2017 Bucks Offseason - Koenig Waived

[coolhandluke121]

^^^^^This is going well.

Somehow after the second ACL injury and with the impending contract dilemma, some people have gotten even more delusional about Jabari's value.

So you think Brog, Parker, Henson for favors and mitchell is not a realistic offer?

If you haven't figured it out yet, I was being sarcastic. If you weren't around during the height of the Jabari debates, maybe you don't realize what I really think of his chances of being a valuable player.

I don't think Jabari has much value at all. Whatever team that trades for him is very unlikely to get any plus basketball out of him next season, and then will face the dilemma of restricted free agency, which means they'll have to figure out what's worse - losing him for nothing or matching an incredibly irresponsible offer. Only a rebuilding team that's already giving up on next season would trade for him now, but a team like that could probably wait, keep their assets, and just make an offer that they know the Bucks would be loathe to match.

To put it another way, there's a good chance that some desperate team with nothing to lose will make a dumb offer and you won't want to match. His free agent rights won't help in that case, because it's not about whether you're able to match offers or offer an extra year - it's about whether you'd want to. And since the only thing you're getting by trading for him is those free agent rights (his value as a player next year is virtually nil), there's no reason to trade for him now.

I'd accept Favors and Burks for Jabari and Henson.

[Chapter29]

I thought maybe Beasley might be back but nope. I'd still like Jet back though.

I wanted him back if he was inexpensive which he was. Too bad. Decent back up if low cost.

I'd also take Jet back, more so for his off court impact.

[mlloyd10]

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ycf7fvb4

Screw the future

Bucks get: Irving/Jordan
Cavs get: Parker/Brogdon/Hawes
Clippers get: Monroe/Maker

That is the number 1 seed in the East

[DingleJerry]

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ycf7fvb4

Screw the future

Bucks get: Irving/Jordan
Cavs get: Parker/Brogdon/Hawes
Clippers get: Monroe/Maker

That is the number 1 seed in the East

I think all here should want to do that. IMO that deal is drastically in our favor and would likely need us adding 1sts to give both teams. Get those guys around Giannis/Khris and they should win and want to resign. And in the current market I don't think Jordan gets some absurd deal like we all would fear. And personally I'd rather give him 15ish mil than Jabari.

Right now all the Clips would be getting for Jordan is Monroe/Maker and all Cle would be getting Parker/Brogdon. Fairly weak returns from what we hear out there. Toss in 1sts and you have a discussion but I don't think the Cavs would be getting enough 'win now' back to go for this while still having LBJ.

[emunney]

Oh, Jordan is 100% getting the max.

[DingleJerry]

Oh, Jordan is 100% getting the max.

Who knows, i'm not going to argue boisterously about it. I just don't think the glut of money is there anymore (if he goes to real FA, not just re-upping with his current team) like the last couple offseasons, almost everyone will be capped out going forward. Combine that with his obvious flaws and the reduction in value placed on bigs and I think you have a recipe that could lead to him having to take a 15-22 mil type deal, not 35 mil like you suggest. I feel like we saw the beginnings of it this offseason with some guys. Who knows though, plus if you already have him you can just go over the cap for him and it just costs the owners money, which I don't care about so it doesn't really matter as long as the owners don't cheap out.

[Swan Vox]

If anything, I think we need more Brogdon types. I can't understand for the life of me why we are so eager to trade him here. I think he's a stud, a leader & a winner who is going to only get better.

Brogdon and stud just don't fit together. He is a good role player but do you actually think he can become a star? He is already 24 and is slow for a NBA PG. A stud is someone like Giannis idk if I would put Brogdon in the Giannis category. Brogdon is a trade piece and that is about it he isn't going to put us or any team over the top to win a title.

Brog, Parker, Henson and first for Favors and Mitchell. I would do that for sure.

While I agree that Brogdon and Giannis are in completely different stratospheres as players, I think Malcolm is definitely capable of being an important core piece on a championship team. He's in that Derek Fisher / Robert Horry mold, straight winners that any team would benefit from. I'm not ready to "cash him in" as an asset yet. I still think he has growth potential.

[GoldenAntlers]

If anything, I think we need more Brogdon types. I can't understand for the life of me why we are so eager to trade him here. I think he's a stud, a leader & a winner who is going to only get better.

Brogdon and stud just don't fit together. He is a good role player but do you actually think he can become a star? He is already 24 and is slow for a NBA PG. A stud is someone like Giannis idk if I would put Brogdon in the Giannis category. Brogdon is a trade piece and that is about it he isn't going to put us or any team over the top to win a title.

Brog, Parker, Henson and first for Favors and Mitchell. I would do that for sure.

While I agree that Brogdon and Giannis are in completely different stratospheres as players, I think Malcolm is definitely capable of being an important core piece on a championship team. He's in that Derek Fisher / Robert Horry mold, straight winners that any team would benefit from. I'm not ready to "cash him in" as an asset yet. I still think he has growth potential.

I agree with this assessment of the President.

[DingleJerry]

I agree he could clearly play a role on a title team. But he's never going to be the star player that gets you there. It's why I originally brought it up. High floor High ceiling in regards to a Mitchell. Mitchell could become that Lillard/Mccollum type lead PG that we're jonesing for right now. Or he could, well flop. You know you have a solid player in Brogdon, so do you gamble it for the higher upside. I would, finding solid role players shouldn't be nearly as hard as the Bucks have made it seem over the years. And we're currently paying two others guys a combined 21 mil to play that role...

[Douggystyle29]

[quote="mlloyd10"]http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ycf7fvb4

Screw the future

Bucks get: Irving/Jordan
Cavs get: Parker/Brogdon/Hawes
Clippers get: Monroe/Maker

That's pretty awesome actually. I don't really think it would really mess up our future either if we didn't include any picks. Get it done Horst.

[BucksPackers]

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ycf7fvb4

Screw the future

Bucks get: Irving/Jordan
Cavs get: Parker/Brogdon/Hawes
Clippers get: Monroe/Maker

That's pretty awesome actually. I don't really think it would really mess up our future either if we didn't include any picks. Get it done Horst.

So in 2 years when Jordan and Kyrie leave because they hate Milwaukee we are left with..... Giannis and what?


For the 100th time we are not competing this year or next for a title as long as GSW have KD and Curry. We need to build for 3-4 years from now. Stop trading all our young guys. I am ok with trading 1-2 of them for a star.

[DingleJerry]

Well the idea would be that you'd have what could easily be the best team in the East and they would resign and keep it going. This trade is massively in our favor. And for someone as all over Kyrie as you are I'm surprised you'd be against it.

Look at like this, Irving is way way better than Brogdon. Jordan is way way better than Thon. And all we have to give up is two torn ACLs Jabari about to be FA and expiring Monroe to do it. Bucks would have to be fools to turn that trade down. That said, I don't see anyway either Cle or Clips do it. Sprinkle them each a 1st and you're probably in the ballpark of what would be considered 'fair'. But I think they both still turn down given their current situations of still attempting to win. And in that case Bucks would also really be gutting their future if you're including 2 firsts.

[LuessiT]

Oh, Jordan is 100% getting the max.

That's the Problem for me: Do you want to give up signifikant value to pay Jordan the max unless he's clearly your third best player? Not that I wouldn't do that deal because it's really swayed in our favor.

[DingleJerry]

Oh, Jordan is 100% getting the max.

That's the Problem for me: Do you want to give up signifikant value to pay Jordan the max unless he's clearly your third best player? Not that I wouldn't do that deal because it's really swayed in our favor.

Do you guys really think 30ish yr old Jordan is going to get 35 mil per year? I think going forward the way we use 'max' is going to be different than the previous CBA. They've actually made it more financially benefical for the truly elite guys now as opposed to the old system of drastically holding back the top guys salaries. My guess is now that teams caps are filled the truly elite guys will get maxes and the second/third tiers (who got maxes in the past) will now get in the 25ish ballpark rather than 35+.

[Licensed to Il]

Jabari Parker has more value than 80% here acknowlege. It just is value in delayed form. Like the body of a classic car under a tarp in someone's barn. Maybe it cost $2K to buy, 8K to restore, and then you can sell it for $20K. Anything we could get in a trade for Jabari now would be like selling the restored car body without an engine.

Jabari Parker can still be a dynamic nba player. It just is going to require more waiting than anyone here anticipated.

[emunney]

Oh, Jordan is 100% getting the max.

That's the Problem for me: Do you want to give up signifikant value to pay Jordan the max unless he's clearly your third best player? Not that I wouldn't do that deal because it's really swayed in our favor.

Do you guys really think 30ish yr old Jordan is going to get 35 mil per year? I think going forward the way we use 'max' is going to be different than the previous CBA. They've actually made it more financially benefical for the truly elite guys now as opposed to the old system of drastically holding back the top guys salaries. My guess is now that teams caps are filled the truly elite guys will get maxes and the second/third tiers (who got maxes in the past) will now get in the 25ish ballpark rather than 35+.

How much /year is going to depend on if he changes teams, but yes, I would be shocked if he didn't get the max, barring injury or a significant decline. So I guess not actually 100%. But he'd get have gotten it this offseason for sure.

[DingleJerry]

Yea I should've put something in about 'when actually changing teams'. If they just re-up and go over their own team's cap it's a bit different and more likely to get max or basically the same as max.

[raferfenix]

I watched some of a 1993-94 Rockets vs Knicks finals game on ESPN classic the other day.

If Giannis were born earlier I honestly think we'd be developing him much more similarly to Hakeem.

Hell he still might get there considering how much his body has already filled out. It's more likely he ends up closer to KG considering how much he's playing on the perimeter, but KG himself became much more of a center later in his career too.

Of course Giannis is a long ways off from Hakeem or any superstar of that level currently and I don't mean to be putting any carts before horses.

But if he becomes that kind of matchup nightmare -- especially to small ball teams -- maybe our calculus of how many stars vs role players we need isn't so clearcut?

It was a different era all around but I'm struck by how far they went (albeit without facing MJ) based on putting complimentary guys around Olajuwon and letting him do his thing.

[DingleJerry]

I watched some of a 1993-94 Rockets vs Knicks finals game on ESPN classic the other day.

If Giannis were born earlier I honestly think we'd be developing him much more similarly to Hakeem.

Hell he still might get there considering how much his body has already filled out. It's more likely he ends up closer to KG considering how much he's playing on the perimeter, but KG himself became much more of a center later in his career too.

Of course Giannis is a long ways off from Hakeem or any superstar of that level currently and I don't mean to be putting any carts before horses.

But if he becomes that kind of matchup nightmare -- especially to small ball teams -- maybe our calculus of how many stars vs role players we need isn't so clearcut?

It was a different era all around but I'm struck by how far they went (albeit without facing MJ) based on putting complimentary guys around Olajuwon and letting him do his thing.

I get your point and don't necessarily disagree. However, the rule changes since then are a huge difference making it such a perimeter and PnR focused game instead of centered around bigs like it was back then. It's tough to undersell how big that is in terms of team building and strategy.

[ReasonablySober]

I watched some of a 1993-94 Rockets vs Knicks finals game on ESPN classic the other day.

If Giannis were born earlier I honestly think we'd be developing him much more similarly to Hakeem.

Hell he still might get there considering how much his body has already filled out. It's more likely he ends up closer to KG considering how much he's playing on the perimeter, but KG himself became much more of a center later in his career too.

Of course Giannis is a long ways off from Hakeem or any superstar of that level currently and I don't mean to be putting any carts before horses.

But if he becomes that kind of matchup nightmare -- especially to small ball teams -- maybe our calculus of how many stars vs role players we need isn't so clearcut?

It was a different era all around but I'm struck by how far they went (albeit without facing MJ) based on putting complimentary guys around Olajuwon and letting him do his thing.

I get your point and don't necessarily disagree. However, the rule changes since then are a huge difference making it such a perimeter and PnR focused game instead of centered around bigs like it was back then. It's tough to undersell how big that is in terms of team building and strategy.

I think rule changes are far less significant than the rise of smart people examining a greater wealth of data. If you take last year's Cavs or Warriors and drop them in that era they're boat-racing the entire league.