upgrading at both 3B and 2B. You could be well above average at all 3. They probably won't do it and nobody agrees...so this is probably just a dead subject at this point.

Both fangraphs and MLB pipeline grade him as a 60 in the field. He plays SS. I'd say that's elite. Also...again, didn't say he was Adames(who...incidentally was graded as a 50 grade in the field and a 60 arm due to questions about his range...which would provide more credibility to him being more than capable of playing 3B FWIW). AGAIN...I'm talking about the cumulative effect. Turang=Very good defensive SS. Adames-SHOULD be an elite 3B with his hands and his arm...which is obviously very strong. Urias-Clearly best suited to play 2B. So you're probably/possibly downgrading at SS a little bit and you're upgrading at both 3B and 2B. You could be well above average at all 3. They probably won't do it and nobody agrees...so this is probably just a dead subject at this point.

Ok...well, that may be, but the problem is there are VERY few 3B prospects and the MLB ready ones are particularly valuable. But we do have a SS prospect who is an outstanding defensive player. So I'd agree. If you could get a true 3B, a young stud, that'd be preferable. But IF you are going to start Adames, Turang and Urias, I think you maximize their values defensively by slotting them in at 3B, SS and 2B. The logic being Adames hands and arm will play at 3B. Turang is a excellent defensive SS and Urias has been better at 2B than 3B, but with Wong playing primarily 2B the last couple years, he hasn't gotten as much time there. If you add a 3rd player to the mix who's better than the other two, then the equation would change...but I think the best we're going to do at 3B is Brosseau and Jace given who's available in FA and the fact that it would appear we plan on bringing Woodruff and Burnes back(though that was David Stearns who said as much, so that is also subject to change). So it's really about getting your best defense on the field. ---The counter argument is that...we don't know if Adames can play 3rd. I get that. I disagree as I think his skill set translates perfectly(Certainly better than anyone else currently under contract next year). But he still hasn't actually played there in a long time...though he has played some 2B showing he can move around a bit. Additionally, Urias is fine at 3B and the difference between him at 2nd and 3B is negligible. And Turang would be a plus defender at 2B. Those are pretty much the two opposing views on this. Oh, also, Adames is going to be a FA in 2 years and would lose value at 3B. Though...again, I don't agree with that as I don't think teams are going to value him less and assume that he can no longer play 3B by the time he's 29. If anything, I think his versatility would help him out. But I understand that POV, Shortstops tend to be more valuable. But how much more valuable will they be when you introduce the new shift and the 3B is expected to cover even more ground than he has before the shift was regulated? I THINK we'd all be in agreement that bringing in a guy like...Josh Jung would be preferable.

Ok...well, that may be, but the problem is there are VERY few 3B prospects and the MLB ready ones are particularly valuable. But we do have a SS prospect who is an outstanding defensive player. So I'd agree. If you could get a true 3B, a young stud, that'd be preferable. But IF you are going to start Adames, Turang and Urias, I think you maximize their values defensively by slotting them in at 3B, SS and 2B. The logic being Adames hands and arm will play at 3B. Turang is a excellent defensive SS and Urias has been better at 2B than 3B, but with Wong playing primarily 2B the last couple years, he hasn't gotten as much time there. If you add a 3rd player to the mix who's better than the other two, then the equation would change...but I think the best we're going to do at 3B is Brosseau and Jace given who's available in FA and the fact that it would appear we plan on bringing Woodruff and Burnes back(though that was David Stearns who said as much, so that is also subject to change). So it's really about getting your best defense on the field. ---The counter argument is that...we don't know if Adames can play 3rd. I get that. I disagree as I think his skill set translates perfectly(Certainly better than anyone else currently under contract next year). But he still hasn't actually played there in a long time...though he has played some 2B showing he can move around a bit. Additionally, Urias is fine at 3B and the difference between him at 2nd and 3B is negligible. And Turang would be a plus defender at 2B. Those are pretty much the two opposing views on this. Oh, also, Adames is going to be a FA in 2 years and would lose value at 3B. Though...again, I don't agree with that as I don't think teams are going to value him less and assume that he can no longer play 3B by the time he's 29. If anything, I think his versatility would help him out. But I understand that POV, Shortstops tend to be more valuable. But how much more valuable will they be when you introduce the new shift and the 3B is expected to cover even more ground than he has before the shift was regulated? I THINK we'd all be in agreement that bringing in a guy like...Josh Jung would be preferable.