Bucks off-season thread (non-draft)

[patrickgpe]

that is my best case scenerio. Yes, the bucks may regret how much money they give KMidd. Yes the bucks cap situaiton could be in rough shape if Giannis signs a supermax. But the bucks would be at the minimum the co-favorites in the east depending on what goes on with Kawaii.

[Mr Southpaw]

Center Options

 

Dedman

Kaminsky RFA

Muscala

 

Power Forward Options

 

Portis RFA

J Green

Dudley

Dekker more of a SF

Beasley

 

All can spread the court and will fit with Lopez

[coolhandluke121]

 

 

Ok, so you think Hill's going to obviously get waived, these are just the disclaimers so when it happens you aren't wrong.

And what team do you think is going to want to pay Hill 18 million to claim him off waivers when they could just let him pass through(as he's going to) and then sign him for a quarter of that?

 

I never said he would wouldn't be waived so stop with that nonsense. I said he shouldn't be waived, and I've already been proven right about his value because of the fact that he was literally the 2nd-best player in the playoffs on a 60-win team. Where you're completely lost is on his real value if you think he's only worth $4.5m after the way he played the last 3 months of the season. It's okay though. Sometimes it's hard for casual fans to understand how valuable a guy like him is without the flashy numbers. I'm cautiously optimistic that the Bucks understand it too, but if not, they wouldn't be the first team to over-value box score stats and underestimate intangibles.

 

I didn't say he would be claimed either, just that there's a good chance he would be. He might be waived or he might not. He might be claimed or he might not. I don't have a strong opinion either way. My argument is, and always has been, about what I think he's worth and how valuable he is, not about predicting what's actually going to happen, so knock it off with turning it into that. I've been talking about how good he is since January while everyone else thought he was just an average back-up PG on an expiring contract. I've been saying they should keep him at his current contract because they can't afford to lose him, not because I have any insight into whether they're going to or not.

 

I have no way of knowing if they'll keep him or not. I have no way of knowing if he would be claimed on waivers. I can only speculate. I think some team will see that he's an asset on his current contract, and I hope it's the Bucks... but I'm not inside their heads. His performance in the playoffs proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had a pretty good understanding all along of how valuable players like him really are, and trying to turn it into an argument into predicting what happens with him is just deflecting the fact that you were completely wrong in your assessment of his value. Pretty much everyone acted like I was nuts in January when I said they should keep him on his current deal.

[coolhandluke121]

 

There are a number of players who could be signed to reasonable deals that the Bucks could target and then sign Lopez to the full MLE...if he's not too offended by that. Marcus Morris would be a great fit with the Bucks. Patrick Beverly would be a great fit. It's really not a decision between Kyrie and losing everyone...which I believe you know, you for some reason are just choosing to be difficult here...in a thread YOU created to discuss the Bucks off-season.

 

You can't use the full MLE if you use cap space. You continue to have really strong opinions about things when you have huge gaps in your knowledge of the CBA. We've been through this before and I don't understand why you insist on being so over-confident in the things you assert. The CBA is exceedingly complex and I've made some mistakes too, but knowing which MLE you have under which circumstances is pretty basic stuff.

[coolhandluke121]

"Hill shouldn't be waived."

"You're wrong, Hill will be waived!"

"I didn't say he won't be waived, I said he shouldn't be waived."

"Oh how convenient of you to back-track before you're proven wrong!"

[lcbj68c]

The CBA is exceedingly complex and I've made some mistakes too, but knowing which MLE you have under which circumstances is pretty basic stuff.

 

[monkeyman343434]

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2019/06/five-key-offseason-questions-milwaukee-bucks-2.html

 

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2019/06/2019-nba-offseason-salary-cap-digest-milwaukee-bucks.html

[HiAndTight]

But, the Kawhi trade was for postseason and he made a great deal on it for what he gave up. Stole him with eyes on playoffs only, not regular season. Then sat him a ton of games, which hurt the record you bring up.

 

 

They went 18-4 without Kawhi playing. That's a 67 win pace.

 

 

How is that a bad thing? Sounds like a GM who built a deep great team, so good that he could rest it's best players a lot (lowry also sat 17 games) and still win, that was well rested and ready to win in the playoffs. Yea, definitely a knock on him.

 

I'm done here. You're completely fabricating statements to try to further your argument.

 

It was a regular season award. The Bucks improved by 16 games. Toronto by negative 1.

 

Which GM did a better job improving his team during the regular season?

 

 

 

The job of an executive is to build a CHAMPIONSHIP team. There is no question who did a better job of that. There is no need to fabricate a statement. The 2018-2019 NBA Champions=Toronto Raptors. They'd failed several years in a row to win a title, they did something drastic to change that.

 

And I don't know where it says the Executive of the year award is supposed to go to the guy who did the best job improving the team in the regular season. Horst took the best player(who was already on his team) and added a couple guys who fit well, hired a good coach(though Ujiri also fired the coach of the year and hired an unknown who did a very good job).

 

I'm glad our guy won it, but it's really kinda ridiculous in this case. It should have gone to the guy who risked the future of his franchise and that enormous risk paid off for him in a big way.

[True Blue Brew Crew]

The job of an executive is to build a CHAMPIONSHIP team. There is no question who did a better job of that. There is no need to fabricate a statement. The 2018-2019 NBA Champions=Toronto Raptors. They'd failed several years in a row to win a title, they did something drastic to change that.

 

And I don't know where it says the Executive of the year award is supposed to go to the guy who did the best job improving the team in the regular season. Horst took the best player(who was already on his team) and added a couple guys who fit well, hired a good coach(though Ujiri also fired the coach of the year and hired an unknown who did a very good job).

 

I'm glad our guy won it, but it's really kinda ridiculous in this case. It should have gone to the guy who risked the future of his franchise and that enormous risk paid off for him in a big way.

 

Lots of rather large holes in this but let's just keep it simple. They vote on the award at the end of the regular season. At that time, the guy who won the award had done more to improve his team from the previous year. The guy you're touting had actually seen his team win fewer games.

 

So given those facts, it far from "ridiculous". If you want to argue that it's ridiculous that awards are given without the entire season, (including playoffs) in mind, then that's something I can get on board with.

[tmwiese55]

Agree, it's far from ridiculous. And Horst did build a championship level team. Granted, the key was simply the right coaching hire(and role players) as opposed to having to aquire key starters and all that, but he still did build a team that at time of vote was the 2-4th most likely team to win the title. Same spot Tor was in at time of vote. Far from ridiculous. I've laid out my points already just plenty. but add this though, if GSW doesn't get hurt does that then mean Tor shouldn't win the award? No. I was giving the credit to the years of right moves allowing him the ability to reshape the whole team and that the Kawhi/Gasol trades were basically steals.

 

Time to move on. Only two days away from the craziness.

[HiAndTight]

 

 

Ok, so you think Hill's going to obviously get waived, these are just the disclaimers so when it happens you aren't wrong.

And what team do you think is going to want to pay Hill 18 million to claim him off waivers when they could just let him pass through(as he's going to) and then sign him for a quarter of that?

 

I never said he would wouldn't be waived so stop with that nonsense. I said he shouldn't be waived, and I've already been proven right about his value because of the fact that he was literally the 2nd-best player in the playoffs on a 60-win team. Where you're completely lost is on his real value if you think he's only worth $4.5m after the way he played the last 3 months of the season. It's okay though. Sometimes it's hard for casual fans to understand how valuable a guy like him is without the flashy numbers. I'm cautiously optimistic that the Bucks understand it too, but if not, they wouldn't be the first team to over-value box score stats and underestimate intangibles.

 

I didn't say he would be claimed either, just that there's a good chance he would be. He might be waived or he might not. He might be claimed or he might not. I don't have a strong opinion either way. My argument is, and always has been, about what I think he's worth and how valuable he is, not about predicting what's actually going to happen, so knock it off with turning it into that. I've been talking about how good he is since January while everyone else thought he was just an average back-up PG on an expiring contract. I've been saying they should keep him at his current contract because they can't afford to lose him, not because I have any insight into whether they're going to or not.

 

I have no way of knowing if they'll keep him or not. I have no way of knowing if he would be claimed on waivers. I can only speculate. I think some team will see that he's an asset on his current contract, and I hope it's the Bucks... but I'm not inside their heads. His performance in the playoffs proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had a pretty good understanding all along of how valuable players like him really are, and trying to turn it into an argument into predicting what happens with him is just deflecting the fact that you were completely wrong in your assessment of his value. Pretty much everyone acted like I was nuts in January when I said they should keep him on his current deal.

 

 

How exactly have you been "proven right?" If OTB thinks Hill is worth 4.5 million(I haven't seen him say that, but if he does) he may be undervaluing him. Certainly not nearly as much as you're overvaluing him. And again, it's not just 3 months he played poorly. It was his entire season and the previous post-season.

 

You're also grossly over-valuing a player who made very little impact this year and who struggled with LeBron in the playoffs last year.

 

Anyway, to steal a page from your books, It looks like I was actually right, they're going to use the cap space they have available and try to sign Lopez after they waive Hill(A foregone conclusion since the moment they traded for him).

 

Here's the bottom line...and I man not be a "real" fan like you either, but there are two things you don't pay guys on. How much fat you can see on their arms from your TV and how they perform over a short period of time when every other indicator shows they're regressing.

 

Hill's value is not 19 million dollars. It may be 6-7. 3 years, 21 million would work for me.

 

Which brings me back to stretching Leuer, renouncing Mirotic and the Bucks could have the room to bring back Hill or another veteran PG and sign Lopez. Or just find a veteran PG in the season, Hill was basically a throw in to match contracts with from Cleveland.

 

Look, Luke, you dug your heels in on Hill and he had a good playoffs, but these are his numbers in the post-season last year

 

29.3 MPG

31 pct 3 PT%

45 pct from the field

9 PPG

2.2 Assists

2.2 Rebounds

 

Now, this regular season(not 3 months, the entire season, though his numbers were worse with the Bucks)

 

21.7 MPG

31 pct 3 PT%

45 pct FG%

7.6 PPG

2.6 RB

2.1 Assists

 

 

And again, keep in mind that I used his FULL season numbers(if I'd just used his numbers with the Bucks they were quite it worse).

 

You feel somehow you've "proven" that he's worth 19 million dollars next year because he was good in the playoffs?

 

His numbers this past regular season where nearly identical to his numbers in last years post-season.

 

Also, he was not the 2nd best playoff on the Bucks in the playoffs. Malcolm Brogdon was. But we did need him very much and he was injured for part of it. We do NOT need him at 19 million when there are a number of other guys we could have for much less money and I honestly don't get why you've spent so much time talking about George Hill. The only thing I can come up with is it's your way of telling everyone how right you are just like that truly ridiculous body fat obsession you have.

 

And in fact, after looking at what he's done the last couple years, I don't see him getting much more than 4.5 million this off-season. I sure don't see any chance that a team picks him up on waivers. Maybe someone makes the mistake of overpaying him because he had a good playoff series, but that doesn't seem like it'd be a great idea.

 

You don't pay a backup 19 million dollars because they were good coming off the bench in the post-season despite being just downright terrible for you in the regular season and bad in the previous postseason. Those are the mistakes that teams in every sport have been making for decades. Tell me how often that has worked out?

 

 

Finally, if you don't believe George Hill is coming back, then why in God's name have you spent soooooo much time obsessing over him and telling everyone how right you are about him and how anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand the game as well as you do? This is what's truly confounding.

 

With every discussion we've had about the Bucks off-season moves, you've included Hill into them, thereby eliminating the salary cap space they actually DO have right now even though you never really thought he was going to come back? I'm really trying to understand the point of this? Of course....we've already heard that whoever doesn't agree with you on matters related to the NBA isn't the type of intellectual you are, they're just a "casual" fan.

 

 

Here are the facts from this "casual" fan.

 

-Hill was the guy who's contract matched up in the Cavs trade.

-He had a LOT of playoff exepriance, so that was a plus, but he was afterthought in the trade, the priority was getting Delly and Henson's money off the books.

-He performed poorly in an extended playoff run though the finals last year with the Cavs.

-He played poorly this regular season with the Cavs.

-He played even worse in the regular season with the Bucks.

 

-He stepped up big when Bledsoe got shook in the playoffs and played about 20 MPG, and despite disappeaering at times like Game 1 vs Toronto when he was held scoreless or game 4 when he also played poorly and scored 5 points, on the whole, he was very good for us in the post-season.

 

 

Now explain to me how all that "proves" you were right that the Bucks should pay him 19 million dollars next season. Just saying you're right is easy and you do enjoy doing so. But how does ALL of that add up to 19 million dollars which again, for a CBA expert such as yourself surely knows, would equate to far more than that depending on how far into the luxury tax they go.

[HiAndTight]

The job of an executive is to build a CHAMPIONSHIP team. There is no question who did a better job of that. There is no need to fabricate a statement. The 2018-2019 NBA Champions=Toronto Raptors. They'd failed several years in a row to win a title, they did something drastic to change that.

 

And I don't know where it says the Executive of the year award is supposed to go to the guy who did the best job improving the team in the regular season. Horst took the best player(who was already on his team) and added a couple guys who fit well, hired a good coach(though Ujiri also fired the coach of the year and hired an unknown who did a very good job).

 

I'm glad our guy won it, but it's really kinda ridiculous in this case. It should have gone to the guy who risked the future of his franchise and that enormous risk paid off for him in a big way.

 

Lots of rather large holes in this but let's just keep it simple. They vote on the award at the end of the regular season. At that time, the guy who won the award had done more to improve his team from the previous year. The guy you're touting had actually seen his team win fewer games.

 

So given those facts, it far from "ridiculous". If you want to argue that it's ridiculous that awards are given without the entire season, (including playoffs) in mind, then that's something I can get on board with.

 

 

You're right. That's the award that shouldn't be a regular season award however is my thinking. That the other executives thought Horst was the best at the end of the regular season is not ridiculous. That this award is voted on at that time is.

 

I can see the other awards, they're voted on by the writers. But the Executives vote on the Executive of the year and that should be done after the playoffs as the whole point is to win a Title.

 

So I stand corrected, it wasn't ridiculous Horst won it, I think the way they do it is ridiculous.

[HiAndTight]

The "chatter" on the interwebs, is that the Bucks and Lopez could sign an extension, then sign Middleton, then sign (or match) Brogdon, and in the meantime, waive George Hill, and at this point Niko is gone. Which, I feel like this scenario has to play out to justify the Snell/30 trade.

 

In the above scenario, the team has 10 guys signed. Bledsoe, Brogdon, DDV, Pat C, Brown, K-Midd, Ersan, Wilson, Giannis, Lopez.

 

What happens next? Seems that the team would have great guard and wing depth, but a little thin up front. How do you see the team filling the roster after this? I'm guessing they would have to sign everyone else coming in at veteran minimum contracts?

 

 

They'd still have a MLE with whom they could sign someome.

[tmwiese55]

In that scenario. You desperately need a reliable backup PG who can respectably shoot. Your Hill, Collison types. Seth Curry could be one too, probably a bit less ball handling from him than preferred but still.

[HiAndTight]

In that scenario. You desperately need a reliable backup PG who can respectably shoot. Your Hill, Collison types. Seth Curry could be one too, probably a bit less ball handling from him than preferred but still.

 

 

Right. That's why I was advocating you free up the cap space to sign the guys who you don't have bird rights to OR try to sign someone else. Patrick Beverly has hit 40 pct of his last 1000 three-pointers. He was harassing the hell outta Kevin Durant on the block and up in Steph's face on the perimeter. He's probably the best defensive PG in the NBA and he can shoot it.

 

So hypothetically, you sign him for ~3/21, you use the rest on Lopez, maybe Morris is willing to sign for the MLE then(NOT using salary cap space as you'd then be at the cap, which I believe is what Ontheblack was saying, but I could be wrong).

 

I don't think that's what we'll actually do. I could see Collison signing. But I don't think we're going to clear any cap space to sign anyone other than Lopez. I think they'll be able to find a veteran PG later on(or use the MLE on Hill, he did say he was more concerned with winning than money when asked).

[OnTheBlack]

"Hill shouldn't be waived."

"You're wrong, Hill will be waived!"

"I didn't say he won't be waived, I said he shouldn't be waived."

"Oh how convenient of you to back-track before you're proven wrong!"

 

 

Is that how the conversation went? I think you forgot about 6 lines in there where you claim you were once again right(without actually being so).

 

You claim Hill has somehow "proven" that he's worth 19 million dollars. Really? Because he averaged 10 PPG and was a good, reliable backup in the playoffs?

 

No, he hasn't proven anything close to that. He's proven he's a valuable veteran ball handler and that's important. NOT that he's worth 19 million a year. Especially when we're trading away first round picks to clear payroll. It's actually really a ridiculous claim to suggest he's "proven it" given what he's done over the 2 years as a whole. You want to pick out about 15 games and value them MORE than the playoff games he played last year, exponentially more than the regular season games he played this year(or the year before that for that matter). Again, as I've tried telling you, just saying something is true, doesn't make it so.

 

And you can't use the MLE if you use your cap space to sign players first? Please show me in the CBA where it says that.

 

But it looks like I'm right. As I've been saying for 9 pages while you've been clinging to this pipe dream that we were going to pay George Hill 19 million that he's getting waived, we're renouncing Mirotic and we'll use the cap space we have to try to sign Lopez at the very least and then still have the MLE.

[OnTheBlack]

 

 

Ok, so you think Hill's going to obviously get waived, these are just the disclaimers so when it happens you aren't wrong.

And what team do you think is going to want to pay Hill 18 million to claim him off waivers when they could just let him pass through(as he's going to) and then sign him for a quarter of that?

 

I never said he would wouldn't be waived so stop with that nonsense. I said he shouldn't be waived, and I've already been proven right about his value because of the fact that he was literally the 2nd-best player in the playoffs on a 60-win team. Where you're completely lost is on his real value if you think he's only worth $4.5m after the way he played the last 3 months of the season. It's okay though. Sometimes it's hard for casual fans to understand how valuable a guy like him is without the flashy numbers. I'm cautiously optimistic that the Bucks understand it too, but if not, they wouldn't be the first team to over-value box score stats and underestimate intangibles.

 

I didn't say he would be claimed either, just that there's a good chance he would be. He might be waived or he might not. He might be claimed or he might not. I don't have a strong opinion either way. My argument is, and always has been, about what I think he's worth and how valuable he is, not about predicting what's actually going to happen, so knock it off with turning it into that. I've been talking about how good he is since January while everyone else thought he was just an average back-up PG on an expiring contract. I've been saying they should keep him at his current contract because they can't afford to lose him, not because I have any insight into whether they're going to or not.

 

I have no way of knowing if they'll keep him or not. I have no way of knowing if he would be claimed on waivers. I can only speculate. I think some team will see that he's an asset on his current contract, and I hope it's the Bucks... but I'm not inside their heads. His performance in the playoffs proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had a pretty good understanding all along of how valuable players like him really are, and trying to turn it into an argument into predicting what happens with him is just deflecting the fact that you were completely wrong in your assessment of his value. Pretty much everyone acted like I was nuts in January when I said they should keep him on his current deal.

 

 

 

This is just comical. You telling ME that I'm not accurately valuing George Hill while you're claiming the Bucks in their financial situation SHOULD pay him 19 million this year and then at the same time just lying and making up a number out of....I'm not really sure where you got the 4.5 million that I valued Hill at. THIS is how no matter WHAT we're talking about, you always find a way to tell everyone and repeat it over and over and over that you told everyone so. You create a strawman argument and then argue against that. I've agreed with you that we should try to bring Hill back. You're too obtuse to see the distinction between me believing that we should try to bring him back and that we should pay him 19 million.

 

I mean....the things you call yourself an expert at are almost cute. You're an "expert" at telling how much body fat a guy has because you have really good eye sight and you found a chart of body builders online and now you're an expert on NBA players values while us laymen or "casual" fans(and EVERYONE else) thinks that if we don't pick up George Hill, no other team is likely gonna jump at the chance to pick him up on waivers and pay 19 million for the right.

 

But I'm curious, what is VanVleet worth? 25 million? I mean..I'm not an expert like you, but he played outstanding D on Curry and hit quite a few big shots in the playoffs. He's GOTTA be worth at least what Hill is, right? He HAS to be worth more than the guy who was bad last season, bad in the playoffs last year, is getting older, but was good in the playoffs, no? In fact, I'd go so far as to say the Raptors should just try to give VanVleet the Max(sadly he can't get the supermax because the laymen who vote for things like All NBA look at superficial things like shooting pct, points and the like).

 

 

It's taken 9 pages here and how many other comments for you to even acknowledge the fact that Hill COULD be waived because it's just a few days away from it actually happening.

 

Yet when I say we should use up the cap room we actually have to sign players, him included because I think we need a veteran PG, just not at an objectively stupid number, and THEN(those are big words and THEN) use our MLE, I don't know what I'm talking about?

 

Please tell me why you don't get a MLE in that scenario? And if you could once, try using the words that were actually used by me, don't just make things up and create figures and then attribute them to me.

 

I'll make it REALLY simple for you though because you're clearly confused here. The primary objective in the trade for George Hill was clean up the financial situation. Nobody in the NBA is paying Hill 19 million or 10 million next year.

 

I am curious though, if there ANY scenario that could take place, ANY sequence of events in which you will NOT have been right? Because I've seen you claim you were "right" about everything, regardless of how wrong you ACTUALLY were. How about this, if Hill makes closer to 19 million than the 4.5 million you made up and claimed I said he'd sign for, you were right. If he makes closer to the 4.5 that I never actually said, I was right.

[monkeyman343434]

In that scenario. You desperately need a reliable backup PG who can respectably shoot. Your Hill, Collison types. Seth Curry could be one too, probably a bit less ball handling from him than preferred but still.

 

 

Right. That's why I was advocating you free up the cap space to sign the guys who you don't have bird rights to OR try to sign someone else. Patrick Beverly has hit 40 pct of his last 1000 three-pointers. He was harassing the hell outta Kevin Durant on the block and up in Steph's face on the perimeter. He's probably the best defensive PG in the NBA and he can shoot it.

 

So hypothetically, you sign him for ~3/21, you use the rest on Lopez, maybe Morris is willing to sign for the MLE then(NOT using salary cap space as you'd then be at the cap, which I believe is what Ontheblack was saying, but I could be wrong).

 

I don't think that's what we'll actually do. I could see Collison signing. But I don't think we're going to clear any cap space to sign anyone other than Lopez. I think they'll be able to find a veteran PG later on(or use the MLE on Hill, he did say he was more concerned with winning than money when asked).

 

It's been reported Beverly is looking for 3/40, so that 3/21 is not even close to what it will take.

[HiAndTight]

In that scenario. You desperately need a reliable backup PG who can respectably shoot. Your Hill, Collison types. Seth Curry could be one too, probably a bit less ball handling from him than preferred but still.

 

 

Right. That's why I was advocating you free up the cap space to sign the guys who you don't have bird rights to OR try to sign someone else. Patrick Beverly has hit 40 pct of his last 1000 three-pointers. He was harassing the hell outta Kevin Durant on the block and up in Steph's face on the perimeter. He's probably the best defensive PG in the NBA and he can shoot it.

 

So hypothetically, you sign him for ~3/21, you use the rest on Lopez, maybe Morris is willing to sign for the MLE then(NOT using salary cap space as you'd then be at the cap, which I believe is what Ontheblack was saying, but I could be wrong).

 

I don't think that's what we'll actually do. I could see Collison signing. But I don't think we're going to clear any cap space to sign anyone other than Lopez. I think they'll be able to find a veteran PG later on(or use the MLE on Hill, he did say he was more concerned with winning than money when asked).

 

It's been reported Beverly is looking for 3/40, so that 3/21 is not even close to what it will take.

 

 

Looking for and what he'll get may be different. But those were just a couple guys I mentioned. Ricky Rubio should be cheap. Daren Collison, it was reported may sign for the vets minimum.

 

And honestly, I don't think that's too unreasonable for Beverly. I've just seen much lower projections for how much he'd get this year. But split the difference, maybe 3/30 would get it done. Or maybe it wouldn't. He's got quite a few visits lined up but most of the teams that he's talking to have cap room, but are the teams that are looking to add one, maybe two max level players like the Clippers who obviously wouldn't use the room they have until the Kawhi situation is settled, the Lakers who are in the same boat and could be in on Kyrire(Though that's the place I'd least like to see him go....I actually hope the Lakers use their cap space on Kyrie instead of Beverly and 1 or 2 other good players).

 

The Nets, the Knicks, and Dallas I thought?

 

Anyway, it's not Beverly or bust.

 

 

 

Oh, and one other thing, not related to this thread, can we stop with the whining back and forth about who was right, who says they're right, how many times you turn out to be right and all the rest of it and just have a big boy talk about the off-season? That's not directed at any ONE person. There are at least TWO making this a way too petty. Bicker in PM's. Or use the Foe feature. I've come to love it.

[tmwiese55]

Looks like Beverly's cap hold is about 9 mil. I would assume to get two max spots Clips would have to renounce his rights (I did not dig into that). But say they only got Kawhi his best spot would be to just stay in LA imo. If they cleared space another way, like moving Gallinari or if they could fit two big FA contracts in before resigning Beverly then the Clips can go over to keep him. Basically just saying if they get Kawhi they have a legit shot at the title as they have a great supporting cast already assuming Beverly stays. I'd have my guess on him going back to LA.

 

But yea if we didn't have Bledsoe under contract he'd be a great guy to target instead.

[HiAndTight]

Looks like Beverly's cap hold is about 9 mil. I would assume to get two max spots Clips would have to renounce his rights (I did not dig into that). But say they only got Kawhi his best spot would be to just stay in LA imo. If they cleared space another way, like moving Gallinari or if they could fit two big FA contracts in before resigning Beverly then the Clips can go over to keep him. Basically just saying if they get Kawhi they have a legit shot at the title as they have a great supporting cast already assuming Beverly stays. I'd have my guess on him going back to LA.

 

But yea if we didn't have Bledsoe under contract he'd be a great guy to target instead.

 

 

 

If I was either LA team, I'd rather have multiple contributors to what they currently have than another Max in the case of the Lakers and two in the case of the Clippers.

 

Looking at that Clippers roster, that's pretty amazing they pushed the Warriors to 6. They're built with a great supporting cast, but they didn't have one star at all last year, especially after they traded Harris.

 

Doc coulda been COY for what he did there as well.

 

I doubt we'll get Beverly, but my point all along is that we can find a PG. That while Hill was good in the playoffs, you really don't want to pay him that much money when he's been really medicore the last couple years.

 

Darren Collison has hit 42.4 pct of his 3's the last 4 years and has hit over 40 pct over the last 1200 he's taken and while he's not Beverly or Hill defensively, he doesn't have to be.

 

There are guys who we can find. George Hill wasn't on anyone on here's radar going into the year.

 

 

Edit-I'm thinking about too many things at once. Given how good the Clips front office has been, you'd imagine they'd definitely keep Beverly. They may need to wait to sign him to see what Kawhi does, but yeah, your point kinda went over my head. The Clips can add Kawhi and still pay Beverly whatever they agree to. He should be back in LA next year.

[HiAndTight]

Looks like Beverly's cap hold is about 9 mil. I would assume to get two max spots Clips would have to renounce his rights ([i]I did not dig into that[/i]). But say they only got Kawhi his best spot would be to just stay in LA imo. If they cleared space another way, like moving Gallinari or if they could fit two big FA contracts in before resigning Beverly then the Clips can go over to keep him. Basically just saying if they get Kawhi they have a legit shot at the title as they have a great supporting cast already assuming Beverly stays. I'd have my guess on him going back to LA.

 

But yea if we didn't have Bledsoe under contract he'd be a great guy to target instead.

 

 

Pfft....you casual fans....

[nate82]

Hill has been waived.

 

[sarcasm]I would like to thank my doubters on this I said this all along that he would be waived. Everyone was like no way Hill is like greater than MJ Everyone knows this!!!!!!1111oneoneone!!![/sarcasm]

 

 

https://www.thescore.com/nba/news/1791940/report-bucks-to-waive-hill

[HiAndTight]

Hill has been waived.

 

[sarcasm]I would like to thank my doubters on this I said this all along that he would be waived. Everyone was like no way Hill is like greater than MJ Everyone knows this!!!!!!1111oneoneone!!![/sarcasm]

 

 

https://www.thescore.com/nba/news/1791940/report-bucks-to-waive-hill

 

 

 

NOT at the fact that we're waiving Hill. We're losing a quality player(at least in the playoffs...usually) and that is never a good thing.

 

I'm just SOOOO glad we can now actually talk about what's REALLY going to happen and not have the conversation dominated by what we should do...even though we all knew we'd never actually do that.

 

 

Edit-Even better, they're talking about trying to re-sign him. I'm gonna guess it'll be ~6 per year. Maybe 3 years two guaranteed at 12 and a third like this one with 1 guaranteed and the rest not guaranteed to bring it to maybe 13 total?

[OnTheBlack]

Hill has been waived.

 

[sarcasm]I would like to thank my doubters on this I said this all along that he would be waived. Everyone was like no way Hill is like greater than MJ Everyone knows this!!!!!!1111oneoneone!!![/sarcasm]

 

 

https://www.thescore.com/nba/news/1791940/report-bucks-to-waive-hill

 

 

Milwaukee will attempt to re-sign the guard in free agency, Charania adds.

 

Aside from the pettiness and being condescended to for not being a real fan like Luke, I really hope they can bring him back. He's insurance against Bledsoe being bad in the playoffs again. I never said he's worth 4.5 million per year, but I'll bet that's probably right around what he'll get.

 

Now just renounce Mirotic and they can actually use some salary cap space to sign there players and THEN(the and then part is key here) use the MLE for teams over the cap but below the tax apron.