Bucks looking at Bledsoe, probably.

[ampd]

Plus, so long as Bledsoe stays healthy, he'd likely remain a desirable trade piece if McDonough was to go after a bigger piece in the future. So if he can do stuff like accumulate draft picks, draft well, and/or gather up under-valued talent, that all could potentially be used in the future to either trade for an upper-tier player or just sign one. Same for Dragic. He's only 28 and has plenty of years left to either help the Suns on the court if kept or to be used in a trade.

I don't really care if the Suns plan to match a max offer.

You still pitch Bledsoe on Milwaukee, talk to the suns about a sign and trade, and actually make them do it.

[ReasonablySober]

So what if we woulda made the trade for Bledsoe a year ago?

We have Exum instead of Parker and our core is still awesome, I guess.

[El Duderino]

Plus, so long as Bledsoe stays healthy, he'd likely remain a desirable trade piece if McDonough was to go after a bigger piece in the future. So if he can do stuff like accumulate draft picks, draft well, and/or gather up under-valued talent, that all could potentially be used in the future to either trade for an upper-tier player or just sign one. Same for Dragic. He's only 28 and has plenty of years left to either help the Suns on the court if kept or to be used in a trade.

I don't really care if the Suns plan to match a max offer.

You still pitch Bledsoe on Milwaukee, talk to the suns about a sign and trade, and actually make them do it.

No argument from me on that about making an actual offer. I simply think the odds are high that McDonough would match any offer the Bucks made and nobody on the Bucks roster besides Giannis/Parker, who we'd never trade would be enough to make McDonough change his mind about matching.

I put myself in his shoes. If i felt Bledsoe's talent was worth the money of matching a Bucks offer, no way in hell would non-difference makers like Knight and/or Henson in a sign and trade make me even consider doing a trade instead of matching.

[Madtown]

Yeah, I get both sides. I really do. I"m about 60/40 on the side of going after Bledsoe. It all comes down to how good you think the Bucks will be next year. While I've been fully prepared for another tank, I think we're going to be set up for a non-premium pick coming out of the East.

So this is where I'm at for the moment:

- I really like Bledsoe. He would be a core piece.
- Is he worth the max? Maybe.
- Does he derail the tank? Probably, but IMO the tank will probably be derailed regardless next year. This is where the two sides are divided. Right now IMO Bledsoe = shift from 6-10 pick to 8-15 pick.

It's all about percentages. We could be screwing ourselves out of another top 3 pick. Or we could be essentially trading pick 7 for pick 12 and Bledsoe. We won't know until next year. Right now I think I'd take the chance.

[skones]

Some of you guys are really over-thinking the Bledsoe situation.

* If we sign him to the Max and he lives up to the hype then this would be like OKC getting RW but without having to tank an additional year for him. We would have a Core player at one of the most important positions in the league.

* If he gets hurt and misses all of next season then we will be in contention to win the lottery once again.

* If he a long with our young guys (Yanni, Parker, Larry, Middleton, Henson, Nate) somehow come together and is able to lead us play to the Playoffs at this stage in their careers then we will have one of the best young group of Players in the league.

Or Parker and Giannis don't develop as expected and suddenly you've got a second or third fiddle in Bledsoe signed to max dollars keeping you in limbo when you're trying to rebuild. That's the real issue here.

That's so irrelevant. It's gonna take the next 4 years before people are willing to give up on Parker and Giannis anyway which is nearly the duration of the contract Bledsoe would get. Bledsoe isn't getting in the way of any rebuild. The argument is that maybe Bledsoe causes us to move down a few spots in the draft this year, which is plausible. But then you weigh in the potential player we would have drafted without Bledsoe and 99% chance is that he isn't even as good as him. Plus we'd still have the pick. The only way Bledsoe would really screw us would be if we moved from like worst to 5th worst or something's up that's so unlikely. It would also mean that ersan was bad, none of our young guys showed anything, and sanders contributed negatively.

A big part of rebuilding is always adding young assets. Not offering Bledsoe because he might make our pick worse next year is stupid when the exact type of player we'd hope to draft is Bledsoe.

Not sure how you can say it's irrelevant when you specifically state that Bledsoe gets in the way of other top end talent. Obviously if Parker and Giannis work out, it's great, but that's far from a forgone conclusion. The point here, is that you maintain flexibility without Bledsoe as it pertains to the draft in still being able to find that guy while your young guys develop. You lock everything in with Bledsoe in the fold and lay your cards all out on the table. If Parker and Giannis themselves end up being 2nd and 3rd fiddles, they're likely not good enough early on to remove the possibility of finding that Superstar option. Adding Bledsoe right now removes that possibility.

[ampd]

Plus, so long as Bledsoe stays healthy, he'd likely remain a desirable trade piece if McDonough was to go after a bigger piece in the future. So if he can do stuff like accumulate draft picks, draft well, and/or gather up under-valued talent, that all could potentially be used in the future to either trade for an upper-tier player or just sign one. Same for Dragic. He's only 28 and has plenty of years left to either help the Suns on the court if kept or to be used in a trade.

I don't really care if the Suns plan to match a max offer.

You still pitch Bledsoe on Milwaukee, talk to the suns about a sign and trade, and actually make them do it.

No argument from me on that about making an actual offer. I simply think the odds are high that McDonough would match any offer the Bucks made and nobody on the Bucks roster besides Giannis/Parker, who we'd never trade would be enough to make McDonough change his mind about matching.

I put myself in his shoes. If i felt Bledsoe's talent was worth the money of matching a Bucks offer, no way in hell would non-difference makers like Knight and/or Henson in a sign and trade make me even consider doing a trade instead of matching.

I think there are plausible scenarios where they don't match, but its more likely than not that they do. It depends on how committed they are to Dragic, how likely it is that they land someone like Bosh in free agency, their perception of his injury, etc. Giving out one max to Blesoe doesn't destroy their cap, but maxing Bledsoe, extending Dragic, etc really locks them in in a way I don't think they want to be.

For example if we get him to sign it immediately after the moratorium (probably not likely but possible) and Bosh, Lebron, etc haven't signed anywhere, that increases our chances dramatically.

[ReasonablySober]

Or Parker and Giannis don't develop as expected and suddenly you've got a second or third fiddle in Bledsoe signed to max dollars keeping you in limbo when you're trying to rebuild. That's the real issue here.

That's so irrelevant. It's gonna take the next 4 years before people are willing to give up on Parker and Giannis anyway which is nearly the duration of the contract Bledsoe would get. Bledsoe isn't getting in the way of any rebuild. The argument is that maybe Bledsoe causes us to move down a few spots in the draft this year, which is plausible. But then you weigh in the potential player we would have drafted without Bledsoe and 99% chance is that he isn't even as good as him. Plus we'd still have the pick. The only way Bledsoe would really screw us would be if we moved from like worst to 5th worst or something's up that's so unlikely. It would also mean that ersan was bad, none of our young guys showed anything, and sanders contributed negatively.

A big part of rebuilding is always adding young assets. Not offering Bledsoe because he might make our pick worse next year is stupid when the exact type of player we'd hope to draft is Bledsoe.

Not sure how you can say it's irrelevant when you specifically state that Bledsoe gets in the way of other top end talent. Obviously if Parker and Giannis work out, it's great, but that's far from a forgone conclusion. The point here, is that you maintain flexibility without Bledsoe as it pertains to the draft in still being able to find that guy while your young guys develop. You lock everything in with Bledsoe in the fold and lay your cards all out on the table. If Parker and Giannis themselves end up being 2nd and 3rd fiddles, they're likely not good enough early on to remove the possibility of finding that Superstar option. Adding Bledsoe right now removes that possibility.

It's possible, maybe likely, that the Bucks aren't in a position to draft that kind of talent even if Jabari and Giannis don't develop into significant contributors. All it would take is a healthy Sanders playing 30+ minutes a night, Kidd to coach like he did in 2014 for Brooklyn, and modest improvements from guys like Wolters, Knight, Middleton and Henson. Now you're sitting there with one legit impact player in Sanders and a late lotto pick.

If you sign Bledsoe you're buying insurance. A young talent like Bledsoe will always be moveable unless he breaks down like Roy.

[skones]

That's so irrelevant. It's gonna take the next 4 years before people are willing to give up on Parker and Giannis anyway which is nearly the duration of the contract Bledsoe would get. Bledsoe isn't getting in the way of any rebuild. The argument is that maybe Bledsoe causes us to move down a few spots in the draft this year, which is plausible. But then you weigh in the potential player we would have drafted without Bledsoe and 99% chance is that he isn't even as good as him. Plus we'd still have the pick. The only way Bledsoe would really screw us would be if we moved from like worst to 5th worst or something's up that's so unlikely. It would also mean that ersan was bad, none of our young guys showed anything, and sanders contributed negatively.

A big part of rebuilding is always adding young assets. Not offering Bledsoe because he might make our pick worse next year is stupid when the exact type of player we'd hope to draft is Bledsoe.

Not sure how you can say it's irrelevant when you specifically state that Bledsoe gets in the way of other top end talent. Obviously if Parker and Giannis work out, it's great, but that's far from a forgone conclusion. The point here, is that you maintain flexibility without Bledsoe as it pertains to the draft in still being able to find that guy while your young guys develop. You lock everything in with Bledsoe in the fold and lay your cards all out on the table. If Parker and Giannis themselves end up being 2nd and 3rd fiddles, they're likely not good enough early on to remove the possibility of finding that Superstar option. Adding Bledsoe right now removes that possibility.

It's possible, maybe likely, that the Bucks aren't in a position to draft that kind of talent even if Jabari and Giannis don't develop into significant contributors. All it would take is a healthy Sanders playing 30+ minutes a night, Kidd to coach like he did in 2014 for Brooklyn, and modest improvements from guys like Wolters, Knight, Middleton and Henson. Now you're sitting there with one legit impact player in Sanders and a late lotto pick.

If you sign Bledsoe you're buying insurance. A young talent like Bledsoe will always be moveable unless he breaks down like Roy.

You're overrating Sanders impact. Regardless of the issues, last season happened and it's not a forgone conclusion he even rounds out to form. Two years ago, the Bucks managed 38 wins with a better roster (albeit one with much less upside) with Sanders playing at an extremely high level. I doubt his return + Parker suddenly wins us 20 more ball games.

And again, No. Absolutely not. The whole, "he will always be moveable" nonsense needs to stop, because he'll be getting the max, and he's not worth it.

[ReasonablySober]

Not sure how you can say it's irrelevant when you specifically state that Bledsoe gets in the way of other top end talent. Obviously if Parker and Giannis work out, it's great, but that's far from a forgone conclusion. The point here, is that you maintain flexibility without Bledsoe as it pertains to the draft in still being able to find that guy while your young guys develop. You lock everything in with Bledsoe in the fold and lay your cards all out on the table. If Parker and Giannis themselves end up being 2nd and 3rd fiddles, they're likely not good enough early on to remove the possibility of finding that Superstar option. Adding Bledsoe right now removes that possibility.

It's possible, maybe likely, that the Bucks aren't in a position to draft that kind of talent even if Jabari and Giannis don't develop into significant contributors. All it would take is a healthy Sanders playing 30+ minutes a night, Kidd to coach like he did in 2014 for Brooklyn, and modest improvements from guys like Wolters, Knight, Middleton and Henson. Now you're sitting there with one legit impact player in Sanders and a late lotto pick.

If you sign Bledsoe you're buying insurance. A young talent like Bledsoe will always be moveable unless he breaks down like Roy.

You're overrating Sanders impact. Regardless of the issues, last season happened and it's not a forgone conclusion he even rounds out to form. Two years ago, the Bucks managed 38 wins with a better roster (albeit one with much less upside) with Sanders playing at an extremely high level. I doubt his return + Parker suddenly wins us 20 more ball games.

And again, No. Absolutely not. The whole, "he will always be moveable" nonsense needs to stop, because he'll be getting the max, and he's not worth it.

No I'm not.

[ampd]

You're overrating Sanders impact. Regardless of the issues, last season happened and it's not a forgone conclusion he even rounds out to form. Two years ago, the Bucks managed 38 wins with a better roster (albeit one with much less upside) with Sanders playing at an extremely high level. I doubt his return + Parker suddenly wins us 20 more ball games.

And again, No. Absolutely not. The whole, "he will always be moveable" nonsense needs to stop, because he'll be getting the max, and he's not worth it.

Sanders was injured for almost the entire season last year.

If Rudy Gay can be traded twice on that deal, we can surely trade Bledsoe barring a career ending injury.

[El Duderino]

You're overrating Sanders impact. Regardless of the issues, last season happened and it's not a forgone conclusion he even rounds out to form. Two years ago, the Bucks managed 38 wins with a better roster (albeit one with much less upside) with Sanders playing at an extremely high level. I doubt his return + Parker suddenly wins us 20 more ball games.

And again, No. Absolutely not. The whole, "he will always be moveable" nonsense needs to stop, because he'll be getting the max, and he's not worth it.

Sanders was injured for almost the entire season last year.

If Rudy Gay can be traded twice on that deal, we can surely trade Bledsoe barring a career ending injury.

And the Hawks actually got some value in return for trading Joe Johnson and his ridiculous contract which many thought would be near impossible to move.

I have been pretty amazed over the years at how many absolutely repulsive long term contracts to aging veterans were actually able to be traded away when i thought it couldn't be done.

The only thing i'd worry about as a GM of any team with paying Bledsoe max dollars is his health. The talent is there.

What IMO really kills to many NBA teams is not rolling the dice with big money for a talent like Bledsoe, it's instead signing to many largely spare parts to MLE like contracts. That and crap like seven million over two years for Delfino. Giving eight million per to Mayo. Zaza five million per. Washed up Coran Butler was getting eight million.

Lots of NBA rosters are littered with guys making 4-5-6-7 million per who aren't much more than spare parts. Take Zaza. He's getting five million per, yet a guy like Jeff Adrian who can provide roughly the same production floats around looking for a roster spot.

[Insomniaac]

It's possible, maybe likely, that the Bucks aren't in a position to draft that kind of talent even if Jabari and Giannis don't develop into significant contributors. All it would take is a healthy Sanders playing 30+ minutes a night, Kidd to coach like he did in 2014 for Brooklyn, and modest improvements from guys like Wolters, Knight, Middleton and Henson. Now you're sitting there with one legit impact player in Sanders and a late lotto pick.

If you sign Bledsoe you're buying insurance. A young talent like Bledsoe will always be moveable unless he breaks down like Roy.

You're overrating Sanders impact. Regardless of the issues, last season happened and it's not a forgone conclusion he even rounds out to form. Two years ago, the Bucks managed 38 wins with a better roster (albeit one with much less upside) with Sanders playing at an extremely high level. I doubt his return + Parker suddenly wins us 20 more ball games.

And again, No. Absolutely not. The whole, "he will always be moveable" nonsense needs to stop, because he'll be getting the max, and he's not worth it.

With the cap continuing to rise (especially with the NBA's TV deal up in two years), I agree that he will likely remain moveable on a max contract barring a physical breakdown. This might actually be a good time to sign a max player. That being said, injuries are his biggest red flag imo and you can't discount the possibility of them seriously hampering his productivity and value.

[DutchManDanFan]

The Bucks will not tank in 14/15. They'll finish somewhere in the middle (7-10) in the East. And that's fine. The Bucks need a top 10 PG in 15/16 or 16/17. You can't count on drafts for that.
Trading the 2015 pick is the way to go. At this moment that pick has the most value, because the Bucks just had the worst record.

[Insomniaac]

The Bucks will not tank in 14/15. They'll finish somewhere in the middle (7-10) in the East. And that's fine. The Bucks need a top 10 PG in 15/16 or 16/17. You can't count on drafts for that.
Trading the 2015 pick is the way to go. At this moment that pick has the most value, because the Bucks just had the worst record.

What do you want to trade the pick for? Part of a Bledsoe S&T? It seems to be a common perception here that we'll end up around where you're suggesting, but outside of Philly who's honestly a lock to finish with a worse record than us? If everything goes perfectly I could see us ending up in the late lottery but honestly I think we have as good a chance as anyone to end up with another top 5 pick.

[White+Purple]

If Sanders is dialled in, Bledsoe makes tons of sense. If he's not, tanking makes tons of sense.

[cinematographer]

Over the last three seasons, Larry Sanders' impact on the opponent's eFG has been in the 100th percentile of all players since 2005.

[skones]

You're overrating Sanders impact. Regardless of the issues, last season happened and it's not a forgone conclusion he even rounds out to form. Two years ago, the Bucks managed 38 wins with a better roster (albeit one with much less upside) with Sanders playing at an extremely high level. I doubt his return + Parker suddenly wins us 20 more ball games.

And again, No. Absolutely not. The whole, "he will always be moveable" nonsense needs to stop, because he'll be getting the max, and he's not worth it.

Sanders was injured for almost the entire season last year.

If Rudy Gay can be traded twice on that deal, we can surely trade Bledsoe barring a career ending injury.

I'm fully aware he was injured. That doesn't change the fact that the Bucks were STILL 3-20 in games in which Sanders made an appearance, and won only 38 games the season prior, up from 31 the year before in which 49 games were played without a Bogut/Ellis. With the way some speak of him, you'd think the guy makes a much larger difference in the win column than he actually does.

Rudy Gay was dealt for Ed Davis, Austin Daye, and Tayshaun Prince. Prince was halfway through the 2nd season of a 4 year 28 million dollar deal. And then expiring contracts part way through the season after which he becomes an expiring contract. I guess when I say moveable, I don't mean that he's untradeable. I mean he has significantly reduced value vs. the dollars he's being paid, which likely means Milwaukee has to eat something if it doesn't work out.

[Siefer]

I think we're a threat to win 30+ games anyways, so if the tank is your concern, that ship has likely already sailed. We got incredibly lucky to lose as many games as we did last season.

[Baddy Chuck]

I think the value that a Sanders' type guy could give you increases exponentially the more talent you have around them. We had nobody with talent around him last season at all. He's obviously not going to straight up win games by himself being a force defensively in the paint. Nobody could do that, not even Bill Russell.

[mattg]

I just think we got the perfect storm last year to be the worst team. I think the chance we come anywhere near replicating that tank is like 1%--without Bledsoe. Without him I think we're looking at around 30 wins, potentially a few more, maybe a few less.


Also, if Bledsoe figures out his shooting I'd rather have him over anyone in next years draft aside from mudiay. His upside is that good.