Scoot McGroot wrote: pacers33granger wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:So when Hill and Lopez expire, they're just not going to sign players to fill that roster/cap space?
Not what I said at all.
I didn't say or intimate that was what you said. I was asking you a question in response to your written statement.
But this completely ignores the fact that Brogdon's money would have caused a giant tax bill in those years. They clearly valued flexibility in that first year of the Giannis extension. They felt they could spend $20 mil better or get multiple pieces like Hill/Lopez cheaper. They'd have a tough time filling out the roster if they had another big contract on the books for those years.
Scoot McGroot wrote: pacers33granger wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:If your belief is that Milwaukee was going to let Brogdon walk for anything, and that Simon just up and called and gave up picks, I'm not sure how you can keep following the franchise with that kind of malfeasance. We've negotiated with a lot of RFA's, but usually waited until we get them to be renounced. Simon also isn't the only owner who tends to stay away from restricted free agents. The number that avoid it is probably larger than the few who dive in fully.
I have not heard of any other owner who has a similar rule in place. It's been reported as "old school" and not something other owners do. I've heard of plenty of teams avoiding certain RFAs out of fear their space will be tied up, but that's more risk aversion than policy. I also cannot remember any RFAs we've actually negotiated with and assume any you're referencing were solely for the event they were renounced
The two bolded parts are linked and answer itself. Think of Copeland and Bogs specifically. We had a negotiated contract ready and the players went to their teams, and asked them to either match the offers, or renounce them so they could sign it with Indy. Both teams chose to renounce the players rather than match the offers as a courtesy to not hold up Indy's cap and allow the deals to go through ASAP. However, both guys were negotiated with when they were restricted, not in the 1-3 minutes between them being renounced and our agreements being publicized. And, again, we clearly negotiated with a restricted Brogdon. We had the deal ready before Simon approached the Bucks with his S&T offer.
With Bogie we had cap space sitting there for awhile and only signed Bogie when it became clear Washington was going to renounce him to match on Porter. Sure he was technically still a RFA, but everyone knew Washington simply could not afford him. IIRC Copeland was a similar situation where he was technically a RFA, but NY spent their money elsewhere and couldn't offer him more than the minimum. Both Washington and NY simply could not give them anywhere close to their market value and kept the RFA rights in case they needed them for a move, but had no intentions of resigning them.
Brogdon is somewhat dissimilar and moreso implicates the intent of Simon's general rule, but is still a guy the incumbent team planned on losing to free agency.
Scoot McGroot wrote:
pacers33granger wrote:I understand Simon's policy from a businessman's standpoint and commend him for having morals he believes in. Doesn't mean I can't believe it is a stupid policy and the sole reason picks changed hands. It's the one thing I dislike about ownership. He's been great in all other regards and that's still better than the vast majority of owners.
The evidence strongly points to it being unnecessary. Bucks ownership and management has repeatedly implied they knew they could not keep Brogdon. And history has plenty of RFA sign and trades with minimal value greasing the wheels, not firsts. I love that we got Brogdon and ultimately it's not a giant deal, but it was a stupid thing to do that was borne out of policy and not necessity.
Again. They could've kept him. They chose Brook Lopez and George Hill (both needed to be signed with cap space) and then used their room exception on Robin Lopez and their BAE on Wes Mathews. They could've easily chosen Brogdon, as Brook/Hill make just as much as Brogdon/vet minimum, essentially. Still could've had Robin/Mathews, too. However, they chose a different path with the additional picks they got. Would they have paid Brogdon the same amount we did? Who knows. They certainly could've, and they'd have had a much better player than Hill/Mathews at the guard. Could it be that once they were approached with an offer of a 1st to get the deal done immediately, the Bucks pivoted and decided to work the other half of their free agency situation since they had a good offer ready to go, and were able to snag a couple extra 2nds, as well?
This is where the whole "Indy may have saved $10-20m" comes in. At the time that we called up their owner and offered the picks to get it done, they could've still matched the offer, or prioritized Brogdon.
Obviously, I'd have loved to have gotten Brogdon without giving up any picks, or even just keeping the 1st. However, in that moment, Brogdon was assumed to be returning to Milwaukee, and no other teams even really made offers until after the S&T was rumored/announced by Woj/Shams. If any news of Milwaukee not being willing to match had leaked out, the cost for Brogdon would have probably raised substantially.
Yeah of course they could have kept him, but it was clear from even before free agency they were going to prioritize Lopez first after Middleton. They could have easily let Hill go as Brogdon is better, but Hill was much cheaper. So if it's Brook/Hill or Brogdon/minimum, I'm not sure I really get the argument beyond semantics. They were never going to opt for that, even if they could get Robin (whose about 10% as useful as Brook) and Matthews still.
I don't believe one bit that Brogdon was ever a priority over Brook and once they handed out big deals to Bledsoe, Middleton, and Brook, their plan was always to fill in the gaps with multiple players, not one guy and hope for minimum guys to come to Milwaukee. The only way I see that changing was if Middleton or Brook walked, which was a possibility. But if they were retaining those guys, all indications are they didn't have the spending power (want) to keep him
Nor do I believe that the plan was for Brogdon to be back provided they kept their major guys (especially considering locking up their other PG midseason), but rather the writing was on the wall well before free agency:
Per Gery Woelfel of Woelfel's Press Box, one NBA official is expecting Brogdon to receive a deal worth $14 million to $16 million per season.
"There are several teams that need a quality guard," the official said. "I would say he'll get between $14 million to $16 million. That would be my guess."
If Brogdon gets a contract worth that much money this offseason, it will likely be the end of his time with the Milwaukee Bucks.
On the most recent episode of The Lowe Post podcast, ESPN’s Zach Lowe alluded to the Bucks having a “walk away” price for Brogdon in free agency, although it isn’t currently known just what that amount would be.
ESPN's Bobby Marks said on Thursday's episode of The Jump, "The concern for Milwaukee is where that Brogdon offer sheet is going to come in. We're hearing four years, $80 million from a team like the Chicago Bulls."
“The Bucks are in trouble; they got big, big salary-cap problems,’’ a front office official said. “They haven’t done a good job managing their budget.
“They can’t keep everybody; they know that. If you ask me, Brogdon will be one of the guys that gets away from them.’’