The Brandon Jennings Conundrum (Day 30)

AussieBuck · Post #41 » by **AussieBuck** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:47 am

Philly could sign him with the intention of trading him for young assets when someone's PG get hurt. It's not like he's going to derail the tank. Not saying they will but it's possible they could.

Serge28 · Post #42 » by **Serge28** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:52 am

It does seem more and more likely that there are simply no teams out there who will offer him more than MLE.

blazza18 · Post #43 » by **blazza18** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:54 am

Kinda funny how no one is legit interested in him.

Ayt · Post #44 » by **Ayt** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:02 am

blazza18 wrote::lol: Kinda funny how no one is legit interested in him.

Maybe he should see what teams in Italy are offering.

jeremyd236 · Post #45 » by **jeremyd236** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:09 am

Which starting PGs in this league are Jennings absolutely better than?

Baddy Chuck · Post #46 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:18 am

jeremyd236 wrote:Which starting PGs in this league are Jennings absolutely better than?

Brandon Knight and MCW.

jwalsh52 · Post #47 » by **jwalsh52** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:30 am

Max Green wrote:I'd offer him same contract we offered Teague, or the QO and explore trade opportunites ASAP.

I am in this camp.

marques-8 · Post #48 » by **marques-8** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:53 am

jwalsh52 wrote:
Max Green wrote:I'd offer him same contract we offered Teague, or the QO and explore trade opportunites ASAP.

I am in this camp.

I would offer him less. The Bucks obviously valued Teague more than Jennings, so go 4/28- and hopefully he pouts, kicks, and screams and gets sent packing!

zjl3 · Post #49 » by **zjl3** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:03 pm

QO, maybe he will be humbled and finally realize he needs to improve his performance and attitude to convince other teams he is talented enough to lead them.

Chapter29 · Post #50 » by **Chapter29** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:06 pm

JustinCredible wrote:Not popular but I sign him long term if he takes $7 million per year or less. I absolutely would not let him walk. Don't let him get his way and his freedom just for fear of him acting childish. Don't set that precedent.

For me I would like to understand his actual value. Now Dallas brain farted and signed Ellis for 10M. Doesn't look like anyone is budging on Jennings 11-12M demands. Ellis only came down 1M per year and in total 6M off our offer. How far will Jennings have to go?

Hopefully we can drive his value down into the 6-7M range. And if so, then perhaps re-queue up the S&T talks again and see if there is anything there in that range.

I could stomach signing him in that range, but only barely. At least if we did we could always bench him and not lose our minds about it financially. And that is maybe a tradable contract too. Outside of he isn't very good and no one appears interested in him I may do that.

Chapter29 · Post #51 » by **Chapter29** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:10 pm

Baddy Chuck wrote:
ReasonablySober wrote:What is a reasonable contract for a bad player? League minimum? $1 million a season? If he'll take that then sure, bring him back.

Can pretty much look at what Nate Robinson is going to make and that's about what I'd sign him at long term.

He really is a Nate Robinson. Very similar players.

The thing is that for the most part Nate has been used in that 6th man role and if he starts to shoot you out of the game, you sit him. Nate is probably in that 3-5M range?

Jennings probably should be around 3-5M but you know that he would just take the QO then as I cannot imagine his ego letting him accept that he's that low.

Buckrageous · Post #52 » by **Buckrageous** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:20 pm

I see a lot that hes an "asset." Assets are things with value because you or others desire it. The Bucks dont want Jennings obviously since they presumably tried to get Bledsoe instead and the signed Teague. The rest of the league doesnt seem to think he would be an asset to them otherwise he would have garnered more interest. I dont see how a guy the Bucks dont want, a guy that doesnt want the Bucks, and a guy the rest of the league doesnt want is some sort of an asset. Actually if his game remains stagnent and his contract is above what other teams want to pay he is liability, not an asset.

BucksRUS · Post #53 » by **BucksRUS** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:39 pm

The QO is about where his value is. Anything more on a log term contract and having an easily moved contract on your hands goes out the window. The Bucks brought in Ridnour as leverage and as a back up PG. Jennings will take the QO, ride out the season, and sign with the Lakers next year (when they have cap space next year). By taking the QO, he will have a no trade clause which he will utilize. Doubt the Bucks trade him.

Bulldog424 · Post #54 » by **Bulldog424** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:09 pm

Baddy Chuck wrote:
jeremyd236 wrote:Which starting PGs in this league are Jennings absolutely better than?

Brandon Knight and MCW.

I'd be willing to throw Trey Burke on that list. Never been very impressed with him. I'm admittedly in the minority when projecting MCW v Burke, I think MCW will be the better player.

msiris · Post #55 » by **msiris** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:31 pm

Some of you are nuts. He will not take the same offer that Teague got. He already has rejected offers worth more. And to think he will have a change of heart giving his history is dumb as well. His mind set has not and will not change. I think he will take the QO.

willywazza · Post #56 » by **willywazza** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:40 pm

Often, I wonder how he came about to possess that putrid attitude of his.

Was he dropped on the head as a child?

KeyRabbit · Post #57 » by **KeyRabbit** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:45 pm

Point of clarification, because the way people talk about the QO is a little mixed up. The QO is in BJ's court--in other words, it was something the Bucks had to do to retain his FA rights and he can sign it any time until the Bucks rescind it. So to say "bring him back on the QO" implies that there's something the team can do to make that happen. All they can do is take it away and make him a UFA, and the fact that hasn't happened yet means they're talking (or that the door is still open) about the extension that BuckPack mentioned. Whether it's for the Bucks or part of a sign and trade is really the only question.

showtimesam · Post #58 » by **showtimesam** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:52 pm

I'd roll with Jennings on the Qualifying Offer. i hate the guy but he is 23 and we'd have no long term money invested him.

Give him one last shot with a new coaching staff. At best he breaks out, matures, learns how to run an offense and make a lay up and we figure out if we want to extend him or trade for Teague next offseason.

At worst, he's the same old Jennings and we move on next season.

Fresh_Prince12 · Post #59 » by **Fresh_Prince12** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:58 pm

quick question. If jennings doesn't take the QO does it mean that he must sit because he still technically a buck since they still have his rights?

europa · Post #60 » by **europa** » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:04 pm

BucksRUS wrote:By taking the QO, he will have a no trade clause which he will utilize.

Which then renders him useless as an "asset." OK, more useless since he's pretty damn useless right now. If he loses his value as an asset there is no logical reason to re-sign him.

He should not be brought back under any circumstances. He should not be paid another dime by this team. That is what should be done.

As far as what the Bucks will do, I fully expect him to return, possibly for the QO but I also can't rule out the Bucks buckling and offer him a long-term extension.

What should the Bucks do with Jennings?