Bucks News, Trade Ideas, Transactions - No Politics

[skones]

If Jrue was a free agent how many teams would be offering him a max deal. Same with when Khris was a free agent. If that answer is more than just us then that immediately means the deal isn't negative value

If they're not willing to give value for the right to pay for it. Yes it does.

[paulpressey25]

If Jrue was a free agent how many teams would be offering him a max deal. Same with when Khris was a free agent. If that answer is more than just us then that immediately means the deal isn't negative value

Two teams offered Gadzuric $36mm deals.

ETA: not implying Jrue or Middleton are Gadzuric. Just noting that two teams bidding a guy up doesn’t mean the contract makes sense in a team building context. But rather it means somewhere in years past, your front office screwed up in being forced to pay a massive contract to a guy that likely won’t pan out over the full term of the deal.

[MVP2110]

If Jrue was a free agent how many teams would be offering him a max deal. Same with when Khris was a free agent. If that answer is more than just us then that immediately means the deal isn't negative value

If they're not willing to give value for the right to pay for it. Yes it does.

So in your theory, every single Free Agent contract signed is immediately a negative value correct? Because nobody else would give those deals to that player.

I'd be willing to bet half a dozen teams would have been willing to give Khris his contract or would be willing to give Jrue a max deal

[MVP2110]

If Jrue was a free agent how many teams would be offering him a max deal. Same with when Khris was a free agent. If that answer is more than just us then that immediately means the deal isn't negative value

Two teams offered Gadzuric $36mm deals.

ETA: not implying Jrue or Middleton are Gadzuric. Just noting that two teams bidding a guy up doesn’t mean the contract makes sense in a team building context. But rather it means somewhere in years past, your front office screwed up in being forced to pay a massive contract to a guy that likely won’t pan out over the full term of the deal.

That just means right at the beginning of the deal the Gadzuric deal wasn't that bad and then over time it clearly became a bad deal.

[skones]

If Jrue was a free agent how many teams would be offering him a max deal. Same with when Khris was a free agent. If that answer is more than just us then that immediately means the deal isn't negative value

If they're not willing to give value for the right to pay for it. Yes it does.

So in your theory, every single Free Agent contract signed is immediately a negative value correct? Because nobody else would give those deals to that player.

I'd be willing to bet half a dozen teams would have been willing to give Khris his contract or would be willing to give Jrue a max deal

You're building a straw man. No, not every single free agent contract signed is immediately a negative value. Monstrous deals long term deals to players over 30? The great majority of them are certainly negative. As I said. If teams aren't willing to give value for the right to pay it, yes it does.

[skones]

If Jrue was a free agent how many teams would be offering him a max deal. Same with when Khris was a free agent. If that answer is more than just us then that immediately means the deal isn't negative value

Two teams offered Gadzuric $36mm deals.

ETA: not implying Jrue or Middleton are Gadzuric. Just noting that two teams bidding a guy up doesn’t mean the contract makes sense in a team building context. But rather it means somewhere in years past, your front office screwed up in being forced to pay a massive contract to a guy that likely won’t pan out over the full term of the deal.

That just means right at the beginning of the deal the Gadzuric deal wasn't that bad and then over time it clearly became a bad deal.

No. It means it was bad immediately and there were two dumb teams.

[paulpressey25]

If Jrue was a free agent how many teams would be offering him a max deal. Same with when Khris was a free agent. If that answer is more than just us then that immediately means the deal isn't negative value

Two teams offered Gadzuric $36mm deals.

ETA: not implying Jrue or Middleton are Gadzuric. Just noting that two teams bidding a guy up doesn’t mean the contract makes sense in a team building context. But rather it means somewhere in years past, your front office screwed up in being forced to pay a massive contract to a guy that likely won’t pan out over the full term of the deal.

That just means right at the beginning of the deal the Gadzuric deal wasn't that bad and then over time it clearly became a bad deal.

Personally think it bad from day one. We then let ZaZa walk for a 4/$16 offer sheet, while keeping Gadz at 6/$36.

But yes, you have to factor in the years on these deals. Middleton’s deal will be a boat anchor those last two, maybe even next year.

A Jrue Max deal starts to smell after 2-3 seasons. The key is not to put yourself in these positions, where you feel like there are no other options.

[paulpressey25]

No. It means it was bad immediately and there were two dumb teams.

No matter the player, there usually are always 2-3 dumb teams in on every player. Except for the 2010 Drew Gooden free agency, when there was only one.

[RRyder823]

If Jrue was a free agent how many teams would be offering him a max deal. Same with when Khris was a free agent. If that answer is more than just us then that immediately means the deal isn't negative value

If they're not willing to give value for the right to pay for it. Yes it does.

Actually that would make it neutral value. Not negative.

Negative would be needing to give value to get rid of it

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[skones]

If Jrue was a free agent how many teams would be offering him a max deal. Same with when Khris was a free agent. If that answer is more than just us then that immediately means the deal isn't negative value

If they're not willing to give value for the right to pay for it. Yes it does.

Actually that would make it neutral value. Not negative

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

I don't agree.

[RRyder823]

If they're not willing to give value for the right to pay for it. Yes it does.

Actually that would make it neutral value. Not negative

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

I don't agree.

And why is that?

Negative would be needing to add value to move it. Positive would be receiving value in return for it. This isn't long division here

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[MVP2110]

If they're not willing to give value for the right to pay for it. Yes it does.

So in your theory, every single Free Agent contract signed is immediately a negative value correct? Because nobody else would give those deals to that player.

I'd be willing to bet half a dozen teams would have been willing to give Khris his contract or would be willing to give Jrue a max deal

You're building a straw man. No, not every single free agent contract signed is immediately a negative value. Monstrous deals long term deals to players over 30? The great majority of them are certainly negative. As I said. If teams aren't willing to give value for the right to pay it, yes it does.

If Jrue becomes a free agent this offseason how many teams in your opinion would offer him a max deal?

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

just this offseason muItipIe teams were offering Iarge packages of picks and assets for an expring jrue. this discussion about whether hes a max guy makes me wonder where the hidden cameras are

[skones]

So in your theory, every single Free Agent contract signed is immediately a negative value correct? Because nobody else would give those deals to that player.

I'd be willing to bet half a dozen teams would have been willing to give Khris his contract or would be willing to give Jrue a max deal

You're building a straw man. No, not every single free agent contract signed is immediately a negative value. Monstrous deals long term deals to players over 30? The great majority of them are certainly negative. As I said. If teams aren't willing to give value for the right to pay it, yes it does.

If Jrue becomes a free agent this offseason how many teams in your opinion would offer him a max deal?

I don't care who or how many think it's a good idea before they realize they're staring down the barrel of 140 million until a guy is 35 years old.

[skones]

Actually that would make it neutral value. Not negative

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

I don't agree.

And why is that?

Negative would be needing to add value to move it. Positive would be receiving value in return for it. This isn't long division here

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

Because I don't see "value in return" as bonafide positive value. I don't see negative value as something that needs value added to move it, because I think negative value deals are moved all the time for players that are flat out lesser because they are in more preferable contractual positions. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I think putting "negative value" in a "needs value to move" is unwise.

Direct counterpoint to the necessity to add value to move. Russell Westbrook is negative value. He brought back a first round pick, but he also brought back John Wall, who's value, specifically at the time, was such that even with a first round pick attached, did not bring that side of the deal to "neutral" value territory.

[MVP2110]

I don't agree.

And why is that?

Negative would be needing to add value to move it. Positive would be receiving value in return for it. This isn't long division here

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

Because I don't see "value in return" as bonafide positive value. I don't see negative value as something that needs value added to move it, because I think negative value deals are moved all the time for players that are flat out lesser because they are in more preferable contractual positions. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I think putting "negative value" in a "needs value to move" is unwise.

Direct counterpoint to the necessity to add value to move. Russell Westbrook is negative value. He brought back a first round pick, but he also brought back John Wall, who's value, specifically at the time, was such that even with a first round pick attached, did not bring that side of the deal to "neutral" value territory.

Do you think if the Bucks sign Jrue to a max extension tomorrow, that a team would give up a first round pick for the right to pay him that extension (ex. Boston)

[skones]

And why is that?

Negative would be needing to add value to move it. Positive would be receiving value in return for it. This isn't long division here

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

Because I don't see "value in return" as bonafide positive value. I don't see negative value as something that needs value added to move it, because I think negative value deals are moved all the time for players that are flat out lesser because they are in more preferable contractual positions. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I think putting "negative value" in a "needs value to move" is unwise.

Direct counterpoint to the necessity to add value to move. Russell Westbrook is negative value. He brought back a first round pick, but he also brought back John Wall, who's value, specifically at the time, was such that even with a first round pick attached, did not bring that side of the deal to "neutral" value territory.

Do you think if the Bucks sign Jrue to a max extension tomorrow, that a team would give up a first round pick for the right to pay him that extension (ex. Boston)

I'm hoping they would, because my preference for Jrue is a S&T this offseason. I think of value as league wide consensus NOT what a few teams are willing to do. One team willing to give up positive value for Wiggins doesn't make Wiggins actual positive value when the greater majority of teams would scoff at the notion of doing so.

[thonnisbeastley]

Middleton wasn't worth his max deal, maybe some bottom feeder would have offered the same contract though. 5/150 was his worth.
Jrue is not worth a max deal. He's at the end of his prime and he's not playing like he deserves one. Think he's worth 4/100 max on the open market. Personally, I wouldn't pay him more than 4/90 with a team option on the last year. Ideally we sign him for 2/50 and trade either him or Middleton for better role players if this roster doesn't work out this/next season. I'm tired of handing out 3-4 year contracts to retain all of our veterans. It's why were in such a terrible spot to begin with. Giving a max to Jrue pretty much means we have to trade Middleton.

[skones]

Middleton wasn't worth his max deal, maybe some bottom feeder would have offered the same contract though. 5/150 was his worth.
Jrue is not worth a max deal. He's at the end of his prime and he's not playing like he deserves one. Think he's worth 4/100 max on the open market. Personally, I wouldn't pay him more than 4/90 with a team option on the last year. Ideally we sign him for 2/50 and trade either him or Middleton for better role players if this roster doesn't work out this/next season. I'm tired of handing out 3-4 year contracts to retain all of our veterans. It's why were in such a terrible spot to begin with. Giving a max to Jrue pretty much means we have to trade Middleton.

Honestly if this fails, I think it's time to at the very least kick the tires on trading Middleton in an effort to re-tool. You may have finally maxed out this core with him aging and hitting peak years in his deal. Sell high. He'll have two 50/40/90ish campaigns under his belt. See if you can get a bit younger while obtaining good players. Depending on where Phoenix falls, I think that could be an interesting scenario in consolidating for Middleton to make one last run with Paul at the helm (Johnson/Bridges). Atlanta continuing it's win-now push (Collins/Huerter). Denver with Porter Jr. On the flip side of that, maybe see what adding to him gets you in terms of a star. What would it take to get you to Beal or George for example?

[DrWood]

Middleton wasn't worth his max deal, maybe some bottom feeder would have offered the same contract though. 5/150 was his worth.

Unless you figure he's about to go in the toilet, you are wrong. He's deserved his pay last year and this.

Jrue is not worth a max deal. He's at the end of his prime and he's not playing like he deserves one. Think he's worth 4/100 max on the open market. Personally, I wouldn't pay him more than 4/90 with a team option on the last year. Ideally we sign him for 2/50 and trade either him or Middleton for better role players if this roster doesn't work out this/next season. I'm tired of handing out 3-4 year contracts to retain all of our veterans. It's why were in such a terrible spot to begin with. Giving a max to Jrue pretty much means we have to trade Middleton.

He'd get a lot more than that from any intelligent GM with the money to spend.