WOJ [Updated, p3]: Bulls sign Jabari, 2/$40M (no matching)

blind prophet · Post #61 » by **blind prophet** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:35 pm

loserX wrote:
winter_mute_13 wrote:If I understand correctly, Bucks can't match a $20m per year offer anyway because they're hard capped right? So did they just renounce the QO to... save face? Just to be nice? Help me out here.

Apparently more of the latter;

Read on Twitter

I'll believe that if they make no offers/signs within 48 hours.

basketballwacko2 · Post #62 » by **basketballwacko2** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:41 pm

Slava wrote:Man.. Chicago traded #15 & #19 in that draft to move up to #11 and take McDermott before moving him. 4 years later they end up with #2 and #13 picks from the same draft in restricted free agency. The NBA is a funny business.

And both guys they got for $20 million each have surgically repaired Knees. :roll:

Post #63 » by **loserX** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:41 pm

blind prophet wrote:
loserX wrote:
winter_mute_13 wrote:If I understand correctly, Bucks can't match a $20m per year offer anyway because they're hard capped right? So did they just renounce the QO to... save face? Just to be nice? Help me out here.

Apparently more of the latter;

Read on Twitter

I'll believe that if they make no offers/signs within 48 hours.

IIRC Milwaukee has used most if not all of their MLE on Ilyasova and their BAE on Brook Lopez. There's really not much they can do apart from use the vet min, which they could have anyway.

basketballwacko2 · Post #64 » by **basketballwacko2** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:42 pm

Skin wrote:Nice signing if MIL doesn't match.

Could be as long as he is a SF and not really a PF because they have 2-3 of those. And if he can stay healthy.

blind prophet · Post #65 » by **blind prophet** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:43 pm

loserX wrote:
blind prophet wrote:
loserX wrote:
Apparently more of the latter;

Read on Twitter

I'll believe that if they make no offers/signs within 48 hours.

IIRC Milwaukee has used most if not all of their MLE on Ilyasova and their BAE on Brook Lopez. There's really not much they can do apart from use the vet min, which they could have anyway.

So the money off the books for the qualifying offer doesn't really effect the ability to try and sign someone right now?

basketballwacko2 · Post #66 » by **basketballwacko2** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:44 pm

Asif16 wrote:
FNQ wrote:
Asif16 wrote:Lavine and Parker lmaoo

Bring content, or don't post.

Umm ok. I meant it as both players coming off ACL Injuries, Chicago taking risks with both players. I assumed people knew what I meant

If you'd said that he probably wouldn't have warned you. :nod:

Arsenal · Post #67 » by **Arsenal** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:49 pm

Why didn't the Bucks demand something (anything?) from the Bulls in exchange for helping them put together this team friendly deal?

This is a 1 year deal plus 1 year TEAM option. This structure would not be possible unless the Bucks rescinded the RFA QO.

So I suppose they just did this out of the goodness of their hearts? Helping a conference rival in exchange for ZERO.

Magic_Johnny12 · Post #68 » by **Magic_Johnny12** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:06 pm

Arsenal wrote:Why didn't the Bucks demand something (anything?) from the Bulls in exchange for helping them put together this team friendly deal?

This is a 1 year deal plus 1 year TEAM option. This structure would not be possible unless the Bucks rescinded the RFA QO.

So I suppose they just did this out of the goodness of their hearts? Helping a conference rival in exchange for ZERO.

Oh I'm sure they tried, but the Bulls knew they were hard-capped so really not much they can do, but pretend to look nice at the end of the day.

I dont see why you dont match such a friendly offer when you're already are in cap hell.

Those ugly contracts in Henson/Snell/Dely finally caught up to them.

the_process · Post #69 » by **the_process** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:07 pm

Arsenal wrote:Why didn't the Bucks demand something (anything?) from the Bulls in exchange for helping them put together this team friendly deal?

This is a 1 year deal plus 1 year TEAM option. This structure would not be possible unless the Bucks rescinded the RFA QO.

So I suppose they just did this out of the goodness of their hearts? Helping a conference rival in exchange for ZERO.

Is MIL really helping CHI, though? CHI is now off the board for eating contracts, and are still a non-playoff team.

TheBrooklynKidd · Post #70 » by **TheBrooklynKidd** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:08 pm

Magic_Johnny12 wrote:
Arsenal wrote:Why didn't the Bucks demand something (anything?) from the Bulls in exchange for helping them put together this team friendly deal?

This is a 1 year deal plus 1 year TEAM option. This structure would not be possible unless the Bucks rescinded the RFA QO.

So I suppose they just did this out of the goodness of their hearts? Helping a conference rival in exchange for ZERO.

Oh I'm sure they tried, but the Bulls knew they were hard-capped so really not much they can do, but pretend to look nice at the end of the day.

I dont see why you dont match such a friendly offer when you're already are in cap hell.

Those ugly contracts in Henson/Snell/Dely finally caught up to them.

The only one that made any sense was Henson. Delly and especially snell were indefensible.

Arsenal · Post #71 » by **Arsenal** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:09 pm

the_process wrote:
Arsenal wrote:Why didn't the Bucks demand something (anything?) from the Bulls in exchange for helping them put together this team friendly deal?

This is a 1 year deal plus 1 year TEAM option. This structure would not be possible unless the Bucks rescinded the RFA QO.

So I suppose they just did this out of the goodness of their hearts? Helping a conference rival in exchange for ZERO.

Is MIL really helping CHI, though? CHI is now off the board for eating contracts, and are still a non-playoff team.

If they kept the QO they could have forced CHI to give Parker an extra guaranteed year, which would have hurt them long term. They basically decided to help the Chicago Bulls in exchange for nothing.

Arsenal · Post #72 » by **Arsenal** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:09 pm

the_process wrote:
Arsenal wrote:Why didn't the Bucks demand something (anything?) from the Bulls in exchange for helping them put together this team friendly deal?

This is a 1 year deal plus 1 year TEAM option. This structure would not be possible unless the Bucks rescinded the RFA QO.

So I suppose they just did this out of the goodness of their hearts? Helping a conference rival in exchange for ZERO.

Is MIL really helping CHI, though? CHI is now off the board for eating contracts, and are still a non-playoff team.

If they kept the QO on the Bulls would have had to add an extra guaranteed year, which would hurt them long-term no doubt.

blind prophet · Post #73 » by **blind prophet** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:13 pm

If I'm understanding this correctly, the Bucks were 8 million below the apron. With Parker's 4 million QO now gone, are they now 12ish million beneath the apron, meaning they can spend that much now?

wolves_89 · Post #74 » by **wolves_89** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:22 pm

blind prophet wrote:If I'm understanding this correctly, the Bucks were 8 million below the apron. With Parker's 4 million QO now gone, are they now 12ish million beneath the apron, meaning they can spend that much now?

The Bucks are over the cap and have used most of their MLE and BAE. Right now, other than min contracts, they have $1.99M left of the MLE to spend (which is actually less than the min salary for vets with 7+ years in the league).

blind prophet · Post #75 » by **blind prophet** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:24 pm

wolves_89 wrote:
blind prophet wrote:If I'm understanding this correctly, the Bucks were 8 million below the apron. With Parker's 4 million QO now gone, are they now 12ish million beneath the apron, meaning they can spend that much now?

The Bucks are over the cap and have used most of their MLE and BAE. Right now, other than min contracts, they have $1.99M left of the MLE to spend (which is actually less than the min salary for vets with 7+ years in the league).

Thanks for the clarity here.

Post #76 » by **jazzfan1971** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:40 pm

This looks terrific for the Bulls with the knowledge that the 2nd year is a team option.

If I'm a Bucks fan I'm pretty pissed that my team didn't get him for the same deal. Maybe he'd only give Chicago this sweet of a deal, but if I could have retained him even at a higher figure on a 1+1 for the Bucks that would have been a smart move IMHO.

Post #77 » by **bondom34** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 5:43 pm

Yea with a TO I like it for the Bulls here. Good move, even with a questionable fit.

Jaw · Post #78 » by **Jaw** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:05 pm

Low risk move for the Bulls. Only a 1 year commitment and although not a great fit on paper maybe they can make it work. Although the injuries were unpredictable the Bucks have very little to show from building around Giannis the past few years. Parker wasn't that great of a fit with Giannis but I thought he had the best chance of anyone to develop into the #2 option that they need. Losing him for nothing hurts especially when they don't have cap space to really do anything and things only get worse with Middleton and Brogdon both likely expecting raises next summer. I think Giannis' long term future in Milwaukee is in doubt since I can't see them being able to build a strong enough team around him during his remaining contract.

basketballwacko2 · Post #79 » by **basketballwacko2** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:07 pm

Arsenal wrote:So Chicago isn't content with two bad/negative contracts (Lavine and Felicio), they want to add a 3rd.

Really foolish offseason from them already with matching that bloated contract for Lavine, so why not double down on the dumb moves?

Do we know the terms of the 2nd year? A two year deal is not that bad, if he produces it will not be bad at all. The Levine deal might but the Deng signing of 2018.

basketballwacko2 · Post #80 » by **basketballwacko2** » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:07 pm

Arsenal wrote:So Chicago isn't content with two bad/negative contracts (Lavine and Felicio), they want to add a 3rd.

Really foolish offseason from them already with matching that bloated contract for Lavine, so why not double down on the dumb moves?

Do we know the terms of the 2nd year? A two year deal is not that bad, if he produces it will not be bad at all. The Levine deal might but the Deng signing of 2018.