RealGM

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

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?

ReasonablySober wrote:Huh. Okay!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.