Milwaukee Bucks 2019 playoffs Rd 2 vs Boston Celtics

[Mr Southpaw]

 

I said he does that really well, meaning he jumps really well (see bold above), and he positions himself really well, and he boxes out really well and he has the desire to do all the little things it takes to be a great basketball player, and that he was taught well at a young age really well. He reminds me of a better version of Kerr when he was on the Bulls. Meaning one of those players you know will be a great coach. I would extend him immediately after the season.

 

 

He's definitely a glue player, but at what price do you extend him this off-season? At this point in the playoffs, it feels like you'd be paying him at his highest possible value and you still have him for a year. I'm not saying he's Delladova, he's more explosive athlete,(though almost the exact same size) but we paid Delladova for many of the same reasons we'd be paying Connaughton. Because he's been a spark plug and showed up in the post-season.

 

If he will sign on for ~4-5 million per year over a 3-4 year period, that'd be fine. If he wants more than that, if he wants 8-10, I'd let him play out next season and then just see where we are.

 

Absolutely correct

 

Kerr was a completely different type of player. If he played in the NBA today, he'd be a better version of Redick, but he had a bad knee injury early in his career that took away a lot of his athletic ability given it was back in the 80's. He shot 45 pct from 3 including a few seasons in which he hit 50 pct. He'd be a great fit on this team, but I don't think he's very similar to Connaughton.

 

Correct again. what I was saying is he looks like he will be a great coach in the future.

[Mr Southpaw]

I am glad Bledsoe was signed to such a reasonable contract. I hope the rest of the players are as reasonable. Winning big makes everyone happy.

 

Can Hill be restructure/extended to make something like $18, $8, 8? He is getting older and I do think he wants to stay a Buck and win. This way he doesn't have to be cut to make money for the other players. Middleton could sign for a lower first year ($17) and increase on the second two years ($27, $27). I don't know if that is feasible.

 

Brogdon needs to get paid because he was cheap for so long. I am hoping the last Middleton contract suffices. $13-$15/ year.

 

Between Mirotic and Lopez, if I had to choose, I would go with Mirotic just because of age.

 

My order would be something like

 

Brogdon....Best shooter on the team. Smart, smart and smart. fits Buds system. A $12 million raise looks good?

Mirotic….….Best overall big man on the team, fits great with what Bud does. $15 million/year?

Middleton..It is about how much he wants to play with GA versus how much money he wants. I think he picks GA like Bledsoe.

Lopez...…..Older version of Mirotic. Maybe just a one/two year contract?

Hill...……...Maybe the restructure thing works, maybe not. Like Lopez age is also a factor. Could Ish Smith or P Beverly be a BU PG solution?

 

It would help if they could just dump Snell. Our only assets are Brown, DJ, Donte, Patty C, and the first round pick. Of the fiveI would not trade DJ and Patty C. DJ seems to fit with Bud, being a big that can shoot. Maybe GA can buff him up! I also like the glue that Patty C brings to the team. I just don't have a good read on Donte. If he is as good as I thought , Sterling can be traded with the first pick.

[young guns]

With philly's win our conference finals begins on Wednesday. Insert I want it now gif here.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Maybe recency bias but I don't think either of those teams is beating the Bucks. Neither one has as many dimensions and they are both getting beating up and worn down. I thought the ECF would be two teams that had already been through a gauntlet but the Bucks have made it look laughably easy. Boston/Philly were the two teams I was most concerned about.

[coolhandluke121]

You can't just restructure Hill's contract. I'm about 99% sure they lose his Bird Rights if they don't pick up his option. If you're thinking of examples of players who restructured in the past, it's because they had player options, not team options, or because the team could lose the player's Bird Rights and still fit the restructured contract under the cap or use exception money.

 

Why is Hill viewed as the guy who would cost too much luxury tax, and not one of the other options? That's equivalent to saying he's the last priority. Everyone else comes first, and by the time you pay Hill you're now too far into the tax to afford him? Why isn't is that you have to pay Hill first, and therefore you would have to go too far into the luxury tax to keep Mirotic, Brogdon, or Lopez? Hill has been the 2nd-most important player of the bunch for a long time now. Heck, sometimes I watched multiple entire games and forget that Brogdon was even hurt until they showed him on the bench. Guarantee you we wouldn't fail to notice Hill's absence if we had to watch Brogdon, Frazier, DDV, or some minimum contract play PG 15+ mpg (and more when Bledsoe is being a headcase).

 

 

Lopez was pretty good during the regular season but I saw some advanced stats showing the defense was often better without him. Having him anchor the paint and block shots is a way of compensating for his inability to defend the perimeter. His mobility is really bad and guys like that are getting played off the floor regularly. His contract situation also brings the most uncertainty and gums up the works for all other negotiations because they don't have his Bird Rights, and there's reason to doubt whether he's really as good of a 3-point shooter as he showed this year. I don't want to be paying him the full MLE when he reaches the current Pau Gasol phase of his career. With this system and coaching staff, I definitely think they can replace him with just the taxpayer MLE, and that's all I would pay him.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

You can't just restructure Hill's contract. I'm about 99% sure they lose his Bird Rights if they don't pick up his option. If you're thinking of examples of players who restructured in the past, it's because they had player options, not team options, or because the team could lose the player's Bird Rights and still fit the restructured contract under the cap or use exception money.

 

Why is Hill viewed as the guy who would cost too much luxury tax, and not one of the other options? That's equivalent to saying he's the last priority. Everyone else comes first, and by the time you pay Hill you're now too far into the tax to afford him? Why isn't is that you have to pay Hill first, and therefore you would have to go too far into the luxury tax to keep Mirotic, Brogdon, or Lopez? Hill has been the 2nd-most important player of the bunch for a long time now. Heck, sometimes I watched multiple entire games and forget that Brogdon was even hurt until they showed him on the bench. Guarantee you we wouldn't fail to notice Hill's absence if we had to watch Brogdon, Frazier, DDV, or some minimum contract play PG 15+ mpg (and more when Bledsoe is being a headcase).

 

 

Lopez was pretty good during the regular season but I saw some advanced stats showing the defense was often better without him. Having him anchor the paint and block shots is a way of compensating for his inability to defend the perimeter. His mobility is really bad and guys like that are getting played off the floor regularly. His contract situation also brings the most uncertainty and gums up the works for all other negotiations because they don't have his Bird Rights, and there's reason to doubt whether he's really as good of a 3-point shooter as he showed this year. I don't want to be paying him the full MLE when he reaches the current Pau Gasol phase of his career. With this system and coaching staff, I definitely think they can replace him with just the taxpayer MLE, and that's all I would pay him.

 

 

I honestly think if one of these guys walks it's Middleton. It's a bit suspicious that they did Bledsoe so early without Mids signed. Pure guessing, but I think they view Middleton as the skill set most easily replaced. Bledsoe has his warts, but he brings a pretty rare set of skills. I am not as sure that Middleton is worth a max deal. You can find scrap heap type guys to hit 40% of their threes. I don't mean to demean what Middleton's done, it's just kind of how it is. 7 footers that nail threes and linebacker guards are just a lot harder to come across.

[homer]

George Hill is 33 and has missed big chunks of the last 4+ seasons with injuries. If you want to pick up his option that's one thing. But I would think long and hard about doing anything past a year.

[coolhandluke121]

 

 

I honestly think if one of these guys walks it's Middleton. It's a bit suspicious that they did Bledsoe so early without Mids signed. Pure guessing, but I think they view Middleton as the skill set most easily replaced. Bledsoe has his warts, but he brings a pretty rare set of skills.

 

They couldn't extend Middleton until he officially opts out of the last year of his deal, so there's really nothing you can read into it. 100% agree that he would be easier to replace though - not so much because I think he's not good, but because they already have so many wing options on the team. You lose Brogdon or Middleton and the other one steps up and gets a few more shots, while Pat C, Brown, Snell, and DDV provide quality depth. But Hill and Bledsoe are both crucial. Basically when you're a contender, you make decisions based on need, and Hill is needed.

 

I agree with Homer that I wouldn't sign him long-term, but his injury history doesn't concern me at all because he hasn't had any injuries that have a lasting effect and he looks to be almost as good now as he was in his prime. If he was showing signs of decline, I would be more concerned. Brogdon and Khris, for example, both seem to have lost more quickness and athleticism in recent years than Hill, even though they're quite a bit younger. Khris's torn hamstring and Brogdon's growing list of leg/foot injuries are much worse injuries than anything Hill has had that I'm aware of.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

 

I honestly think if one of these guys walks it's Middleton. It's a bit suspicious that they did Bledsoe so early without Mids signed. Pure guessing, but I think they view Middleton as the skill set most easily replaced. Bledsoe has his warts, but he brings a pretty rare set of skills.

 

They couldn't extend Middleton until he officially opts out of the last year of his deal, so there's really nothing you can read into it. 100% agree that he would be easier to replace though - not so much because I think he's not good, but because they already have so many wing options on the team. You lose Brogdon or Middleton and the other one steps up and gets a few more shots, while Pat C, Brown, Snell, and DDV provide quality depth. But Hill and Bledsoe are both crucial. Basically when you're a contender, you make decisions based on need, and Hill is needed.

 

I agree with Homer that I wouldn't sign him long-term, but his injury history doesn't concern me at all because he hasn't had any injuries that have a lasting effect and he looks to be almost as good now as he was in his prime. If he was showing signs of decline, I would be more concerned. Brogdon and Khris, for example, both seem to have lost more quickness and athleticism in recent years than Hill, even though they're quite a bit younger. Khris's torn hamstring and Brogdon's growing list of leg/foot injuries are much worse injuries than anything Hill has had that I'm aware of.

 

 

I never really read about contract intricacies in any sport so I didn't know that. I just can't fathom him as a max player. He's just not that good. And I like him and think he's good. He's just not THAT good.

[tmwiese55]

I'm in the camp that this wide fear of "max" for Khris is overblown. I don't see anyone giving him 35 mil per year. The only scenario it could happen is if teams strike out on the like 10 guys they prioritize over him and then get desperate. Take the Knicks as an obvious example of a dumb team that would do something like that. If you're Khris do you wait out that whole situation or just put 25 mil per year in the bank at 12:01 and go have yourself a heck of a summer.

 

Hill would be great to have back, hopefully they can find a way to get creative using the exceptions for him and Lopez. I think if I prioritize who I'd let go first, if I had to, I would make it Lopez assuming Niko is back. You have a lot of bigs still, although none as "big" as him. But I also factor in you don't have Bird rights on him so he complicates everything. That said, I do like Lopez and think he's been great for rebounding and keeping some wear and tear of Giannis. Offensively though, you get the spacing with Niko and Ersan as well.

 

Still, with Hill I see why he's prioritized lower by most because he's old. It's that simple.

[coolhandluke121]

I don't see why age should be a concern for Hill considering it's a 1-year option. He just turned 33 a few days ago and he's still playing very well. It's very rare to be a contender without multiple reliable veterans like him, although it's probably a disservice to call him a reliable vet (with the connotation that has) when we've seen him play like the Utah borderline all-star version of himself so many times in the past few months.

 

In any case, just to illustrate the nuances of the Lopez situation, it's going to be really hard to keep the full MLE available for him. I'm sure you have to attach multiple assets to Snell to unload his salary, and some of those possible assets are already contributors on a contender (Brown, Pat C). And even if you did, as soon as Brogdon signs an offer sheet, it counts against their cap and forces them into the taxpayer MLE. And even if you give him the taxpayer MLE and he accepts, what if some other free agent leaves unexpectedly and you're scrambling for a replacement without even the tax MLE at your disposal? What if Lopez wants to shop his services before agreeing to return? There could be a full MLE offer from some other contender out there for him.

 

It's a headache, and I think there are lots of other guys who could thrive playing off Giannis for this team. For all the talk about what Lopez has done for the team, let's not forget how much this system and coaching staff have helped him. You might lose some size and low post defense, but you'd gain other advantages with a more athletic big who can guard the perimeter (or just by playing Ersan and Niko with Giannis more).

 

I think I'd just relinquish Lopez unless he signs up for a non-Bird raise of his current deal. Then use the taxpayer MLE on more of a niche player who can play the biggest centers in the league even if he rides the bench in favor of a more modern big against most teams.

[DuWayne Steurer]

"You can find scrap heap type guys to hit 40% of their threes"

 

I'm going to compare two guys on our own team. Tony Snell can hit 3's, but he needs to be fed the ball, he can't create his own shot (at all, ever), he can't create step back threes, and he needs to be WIDE open to even think about taking threes. His release time is abysmal, so yes, Tony Snell can hit 40% of his threes, under almost only optimal conditions.

 

Middleton hits less than 40%, but he takes contested threes, step back threes, threes with guys right in his face, etc, etc, etc. There is value and substance to that. There's a lot of scrap heap guys (like Tony Snell) that don't have the skill set that a guy like Middleton has to be able to create space and opportunity to take those shots. It's a bit frustrating when Middleton goes into one of his cold snaps, sure, but there's just way too much emphasis put on just shooting percentage I think. Being able to create shots for yourself has a lot of merit, and I think people undervalue that quite a bit.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Yes but it becomes a question of incremental value. I don't know that Middleton is worth that much money because I think the returns diminish on what he provides vs. what you can get as a replacement. And obviously, when you have Giannis, you have some flexibility in creating offense. If you let Lopez walk, it's reasonable to think you won't find another 7 footer that can nail threes. Replenishment of talent also becomes a factor. It's hard to replace anybody good, but probably easier to find the next Middleton in the draft or plucked off someone else's roster vs. the next Bledsoe or Lopez. In a perfect world he stays. But if he is actually getting max offers, not sure that is a smart move.

[homer]

I don't see why age should be a concern for Hill considering it's a 1-year option.

 

I said the option is fine. Beyond a year would not be all that wise.

 

But whatever....I'm not worrying about this stuff until after the playoffs.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Yes but it becomes a question of incremental value. I don't know that Middleton is worth that much money because I think the returns diminish on what he provides vs. what you can get as a replacement. And obviously, when you have Giannis, you have some flexibility in creating offense. If you let Lopez walk, it's reasonable to think you won't find another 7 footer that can nail threes. Replenishment of talent also becomes a factor. It's hard to replace anybody good, but probably easier to find the next Middleton in the draft or plucked off someone else's roster vs. the next Bledsoe or Lopez. In a perfect world he stays. But if he is actually getting max offers, not sure that is a smart move.

 

 

I think it becomes a really dangerous game when you have a 60 win team to start playing meta-games with the roster, deciding what you can replace with spare parts. I feel like Middleton isn't a max-tier player, but he's also at the same time unervalued by a lot of people. He brings more than a little bit of everything to the table.

 

What is Middleton worth? What is he worth to the Bucks vs what is he worth to some hypothetical other team? When you (not 'you', but 'you' as in 'people') start saying 'we can replace X player's production with Sterling Brown and DDV and Wilson and Connaughton... I get concerned those guys are young, unproven, or old and bench players. (and yes, 26 or 27 is "old" in basketball parlance if you're still riding the pine, IMO).

 

I'm just not ready to think you can seamlessly slide DJ Wilson into Lopez's spot, or Sterling Brown or Pat C into Middleton's spot and not expect a big dropoff. I could be wrong, and again, it's not my money. Tough decisions ahead. If the owners see fit to spend to keep this core together, I'll be more than happy. If a piece or two has to go, I'll trust Bud to spread the minutes out and bring the younger guys up to speed. It's just been really nice having a team this deep for once.

[patrickgpe]

Since we're on that topic, rank the following in order of priority for bringing back next year:

 

Middleton

Brogdon

Hill

Mirotic

Lopez

 

I've got Middleton and Brogdon as 1A and 1B. Then Hill. I'll go Lopez, then Mirotic, I'd like to realistically get 1 of 2. Connaughton is fortunately already under contract for one more year.

 

Middleton is clearly #1. you can probably sacrifice brogdon since you are paying Bledsoe. Hill has an option for 18MM which will be declined. Would be nice to bring back either lopez or Mirotic, with Lopez being a higher priority for me.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Yes but it becomes a question of incremental value. I don't know that Middleton is worth that much money because I think the returns diminish on what he provides vs. what you can get as a replacement. And obviously, when you have Giannis, you have some flexibility in creating offense. If you let Lopez walk, it's reasonable to think you won't find another 7 footer that can nail threes. Replenishment of talent also becomes a factor. It's hard to replace anybody good, but probably easier to find the next Middleton in the draft or plucked off someone else's roster vs. the next Bledsoe or Lopez. In a perfect world he stays. But if he is actually getting max offers, not sure that is a smart move.

 

 

I think it becomes a really dangerous game when you have a 60 win team to start playing meta-games with the roster, deciding what you can replace with spare parts. I feel like Middleton isn't a max-tier player, but he's also at the same time unervalued by a lot of people. He brings more than a little bit of everything to the table.

 

What is Middleton worth? What is he worth to the Bucks vs what is he worth to some hypothetical other team? When you (not 'you', but 'you' as in 'people') start saying 'we can replace X player's production with Sterling Brown and DDV and Wilson and Connaughton... I get concerned those guys are young, unproven, or old and bench players. (and yes, 26 or 27 is "old" in basketball parlance if you're still riding the pine, IMO).

 

I'm just not ready to think you can seamlessly slide DJ Wilson into Lopez's spot, or Sterling Brown or Pat C into Middleton's spot and not expect a big dropoff. I could be wrong, and again, it's not my money. Tough decisions ahead. If the owners see fit to spend to keep this core together, I'll be more than happy. If a piece or two has to go, I'll trust Bud to spread the minutes out and bring the younger guys up to speed. It's just been really nice having a team this deep for once.

 

We're having two different conversations here. I think Mids is worth more to the Bucks than anybody, and nobody thinks you can just slide DJ Wilson into another guy's spot, but it becomes a necessity to replenish because you also can't just keep everybody forever. I also think it would be naive to think that even if the Bucks did bring everyone back, that they'd be as dominant again. I think it's just smart to accept reality that some of these guys will leave and plan accordingly. Even if they did bring everyone back, it's probably pretty likely that at least one of those moves will end up not working out.

[tmwiese55]

I don't see why age should be a concern for Hill considering it's a 1-year option. He just turned 33 a few days ago and he's still playing very well. It's very rare to be a contender without multiple reliable veterans like him, although it's probably a disservice to call him a reliable vet (with the connotation that has) when we've seen him play like the Utah borderline all-star version of himself so many times in the past few months.

 

In any case, just to illustrate the nuances of the Lopez situation, it's going to be really hard to keep the full MLE available for him. I'm sure you have to attach multiple assets to Snell to unload his salary, and some of those possible assets are already contributors on a contender (Brown, Pat C). And even if you did, as soon as Brogdon signs an offer sheet, it counts against their cap and forces them into the taxpayer MLE. And even if you give him the taxpayer MLE and he accepts, what if some other free agent leaves unexpectedly and you're scrambling for a replacement without even the tax MLE at your disposal? What if Lopez wants to shop his services before agreeing to return? There could be a full MLE offer from some other contender out there for him.

 

It's a headache, and I think there are lots of other guys who could thrive playing off Giannis for this team. For all the talk about what Lopez has done for the team, let's not forget how much this system and coaching staff have helped him. You might lose some size and low post defense, but you'd gain other advantages with a more athletic big who can guard the perimeter (or just by playing Ersan and Niko with Giannis more).

 

I think I'd just relinquish Lopez unless he signs up for a non-Bird raise of his current deal. Then use the taxpayer MLE on more of a niche player who can play the biggest centers in the league even if he rides the bench in favor of a more modern big against most teams.

 

I brought up age not out of that he's gonna fall off a cliff. I mean he looks quicker than I ever remember in his prime, granted I didn't watch him a ton or anything though. But you have this cap crunch this year, you'd rather use it for the guy that'll be here for 3-4 years rather than 1. That's all.

[coolhandluke121]

I don't see why age should be a concern for Hill considering it's a 1-year option.

 

I said the option is fine. Beyond a year would not be all that wise.

 

But whatever....I'm not worrying about this stuff until after the playoffs.

 

I was responding to someone else who also mentioned age. I agree that he's not a multiyear piece unless it's a huge bargain, but I see no reason to worry about his age on a 1-year deal considering how he's playing now.

 

In fact, one could argue that having him on an expensive but short deal is exactly what you want. It's the multiyear commitments that could really kill the payroll once Giannis gets the supermax. Lopez, for example, is a huge 7-footer with a history of foot problems. He's almost as old as Hill and might require a full 3-year MLE deal to retain, and I think any team that gives him that is going to regret it

 

I love the financial meta-game, even during the playoffs. Not trying to derail the thread or anything but it's a great chess game.

[homer]

I don't see why age should be a concern for Hill considering it's a 1-year option.

 

I said the option is fine. Beyond a year would not be all that wise.

 

But whatever....I'm not worrying about this stuff until after the playoffs.

 

I was responding to someone else who also mentioned age. I agree that he's not a multiyear piece unless it's a huge bargain, but I see no reason to worry about his age on a 1-year deal considering how he's playing now.

 

In fact, one could argue that having him on an expensive but short deal is exactly what you want. It's the multiyear commitments that could really kill the payroll once Giannis gets the supermax. Lopez, for example, is a huge 7-footer with a history of foot problems. He's almost as old as Hill and might require a full 3-year MLE deal to retain, and I think any team that gives him that is going to regret it

 

I love the financial meta-game, even during the playoffs. Not trying to derail the thread or anything but it's a great chess game.

 

 

yeah no worries. I was mid post and thinking to myself "I don't really like or want to understand the salary cap stuff why am I even posting about it?" So it was more a note to myself rather than anyone in particular

[wallus]

My ranking of who I would like back:

 

Brogdon

Hill

Mirotic

Lopez

Middleton

 

A lot of this is based on being replaceable and the expected contract that they will receive. I would have no problem starting Mirotic at the "5" even though Giannis would really be the 5. Mirotic played some 5 in New Orleans.

[young guns]

Now that the warriors have beat the rockets, between Denver and Portland who does everyone think has the best shot at beating them, with or without Durant?

 

Personally I don't think either has much of a chance at all.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Yeah.... Neither. I want bucks/warriors in the finals. I cant wait!

[coolhandluke121]

Other than a rough stretch just before they acquired Hill, I think the Bucks and Warriors have been on a collision course nearly all year. That has a chance to be one for the ages. Honestly I think I would prefer if Durant were healthy for it, too.

 

But to be clear, the Raptors and Sixers are very good too. The Raptors have been really strong all year, and the Sixers benefit from shorter playoff rotations as much as any team in recent memory.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Other than a rough stretch just before they acquired Hill, I think the Bucks and Warriors have been on a collision course nearly all year. That has a chance to be one for the ages. Honestly I think I would prefer if Durant were healthy for it, too.

 

But to be clear, the Raptors and Sixers are very good too. The Raptors have been really strong all year, and the Sixers benefit from shorter playoff rotations as much as any team in recent memory.

 

I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch... but I want the Bucks to be the champs by beating the best team. I want them to beat the Warriors. I want them to beat the Warriors with Durant. I want a 7 game, best-of-all-time series. I want every game to be like 130-127.

 

Don't get me wrong, if the Blazers or Nuggs come out of the west and the Bucks get past the 6'ers or Raps, and the Bucks beat the Blazers and are NBA champs, Ill whoop and scream and yell and be ecstatic, and buy "NBA champs" hats and flip cars and start things on fire (maybe not those last two things), but to me..... it just feels like beating the Warriors isn't quite "David vs. Goliath", but would have more meaningful, lasting SOMETHING to it if they could take that route. I don't know, maybe it doesn't matter, but that would be what I'm rooting for.