Milwaukee Bucks 2018 - 2019

[tmwiese55]

On a related note, we might need Khris to be more like the player he was against Boston last year just to get past them in the second round. Getting Hayward back to speed has been a case of taking 2 steps backward in attempt to take 3 steps forward later for them. They could be scary in the playoffs.

 

Yea hope last night wasn't a sign of them righting the ship. They've been so chaotic and with Kyrie's drama one would think the drama continues, still they're such a deep team and match up well vs MKE and have a great home court it'll be tough. Just hope they keep struggling and maybe Indiana can knock them off round 1. Pretty sure Philly will catch Indy before end of year.

 

No matter what, with these 4 teams in the East the second round was gonna be a tough series.

[GAME05]

Lopez and/or Mirotic (1b and 1a) are the highest re-sign priorities because the system relies on a stretch 5. After that I think Brogdon, or at least just the backup PG role, is the next-most valuable. The Brogdon/Bledsoe rotation has been great, plus Brogdon's FT shooting makes him great for late-game roles. And if Brogdon leaves, PG is more important than SG to leave it up to a late-round draft pick. That or you gotta spend what little FA money left on a suitable backup.

 

Not that Middleton's 3pt shooting isn't huge to have on the team, but losing him is the least-big step backward. His role can be replaced by the current roster better than if we lost the other upcoming FAs. And unless two players accept a very reasonable contract to return, it just seems hard to figure that we'd have enough money available to re-sign Middleton plus give everyone else the raises they've earned.

[Baldkin]

I don't believe Middleton can even sign an extension right now by rules, could be wrong though on that. Chances are he turned one down in the offseason though, so he really shouldn't be pouty about that unless of course it was insultingly low.

 

He can sign one, but you can only give 20% raises per season. As he is currently signed for 13M, the max he could agree to in an extension is about 4/70.

[tmwiese55]

Ah that's it. it would just be super cheap so it makes sense. And somehow him being on a player option complicates thing with it too.

[coolhandluke121]

Ah that's it. it would just be super cheap so it makes sense. And somehow him being on a player option complicates thing with it too.

 

I think his player option makes an extension harder because technically he still has over a year left on his current contract. Extensions are more restrictive when you have more than a year left on your current deal. I cited that in a post above but it probably got lost in the great weight debate.

 

Bottom line, it has nothing to do with whether the Bucks want him here or whether he wants to be here. It's just not a viable option for him under the CBA rules, and that's why it's probably not even discussed. He signed his deal at a time when teams were experimenting with contracts with descending salaries for guys like him, which is a rarity and one of the reasons unusual extension situations are factors for him.

[stalton]

Off topic but I love the rhyming scheme of great weight debate.

[coolhandluke121]

Off topic but I love the rhyming scheme of great weight debate.

 

That was actually the whole purpose of the debate. It was just a ruse to drop some new material. I'm glad you like it.

[Mr Southpaw]

Lopez and/or Mirotic (1b and 1a) are the highest re-sign priorities because the system relies on a stretch 5. After that I think Brogdon, or at least just the backup PG role, is the next-most valuable. The Brogdon/Bledsoe rotation has been great, plus Brogdon's FT shooting makes him great for late-game roles. And if Brogdon leaves, PG is more important than SG to leave it up to a late-round draft pick. That or you gotta spend what little FA money left on a suitable backup.

 

Not that Middleton's 3pt shooting isn't huge to have on the team, but losing him is the least-big step backward. His role can be replaced by the current roster better than if we lost the other upcoming FAs. And unless two players accept a very reasonable contract to return, it just seems hard to figure that we'd have enough money available to re-sign Middleton plus give everyone else the raises they've earned.

 

+1

 

Mirotic first because of his age

Lopez second because of his stretch 5 talent

Brogdon third he is a great glue player maybe not the physical tools, but he does everything good

Middleton fourth heck put Tony Snell in that starting spot and your percentage doesn't go down that much. Just checked, they actually go up.

[Outlander]

I don't think you can just check and see if the Bucks would be better with Snell in the starting spot, Snell has nicknames for a reason. I don't want to imagine this team starting Snell and getting 35 minutes a game from him.

[coolhandluke121]

I don't think you can just check and see if the Bucks would be better with Snell in the starting spot, Snell has nicknames for a reason. I don't want to imagine this team starting Snell and getting 35 minutes a game from him.

 

Yeah, he gets too much credit for hitting 40% of wide open 3's on such low volume while being a liability in so many other areas. You're lucky if you get a neutral performance out of him overall, even when he's strictly a 15 mpg back-up at one position. Sterling Brown brings much more energy and contributes in other ways, but I think he gets completely lost on defense constantly and the team suffers when he plays, despite him looking like he's having a positive impact. If you could combine Snell's discipline with Brown's energy and toughness, you'd have a pretty good sf.

 

D.J. Wilson is quick enough to guard sf's. I could see him being a really good player soon. But even then, it's not like you're choosing between him and Khris. You can easily have both, or you can just let Middleton walk for nothing to save the owners money, with no other way to spend the money saved on other talent.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I mean, Middleton has been playing some bad hoops of late but bad khris middleton is still worlds better than Tony Snell.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Omg Snell with the crossover ANKLE BREAKER!!!!!

 

Bucks put the end of that road trip behind them

[wallus]

I love what DDV brings and I hope he gets more time.

[Mr Southpaw]

I don't think you can just check and see if the Bucks would be better with Snell in the starting spot, Snell has nicknames for a reason. I don't want to imagine this team starting Snell and getting 35 minutes a game from him.

 

Yeah, he gets too much credit for hitting 40% of wide open 3's on such low volume while being a liability in so many other areas. You're lucky if you get a neutral performance out of him overall, even when he's strictly a 15 mpg back-up at one position. Sterling Brown brings much more energy and contributes in other ways, but I think he gets completely lost on defense constantly and the team suffers when he plays, despite him looking like he's having a positive impact. If you could combine Snell's discipline with Brown's energy and toughness, you'd have a pretty good sf.

 

D.J. Wilson is quick enough to guard sf's. I could see him being a really good player soon. But even then, it's not like you're choosing between him and Khris. You can easily have both, or you can just let Middleton walk for nothing to save the owners money, with no other way to spend the money saved on other talent.

 

I am ok with any of these three starting Wilson and Brown can both get better. Snell is what he is, but he does have a certain chemistry with GA that you have to like. Also DDV is unproven, but very talented. There is a bunch of depth on this team. They really don't seem to need Hill or Gasol, but I am glad we have them.

[coolhandluke121]

 

I am ok with any of these three starting Wilson and Brown can both get better. Snell is what he is, but he does have a certain chemistry with GA that you have to like. Also DDV is unproven, but very talented. There is a bunch of depth on this team. They really don't seem to need Hill or Gasol, but I am glad we have them.

 

I think experience matters a lot. Young guys might seem to move around better and look more flashy, and you still have that outside chance of them being really good because they're not known quantities yet. But team record and on/off stats usually show that you're better off with an experienced veteran like Hill or Ersan, despite their limitations. I don't know if you're suggesting that you're fine with letting Khris walk and starting a young guy, but even if you do think they'd be good enough, why not just keep all of them and continue to have the best bench in the NBA?

 

I like DDV and love Wilson, but they both have to shoot the 3 more consistently well to beat out Ersan, Hill, Snell, or Gasol, let alone Khris. That's a skill that often peaks in a player's late 20's, and even then it's subject to a lot of variance. I expect them both to be good enough to be solid top-8 rotation guys on a contending team within a few years, but I don't think they're there yet. And neither one is really a true sf, so they don't make Khris expendable. And even if they eventually do, then why not wait until they prove it in a bench role for a year or two before you trade Khris? He's not old or anything, and I don't think his next contract is going to be an albatross.

 

Brown is a sf, but I just don't think he's good. Just seems out of touch with the team concept or something, even when it seems like he's doing a lot. Regular breakdowns are very costly to a team's chances of winning. As an example, even when Jabari was scoring 20+ ppg on solid efficiency, the team was generally still better with him on the bench. Being lost on defense gives the opposing so many easy buckets every game that it's almost impossible to make up for it by doing other things really well.

[Mr Southpaw]

 

I am ok with any of these three starting Wilson and Brown can both get better. Snell is what he is, but he does have a certain chemistry with GA that you have to like. Also DDV is unproven, but very talented. There is a bunch of depth on this team. They really don't seem to need Hill or Gasol, but I am glad we have them.

 

I think experience matters a lot. Young guys might seem to move around better and look more flashy, and you still have that outside chance of them being really good because they're not known quantities yet. But team record and on/off stats usually show that you're better off with an experienced veteran like Hill or Ersan, despite their limitations. I don't know if you're suggesting that you're fine with letting Khris walk and starting a young guy, but even if you do think they'd be good enough, why not just keep all of them and continue to have the best bench in the NBA?

I like DDV and love Wilson, but they both have to shoot the 3 more consistently well to beat out Ersan, Hill, Snell, or Gasol, let alone Khris. That's a skill that often peaks in a player's late 20's, and even then it's subject to a lot of variance. I expect them both to be good enough to be solid top-8 rotation guys on a contending team within a few years, but I don't think they're there yet. And neither one is really a true sf, so they don't make Khris expendable. And even if they eventually do, then why not wait until they prove it in a bench role for a year or two before you trade Khris? He's not old or anything, and I don't think his next contract is going to be an albatross.

 

Brown is a sf, but I just don't think he's good. Just seems out of touch with the team concept or something, even when it seems like he's doing a lot. Regular breakdowns are very costly to a team's chances of winning. As an example, even when Jabari was scoring 20+ ppg on solid efficiency, the team was generally still better with him on the bench. Being lost on defense gives the opposing so many easy buckets every game that it's almost impossible to make up for it by doing other things really well.

 

Long Term Financial Health. I am not saying "do not sign KM". I am saying "don't sign him to a stupid contract".

[coolhandluke121]

 

Long Term Financial Health. I am not saying "do not sign KM". I am saying "don't sign him to a stupid contract".

 

Whose long-term financial health? The owners got their arena and personally I think they're obligated to pay as much luxury tax as it takes to keep the team together. They've been the best team in the NBA basically all year long, and none of them are past their theoretical prime except Lopez, Hill, and Ersan.

 

I'll grant that there is a point where he would be so overpaid that it's not even worth it, but I think the odds of him getting a deal like that are under 5% given how he's played the last few years. But there are still some gm's who don't care at all about defense and overall impact, just like there were still front offices in baseball that hadn't caught on to analytics 10+ years into the revolution.

 

It comes down to spending the money on Khris or not being allowed to spend it at all. Even if he has negative value on his next contract, you still have the option of trading his contract with some young guys for a better player. Don't have that option if you don't take advantage of your one chance to go way over the cap though. That opportunity is there this year and then it's gone for the foreseeable future, assuming Giannis gets a supermax deal.

[homer]

I'd be curious to see how many max deals (if that's what Mids ends up getting) ended up getting traded. Was Blake Griffin a max deal?

[long ball]

I'd be curious to see how many max deals (if that's what Mids ends up getting) ended up getting traded. Was Blake Griffin a max deal?

 

Blake Griffin, Otto Porter Jr, Marc Gasol, Jimmy Butler, Harrison Barnes, Kawhi Leonard were all technically on max contracts.

 

But as far as what you're actually getting at, Blake Griffin is really the only guy I can find in recent seasons.

[coolhandluke121]

I very much doubt Khris gets a max deal, but that would present a dilemma.

 

The main reason guys on max deals don't get traded often is because they're either really good or because their teams stubbornly hang on to them too long instead of trading them when they have a chance to get a good return. Memphis, for example, could have gotten a lot for Conley and Gasol just a few years ago, but their front office was as hard-headed about rebuilding as their players were about competing for the 7 seed every year.

 

The CBA rules still make it an easy choice if you don't evaluate the situation in a "Khris is worth x dollars" vacuum. The one exception that occurs to me is, literally, the exception (mid-level exception, that is). You get about $3m less if you pay the luxury tax. So if you think the difference between a $5m exception and $8m exception for 2-3 years makes up for the loss of Khris, then you can let him walk if he gets too much. I'll grant that it could work if the best ring chaser veterans want to come Milwaukee, but most ring chasers are content to play for $5m if the situation is right anyway.

[Mr Southpaw]

I very much doubt Khris gets a max deal, but that would present a dilemma.

 

The main reason guys on max deals don't get traded often is because they're either really good or because their teams stubbornly hang on to them too long instead of trading them when they have a chance to get a good return. Memphis, for example, could have gotten a lot for Conley and Gasol just a few years ago, but their front office was as hard-headed about rebuilding as their players were about competing for the 7 seed every year.

 

The CBA rules still make it an easy choice if you don't evaluate the situation in a "Khris is worth x dollars" vacuum. The one exception that occurs to me is, literally, the exception (mid-level exception, that is). You get about $3m less if you pay the luxury tax. So if you think the difference between a $5m exception and $8m exception for 2-3 years makes up for the loss of Khris, then you can let him walk if he gets too much. I'll grant that it could work if the best ring chaser veterans want to come Milwaukee, but most ring chasers are content to play for $5m if the situation is right anyway.

 

I said......Long Term Financial Health. I am not saying "do not sign KM". I am saying "don't sign him to a stupid contract".

 

You said.....I very much doubt Khris gets a max deal

 

I equate Stupid Contract with Max Deal. Do you think a Max Deal for KM would be a Stupid Contract for the Bucks? What do you think is a reasonable contract for KM should be?

[coolhandluke121]

 

I said......Long Term Financial Health. I am not saying "do not sign KM". I am saying "don't sign him to a stupid contract".

 

You said.....I very much doubt Khris gets a max deal

 

I equate Stupid Contract with Max Deal. Do you think a Max Deal for KM would be a Stupid Contract for the Bucks? What do you think is a reasonable contract for KM should be?

 

Homer mentioned max deals. That post had nothing to do with you. I would not give him a max deal.

 

Even so, long-term financial health is just money in the owners' pockets. If you really understand the CBA, you understand that. It has almost nothing to do with payroll flexibility. You have the right to spend a lot of money on Khris or not spend it at all. There's no "I'd rather spend it on someone else", and there probably won't be for many years. It would be a question of letting Khris walk on principle and starting a much worse player instead.

 

I don't think you have to give him more than 4/$100m, which is fair. I'd probably explore other options if it gets around 4/$120m. And to be clear, if I'm starting a team from scratch, no way I'd give him either of those contracts, but the context could not be more diametrically opposed to starting from scratch right now.

[DuWayne Steurer]

The NBA reality, as many other posters have already pointed out, is either spend the money on your FA-to-be (Middleton) or don't spend it all. The Bucks owners aren't going to go bankrupt if they spend the money on Middleton, so the question that needs to be asked and answered is this. In the next 2 to 5-ish years, do the Bucks have a reasonable in-house replacement for Middleton, AND the bench?

 

Is one of Sterling Brown/DJ Wilson/Divincenzo, or someone else ready or ready in the next few years to play Middleton's role, as good as Middleton does? Wilson has shown flashes of potential, but he's not at that level yet. Divincenzo doesn't have Mid's length and size, and I just don't think he's ever going to be a "do everything" 17-20 ppg guy who can be the 2nd scoring option to G. Sterling Brown could be that guy, but I don't want to bet on it. And part two to this question becomes, when you (potentially) move DJ Wilson or Sterling Brown into Middleton's spot, you exponentially reduce the strength of the bench.

 

As has already been pointed out repeatedly, if the Bucks don't extend Middleton, they can't go out and just sign "someone else". The NBA just doesn't work that way. I'm not advocating Middleton as a max contract guy, but he's at worst, the third best player on the team. I've been pretty critical of his play of late, but he's just not replaceable by Snell or Wilson. That's a big dropoff in play. Mids creates his own shot, he creates shots for others, is still capable of playing above average D (though he doesn't always do it), rebounds and is still just 27.

[Mr Southpaw]

 

I said......Long Term Financial Health. I am not saying "do not sign KM". I am saying "don't sign him to a stupid contract".

 

You said.....I very much doubt Khris gets a max deal

 

I equate Stupid Contract with Max Deal. Do you think a Max Deal for KM would be a Stupid Contract for the Bucks? What do you think is a reasonable contract for KM should be?

 

Homer mentioned max deals. That post had nothing to do with you. I would not give him a max deal.

 

Even so, long-term financial health is just money in the owners' pockets. If you really understand the CBA, you understand that. It has almost nothing to do with payroll flexibility. You have the right to spend a lot of money on Khris or not spend it at all. There's no "I'd rather spend it on someone else", and there probably won't be for many years. It would be a question of letting Khris walk on principle and starting a much worse player instead.

 

I don't think you have to give him more than 4/$100m, which is fair. I'd probably explore other options if it gets around 4/$120m. And to be clear, if I'm starting a team from scratch, no way I'd give him either of those contracts, but the context could not be more diametrically opposed to starting from scratch right now.

 

4/100 seems fair. Less years with more per year would probably be better like 3/80.

[Pugger]

Are any of you watching the Bucks/Hornets game right now on Fox Sports Wisconsin? We cannot tonight because it is buffering like crazy on our Sling Box.