Shams: Turner to MIL

[basketballwacko2]

If Turner can return a 1st then I move him. Even with the Giannis return the Bucks are likely still going to be in asset deficient. I don't think Turner has another gear in his game and likely will look worse on a post Giannis dysfunctional team.

Don't forget Turner has a 15% trade kicker on his deal and they can't trade him for a while, until his FA signing restriction expires.

Still likely will keep value into this year's deadline, especially if the Bucks take on money....at that point the bucks are going to be bad and cap wrecked for awhile so more bad salary is not going to matter.

Yes but who ever he's traded to has to be ok with that extra 15% and how much tax can the Bucks swallow especially if GA then say's I want to play in NYC or LA.

[machu46]

This almost has to be a sign and trade.

It doesn't sound like it will be, but if Milwaukee can turn it into a sign-and-trade and retain access to the NTMLE, that would be excellent. All indications are they're just going under the cap to sign him outright though which then removes the MLE.

[DiegoChara]

Sure sure Marc, he was considering not picking it up, wink wink

Read on Twitter

?t=IOG-JAc_Byia-Ca1a3xo8A&s=19

Now THAT is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen reported by a journalist I’ve heard of.

Sure, he was gonna decline a 50+ million dollar player option coming off a catastrophic injury where he’d have had no chance to demonstrate he’s recovered?

[machu46]

Random question..

If Giannis still demands out (I hope he doesn’t).. Is Milwaukee better off with the dead cap and the asset that Turner is or with the two year anchor that Dame would’ve been?

Turner should return an asset or if you get enough for Giannis maybe you don’t tank and Turner sticks around as a floor raising starter..

But then you pay Dame through your 2026’s draft pick rookie contract..

I think I take Turner and deal with the dead cap even if Giannis demands out. But think I’d be in minority.

I think you're dead on. The great thing about this move is that even in the disaster situation that Giannis requests a trade, we pulled this off without losing any assets and if we're forced to blow the team up anyways, the Dame dead cap won't really matter much. The last 48 hours have basically been a miracle for the Bucks.

[psman2]

Don't forget Turner has a 15% trade kicker on his deal and they can't trade him for a while, until his FA signing restriction expires.

Still likely will keep value into this year's deadline, especially if the Bucks take on money....at that point the bucks are going to be bad and cap wrecked for awhile so more bad salary is not going to matter.

Yes but who ever he's traded to has to be ok with that extra 15% and how much tax can the Bucks swallow especially if GA then say's I want to play in NYC or LA.

Turner likely will waive ithe kicker if it gets in the way of him being traded to a team he wants to go to.

[aim2please]

Feel bad for Pacers fans. They have a great front office, but their ownership is awful. They made a bunch of money with two playoff runs in a row. You can't pay some tax for a few seasons to give these guys a chance? If Turner got $30M+ a year, I would understand, but his contract was reasonable.

Some of these owners view their team strictly as a business. They couldn't care less about winning.

The ownership kept the team in Indianapolis! This is a small market you can pay tax if you're going to the finals but when you are not and don't have a shot at it you can't. They made a great run with what they had.

The Bucks made a crazy move to stretch waive Lillard and get Turner, long term I think this blows up in their face. They don't have an NBA point point guard and no draft flexibility. PLUS $22.5 million of dead cap for the next 5 years.

No one is asking them to go over 2nd apron, or even 1st apron. But to pay 10-15M of luxury tax once in a while is too much? Billionaire owning the team pocketed tens of millions of dollars in last two seasons alone. Team went to ECF and Finals back to back. You can feel sorry for him if you want. If you're happy, I'm happy.

I can't imagine investing my time, money and emotions into a team run by someone who cares only about the bottom line.

[basketballwacko2]

This almost has to be a sign and trade.

It doesn't sound like it will be, but if Milwaukee can turn it into a sign-and-trade and retain access to the NTMLE, that would be excellent. All indications are they're just going under the cap to sign him outright though which then removes the MLE.

That was my initial take on it but that was before I read about he Stretch Waive of Lillard.

I'll go on the book right now as saying that $22.5 million in dead cap money for 5 years is horrible!!

[Prospect Dong]

I understand that unforeseen injuries have played a big part in this, but so far the main "casualties" of the new CBA have been BOS and IND. Are deep, well built teams with no tier 1 MVP candidates/superstars the type of teams that fans wanted to see broken up?

I think what fans really hated was guys like KD/Steph and Lebron/Wade teaming up in free agency. You don't want two of the MVP caliber players teaming up, but that can still happen in the new CBA. I hate what this is doing to the game.

Yeah, as a small market (Memphis) fan, I'm mostly on board with the impact of the new CBA: you get a 2-3 year window with your skillfully assembled contender, and then it slams shut.

But it hasn't really done anything to address the huge surplus value teams get from having a top five player who can't earn their true market value thanks to max contracts. The supermax helps a little, but it's more likely to screw teams with top 8-18 guys (like Boston) who end up giving the supermax to someone who only just deserves it. It's probably even harder now to retain a contending roster that's 4-8 deep with quality, but not superstar, players. But cities that can reliably pair up top 10 guys are going to be just fine. They need to ditch the individual max, IMO, and let the market work out how much you should pay to pair, say, Jokic, with cheaper starters.

[gswhoops]

This almost has to be a sign and trade.

It doesn't sound like it will be, but if Milwaukee can turn it into a sign-and-trade and retain access to the NTMLE, that would be excellent. All indications are they're just going under the cap to sign him outright though which then removes the MLE.

That was my initial take on it but that was before I read about he Stretch Waive of Lillard.

I'll go on the book right now as saying that $22.5 million in dead cap money for 5 years is horrible!!

I think signing him outright and having the Room MLE + the option to trade Kuzma for additional pieces is better for Milwaukee than having just the NTMLE.

[basketballwacko2]

Feel bad for Pacers fans. They have a great front office, but their ownership is awful. They made a bunch of money with two playoff runs in a row. You can't pay some tax for a few seasons to give these guys a chance? If Turner got $30M+ a year, I would understand, but his contract was reasonable.

Some of these owners view their team strictly as a business. They couldn't care less about winning.

The ownership kept the team in Indianapolis! This is a small market you can pay tax if you're going to the finals but when you are not and don't have a shot at it you can't. They made a great run with what they had.

The Bucks made a crazy move to stretch waive Lillard and get Turner, long term I think this blows up in their face. They don't have an NBA point point guard and no draft flexibility. PLUS $22.5 million of dead cap for the next 5 years.

No one is asking them to go over 2nd apron, or even 1st apron. But to pay 10-15M of luxury tax once in a while is too much? Billionaire owning the team pocketed tens of millions of dollars in last two seasons alone. Team went to ECF and Finals back to back. You can feel sorry for him if you want. If you're happy, I'm happy.

I can't imagine investing my time, money and emotions into a team run by someone who cares only about the bottom line.

Well I'm an Economist 1st, degree from Indiana Univ in Business Economics. It makes no sense for a small market team to ever pay tax unless they are getting to the finials. They lose the rebate and they pay extra in tax. I don't suggest a team hover around the floor and be a Charlotte or Pelicans or Wizards level team in the lottery every year and never getting better. But spending millions of dollars on a hobby project for a guy worth $5-6 billion sounds small to us who only make 1000's a year and a 5 digit or less net worth but it has to make sense from a business point of view if this is a business and not a hobby.

[ReggiesKnicks]

...a 5 digit or less net worth but it has to make sense from a business point of view if this is a business and not a hobby.

How old are ya'll with a 5-digit net worth?

Get a Roth.

[basketballwacko2]

...a 5 digit or less net worth but it has to make sense from a business point of view if this is a business and not a hobby.

How old are ya'll with a 5-digit net worth?

Get a Roth.

There are a lot of us here with 4 digit net worth.

[jbk1234]

This is just an owner who doesn't want to spend.

I don't think that's fair. you need to build with a timeline in mind and our timeline doesn't include a big year in 2025-26 with no Tyrese.

It's absolutely fair. No one is talking about the repeater tax or 2nd apron here. So ownership can't pay the tax for a few years with Haliburton hurt for one and the cap going up? After you made it to game 7 of the Finals?

Dallas just offered Gafford $18M per and the Pacers wouldn't go past $20M on the only starting caliber stretch 5 besides Wemby. Look, no one would accuse me of being a players' advocate on this board, but from the perspective of the fans, they absolutely have the right to expect an owner to pay a tax bill for 3-4 years of contention if they're fortunate enough to build a true contender.

[basketballwacko2]

This is just an owner who doesn't want to spend.

I don't think that's fair. you need to build with a timeline in mind and our timeline doesn't include a big year in 2025-26 with no Tyrese.

It's absolutely fair. No one is talking about the repeater tax or 2nd apron here. So ownership can't pay the tax for a few years with Haliburton hurt and the cap going up? After you made it to game 7 of the Finals?

Dallas just offered Gafford $18M per and the Pacers wouldn't go past $20M on the only starting caliber stretch 5 besides Wemby. Look, no one would accuse me of being a players' advocate on this board, but from the perspective of the fans, they absolutely have the right to expect an owner to pay a tax bill for 3-4 years of contention if they're fortunate enough to build a true contender.

The Pacers paying tax in 2025-26 would be insane from a business perspective. Simon is not what Simon was 30 year ago. Malls are dead, they were in the shopping mall business. Most of the Pacers owners net worth is the Pacers franchise. This isn't a guy who has $50 billion with $20 billion in the bank. This team has to make sense and can't be a money pit.

The Pacers owners don't want to pay tax right. So that's bad, but what's Boston's issue? They don't want to pay tax for a team that might finish 8th so they dumped salary and may dump more. If my calculation is close they are at $209 million. $20 million in the tax, and looking for a taker for Anfernee Simons who's expiring.

[jbk1234]

I don't think that's fair. you need to build with a timeline in mind and our timeline doesn't include a big year in 2025-26 with no Tyrese.

It's absolutely fair. No one is talking about the repeater tax or 2nd apron here. So ownership can't pay the tax for a few years with Haliburton hurt and the cap going up? After you made it to game 7 of the Finals?

Dallas just offered Gafford $18M per and the Pacers wouldn't go past $20M on the only starting caliber stretch 5 besides Wemby. Look, no one would accuse me of being a players' advocate on this board, but from the perspective of the fans, they absolutely have the right to expect an owner to pay a tax bill for 3-4 years of contention if they're fortunate enough to build a true contender.

The Pacers paying tax in 2025-26 would be insane from a business perspective. Simon is not what Simon was 30 year ago. Malls are dead, they were in the shopping mall business. Most of the Pacers owners net worth is the Pacers franchise. This isn't a guy who has $50 billion with $20 billion in the bank. This team has to make sense and can't be a money pit.

The Pacers owners don't want to pay tax right. So that's bad, but what's Boston's issue? They don't want to pay tax for a team that might finish 8th so they dumped salary and may dump more. If my calculation is close they are at $209 million. $20 million in the tax, and looking for a taker for Simons who's expiring.

The Celtics have been in the repeater tax for awhile now and were a 2nd apron team. Their tax bill was unsustainable and they're looking to reset the repeater clock. They have two players on supermax contracts. It is nothing like the Pacers situation.

The Pacers could've paid Turner $25M and ducked the tax by parting with another player. The owner could have sold off a minority percentage of the team at a $2.5-3B evaluation to help defray the expense. This is bad. It will have long-term consequences for the organization.

[basketballwacko2]

It's absolutely fair. No one is talking about the repeater tax or 2nd apron here. So ownership can't pay the tax for a few years with Haliburton hurt and the cap going up? After you made it to game 7 of the Finals?

Dallas just offered Gafford $18M per and the Pacers wouldn't go past $20M on the only starting caliber stretch 5 besides Wemby. Look, no one would accuse me of being a players' advocate on this board, but from the perspective of the fans, they absolutely have the right to expect an owner to pay a tax bill for 3-4 years of contention if they're fortunate enough to build a true contender.

The Pacers paying tax in 2025-26 would be insane from a business perspective. Simon is not what Simon was 30 year ago. Malls are dead, they were in the shopping mall business. Most of the Pacers owners net worth is the Pacers franchise. This isn't a guy who has $50 billion with $20 billion in the bank. This team has to make sense and can't be a money pit.

The Pacers owners don't want to pay tax right. So that's bad, but what's Boston's issue? They don't want to pay tax for a team that might finish 8th so they dumped salary and may dump more. If my calculation is close they are at $209 million. $20 million in the tax, and looking for a taker for Simons who's expiring.

The Celtics have been in the repeater tax for awhile now and were a 2nd apron team. Their tax bill was unsustainable and they're looking to reset the repeater clock. They have two players on supermax contracts. It is nothing like the Pacers situation.

The Pacers could've paid Turner $25M and ducked the tax by parting with another player. The owner could have sold off a minority percentage of the team at a $2.5-3B evaluation to help defray the expense. This is bad. It will have long-term consequences for the organization.

I've said this about 50 times in the Pacers forum threads it's crazy to pay tax in a small non-media market for team to finish 8th. I wanted Turner back in 2025/26 and have always supported him. I think he was worth the $25 million with raises. The Pacers have 2 very highly paid players in Haliburton and Siakam both making $45.5 million for the 25/26 season so you can't say they are cheap. Herb Simon is 90 how long does he have left? And when he passes his kids are gonna want "dat money!" The team is 80% or more of his net worth. I'm putting my money on the team being sold. So the team can't be losing money. Yes they just went to game 7 of the finals. But the injury to Haliburton changed the calculus of the next season. With ZERO chance of doing it again they had to make changes.

I'd say with no starting center this team will be lucky to finish 8th in the East. You could make the case they could have traded Obi Toppin, probably would have to pay a team like Brooklyn to take him. Cost? A #1 pick most likely. Then you have Walker at the backup 4, is he ready to do that? or you have to find one. Do you trade Nesmith? Then you have no SF on the team, unless you think Johnny Furphy or Walker fills that spot. Or you can't trade Mathurin who's projected as the starting SG. He'd have the most value. But then you're starting Sheppard or moving Nesmith to SG and then back to the no starter at SF, unless you're getting one in the trade.

To me this looks like a team with a lot of bad choices that all lead you to more issues if you take one of them. The worst choice was letting your shot blocking, 3pt shooting center leave for nothing. And that's what they did.

They may as well now try to find a trade for Siakam and get a great return as he's signed and coming off a great year. Do a semi-tank and try to come back in 2026-27 with a better team and a reset of salaries.

[basketballwacko2]

It's absolutely fair. No one is talking about the repeater tax or 2nd apron here. So ownership can't pay the tax for a few years with Haliburton hurt and the cap going up? After you made it to game 7 of the Finals?

Dallas just offered Gafford $18M per and the Pacers wouldn't go past $20M on the only starting caliber stretch 5 besides Wemby. Look, no one would accuse me of being a players' advocate on this board, but from the perspective of the fans, they absolutely have the right to expect an owner to pay a tax bill for 3-4 years of contention if they're fortunate enough to build a true contender.

The Pacers paying tax in 2025-26 would be insane from a business perspective. Simon is not what Simon was 30 year ago. Malls are dead, they were in the shopping mall business. Most of the Pacers owners net worth is the Pacers franchise. This isn't a guy who has $50 billion with $20 billion in the bank. This team has to make sense and can't be a money pit.

The Pacers owners don't want to pay tax right. So that's bad, but what's Boston's issue? They don't want to pay tax for a team that might finish 8th so they dumped salary and may dump more. If my calculation is close they are at $209 million. $20 million in the tax, and looking for a taker for Simons who's expiring.

The Celtics have been in the repeater tax for awhile now and were a 2nd apron team. Their tax bill was unsustainable and they're looking to reset the repeater clock. They have two players on supermax contracts. It is nothing like the Pacers situation.

The Pacers could've paid Turner $25M and ducked the tax by parting with another player. The owner could have sold off a minority percentage of the team at a $2.5-3B evaluation to help defray the expense. This is bad. It will have long-term consequences for the organization.

As for selling off a minority stake in the team I think they already did that as Herb only owns 80% of it. "Steven Rales owns the 20% minority interest in the Indiana Pacers, according to Bleacher Report. He previously held a 5% stake and recently purchased an additional 15% from Herb Simon, bringing his total ownership to 20%."

[SlimShady83]

Wow just wow

[Wizop]

I've been a Pacer fan from the very beginning. In the 70s, I had a law office on the same floor of the Circle Tower Building as Bob Salyers who had been trying to promote a down town hotel and his hotel connections in LA led to him being in the Pacers front office. I know how bad things were. I had tickets when the upper deck was curtained off so you didn't see the empty seats. I remember having dinner with Bob, another Pacer exec, and my then wife who was Irsay's PR Rep. The Pacers were bleeding money after the brawl. Now NBA franchise values have skyrocketed and it very much worked out for the Simons. But to characterize their ownership as putting money ahead of the City ignores the real history.

someone said this isn't a repeater tax situation. in a way it is because paying tax this year would have made the next year a repeat. we've avoided starting that clock.

we've also retained the ability to keep Mathurin, Nembhard, Nesmith, Walker, and Toppin without busting the bank.

also, you might want to read C_2Cooper's piece today about Turner's on court issues. there were basketball as well as money issues,D

Do I wish we'd kept Turner? absolutely. But this is not bad,

[jayjaysee]

I’m not a Pacer fan, but I would’ve wanted to dump Toppin with seconds and then trade Mathurin for a meh first before losing Turner.