ImageImage

Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25

User avatar
MickeyDavis
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 62,708
And1: 15,989
Joined: May 02, 2002
Location: The Craps Table
     

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#81 » by MickeyDavis » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:39 am

Hill stepped up in the Toronto series when everyone else, including Giannis, did not. I'll be happy to have him come next post season.
A fly was very close to being called a land because that's what it does half the time - Mitch Hedberg
User avatar
HaroldinGMinor
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,320
And1: 2,724
Joined: Jan 23, 2013
       

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#82 » by HaroldinGMinor » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:40 am

ElPeregrino wrote:This was essential after Brogdon left but this team will be so screwed if Giannis leaves.


Well....yeah
Read on Twitter
TroyD92
RealGM
Posts: 14,425
And1: 5,060
Joined: Mar 28, 2013
Location: Renewed Hope
 

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#83 » by TroyD92 » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:40 am

BigO wrote:
TroyD92 wrote:
BigO wrote:If there is not another significant move now, can someone explain to me how coming back with the same team minus brogdon makes us better? I'm curious.


Is anyone saying that? Literally anyone?


Then, if everyone agrees that losing Brogdon with no other big additions, makes the team worse, the only justification for not signing him is that the billionaire owners didn't want to pay the luxury tax. Is there any other conclusion?


I guess I don't see the point in asking questions that are factually ambiguous.
VooDoo7 wrote:
JEIS wrote:

Kidd would have curb stomped him.

Maybe if his name was Denise instead of Dennis.
User avatar
RiotPunch
RealGM
Posts: 15,968
And1: 4,500
Joined: Jul 05, 2009
Location: LA
Contact:
     

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#84 » by RiotPunch » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:41 am

ReasonablySober wrote:Huh. Okay!

You seem to always have Paschke-esque reactions to all Bucks related transactions. :)
Image
Bucksmaniac wrote:I'm sorry, but I'm starting to sour on Giannis
User avatar
MrHoneycutt
Rookie
Posts: 1,231
And1: 810
Joined: Feb 02, 2017
Location: Cool breezes of Anytown, USA
   

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#85 » by MrHoneycutt » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:42 am

rilamann wrote:
RiotPunch wrote:
Frank Nova wrote:So is our starting back court next year Bledsoe and whoever wins the battle between Sterling and Donte?

Theres no money left now after the Hill signing right?



Sent from my SM-N950U using RealGM mobile app

Assuming we waived and stretched Leuer, I think we should still have ~$2-2.5M *before* signing Khris and then the room exception after that. Trading Ersan still in play and now a shiny new TPE as well. Still time to be creative for Horst.

It's time for Horst to find this years version of the Lopez signing last year. Sucks losing Brogdon but if Horst can pull a Lopez part 2 I think we're in pretty good shape.


that would be lovely, but who would qualify? I'm scanning the FA list and it looks like Slim Pickens.

Image
skones
RealGM
Posts: 26,107
And1: 5,707
Joined: Jul 20, 2004
Location: Milwaukee
     

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#86 » by skones » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:43 am

TroyD92 wrote:
skones wrote:
TroyD92 wrote:
Dude was one of the most important players on the team last year. I don't really understand what the problem here is. Did they overpay a little ? Probably. Did the overpay make the expiring contract more valuable in year two? Probably.


George Hill is a bench player, an old bench player, who missed 10 games for us, has a history of hip problems, and is only getting older. George Hill was a steady backup in a place where we previously had Delly. It was a massive upgrade. Playoff George Hill was lightning in a bottle. You don't pay for lightning in a bottle because it's an outlier. We paid for lightning in a bottle. We didn't pay for the guy he was for us in the regular season.


I think you are massively underselling Hill's impact.


I think you're massively overselling it in the future.
jakecronus8
RealGM
Posts: 13,626
And1: 5,090
Joined: Feb 06, 2006
     

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#87 » by jakecronus8 » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:43 am

The Bucks spent roughly 259 million dollars today to be worse next year and people are acting like it’s a big win. I don’t get it.
Read on Twitter


Hardcore Bucks fan podcast. @BuckLifePodcast on Twitter. Available on iTunes, Stitcher, and YouTube.
TroyD92
RealGM
Posts: 14,425
And1: 5,060
Joined: Mar 28, 2013
Location: Renewed Hope
 

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#88 » by TroyD92 » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:44 am

MrHoneycutt wrote:
rilamann wrote:
RiotPunch wrote:Assuming we waived and stretched Leuer, I think we should still have ~$2-2.5M *before* signing Khris and then the room exception after that. Trading Ersan still in play and now a shiny new TPE as well. Still time to be creative for Horst.

It's time for Horst to find this years version of the Lopez signing last year. Sucks losing Brogdon but if Horst can pull a Lopez part 2 I think we're in pretty good shape.


that would be lovely, but who would qualify? I'm scanning the FA list and it looks like Slim Pickens.

Image


Lopez was a bum who nobody wanted last year. Who knows who the next Brook will be.
VooDoo7 wrote:
JEIS wrote:

Kidd would have curb stomped him.

Maybe if his name was Denise instead of Dennis.
TroyD92
RealGM
Posts: 14,425
And1: 5,060
Joined: Mar 28, 2013
Location: Renewed Hope
 

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#89 » by TroyD92 » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:45 am

skones wrote:
TroyD92 wrote:
skones wrote:
George Hill is a bench player, an old bench player, who missed 10 games for us, has a history of hip problems, and is only getting older. George Hill was a steady backup in a place where we previously had Delly. It was a massive upgrade. Playoff George Hill was lightning in a bottle. You don't pay for lightning in a bottle because it's an outlier. We paid for lightning in a bottle. We didn't pay for the guy he was for us in the regular season.


I think you are massively underselling Hill's impact.


I think you're massively overselling it in the future.


I'm not though. It's an expiring contract. You can literally give those away to teams or use them to facilitate larger trades for your own team or for potential threeway trades.
VooDoo7 wrote:
JEIS wrote:

Kidd would have curb stomped him.

Maybe if his name was Denise instead of Dennis.
BigO
Sophomore
Posts: 239
And1: 118
Joined: Jul 07, 2014

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#90 » by BigO » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:47 am

TroyD92 wrote:
BigO wrote:
TroyD92 wrote:
Is anyone saying that? Literally anyone?


Then, if everyone agrees that losing Brogdon with no other big additions, makes the team worse, the only justification for not signing him is that the billionaire owners didn't want to pay the luxury tax. Is there any other conclusion?


I guess I don't see the point in asking questions that are factually ambiguous.


Nothing ambiguous. You said everyone agrees that losing brogdon without a significant addition makes the Bucks worse (fact). So if the Bucks are in a win now mode, why would the owners not resign Brogdon unless they didn't want to pay the luxury tax? And if that's the case, then they are not in a win now mode. Not my money, but a bad move. They must justify it in their minds by thinking DDV or someone else will step forward.
skones
RealGM
Posts: 26,107
And1: 5,707
Joined: Jul 20, 2004
Location: Milwaukee
     

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#91 » by skones » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:48 am

TroyD92 wrote:
skones wrote:
TroyD92 wrote:
I think you are massively underselling Hill's impact.


I think you're massively overselling it in the future.


I'm not though. It's an expiring contract. You can literally give those away to teams or use them to facilitate larger trades for your own team or for potential threeway trades.


If you can give them away to teams we wouldn't be sitting here having to **** stretch one so we can overpay Hill.
User avatar
vital_signs
Rookie
Posts: 1,172
And1: 310
Joined: Feb 12, 2015
 

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#92 » by vital_signs » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:48 am

SickMother wrote:
BigO wrote:If there is not another significant move now, can someone explain to me how coming back with the same team minus brogdon makes us better? I'm curious.


Giannis has gotten better every season of his career.

So Giannis is going to improve to the point where he replaces Brogdon's production?
rrayy
Senior
Posts: 639
And1: 382
Joined: Feb 23, 2019

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#93 » by rrayy » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:48 am

skones wrote:
TroyD92 wrote:
skones wrote:
When we dealt for Hill, I plainly stated, "I don't think you guys realize how much better George Hill is going to make us." I was on team Hill, I love George Hill, but he's 33 years old and no team in the entire league was going to pay him 10m a season. It's a problem when you've got a team and there is not a single contract on it you can feel really good about sans Giannis. You NEED that.


He's essentially on a two year contract. you can easily trade him in the 2nd year. This isn't Tony Snell


Have we not been around here long enough to know that the "you can easily trade him" stuff just sounds dumber and dumber and dumber as the year's go by? Trading him later on isn't the point. Being a two year contract isn't the point. It's about the value being greater than dollars spent. That's what good organizations do year after year. Horst has CLEARLY demonstrated he's incapable of getting that. That's a problem, that's a massive red flag.
You have absolutely no clue how good Hill is going to be. For all you know, he outplays his contract and the value is better than the dollars spent. You are clearly calling Horst incompetent because you hate the move. There is absolutely no way you can claim they he clearly incapable of anything right now. So, it is ludicrous to make sweeping declarations like that.
User avatar
livestrong4ever
General Manager
Posts: 9,073
And1: 133
Joined: Jun 23, 2005
Location: Roaring down the river.
Contact:
     

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#94 » by livestrong4ever » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:49 am

pretty decent deal- pretty much the going rate for a player of hills talent - like what he brought to the team last year. will whom else the bucks bring in.
Image
User avatar
Brewhoopfan
Pro Prospect
Posts: 774
And1: 658
Joined: Nov 20, 2017
 

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#95 » by Brewhoopfan » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:49 am

Love it. His playoff run wasn't an outlier. He showed he is still a damn good player who performs at high levels in big games.
rrayy
Senior
Posts: 639
And1: 382
Joined: Feb 23, 2019

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#96 » by rrayy » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:50 am

BigO wrote:
TroyD92 wrote:
BigO wrote:
Then, if everyone agrees that losing Brogdon with no other big additions, makes the team worse, the only justification for not signing him is that the billionaire owners didn't want to pay the luxury tax. Is there any other conclusion?


I guess I don't see the point in asking questions that are factually ambiguous.


Nothing ambiguous. You said everyone agrees that losing brogdon without a significant addition makes the Bucks worse (fact). So if the Bucks are in a win now mode, why would the owners not resign Brogdon unless they didn't want to pay the luxury tax? And if that's the case, then they are not in a win now mode. Not my money, but a bad move. They must justify it in their minds by thinking DDV or someone else will step forward.
Because Brogodn doesn't want to be in Milwaukee and they don't want to pay a ton of money to a player likely to be a liability because he doesn't want to be in town. Why do people keep ignoring that?
TroyD92
RealGM
Posts: 14,425
And1: 5,060
Joined: Mar 28, 2013
Location: Renewed Hope
 

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#97 » by TroyD92 » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:53 am

BigO wrote:
TroyD92 wrote:
BigO wrote:
Then, if everyone agrees that losing Brogdon with no other big additions, makes the team worse, the only justification for not signing him is that the billionaire owners didn't want to pay the luxury tax. Is there any other conclusion?


I guess I don't see the point in asking questions that are factually ambiguous.


Nothing ambiguous. You said everyone agrees that losing brogdon without a significant addition makes the Bucks worse (fact). So if the Bucks are in a win now mode, why would the owners not resign Brogdon unless they didn't want to pay the luxury tax? And if that's the case, then they are not in a win now mode. Not my money, but a bad move. They must justify it in their minds by thinking DDV or someone else will step forward.


It's ambiguous becuase you said if no other big additions happen. When we have no idea what is going to happen and we have the assets needed to bring in a good player.
VooDoo7 wrote:
JEIS wrote:

Kidd would have curb stomped him.

Maybe if his name was Denise instead of Dennis.
rrayy
Senior
Posts: 639
And1: 382
Joined: Feb 23, 2019

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#98 » by rrayy » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:54 am

jakecronus8 wrote:The Bucks spent roughly 259 million dollars today to be worse next year and people are acting like it’s a big win. I don’t get it.
They still have a TPE to use to get yet another player. They are not done yet. Also, they can be better. To act like it is not possible is dumb.
skones
RealGM
Posts: 26,107
And1: 5,707
Joined: Jul 20, 2004
Location: Milwaukee
     

Re: Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#99 » by skones » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:55 am

rrayy wrote:
skones wrote:
TroyD92 wrote:
He's essentially on a two year contract. you can easily trade him in the 2nd year. This isn't Tony Snell


Have we not been around here long enough to know that the "you can easily trade him" stuff just sounds dumber and dumber and dumber as the year's go by? Trading him later on isn't the point. Being a two year contract isn't the point. It's about the value being greater than dollars spent. That's what good organizations do year after year. Horst has CLEARLY demonstrated he's incapable of getting that. That's a problem, that's a massive red flag.
You have absolutely no clue how good Hill is going to be. For all you know, he outplays his contract and the value is better than the dollars spent. You are clearly calling Horst incompetent because you hate the move. There is absolutely no way you can claim they he clearly incapable of anything right now. So, it is ludicrous to make sweeping declarations like that.


k horsty
User avatar
machu46
Head Coach
Posts: 6,582
And1: 1,601
Joined: Jun 28, 2012
Location: Alexandria, VA
       

Shams: George Hill returns 3 years $29 million 

Post#100 » by machu46 » Mon Jul 1, 2019 12:55 am

Read on Twitter
?s=21

This is what I was afraid of. We really might have burned the TPE to give 33 year old Hill another few thousand.

I really hope we have another path.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
trwi7 wrote:**** me deep, Giannis. ****. Me. Deep.

Return to Milwaukee Bucks