Milwaukee Bucks 2018 - 2019

[Mr Southpaw]

 

Is Maker enough for the Pels to pull the trigger? He is recovering from a calf injury so he just might be primed for a trade and the Bucks can work him into the rotation slowly. He is signed at $8 million for next year, so he is another option if they don't sign Malcolm or Kris.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I tend to doubt it. I think they can get an expiring contract and a late pick for Moore, and a pick is flexible. You can pick your own guy, instead of trading for somebody else's mistake.

 

J Smith is an expiring contract

T Maker is a late pick, obviously less flexible

add a second rounder if needed?

[monkeyman343434]

Thon to Detroit for Stanley Johnson

[tmwiese55]

Thon to Detroit for Stanley Johnson

 

Yup, about what I expected. Nothing back for him. Couldn't believe people thought Thon had any value. Clears out Thon's salary for the offseason though.

[coolhandluke121]

 

J Smith is an expiring contract

T Maker is a late pick, obviously less flexible

add a second rounder if needed?

 

Hard to say if this ever would have been a possibility, but I'd love to add Moore. The problem is that I think a lot of contenders would love to add him and will make decent offers. Who couldn't use another good 3-and-d guy on a reasonable contract in his prime?

[coolhandluke121]

Stanley Johnson is terrible. Just no place for him in NBA these days. I think this is just an expiring contract.

[RollieTime]

I would of just held on to Thon if that was all they could get.

[tmwiese55]

It clears Thon's salary for next year without costing us a 2nd rd pick to do it, it's that simple and really doesn't need to be thought about much beyond that. Also, he could easily be re-traded by tomorrow, since he's expiring he's more usable in a trade than Thon was.

[coolhandluke121]

It clears Thon's salary for next year without costing us a 2nd rd pick to do it, it's that simple and really doesn't need to be thought about much beyond that. Also, he could easily be re-traded by tomorrow, since he's expiring he's more usable in a trade than Thon was.

 

He can be trade by himself tomorrow, but if anyone wanted him the Bucks could have just made it a 3-team trade today. It is just an expiring. Which is fine.

[stoutdude04]

Thon traded for Stanley Johnson. A former high pick. Hopefully he can show something in Milwaukee.

 

Edit: now I see it says 'to' be traded

[tmwiese55]

It clears Thon's salary for next year without costing us a 2nd rd pick to do it, it's that simple and really doesn't need to be thought about much beyond that. Also, he could easily be re-traded by tomorrow, since he's expiring he's more usable in a trade than Thon was.

 

He can be trade by himself tomorrow, but if anyone wanted him the Bucks could have just made it a 3-team trade today. It is just an expiring. Which is fine.

 

yup, look around for other expirings that fit better. Say, Wayne Ellington from MIA. contracts work. Then get to work trying to move Snell's contract since you'd have his replacement on hand for this season.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Bucks gonna score 150 on the wiz tonight. 10 of 13 from 3 so far.

[lcbj68c]

Bucks gonna score 150 on the wiz tonight. 10 of 13 from 3 so far.

While giving up 130 with all the open 3's they allow.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Bucks gonna score 150 on the wiz tonight. 10 of 13 from 3 so far.

While giving up 130 with all the open 3's they allow.

 

20 point win is a 20 point win.

[FVBrewerFan]

Bucks gonna score 150 on the wiz tonight. 10 of 13 from 3 so far.

While giving up 130 with all the open 3's they allow.

 

Yes, its 2019. All teams get and give up many open 3s every night.

[HiAndTight]

We are on the 4 team list of teams that Anthony Davis would sign an extension with..... what a time to be alive!

 

Yea, but have you seen what the Lakers are rumored to be offering? Basically their whole roster not name LeBron and 2 1st round picks. Bucks don't have the ammo to compete with that. Can't compete with what the Knicks can offer either.

 

That's ok though. I would love to have him, but if the Bucks can get everyone back next year and tweak the bench a little I'm fine.

 

The rest of the Lakers' roster is totally meh. If you watched them and didn't know how high Ingram and Ball were drafted, no way you'd think they have much trade value. Trading all their young guys does probably add up to a better deal than the Bucks could offer, but it's no slam dunk. Brogdon for example probably has more trade value than anyone the Lakers are offering.

The problem is that the Bucks have the best record in the NBA and are loathe to trade away too many contributors, which is a good problem to have but also one the Lakers don't have. I do expect them to gut their team and wait for the off season to build a superteam around Lebron and Davis, but the Pelicans could easily turn up their nose at what they offer and might be wise to do so.

 

 

So the same person who said THIS about Brogdon:

 

I wouldn't sell him for a downgrade or a draft pick. I'm the same person who said I would pick up Hill's option and pay all that luxury tax to keep the team together, so that's obviously not what I meant. But I would definitely trade him for someone of comparable "win now" value if I could. I think there's a chance some team views him as more of a go-to scorer than he really is, kind of like Jabari's 2nd year, and the Bucks should jump at the chance to get a good offer. Brogdon has that Bill Walton non-union foot injury and I think that's a ticking time bomb. Watching him live in person against the Nets and seeing how slow, unathletic, bulky, and old he's already starting to look changed me from normal skepticism to full-on, emergency "trade him for fair value before it's too late" urgency mode.

 

I also think he's got a bit of an Allen Crabbe/Tyler Johnson "darling" reputation that he won't live up to. All those guys had pretty good numbers in a very favorable situation, and look at the RFA offers they got. Brogdon could get even more. Personally I think if he gets that, then he owes 75% of it to Bledsoe, Middleton, Bud, and especially Giannis. It's kind of a like a 4th wide receiver on a lethal offense putting up numbers comparable to a normal #2 guy because defenses don't pay much attention to him and the offense is designed to spread the ball around. When he plays as the #2 or #3 guy, he just dribbles too much trying to get around his guy and the offense stagnates.

 

 

Thinks he has more trade value than Kuzma and Ingram?

 

 

Also, conflating Brogdon's broken navicular bone with Walton's is just innaccurate. The problem with that bone is that it has very little blood supply and often doesn't heal fully which was the case with Walton, and it's an even bigger issue with big men. Brogdon hurt his in college and hasn't had issues with it since.

 

Of course we're saying both that it's almost an emergency to trade him while saying he's more valuable than two young, dynamic 20 point scorers(I'll leave out the pass first PG, though I do think Ball can develop).

 

Is this just one of those where you take every side of the issue and then later say you were right again? If Brogdon is SO slow and and bulky(I guess having physical, not rail thing PG=bad, but whatever) and such an immediate danger with his Bill Walton-esque feet issues that haven't played out yet and there's almost no reason to suggest he'll be similar to a guy from the 70's and 80's who had constant injuries, but lets argue he is...how do you THEN argue that he's more valuable than Kuzma/Ingram and hell, even Ball who are not free agents this year and all extremely talented young players?

 

Both statements can't be true unless you just flat out believe Ingram and Kuzma are garbage and have not only shown nothing, but don't have much of any upside.

[coolhandluke121]

 

 

So the same person who said THIS about Brogdon:

 

I wouldn't sell him for a downgrade or a draft pick. I'm the same person who said I would pick up Hill's option and pay all that luxury tax to keep the team together, so that's obviously not what I meant. But I would definitely trade him for someone of comparable "win now" value if I could. I think there's a chance some team views him as more of a go-to scorer than he really is, kind of like Jabari's 2nd year, and the Bucks should jump at the chance to get a good offer. Brogdon has that Bill Walton non-union foot injury and I think that's a ticking time bomb. Watching him live in person against the Nets and seeing how slow, unathletic, bulky, and old he's already starting to look changed me from normal skepticism to full-on, emergency "trade him for fair value before it's too late" urgency mode.

 

I also think he's got a bit of an Allen Crabbe/Tyler Johnson "darling" reputation that he won't live up to. All those guys had pretty good numbers in a very favorable situation, and look at the RFA offers they got. Brogdon could get even more. Personally I think if he gets that, then he owes 75% of it to Bledsoe, Middleton, Bud, and especially Giannis. It's kind of a like a 4th wide receiver on a lethal offense putting up numbers comparable to a normal #2 guy because defenses don't pay much attention to him and the offense is designed to spread the ball around. When he plays as the #2 or #3 guy, he just dribbles too much trying to get around his guy and the offense stagnates.

 

 

Thinks he has more trade value than Kuzma and Ingram?

 

 

Also, conflating Brogdon's broken navicular bone with Walton's is just innaccurate. The problem with that bone is that it has very little blood supply and often doesn't heal fully which was the case with Walton, and it's an even bigger issue with big men. Brogdon hurt his in college and hasn't had issues with it since.

 

Of course we're saying both that it's almost an emergency to trade him while saying he's more valuable than two young, dynamic 20 point scorers(I'll leave out the pass first PG, though I do think Ball can develop).

 

Is this just one of those where you take every side of the issue and then later say you were right again? If Brogdon is SO slow and and bulky(I guess having physical, not rail thing PG=bad, but whatever) and such an immediate danger with his Bill Walton-esque feet issues that haven't played out yet and there's almost no reason to suggest he'll be similar to a guy from the 70's and 80's who had constant injuries, but lets argue he is...how do you THEN argue that he's more valuable than Kuzma/Ingram and hell, even Ball who are not free agents this year and all extremely talented young players?

 

Both statements can't be true unless you just flat out believe Ingram and Kuzma are garbage and have not only shown nothing, but don't have much of any upside.

 

Stop quoting me. You misrepresent everything I say and it only leads to an argument. I can simultaneously believe Brogdon is not one of the 4 best players on the team and still think he's better than Kuzma and Ingram. That's not calling anyone garbage. The Lakers are terrible without Lebron and there's a reason for that. The hype about Ingram, Ball, and Kuzma is disgusting ESPN-style pro-LA media bias. They are not garbage, but they certainly aren't good. There's absolutely no basis for rational discussion with someone who calls them "extremely talented" young players. Holy PPGZ bias batman.

 

Incidentally, what did you think of Jabari?

[pacopete4]

No NBA game should ever get to 150 points. I'm glad the Bucks are dominating but how do people buy into this product so hard?

[coolhandluke121]

No NBA game should ever get to 150 points. I'm glad the Bucks are dominating but how do people buy into this product so hard?

 

I don't love it either. It's kind of like the steroid era in baseball. The amount of offense is like a drug for revenue and ratings, but could have detrimental long-term effects. Personally I think they coddle the top scorers too much, and that's why you end up with guys like Harden. The 3-point arc should be moved back as well. I like the 3, but it's too much of a dominant strategy compared to other things right now.

 

Part of the scoring is also because of more possessions, and that I'm okay with. The shot clock gets reset to 14 instead of 24 if a team regains possession after a missed shot that hit the rim. More possessions means more points. I like the increased pace even if it means inflated scoring. It's really just the predominance of 3's (at the expense of other tactics) and the excessive foul-drawing that I don't like.

 

By the way, only 3 players have hit more 28+ foot shots than Lopez this year: Curry, Lillard, and Trae Young. That's pretty cool. It goes to show that all good 3-point shooters aren't created equal. Being able to hit those as a big man does a lot more to space the floor than a perimeter player like Snell or Brogdon or Hill who hits 40% of his wide open 3's from just behind the arc.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I wish the NBA game would foul guys out after 5, not 6.

 

Call me crazy, but I also kind of want to eliminate the 3 point shot - Id be very interested seeing how offenses would adjust to disincentivize a roster full of guys that can shoot from the half court line but can't play any defense.

[tmwiese55]

I think this view of the high scoring is a bit recency bias and remember the 90s and early 00s slugfests which makes folks think around 200 total ppg is a lot. The pretty much best era of NBA was the mid 80s. From 79 until 89 when the Pistons starting muddying it up, games averaged 218-220ish, and keep in mind that was with very little 3 pt shooting. Last year it was 213 and this year is 221. this isn't even factoring in the 60s type era that was drastically even more when Wilt was putting up those bananas stats.

 

I've often tried to remind people of this when people try to claim 'back in the day' they used to play D and modern NBA is soft with no D. Yes, compared to what the Pistons/Bulls era ushered in until the mid 00s that's true. But I watched a ton of 80s games and you'd be shocked how little D and physicality there was back then if you actually watch the games and not just use 'back in my day' type talk. Being allowed to cheap shot and punch each other like was allowed back then did not mean it was actual good D and overly physical.

 

IMO this is the way the game is supposed to be played, up tempo skill based rather than pounding on each other. If you want to go back and watch the like 05 type Spurs team win finals game 81-72 more power to ya.

 

For foul outs, I'm way opposed to that. I've said for years NBA should go to 7 and CBB to 6. I despise when a star player gets a ticky tack foul and has to sit for a long time in the 1st half. It's not like you're still not getting penalized since the team gets FTs. I thought there would be a movement towards this after the MIA/OKC Finals when KD kept getting two fouls early and then have to sit but it never happened. A compromise I've thought of would be to all the starters an extra foul, or maybe designate 2-3 players allowed it. Something of that nature.

[FVBrewerFan]

I'm fine with 6 fouls. It's hard for a star player to get in foul trouble unless they have a couple stupid fouls like Giannis will do once in a while. I have said forever college should go to 6 fouls.

 

I've never been a fan of the 3 point shot, and it's trickled down all the way to youth leagues. Head of my program got mad at me for not allowing my 6th grade team to shoot any 3s. Too bad, I was the coach, my rules. They needed to use horrible form to have enough strength to fire up those shots.

 

But I digress. As Cool said, it's not just increased 3s that have caused more scoring. It's more possessions too. But that's due to the 3 also. The floor is so spread now it's easy for teams to get off a good shot quickly, which is an indirect effect of the 3ball.

 

That's not to say defense isn't played anymore. It's just that you usually don't see teams really lock down until the 4th quarter, and in the playoffs as well. But I get why people don't like a 170-150 game, that's still rare though. The 3 pointer isn't going away obviously. You can move it back some, but really no more room in the corners. They won't move it back though.

 

One thing I like, they did change how they call continuation. They've even called traveling more often the last couple years. Not much more they can do to control scoring, even if they wanted to- which they don't.

 

Edit- One idea that would be fun is limit the number of 3s allowed per game. Each team only gets 10 (or whatever number) per game. That would add to the strategy, could be real interesting. Of course that won't happen, just throwing it out there.

[coolhandluke121]

I think this view of the high scoring is a bit recency bias and remember the 90s and early 00s slugfests which makes folks think around 200 total ppg is a lot. The pretty much best era of NBA was the mid 80s. From 79 until 89 when the Pistons starting muddying it up, games averaged 218-220ish, and keep in mind that was with very little 3 pt shooting. Last year it was 213 and this year is 221. this isn't even factoring in the 60s type era that was drastically even more when Wilt was putting up those bananas stats.

 

 

That was more up-tempo basketball, fast breaks, etc. I think you also had good ball movement, with unselfish superstars like Magic and Bird setting the tone. I liked that brand of basketball too. It's not the high scoring I don't like; it's scoring so much on 3's and ft's that kind of bores me. There's a place for that, but it shouldn't dominate the game. I don't like how otherwise mediocre players and teams can overachieve just because of shooting. If Hakeem played today, he would probably have had to learn to shoot 5 3's a game and post up a lot less. That would be a tragic loss IMO. It also encourages guards to be chuckers. I don't want anything close to the 90's, but a think making 3's a little longer and cutting back on the ticky tack calls would reward/encourage more compelling basketball with more diverse approaches.

[tmwiese55]

Yea I'd agree that the Harden type milking of fouls needs to be cleaned up somehow. A reduction in FTs overall would be good.

 

However, I don't agree with the shooting points. To me that's the most skillfull part of the game, if you're better at that it's a good thing and should be of value. IMO over a guy who is just tall or can run and jump well but not actually play the game.

 

Some kind of rule tweak that would allow post ups again could be good too. But what they've done instead is create open lanes to encourage driving, which they think is more entertaining than backing a guy down in the post, and I agree. I don't know what rule could be changed to help the post other than going back to the old Illegal D rules where you couldn't sag and double the post. But essentially these rules have made people increase the skill of their games rather than just relying on size like Shaq and past bigs. A guy like Hakeem was skilled enough that he could've expanded. Other big oafs not so much and I'm fine with that, skill game not a power game.

[FVBrewerFan]

A guy like Hakeem was skilled enough that he could've expanded. Other big oafs not so much and I'm fine with that, skill game not a power game.

 

So you're saying you didn't like my game?

 

[GAME05]

I'd be fine with the NBA moving to 5 fouls. When a player pretty much only ever fouls out in overtime or if they just stink at D, than what's the point of counting? Or maybe keep it at 6 but reduce the number to get to the bonus by one, but they game really does slow down with all the FT shooting.

 

I think that's an interesting suggestion to move back the 3. Or I would be curious how things would go if you kept it where it is, but eliminated the short line in the corner. The deeper 3 wouldn't be harder, but it would be a shorter diameter and would encourage more movement to get someone open for the shot. And you wouldn't have offenses designed like Snell just sitting in the corner for an entire offensive set.