What exactly does a max contract mean?

[dougthonus]

Doug, for some reason you're missing what I am saying.

My last paragraph explains it all.

You are missing my point. Saying "don't get this guy because Dunn and Valentine are on the roster" or "only get this guy if you can trade Dunn+Valentine" is meaningless. Dunn and Valentine are meaningless. It doesn't matter if you trade them or if they just sit on the bench and aren't in the rotation. You don't factor them into any decision you make, much like you don't factor Felicio into any decision you make.

If you get Brogdon you might opt to trade Dunn/Valentine, you might opt to keep one or both for short term depth on cheap contracts because you aren't likely to do anything particularly more meaningful with their small cap hits. It doesn't matter though, they aren't relevant. They should only be viewed as long shots to be remotely productive this year or at any point ever in the future.

[jnrjr79]

I think you have to assume that someone is going to offer Brogdon a max contract so the $22mil figure isn’t relevant to me.

Forgetting for the moment that the Bulls may not be able to clear enough space for a max offer, my bigger problem is the 4 years and the fact that Brogdon, a combo guard, isn’t a clear starter


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

1) Whether you think he'll blossom into an All-Star or not, Brogdon is certainly a "clear starter."

2) If I had to place a wager on it, I do not think any team will offer Brogdon his max. If someone does, I'll sure feel better about the Bulls not acquiring him. If he signs for 4/80, not so much.

Exactly what Transplant said are my reasons for not favoring Brogdon.

Bulls FO always goes BPA in draft. And fit in free agency. The only exception is when they go after marketing gimmicks like Ben Wallace, Wade etc.

Brogdon doesnt fit the definition of what we do in free agency ...he's neither a big draw nor is he the perfect roster fit.

I agree he's not a big draw, but it's insanity to say he's not a perfect roster fit. You couldn't design a better fit with the other 4 starters and the style of play the Bulls want to employ.

[jnrjr79]

Doug, for some reason you're missing what I am saying.

My last paragraph explains it all.

You are missing my point. Saying "don't get this guy because Dunn and Valentine are on the roster" or "only get this guy if you can trade Dunn+Valentine" is meaningless. Dunn and Valentine are meaningless. It doesn't matter if you trade them or if they just sit on the bench and aren't in the rotation. You don't factor them into any decision you make, much like you don't factor Felicio into any decision you make.

If you get Brogdon you might opt to trade Dunn/Valentine, you might opt to keep one or both for short term depth on cheap contracts because you aren't likely to do anything particularly more meaningful with their small cap hits. It doesn't matter though, they aren't relevant. They should only be viewed as long shots to be remotely productive this year or at any point ever in the future.

Precisely. Letting Dunn or Valentine dictate whether you get a stud PG is letting the tail wag the dog. If you sign Brogdon, you're likely having him be the starting PG and a backup for LaVine at the 2, while deploying White for 12-24 minutes a game based on how he develops and what he can handle. You're giving up on Dunn. Maybe he gets traded; maybe he sticks around for depth for another year, but its inconsequential. And Valentine? FFS. He has not shown an ability to stay on the floor or any particular needle-moving abilities in the times he's been healthy. If he's a rotation player, great, but you're certainly not going to be making any roster decisions around him.

Yes, the Bulls need a backup big, which they should be able to separately address with the room MLE if they sign Brogdon.

[panthermark]

Won a championship in college? ACC defensive player of the year? ACC player of the year? Finished Master's degree while in college? Try hard, high IQ, high level, role player?

Brogdon is a Paxson wet dream. Only "problem" with Brogdon is that he was a Cav, not a Dukie....

[Southpaw]

I think Brogdon is a really good player, i just don't see him making a big difference on our team. He's a great complimentary player but we don't have a star that he would compliment. I'd love to sign him to a reasonable contract but MIL would just match that.

I'd rather roll the dice on DLo because he has a higher ceiling and he's younger, despite the bad fit with LaVine. I really believe he's turned a corner last season but then again i'm partial to lefties.

Less efficient, worse shooter, worse defender, better creator.

The Bulls need those first three a lot more than the last one. Russell is going to thrive the most in a situation where he is a lead guard and taking lots of shots. He's probably the fourth most efficient player in that role on the Bulls which makes him a lot less desirable IMO.

Brogdon would have a Porter like impact on the team. Everyone else on the team will play better with him there. Brogdon, LaVine, and Porter would be able to collectively defend most teams well due to two of the three playing good defense. Lauri and LaVine can create in iso with two dead-eye amazing shooters spacing the floor.

Brogdon raises all boats which is why he is desirable. I agree his overall talent level isn't star level, but then again in a free market star level talent levels would go for 50m+. You would have to pay him more than you'd want to, but the fit is just about perfect especially since he fits well with Coby or LaVine making an excellent three guard rotation.

Totally agree. I was thinking more in a vacuum than a fit on our team. I like the OPJ of PGs as a comp for Brogdon because that's exactly what he brings to a team. It's just that the combination of big salary + injury history + average/low ceiling + age scares me a bit about Brogdon.

[dougthonus]

Totally agree. I was thinking more in a vacuum than a fit on our team. I like the OPJ of PGs as a comp for Brogdon because that's exactly what he brings to a team. It's just that the combination of big salary + injury history + average/low ceiling + age scares me a bit about Brogdon.

I go back and forth a lot on Brogdon for all the negatives you mentioned as well. I think he's the best player we could add, but I agree we'd end up having to overpay to add him and there's some significant risks there too.

[sco]

Totally agree. I was thinking more in a vacuum than a fit on our team. I like the OPJ of PGs as a comp for Brogdon because that's exactly what he brings to a team. It's just that the combination of big salary + injury history + average/low ceiling + age scares me a bit about Brogdon.

I go back and forth a lot on Brogdon for all the negatives you mentioned as well. I think he's the best player we could add, but I agree we'd end up having to overpay to add him and there's some significant risks there too.

The positive would be if he and White pan out...Zach could be a piece you could trade for a superstar down the road.