Milwaukee Bucks 2018 - 2019

[GAME05]

Whoa, Hill is not worth $19M per season. He's absolutely going to get bought out.

 

Though I think Middleton is probably the 4th most important guy of the four to bring back, I do agree with the value of bringing guys back instead of going with someone new. It's that Ted Thompson strategy where it's better to pay the guy who has known skills in the system rather than paying the same money to someone who may or may not work out. Maybe Khris isn't as good this year or maybe (probably) it's the system not quite suiting him, but at the same time he does offer that value of being able to sink contested shots as the shot clock winds down, and I would trust him to do that more than I would Bledsoe or Brogdon. And it's not like there are tons of free agents floating around with his shooting ability, at least not ones who wouldn't cost $30M per season.

[coolhandluke121]

Whoa, Hill is not worth $19M per season. He's absolutely going to get bought out.

 

Though I think Middleton is probably the 4th most important guy of the four to bring back, I do agree with the value of bringing guys back instead of going with someone new.

 

It's not that. It's how the CBA works. Hill vs. DDV at pg could be the difference between a title and a 2nd-round exit. It's not $19m for Hill. It's $19m for a small but crucial improvement in your odds of a title. Under the collective bargaining agreement, you have the right to pay Hill $19m a year to be your backup combo guard. You don't have the right to pay any outside free agents more than $3m though, because you will be over the cap. In the NBA, you use the allowances of the CBA to keep a contender together, period, unless you're cheap. Value is not evaluated on a case-by-case basis like in baseball or football. It's all about context.

 

I think you're missing the point of my post. They can afford it, and they have a chance at a title. It's not going to hurt them long-term. They don't have to let anyone else walk to keep Hill. They can't sign anyone else worth more than the veteran minimum even if they do let Hill walk (unless they waive their Bird Rights to Bledsoe and Khris, which would be a terrible decision because two birds in the hand is better than two in the bush). They would just lose profits for a year. Why would we care about that? Other small market owners like Cleveland and OKC have paid tons of luxury tax to keep contenders together. If the Bucks don't do the same right after getting a new arena at taxpayer expense, and in an MVP favorite's prime, I'm going to be pissed.

[homer]

I believe Hill is owed $18 million next year. Point remains the same, just my OCD acting up.

[homer]

Also, the luxury tax is no joke. It's not like they just tack on an extra $10 million. This is from a few years ago:

 

For the 2013–14 season, the luxury tax threshold was set at $71.748 million. The Brooklyn Nets, whose payroll for that season was projected to be over $100 million, would face a luxury tax bill above $80 million, resulting in a total payroll cost of $186 million.

 

So for going roughly $30 million over the threshold, they end up paying another $50 million in luxury tax. I believe the more you go over the higher the tax (like our income tax system).

[coolhandluke121]

I think the Nets were "repeat offenders" and also were way over (KG, Pierce, Deron Williams, Lopez, and Joe Johnson all had huge salaries for that era). I don't think the Bucks would have to go that far over to keep the team together, and they'd only be over for a year because Hill and Ersan have expiring contracts next year. You're right, it would still cost a lot, but it's not like they would have 2 super-max contracts like some teams. They don't even have 75% of one super-max deal right now.

 

Another drawback is not being able to use your full salary exception slot in the following year. Basically the slot would go down from roughly 8-ish million to 5-ish. Repeat offenders are limited to even less than that, but that wouldn't apply to the Bucks. The reduced exception would be worth keeping Hill IMO. I think he's been a key to how the Bucks have returned to dominating after a bit of a mediocre stretch. Poor pg play can kill you. They didn't have a respectable option before the trade, and might be hard-pressed to find one if they let Hill walk.

 

I just want them to field the best team the collective bargaining agreement will allow. Also, you are right. Hill does make $18m next year, with a $1m buyout. I had it confused because I had $18m as the extra cost of keeping him, not the total cost. It would cost $17m extra. All depends on their other free agents, but I think they could do it.

[Mr Southpaw]

I like Hill, but he can easily be replaced by Sterling Brown. No way do you pay for him next year. Middleton for five years at $25 mill per scares the bageebies out of me. If they could just rid themselves pf the Snell contract, I think they can make everything work out.

[coolhandluke121]

I like Hill, but he can easily be replaced by Sterling Brown.

 

Woah. Sterling Brown as the back-up pg? That's not good. You need a real pg. Brown would be terrible in that role. He's not a very reliable player in terms of positioning or reads, even in his current garbage-man role. I like him a lot in the right role going forward, but that's like saying Braun or Aguilar can be the back-up SS. We have seen how much damage a bad pg can do. Look at Delly, Jennings, and Brogdon in that role the last few years. It made my eyes bleed, and those guys actually had some experience at pg. And we desperately need legit Bledsoe insurance because of those knees.

[Mr Southpaw]

I like Hill, but he can easily be replaced by Sterling Brown.

 

Woah. Sterling Brown as the back-up pg? That's not good. You need a real pg. Brown would be terrible in that role. He's not a very reliable player in terms of positioning or reads, even in his current garbage-man role. I like him a lot in the right role going forward, but that's like saying Braun or Aguilar can be the back-up SS. We have seen how much damage a bad pg can do. Look at Delly, Jennings, and Brogdon in that role the last few years. It made my eyes bleed, and those guys actually had some experience at pg. And we desperately need legit Bledsoe insurance because of those knees.

 

The flaw in this statement is "back up point guard" If you don't think Brown or anybody else on the roster can do it, sign Jennings for chump change. If that does not work draft a pg in next years draft. If Bledsoe would go down the Freek becomes the point guard (he does it all the time now) ala Magic Johnson taking over for Kareem at center when he got hurt.

[FVBrewerFan]

PG doesn't even mean anything on the offensive side of the floor. Giannis starts the offense more often than not, and they'll even have Middleton or Brogdon do the same. Especially in Coach Bud's offense, PG is almost meaningless.

 

That said, they do need someone to guard quick PGs on the other end of the floor. That's certainly not a job for Jennings! But there's 0% chance they pay Hill $18MM a year to do so. Maybe DiVincenzo? Honestly, I'm not sure because I don't recall how he did vs PGs at the beginning of the year. But if not him, they can find someone to fill that role on the cheap. Vets, G league guy, etc.

[long ball]

I'm on board with coolhandluke for the most part.

 

Max Khris

Re-sign Bledsoe

Re-sign Brogdon

Mid-level Brook (this is the most questionable since he might be able to get more)

 

I'm not sure about Hill. I like him, but I don't know if the Bucks will pick up his option.

 

The only real way to add a different max contract is if they renounce Bled and Khris. And then who are you signing that? Kemba? Klay? Kemba makes sense, but who takes over Middleton's spot? The best way to have as much talent as possible is to keep your own players. Also, bucks should be paying the tax. They have a ~top 5 player in the league and a top 2 player in the east.

[SeaBass]

What would Hill be worth on the open market if the Bucks opt out? Could they re-negotiate/sign him for less than $18 million without the cap restriction? Entirely possible they couldn't I'm just not sure how that works with CBA rules.

[coolhandluke121]

What would Hill be worth on the open market if the Bucks opt out? Could they re-negotiate/sign him for less than $18 million without the cap restriction? Entirely possible they couldn't I'm just not sure how that works with CBA rules.

 

I'm 98% certain they would completely lose their free agent rights by not picking up the option. They'd have to use the MLE to sign him or Brook, but not both. He's not worth $18m in free agency, but he's worth a lot more than what you would be allowed to pay someone to replace him and he's a lot better than some rookie or some role-playing, garbage guy sg would be. It's really beyond me how people think you can just fill the position with some scrub. They have to limit Bledsoe's minutes because of his knees. We've seen bad players at pg for years now, and it's like some people haven't even noticed how much better they are with Hill there. They were falling apart (relative to what they're clearly capable of) before they got him. Looked like a 5 seed at best for a month there. Now they're back on top.

 

Giannis is not a pg. That died years ago. He draws double-teams and kicks the ball out, but he can't run a half-court offense and control pacing or tempo to save his life and he has zero patience. Nor should he, because it's a waste of his time and energy considering how well he does other things. Brogdon is way too slow to be a pg, and he's a head-down driver like Giannis and a wide-open shooter like Snell. Possessions are stagnant with him running the offense. We saw a huge improvement when they got Bledsoe, and another huge improvement when they got Hill, but people still argue that pg is something you can patch together like 2b in baseball. Doesn't work that way, sorry.

 

Again, the main thing is the CBA though. They're a better team with Hill, period. And all it would cost to keep him is the owners paying some luxury tax. Lots of other small-market owners have done it, and they're not exactly losing a lot of money by doing so. It just cuts into their profits, but their investment in the team more than makes up for that. The equity is ridiculous, especially when you get a taxpayer-funded arena out of it. I'm not sure people are fully grasping how that works.

[tmwiese55]

While the idea of Hill at 18 mil seems ridiculous on the surface, everything CHL is laying out here makes perfect sense, as long as the owners are willing to spend the money. And why buy a team if you're not going to go for the title? Cheapness like this is what cost OKC a dynasty. CHL is also right about the repeater thing, our first year over isn't going to cost nearly that. Also, if one of Klay or KD leaves GSW this year (I don't think either will but) all of a sudden this thing is completely wide open. Even still, GSW is so weak after the stars they're not as unbeatable as previously thought. If you want to see the repeater tax effects though look into what GSW could be paying 2-3 years from now if they resign all 4 guys.

 

Another thing to add, besides the backup PG need mentioned you'd also have Hill and his expiring large contract after you exercise the option. You never know what trade might present itself where you need that contract to matchup, that could be how you get your true #2 star. Also, in order to justify or help ease the cost of this contract finding a way to move Snell's deal would really help. Sterling Brown can easily fill in Snell's minutes, not so much a PGs minutes.

[FVBrewerFan]

Hill at $18MM makes no sense on any level, and they're not going to do it. They may go over the cap the way it is, there's no way they're going over by another $18MM for an aging PG. I like Hill, I really do. But they can replace him for far less.

 

And I just don't agree with your analysis of PG, CHL. You're talking about a PG that "runs the offense" but that's just not how the Bucks offense works. Look at how often Bledsoe has the ball in his hands. It's not anymore than Giannis, Brogdon, or Middleton. They spread the floor, move it around, drive and kick or take it all the way to the rack. Bledsoe is very good in this offense. Hill? He's not breaking anyone down and has the ball even less as a PG. They need a backup PG that can defend other quick PGs, that's the only requirement. In fact, I would prefer one that shoots a little better from 3 than Hill.

[coolhandluke121]

You still need capable pg's in an offense like this. Just because you don't run a pg-centric offense doesn't mean you don't need one for routine ball-handling and to keep defenses honest. Even the Heatles knew they needed pg's, despite Lebron being one of the greatest pg's of all time in his own unique way. More importantly, you just need the best players. Waiving Hill is just a total loss. It does not open any opportunities except saving the owners money, which in this situation would be a disgrace considering this could be the city's first major title in nearly 50 years. It's hard to fathom why you're worried about them not wanting to pay the luxury tax when it has absolutely no benefits except allowing you to use a slightly bigger MLE salary slot in 2020.

 

Hill is a 38% career 3-point shooter who was over 40% each of his last 3 seasons. He's 32 and is just two years removed from scoring 17 ppg on an incredible 60% ts while nearly being an all-star in the very deep West. If defense was taken into account, he probably would have been an all-star. I think you're grossly understating how much having a starting-quality combo guard on the bench is helping the Bucks. It would leave a big hole in their rotation if he was gone. Don't you remember how they were playing before they acquired him? If it was a matter of letting him go so you could find other ways to improve the team, I could understand it, but it does absolutely nothing to that end. I'm not sure you understand that.

 

How do you plan to replace him for less? You are not allowed to spend the money you save if you don't pick up his option. Please try to account for that.

[FVBrewerFan]

You still need capable pg's in an offense like this. Just because you don't run a pg-centric offense doesn't mean you don't need one for routine ball-handling and to keep defenses honest. Even the Heatles knew they needed pg's, despite Lebron being one of the greatest pg's of all time in his own unique way. More importantly, you just need the best players. Waiving Hill is just a total loss. It does not open any opportunities except saving the owners money, which in this situation would be a disgrace considering this could be the city's first major title in nearly 50 years. It's hard to fathom why you're worried about them not wanting to pay the luxury tax when it has absolutely no benefits except allowing you to use a slightly bigger MLE salary slot in 2020.

 

Hill is a 38% career 3-point shooter who was over 40% each of his last 3 seasons. He's 32 and is just two years removed from scoring 17 ppg on an incredible 60% ts while nearly being an all-star in the very deep West. If defense was taken into account, he probably would have been an all-star. I think you're grossly understating how much having a starting-quality combo guard on the bench is helping the Bucks. It would leave a big hole in their rotation if he was gone. Don't you remember how they were playing before they acquired him? If it was a matter of letting him go so you could find other ways to improve the team, I could understand it, but it does absolutely nothing to that end. I'm not sure you understand that.

 

How do you plan to replace him for less? You are not allowed to spend the money you save if you don't pick up his option. Please try to account for that.

 

They were playing very well before they got him. Also, remember this was the roughly the same time Sterling Brown came on the scene, then Wilson. So whatever improvements have happened since the Hill trade it's not just about him.

 

You also mentioned losing Hill would be a total loss. No it wouldn't. He already has provided value on the court for most of this season, and allowed the Bucks to dump a bunch of salary in the process. That is a big win.

 

How do you replace Hill? Again, maybe DiVincenzo. Or, they could trade Snell for a PG. Better options than spending $18MM on a backup PG. Hey, I'm just trying to look out for Lasry's wallet. ; )

[coolhandluke121]

 

They were playing very well before they got him. Also, remember this was the roughly the same time Sterling Brown came on the scene, then Wilson. So whatever improvements have happened since the Hill trade it's not just about him.

 

You also mentioned losing Hill would be a total loss. No it wouldn't. He already has provided value on the court for most of this season, and allowed the Bucks to dump a bunch of salary in the process. That is a big win.

 

How do you replace Hill? Again, maybe DiVincenzo. Or, they could trade Snell for a PG. Better options than spending $18MM on a backup PG. Hey, I'm just trying to look out for Lasry's wallet. ; )

 

But you can have DDV, Snell, and Hill. You don't have to make any trades. You don't have to play anyone out of position. You don't have to rely on a totally unproven young player on what may be a finals team. All you can do if you let Hill walk is sign veterans to minimum contracts (unless you let everyone else walk to pursue Kyrie or Durant, which would be incredibly foolish). That makes you significantly worse. Why let a good player go just to save the owners money? It makes the team worse for no reason. It's not like baseball, where you can say you'd rather spend the money on 3 solid role players.

[xisxisxis]

They were playing very well before they got him. Also, remember this was the roughly the same time Sterling Brown came on the scene, then Wilson. So whatever improvements have happened since the Hill trade it's not just about him.

There was a very nice article on The Athletic about Hill and the difference he has made since joining the team. Basically, Hill came in and talked to the young guys and said that their job was to be positive in score differential while the starting 5 rested. And Hill's emphasis was defense and keeping the other team from scoring was their main goal as a group coming off the bench. The young guys have fully supported this view and there was data to support that they are better since Hill came. He's been spending time in extra practices working with the guys and has been a fantastic mentor for many of the younger guys. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the team would keep him and take the tax hit as he appears to be a positive addition in more than just the stat sheet.

[coolhandluke121]

^^^Great post. Hill is a very steady veteran and he's played a ton of playoff basketball. The idea of letting him walk to save the owners money, when saving money does nothing to help them improve the team in other ways, is kind of crazy to me. I'm sure his on/off stats are terrific. There are times they look better with him out there than with Bledsoe, who can be over-aggressive to the point of being a liability on offense.

 

Also, they were in a bad slump (by their standards) right before acquiring him. They started 7-0 on a ridiculously unsustainable hot shooting streak, then went 10-8 (including some embarrassing losses and disturbingly close games against bottom-feeders like Phoenix, NYK, and Chicago), and are now 17-4 since Hill started playing for them - the difference being, this latest run is sustainable and they don't need to hit 50% of their 3's to be the best regular-season team in the league, like when they started 7-0.

[tmwiese55]

Of course I see the logic that 19 mil is just too much in principle. And I can see the logic that, 'hey it's just a backup G spot for 15-20 mins. You can probably get by just fine with a vet min guy or giving DDV a crack.' But, Bledsoe has chronic bad knees, Brog had a bad foot problem that worried other teams. If you were forced to start the vet min guy or DDV due to injury you'd be in for some real pain and it could really sidetrack things.

 

Being MKE I fully expect the owners to not pay this though and see what happens, 17 mil is a lot especially if it then costs some tax on top of it. But the better goal might be to dump Snell somehow so then you're only tacking on like 6 mil beyond Snell. Basically, Hill becomes much more affordable if you don't have Snell's contract on the books. And I'm not a Snell hater, think he's been basically fine this year.

[tmwiese55]

I've been 'complaining' lately that the games this year are basically boring due to them winning so easily. Obviously I'm joking and happy they're winning so easily, just commenting on the lack of drama. Basically most games though you don't even need to pay attention at the end. Such a change from past years when even if they got a 22 pt lead they'd often find a way to make it close at the end.

 

Ran through the Wins. In 34 wins only 9 have been single digits and only 3 by 3 points or less(one possession). Average margin of win is in the 15-16 point area. Crazy how easily they're winning.

[OnaBadger58]

I've been 'complaining' lately that the games this year are basically boring due to them winning so easily. Obviously I'm joking and happy they're winning so easily, just commenting on the lack of drama. Basically most games though you don't even need to pay attention at the end. Such a change from past years when even if they got a 22 pt lead they'd often find a way to make it close at the end.

 

Ran through the Wins. In 34 wins only 9 have been single digits and only 3 by 3 points or less(one possession). Average margin of win is in the 15-16 point area. Crazy how easily they're winning.

It really is amazing. There have been multiple games where the bench in the 4th have given up 20+ point leads and they only win by 10 points. The Memphis game would be the most recent example. The only this I miss about Jason Kidd was having the ability to watch Giannis for 38+ minutes a game

[coolhandluke121]

It really is amazing. There have been multiple games where the bench in the 4th have given up 20+ point leads and they only win by 10 points. The Memphis game would be the most recent example. The only this I miss about Jason Kidd was having the ability to watch Giannis for 38+ minutes a game

 

Scary to thing how Kidd could have ruined this whole damn thing if given a little more time. Looking at his moves when he had more sway over personnel, combined with his schemes and playing time, makes you want to puke.

 

Imagine if they had traded Jabari when they had the chance, too. He was worth something before his second ACL tear. Lots of teams still fall for that PPGZ stuff.

 

By the way, Paul George really is balling out of his mind this year. His offense is obviously good, but his defensive stealth reminds me of Deion Sanders in basketball form. He's just toying with people. Far better than Westbrook IMO.

[homer]

Jabari's whole situation was just bad luck. I mean yeah in hindsight it would have been great to trade a guy before he tore his ACL the second time but I'm not gonna fault the Bucks for not trading him mid season. I think there were like 10 trades in two days leading up to the deadline that year. Jabari was hurt two weeks prior. Just bad timing.

[coolhandluke121]

Jabari's whole situation was just bad luck. I mean yeah in hindsight it would have been great to trade a guy before he tore his ACL the second time but I'm not gonna fault the Bucks for not trading him mid season. I think there were like 10 trades in two days leading up to the deadline that year. Jabari was hurt two weeks prior. Just bad timing.

 

It was definitely bad luck, but I think it was more than just that. I think they ignored some serious red flags. For example, he said he didn't rehab his knee all summer, because playing was better for his sanity or something like that. He was very fat and out of shape in his second training camp, and his attitude about defense was clear (even if he hadn't openly admitted it yet). Most importantly, the team just rarely played better with him on the court. He was the ultimate empty stats guy (or at least the biggest one since Redd).

 

After he started playing reasonably well in the spring of 2016, Boston offered the #3 pick for him. This was confirmed by respected national news outlets. Regardless of what they could have done with that pick, it was already evident that they didn't need Jabari with Khris and Giannis in the frontcourt, and they were still clearly a few years away from any chance of contention. Utah also offered Favors and the #5 pick (Exum was picked there) to Cleveland for the right to pick Jabari on draft day, but the Cavs picked Wiggins and traded him for Love. After that happened, the Bucks could have taken the same deal from Utah, but they were set on Jabari. The issues in his game were already apparent, as he had benched in the NCAA tournament because he was a defensive liability against Mercer (of all teams) and had already been fat and out of shape several times in his young life. I think the real story here is just that people give scorers so much credit, but a comparable baseball analogy would be thinking Chris Carter was a potential star because he hit so many home runs. They had lots of opportunities to recognize that he wasn't what they needed and trade him for something of value, but they dropped the ball every chance they had.