Milwaukee Bucks 2018 - 2019

[coolhandluke121]

So essentially choosing to make your team worse out of principle and to save 3 billionaires some money. If that's your take, that's fine.

 

Another thing to note is that if picked up his large expiring contract becomes extremely valuable leading up to next year's deadline. Any star play that demands his way out between now and then comes into play for the Bucks since we have the perfect contract to trade back.

You are missing the vastly overpaid part, he isn't worth it. He is 33 and the basketball version of Curtis Granderson. He is fine to have on the team for the playoff run but is easily replaceable next year contrary to what you and Luke believe.

 

Suggest a replacement on a veteran minimum salary. We will wait.

 

Nobody is missing your point about him being overpaid. You are missing the point until you answer this: why would a fan care if he's overpaid for one year if it makes the team better and doesn't negatively affect any other roster moves? That is not a rhetorical question by the way.

[HiAndTight]

I assume Giannis sits one of these B2B games and one of the other B2B coming up. Keep his mins like 30ish or below to finish the year. Home court all the way should be basically done at this point. Just need him as healthy as possible.

 

 

I'm hoping they give Giannis 3-4 games off and then play him 20-25 minutes the last couple games. I lost track of how many they have left exactly, but let that ankle heal. I'm sure everyone here knows what happens when you sprain an ankle. You start turning it constantly. Lets see if we can get that thing healed up before the playoffs.

[HiAndTight]

 

So you'd rather he just not be on the team? Did you not notice how much of a different team they were when he was hurt? Do you remember how much they struggling right before they acquired him?

 

It would be a terrible idea to cancel his contract just on the principle of not over-paying him. They can't spend the money they save on anyone else. But hey, maybe next year they can make a 3rd-place-in-the-East banner with a note at the bottom saying "yeah but at least we didn't overpay George Hill".

 

Actually, I don't recall how much they were struggling when traded for George Hill. The entire point of trading for him was to save cap space so they could sign their key players. He's a nice player, but it'd be foolish to sign him.

 

They were playing just fine. They had beaten GSW, lost a close game to Boston, beat a few other playoff teams. They were off to a pretty good start. They hadn't hit their stride yet, but I hardly think you can attribute them doing so to the acquisition of George Hill.

 

I'd like to see George Hill back on the Bucks, but given how far over the luxury tax the Bucks COULD be, bringing Hill back at 18 million next year could cost them 36 million. With the progressive tax, it's just not even close to being worth it. When you're a contender, you can add guys like Hill other ways. There will be buyout options, or other ways to acquire a guy like Hill who I doubt is going to make a third of what's he's making on the open market.

[HiAndTight]

So essentially choosing to make your team worse out of principle and to save 3 billionaires some money. If that's your take, that's fine.

 

Another thing to note is that if picked up his large expiring contract becomes extremely valuable leading up to next year's deadline. Any star play that demands his way out between now and then comes into play for the Bucks since we have the perfect contract to trade back.

You are missing the vastly overpaid part, he isn't worth it. He is 33 and the basketball version of Curtis Granderson. He is fine to have on the team for the playoff run but is easily replaceable next year contrary to what you and Luke believe.

 

Suggest a replacement on a veteran minimum salary. We will wait.

Nobody is missing your point about him being overpaid. You are missing the point until you answer this: why would a fan care if he's overpaid for one year if it makes the team better and doesn't negatively affect any other roster moves? That is not a rhetorical question by the way.

 

 

It's an impossible question to answer and you know this. You have no idea what the buyout market will look like next year. If they're going to pay Middleton 25+ a year, Mirotic and Brogdon are likely to get 15 million per, Lopez the MLE, the Bucks are then looking at a payroll of 150 million and will have to fill in the rest of the roster.

 

If the Bucks are 20 million over the cap, they pay 3.25 dollars for each dollar they are over the cap. That means Hill costs 60 million dollars. Even if they find some way to say less than 15 million over the luxury tax, you're STILL talking about Hill costing us 45 million dollars next year.

 

 

So....you're making a HUGE assumption that it won't impact other roster moves. I don't even think this is a discussion. The whole point of adding a pick when trading Delly and Henson was so you could get back what is essentially an expiring contract.

 

 

I like George Hill, he's a nice player, but it's easy to spend the owners money, but it's almost a given that if for some inexplicable reason the Bucks chose to pick up Hill's 18 million dollar option, they wouldn't bring one of the younger players back who are going to have a much longer impact on this teams future success.

[HiAndTight]

So essentially choosing to make your team worse out of principle and to save 3 billionaires some money. If that's your take, that's fine.

 

Another thing to note is that if picked up his large expiring contract becomes extremely valuable leading up to next year's deadline. Any star play that demands his way out between now and then comes into play for the Bucks since we have the perfect contract to trade back.

You are missing the vastly overpaid part, he isn't worth it. He is 33 and the basketball version of Curtis Granderson. He is fine to have on the team for the playoff run but is easily replaceable next year contrary to what you and Luke believe.

 

 

I think he's a little more than Curtis Granderson, but your point remains. I just don't see teams going as far into the luxury tax as others do. I'd be willing to bet just about anything they decline that option without giving it a second thought. Contending teams like the Bucks can draw players to them, especially if they're playing alongside a superstar like Giannis and they make a run to the finals.

 

I think Hill is the type of player who it'd be nice to bring back next year, but he's going to be 34, and despite the supposition that his 18 million dollar option won't impact other signings, it almost certainly would. Even if they can trade Ersan(and they should be able to and maybe even get something for him....like some guard depth) and Snell(they'd likely have to throw in a pick if they trade him this year, the following year IIRC he's on an expiring contract, so they could trade him then for a decent but overpaid player) that would only mitigate the tax hit.

 

The owners have said they're WILLING to go into the luxury tax if they're in a position to win. They never said they're willing to go in it to the point where a 34 year old backup will cost them potentially 60 million dollars. And then the following year you have Giannis who could sign for about 44 million and the luxury tax penalties don't get easier from there.

 

 

I'm generally not a fan of this site in general, but found this to be a pretty good breakdown of what lies ahead for the Bucks and a pretty good breakdown. You may disagree with the moves(this doesn't really even debate Hill, it just has the Bucks cutting him, but I've frankly yet to see an article that does even debate the merits of bringing him back for an additional 18 million as, again, I think it's always been a foregone conclusion that his option is just declined.

 

https://www.brewhoop.com/2019/2/20/18229673/time-is-money-looking-at-the-milwaukee-bucks-summer-of-2019-nba-draft-free-agency-salary-cap-cba

[coolhandluke121]

 

Actually, I don't recall how much they were struggling when traded for George Hill. The entire point of trading for him was to save cap space so they could sign their key players. He's a nice player, but it'd be foolish to sign him.

 

 

That was not the "entire point" at all. If it was, they wouldn't be playing him so much, and they wouldn't be a much better team with him. If you don't remember how they struggled without him, you should research it a little and not hold such a strong opinion about what he's worth until you do. They had gone 9-8 in a 17 game stretch before acquiring him, including losses to Phoenix, NY, Charlotte, and Memphis and one of their only blowout losses all year (Portland). It's no exaggeration to say their promising season was falling apart due to the lack of a capable backup pg. They also lost to Cleveland and Phoenix when he missed games later in the season. Others have pointed out their record with and without him and some of the key on/off stats as well. They are literally one of the dominant regular season teams of all time with him, and an ordinary 50-55 win team without him.

 

I think the reason it's hard for some people to realize how important he's been is twofold. One, he's simply effective (as opposed to sensational) and he makes much of his impact on defense and intangibles, which casual NBA fans are notorious for ignoring. Two, you're probably ignoring just how bad the backup pg scrap heap market is. They've been trying to solidify their pg depth for years, and the list of guys who have earned minutes there is vomit-inducing. To act like they could just find someone on the scrap heap shows you have not been paying attention to what's actually been going on for years. They can't and shouldn't run that risk when they are a contender with an MVP just beginning his prime. Don't evaluate him in a vacuum about who he is and what he's worth. Personnel moves don't work that way in the NBA at all. It's not at all like baseball; you have to look at the entire situation.

 

And I know they probably won't keep him. That's not my point at all. My point is that they should, rather than being cheap, because he makes a huge difference in their chances of contending. Again, don't look at his ability in a vacuum; look at the drop-off between him and the other options they've had over the years. People keep suggesting that they don't need a good backup pg, but that's been proven wrong time and time again. It's not about the difference between George Hill and the average player making $18m; it's about the difference between George Hill and the average scrap heap backup pg.

[Mr Southpaw]

So essentially choosing to make your team worse out of principle and to save 3 billionaires some money. If that's your take, that's fine.

 

Another thing to note is that if picked up his large expiring contract becomes extremely valuable leading up to next year's deadline. Any star play that demands his way out between now and then comes into play for the Bucks since we have the perfect contract to trade back.

You are missing the vastly overpaid part, he isn't worth it. He is 33 and the basketball version of Curtis Granderson. He is fine to have on the team for the playoff run but is easily replaceable next year contrary to what you and Luke believe.

 

 

I think he's a little more than Curtis Granderson, but your point remains. I just don't see teams going as far into the luxury tax as others do. I'd be willing to bet just about anything they decline that option without giving it a second thought. Contending teams like the Bucks can draw players to them, especially if they're playing alongside a superstar like Giannis and they make a run to the finals.

 

 

I think Hill is the type of player who it'd be nice to bring back next year, but he's going to be 34, and despite the supposition that his 18 million dollar option won't impact other signings, it almost certainly would. Even if they can trade Ersan(and they should be able to and maybe even get something for him....like some guard depth) and Snell(they'd likely have to throw in a pick if they trade him this year, the following year IIRC he's on an expiring contract, so they could trade him then for a decent but overpaid player) that would only mitigate the tax hit.

 

The owners have said they're WILLING to go into the luxury tax if they're in a position to win. They never said they're willing to go in it to the point where a 34 year old backup will cost them potentially 60 million dollars. And then the following year you have Giannis who could sign for about 44 million and the luxury tax penalties don't get easier from there.

 

 

I'm generally not a fan of this site in general, but found this to be a pretty good breakdown of what lies ahead for the Bucks and a pretty good breakdown. You may disagree with the moves(this doesn't really even debate Hill, it just has the Bucks cutting him, but I've frankly yet to see an article that does even debate the merits of bringing him back for an additional 18 million as, again, I think it's always been a foregone conclusion that his option is just declined.

 

https://www.brewhoop.com/2019/2/20/18229673/time-is-money-looking-at-the-milwaukee-bucks-summer-of-2019-nba-draft-free-agency-salary-cap-cba

 

Thank you for your in depth analysis. You have brought some order to this kangaroo court. Nice article about the CBA procedures for anyone who does not understand how the NBA financial structure works.

[coolhandluke121]

 

Thank you for your in depth analysis. You have brought some order to this kangaroo court. Nice article about the CBA procedures for anyone who does not understand how the NBA financial structure works.

 

Good lord. Please don't tell me you've actually read my posts and still think there's anything in that article that I don't know like the back of my hand. It confirms everything I've said all along; keeping everyone would only cost the owners extra money, and the only roster implications would be having slightly weaker versions of exception money, which is an almost inconsequential difference compared to going into next season without a backup pg. Did you even notice that the article hasn't been updated with Bledsoe's extension yet?

[LouisEly]

I believe he was complementing you...

[coolhandluke121]

I believe he was complementing you...

 

No, he strongly disagrees with me about keeping Hill and he's implying that I don't understand how the CBA works because I'm advocating it. He's the one who said they should use the money to keep their other starters instead, even though I've clearly laid out how the system helps you keep them all. That's a false dilemma unless you support the owners being cheap when you have a chance of contending. The idea that I'm the one who needs to read that article to understand how the NBA financial structure works is beyond ridiculous. I've literally read the actual CBA itself, or at least the parts that pertain to player transactions. I've addressed the nuances of the CBA as it applies to this situation many times and he never addresses or acknowledges that. He just keeps saying Hill is not worth that much money, like a broken record. The idea that you spend the money on starters instead shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the CBA works, which is fine because I'm happy to explain it, but then he acts like I'm the one who needs to brush up on it. By reading an article that he didn't even notice was clearly outdated.

 

In the NBA, you can and should pay to retain as much talent as possible when you're a contender. Small market owners have paid some of the highest payrolls in recent memory. After these new owners got a new arena and have a chance to bring Milwaukee its first major title in about 50 years, it would be a crime to start worrying about the luxury tax.

 

For crying out loud they're not even paying the luxury tax at all this year! I have acknowledged that there is a point where the luxury tax would be prohibitive, but the Bucks are nowhere near that point yet. They have to give Mirotic and Middleton pretty big raises, but a non-tax team can afford that. They will have to give Brogdon a big raise, but his RFA status and his injury history, which incidentally is the reason he fell to the 2nd round of the draft in the first place, will keep that manageable. And they have to give Lopez a raise, but can only pay him the MLE anyway. And even if they overpay a lot next year, Hill and Ersan would be off the books in 2020, but with full Bird Rights to keep them at a more reasonable salary, so it would only be one year of a huge tax bill.

[Mr Southpaw]

I believe he was complementing you...

 

No, he strongly disagrees with me about keeping Hill and he's implying that I don't understand how the CBA works because I'm advocating it. He's the one who said they should use the money to keep their other starters instead, even though I've clearly laid out how the system helps you keep them all. That's a false dilemma unless you support the owners being cheap when you have a chance of contending. The idea that I'm the one who needs to read that article to understand how the NBA financial structure works is beyond ridiculous. I've literally read the actual CBA itself, or at least the parts that pertain to player transactions. I've addressed the nuances of the CBA as it applies to this situation many times and he never addresses or acknowledges that. He just keeps saying Hill is not worth that much money, like a broken record. The idea that you spend the money on starters instead shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the CBA works, which is fine because I'm happy to explain it, but then he acts like I'm the one who needs to brush up on it. By reading an article that he didn't even notice was clearly outdated.

 

In the NBA, you can and should pay to retain as much talent as possible when you're a contender. Small market owners have paid some of the highest payrolls in recent memory. After these new owners got a new arena and have a chance to bring Milwaukee its first major title in about 50 years, it would be a crime to start worrying about the luxury tax.

 

For crying out loud they're not even paying the luxury tax at all this year! I have acknowledged that there is a point where the luxury tax would be prohibitive, but the Bucks are nowhere near that point yet. They have to give Mirotic and Middleton pretty big raises, but a non-tax team can afford that. They will have to give Brogdon a big raise, but his RFA status and his injury history, which incidentally is the reason he fell to the 2nd round of the draft in the first place, will keep that manageable. And they have to give Lopez a raise, but can only pay him the MLE anyway. And even if they overpay a lot next year, Hill and Ersan would be off the books in 2020, but with full Bird Rights to keep them at a more reasonable salary, so it would only be one year of a huge tax bill.

 

No I was not disagreeing with you. I was agreeing with what Hi and Tight and his wonderful take on the financial decisions the Bucks have to make this summer and how I enjoyed reading the article he posted. It put clarity in the fact that Hill is not worth the extra $18 million next year should not be retained next year.

[Noche]

I believe he was complementing you...

 

No, he strongly disagrees with me about keeping Hill and he's implying that I don't understand how the CBA works because I'm advocating it. He's the one who said they should use the money to keep their other starters instead, even though I've clearly laid out how the system helps you keep them all. That's a false dilemma unless you support the owners being cheap when you have a chance of contending. The idea that I'm the one who needs to read that article to understand how the NBA financial structure works is beyond ridiculous. I've literally read the actual CBA itself, or at least the parts that pertain to player transactions. I've addressed the nuances of the CBA as it applies to this situation many times and he never addresses or acknowledges that. He just keeps saying Hill is not worth that much money, like a broken record. The idea that you spend the money on starters instead shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the CBA works, which is fine because I'm happy to explain it, but then he acts like I'm the one who needs to brush up on it. By reading an article that he didn't even notice was clearly outdated.

 

In the NBA, you can and should pay to retain as much talent as possible when you're a contender. Small market owners have paid some of the highest payrolls in recent memory. After these new owners got a new arena and have a chance to bring Milwaukee its first major title in about 50 years, it would be a crime to start worrying about the luxury tax.

 

For crying out loud they're not even paying the luxury tax at all this year! I have acknowledged that there is a point where the luxury tax would be prohibitive, but the Bucks are nowhere near that point yet. They have to give Mirotic and Middleton pretty big raises, but a non-tax team can afford that. They will have to give Brogdon a big raise, but his RFA status and his injury history, which incidentally is the reason he fell to the 2nd round of the draft in the first place, will keep that manageable. And they have to give Lopez a raise, but can only pay him the MLE anyway. And even if they overpay a lot next year, Hill and Ersan would be off the books in 2020, but with full Bird Rights to keep them at a more reasonable salary, so it would only be one year of a huge tax bill.

 

No I was not disagreeing with you. I was agreeing with what Hi and Tight and his wonderful take on the financial decisions the Bucks have to make this summer and how I enjoyed reading the article he posted. It put clarity in the fact that Hill is not worth the extra $18 million next year should not be retained next year.

 

My interpretation matches CoolHandLuke. Paying George Hill his option does not prohibit the Bucks from signing an alternative impact talent in anyway. Additionally, we can keep all our key free agents even with Hill’s high salary, and we should because it’s likely Hill’s production will greatly outpace anyone the vet min or MLE could fetch. It’s not like the Bucks can take Hill’s $18M and offer it to Julius Randle. If Hill’s option is declined, the Bucks simply lose that “opportunity” to go over the salary cap.

[coolhandluke121]

 

No I was not disagreeing with you. I was agreeing with what Hi and Tight and his wonderful take on the financial decisions the Bucks have to make this summer and how I enjoyed reading the article he posted. It put clarity in the fact that Hill is not worth the extra $18 million next year should not be retained next year.

 

You called this forum a "kangaroo court" and implied that people here need to read that article to learn more about the CBA, but I have already pointed out multiple nuances that aren't addressed in that article. And it's ironic that you would suggest other people read that article when you haven't shown a solid grasp of the CBA yourself.

 

By the way, you still haven't answered my question about whether you even noticed that that article isn't up to date with Bledsoe's extension.

 

The article all but assumes it will take a max or near-max offer to keep Khris. That's a questionable assumption at best, but I have already acknowledged on several occasions that I don't expect the owners to pay an unlimited amount of luxury tax. I do expect them to spend when they have a contender though. Small market teams like OKC, Portland, and Cleveland have paid huge tax bills in an effort to build a contender, and while they lost money for a few years, the valuation of NBA franchises and the money you save when you don't have a contender cancels most, if not all, of that out. Especially when you just got the city to build you a damn arena!

 

Mirotic and Middleton aren't playing especially well and will be second-tier free agents at best. Brogdon is injury-prone. They can only spend up to the MLE on Lopez anyway.

 

Which reminds me, that article also has the wrong value for the taxpayer MLE. Can you tell us what it is without looking it up? Or you can just look several pages back, where I gave the approximate difference between the taxpayer and non-taxpayer MLE as an argument for paying the luxury tax with little downside.

 

The article also states that the Bucks have to be $9m below the apron to re-sign Lopez. That assumption completely drives the rest of the analysis, but he could accept the taxpayer MLE and that changes everything. The article doesn't even address the possibility.

 

The article also says that the Bucks have to cut Hill to pay the other starters. Is that where you got that notion? Because it's patently false, resting on the assumption that the full MLE must be saved for Lopez (and that Lopez is a much bigger priority) - which they still might not be able to do even after cutting Hill. The other reason that most people just assume cutting Hill is a foregone conclusion is because they expect the owners to want to save on their tax bill. I agree, and I expect them to as well. My argument is not that they won't cut Hill, but that they shouldn't.

 

It's great that you read the article, but if you really want to understand the CBA, read the actual document. That's what I did. That article is making too many assumptions, and it's outdated without Bledsoe's extension (or Khris's continued struggles, Nikola's struggles and subsequent injury, and Brodgon's injury). You can't assume you understand the situation just because you read that article, and you definitely shouldn't be implying that I'm the one who needs to read it to understand the situation.

 

The Bucks should keep everyone. They literally have one of the best regular-season teams of all time. But Hill is actually much more needed than Lopez, since the Bucks have shown flashes of being just as good with Ersan, Wilson, Mirotic, or Giannis at center. And keeping Hill is a guaranteed option, whereas keeping Lopez would require them to give up assets to clear salary or cut a young player like Brown to offer the full MLE, and even then he could leave for a bigger offer.

[nate82]

Uggg that should have been a win but without Middleton, Bledsoe, and Giannis they didn't play all that bad against a bad Atlanta team.

[OldHeidelberg]

Sounds like they came close to winning a couple of times but it seems odd that they would let an easy one go by resting guys when they haven't clinched home court yet. I guess they can play guys tomorrow but that doesn't make sense since this was the easy one so really seems like they will rest guys again and likely they will lose both. I don't imagine it will matter but my choice would be to get it done now and rest guys the rest of the way. But I guess there is something to be said for keeping guys sharp, they can take care of Atlanta and Brooklyn at home.

[coolhandluke121]

Magic number is just 2. Win just one more game and hope Toronto doesn't finish 5-0 and you have homecourt. Not sure what the tiebreaker is with GSW, but they'd have to go 7-0 just to tie the Bucks if they win one more.

 

Would have liked the win though. I was tempted to put a decent bet on 60 wins at the start of the season, half as a joke and half as a testament to how bad I think Kidd was as coach. Glad I didn't or I wouldn't have survived this afternoon.

[adambr2]

I believe he was complementing you...

 

I don't know what to say. Time after time I see people use "compliment" on this board when they really mean "complement", someone finally has a chance to use "compliment" correctly and this happens.

[coolhandluke121]

I believe he was complementing you...

 

I don't know what to say. Time after time I see people use "compliment" on this board when they really mean "complement", someone finally has a chance to use "compliment" correctly and this happens.

 

I was gonna say something, but then I decided it was technically correct. The complete set of possibilities includes keeping Hill and not keeping Hill. I want to keep him and he doesn't. Therefore he complements me.

[OnTheBlack]

It's amazing sometimes how condescending some people on this board can be with such regularity.

 

I'll just say this. You're just making assumptions. As the luxury tax that you're a self-proclaimed expert on has a progressive tax...meaning Hill could cost 60 million dollars if they go 15 million over the luxury tax without him, then I'd say you're likely being intentionally obtuse in suggesting the ONLY two options at play here are keeping Hill and not keeping Hill.

 

 

The Bucks owners said they'd be willing to go over the luxury tax for if their team was competitive. They're likely to be competitive for years to come and if they sign Middleton who may get a Max deal, Brogdon, Mirotic and Lopez, they'll already be in that tax bracket where Hill will essentially cost around 60 million rather than just that 18 million that the owners have to pay for. Problem is, given what the Bucks seem to hope is going to happen, they're going to be in that bracket for the foreseeable future. So that's one way that retaining Hill may impact the rest of the roster. They may decide they don't want to pay more than the 3X a players actual salary once they're 15 million over the luxury tax for the next 7 years(just going through what I believe would be the last year of Giannis' super max deal). Especially for a 34 year old PG

 

That was not the "entire point" at all. If it was, they wouldn't be playing him so much, and they wouldn't be a much better team with him. If you don't remember how they struggled without him, you should research it a little and not hold such a strong opinion about what he's worth until you do. They had gone 9-8 in a 17 game stretch before acquiring him, including losses to Phoenix, NY, Charlotte, and Memphis and one of their only blowout losses all year (Portland). It's no exaggeration to say their promising season was falling apart due to the lack of a capable backup pg.

 

I also didn't recall where the Bucks were before acquiring Hill. You seem to be making the numbers fit your agenda, one I honestly don't even think you're that invested in, or rather were that invested in until someone had the gall to challenge you.

 

The Bucks were 17-8 and coming off a win vs Toronto before Hill was a part of the Bucks, their second of the season.

 

As for the "blowout loss" to Portland that you include when you say it's "no exaggeration to say their promising season was falling apart," why neglect to mention they avenged that loss to a very good west team, one of their only blowout losses(15 points) by either mentioning that their very next game they beat Golden State by 23 resting their starters in the 4th quarter they were up by so much;

http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=401070847

 

Or that they came back exactly two weeks later and beat Portland by 43 points

http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=401070940

 

 

So it seems to me that they were playing pretty well, and while maybe the trade wasn't exclusively about dumping Henson and Delladova's salaries, I think just about everyone both now and then concluded it was the driving force behind making such a trade, otherwise they likely wouldn't have had to include a future 1st round trade.

 

 

None of this means that Hill hasn't been an asset to the Bucks, but it does show you're trying to manipulate the numbers in order to fit your narrative, and that the discussion is just a tiny bit more complex than the two options being "keeping Hill or not keeping Hill." To the Bucks owners, I'm sure the extra 18 million dollars alone might mean something to them and the franchises future. Then when you factor in that the 18 million could end up costing over 60 million and I'm sure it's not hard to figure out that the decision isn't as simple as you've proposed.

 

 

 

The Bucks have two young point guards in Brogdon and Bledsoe. Sterling Brown has shown signs of being a solid NBA 2 guard which would mean one of the two could play when the other isn't and the Bucks could look to trade Ersan, their 1st round pick this year or do what many contending teams do, bring in an aging vet to be their 3rd point guard. Those are also other options to "signing Hill or not signing Hill."

[Mr Southpaw]

It's amazing sometimes how condescending some people on this board can be with such regularity.

 

I'll just say this. You're just making assumptions. As the luxury tax that you're a self-proclaimed expert on has a progressive tax...meaning Hill could cost 60 million dollars if they go 15 million over the luxury tax without him, then I'd say you're likely being intentionally obtuse in suggesting the ONLY two options at play here are keeping Hill and not keeping Hill.

 

 

The Bucks owners said they'd be willing to go over the luxury tax for if their team was competitive. They're likely to be competitive for years to come and if they sign Middleton who may get a Max deal, Brogdon, Mirotic and Lopez, they'll already be in that tax bracket where Hill will essentially cost around 60 million rather than just that 18 million that the owners have to pay for. Problem is, given what the Bucks seem to hope is going to happen, they're going to be in that bracket for the foreseeable future. So that's one way that retaining Hill may impact the rest of the roster. They may decide they don't want to pay more than the 3X a players actual salary once they're 15 million over the luxury tax for the next 7 years(just going through what I believe would be the last year of Giannis' super max deal). Especially for a 34 year old PG

 

That was not the "entire point" at all. If it was, they wouldn't be playing him so much, and they wouldn't be a much better team with him. If you don't remember how they struggled without him, you should research it a little and not hold such a strong opinion about what he's worth until you do. They had gone 9-8 in a 17 game stretch before acquiring him, including losses to Phoenix, NY, Charlotte, and Memphis and one of their only blowout losses all year (Portland). It's no exaggeration to say their promising season was falling apart due to the lack of a capable backup pg.

 

I also didn't recall where the Bucks were before acquiring Hill. You seem to be making the numbers fit your agenda, one I honestly don't even think you're that invested in, or rather were that invested in until someone had the gall to challenge you.

 

The Bucks were 17-8 and coming off a win vs Toronto before Hill was a part of the Bucks, their second of the season.

 

As for the "blowout loss" to Portland that you include when you say it's "no exaggeration to say their promising season was falling apart," why neglect to mention they avenged that loss to a very good west team, one of their only blowout losses(15 points) by either mentioning that their very next game they beat Golden State by 23 resting their starters in the 4th quarter they were up by so much;

http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=401070847

 

Or that they came back exactly two weeks later and beat Portland by 43 points

http://www.espn.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=401070940

 

 

So it seems to me that they were playing pretty well, and while maybe the trade wasn't exclusively about dumping Henson and Delladova's salaries, I think just about everyone both now and then concluded it was the driving force behind making such a trade, otherwise they likely wouldn't have had to include a future 1st round trade.

 

 

None of this means that Hill hasn't been an asset to the Bucks, but it does show you're trying to manipulate the numbers in order to fit your narrative, and that the discussion is just a tiny bit more complex than the two options being "keeping Hill or not keeping Hill." To the Bucks owners, I'm sure the extra 18 million dollars alone might mean something to them and the franchises future. Then when you factor in that the 18 million could end up costing over 60 million and I'm sure it's not hard to figure out that the decision isn't as simple as you've proposed.

 

 

 

The Bucks have two young point guards in Brogdon and Bledsoe. Sterling Brown has shown signs of being a solid NBA 2 guard which would mean one of the two could play when the other isn't and the Bucks could look to trade Ersan, their 1st round pick this year or do what many contending teams do, bring in an aging vet to be their 3rd point guard. Those are also other options to "signing Hill or not signing Hill."

 

I agree with what you are saying in this post.

[coolhandluke121]

Look, I am sorry for being a little condescending but there is someone here who called my analysis a kangaroo court so don't just point fingers at me. If you don't want me to act like someone who knows a lot about the CBA, then point out what I don't know about it. Do you expect someone who knows it well to act like they don't? There may be some people who appreciate learning more nuances about the CBA, and I've pointed out many that are otherwise missing from this thread.

 

I'm not even making that many assumptions. I merely challenged the myriad assumptions in that article. I know the tax bill is likely to be very high, but other small market teams have done it before. Cleveland and Portland have paid some pretty big tax bills. The Bucks have a new arena and their first chance at a title in almost 50 years. I want to see the owners show their appreciation, especially after all the ridiculous crap they put us through with the Kidd era. And my point about how much a few years of contention will build the Bucks brand should not be dismissed lightly. There's revenue in that.

 

Who is anyone to say I am retro-fitting my analysis of Hill's value to the team to fit my agenda of keeping him? You don't know my motives. It's literally the exact opposite. You can find my skepticism about him many pages back when he first started playing for the Bucks, and I was as happy about the expiring contract as anyone. I was totally on board the "save money to keep everyone" logic of it. Then I watched him play for a few months. So no, my agenda is not driving my perception of his play; that's completely backwards from what's actually happening. If anything, I actually was biased against him, but they are a complete team with him and an incomplete team without him. I don't look at it as paying a ton of tax for an individual; I look at it as a ton of tax for a complete team.

 

I did not say Hill is the only option at pg. I said the only options are keeping him or not keeping him. That's a trivial mathematical logic statement and it was clearly a joke about the meaning of the word "complement" (A is keeping Hill, not A is not keeping him, and all possible outcomes must include one or the other but not both).

 

I've seen enough of Brogdon trying to play pg for one lifetime. He has some of the worst tunnel vision in the entire NBA, and he can barely even dribble with his head up. He often has to turn sideways or backwards to dribble against even modest ball pressure, and he can't stay in front of quick pg's to save his life. He's a complementary scorer and a very good one, so his faults don't hurt him in his role on the Bucks, but giving him a bigger role is a recipe for severe offensive stagnation.

 

I can offer one alternative that could work for nearly everyone involved. It's using the MLE on Hill (after not picking up his option) instead of Lopez, since you might lose Lopez anyway. I'm almost certain it's the only way to keep him (other than a vet min salary, which ain't happening) without picking up his option. The uncertainty of Lopez's situation and the low limits of what they can legally pay him, combined with the depth Ersan, Mirotic, and Wilson provide as stretch bigs, could make him the odd man out. Hill is much more likely to be available for the taxpayer MLE, whereas Lopez would require all kinds of hurdles to free up the non-taxpayer MLE - and even that might not be enough, plus they might have to make a 3-year commitment to an aging big man who has already broken his foot once. I wouldn't argue in favor of this option if a big tax bill were the only consideration, but it's a decent option because it also makes the off season gymnastics a lot less complicated, with less dire consequences for playing your cards wrong.

[OnTheBlack]

Look, I am sorry for being a little condescending but there is someone here who called my analysis a kangaroo court so don't just point fingers at me. If you don't want me to act like someone who knows a lot about the CBA, then point out what I don't know about it. Do you expect someone who knows it well to act like they don't? There may be some people who appreciate learning more nuances about the CBA, and I've pointed out many that are otherwise missing from this thread.

 

I'm not even making that many assumptions. I merely challenged the myriad assumptions in that article. I know the tax bill is likely to be very high, but other small market teams have done it before. Cleveland and Portland have paid some pretty big tax bills. The Bucks have a new arena and their first chance at a title in almost 50 years. I want to see the owners show their appreciation, especially after all the ridiculous crap they put us through with the Kidd era. And my point about how much a few years of contention will build the Bucks brand should not be dismissed lightly. There's revenue in that.

 

Who is anyone to say I am retro-fitting my analysis of Hill's value to the team to fit my agenda of keeping him? You don't know my motives. It's literally the exact opposite. You can find my skepticism about him many pages back when he first started playing for the Bucks, and I was as happy about the expiring contract as anyone. I was totally on board the "save money to keep everyone" logic of it. Then I watched him play for a few months. So no, my agenda is not driving my perception of his play; that's completely backwards from what's actually happening. If anything, I actually was biased against him, but they are a complete team with him and an incomplete team without him. I don't look at it as paying a ton of tax for an individual; I look at it as a ton of tax for a complete team.

 

I did not say Hill is the only option at pg. I said the only options are keeping him or not keeping him. That's a trivial mathematical logic statement and it was clearly a joke about the meaning of the word "complement" (A is keeping Hill, not A is not keeping him, and all possible outcomes must include one or the other but not both).

 

I've seen enough of Brogdon trying to play pg for one lifetime. He has some of the worst tunnel vision in the entire NBA, and he can barely even dribble with his head up. He often has to turn sideways or backwards to dribble against even modest ball pressure, and he can't stay in front of quick pg's to save his life. He's a complementary scorer and a very good one, so his faults don't hurt him in his role on the Bucks, but giving him a bigger role is a recipe for severe offensive stagnation.

 

I can offer one alternative that could work for nearly everyone involved. It's using the MLE on Hill (after not picking up his option) instead of Lopez, since you might lose Lopez anyway. I'm almost certain it's the only way to keep him (other than a vet min salary, which ain't happening) without picking up his option. The uncertainty of Lopez's situation and the low limits of what they can legally pay him, combined with the depth Ersan, Mirotic, and Wilson provide as stretch bigs, could make him the odd man out. Hill is much more likely to be available for the taxpayer MLE, whereas Lopez would require all kinds of hurdles to free up the non-taxpayer MLE - and even that might not be enough, plus they might have to make a 3-year commitment to an aging big man who has already broken his foot once. I wouldn't argue in favor of this option if a big tax bill were the only consideration, but it's a decent option because it also makes the off season gymnastics a lot less complicated, with less dire consequences for playing your cards wrong.

 

 

I might buy this if that was when the condescension had started(or for that part even ended, just read this post), but it started long before this. I could go back and pull out the quotes, but if you don't already see them, I doubt showing them again will change anything.

 

To the second part in bold, I am. I was the one who wrote that. I didn't think there was any ambiguity about it. You're trying to say that it's not exaggeration to say the Bucks promising season was "falling apart," by using ridiculous examples meant to be intentionally mis-leading. You could point to losses from the last two weeks and if all you do is mention the negatives, then say it's no small exaggeration to say their season is falling apart with an intentionally skewed sample size. And sample size isn't even the right word. Most like cherry picking from a sample size. They lost to a very good Portland team you cite as an example. You neglect to mention that they then beat them by 43. If you're just trying to have this genuine conversation as you suggest, what point does this serve?

 

They'd beaten Toronto twice. They were 17-8 and coming off a blowout win vs the Warriors(a bigger blowout for whatever that's worth than Portland's blowout of us a couple weeks prior). So you painting a this bleak picture of the Bucks season before Bell absolutely seems inaccurate. Which is what I said in my initial post.

 

I've seen enough of Brogdon trying to play pg for one lifetime. He has some of the worst tunnel vision in the entire NBA, and he can barely even dribble with his head up.

 

Yeah, I don't agree. I think your overuse of hyperbole is showing again as it often does with Brogdon. I think you'd do just fine with Brogdon running the point, particularly given how this team plays with Giannis playing a PF so often, or Middleton or even Connaughton out there as a ball handler. I give about zero credence to this suggestion that Brogdon is this bad gym school type cartoonist caricature when dribbling with the ball in his hand, head down, unable to see the court at all. It just doesn't match up with reality. Though it does match up with previous statements about how bad you think Brogdon is.

 

 

I'll leave it after saying this. I think the owners "owe" us a good team. I think if we re-sign all our top FA's and decline Hill's option, they'll have done this. I don't think Jason Kidd has anything at all to do with why they owe us a competitive team. I think the fact that you're already looking at the luxury tax and given that you're an expert on it, you already know that after Giannis signs, you could be talking about 60-70 million luxury tax bills as is. So I think it's fair to say that signing Hill could easily impact the signings of not only players on the team right now, but in the future.

[FVBrewerFan]

Bucks are having a historic season, on the verge of the playoffs. And this thread has been hijacked by people arguing about signing Hill next year and whether or not CHL is being a dick.

[CheezWizHed]

Yes, let's end the this and get back to real Buck's discussion. You disagree with each other's opinions. The horse is dead; move on.

[coolhandluke121]

Is it okay to point out how good Hill was last night? Not gonna say anything about the off season, but he has showed multiple times this season that he can step up and still be the Utah version of himself when the team needs him to, but can also fade seamlessly into a perfect veteran stabilizer/glue guy role when needed. I think the lack of big games like last night can make people question his impact, but I think it's actually better to be able to wear so many different hats than it is to just be a guy who scores 15 per game but doesn't have as much impact outside of scoring. His defense is especially crucial. I think all contenders need multiple players like that.