OT-Woj: Bledsoe to Bucks

[BBALLER4FR]

More contract options - team options, less guaranteed, less salary per year, etc.

Pickings will be thinner so you need a good scouting department, but early 2nds have great value.

That doesn't make it more valuable than a late 1st. There may be more flexability in a second rnd pick but teams would almost always prefer a 1st rounder 20-30 over the 32nd, 33rd or 34th pick. Otherwise Milwaukee should have given them their 2nd rounder.

Which is why the term "arguably" was originally used and not "definitively." The early 2nd could be situationally preferable and a number of good players have been taken with early 2nds even in recent times. Jokic, Green, Middleton, Brogdon to name a few.

In any event, we should also look to acquire another late first or two over the next two years. We have the assets to do it, and a good scouting department. Use our pockets to take on salary for picks. If you're gonna play in the late first/early 2nd round you need to take multiple shots to maximize your chance of hitting.

I'm not arguing good players haven't been found with second rounders (Isiah Thomas). I'm arguing that because of luck and financial flexibility, teams would find acquiring (even "arguably") 2nd rounders more valuable than 1st when the late 1st gives you a better shot at getting your diamond in the rough and still allows you to easily swap with someone in the 2nd round. Strategically it sounds odd.

[Sark]

Every team gets a first rounder in trades except the Knicks

That's the difference between trading young players and old farts.

Greg Monroe is 27 and sucks.

I meant the return on Bledsoe. We could get firsts for KP or Frank. Probably Willy too. Aside from them we don't have anyone in the Bledsoe mold, that is young enough to return a 1st. Melo at 33 certainly isn't returning a 1st anymore.

[Capn'O]

That doesn't make it more valuable than a late 1st. There may be more flexability in a second rnd pick but teams would almost always prefer a 1st rounder 20-30 over the 32nd, 33rd or 34th pick. Otherwise Milwaukee should have given them their 2nd rounder.

Which is why the term "arguably" was originally used and not "definitively." The early 2nd could be situationally preferable and a number of good players have been taken with early 2nds even in recent times. Jokic, Green, Middleton, Brogdon to name a few.

In any event, we should also look to acquire another late first or two over the next two years. We have the assets to do it, and a good scouting department. Use our pockets to take on salary for picks. If you're gonna play in the late first/early 2nd round you need to take multiple shots to maximize your chance of hitting.

I'm not arguing good players haven't been found with second rounders (Isiah Thomas). I'm arguing that because of luck and financial flexibility, teams would find acquiring (even "arguably") 2nd rounders more valuable than 1st when the late 1st gives you a better shot at getting your diamond in the rough and still allows you to easily swap with someone in the 2nd round. Strategically it sounds odd.

That's because you're still thinking in the 1st/2nd polemic instead of actual pick value. Pick 33 is relatively close in expected value to Pick 23 so the other factors (contract flexibility and value) can be weighted heavily. Later in the 2nd round, the dropoff in expected value is steep.

[Besart19]

This makes Parker expandable... Brogdon at SG, Khris at SF and Giannis at PF

Maker/Henson
Giannis/Mirza
Khris/Liggins
Brogdon/Snell
Bledsoe/Delly

Lee, KOQ, Kuz and Chi 2nd for Jabari

[Knicksfan20]

One thing about 2nd runners that suck... less guaranteed years. So if you strike gold, player will be a RFA and forced to pay big or let your “gem” walk.

4 years guaranteed (assuming team options picked up) for first round talent, and you can get a player in the 2nd for 3 years at a lower price, decline 4th year team option and have him become a RFA a year before his contract expires (instead of letting him become a UFA at the end of his 4th - Jokic situation). That one year doesn't make a difference, really.

Key words....”you can” if we draft a guy and give him a 2 year contract and becomes starter quality, u only get him 2 years for rookie salary. Compared to a first rounder who is 4 years.

Just making a slight counter argument that “early 2nd rounders are more valuable”

Most early 2nd rounders will get 3 years, I’m just saying.

[robillionaire]

it seems that people view bledsoe as a pg, why?

he has zero pg skills, he's a shooting guard with a handle who's too short to start at the 2 so they made him a 1.

he was averaging over 6 assists per game the past 3 seasons, he was tied for 15th in assists with mike conley last year, not great but he is probably at least capable of making a basic pass unlike say a derrick rose

lol, and?

assists are such a misleading number, derrick rose once almost averaged near 8 assists and never would i ever associate him as a point guard.

So what position would you have associated prime Derrick Rose as? Couldn't have been a shooting guard either because he can't shoot. Lol. He was your prototypical score first PG. score first PG is an evolution (devolution?) of the PG position. I don't like it either but it is what it is.

[BBALLER4FR]

Which is why the term "arguably" was originally used and not "definitively." The early 2nd could be situationally preferable and a number of good players have been taken with early 2nds even in recent times. Jokic, Green, Middleton, Brogdon to name a few.

In any event, we should also look to acquire another late first or two over the next two years. We have the assets to do it, and a good scouting department. Use our pockets to take on salary for picks. If you're gonna play in the late first/early 2nd round you need to take multiple shots to maximize your chance of hitting.

I'm not arguing good players haven't been found with second rounders (Isiah Thomas). I'm arguing that because of luck and financial flexibility, teams would find acquiring (even "arguably") 2nd rounders more valuable than 1st when the late 1st gives you a better shot at getting your diamond in the rough and still allows you to easily swap with someone in the 2nd round. Strategically it sounds odd.

That's because you're still thinking in the 1st/2nd polemic instead of actual pick value. Pick 33 is relatively close in expected value to Pick 23 so the other factors (contract flexibility and value) can be weighted heavily. Later in the 2nd round, the dropoff in expected value is steep.

Right. So, disregarding the statement "Later in the 2nd round, the dropoff in expected value is steep" because that is obvious, and assuming early 2nd and late 1st hold similar weight, under what moon does the early 2nd rounder "arguably" become more valuable than the late 1st in an acquisition? Unless you are talking about being one of those teams holding the 2nd rounder come draft time hoping there is a sellers market in the late first, I don't see it. In fact the team holding that late first doesn't even need a team with an early 2nd as a trading partner, they can just trade with anyone in the second round to maintain financial flexibility or trade with a contender for a future 1st, there are many possibilities where that late first is often more valuable than any second rounder.

And this is not me being a d*ck here. This is me genuinely trying to figure out how anyone could come to the conclusion that "arguably" any 1st round pick has less value than a second.

[IllmaticHandler]

Snell @ SF for us....

[ctorres]

This makes Parker expandable... Brogdon at SG, Khris at SF and Giannis at PF

Not necessarily.

Against Golden State, I would roll with Giannis at center, forcing the Warriors to use Green on him.

Eric Bledsoe vs Stephen Curry
Malcolm Brogdon vs Klay Thompson
Khris Middleton vs Andre Iguodala
Jabari Parker vs Kevin Durant
Giannis Antetokounmpo vs Draymond Green

[NBA Fan 1234]

One thing about 2nd runners that suck... less guaranteed years. So if you strike gold, player will be a RFA and forced to pay big or let your “gem” walk.

4 years guaranteed (assuming team options picked up) for first round talent, and you can get a player in the 2nd for 3 years at a lower price, decline 4th year team option and have him become a RFA a year before his contract expires (instead of letting him become a UFA at the end of his 4th - Jokic situation). That one year doesn't make a difference, really.

Key words....”you can” if we draft a guy and give him a 2 year contract and becomes starter quality, u only get him 2 years for rookie salary. Compared to a first rounder who is 4 years.

Just making a slight counter argument that “early 2nd rounders are more valuable”

Most early 2nd rounders will get 3 years, I’m just saying.

As far as I know, 2nd round picks very often get 4 year contracts (although I might be wrong...? - if I am, I'd love to see the numbers showing contract breakdowns). If a team drafts someone like Jokic, they don't exercise the team option on the 4th year so he can become a RFA. I don't remember a 2nd round player having his 4th year opted into and becoming a UFA. The same thing happened with Parsons and the Rockets - HOU opted not to bring him back, but then declined to match the Mavs' deal.

Dotson will be a RFA at the end of his 3 year contract, but aside from him, are there others? The key is that 2nd rounders have less guaranteed money tied to them, but the team can still have the player be a RFA. That's huge. Even though RFA is a year earlier, the cheap cap hit for the first contract is awesome.

[BuckHole]

I believe Bledsoe has had multiple knee surgeries on meniscus. No tendons as I’ve seen. Inject some stem cells in there and he’s fine; meniscus can be regrown. I’m excited as hell. I hope he can be a positive on defense; why couldn’t he be? Let’s do this!!!!

[BuckHole]

C’mon! Bledsoe’s skills and athleticism fits our Bucks better than Monroe’s did.

[Capn'O]

I'm not arguing good players haven't been found with second rounders (Isiah Thomas). I'm arguing that because of luck and financial flexibility, teams would find acquiring (even "arguably") 2nd rounders more valuable than 1st when the late 1st gives you a better shot at getting your diamond in the rough and still allows you to easily swap with someone in the 2nd round. Strategically it sounds odd.

That's because you're still thinking in the 1st/2nd polemic instead of actual pick value. Pick 33 is relatively close in expected value to Pick 23 so the other factors (contract flexibility and value) can be weighted heavily. Later in the 2nd round, the dropoff in expected value is steep.

Right. So, disregarding the statement "Later in the 2nd round, the dropoff in expected value is steep" because that is obvious, and assuming early 2nd and late 1st hold similar weight, under what moon does the early 2nd rounder "arguably" become more valuable than the late 1st in an acquisition? Unless you are talking about being one of those teams holding the 2nd rounder come draft time hoping there is a sellers market in the late first, I don't see it. In fact the team holding that late first doesn't even need a team with an early 2nd as a trading partner, they can just trade with anyone in the second round to maintain financial flexibility or trade with a contender for a future 1st, there are many possibilities where that late first is often more valuable than any second rounder.

And this is not me being a d*ck here. This is me genuinely trying to figure out how anyone could come to the conclusion that "arguably" any 1st round pick has less value than a second.

Yes, I'm talking about from an asset acquisition standpoint. If you're talking about expected play only then yes, a higher % of success is a higher %. You just described one scenario. Simply put, a team that has some combination of:

A) Most upcoming salary slots filled

AND

B) A need to preserve cap space for free agency OR
C) Is close to the luxury tax threshold

May prefer taking a flyer on a player with fewer commitments.


What's not being said here is both the late 1st and early 2nd have a high probability of being negligible players in the league. Say a 10% difference in even being in the league after their first contract and the difference being a 35% chance vs. a 25% chance (it's something like that iirc). So basically, if a team wants to take a stab at a future commitment but doesn't want to commit to a probable bust that early 2nd is a better acquisition.


Back to my other point - if you're going to mess around in the late 1st/early 2nd at all you should take many shots. So from that perspective, neither the Bulls 2nd by itself or a late first is all that great. If we intend to keep it, we should acquire more like it.

[Capn'O]

4 years guaranteed (assuming team options picked up) for first round talent, and you can get a player in the 2nd for 3 years at a lower price, decline 4th year team option and have him become a RFA a year before his contract expires (instead of letting him become a UFA at the end of his 4th - Jokic situation). That one year doesn't make a difference, really.

Key words....”you can” if we draft a guy and give him a 2 year contract and becomes starter quality, u only get him 2 years for rookie salary. Compared to a first rounder who is 4 years.

Just making a slight counter argument that “early 2nd rounders are more valuable”

Most early 2nd rounders will get 3 years, I’m just saying.

As far as I know, 2nd round picks very often get 4 year contracts (although I might be wrong...? - if I am, I'd love to see the numbers showing contract breakdowns). If a team drafts someone like Jokic, they don't exercise the team option on the 4th year so he can become a RFA. I don't remember a 2nd round player having his 4th year opted into and becoming a UFA. The same thing happened with Parsons and the Rockets - HOU opted not to bring him back, but then declined to match the Mavs' deal.

Dotson will be a RFA at the end of his 3 year contract, but aside from him, are there others? The key is that 2nd rounders have less guaranteed money tied to them, but the team can still have the player be a RFA. That's huge. Even though RFA is a year earlier, the cheap cap hit for the first contract is awesome.

Just looking at the top 3 picks in the 2nd this year, Jackson and Reed got 2 guaranteed with a 3rd year team option and Iwundu got 2 years flat. Teams can kind of do whatever they want.

[NBA Fan 1234]

Key words....”you can” if we draft a guy and give him a 2 year contract and becomes starter quality, u only get him 2 years for rookie salary. Compared to a first rounder who is 4 years.

Just making a slight counter argument that “early 2nd rounders are more valuable”

Most early 2nd rounders will get 3 years, I’m just saying.

As far as I know, 2nd round picks very often get 4 year contracts (although I might be wrong...? - if I am, I'd love to see the numbers showing contract breakdowns). If a team drafts someone like Jokic, they don't exercise the team option on the 4th year so he can become a RFA. I don't remember a 2nd round player having his 4th year opted into and becoming a UFA. The same thing happened with Parsons and the Rockets - HOU opted not to bring him back, but then declined to match the Mavs' deal.

Dotson will be a RFA at the end of his 3 year contract, but aside from him, are there others? The key is that 2nd rounders have less guaranteed money tied to them, but the team can still have the player be a RFA. That's huge. Even though RFA is a year earlier, the cheap cap hit for the first contract is awesome.

Just looking at the top 3 picks in the 2nd this year, Jackson and Reed got 2 guaranteed with a 3rd year team option and Iwundu got 2 years flat. Teams can kind of do whatever they want.

Thanks. Yay for versatility in contracts!

[thebuzzardman]

Isn't there a general board to Bucks fans to discuss this? Is the guy above lost or something?

[dakomish23]

Noel is KP with **** offense

How does that prove he can't be a defensive anchor?

no one is arguing KP is a defensive anchor (albeit a good defender) but since Noels seemingly lack of versatility and talent in other facets of the game people view his defense to be more dominant than it actually is... as opposed to KP who is an excellent offensive player and equivalent defender, noone argues he is an anchor , almost like a reverse halo effect

Noel can guard on the perimeter and protect the rim. He's got solid post defense and is active in deflections.

I'm not taking away from KP's rim protection. It's tremendous and one of the primary reasons I wanted him at C.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on KP being at the same level defensively as Noel though.

[blueNorange]

he was averaging over 6 assists per game the past 3 seasons, he was tied for 15th in assists with mike conley last year, not great but he is probably at least capable of making a basic pass unlike say a derrick rose

lol, and?

assists are such a misleading number, derrick rose once almost averaged near 8 assists and never would i ever associate him as a point guard.

So what position would you have associated prime Derrick Rose as? Couldn't have been a shooting guard either because he can't shoot. Lol. He was your prototypical score first PG. score first PG is an evolution (devolution?) of the PG position. I don't like it either but it is what it is.

a scoring guard.

[blueNorange]

Snell @ SF for us....

then draft robert williams

have williams, kristaps, snell, and frank all lock arms and block off the entire perimeter.

[Zingod]

This makes Parker expandable... Brogdon at SG, Khris at SF and Giannis at PF

Maker/Henson
Giannis/Mirza
Khris/Liggins
Brogdon/Snell
Bledsoe/Delly

Lee, KOQ, Kuz and Chi 2nd for Jabari

Sounds about right.
Jabari is coming from 2 acl surgeries and wants to get paid. Not sure if he's worth the risk tho.