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

[th87]

I think this signing basically guarantees Giannis stays with the Bucks for his entire career. He seems like a loyal dude. If he wanted out he could have easily got his wish.

He probably pushed for this deal. You don't make this kind of commitment if you didn't think Giannis would stick it out long-term.

I think the exact opposite this is a desperation move. If you are the Bucks and you know Giannis is going to stay you keep Dame and see what he looks like after next year.

This reminds me when the Irving was gifted to Boston because they had to get an impact player back and got Isiah. Lebron still left

no other star thinks like LeBron except KD and Harden constantly jumping teams, why draw that comparison when it's abundantly clear that Giannis doesn't have that mentality?

BUT HE LIKES NY PIZZA!!!

[xBulletproof]

Pacers GM Kevin Pritchard did a press conference today, basically said the Pacers were willing to go deep into the tax to keep Myles. That he felt like they were progressing towards a deal, then out of nowhere he saw Shams tweet saying Myles signed with the Bucks.

They were never given the option to match it. He defended Myles right to make that decision, but very much implied the Pacers would have paid it.

Sounds to me like maybe Myles wanted a change of scenery, and the Bucks were the only option. So he took it

I'm good with it as a fan, I am hoping we suck this year. So losing Myles is a whatever.

Dybantsa or bust here. Give Tyrese a shot at a true star running mate when he comes back.

See to me it sounded like the PR of spin of "We low balled him because we didn't think he'd get a higher offer. He got pissed at us because of that and then took the better offer the moment it came in"

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

If he wanted to be on the Pacers he would have at least came to them saying he had this offer. He didn't even do that. That says more than anything else.

Anything else here can be spun however you want it to be. But that part is unmistakable.

[old skool]

Pritchard said they evaluated all of the potential suitors for Turner and negotiated accordingly. Indy never considered that Milwaukee would find a way to become a bidder offering more than vet minimum.

[Devilanche]

Pacers GM Kevin Pritchard did a press conference today, basically said the Pacers were willing to go deep into the tax to keep Myles. That he felt like they were progressing towards a deal, then out of nowhere he saw Shams tweet saying Myles signed with the Bucks.

They were never given the option to match it. He defended Myles right to make that decision, but very much implied the Pacers would have paid it.

Sounds to me like maybe Myles wanted a change of scenery, and the Bucks were the only option. So he took it

I'm good with it as a fan, I am hoping we suck this year. So losing Myles is a whatever.

Dybantsa or bust here. Give Tyrese a shot at a true star running mate when he comes back.

See to me it sounded like the PR of spin of "We low balled him because we didn't think he'd get a higher offer. He got pissed at us because of that and then took the better offer the moment it came in"

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

If he wanted to be on the Pacers he would have at least came to them saying he had this offer. He didn't even do that. That says more than anything else.

Anything else here can be spun however you want it to be. But that part is unmistakable.

If Pacers really wanted him back, they would have offered him what they thought he was worth.

[RRyder823]

Pacers GM Kevin Pritchard did a press conference today, basically said the Pacers were willing to go deep into the tax to keep Myles. That he felt like they were progressing towards a deal, then out of nowhere he saw Shams tweet saying Myles signed with the Bucks.

They were never given the option to match it. He defended Myles right to make that decision, but very much implied the Pacers would have paid it.

Sounds to me like maybe Myles wanted a change of scenery, and the Bucks were the only option. So he took it

I'm good with it as a fan, I am hoping we suck this year. So losing Myles is a whatever.

Dybantsa or bust here. Give Tyrese a shot at a true star running mate when he comes back.

See to me it sounded like the PR of spin of "We low balled him because we didn't think he'd get a higher offer. He got pissed at us because of that and then took the better offer the moment it came in"

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

If he wanted to be on the Pacers he would have at least came to them saying he had this offer. He didn't even do that. That says more than anything else.

Anything else here can be spun however you want it to be. But that part is unmistakable.

Yes. And after they low balled him because they didn't think he'd get a better offer he didn't want to be there so he took the better offer once it came in..... Like i said

This is why PR spin exists. Because there are people that'll take it at face value



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[xBulletproof]

See to me it sounded like the PR of spin of "We low balled him because we didn't think he'd get a higher offer. He got pissed at us because of that and then took the better offer the moment it came in"

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

If he wanted to be on the Pacers he would have at least came to them saying he had this offer. He didn't even do that. That says more than anything else.

Anything else here can be spun however you want it to be. But that part is unmistakable.

Yes. And after they low balled him because they didn't think he'd get a better offer he didn't want to be there so he took the better offer once it came in..... Like i said

This is why PR spin exists. Because there are people that'll take it at face value

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

The Pacers aren't going to lie publicly. They still have to deal with his agent on other deals. That would be something that may come out as an anonymous report if that's what they were trying to do.

On social media there's been some signs that the Pacers players are not on Myles side either. I don't think they would be that way if it was as simple as they were being cheap.

Mathurin literally posted a video of him dunking on Myles Turner today.

[RRyder823]

If he wanted to be on the Pacers he would have at least came to them saying he had this offer. He didn't even do that. That says more than anything else.

Anything else here can be spun however you want it to be. But that part is unmistakable.

Yes. And after they low balled him because they didn't think he'd get a better offer he didn't want to be there so he took the better offer once it came in..... Like i said

This is why PR spin exists. Because there are people that'll take it at face value

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

The Pacers aren't going to lie publicly. They still have to deal with his agent on other deals. That would be something that may come out as an anonymous report if that's what they were trying to do.

On social media there's been some signs that the Pacers players are not on Myles side either. I don't think they would be that way if it was as simple as they were being cheap.

Mathurin literally posted a video of him dunking on Myles Turner today.

lol

oh wait your serious?

Once again this is why PR spin is a thing. Because no matter what there will be people that eat it up

"Not going to lie publicly" lol that was legitimately funny

(fyi though I never said they lied. I said this was PR spin)



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[Boneman2]

I’m glad the Pacers didn’t overpay him. No need to enter the tax because of him. This upcoming season should be dedicated to developing Mathurin and Walker. Easy to reload the following offseason if necessary

[magee]

Don't blame Milwaukee for wanting him, don't blame him for taking the deal, and I don't blame Indiana for not matching it.

[xBulletproof]

Myles Turner:

“You realize how hard it is to get there (the NBA Finals)…The only thing that went into this decision was getting to get that experience again.”

"Ultimately, it was about just staying competitive... I saw a chance to remain competitive here."

"Right when the news broke, I sent it to every person on the team." Said he wanted to tell his teammates before the news got out. He also said "a few" of them replied

This is hilarious. Wha? The first 2 quotes are just pure comedy. I get the East is wide open, but he went to Milwaukee to get to the Finals again? Okay. Even as constructed I don't see that, at all. Secondly, you're one Giannis mood swing from being on a lottery team starting over. I'm not sure the Bucks will be better than they were on opening night last year.

Your goal was to get to the finals, so you left the team that was in the ECF and the Finals the last 2 seasons, and also beat the team you're going to. Who lost their 2nd best player, which is how they got you.

The last quote is the best. Yes, the news broke, and you wanted to tell your teammates before the news got out, like they don't have Shams on notifications. You're too late already. The news is out. Very telling that only a few of his teammates responded at all. I think there was something going on in that locker room. I already suspected as much from other things.

[JulesWinnfield]

It’s stunning to me that Turner is still shy of 30. It feels like he’s been in the league since 1997, and he has probably set the record for most trade rumors for a player without ever being traded.

Just brutal for Milwaukee to do that dumb Lillard release just so they can make this move. Signing up for 22 million in dead cap money for 5 years (probably the rest of Giannis prime) is a major limitation. You’re essentially paying Turner 220 million over 5 years. Panic move

[Pointgod]

Pritchard said they evaluated all of the potential suitors for Turner and negotiated accordingly. Indy never considered that Milwaukee would find a way to become a bidder offering more than vet minimum.

If it’s true that they didn’t want to go over 3 years 60 million, then that’s a slap in the face to Turner and their fans should riot.

[Baddy Chuck]

Just brutal for Milwaukee to do that dumb Lillard release just so they can make this move. Signing up for 22 million in dead cap money for 5 years (probably the rest of Giannis prime) is a major limitation. You’re essentially paying Turner 220 million over 5 years. Panic move

When your 35 year old star has a career altering injury what are you going to do but panic though? Sit on your superstar's prime while hoping Dame doesn't come back Isaiah Thomas 2.0 in a year? Panic and trade any remaining assets you have left to try and overcome the massive sinkhole that is Dame and his contract and probably just wind up with Jerami Grant or someone else's partially less nasty deal? I'm not even a big Turner guy, but if any Bucks fan said they'd be leaving this offseason moving only Dame and picking up Myles Turner everyone would call them crazy. The asset they gave up to do it is about an MLE level deal with the cap increases for the foreseeable future while getting a guy who is an asset on his deal in his own right and a player that fits what the Bucks want to do. The whole "panic"/"desperate" talk is a whole lot of pearl clutching without a whole lot of substance behind the argument from Milwaukee's side, basically all leading to other fans hoping the Bucks trade Giannis and you want to talk about a panic move......

[RRyder823]

It’s stunning to me that Turner is still shy of 30. It feels like he’s been in the league since 1997, and he has probably set the record for most trade rumors for a player without ever being traded.

Just brutal for Milwaukee to do that dumb Lillard release just so they can make this move. Signing up for 22 million in dead cap money for 5 years (probably the rest of Giannis prime) is a major limitation. You’re essentially paying Turner 220 million over 5 years. Panic move

Maybe its the NFL fan in me but this continues to be the dumbest thought process that keeps getting brought up

The Packers cut Jaire Alexander this year (17 million in dead cap) and signed Nate Hobbs this offseason (6 million cap hit)

Not one person is stupid enough to say "OMG theyre effectively paying Hobbs 23 million against the cap because they replaced Alexander with him on the roster"

Lillard was going to be 50 million in dead cap this year. And let's be honest probably close to 40 effectively next year as well given his age/injury. The Bucks decided to use that on a player who can contribute the next two years at the cost of leveraging the following 3 years of a rising cap

(cap space in 3 years mind you that most people like you are arguing shouldnt actually matter cause its just a matter of time before Giannis asks out am I right)



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[JulesWinnfield]

It’s stunning to me that Turner is still shy of 30. It feels like he’s been in the league since 1997, and he has probably set the record for most trade rumors for a player without ever being traded.

Just brutal for Milwaukee to do that dumb Lillard release just so they can make this move. Signing up for 22 million in dead cap money for 5 years (probably the rest of Giannis prime) is a major limitation. You’re essentially paying Turner 220 million over 5 years. Panic move

Maybe its the NFL fan in me but this continues to be the dumbest thought process that keeps getting brought up

The Packers cut Jaire Alexander this year (17 million in dead cap) and signed Nate Hobbs this offseason (6 million cap hit)

Not one person is stupid enough to say "OMG theyre effectively paying Hobbs 23 million against the cap because they replaced Alexander with him on the roster"

Lillard was going to be 50 million in dead cap this year. And let's be honest probably close to 40 effectively next year as well given his age/injury. The Bucks decided to use that on a player who can contribute the next two years at the cost of leveraging the following 3 years of a rising cap

(cap space in 3 years mind you that most people like you are arguing shouldnt actually matter cause its just a matter of time before Giannis asks out am I right)



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

You’re comparing apples and asteroids. And the whole tone of your post is a bunch of aggressive cluelessness. A one year cap hit to move off a contract in the nfl is VASTLY different than taking a 22 million dollar hit per year over 5 seasons. Literally half a decade. For probably the rest of Giannis prime they’re gonna be building a roster around 22 million in dead money (that’s in their best case scenario if they keep him that long), all so they can pay a non all star entering year 11 another 27 million a year (which isn’t a bad contract in this market for turner, but the fact that you had to take this Lillard hit to do it was dumb).

It doesn’t move the needle enough. They were screwed either way by the Lillard injury but now they’ve completely lowered their ceiling for the rest of Giannis career. They have the second best player in the world and they’re never gonna sniff another conference finals in that time frame

There’s a reason why this is unprecedented in the NBA, where contracts are fully guaranteed unlike the NFL

[RRyder823]

It’s stunning to me that Turner is still shy of 30. It feels like he’s been in the league since 1997, and he has probably set the record for most trade rumors for a player without ever being traded.

Just brutal for Milwaukee to do that dumb Lillard release just so they can make this move. Signing up for 22 million in dead cap money for 5 years (probably the rest of Giannis prime) is a major limitation. You’re essentially paying Turner 220 million over 5 years. Panic move

Maybe its the NFL fan in me but this continues to be the dumbest thought process that keeps getting brought up

The Packers cut Jaire Alexander this year (17 million in dead cap) and signed Nate Hobbs this offseason (6 million cap hit)

Not one person is stupid enough to say "OMG theyre effectively paying Hobbs 23 million against the cap because they replaced Alexander with him on the roster"

Lillard was going to be 50 million in dead cap this year. And let's be honest probably close to 40 effectively next year as well given his age/injury. The Bucks decided to use that on a player who can contribute the next two years at the cost of leveraging the following 3 years of a rising cap

(cap space in 3 years mind you that most people like you are arguing shouldnt actually matter cause its just a matter of time before Giannis asks out am I right)



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

You’re comparing apples and asteroids. A one year cap hit to move off a contract in the nfl is VASTLY different than taking a 22 million dollar hit per year over 5 seasons. Literally half a decade. For probably the rest of Giannis prime they’re gonna be building a roster around 22 million in dead money, all so they can pay a non all star entering year 11 another 27 million a year (which isn’t a bad contract in this market for turner, but the fact that you had to take this Lillard hit to do it was dumb)

There’s a reason why this is unprecedented in the NBA, where contracts are fully guaranteed unlike the NFL

And your simply adding dead cap hits to a signed player. It's idiotic but a thought process that continues to persist

Now since you insist on adding them together for the next two years is it better for the Bucks to have Turner or is it better to have Lillard?

Now most reasonable people would say Turner so the question you should be asking is having that switch in players for 2 of the last remaining prime years of Giannis worth 22 million in dead cap 3, 4 and 5 years from now?

That is a very real question and ill grant you there's debate to be had.

However since you just made the point that the time frame of Giannis prime should be paramount then shouldnt you yourself think it was a good move since it makes his team better during 2 of the last remaining years of his prime?

I mean either your answer should be yes or you're simply spouting nonsense

(FYI dead cap hits dont have to be taken all in one year in the NFL. It's the entire point of post June 1st cuts)

As far as unprecedented i sure hope you kept this same energy for Pheonix and Beal. I mean if they sign a vet min SG they're at bare minimum "effectively paying him 50 million" with this very profound logic





Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[JulesWinnfield]

Maybe its the NFL fan in me but this continues to be the dumbest thought process that keeps getting brought up

The Packers cut Jaire Alexander this year (17 million in dead cap) and signed Nate Hobbs this offseason (6 million cap hit)

Not one person is stupid enough to say "OMG theyre effectively paying Hobbs 23 million against the cap because they replaced Alexander with him on the roster"

Lillard was going to be 50 million in dead cap this year. And let's be honest probably close to 40 effectively next year as well given his age/injury. The Bucks decided to use that on a player who can contribute the next two years at the cost of leveraging the following 3 years of a rising cap

(cap space in 3 years mind you that most people like you are arguing shouldnt actually matter cause its just a matter of time before Giannis asks out am I right)



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

You’re comparing apples and asteroids. A one year cap hit to move off a contract in the nfl is VASTLY different than taking a 22 million dollar hit per year over 5 seasons. Literally half a decade. For probably the rest of Giannis prime they’re gonna be building a roster around 22 million in dead money, all so they can pay a non all star entering year 11 another 27 million a year (which isn’t a bad contract in this market for turner, but the fact that you had to take this Lillard hit to do it was dumb)

There’s a reason why this is unprecedented in the NBA, where contracts are fully guaranteed unlike the NFL

And your simply adding dead cap hits to a signed player. It's idiotic but a thought process that continues to persist

Now since you insist on adding them together for the next two years is it better for the Bucks to have Turner or is it better to have Lillard?

Now most reasonable people would say Turner so the question you should be asking is having that switch in players for 2 of the last remaining prime years of Giannis worth 22 million in dead cap 3, 4 and 5 years from now?

That is a very real question and ill grant you there's debate to be had.

However since you just made the point that the time frame of Giannis prime should be paramount then shouldnt you yourself think it was a good move since it makes his team better during 2 of the last remaining years of his prime?

I mean either your answer should be yes or you're simply spouting nonsense

(FYI dead cap hits dont have to be taken all in one year in the NFL. It's the entire point of post June 1st cuts)

As far as unprecedented i sure hope you kept this same energy for Pheonix and Beal





Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

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

[RRyder823]

You’re comparing apples and asteroids. A one year cap hit to move off a contract in the nfl is VASTLY different than taking a 22 million dollar hit per year over 5 seasons. Literally half a decade. For probably the rest of Giannis prime they’re gonna be building a roster around 22 million in dead money, all so they can pay a non all star entering year 11 another 27 million a year (which isn’t a bad contract in this market for turner, but the fact that you had to take this Lillard hit to do it was dumb)

There’s a reason why this is unprecedented in the NBA, where contracts are fully guaranteed unlike the NFL

And your simply adding dead cap hits to a signed player. It's idiotic but a thought process that continues to persist

Now since you insist on adding them together for the next two years is it better for the Bucks to have Turner or is it better to have Lillard?

Now most reasonable people would say Turner so the question you should be asking is having that switch in players for 2 of the last remaining prime years of Giannis worth 22 million in dead cap 3, 4 and 5 years from now?

That is a very real question and ill grant you there's debate to be had.

However since you just made the point that the time frame of Giannis prime should be paramount then shouldnt you yourself think it was a good move since it makes his team better during 2 of the last remaining years of his prime?

I mean either your answer should be yes or you're simply spouting nonsense

(FYI dead cap hits dont have to be taken all in one year in the NFL. It's the entire point of post June 1st cuts)

As far as unprecedented i sure hope you kept this same energy for Pheonix and Beal





Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

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

[JulesWinnfield]

And your simply adding dead cap hits to a signed player. It's idiotic but a thought process that continues to persist

Now since you insist on adding them together for the next two years is it better for the Bucks to have Turner or is it better to have Lillard?

Now most reasonable people would say Turner so the question you should be asking is having that switch in players for 2 of the last remaining prime years of Giannis worth 22 million in dead cap 3, 4 and 5 years from now?

That is a very real question and ill grant you there's debate to be had.

However since you just made the point that the time frame of Giannis prime should be paramount then shouldnt you yourself think it was a good move since it makes his team better during 2 of the last remaining years of his prime?

I mean either your answer should be yes or you're simply spouting nonsense

(FYI dead cap hits dont have to be taken all in one year in the NFL. It's the entire point of post June 1st cuts)

As far as unprecedented i sure hope you kept this same energy for Pheonix and Beal





Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

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

[STAT_88]

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