Milwaukee Bucks 2014 - 2015 (part 2)

[patrickgpe]

He really looks like a stud in the making and would make our team much better.

 

One could certainly say the same thing about Parker. Even better, one can say that about Parker after seeing him play pro ball. You really have to cross your fingers on draft picks that they don't totally bust out immediately, even such high picks.

 

at some point you just can't keep on getting the flavor of the month and find players to build around with NBA experience. Its why Philly trading MCW after 1.5 seasons didn't make any sense. Parker looked like a guy you can build around in his brief time in Milwaukee.

[homer]

Apparently they are revealing the financing plan for the new arena today at 3:15pm

[JJHardy7]

I'd like to make the outrageous statement that I've been thinking about the idea of trading Jabari Parker to the 76ers for the #3 to draft D'Angelo Russell. He really looks like a stud in the making and would make our team much better. Flip MCW to someone for a C or a draft pick and we're in business. Talk me off the ledge.

 

Pre-ACL injury I'd say you were crazy...I could maybe...maybe be talked into it post-ACL injury. I just have a feeling for whatever reason that Parker isn't going to be the same after this injury. That just seems to be the type of luck the Bucks would have.

[patrickgpe]

Apparently they are revealing the financing plan for the new arena today at 3:15pm

 

without getting political, i think its a great deal for the state and city from what i heard about it, and hopefully politicians can put their political differences aside and do what is best

[FVBrewerFan]

They have the votes in the Assembly, probably have the votes in the Senate but that will be a closer call.

[FVBrewerFan]

I'd like to make the outrageous statement that I've been thinking about the idea of trading Jabari Parker to the 76ers for the #3 to draft D'Angelo Russell. He really looks like a stud in the making and would make our team much better. Flip MCW to someone for a C or a draft pick and we're in business. Talk me off the ledge.

 

Pre-ACL injury I'd say you were crazy...I could maybe...maybe be talked into it post-ACL injury. I just have a feeling for whatever reason that Parker isn't going to be the same after this injury. That just seems to be the type of luck the Bucks would have.

 

I don't think it's crazy from purely a basketball standpoint. Not sure about a trade for Russell specifically, but I would be open to a trade. Parker is a tweener. Which is not an issue on offense, but it is on defense. With that said, it is crazy in the sense the Bucks would never trade him- at least not now.

[patrickgpe]

They have the votes in the Assembly, probably have the votes in the Senate but that will be a closer call.

 

still need to get through the common council too.

[superfly]

He really looks like a stud in the making and would make our team much better.

 

One could certainly say the same thing about Parker. Even better, one can say that about Parker after seeing him play pro ball. You really have to cross your fingers on draft picks that they don't totally bust out immediately, even such high picks.

 

at some point you just can't keep on getting the flavor of the month and find players to build around with NBA experience. Its why Philly trading MCW after 1.5 seasons didn't make any sense. Parker looked like a guy you can build around in his brief time in Milwaukee.

 

The point however is that Giannis and Parker may not be able to play together. Both are ideally suited at the 4 (Giannis does command a bit of ballhandling). It could very well be a fatal flaw in our strategy to win a championship...look around the NBA at the combinations that are most successful.

 

CLE - Irving (PG) / Lebron (SF)

GS - Curry (PG) / Thompson/Green (SG/SF)

Spurs - Parker (PG) / Duncan (PF)

OKC - Westbrook (PG) / Durant (SF)

BOS - Rondo (PG) / Pierce (SF) / Garnett (PF)

MIA - Wade (SG) / Lebron (SF)

 

Notice a trend? All of them had a POINT GUARD and a Forward they built around. Yes, Wade played point even though Chalmers was out there. As it stands right now we have a guy in Giannis who could end up being a SF or a PF, and an undersized PF in Parker. It all hinges upon MCW and whether he can become elite or not...while I think he will become a good PG, I don't know about elite.

 

We don't have very much of a sample size to know for sure whether this will work or not, but I fear that Parker is not the fit for the team we need...not that we had a choice in taking him. It's why I wanted Wiggins, but it just didn't work out on draft night.

[BrewBalls]

Rumors are the Spurs are trying to clear cap space to make a run at Aldridge and are willing to trade Splitter and throw in their first round pick (#26) to get a deal done. We could offer Ennis and Plumlee for Splitter and the 26th pick. Then draft either Hernangomez or Upshaw to be our future center. Both would need some time to develop which Splitter czn provide since he's under contract for the next two seasons. Thoughts?

[brwrsfan]

Rumors are the Spurs are trying to clear cap space to make a run at Aldridge and are willing to trade Splitter and throw in their first round pick (#26) to get a deal done. We could offer Ennis and Plumlee for Splitter and the 26th pick. Then draft either Hernangomez or Upshaw to be our future center. Both would need some time to develop which Splitter czn provide since he's under contract for the next two seasons. Thoughts?

 

If that's a deal the Spurs would actually make, we should jump at it IMO. Ennis may develop but we really don't need him. Plumlee is just another body and Splitter fills his role.

 

The only holdup is his contract. 2 years at 8.5 million per season. That's a bit high, but we should be able to absorb that (I think?). We could take the two picks and certainly find quality players, or combine them to trade up if someone we really like starts falling. I think I'd probably do it, assuming it doesn't kill us from a cap standpoint (sorry, I'm not that into the Bucks cap situation at the moment).

[FVBrewerFan]

The point however is that Giannis and Parker may not be able to play together. Both are ideally suited at the 4 (Giannis does command a bit of ballhandling).

 

Parker really isn't ideally suited for the 4, but he's not ideally suited for the 3 either. Again, on offense it really doesn't matter what label you five him. But on the defensive side of the floor he has to guard a bigger, stronger 4 in the post or a quicker 3 out on the court. Either way, most nights you will have a tough time matching him up on someone he can handle.

 

Yes, he's young and can better at defense. But I just don't see his body type ever allowing him to be a true 4. Best bet may be for him to trim down and play the 3. Either way, it will take a couple years for this to work itself out and they very well may be in position to trade him or Giannis at some point. Just way too early right now.

[WV Brew]

Patrick- Just curious. How is this a great deal for the State and City? You realize virtually every economist who has studied stadium subsidies finds them to be a bad deal for the taxpayer don't you?

[patrickgpe]

Patrick- Just curious. How is this a great deal for the State and City? You realize virtually every economist who has studied stadium subsidies finds them to be a bad deal for the taxpayer don't you?

 

if the bucks leave the state will be on the hook for 400ish million dollars in repairs for the Bradley center and lost NBA taxes, the current contribution for the state is 80 million dollars.

 

I think it is harder to argue that the city's contribution is a great deal, but still it does allow the baron wasteland of the park east freeway to be developed.

 

I think everyone needs to make up their own minds if this is a worthy investment and I am assuming you are not local, so I encourage to read coverage on the deal: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walker-arena-announcement-could-come-today-or-tomorrow-b99513331z1-306115811.html

 

I agree with your premise when arenas are 100% publicly financed. It seems crazy for government to dump millions of dollars so billionaires can get more rich. This arena is different since the bucks owners and kohl are putting up half of it and are promising an additional millions for an entertainment district.

[tmwiese55]

Giannis could be our Lebron in that he can basically play PG but guard PFs. They're also going towards a switch everything defensive strategy (as you see GSW doing, they won the game last night playing 6'7 Green at C) which alleviates some of these concerns. The key to the Bucks is having 2/3 of Giannis, Jabar, MCW into legit bucket getters. Jabari should for sure have that in him as long as his knee doesn't derail him.

[RobertR]

I think it's a crummy deal for taxpayers all the way around. What will make up for the Bucks if they leave? Something will. Maybe more concerts or arena shows will be brought into the city. Maybe more people will go to the movies or plays. But, those entertainment dollars won't just go away, they'll go into something else.

 

Yes, a nicer arena would help the Bucks and downtown, but I think people expecting it to be astronomic improvement are going to be disappointed. You're not going from County Stadium to Miller Park here. The experience will be better inside the arena, but I haven't seen a basketball arena yet that's not reliant on the quality of the team to be the draw.

 

Heck, expanding the convention center, and bringing out of town dollars into the city, might be a better option. Honestly, I kind of wonder if chasing the return of Gen-Con might be the better option.

[patrickgpe]

I think it's a crummy deal for taxpayers all the way around. What will make up for the Bucks if they leave? Something will. Maybe more concerts or arena shows will be brought into the city. Maybe more people will go to the movies or plays. But, those entertainment dollars won't just go away, they'll go into something else.

 

obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion, i will just point out that when the bucks leave so does all of the NBA salary tax revenue leave too and also most major acts will skip Milwaukee on their tours because of the lack of backstage space in the BC as opposed to the newer NBA arenas.

[RobertR]

I bet a lot of major acts also could also book better dates if they weren't competing with the Bucks for space at the Bradley Center. Something will fill those nights.

 

Would there be a dropoff from the Bucks? Probably. But, it wouldn't be a 100% dropoff which is the assumption that they're trying to use to justify this deal. Heck, more money may just end up being poured into the Brewers and Packers. If the income tax hit is only 50%, is the deal a good one?

 

But, we're drifting into politics here.

 

Regardless of my thoughts on the deal, I do think that things are looking up for the Bucks.

[tmwiese55]

of course an argument can be made that taxpayers should never have to foot the bill, but the reality is that if one city doesn't another will and that's what we're dealing with here. This deal is drastically better (for the taxpayers) than what most other cities/states have done, that's why people are saying it's a good deal.

 

Losing the revenue would be huge. You're not going to book 41 acts in the winter in WI that generate anything close to this income. I don't know how taxes work for musicians/concerts etc. but the tax revenue alone from losing the Bucks players is huge and basically pays for this on it's own over the long haul. That's not even factoring whatever corporate taxes they have and all the jobs lost to normal people. And all the jobs created by the construction (and taxes paid from them). It's a win for everyone.

 

Moreover, how do you think Seattle feels about losing the billions that KD would be generating for their city? That's what we're facing with Giannis, in 3-4 years it's possible he's a top 5 star in the league. Of course it's no guarantee but having a star like KD/Bron is huge for the city. Think back to the stories about how much Cleveland lost when Lebron left and how much they gain when he came back.

 

Now, if they had a deal in place that if the Bucks left that an NHL team would replace them, then you'd have a debate. But it sounds like Vegas and Houston will get the next NHL teams.

[FVBrewerFan]

Only in Milwaukee/Wisconsin would we look a gift horse in the mouth. Former and new owners willing to put up half the money, and that's still not good enough. Why is it that so many people only pay attention to a new arena, and have no interest at all in millions being wasted elsewhere in local and state governments?

 

The big picture, which hasn't been talked about enough, is developing the entire Park East corridor- which has and always will be a wasteland without a new arena. Look at the development downtown- it's all East of the river. With a new arena, that brings new hotel, retail, office, residential that would never exist otherwise. That's a lot of new tax dollars coming into Milwaukee.

 

Frankly, I thought the presentation yesterday was pretty self-explanatory. It will cost more to do nothing. The costs to maintain the Bradley Center and losing the jock tax costs more than paying for a new arena. If you add the tax revenue from all the new development around the new arena, it really becomes a no-brainer. Then again, nobody ever accused Milwaukee as being forward-thinking.

[RobertR]

The jock tax is the least of the reasons to do that. There will be entertainment replacements. Concerts (pop, symphony, or just the local bar), vacations to the Dells, additional trips to theaters (of which there are a lot in Milwaukee), museum visits, comedy shows, etc. Players' salaries are paid by entertainment revenue from fans, and a lot of that revenue will simply shift to other forms in Wisconsin. Yeah, I don't expect that there will be 41 concerts at the Bradley Center just as big as the Bucks, but I don't think entertainment expenditures in SE Wisconsin are going to decline by 100% either, most of it will shift forms and be spread around.

 

I'm more open to the argument that a new arena will be a catalyst for new investment in downtown Milwaukee. But, I also worry that excessive tifs and other subsidies are going to starve the city of needed revenues for things like police and fire services. Does a slew of new restaurants near a new arena hurt the Third Ward? Are you creating new demand or are you just shifting demand from one area to another?

 

In short, I'm skeptical of a sports entertainment district being an economic panacea. Especially since nobody can really point to a large population migration as a result. Especially with the State budget as it is and education and roads being shortchanged in the current budget. If given the choice between infrastructure, education, and sports entertainment, I tend to think you get more bang for your buck from the first two rather than the third. If given the choice between the UW system and the Bucks, I'll take the former.

[homer]

I don't disagree with the idea that an arena probably isn't a catalyst for economic development. What I do know is that the NBA is a global brand. Much more so than baseball or football. People in rural China probably know who Giannis is. They have no clue who Ryan Braun is. You can't really put a price on selling "Milwaukee" to a global audience. Or if you can, I haven't seen a dollar figure.

[patrickgpe]

also taxpayers should look at Miller Park. First of all, the stadium was actually a catalyst to some economic development (anyone remember 43rd street during County Stadium). Also it is enjoyed by 2.5-3 million people every year, not including private events, concerts, etc. Miller Park is different since taxes were raised to pay for it, there was no private component, etc. That being said, its hard to say Milwaukee isn't better off because of it, even though i would have to admit it was a poor investment by the tax payers (simply by the scale of money spent vs money earned)

[RobertR]

If 43rd Street is the standard, that would be a tremendous failure for downtown.

 

Honestly, I'm not totally against a new arena with public support, I'm just very skeptical of the numbers on this one. Especially with the apparent choices being made in the budget. The UW system is also a world famous institution.

 

Of course, I think it largely comes down to politics. It's not hard to imagine a budget where the Governor at least checked if the Menomonee where serious about paying for an arena or accepted Federal health care funding by setting up a State exchange. Then we wouldn't have they choices. As it is, my priorities are on infrastructure and education, which have proven to be the best kind of economic stimuli while sports entertainment hasn't.

[BrewBalls]

The loss of the Bucks puts the state on the hook for roughly $120M to maintain and payoff the debt for the Bradley Center. Either way taxpayers will be paying for an arena, the question is will it be to maintain a dated arena with no main tenant or a new one with a global brand which will draw in additional business to a vacant part of the city? Also there is no way the state will recoup all of the lost tax revenue from the Bucks leaving from people attending more concerts, movies and other forms of entertainment. The simple fact is the new NBA TV deal will almost double the taxes the state currently collects over the next 10 years. Compared to Marcus Theatres hiring more minimum wage workers at their theaters on a nightly basis. If you look at the number of employees at a professional sporting event, its easily in over a thousand. This doesn't even include local bars and restaurants who serve these people before and after the games.

[RobertR]

"If you look at the number of employees at a professional sporting event, its easily in over a thousand. This doesn't even include local bars and restaurants who serve these people before and after the games."

 

And how many of those workers are minimum wage?

 

And at what cost to infrastructure and university workers, who make a bunch more than minimum wage? What cost to university students? What cost to researchers?

 

I'm not against a Bucks arena with public financing. But, in the context of this current budget, I can't support it over other choices on where to spend taxpayer money. Other choices which I think will have much more long-term impact. Nobody has ever built a great economy on the back of sports.