Bucks looking at Bledsoe, probably.

[Kerb Hohl]

Just to chime in again. I personally want no part of any free agent. Especially on with one year of true (health) success. In no way shape or form is Eric Bledsoe worth a max contract. Just stay away from FA's

What would you do with the money? We have a 3 year window before Giannis and Parker have to start getting paid. I can definitely get on board with absorbing contracts and bringing assets back with some of the cap space. The only other option is getting a player that could be top 50, young, and would be only slightly overpaid.

In the new CBA, these max deals are short. I could buy a theory of some ability to tank over the next year or two but I don't see it happening for too long. Get a really good, young player in, even if you're overpaying him by 3-4 million/year. That's better than having a bunch of cap space for role players.

Just because you have it doesnt mean you need to spend foolishly. Handing out foolish contracts and wasting money has been a negative attribute of this team for over a decade. Why cant we sit here with space and wait for some team in a desperate situation to maximize the cap asset on. Its like having a credit card. Why go blow it at Macys when you can save it for that huge TV that will go on sale.

This isn't the same, though. I was against every freaking free agent move we made in the past decade, trust me. I think those against this are applying the same principles the last regime/set of free agents/etc.

1. The CBA is different and there isn't as much risk.
2. Here, Bledsoe is a very good defender and is young.
3. He's not a washed up player like Gooden, Salmons (with new contract), Maggette, etc.
4. This team won't be in the tank realm to get another elite player most likely.

There is always risk he gets hurt, mails it in, or regresses, but I think it's worth it here.

[Newz]

He did exactly that two years ago.

How much would you be willing to bet that Parker is as good of a defender this year as Ersan was two years ago?

How much would you be willing to bet that the Bucks will be a top 15 defense this year?

How much would you be willing to bet that Sanders is as good as he was two years ago?

Whatever amount you are willing to bet, I would be willing to take on that bet. I do not think the odds are favorable for us that any of those three things happen.

If Sanders is playing 75+ games, I'll take a bet that we're a top 15 defense. I agree that Parker will most likely be a negative on defense, but Wolters and Knight are upgrades over what we had in the backcourt on that end. Giannis is likely to take a big step forward on that end as well.

You have an incredibly strange view on our team. In some threads you are saying we have a chance to be a top 10 defense (quoted from earlier, not this post), that Giannis is going to make a huge jump and that our 19 year old rookie who was awful defensively in college will only 'most likely' be a negative on defense.

Then in other threads you say we only won 15 games last year so you don't blame anyone for saying that we don't have any young talent on our team besides Jabari Parker.

So what is it? Do we have the best (or close to the best) interior defender in basketball, an already proven young superstar in Giannis and a stud in Jabari Parker who might be good on defense his first year? Or do you not blame people for thinking we don't have that much talent?

[stillgotgame]

For those fretting about a max of 4/64, or ~16M per year...keep in mind Lowry just went for 12M per year.

KL per 36 - 17.8 pts, 4.6 rbs, 7.4 ast, 1.5 stl, 2.4 TO, TS% 56.7% at age 27

EB per 36 - 19.4 pts, 5.1 rbs, 6.0 ast, 1.8 stl, 3.6 TO, TS% 57.8% at age 24

So you are getting pretty close to an equivalent offensively to Lowry, but younger and with what I would assume is vastly superior man defense (I still don't get how defensive metrics work).

It's an overpay, but that is just the Milwaukee premium.

Good comparison. Bledsoe is a 24 year old guy, that we're talking about giving a 4 year contract to. Max RFA contracts are nowhere near the albatross they were under the past CBAs. With revenues and contracts going up significantly over the next 4 years, this contract should end up a bargain.

[Kerb Hohl]

For those fretting about a max of 4/64, or ~16M per year...keep in mind Lowry just went for 12M per year.

KL per 36 - 17.8 pts, 4.6 rbs, 7.4 ast, 1.5 stl, 2.4 TO, TS% 56.7% at age 27

EB per 36 - 19.4 pts, 5.1 rbs, 6.0 ast, 1.8 stl, 3.6 TO, TS% 57.8% at age 24

So you are getting pretty close to an equivalent offensively to Lowry, but younger and with what I would assume is vastly superior man defense (I still don't get how defensive metrics work).

It's an overpay, but that is just the Milwaukee premium.

Why does it matter what Lowery got? We arent in a position to spend freely to contend for a middle tier playoff spot or even division title. Makes no sense. You dont spend just to spend because the neighbor is doing it.

This isn't "if we can sign Salmons to a big deal" or "if we can add RJ" "we'll be the 6 seed this year!" move.

This is a "let's have 3 or 4 really good players in their mid 20s in 2017. This is a move for somewhat now but mostly in the future. You're maybe overpaying a slightly older player than Parker and Giannis right now that unnecessarily adds wins, but how much would you like to have a top-tier PG in the NBA at 26 years old with 2 years left on his contract when Giannis and Parker hit their primes that we hold the rights to retaining after that with our billionaire owners?

This isn't like the Kohl Bucks shooting for this year's 7 seed. This is a move that is shooting for a top 3 seed in 2016-2017 and beyond.

Of course, you could do that in the draft, but given the reasons others have laid out, I'm not sure our tank will get us that other player in time anyways.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

so you were against trading for him last year too right? Hammond was being "smart" for passing and just going for the 2nds and butler is what youre saying?

We weren't giving him a four year max contract last season. We would have controlled him as an unrestricted free agent. Two completely different situations.

your issue isnt whether we'll be able to sign him.... you said its that you wouldn't want to sign him even if we could. whats control have to do with that? control has nothing to do with that. we would have had to pay him either way.... now or if wed traded for him. other wise it would have been a bad idea in the first place.

so if wed traded for him and hed played the way we all hoped. you would be advocating letting him walk and youd be upset wed given up assets for him? are you suggesting that if hed blown up for us like he did for phoenix that would have been a bad thing?

if you saying trading assets for him is a bad idea now..... then it was a bad idea then. everybody in the entire league knew he was going to be a max candidate by december of last year.... so control has nothing to do with this.

[Newz]

I guess I don't really get this type of reasoning. You aren't going out and acquiring a "3rd star". You're acquiring a "potential star". Capping Bledsoe's ceiling as not even a "2nd best guy on a title team" is taking a massively pessimistic view on his potential. I don't think it's at all inconceivable to think that Bledsoe could be the best player out of that trio in 3 years.

If Bledsoe turns into a superstar, "Russell Westbrook" type player (his numbers are comparable with 2nd year Westbrook + much higher efficiency), then even if Giannis and Parker simply become 2nd tier, borderline all-star guys, you still have a contending squad depending on the make-up of the rest of the roster/Sanders development.

Acquiring a talent like Bledsoe gives this team three legitimate shots at a superstar player right from the get-go. Not acquiring him means that you're banking on either next year's draft pick (who knows where we'll be drafting?), or some future FA or RFA who has yet TBD.

I guess that's where our view on Eric Bledsoe differs. I don't think he has a shot at being a superstar player, you do. I certainly like him and think he's a valuable player... he's just not the type of guy I think we need to be adding on a max deal right now.

In addition to what I said earlier, I also don't like that he'd instantly become our number one option offensively and would be dominating the ball. I want the ball in Giannis and Parkers hands. I want to start figuring out what we have in those guys... I don't want them playing off of someone else.

[wichmae]

What would you do with the money? We have a 3 year window before Giannis and Parker have to start getting paid. I can definitely get on board with absorbing contracts and bringing assets back with some of the cap space. The only other option is getting a player that could be top 50, young, and would be only slightly overpaid.

In the new CBA, these max deals are short. I could buy a theory of some ability to tank over the next year or two but I don't see it happening for too long. Get a really good, young player in, even if you're overpaying him by 3-4 million/year. That's better than having a bunch of cap space for role players.

Just because you have it doesnt mean you need to spend foolishly. Handing out foolish contracts and wasting money has been a negative attribute of this team for over a decade. Why cant we sit here with space and wait for some team in a desperate situation to maximize the cap asset on. Its like having a credit card. Why go blow it at Macys when you can save it for that huge TV that will go on sale.

This isn't the same, though. I was against every freaking free agent move we made in the past decade, trust me. I think those against this are applying the same principles the last regime/set of free agents/etc.

1. The CBA is different and there isn't as much risk.
2. Here, Bledsoe is a very good defender and is young.
3. He's not a washed up player like Gooden, Salmons (with new contract), Maggette, etc.
4. This team won't be in the tank realm to get another elite player most likely.

There is always risk he gets hurt, mails it in, or regresses, but I think it's worth it here.

Theres a history of it though. Just because the money is there doesnt mean it HAS to be spent. New CBA or not (Maggette wasnt a FA sign BTW). Youre talking about a max contract for a player whose statistical production aligns with roughly 8-9 mil per equation. He has had one full year of health. Played alongside a 3rd team NBA player, and two of his 4 professional years were downright terrible. I get wanting to improve the team but there is vastly more reasonable and feasible was of going about it. Bledsoe has become this boards love fest for the past two years. He's a good player but definitely not a max player. Its an absolutely foolish way to hamstring yourself against the cap.

[wichmae]

Also how on earth is Bledsoe a top tier pg? He isnt even the best PG on his team. Would he even be in the top 10? Top 15?

ETA: and slightly older is 6 years? Thats more than just slightly.

[Newz]

your issue isnt whether we'll be able to sign him.... you said its that you wouldn't want to sign him even if we could. whats control have to do with that? control has nothing to do with that. we would have had to pay him either way.... now or if wed traded for him. other wise it would have been a bad idea in the first place.

I'm a bit concerned you don't understand the value of having a guy being restricted as opposed to unrestricted. Odds are we could have got Bledsoe for less than the max if we had him on a restricted deal... and we wouldn't be giving up additional assets for him this year. Like I said, it isn't comparable at all.

so if wed traded for him and hed played the way we all hoped. you would be advocating letting him walk and youd be upset wed given up assets for him? are you suggesting that if hed blown up for us like he did for phoenix that would have been a bad thing?

If he was on our team last year, we wouldn't have Jabari Parker (unless we got super lucky in the lottery). The situations would be completely different.

if you saying trading assets for him is a bad idea now..... then it was a bad idea then. everybody in the entire league knew he was going to be a max candidate by december of last year.... so control has nothing to do with this. I guess unless of course youd hope to be the numerous willing clubs with cap space more than willing to max him if pheonix goes another route.

Again, the situations are entirely different and things have played out way different than they would have if we had him last season. I have no idea how you cannot see that... and I'm certainly not going to attempt to argue that with anyone. It's pointless.

[Kerb Hohl]

There is always risk he gets hurt, mails it in, or regresses, but I think it's worth it here.

Theres a history of it though. Just because the money is there doesnt mean it HAS to be spent. New CBA or not (Maggette wasnt a FA sign BTW). Youre talking about a max contract for a player whose statistical production aligns with roughly 8-9 mil per equation. He has had one full year of health. Played alongside a 3rd team NBA player, and two of his 4 professional years were downright terrible. I get wanting to improve the team but there is vastly more reasonable and feasible was of going about it. Bledsoe has become this boards love fest for the past two years. He's a good player but definitely not a max player. Its an absolutely foolish way to hamstring yourself against the cap.

I think this is flying over your head a little bit. You have guys like Luke, RS, etc. on here that have ripped every free agent move in the past decade. We get it. We are not guys that want to trade for RJ to get the 6 seed, we believe that Bledsoe could be a key piece by the time 2016 or 2017 rolls around to make us an elite Eastern Conference team.

Yes, I know Maggette wasn't a FA but it was still money brought in. It was a longer deal than Bell/Gadz's and it begat the S-Jax trade when we tried to dump Maggette's deal.

If you can get a guy that could be a top 50 player, you may have to overpay him to do so. So be it. Just like you might absorb a **** contract to bring in a top 10 draft pick in return. It's the price to pay to get said really good player if you think he's that.

[Kerb Hohl]

Also how on earth is Bledsoe a top tier pg? He isnt even the best PG on his team. Would he even be in the top 10? Top 15?

ETA: and slightly older is 6 years? Thats more than just slightly.

So when Giannis and Parker are 23 and hopefully All-Star caliber, you're saying a 29 year old PG is a bad thing?

Of course, it could only be a 4-year deal but if it works out, he can be retained by our owners with deep pockets. Apply the same idea to 22 year old guys with a 28 year old otherwise.

In terms of the top 15 PG thing, that's what you're gambling on. You're either gambling that you can get into the lottery to get a stud PG by tanking the next year or two and hoping a worthy one is there, or you're gambling by overpaying a guy in a bit that could be Billups or could be a bust.

[ReasonablySober]

How much would you be willing to bet that Parker is as good of a defender this year as Ersan was two years ago?

How much would you be willing to bet that the Bucks will be a top 15 defense this year?

How much would you be willing to bet that Sanders is as good as he was two years ago?

Whatever amount you are willing to bet, I would be willing to take on that bet. I do not think the odds are favorable for us that any of those three things happen.

If Sanders is playing 75+ games, I'll take a bet that we're a top 15 defense. I agree that Parker will most likely be a negative on defense, but Wolters and Knight are upgrades over what we had in the backcourt on that end. Giannis is likely to take a big step forward on that end as well.

You have an incredibly strange view on our team. In some threads you are saying we have a chance to be a top 10 defense (quoted from earlier, not this post), that Giannis is going to make a huge jump and that our 19 year old rookie who was awful defensively in college will only 'most likely' be a negative on defense.

Then in other threads you say we only won 15 games last year so you don't blame anyone for saying that we don't have any young talent on our team besides Jabari Parker.

So what is it? Do we have the best (or close to the best) interior defender in basketball, an already proven young superstar in Giannis and a stud in Jabari Parker who might be good on defense his first year? Or do you not blame people for thinking we don't have that much talent?

I think I've been pretty consistent when speaking about the team. Whether or not this team lands at the bottom of the standings next season is almost entirely dependent on Sanders. For the sake of this discussion, we're assuming Sanders is healthy and playing. That being the case, I don't see any way we're picking high and it's because he can carry a team to an above average defensive rating.

[Newz]

I think I've been pretty consistent when speaking about the team. Whether or not this team lands at the bottom of the standings next season is almost entirely dependent on Sanders. For the sake of this discussion, we're assuming Sanders is healthy and playing. That being the case, I don't see any way we're picking high and it's because he can carry a team to an above average defensive rating.

Why are we assuming Sanders will be healthy and not suspended? Why are we assuming if he is that he will equal his best year in the NBA?

Like I said I would put the odds at below 50% that he's as good as he was two years ago. You apparently have high hopes he is going to return and be great. I don't see why you think that, but if you have that opinion then fine.

I certainly think you've been far from consistent when you talk up guys like Sanders and Giannis, then agree with guys who say we have no other talent on our roster besides Parker. That makes no sense to me.

[Kerb Hohl]

And by the way, to clarify, this is my thought process. I'd only go one of two courses:

1. Bledsoe, and probably only Bledsoe (this is a once in 3 or 5 year opportunity here) gets a max offer.
2. Absorb crappy players contracts with assets and tank. I don't think we're getting into the top 5 again, though.

Those are the only two ways I'd go. My plan going into this offseason and the majority of them is #2. I think if you think Bledsoe could be a top PG then you max him out. He's still young.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

so if we had his rights we wouldn't have to worry about giving him the max to keep him? that's your argument? seriously? half the teams in this league would max him right now if they could!!!!!

secondly.... you keep forgetting that if wed TRADED for him last year we would have had to give up assets as well. Bledsoe is gonna have to get s/t'ed now, but no matter how or when we would have acquired him it was always going to have to be a trade where assets went out.

so as I stated before. you cant possibly say you wouldn't want to try and acquire him now but would have supported acquiring him before. all hes done the last year is continue to improve.

[wichmae]

Also how on earth is Bledsoe a top tier pg? He isnt even the best PG on his team. Would he even be in the top 10? Top 15?

ETA: and slightly older is 6 years? Thats more than just slightly.

So when Giannis and Parker are 23 and hopefully All-Star caliber, you're saying a 29 year old PG is a bad thing?

Of course, it could only be a 4-year deal but if it works out, he can be retained by our owners with deep pockets. Apply the same idea to 22 year old guys with a 28 year old otherwise.

In terms of the top 15 PG thing, that's what you're gambling on. You're either gambling that you can get into the lottery to get a stud PG by tanking the next year or two and hoping a worthy one is there, or you're gambling by overpaying a guy in a bit that could be Billups or could be a bust.

When you can stay the course and build assets in the realm of your core (19yr olds) you dont blow the cap asset on an over pay. You use that asset like CHA did in getting the pick from Detroit. Or you stay the course and eat Lin or Jarrett Jack for an unprotected #1. You have to keep getting assets to put yourself in the best position to succeed long term. Overpaying 25 year olds with max contract who will be FA's when you think your core will be in their prime (as well as ready for extensions) is the old way. Have to stop throwing money away and being mediocre. Acquiring Bledsoe starts you right back on that path. 2005 all over again.

[Badgerlander]

[Newz]

So when Giannis and Parker are 23 and hopefully All-Star caliber, you're saying a 29 year old PG is a bad thing?

Does Bledsoe not strike you as the guy whose game is primarily built off of his insane athletic ability? If so, do you not think he's a candidate to decline big time around 29-30 when he starts to lose some of that athletic ability and the miles start to add up on his body?

I'm not saying that is a sure thing or anything. But he doesn't have a ton of skills that translate without being a freak athlete. He isn't much of a shooter and isn't a great "pure point guard". He's good because he's more physically gifted than a majority of NBA guys.

[JimmyTheKid]

Just because you have it doesnt mean you need to spend foolishly. Handing out foolish contracts and wasting money has been a negative attribute of this team for over a decade. Why cant we sit here with space and wait for some team in a desperate situation to maximize the cap asset on. Its like having a credit card. Why go blow it at Macys when you can save it for that huge TV that will go on sale.

Fair enough. I'd be fine with your way too. I don't absolutely need Eric Bledsoe right now. But lets not compare signing a 24-year old to a 4-year contract to the money burning ways of the previous regime.

[wichmae]

Im not poo pooing your wants either. KH. I just want absolutely no FA's signed here. Its a waste. Develop what you have. Play the kids 35+ a night and try to see if you can score extra draft selections or turn the vets into assets. Philly is doing a masterful job at the build right now (even though I cant stnd Embiid).