[Shams] Myles Turner signs with the Bucks (4-year, $107 million)

[RRyder823]

The bucks could not sign turner unless they made this move on Lillard. It literally could not have happened any other way, so yea there is a direct correlation. They made the evaluation that they valued Myles turner enough that they were willing to take this half decade long cap hit for the right to have him. It’s a lot different than the nfl comparison where there are a lot more moving parts on a 53 man roster and more ways to skin a cat if you want to add a player. Again, they literally only could make this move happen by doing what they did

Are they better off with turner or Lillard the next two years? Sure, they’re better off with turner. But Giannis prime figures to be longer than two years. This move effectively puts a ceiling on them for the rest of Giannis prime. They have the second best player in the world and it’s hard to imagine a scenario where they are actually contending, even in the weaker east

Let's say his prime is 4 more years. Is the dead cap of 50 million from Lillard the next two years better or worse then the 22 in dead cap for the two years after the next two seasons while also having Turner?

And once again adding dead cap to signed players is still idiotic. Unless of course your going to be adding 20 million per year to whichever vet min SG Phoenix brings in now



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

It’s better to take the Lillard hit for the next two years than it is to spread the hit over 5 years, for sure. Especially since the inspiration behind the move was to add a guy who doesn’t move the needle as far as actual title contention goes. 5 years is an eternity in the NBA or any other sport for that matter. Lillards expiring deal could even possibly be somewhat of an asset by next year, and even if not you at least aren’t putting a ceiling on yourself for the rest of Giannis prime. Again, they have the 2nd best player in the world and it’s hard to imagine them actually contending for the next half decade and that is unconscionable

There’s a reason why most of the people defending this are Bucks fans

You talk about capping his prime while actively taking away from the 1st two years of his remaining prime by saying "just eat the next two years" and then going on to say "they've now capped their team the next few years of his prime after the next two years"

Your being hypocritical

And yes most people defending the moves are Bucks fans. Just like most people trashing it are the same ones that were saying Giannis needs to leave because they can't make any moves before they made this move

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[RRyder823]

Taking the $22M cap hit for 5 years and getting Turner seems like the lesser evil vs having Lillard for two years and $110M one of which he won’t play and the second season at 60-70% of his peak. That’s basically three additional years of cap hit.

I like what the Bucks did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[JulesWinnfield]

Let's say his prime is 4 more years. Is the dead cap of 50 million from Lillard the next two years better or worse then the 22 in dead cap for the two years after the next two seasons while also having Turner?

And once again adding dead cap to signed players is still idiotic. Unless of course your going to be adding 20 million per year to whichever vet min SG Phoenix brings in now



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

It’s better to take the Lillard hit for the next two years than it is to spread the hit over 5 years, for sure. Especially since the inspiration behind the move was to add a guy who doesn’t move the needle as far as actual title contention goes. 5 years is an eternity in the NBA or any other sport for that matter. Lillards expiring deal could even possibly be somewhat of an asset by next year, and even if not you at least aren’t putting a ceiling on yourself for the rest of Giannis prime. Again, they have the 2nd best player in the world and it’s hard to imagine them actually contending for the next half decade and that is unconscionable

There’s a reason why most of the people defending this are Bucks fans

You talk about capping his prime while actively taking away from the 1st two years of his remaining prime by saying "just eat the next two years" and then going on to say "they've now capped their team the next few years of his prime after the next two years"

Your being hypocritical

And yes most people defending the moves are Bucks fans. Just like most people trashing it are the same ones that were saying Giannis needs to leave because they can't make any moves before they made this move

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

It’s not hypocritical. The thought process should be about maximizing your chances of winning another championship during the window that is Giannis prime. This move may raise their floor in the next two years (but doesn’t bring them close to contention) and significantly lowers their ceiling for the rest of Giannis prime. Championship contention is off the table for the Bucks now in the Giannis era. He’s an all time great and that’s sad. I have nothing against the Bucks and rooted for you when you won your title, I’d like to see him find a way out of there even if it’s not to the team I root for

[RRyder823]

It’s better to take the Lillard hit for the next two years than it is to spread the hit over 5 years, for sure. Especially since the inspiration behind the move was to add a guy who doesn’t move the needle as far as actual title contention goes. 5 years is an eternity in the NBA or any other sport for that matter. Lillards expiring deal could even possibly be somewhat of an asset by next year, and even if not you at least aren’t putting a ceiling on yourself for the rest of Giannis prime. Again, they have the 2nd best player in the world and it’s hard to imagine them actually contending for the next half decade and that is unconscionable

There’s a reason why most of the people defending this are Bucks fans

You talk about capping his prime while actively taking away from the 1st two years of his remaining prime by saying "just eat the next two years" and then going on to say "they've now capped their team the next few years of his prime after the next two years"

Your being hypocritical

And yes most people defending the moves are Bucks fans. Just like most people trashing it are the same ones that were saying Giannis needs to leave because they can't make any moves before they made this move

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

It’s not hypocritical. The thought process should be about maximizing your chances of winning another championship during the window that is Giannis prime. This move may raise their floor in the next two years (but doesn’t bring them close to contention) and significantly lowers their ceiling for the rest of Giannis prime. Championship contention is off the table for the Bucks now in the Giannis era. He’s an all time great and that’s sad. I have nothing against the Bucks and rooted for you when you won your title, I’d like to see him find a way out of there even if it’s not to the team I root for

"They're capping 2 years of his prime. They shouldve capped the other 2 years of his prime at a higher dead cap number per year"

Yes. You are being hypocritical. There's actually not another way to say it. It's kind of textbook hypocrisy

But good that you owned up to why you are being hypocritical at the end of your post. Bravo

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[JulesWinnfield]

You talk about capping his prime while actively taking away from the 1st two years of his remaining prime by saying "just eat the next two years" and then going on to say "they've now capped their team the next few years of his prime after the next two years"

Your being hypocritical

And yes most people defending the moves are Bucks fans. Just like most people trashing it are the same ones that were saying Giannis needs to leave because they can't make any moves before they made this move

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

It’s not hypocritical. The thought process should be about maximizing your chances of winning another championship during the window that is Giannis prime. This move may raise their floor in the next two years (but doesn’t bring them close to contention) and significantly lowers their ceiling for the rest of Giannis prime. Championship contention is off the table for the Bucks now in the Giannis era. He’s an all time great and that’s sad. I have nothing against the Bucks and rooted for you when you won your title, I’d like to see him find a way out of there even if it’s not to the team I root for

"They're capping 2 years of his prime. They shouldve capped the other 2 years of his prime at a higher dead cap number per year"

Yes. You are being hypocritical. There's actually not another way to say it. It's kind of textbook hypocrisy

But good that you owned up to why you are being hypocritical at the end of your post. Bravo

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Man you’re all over the place. At this point you’re tripping over simple math. The Lillard hit again is spread over 5 years not 4.

Now that’s enough time devoted to a bucks cheerleader who is sashaying his way into my notifications waving the Pom poms. Have a great weekend

[RRyder823]

It’s not hypocritical. The thought process should be about maximizing your chances of winning another championship during the window that is Giannis prime. This move may raise their floor in the next two years (but doesn’t bring them close to contention) and significantly lowers their ceiling for the rest of Giannis prime. Championship contention is off the table for the Bucks now in the Giannis era. He’s an all time great and that’s sad. I have nothing against the Bucks and rooted for you when you won your title, I’d like to see him find a way out of there even if it’s not to the team I root for

"They're capping 2 years of his prime. They shouldve capped the other 2 years of his prime at a higher dead cap number per year"

Yes. You are being hypocritical. There's actually not another way to say it. It's kind of textbook hypocrisy

But good that you owned up to why you are being hypocritical at the end of your post. Bravo

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Man you’re all over the place. At this point you’re tripping over simple math. The Lillard hit again is spread over 5 years not 4.

Now that’s enough time devoted to a bucks cheerleader who is sashaying his way into my notifications waving the Pom poms. Have a great weekend

Yes and if you read earlier i said "let's assume he has 4 years of his prime left" and since your entire point was about Giannis and his prime those were the years in question

Reading comprehension is important but even if I give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply cant read correctly it still doesn't change that you are a hypocrite with your entire premise.

But hey you admitted to why you were being a hypocrite so point to you for honesty

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[Bucksmaniac]

The bucks could not sign turner unless they made this move on Lillard. It literally could not have happened any other way, so yea there is a direct correlation. They made the evaluation that they valued Myles turner enough that they were willing to take this half decade long cap hit for the right to have him. It’s a lot different than the nfl comparison where there are a lot more moving parts on a 53 man roster and more ways to skin a cat if you want to add a player. Again, they literally only could make this move happen by doing what they did

Are they better off with turner or Lillard the next two years? Sure, they’re better off with turner. But Giannis prime figures to be longer than two years. This move effectively puts a ceiling on them for the rest of Giannis prime. They have the second best player in the world and it’s hard to imagine a scenario where they are actually contending, even in the weaker east

Let's say his prime is 4 more years. Is the dead cap of 50 million from Lillard the next two years better or worse then the 22 in dead cap for the two years after the next two seasons while also having Turner?

And once again adding dead cap to signed players is still idiotic. Unless of course your going to be adding 20 million per year to whichever vet min SG Phoenix brings in now



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

It’s better to take the Lillard hit for the next two years than it is to spread the hit over 5 years, for sure. Especially since the inspiration behind the move was to add a guy who doesn’t move the needle as far as actual title contention goes. 5 years is an eternity in the NBA or any other sport for that matter. Lillards expiring deal could even possibly be somewhat of an asset by next year, and even if not you at least aren’t putting a ceiling on yourself for the rest of Giannis prime. Again, they have the 2nd best player in the world and it’s hard to imagine them actually contending for the next half decade and that is unconscionable

There’s a reason why most of the people defending this are Bucks fans

Turner is probably the best fit at Center with Giannis in the league, an early Bucks Lopez potential impact player. I think it has a chance to move the needle. If KPJ can become a 2nd or 3rd option caliber player it may be enough to get back into contention for the East.

[old skool]

The bucks could not sign turner unless they made this move on Lillard. It literally could not have happened any other way, so yea there is a direct correlation. They made the evaluation that they valued Myles turner enough that they were willing to take this half decade long cap hit for the right to have him. It’s a lot different than the nfl comparison where there are a lot more moving parts on a 53 man roster and more ways to skin a cat if you want to add a player. Again, they literally only could make this move happen by doing what they did

Are they better off with turner or Lillard the next two years? Sure, they’re better off with turner. But Giannis prime figures to be longer than two years. This move effectively puts a ceiling on them for the rest of Giannis prime. They have the second best player in the world and it’s hard to imagine a scenario where they are actually contending, even in the weaker east

Let's say his prime is 4 more years. Is the dead cap of 50 million from Lillard the next two years better or worse then the 22 in dead cap for the two years after the next two seasons while also having Turner?

And once again adding dead cap to signed players is still idiotic. Unless of course your going to be adding 20 million per year to whichever vet min SG Phoenix brings in now



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

It’s better to take the Lillard hit for the next two years than it is to spread the hit over 5 years, for sure. Especially since the inspiration behind the move was to add a guy who doesn’t move the needle as far as actual title contention goes. 5 years is an eternity in the NBA or any other sport for that matter. Lillards expiring deal could even possibly be somewhat of an asset by next year, and even if not you at least aren’t putting a ceiling on yourself for the rest of Giannis prime. Again, they have the 2nd best player in the world and it’s hard to imagine them actually contending for the next half decade and that is unconscionable

There’s a reason why most of the people defending this are Bucks fans

The moves to stretch Lillard's contract and sign Turner were not made in a vacuum. The Bucks had Lillard missing the 2025-26 season and likely returning the season after that with limited capability, at a cost of $113-million. They also had seven rotation players that were free agents (Lopez, Portis, Sims, Trent Jr, Rollins, Porter Jr, and Prince) . You criticize two moves Milwaukee made but I am not hearing your suggestion as what they should do as an alternative. What are the specific roster moves you feel Milwaukee should have made instead of what they did? Trades, signings, waives etc? Which players should they have signed, for how many dollars and for how many years that would leave them better positioned to contend in the East?