Future Free Agent Thread

KqWIN · Post #581 » by **KqWIN** » Mon May 20, 2019 3:51 am

I just can't imagine any scenario in which the Bucks let Brogdon go. If they don't pay for him, they need to start taking offers for Giannis because that is telling him they aren't in it for championships.

sipclip · Post #582 » by **sipclip** » Mon May 20, 2019 3:53 am

Man I really enjoy watching George Hill's game. He is definitely a guy that we should look to bring back this summer as a backup guard. Hell maybe even as a starter.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

TO11 · Post #583 » by **TO11** » Mon May 20, 2019 4:49 am

sipclip wrote:Man I really enjoy watching George Hill's game. He is definitely a guy that we should look to bring back this summer as a backup guard. Hell maybe even as a starter.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

I thought George Hill was still under contract another year for 18 million? Maybe you think G. Hill and the Bucks will agree to a buyout?

sipclip · Post #584 » by **sipclip** » Mon May 20, 2019 4:52 am

TO11 wrote:
sipclip wrote:Man I really enjoy watching George Hill's game. He is definitely a guy that we should look to bring back this summer as a backup guard. Hell maybe even as a starter.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

I thought George Hill was still under contract another year for 18 million? Maybe you think G. Hill and the Bucks will agree to a buyout?

Only 2 mil of it is guaranteed so he will be let go.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

TO11 · Post #585 » by **TO11** » Mon May 20, 2019 4:59 am

sipclip wrote:
TO11 wrote:
sipclip wrote:Man I really enjoy watching George Hill's game. He is definitely a guy that we should look to bring back this summer as a backup guard. Hell maybe even as a starter.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

I thought George Hill was still under contract another year for 18 million? Maybe you think G. Hill and the Bucks will agree to a buyout?
Only 2 mil of it is guaranteed so he will be let go.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

Oh nice! I would love to have Hill come back what kind of contract do you think he works himself into? Maybe 2-3 years 7-8 million a year?

sipclip · Post #586 » by **sipclip** » Mon May 20, 2019 5:02 am

TO11 wrote:
sipclip wrote:
TO11 wrote:I thought George Hill was still under contract another year for 18 million? Maybe you think G. Hill and the Bucks will agree to a buyout?
Only 2 mil of it is guaranteed so he will be let go.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

Oh nice! I would love to have Hill come back what kind of contract do you think he works himself into? Maybe 2-3 years 7-8 million a year?

Before the playoffs I thought he would be somewhere around 3mil a year but he has been great so I think that 7mil range is probably right.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

Luigi · Post #587 » by **Luigi** » Mon May 20, 2019 4:59 pm

If Hill had played for us with the effort he is showing right now, he might have been a longish term solution at point guard for us. But he left us in the lurch for the playoffs. I'm not sure I trust him back.

KqWIN · Post #588 » by **KqWIN** » Mon May 20, 2019 5:03 pm

Luigi wrote:If Hill had played for us with the effort he is showing right now, he might have been a longish term solution at point guard for us. But he left us in the lurch for the playoffs. I'm not sure I trust him back.

Out of all the bridges that have burned, it seems like his is the worst. What a weird timeline. It seemed like the tension from him playing Too well. So well that he turned down a huge renegotiation+extend and started worrying about his next contract than his team. He was a perfect fit for our system and how we play...which is why it's so weird that we decided to go after the polar opposite type of PG to replace him.

Luigi · Post #589 » by **Luigi** » Mon May 20, 2019 7:33 pm

KqWIN wrote:
Luigi wrote:If Hill had played for us with the effort he is showing right now, he might have been a longish term solution at point guard for us. But he left us in the lurch for the playoffs. I'm not sure I trust him back.

Out of all the bridges that have burned, it seems like his is the worst. What a weird timeline. It seemed like the tension from him playing Too well. So well that he turned down a huge renegotiation+extend and started worrying about his next contract than his team. He was a perfect fit for our system and how we play...which is why it's so weird that we decided to go after the polar opposite type of PG to replace him.

I think it was a best player available kind of thing. I still wonder if we can attract a better point guard than Rubio going forward.

For now I'm dreaming that the Bucks don't think Brogdon is worth an overypay and we can run him as our 2, and let Mitchell bring the ball up. Maybe they think he's overachieving in the playoffs and they'd rather go with others, especially if they lose. But it's a dream.

Wolverine · Post #590 » by **Wolverine** » Mon May 20, 2019 11:11 pm

Dwight Powell opted out, Locke loves him

stitches · Post #591 » by **stitches** » Tue May 21, 2019 10:30 am

We all know that for whatever it's worth our FO seems content with being a good playoff team every year and trying to hold on to that status even if it means we never give ourselves the chance to jump up a tier. The only chance for our FO to take some risks in acquiring high end talent is if Rudy and/or Mitchell push for it and it seems like Rudy is taking the first step here :

https://www.nba.com/jazz/his-sights-set-championship-rudy-gobert-says-its-time-me-take-it-next-level?cid=jazz_natsocial_Twitter_rudyexit_20190520

The great thing is that he doesn't exclude himself from the calculations here and he says he needs to improve too:

“I think it’s time for me to take it to the next level and stop putting limits on what I can do,” the Utah Jazz center said. “I don’t know if I’m listening to people that put limits on me, or if I’m just putting limits on myself. But I want to take it to the next level.”

“I think we are close, but it’s time for us to take that next step,” he said. “We don’t want to be the team that’s close every year. … We all have to be on the same page and have the same goal in our minds.”

“It starts in the offseason,” he said. “Not when the playoffs start. It starts right now.”

How much better can he get? How much better can he make his team?

“I think I haven’t scratched the surface of what I can become,” he said. “I’m just excited to have this summer to keep getting better … and be able to take my team to a different level.”

CAE15 · Post #592 » by **CAE15** » Tue May 21, 2019 11:58 am

Hill quit on us and he didn't take kindly to how Rudy the leader of the team talked to him a vet. And we got Rubio in part because Hayward, we listened to our star of who he wanted to play with, yet he still burned us. Those Indiana boys can't trust em.

Sent from my SM-N950U using RealGM mobile app

Post #593 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Tue May 21, 2019 4:39 pm

stitches wrote:We all know that for whatever it's worth our FO seems content with being a good playoff team every year and trying to hold on to that status even if it means we never give ourselves the chance to jump up a tier. The only chance for our FO to take some risks in acquiring high end talent is if Rudy and/or Mitchell push for it and it seems like Rudy is taking the first step here :
...

I don't know what to make of it. It's not like we expect any player to say something different. And Gobert saying he needs to stop putting limits on himself isn't likely to change much because it depends on how Snyder is going to use him, which will be similar to what we've seen so far, I think. Not sure what he means in that quote, what, he's going to shoot 3s and mid-range shots all of a sudden? I'm not quite sure what he can do.

I applaud the willingness to work and improve, but the only way this team will take the next step is if the FO manages to bring talent to help from outside the team. Individual improvement from the roster we have now will only take us so far.

KqWIN · Post #594 » by **KqWIN** » Tue May 21, 2019 4:45 pm

Seemed like Rudy is focused on improving himself and thinks everyone needs to improve. Great, championship mentality. But I’m still very skeptical the FO has the same drive. Doesn’t seem like he’s putting any pressure on them to up the anti.

Post #595 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Tue May 21, 2019 5:05 pm

KqWIN wrote:Seemed like Rudy is focused on improving himself and thinks everyone needs to improve. Great, championship mentality. But I’m still very skeptical the FO has the same drive. Doesn’t seem like he’s putting any pressure on them to up the anti.

I agree. I wonder how much pressure they'll be under when Gobert's next contract is due and the team is still unable to break out of the 1st-2nd round ceiling.

sipclip · Post #596 » by **sipclip** » Tue May 21, 2019 5:06 pm

My biggest problem with the front office is that when they make a lot of moves they tend to be shortsighted in my opinion and we rarely sign any free agents that have untapped potential. With the bench we need to be taking fliers on guys that have talent but haven't been able to put it together for some reason rather than guys that are capped physically or just on the downside of their career.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

KqWIN · Post #597 » by **KqWIN** » Tue May 21, 2019 5:24 pm

2 of our 4 best assets (Ingles and O'Neale) were fliers they took in FA. I think Niang has a chance to be a player as well. We've also singed a lot of low potential vets, but they've been pretty good for the most part and we have had some success stories when we do venture out.

I don't know if I'd say a lot of their failures were short sighted, however. Hill, imo, was a worth while risk who didn't end up being the long term answer in part because he was too good. Rubio could maybe be seen as short sighted because of the Hayward reasoning (which was idiotic), but the main reason why he isn't the long term solution is simply because he's not the right player. Burke and Exum obviously cannot be seen as shortsighted, and those make up the 5 first round picks that have failed to amount to a single player we can count on and is the reason why we have no youth.

stitches · Post #598 » by **stitches** » Tue May 21, 2019 5:26 pm

What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

KqWIN · Post #599 » by **KqWIN** » Tue May 21, 2019 5:39 pm

stitches wrote:What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

We need to address the obvious flaws with our roster, shot creation and shooting. If we sit pat and just ignore them in the name of friendship, that will be failure. Ultimately, the FO needs to open up avenues to improvement besides internal growth. That could mean getting a significant talent upgrade or getting significantly different talent. We have two great building blocks in Donovan and Rudy. The bare minimum would be building a team that fits around them.

Post #600 » by **Inigo Montoya** » Tue May 21, 2019 5:40 pm

stitches wrote:What's the lower limit on what you would consider a successful off season, guys and gals?

I need to feel like the team has a chance to win a championship, even if it falls short. In that context, I'm pretty open in terms of how far the team goes. You can lose in the second round and feel like your team had a real shot at a ring (like the Rockets), and you can lose in the second round and feel like you have no shot (Jazz of the past few years). Or even the Blazers of this year. Yes, they made it to the WCF but that was due to favorable seeding. Once they met a real contender in the Warriors (and without Durant!) they were swept posthaste. If Blazers fans think that this season shows they are a real contender, they're going to be sorely disappointed. They are a similar team to the one that was bounced in the first round last season.

In many ways, the Blazers are at the same situation as we are, only with more young talent that can break out and eventually help the team take the extra step. In some ways, it's better we didn't make it to the WCF, so the FO can't spin it to say we're so close.