Giannis wins next few championships. With which team?

[old skool]

I don't think ownership net worth determines how much a team will spend to win in the NBA. Most wealth is invested. A billionaire owner would have to sell assets to create cash to pour into an NBA team. NBA teams are likely to lose money for a while. Even billionaires are reluctant to subsidize a losing business. Antetokounmpo will get his pot of gold, but his decision on where he signs will likely be more of a basketball decision than a financial one.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[Warriorfan]

I don't think ownership net worth determines how much a team will spend to win in the NBA. Most wealth is invested. A billionaire owner would have to sell assets to create cash to pour into an NBA team. NBA teams are likely to lose money for a while. Even billionaires are reluctant to subsidize a losing business. Antetokounmpo will get his pot of gold, but his decision on where he signs will likely be more of a basketball decision than a financial one.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Luxury /repeater tax does affect what team is around the star who will be paid a third of the cap

Brogdan deal .
How much more talent on the older bucks will be bleeded out. Ilyasova, Lopez, Hill, Mathews to follow?

[skones]

I don't think ownership net worth determines how much a team will spend to win in the NBA. Most wealth is invested. A billionaire owner would have to sell assets to create cash to pour into an NBA team. NBA teams are likely to lose money for a while. Even billionaires are reluctant to subsidize a losing business. Antetokounmpo will get his pot of gold, but his decision on where he signs will likely be more of a basketball decision than a financial one.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Luxury /repeater tax does affect what team is around the star who will be paid a third of the cap

Brogdan deal .
How much more talent on the older bucks will be bleeded out. Ilyasova, Lopez, Hill, Mathews to follow?

YoUr TeAm AgEs BuT mInE dOeSnT

Sit down.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using RealGM mobile app

[old skool]

I don't think ownership net worth determines how much a team will spend to win in the NBA. Most wealth is invested. A billionaire owner would have to sell assets to create cash to pour into an NBA team. NBA teams are likely to lose money for a while. Even billionaires are reluctant to subsidize a losing business. Antetokounmpo will get his pot of gold, but his decision on where he signs will likely be more of a basketball decision than a financial one.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Luxury /repeater tax does affect what team is around the star who will be paid a third of the cap

Brogdan deal .
How much more talent on the older bucks will be bleeded out. Ilyasova, Lopez, Hill, Mathews to follow?

The Bucks were smart trading Brogdon.

You can't count on a player who misses roughly one quarter of all games, regular season and playoffs.

Brogdon is a good player, whose impact is muted because he can't play heavy minutes and is frequently injured.

This year he is averaging 30.4 minutes per game, boosting his career average to 28.6 mpg. That's a pretty low number for someone paid $20-million a year. He began the season looking like he was worth it, but his productivity fell off significantly as the season progressed and Indiana had to cut back his minutes.

This year, Brogdon's assist numbers are up, but that is about all. His shooting has been pedestrian. Only once in his four year career has Brogdon made more 3-pt FGs than Giannis has so far this season. Both are shooting about 31% from the arc this year - neither is what you would call a floor spacer.

Brogdon is a good NBA player. He is big and strong for a SG and upped his assists to 7.1 per game. He can score driving to the basket. He can make shots when he is wide open, but his slow release dilutes his effectiveness in key situations. With cheaper SG alternatives in Mathews and DiVincenzo, Milwaukee was able to use the cash they saved to dramatically improve their center position. Those moves improved their team and improved their W-L record. Arguing otherwise ignores reality. (And that is before seeing the impact of adding a first round draft pick from the Brogdon trade. )

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[Warriorfan]

I don't think ownership net worth determines how much a team will spend to win in the NBA. Most wealth is invested. A billionaire owner would have to sell assets to create cash to pour into an NBA team. NBA teams are likely to lose money for a while. Even billionaires are reluctant to subsidize a losing business. Antetokounmpo will get his pot of gold, but his decision on where he signs will likely be more of a basketball decision than a financial one.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Luxury /repeater tax does affect what team is around the star who will be paid a third of the cap

Brogdan deal .
How much more talent on the older bucks will be bleeded out. Ilyasova, Lopez, Hill, Mathews to follow?

The Bucks were smart trading Brogdon.

You can't count on a player who misses roughly one quarter of all games, regular season and playoffs.

Brogdon is a good player, whose impact is muted because he can't play heavy minutes and is frequently injured.

This year he is averaging 30.4 minutes per game, boosting his career average to 28.6 mpg. That's a pretty low number for someone paid $20-million a year. He began the season looking like he was worth it, but his productivity fell off significantly as the season progressed and Indiana had to cut back his minutes.

This year, Brogdon's assist numbers are up, but that is about all. His shooting has been pedestrian. Only once in his four year career has Brogdon made more 3-pt FGs than Giannis has so far this season. Both are shooting about 31% from the arc this year - neither is what you would call a floor space.

Brogdon is a good NBA player. He is big and strong for a SG and upped his assists to 7.1 per game. He can score driving to the basket. He can make shots when he is wide open, but his slow release dilutes his effectiveness in key situations. With cheaper SG alternatives in Mathews and DiVincenzo, Milwaukee was able to use the cash they saved to dramatically improve their center position. Those moves improved their team and improved their W-L record. Arguing otherwise is ignores reality. (And that is before seeing the impact of adding a first round draft pick from the Brogdon trade. )

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Teams like GS LA sign Brogdan combine with another asset bring in a better player team like
Mil trades for pick. How many ROY in past 40 yrs do you think have been traded b4 2nd contract


Was the pick rookie of the year.

[jimmy keys]

I don't think ownership net worth determines how much a team will spend to win in the NBA. Most wealth is invested. A billionaire owner would have to sell assets to create cash to pour into an NBA team. NBA teams are likely to lose money for a while. Even billionaires are reluctant to subsidize a losing business. Antetokounmpo will get his pot of gold, but his decision on where he signs will likely be more of a basketball decision than a financial one.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Luxury /repeater tax does affect what team is around the star who will be paid a third of the cap

Brogdan deal .
How much more talent on the older bucks will be bleeded out. Ilyasova, Lopez, Hill, Mathews to follow?

The Bucks were smart trading Brogdon.

You can't count on a player who misses roughly one quarter of all games, regular season and playoffs.

Brogdon is a good player, whose impact is muted because he can't play heavy minutes and is frequently injured.

This year he is averaging 30.4 minutes per game, boosting his career average to 28.6 mpg. That's a pretty low number for someone paid $20-million a year. He began the season looking like he was worth it, but his productivity fell off significantly as the season progressed and Indiana had to cut back his minutes.

This year, Brogdon's assist numbers are up, but that is about all. His shooting has been pedestrian. Only once in his four year career has Brogdon made more 3-pt FGs than Giannis has so far this season. Both are shooting about 31% from the arc this year - neither is what you would call a floor space.

Brogdon is a good NBA player. He is big and strong for a SG and upped his assists to 7.1 per game. He can score driving to the basket. He can make shots when he is wide open, but his slow release dilutes his effectiveness in key situations. With cheaper SG alternatives in Mathews and DiVincenzo, Milwaukee was able to use the cash they saved to dramatically improve their center position. Those moves improved their team and improved their W-L record. Arguing otherwise is ignores reality. (And that is before seeing the impact of adding a first round draft pick from the Brogdon trade. )

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

So the Clippers can't rely on Kawhi either?

All this backflipping about how much better Milwaukee is without Brogdon seems desperate. They could have traded him for a win now piece and didn't when they have a two year window unless Giannis re-signs. Hopefully that late pick turns out well. Giannis might be gone by then though.

[crossroads]

Luxury /repeater tax does affect what team is around the star who will be paid a third of the cap

Brogdan deal .
How much more talent on the older bucks will be bleeded out. Ilyasova, Lopez, Hill, Mathews to follow?

The Bucks were smart trading Brogdon.

You can't count on a player who misses roughly one quarter of all games, regular season and playoffs.

Brogdon is a good player, whose impact is muted because he can't play heavy minutes and is frequently injured.

This year he is averaging 30.4 minutes per game, boosting his career average to 28.6 mpg. That's a pretty low number for someone paid $20-million a year. He began the season looking like he was worth it, but his productivity fell off significantly as the season progressed and Indiana had to cut back his minutes.

This year, Brogdon's assist numbers are up, but that is about all. His shooting has been pedestrian. Only once in his four year career has Brogdon made more 3-pt FGs than Giannis has so far this season. Both are shooting about 31% from the arc this year - neither is what you would call a floor space.

Brogdon is a good NBA player. He is big and strong for a SG and upped his assists to 7.1 per game. He can score driving to the basket. He can make shots when he is wide open, but his slow release dilutes his effectiveness in key situations. With cheaper SG alternatives in Mathews and DiVincenzo, Milwaukee was able to use the cash they saved to dramatically improve their center position. Those moves improved their team and improved their W-L record. Arguing otherwise is ignores reality. (And that is before seeing the impact of adding a first round draft pick from the Brogdon trade. )

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

So the Clippers can't rely on Kawhi either?

All this backflipping about how much better Milwaukee is without Brogdon seems desperate. They could have traded him for a win now piece and didn't when they have a two year window unless Giannis re-signs. Hopefully that late pick turns out well. Giannis might be gone by then though.

Brogdon was a restricted free agent. They didn't have that much choice in who they were trading him to. The Pacers were going to sign him to an offer sheet, it was either match or get value out of it. They chose to get some draft capital rather than pay $20 million a year for someone who'd be maybe their 4th-5th best player.

They're currently a better team than last year in every way. And I like Brogdon a lot, he's a good player. Milwaukee had to make a decision, and so far it's worked out. The only people really criticizing it around here are people that desperately want Giannis on their favourite team.

Sent from my MAR-LX3A using RealGM mobile app

[old skool]

Luxury /repeater tax does affect what team is around the star who will be paid a third of the cap

Brogdan deal .
How much more talent on the older bucks will be bleeded out. Ilyasova, Lopez, Hill, Mathews to follow?

The Bucks were smart trading Brogdon.

You can't count on a player who misses roughly one quarter of all games, regular season and playoffs.

Brogdon is a good player, whose impact is muted because he can't play heavy minutes and is frequently injured.

This year he is averaging 30.4 minutes per game, boosting his career average to 28.6 mpg. That's a pretty low number for someone paid $20-million a year. He began the season looking like he was worth it, but his productivity fell off significantly as the season progressed and Indiana had to cut back his minutes.

This year, Brogdon's assist numbers are up, but that is about all. His shooting has been pedestrian. Only once in his four year career has Brogdon made more 3-pt FGs than Giannis has so far this season. Both are shooting about 31% from the arc this year - neither is what you would call a floor space.

Brogdon is a good NBA player. He is big and strong for a SG and upped his assists to 7.1 per game. He can score driving to the basket. He can make shots when he is wide open, but his slow release dilutes his effectiveness in key situations. With cheaper SG alternatives in Mathews and DiVincenzo, Milwaukee was able to use the cash they saved to dramatically improve their center position. Those moves improved their team and improved their W-L record. Arguing otherwise is ignores reality. (And that is before seeing the impact of adding a first round draft pick from the Brogdon trade. )

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

So the Clippers can't rely on Kawhi either?

All this backflipping about how much better Milwaukee is without Brogdon seems desperate. They could have traded him for a win now piece and didn't when they have a two year window unless Giannis re-signs. Hopefully that late pick turns out well. Giannis might be gone by then though.

Trading Brogdon might work in a video game, but not so easily in the NBA where the CBA and injuries are real world factors that need to be understood. Who could they have traded Brogdon for? Last year they could have traded him before the February deadline, but his $1.5-million contract limited the kind of player they could receive in return. What team would trade a starting level player on a low salary contract for Brogdon who could leave via restricted free agency after the season? Moreover, what team would offer any "win now" asset for Brogdon who was so beat up that he was about to miss 21 consecutive games over the end of the RS and start of the playoffs?

I don't know what you consider to be "backflipping". Going into the summer, I expected some team would over spend to sign Brogdon and that the Bucks would be better served to spend those dollars elsewhere than to invest in a fragile starting quality SG who spends too much time on the bench, be it in uniform or dress clothes. I opined that the Bucks would be better off investing major dollars in Middleton and that Bledoe's extension, guaranteed at $25-million less than Brogdon's contract, made sense for Milwaukee, as both deals would generate more productivity per dollar than Brogdon. I saw no reason to start the luxury tax repeater time clock. I did not know exactly who the Bucks could add with the dollars not spent on Brogdon, but when it turned out that they used the $20-million they would have spent on Brogdon this season to sign George Hill, Robin Lopez, Wes Mathews and Kyle Korver I felt that they had improved the team. And they improved without making a rash long term commitment to any veteran signing.

I made these points several times before the season began in various threads where posters claimed that the Bucks hurt their team by choosing dollars over Brogdon. It turns out that those posters were wrong. The Bucks spent wisely and improved their team. There is nothing desperate about that. I don't think you realize how much better the Bucks are this year than last, when they started the season with a rotation that included Matthew Dellevedova, Tony Snell, John Henson, and Thon Maker.

[Warriorfan]

The decision is Brogdan or the pick so far Brogdan is the better player it was a cost decision which is what a small market team does

Measure of success for Bucks should be playoff success which is undetermined.

[jimmy keys]

The Bucks were smart trading Brogdon.

You can't count on a player who misses roughly one quarter of all games, regular season and playoffs.

Brogdon is a good player, whose impact is muted because he can't play heavy minutes and is frequently injured.

This year he is averaging 30.4 minutes per game, boosting his career average to 28.6 mpg. That's a pretty low number for someone paid $20-million a year. He began the season looking like he was worth it, but his productivity fell off significantly as the season progressed and Indiana had to cut back his minutes.

This year, Brogdon's assist numbers are up, but that is about all. His shooting has been pedestrian. Only once in his four year career has Brogdon made more 3-pt FGs than Giannis has so far this season. Both are shooting about 31% from the arc this year - neither is what you would call a floor space.

Brogdon is a good NBA player. He is big and strong for a SG and upped his assists to 7.1 per game. He can score driving to the basket. He can make shots when he is wide open, but his slow release dilutes his effectiveness in key situations. With cheaper SG alternatives in Mathews and DiVincenzo, Milwaukee was able to use the cash they saved to dramatically improve their center position. Those moves improved their team and improved their W-L record. Arguing otherwise is ignores reality. (And that is before seeing the impact of adding a first round draft pick from the Brogdon trade. )

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

So the Clippers can't rely on Kawhi either?

All this backflipping about how much better Milwaukee is without Brogdon seems desperate. They could have traded him for a win now piece and didn't when they have a two year window unless Giannis re-signs. Hopefully that late pick turns out well. Giannis might be gone by then though.

Trading Brogdon might work in a video game, but not so easily in the NBA where the CBA and injuries are real world factors that need to be understood. Who could they have traded Brogdon for? Last year they could have traded him before the February deadline, but his $1.5-million contract limited the kind of player they could receive in return. What team would trade a starting level player on a low salary contract for Brogdon who could leave via restricted free agency after the season? Moreover, what team would offer any "win now" asset for Brogdon who was so beat up that he was about to miss 21 consecutive games over the end of the RS and start of the playoffs?

I don't know what you consider to be "backflipping". Going into the summer, I expected some team would over spend to sign Brogdon and that the Bucks would be better served to spend those dollars elsewhere than to invest in a fragile starting quality SG who spends too much time on the bench, be it in uniform or dress clothes. I opined that the Bucks would be better off investing major dollars in Middleton and that Bledoe's extension, guaranteed at $25-million less than Brogdon's contract, made sense for Milwaukee, as both deals would generate more productivity per dollar than Brogdon. I saw no reason to start the luxury tax repeater time clock. I did not know exactly who the Bucks could add with the dollars not spent on Brogdon, but when it turned out that they used the $20-million they would have spent on Brogdon this season to sign George Hill, Robin Lopez, Wes Mathews and Kyle Korver I felt that they had improved the team. And they improved without making a rash long term commitment to any veteran signing.

I made these points several times before the season began in various threads where posters claimed that the Bucks hurt their team by choosing dollars over Brogdon. It turns out that those posters were wrong. The Bucks spent wisely and improved their team. There is nothing desperate about that. I don't think you realize how much better the Bucks are this year than last, when they started the season with a rotation that included Matthew Dellevedova, Tony Snell, John Henson, and Thon Maker.

Ultimately they chose Bledsoe over Brogdon, which is fine, but not the decision I would have made myself. I think Bledsoe's lack of spacing is much easier to neutralize in a playoff series. Not like Bledsoe doesn't have an injury history that is just as extensive if not more so. Anyways they could have traded Bledsoe instead, but chose to extend him for nearly the same amount they could have re-signed Brogdon for.

You made some solid points about how the overall roster may have improved though and I'm more convinced as a result of reading your post. We'll see if it yields different results come playoff time.

[Packbuckman]

The decision is Brogdan or the pick so far Brogdan is the better player it was a cost decision which is what a small market team does

Measure of success for Bucks should be playoff success which is undetermined.

Your so wrong there we had the whole starting lineup as free agents but Giannis think about that for a second. They chose the players that were more important to the team period and plus brought in players to make us a better team. This team is a championship quality team period. How the **** can you argue otherwise
A 53-12 team the top rated Defense and highest scoring offense who I personally thought would win it all this year even with these other players teaming up. I as so looking forward to these playoffs so Giannis and this bucks team could show you all doubters that this team has learned from last year.