Bucks off-season thread (non-draft)

[HiAndTight]

 

 

 

Basically you can use cap space or you can use the full MLE, but not both. If at any point you can say "we are allowed to sign this contract only because we have the cap space to do it" and the league rubber-stamps it, you've lost the full MLE for the year. You have only the room MLE instead. Think of it this way - why would there be a room MLE if you could use cap space and then use the full MLE? There would be no reason for the room MLE to exist.

 

The exceptions are basically designed to give capped out teams some flexibility and keep the market moving for players, but they don't want teams that already have cap space to have the full MLE because they don't need it I guess.

 

You don't have to be over the cap to get the full MLE. You just can't cite "cap space" as your legal basis for signing anyone. For example, if you're only $3m under the cap, you might say screw it and take the full MLE, which would be a little more than the room MLE + $3m in cap space, allowing you to hopefully pay a slightly better player. And you can still sign minimum contracts, as those are always allowed regardless of cap space (unless maybe you're over the apron but that's an edge case).

 

I'd prefer a hard cap, but whatever.

 

What really bothers me about waiving Hill, besides my obvious affinity for his all-around contributions and how badly they need him, is that they still didn't really free up enough cap space to pay Lopez much more than the full MLE anyway, which is what they would have had if they hadn't waived Hill. So they're acting like they had to do it to keep Lopez, but that's not true. And they're acting like they have to stretch Leuer to create cap space, but that's not necessarily true either, although it would be true if Brogdon gets a huge offer (but they can wait until that happens to stretch Leuer). And they might even give up another asset to unload Ersan, claiming they need even more cap space. And after that, they might still lose Lopez and Hill to surprise over-bidders. And Mirotic supposedly wanted to stay, but the Bucks weren't even interested because they're too invested in trying to trick everyone into thinking they needed cap space when it sure looks like they're just trying to save money.

 

They had Bird Rights to everyone except Lopez, whom they could use the full MLE on, and they had Hill under contract. There's no excuse for probably losing multiple good players from a 60-win team under the circumstances. I think they're not being called on their b.s. because most people will accept the excuse that they had to free up cap space and prioritize certain guys, but I think that's a misdirection play for being cheap.

 

They do know more about what the players are thinking though, so I have my fingers crossed that they got assurances from Lopez and Hill that they would accept certain offers regardless of being able to get more elsewhere. They might get a lot more elsewhere though, now that the Bucks don't have Bird Rights to either of them and have only the room MLE.

 

Thank you. I appreciate that information. I follow the CBA, but loosely. I used to know all three of them a lot better, but it's just too much to keep up with.

 

 

I really would have thought that at least if you signed your own players and were over the cap you'd be able to use the full MLE to answer your rhetorical question why would you be able to do both. Even the Bucks, while we technically have "salary cap" room, we really don't.

 

But so it comes down to you can either use whatever cap space you have...or the full MLE. So...probably not much of a difference in this case in terms of money, but if we use our cap space to sign Lopez, we'll at least still have the room MLE to sign someone else. That COULD work out perfectly and we could end up running it back next year with everyone but Mirotic.

 

Kinda screws us as we're definitely going to go over the cap this year and into the luxury tax and once we DO go into the luxury tax, we're not going to be coming out of it for a while.

 

 

I'd really like to see the NBA go back to the old luxury tax system while we're on it. The dollar for dollar tax. This repeater tax and the incremental increases....unless the salary cap blows up in a few years(and even then, I believe Giannis will be getting 35 pct of the tax anyway) we're going to have a huge tax payment if we sign Brogdon and Middleton to what they're expected to get, and that's before what we could spend on any of our young players like Wilson or DDV. This is where two things come back to really bite us in the ass. The bad moves that we made when the salary cap exploded. I know a lot of teams made those mistakes, but we made them while we were developing a superstar, so we didn't really have a chance to clear our books, and reload. Horst has done a good job of getting rid of those deals(and even Snell, TBH, I thought he was going to be a really good 3 and D guy for us) but he's had to give up draft picks. It's one thing to steal Bled for a future 1st, but we've given up two others to dump 3 players.

 

And then it was just such a blow that Jabari got hurt twice and that a draft that was supposed to be so good at the top ended up producing two middling players(Wiggins isn't even a great defender which tells me he just doesn't care that much) and then a superstar who clearly is not in shape who I don't trust at all. I'd be willing to bet he's had the best year of his career.

 

That cost us our last best chance at getting a true #2 star. I like Middleton, but he's not that. And we're pretty much tying our hands for the next half decade because if we don't keep this group together, we'll lose Giannis anyway.

 

We REALLY have to get lucky and find a hidden gem somewhere. And I get people are upset about taking Thon over Sabonis and that looks really bad now, but I was fine with taking another big cut on Thon. Though if we had Sabonis, he'd be our #2 star and Midds would fit much better.

 

[sarcasm]Maybe Giannis will decide to go back and play for a year in Europe with his pal Mirotic so we can have a Duncan like situation in Milwaukee without the actual injury....[/sarcasm]

 

And back to Hill, realistically, they'll probably be able to get him for close to what ESPN has him at, 4-6 million dollars. He was very important, we all agree. But that was this year. I pointed out his recent past. And yes, I'd bet on him helping us again in the future, particularly in the post-season...but not at that price. I'd rather bring in Darren Collison for the vets minimum than do that.

 

You're taking a micro view of the finances instead of a macro one and I get that, its that Daryl Morely 5 pct theory, but I don't think our team will end up looking much different. Again, after signing Middleton and Brogdon and Lopez, they'll almost certainly be into the luxury tax. Once they're in, they won't get out until Giannis leaves Milwaukee.

 

So it's not just about how much they'll pay in tax NOW, it's about how much they'll be paying in the future. I don't think that makes them cheap. This isn't having Serge, Harden, KD, and Westbrook, coming off a finals appearance and making an offer to Harden for a few million less than he's worth so they don't have to pay the a small tax and giving him 1 hour to decide before dealing him. We're talking about tax bills that will end up being 80-100 million dollars for the Bucks(potentially).

 

I get that you like Hill...and I like him to. But I'm having a hard time justifying them paying Brogdon 19 or 20 million. How on Earth could they turn around and pay Hill that? Especially when he'll likely sign for significantly less than that.

 

As for them not having interest in Mirotic, I'm fine with that. They have Wilson. He has to prove he can do it over a sustained period of time, but he's shown in the limited action he can shoot and he's a much better defender than Mirotic. He's more active and athletic. And that's another ~15 million that we'd be looking at. It's one thing to expect the Bucks owners to pony up for a contender, it's another to just pay anyone and everyone who was on the team whatever they want. It's very possible that in Mirotic and Hill they saved themselves 25 million dollars, get Hill back and are actually better for it.

 

At this point, I'm just hoping if they do lose Brogdon, they at least get something back for him. Someone wants Brogdon bad enough to pay him 4/90, they have to give up a pick or a player or we threaten to just match, gauge their interest.

 

If the Suns do it, I want Josh Jackson. If the Mavs do it, I want their young Jackson. If the Pacers do it....I want Sabonis, but since that obviously wouldn't happen, they can give up a protected pick and the guy who went to Creighton and is a Kyle Korver type. Can't recall the name, it's escaping me(Doug McDermott) But he's pretty much exclusively a catch and shoot type player.

 

 

Here's an article I read a while back about Charlotte's dilemma with Kemba. It's somewhat similar to ours with Middleton if we didn't have Giannis(and I'd have let him walk in that scenario).

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mortenjensen/2019/05/23/nba-supermax-contracts-vs-repeater-tax-penalties-somethings-gotta-give/#7dddac30239e

 

 

It's hurting the small market teams more than the big ones.

[HiAndTight]

Supposedly Mirotic got 6/$80m from Barcelona, which is absolutely unheard of. He would be considered a basketball icon over there, but Euro teams have some history of defaulting on their payments (don't know if that's been addressed). In any case, it's more than double what I can remember any Euro player getting ever, though I haven't looked it up.

 

 

I swear I read that the highest paid player in that league made 4.6 million.

 

This feels like Jordan making 33.14 million in Chicago when the next highest paid guys were making like 5.

 

 

I guess there's no reason for him to NOT take it. If they do at some point default, he's already got money and I'm sure he'll always be able to find a home in the NBA. At least over the next few years.

[coolhandluke121]

 

 

Kinda screws us as we're definitely going to go over the cap this year and into the luxury tax and once we DO go into the luxury tax, we're not going to be coming out of it for a while.

 

 

You're taking a micro view of the finances instead of a macro one. Again, after signing Middleton and Brogdon and Lopez, they'll almost certainly be into the luxury tax. Once they're in, they won't get out until Giannis leaves Milwaukee.

 

So it's not just about how much they'll pay in tax NOW, it's about how much they'll be paying in the future. I hardly think that makes them cheap. This isn't having Serge, Harden, KD, and Westbrook, coming off a finals appearance and making an offer to Harden for a few million less than he's worth so they don't have to pay the tax and giving him 1 hour to decide.

 

I get that you like Hill...and I like him to. But I'm having a hard time justifying them paying Brogdon 19 or 20 million. How on Earth could they turn around and pay Hill that? Especially when he'll likely sign for significantly less than that.

 

 

I'm actually not convinced they're paying much tax at all. That's why I'm so suspicious of how things are playing out so far. They act like they have to make these moves, but it's pretty damn convenient that they even stand a chance of staying under the tax threshold, or at least the tax apron, when it's all said and done. Revenue sharing is pretty good in the NBA, and small markets can run huge payrolls when they're contenders - especially if they have a superstar who is potentially an icon.

 

But I'm actually taking a more macro view than they are. My plan would be to let Khris walk and keep everyone else. Hill, Leuer, and Ersan would be off the books and they'd be under the cap again next summer. Whereas locking in your starting 5 leaves in long-term tax territory with no BAE and only the tax MLE for flexibility in case someone gets hurt or declines. So my plan is probably much better for long-term fiscal health.

 

Really comes down to what you think of all the players though. Personally I think Khris, Mirotic, Bledsoe, Lopez, Brogdon, and Hill are all so close that I would much rather lose the "best" one and keep all the others than lose multiple guys.

[nate82]

Thinking Kawhi and Durant to the Clippers. Apparently Durant will be making his decision tonight. I am 90% confident it will be the Clippers with Kawhi going with him.

 

It is going to be funny when the Knicks don't sign anyone of note. Though I could see the Knicks giving Brogdon a $20m a year deal if they don't get Durant or Kawhi.

 

The Lakers are going to sign Russell if the Nets sign Kyrie which it looks like they will and that will eliminate them as a possibility for Brogdon.

[homer]

Woj bomb:

 

Lopez to sign with Milwaukee for 4/52

 

As I understand it (which is a tenuous understanding at best), this pretty much takes care of the cap room the Bucks had available. I think they have $2 million left?

[HiAndTight]

 

 

Kinda screws us as we're definitely going to go over the cap this year and into the luxury tax and once we DO go into the luxury tax, we're not going to be coming out of it for a while.

 

 

You're taking a micro view of the finances instead of a macro one. Again, after signing Middleton and Brogdon and Lopez, they'll almost certainly be into the luxury tax. Once they're in, they won't get out until Giannis leaves Milwaukee.

 

So it's not just about how much they'll pay in tax NOW, it's about how much they'll be paying in the future. I hardly think that makes them cheap. This isn't having Serge, Harden, KD, and Westbrook, coming off a finals appearance and making an offer to Harden for a few million less than he's worth so they don't have to pay the tax and giving him 1 hour to decide.

 

I get that you like Hill...and I like him to. But I'm having a hard time justifying them paying Brogdon 19 or 20 million. How on Earth could they turn around and pay Hill that? Especially when he'll likely sign for significantly less than that.

 

 

I'm actually not convinced they're paying much tax at all. That's why I'm so suspicious of how things are playing out so far. They act like they have to make these moves, but it's pretty damn convenient that they even stand a chance of staying under the tax threshold, or at least the tax apron, when it's all said and done. Revenue sharing is pretty good in the NBA, and small markets can run huge payrolls when they're contenders - especially if they have a superstar who is potentially an icon.

 

But I'm actually taking a more macro view than they are. My plan would be to let Khris walk and keep everyone else. Hill, Leuer, and Ersan would be off the books and they'd be under the cap again next summer. Whereas locking in your starting 5 leaves in long-term tax territory with no BAE and only the tax MLE for flexibility in case someone gets hurt or declines. So my plan is probably much better for long-term fiscal health.

 

Really comes down to what you think of all the players though. Personally I think Khris, Mirotic, Bledsoe, Lopez, Brogdon, and Hill are all so close that I would much rather lose the "best" one and keep all the others than lose multiple guys.

 

Well, they may not this year. That'll depend. They WOULD have paid quite a bit had they not waived Hill. But if they could structure the contracts so that they don't pay it this year, that would postpone some of the long term impacts.

 

But moving on;

Ok, so you've let Middleton go, the second best player on the Bucks and the "Perfect teammate for Giannis" as the article said, so you've hurt your chances as winning next year badly and you've also hurt your chance of keeping Giannis around significantly and as YOU'VE said when you smartly advocated keeping him, it's Middleton or nobody. So anything that causes you to lose your best player other than Giannis and increases your chances of losing Giannis is not taking the Macro view unless of course, you're talking about tearing down and building it up again after Giannis leaves because they let Middleton walk, and I doubt that. And lets say they do let Midds walk. After they sign Lopez, Brogdon, Giannis to a supermax, where are they getting the money to go into the FA market to compete, much less WHO are they getting?

 

And who says we're going to lose more than one of Khris, Bled(already signed), Lopez(signed), Brogdon(RFA) and Hill..who I'm just getting so sick of talking about because he's a veteran who's going to sign for a fraction of the 18 million dollars. Which is really ALL this is about. The Bucks waived him and they're now trying to sign him to a deal that makes some type of sense. I really can't understand this. You're for signing keeping Hill for 18 million next year when you can probably have him for about a third of that, but against keeping Middleton for 30? That doesn't compute with me. And obviously Mirotic was never really an option. I doubt he had such an affinity for the city of Milwaukee, a city where he did not play well, that he was willing to take a deal that would have made any sense.

 

So the Bucks can bring back ALL of those guys other than Mirotic. So instead of keeping them all instead of the best one, they kept them all instead of the worst one(at least when it came to the playoffs).

 

 

But going back to your initial point, you're not convinced they stay out of the luxury tax. That'd be great if they could pull that off. Awesome. It'd likely give them more room in the future to make moves. Because they'll definitely be in it the next 3+ years IF Giannis signs, so that tax bill is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. So does it really matter? If they're in it 3 out of 4 years, they get hit with the repeaters tax. So staying out of it any year they could would be a GOOD thing.

 

 

And yes, they have money. They don't have endless resources. They're not going to be able to pay a 100 million in luxury taxes year after year.

 

But again, it really seems like this is still 99 pct to do with George Hill being waived and I don't get it. He is not in the same group as Brogdon, Middleton, Bledsoe. They're in their primes. So you're creating this choice of Hill or this player, when that was never on the table. Or putting Hill in a group that he just does not belong financially. The 34 year old PG was not getting the 18 million. And they're still talking about keeping him for a more realistic number. They could use their MLE now to keep him. They haven't misled us, they haven't lied, they haven't been cheap. Keeping Hill at 18 would have been irresponsible team management. And at least as of the past year plus, they've been making very smart decisions and doing the right things to keep Giannis around.

[wallus]

Middleton 5 year max. What a stupid, stupid deal.

 

*Update: ONLY 178 million with a player option. Still horrible.

[HiAndTight]

Woj bomb:

 

Lopez to sign with Milwaukee for 4/52

 

As I understand it (which is a tenuous understanding at best), this pretty much takes care of the cap room the Bucks had available. I think they have $2 million left?

 

 

I saw that. Absolutely awesome. Now use the MLE to sign Hill, sounds like they have a deal in place for Middleton and you go out and make an offer that's too good for Brogdon to pass up, 4 years at 64 and run it back with your team back together in the second year of Buds system and Giannis another year old with a few thousand more hours in the gym!

[nate82]

Didn't expect to see Durant to sign with the Nets but that is the latest rumor. I wonder if this means the Nets are going to resign Russell over Kyrie.

[monkeyman343434]

I think a lot of the appeal with Hill and the $18M contract, is that the $18M contract is a very valuable asset, teams are always trying to trade for expiring contracts for various reasons, and it would help match up a trade for a disgruntled superstar if such a scenario would appear (this typically happens multiple times a year, either during the season or in the offseason). It's not JUST paying Hill $18M which obviously he's not worth at this point. It's a combo of he fills a great role on the team - which is why the team wants to bring him back, and if the situation presented itself, that expiring contract could/would have been extremely valuable.

[monkeyman343434]

After signing Brogdon for 64 over 4 years, maybe we can get Beverly for 21 over 3 years too!

[HiAndTight]

Middleton 5 year max. What a stupid, stupid deal.

 

*Update: ONLY 178 million with a player option. Still horrible.

 

 

What would you have done? He was getting the max from someone. You could be the one to pay him....or you could just let him leave and you still don't have any cap room to do anything. You can't replace him.

 

 

 

This is both an overpay and absolutely 100 pct necessary. You can't let your 2nd best player go for nothing the summer before Giannis has to decide if he wants to stick around with his number 1 factor being can he win with team right now.

 

So again, what IS the alternative? You're not replacing Middleton's skill set unless you used Brogdon to sign and trade for a guy like Porter and I don't see why the Bulls would do that.

 

 

So give me the overpay and the all star player rather than nobody and more money in the owners pockets. Ill take the first deal every day of the week.

[HiAndTight]

I think a lot of the appeal with Hill and the $18M contract, is that the $18M contract is a very valuable asset, teams are always trying to trade for expiring contracts for various reasons, and it would help match up a trade for a disgruntled superstar if such a scenario would appear (this typically happens multiple times a year, either during the season or in the offseason). It's not JUST paying Hill $18M which obviously he's not worth at this point. It's a combo of he fills a great role on the team - which is why the team wants to bring him back, and if the situation presented itself, that expiring contract could/would have been extremely valuable.

 

 

Well, that's not at all been the discussion on here. The argument on here has been that he's worth that and that the Bucks owners were being cheap.

 

And an expiring contract has value, but that's more for a team like the Cavs. Not a team that's focused on keeping their players together to win a title THIS YEAR.

 

 

When Hill's contract had value is when we traded for it. Last year when we used it to dump two players we didn't want for what was basically an expiring contract this year.

[HiAndTight]

After signing Brogdon for 64 over 4 years, maybe we can get Beverly for 21 over 3 years too!

 

 

Were you not the one who pointed out that Beverly wanted more money than that?

 

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or what, but something went over my head.

 

I'm saying I'd rather the Bucks go after Brogdon first and not sit back and wait for teams that miss out to go after him.

[HiAndTight]

Didn't expect to see Durant to sign with the Nets but that is the latest rumor. I wonder if this means the Nets are going to resign Russell over Kyrie.

 

 

I thought it was KD and Kyrie to the Knicks. Then it suddenly became the Nets.

 

I REALLY hope that Russell is the one who signs with the Lakers. If Kawhi signs with them, they're going to be just too talented to beat in the near future. Too good defensively in a playoff series. You can't have the two best players in the world and then another top 5.

 

That would really trump the big 3 from his Heat days.

 

 

My guess would be Kawhi-Clippers

It would have been KD/Kyrie to NYN, now it sounds like Nets.

DeAngelo to the LAL.

 

Dallas is gonna go after Bogdonovich or whatever pretty hard and I'd imagine quite a few teams will be going after Brogdon.

 

What happens with Butler, Harris is the next interesting waive. Would the Sixers really try to snake Brogdon and let Harris walk? And would the Bucks let them?

[wallus]

After signing Brogdon for 64 over 4 years, maybe we can get Beverly for 21 over 3 years too!

 

Brogdon will get more than that, probably 20 per year.

[HiAndTight]

KD, Kyrie AND DeAndre Jordan to the Nets.

[wallus]

Middleton 5 year max. What a stupid, stupid deal.

 

*Update: ONLY 178 million with a player option. Still horrible.

 

 

What would you have done?

 

I would have let him walk for this kind of money. He was benched for being lazy in a contract year and just isn't that good.

[HiAndTight]

After signing Brogdon for 64 over 4 years, maybe we can get Beverly for 21 over 3 years too!

 

Brogdon will get more than that, probably 20 per year.

 

 

Still, doesn't hurt to be aggressive and offer him 16 a year first. The Bucks reportedly have a..."walk away" number for Brogdon.

 

My guess is that it's around 20. I hope it's not, I hope they'd keep him at 20. But I'd hope they'd go to him with anoffer first and hope he'd sign.

[homer]

I realize the Middleton money doesn't count towards the cap right now but is there a point when it does? If not then the money really doesn't matter too much does it? Other than the owners having to pay the luxury tax.

[HiAndTight]

Middleton 5 year max. What a stupid, stupid deal.

 

*Update: ONLY 178 million with a player option. Still horrible.

 

 

What would you have done?

 

I would have let him walk for this kind of money. He was benched for being lazy in a contract year and just isn't that good.

 

 

 

Oh please. He was used as an example for playing lackadaisical defense, something the entire team was doing and Bud even said that benching Middleton made a stronger point. And you're talking about the first couple weeks of the season.

 

 

Also, HERE is my question in its entirety;

 

What would you have done? He was getting the max from someone. You could be the one to pay him....or you could just let him leave and you still don't have any cap room to do anything. You can't replace him.

 

You can't just take one part out of context. How do you replace the production of a two way player like Khris Middleton? And how do you justify letting your 2nd all-star walk the year before Giannis is set to decide if he's going to stay in Milwaukee or leave?

 

This was spend the money on Middleton or just pocket the money. That he was used as a scapegoat early in the year by Coach Bud who then went on to rave about him over and over is utterly meaningless.

 

 

He's overpaid. We all agree. But it wasn't Middleton of DeAngelo Russell. Or Middleton vs Klay Thompson(who didn't want to come to Milwaukee when he was coming out of college in the first place).

 

This was literally Middleton or nobody. So my question is, what would you have done to make the Bucks a contender after letting their 2nd best player walk out of the door to another team on a max deal the year before the best player your franchise has seen in 50 years decides if he's going to stay or if he's going to leave Milwaukee and he's said he's going to make that decision based upon his chance to win.

 

So who's coming in on the vets minimum to pick up for Middleton?

[HiAndTight]

I realize the Middleton money doesn't count towards the cap right now but is there a point when it does? If not then the money really doesn't matter too much does it? Other than the owners having to pay the luxury tax.

 

 

No, it does not matter at all. The Bucks cap space was negligible after signing Lopez. They didn't realistically have the cap space to sign anyone even close to Middleton and that would require that they also let Lopez go as they'd have had to use the cap space to sign whoever you're getting to replace Middleton.

 

 

I would get not liking this if it was the Brewers or the Packers, but this only impacts the owners. The only thing at stake for the fans is do we keep him or let him go.

 

 

If we didn't have Giannis, I'd have let him walk in a second and I'd be back in rebuilding mode. But we do. We have that transcendent superstar, so paying Middleton a little more than we think he's worth vs another team signing him a max deal, I'll take overpaying him a little bit and proving to Giannis we're committed.

[nodakfan17]

I like Middleton, but this feels a lot like Michael Redd’s max contract. Good player? Sure. Good guy? You bet. Max contract? Meh.

 

* I know it’s not a true max, but it’s about 93% of a max contract.

[homer]

So basically, the Bucks choice was 1) have very little cap space and let Mids walk or 2) have very little cap space and sign Middleton?

[HiAndTight]

I like Middleton, but this feels a lot like Michael Redd’s max contract. Good player? Sure. Good guy? You bet. Max contract? Meh.

 

* I know it’s not a true max, but it’s about 93% of a max contract.

 

 

I'd agree. He's a much more well-rounded player than Redd, a better defender, but your point remains.

 

 

But I'll continue to argue that we both overpaid and that it was a smart move. With Redd, we didn't have another star to pair him with and were operating on a totally different level.

 

Signing Redd to a max deal helped us try to be a lower seeded playoff team in the East. Overpaying Middleton helps us try to bring back the team we had last year with more experience and try to take the next step.

 

 

I do think Middleton is a little underappreciated, but even still, he's a clear rung below Klay, Butler and those guys. I'd put him above Tobias Harris though and he's likely going to get a similar type deal. So all things being equal, I'd say he's worth 5 years 125 million.

 

But again, that guy with all the vowels in his name, he changes the entire equation.