HiAndTight

No, it does not matter at all. The Bucks cap space was negligible after signing Lopez. They didn't realistically have the cap space to sign anyone even close to Middleton and that would require that they also let Lopez go as they'd have had to use the cap space to sign whoever you're getting to replace Middleton. I would get not liking this if it was the Brewers or the Packers, but this only impacts the owners. The only thing at stake for the fans is do we keep him or let him go. If we didn't have Giannis, I'd have let him walk in a second and I'd be back in rebuilding mode. But we do. We have that transcendent superstar, so paying Middleton a little more than we think he's worth vs another team signing him a max deal, I'll take overpaying him a little bit and proving to Giannis we're committed.

What would you have done? I would have let him walk for this kind of money. He was benched for being lazy in a contract year and just isn't that good. Oh please. He was used as an example for playing lackadaisical defense, something the entire team was doing and Bud even said that benching Middleton made a stronger point. And you're talking about the first couple weeks of the season. Also, HERE is my question in its entirety; You can't just take one part out of context. How do you replace the production of a two way player like Khris Middleton? And how do you justify letting your 2nd all-star walk the year before Giannis is set to decide if he's going to stay in Milwaukee or leave? This was spend the money on Middleton or just pocket the money. That he was used as a scapegoat early in the year by Coach Bud who then went on to rave about him over and over is utterly meaningless. He's overpaid. We all agree. But it wasn't Middleton of DeAngelo Russell. Or Middleton vs Klay Thompson(who didn't want to come to Milwaukee when he was coming out of college in the first place). This was literally Middleton or nobody. So my question is, what would you have done to make the Bucks a contender after letting their 2nd best player walk out of the door to another team on a max deal the year before the best player your franchise has seen in 50 years decides if he's going to stay or if he's going to leave Milwaukee and he's said he's going to make that decision based upon his chance to win. So who's coming in on the vets minimum to pick up for Middleton?

Brogdon will get more than that, probably 20 per year. Still, doesn't hurt to be aggressive and offer him 16 a year first. The Bucks reportedly have a..."walk away" number for Brogdon. My guess is that it's around 20. I hope it's not, I hope they'd keep him at 20. But I'd hope they'd go to him with anoffer first and hope he'd sign.

KD, Kyrie AND DeAndre Jordan to the Nets.

I thought it was KD and Kyrie to the Knicks. Then it suddenly became the Nets. I REALLY hope that Russell is the one who signs with the Lakers. If Kawhi signs with them, they're going to be just too talented to beat in the near future. Too good defensively in a playoff series. You can't have the two best players in the world and then another top 5. That would really trump the big 3 from his Heat days. My guess would be Kawhi-Clippers It would have been KD/Kyrie to NYN, now it sounds like Nets. DeAngelo to the LAL. Dallas is gonna go after Bogdonovich or whatever pretty hard and I'd imagine quite a few teams will be going after Brogdon. What happens with Butler, Harris is the next interesting waive. Would the Sixers really try to snake Brogdon and let Harris walk? And would the Bucks let them?

Were you not the one who pointed out that Beverly wanted more money than that? I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or what, but something went over my head. I'm saying I'd rather the Bucks go after Brogdon first and not sit back and wait for teams that miss out to go after him.

Well, that's not at all been the discussion on here. The argument on here has been that he's worth that and that the Bucks owners were being cheap. And an expiring contract has value, but that's more for a team like the Cavs. Not a team that's focused on keeping their players together to win a title THIS YEAR. When Hill's contract had value is when we traded for it. Last year when we used it to dump two players we didn't want for what was basically an expiring contract this year.

What would you have done? He was getting the max from someone. You could be the one to pay him....or you could just let him leave and you still don't have any cap room to do anything. You can't replace him. This is both an overpay and absolutely 100 pct necessary. You can't let your 2nd best player go for nothing the summer before Giannis has to decide if he wants to stick around with his number 1 factor being can he win with team right now. So again, what IS the alternative? You're not replacing Middleton's skill set unless you used Brogdon to sign and trade for a guy like Porter and I don't see why the Bulls would do that. So give me the overpay and the all star player rather than nobody and more money in the owners pockets. Ill take the first deal every day of the week.

I saw that. Absolutely awesome. Now use the MLE to sign Hill, sounds like they have a deal in place for Middleton and you go out and make an offer that's too good for Brogdon to pass up, 4 years at 64 and run it back with your team back together in the second year of Buds system and Giannis another year old with a few thousand more hours in the gym!

I'm actually not convinced they're paying much tax at all. That's why I'm so suspicious of how things are playing out so far. They act like they have to make these moves, but it's pretty damn convenient that they even stand a chance of staying under the tax threshold, or at least the tax apron, when it's all said and done. Revenue sharing is pretty good in the NBA, and small markets can run huge payrolls when they're contenders - especially if they have a superstar who is potentially an icon. But I'm actually taking a more macro view than they are. My plan would be to let Khris walk and keep everyone else. Hill, Leuer, and Ersan would be off the books and they'd be under the cap again next summer. Whereas locking in your starting 5 leaves in long-term tax territory with no BAE and only the tax MLE for flexibility in case someone gets hurt or declines. So my plan is probably much better for long-term fiscal health. Really comes down to what you think of all the players though. Personally I think Khris, Mirotic, Bledsoe, Lopez, Brogdon, and Hill are all so close that I would much rather lose the "best" one and keep all the others than lose multiple guys. Well, they may not this year. That'll depend. They WOULD have paid quite a bit had they not waived Hill. But if they could structure the contracts so that they don't pay it this year, that would postpone some of the long term impacts. But moving on; Ok, so you've let Middleton go, the second best player on the Bucks and the "Perfect teammate for Giannis" as the article said, so you've hurt your chances as winning next year badly and you've also hurt your chance of keeping Giannis around significantly and as YOU'VE said when you smartly advocated keeping him, it's Middleton or nobody. So anything that causes you to lose your best player other than Giannis and increases your chances of losing Giannis is not taking the Macro view unless of course, you're talking about tearing down and building it up again after Giannis leaves because they let Middleton walk, and I doubt that. And lets say they do let Midds walk. After they sign Lopez, Brogdon, Giannis to a supermax, where are they getting the money to go into the FA market to compete, much less WHO are they getting? And who says we're going to lose more than one of Khris, Bled(already signed), Lopez(signed), Brogdon(RFA) and Hill..who I'm just getting so sick of talking about because he's a veteran who's going to sign for a fraction of the 18 million dollars. Which is really ALL this is about. The Bucks waived him and they're now trying to sign him to a deal that makes some type of sense. I really can't understand this. You're for signing keeping Hill for 18 million next year when you can probably have him for about a third of that, but against keeping Middleton for 30? That doesn't compute with me. And obviously Mirotic was never really an option. I doubt he had such an affinity for the city of Milwaukee, a city where he did not play well, that he was willing to take a deal that would have made any sense. So the Bucks can bring back ALL of those guys other than Mirotic. So instead of keeping them all instead of the best one, they kept them all instead of the worst one(at least when it came to the playoffs). But going back to your initial point, you're not convinced they stay out of the luxury tax. That'd be great if they could pull that off. Awesome. It'd likely give them more room in the future to make moves. Because they'll definitely be in it the next 3+ years IF Giannis signs, so that tax bill is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. So does it really matter? If they're in it 3 out of 4 years, they get hit with the repeaters tax. So staying out of it any year they could would be a GOOD thing. And yes, they have money. They don't have endless resources. They're not going to be able to pay a 100 million in luxury taxes year after year. But again, it really seems like this is still 99 pct to do with George Hill being waived and I don't get it. He is not in the same group as Brogdon, Middleton, Bledsoe. They're in their primes. So you're creating this choice of Hill or this player, when that was never on the table. Or putting Hill in a group that he just does not belong financially. The 34 year old PG was not getting the 18 million. And they're still talking about keeping him for a more realistic number. They could use their MLE now to keep him. They haven't misled us, they haven't lied, they haven't been cheap. Keeping Hill at 18 would have been irresponsible team management. And at least as of the past year plus, they've been making very smart decisions and doing the right things to keep Giannis around.

I swear I read that the highest paid player in that league made 4.6 million. This feels like Jordan making 33.14 million in Chicago when the next highest paid guys were making like 5. I guess there's no reason for him to NOT take it. If they do at some point default, he's already got money and I'm sure he'll always be able to find a home in the NBA. At least over the next few years.

Basically you can use cap space or you can use the full MLE, but not both. If at any point you can say "we are allowed to sign this contract only because we have the cap space to do it" and the league rubber-stamps it, you've lost the full MLE for the year. You have only the room MLE instead. Think of it this way - why would there be a room MLE if you could use cap space and then use the full MLE? There would be no reason for the room MLE to exist. The exceptions are basically designed to give capped out teams some flexibility and keep the market moving for players, but they don't want teams that already have cap space to have the full MLE because they don't need it I guess. You don't have to be over the cap to get the full MLE. You just can't cite "cap space" as your legal basis for signing anyone. For example, if you're only $3m under the cap, you might say screw it and take the full MLE, which would be a little more than the room MLE + $3m in cap space, allowing you to hopefully pay a slightly better player. And you can still sign minimum contracts, as those are always allowed regardless of cap space (unless maybe you're over the apron but that's an edge case). I'd prefer a hard cap, but whatever. What really bothers me about waiving Hill, besides my obvious affinity for his all-around contributions and how badly they need him, is that they still didn't really free up enough cap space to pay Lopez much more than the full MLE anyway, which is what they would have had if they hadn't waived Hill. So they're acting like they had to do it to keep Lopez, but that's not true. And they're acting like they have to stretch Leuer to create cap space, but that's not necessarily true either, although it would be true if Brogdon gets a huge offer (but they can wait until that happens to stretch Leuer). And they might even give up another asset to unload Ersan, claiming they need even more cap space. And after that, they might still lose Lopez and Hill to surprise over-bidders. And Mirotic supposedly wanted to stay, but the Bucks weren't even interested because they're too invested in trying to trick everyone into thinking they needed cap space when it sure looks like they're just trying to save money. They had Bird Rights to everyone except Lopez, whom they could use the full MLE on, and they had Hill under contract. There's no excuse for probably losing multiple good players from a 60-win team under the circumstances. I think they're not being called on their b.s. because most people will accept the excuse that they had to free up cap space and prioritize certain guys, but I think that's a misdirection play for being cheap. They do know more about what the players are thinking though, so I have my fingers crossed that they got assurances from Lopez and Hill that they would accept certain offers regardless of being able to get more elsewhere. They might get a lot more elsewhere though, now that the Bucks don't have Bird Rights to either of them and have only the room MLE. Thank you. I appreciate that information. I follow the CBA, but loosely. I used to know all three of them a lot better, but it's just too much to keep up with. I really would have thought that at least if you signed your own players and were over the cap you'd be able to use the full MLE to answer your rhetorical question why would you be able to do both. Even the Bucks, while we technically have "salary cap" room, we really don't. But so it comes down to you can either use whatever cap space you have...or the full MLE. So...probably not much of a difference in this case in terms of money, but if we use our cap space to sign Lopez, we'll at least still have the room MLE to sign someone else. That COULD work out perfectly and we could end up running it back next year with everyone but Mirotic. Kinda screws us as we're definitely going to go over the cap this year and into the luxury tax and once we DO go into the luxury tax, we're not going to be coming out of it for a while. I'd really like to see the NBA go back to the old luxury tax system while we're on it. The dollar for dollar tax. This repeater tax and the incremental increases....unless the salary cap blows up in a few years(and even then, I believe Giannis will be getting 35 pct of the tax anyway) we're going to have a huge tax payment if we sign Brogdon and Middleton to what they're expected to get, and that's before what we could spend on any of our young players like Wilson or DDV. This is where two things come back to really bite us in the ass. The bad moves that we made when the salary cap exploded. I know a lot of teams made those mistakes, but we made them while we were developing a superstar, so we didn't really have a chance to clear our books, and reload. Horst has done a good job of getting rid of those deals(and even Snell, TBH, I thought he was going to be a really good 3 and D guy for us) but he's had to give up draft picks. It's one thing to steal Bled for a future 1st, but we've given up two others to dump 3 players. And then it was just such a blow that Jabari got hurt twice and that a draft that was supposed to be so good at the top ended up producing two middling players(Wiggins isn't even a great defender which tells me he just doesn't care that much) and then a superstar who clearly is not in shape who I don't trust at all. I'd be willing to bet he's had the best year of his career. That cost us our last best chance at getting a true #2 star. I like Middleton, but he's not that. And we're pretty much tying our hands for the next half decade because if we don't keep this group together, we'll lose Giannis anyway. We REALLY have to get lucky and find a hidden gem somewhere. And I get people are upset about taking Thon over Sabonis and that looks really bad now, but I was fine with taking another big cut on Thon. Though if we had Sabonis, he'd be our #2 star and Midds would fit much better. [sarcasm]Maybe Giannis will decide to go back and play for a year in Europe with his pal Mirotic so we can have a Duncan like situation in Milwaukee without the actual injury....[/sarcasm] And back to Hill, realistically, they'll probably be able to get him for close to what ESPN has him at, 4-6 million dollars. He was very important, we all agree. But that was this year. I pointed out his recent past. And yes, I'd bet on him helping us again in the future, particularly in the post-season...but not at that price. I'd rather bring in Darren Collison for the vets minimum than do that. You're taking a micro view of the finances instead of a macro one and I get that, its that Daryl Morely 5 pct theory, but I don't think our team will end up looking much different. Again, after signing Middleton and Brogdon and Lopez, they'll almost certainly be into the luxury tax. Once they're in, they won't get out until Giannis leaves Milwaukee. So it's not just about how much they'll pay in tax NOW, it's about how much they'll be paying in the future. I don't think that makes them cheap. This isn't having Serge, Harden, KD, and Westbrook, coming off a finals appearance and making an offer to Harden for a few million less than he's worth so they don't have to pay the a small tax and giving him 1 hour to decide before dealing him. We're talking about tax bills that will end up being 80-100 million dollars for the Bucks(potentially). I get that you like Hill...and I like him to. But I'm having a hard time justifying them paying Brogdon 19 or 20 million. How on Earth could they turn around and pay Hill that? Especially when he'll likely sign for significantly less than that. As for them not having interest in Mirotic, I'm fine with that. They have Wilson. He has to prove he can do it over a sustained period of time, but he's shown in the limited action he can shoot and he's a much better defender than Mirotic. He's more active and athletic. And that's another ~15 million that we'd be looking at. It's one thing to expect the Bucks owners to pony up for a contender, it's another to just pay anyone and everyone who was on the team whatever they want. It's very possible that in Mirotic and Hill they saved themselves 25 million dollars, get Hill back and are actually better for it. At this point, I'm just hoping if they do lose Brogdon, they at least get something back for him. Someone wants Brogdon bad enough to pay him 4/90, they have to give up a pick or a player or we threaten to just match, gauge their interest. If the Suns do it, I want Josh Jackson. If the Mavs do it, I want their young Jackson. If the Pacers do it....I want Sabonis, but since that obviously wouldn't happen, they can give up a protected pick and the guy who went to Creighton and is a Kyle Korver type. Can't recall the name, it's escaping me(Doug McDermott) But he's pretty much exclusively a catch and shoot type player. Here's an article I read a while back about Charlotte's dilemma with Kemba. It's somewhat similar to ours with Middleton if we didn't have Giannis(and I'd have let him walk in that scenario). https://www.forbes.com/sites/mortenjensen/2019/05/23/nba-supermax-contracts-vs-repeater-tax-penalties-somethings-gotta-give/#7dddac30239e It's hurting the small market teams more than the big ones.

Basically you can use cap space or you can use the full MLE, but not both. If at any point you can say "we are allowed to sign this contract only because we have the cap space to do it" and the league rubber-stamps it, you've lost the full MLE for the year. You have only the room MLE instead. Think of it this way - why would there be a room MLE if you could use cap space and then use the full MLE? There would be no reason for the room MLE to exist. The exceptions are basically designed to give capped out teams some flexibility and keep the market moving for players, but they don't want teams that already have cap space to have the full MLE because they don't need it I guess. You don't have to be over the cap to get the full MLE. You just can't cite "cap space" as your legal basis for signing anyone. For example, if you're only $3m under the cap, you might say screw it and take the full MLE, which would be a little more than the room MLE + $3m in cap space, allowing you to hopefully pay a slightly better player. And you can still sign minimum contracts, as those are always allowed regardless of cap space (unless maybe you're over the apron but that's an edge case). I'd prefer a hard cap, but whatever. What really bothers me about waiving Hill, besides my obvious affinity for his all-around contributions and how badly they need him, is that they still didn't really free up enough cap space to pay Lopez much more than the full MLE anyway, which is what they would have had if they hadn't waived Hill. So they're acting like they had to do it to keep Lopez, but that's not true. And they're acting like they have to stretch Leuer to create cap space, but that's not necessarily true either, although it would be true if Brogdon gets a huge offer (but they can wait until that happens to stretch Leuer). And they might even give up another asset to unload Ersan, claiming they need even more cap space. And after that, they might still lose Lopez and Hill to surprise over-bidders. And Mirotic supposedly wanted to stay, but the Bucks weren't even interested because they're too invested in trying to trick everyone into thinking they needed cap space when it sure looks like they're just trying to save money. They had Bird Rights to everyone except Lopez, whom they could use the full MLE on, and they had Hill under contract. There's no excuse for probably losing multiple good players from a 60-win team under the circumstances. I think they're not being called on their b.s. because most people will accept the excuse that they had to free up cap space and prioritize certain guys, but I think that's a misdirection play for being cheap. They do know more about what the players are thinking though, so I have my fingers crossed that they got assurances from Lopez and Hill that they would accept certain offers regardless of being able to get more elsewhere. They might get a lot more elsewhere though, now that the Bucks don't have Bird Rights to either of them and have only the room MLE. I really would have thought that at least if you signed your own players and were over the cap you'd be able to use the full MLE to answer your rhetorical question why would you be able to do both. Even the Bucks, while we tecnically have "salary cap" room, we really don't. But so it comes down to you can either use whatever cap space you have...or the full MLE. So...probably not much of a difference in this case in terms of money, but if we use our cap space to sign Lopez, we'll at least still have the room MLE to sign someone else. Kinda screws us as we're definitely going to go over the cap this year and into the luxury tax and once we DO go into the luxury tax, we're not going to be coming out of it for a while. I'd really like to see the NBA go back to the old luxury tax system while we're on it. The dollar for dollar tax. This repeater tax and the incremental increases....unless the salary cap blows up in a few years(and even then, I believe Giannis will be getting 35 pct of the tax anyway) we're going to have a huge tax payment if we sign Brogdon and Middleton to what they're expected to get, and that's before what we could spend on any of our young players like Wilson or DDV. And back to Hill, realistically, they'll probably be able to get him for close to what ESPN has him at, 4-6 million dollars. He was very important, we all agree. But that was this year. I pointed out his recent past. And yes, I'd bet on him helping us again in the future, particularly in the post-season...but not at that price. I'd rather bring in Darren Collison for the vets minimium than do that. You're taking a micro view of the finances instead of a macro one. Again, after signing Middleton and Brogdon and Lopez, they'll almost certainly be into the luxury tax. Once they're in, they won't get out until Giannis leaves Milwaukee. So it's not just about how much they'll pay in tax NOW, it's about how much they'll be paying in the future. I hardly think that makes them cheap. This isn't having Serge, Harden, KD, and Westbrook, coming off a finals appearance and making an offer to Harden for a few million less than he's worth so they don't have to pay the tax and giving him 1 hour to decide. I get that you like Hill...and I like him to. But I'm having a hard time justifying them paying Brogdon 19 or 20 million. How on Earth could they turn around and pay Hill that? Especially when he'll likely sign for significantly less than that. As for them not having interest in Mirotic, I'm fine with that. They have Wilson. He has to prove he can do it over a sustained period of time, but he's shown in the limited action he can shoot and he's a much better defender than Mirotic. He's more active and athletic. And that's another ~15 million that we'd be looking at. It's one thing to expect the Bucks owners to pony up for a contender, it's another to just pay anyone and everyone who was on the team whatever they want. It's very possible that in Mirotic and Hill they saved themselves 25 million dollars, get Hill back and are actually better for it. At this point, I'm just hoping if they do lose Brogdon, they at least get something back for him. This would be the perfect situation for a sign and trade, would it not? Someone wants Brogdon bad enough to pay him 4/90, they have to give up a pick or a player. If the Suns do it, I want Josh Jackson. If the Mavs do it, I want their young Jackson. If the Pacers do it....I want Sabonis, but since that obviously wouldn't happen, they can give up a protected pick and the guy who went to Creighton and is a Kyle Korver type. Can't recall the name. But he's pretty much exclusively a catch and shoot type player. Here's an article I read a while back about Charlotte's dilemma with Kemba. It's somewhat similar to ours with Middleton if we didn't have Giannis(and I'd have let him walk in that scenario). https://www.forbes.com/sites/mortenjensen/2019/05/23/nba-supermax-contracts-vs-repeater-tax-penalties-somethings-gotta-give/#7dddac30239e It was just such a blow that Jabari got hurt twice and that draft that was supposed to be SOO good at the top ended up producing two middling players(Wiggins isn't even a great defender which tells me he just doesn't care that much) and then a superstar who clearly is not in shape. That cost us our last best chance at getting a true #2 star. I like Middleton, but he's not that. And we're pretty much tying our hands for the next half decade because if we don't, we'll lose Giannis anyway. [sarcasm]Maybe Giannis will decide to go back and play for a year in Europe with his pal Mirotic so we can have a Duncan like situation in Milwaukee without the actual injury....[/sarcasm]

That's the case with most RFA's, but as that article from ESPN stated, some RFA's actually end up getting paid MORE because the team wants them and they want to ensure that the offer won't be matched. The two examples mention were Otto Porter and Zach Lavine...though both teams matched(certainly glad the Bulls did). And I'm probably wrong, but I thought Lavine signed not long after a ACL. In any event, if Brogdon is a RFA like that...and I think he'd fit perfectly in LAL if they could pair him with someone like Beverly, he could end up getting an offer for something crazy like 4/90. With it now being suggested he could get 20 per year...maybe the Lakers take one of the few 50/40/90 guys, they know he can run the point as can LeBron, the still have money to offer to Beverly, they still have Kuzma. That'd be an incredibly scary 1-5. Beverly/Brogdon/LeBron/Kuzma/AD. Fill out their bench around him. 2 great shooters and one potentially great shooter in Kuzma with AD inside and LeBron doing whatever he wants to. They'd need depth. Point is, I can see teams going after Brogdon hard. I really hope that we've got a deal worked out for him and they just haven't announced it. I'm not guessing this would happen, but I'd love to hear the Bucks agreed to 5/150 with Middleton and 4/60 with Brogdon as soon as they're able to sign, even if they wait to actually finalize the signings so they can up the cap space to sign Lopez and Hill if need be.

Highest paid player in the league is 4.6 million. Mirotic turned down 3/45. So Mirotic would have to be by far the highest paid player to even make it half. That's a lot of money to give up to go home. Dude's in his 20's. If you have a chance to set yourself up for life at that point, I'd say you gotta take it. But who knows what else is going on in his life. Mirotic has made 45 million in his 5 year nba career. I think he could be set for life already if has even a semblance of a clue of how to handle money. That's a good chunk of change. But you've been given a chance to change your family for generations. I don't think I'd make the decision to stay home rather than go over to Spain to play a game and pass up that type of money. And you can take care of yourself and live an extremely comfortable life on the 20 or so he likely still has. But if I could make sure my Grandkids had money and their kids, I would. Of course, I turned down an absolute dream job a few years ago because I had a Mother who was very-very ill and then a father who was battling a serious disease. So like you said, you never know a guys personal situation and how much that plays into these decisions. Money is great, but if you can be rich and happy or really rich and not happy, that's a rather easy decision.

Wow, why is it so hard for you to understand that you can't do this? You realize your continued insistence on this undermines all your other arguments about the financial situation, right? Use cap space, get the room MLE. Period. The owners are being cheap, just as I feared. Hey, are you able to explain at what point the MLE changes? In most links I've seen showing the Bucks using the MLE, it is not the "room" MLE that you insist it is if you use any salary cap room first. So does a team need to be OVER the salary cap by July 2nd in order to qualify for the highest MLE? If they use Bird rights to go over the cap, THEN are they allowed? You've kinda mocked people that believe otherwise and you've talked at length about reading and going over the CBA, so presumably, you know. If you could post a link to the relevant part of the CBA that deals with the different MLE's and when what you are allowed to spend money...or even just tell us, it'd help a lot in this conversation about potential players we could sign. This is your thread about the off-season and I'm very curious. With all the teams that have salary cap space, even if it's not enough to sign anyone of consequence, at what point does the amount they're able to spend on a Mid Level Exception become fixed?

Wow, why is it so hard for you to understand that you can't do this? You realize your continued insistence on this undermines all your other arguments about the financial situation, right? Use cap space, get the room MLE. Period. The owners are being cheap, just as I feared. So this is your incredibly obnoxious and condescending way of saying that if you start the year with cap room, it doesn't matter if you use up that cap room and go into the cap, you're stuck paying the room MLE? Even if you go into the luxury tax? The Exception is based on your cap situation. I also was under the impression that if you were over the cap that was the MLE that was applicable to you. Several other people on here have asked questions about the CBA. So are we all just idiots because we don't sit down and go through the NBA's CBA line by line? Just explain when it changes. At what point you need to be over the cap. Would that not be easier than repeated snide comments? Also, if you want to talk about arguments being undermined, you're calling the Bucks owners "cheap" for not wanting to pay George Hill 18 million dollars next year, a figure that could easily swell to...what, 60 million dollars if the Bucks go just 15 million into the luxury tax? George Hill's mother didn't think he was getting the non-guaranteed portion of his contract. Nobody on this board did, nobody around the NBA did. You've made this off-season the George Hill off-season and it's ridiculous. So one last plea...just stop. And if you ARE actually privy to all the information you're saying you are, just share it. That's kinda the point of this board. Don't insult people who don't understand it. I've paid for season tickets for decades....41 games a year for two seats. Am I one of those "casual fans" who don't understand the sport quite like you do? And On the Black, just stop. Not a big difference between saying I told you so over and over and someone saying you're wrong over and over. This thread SHOULD be about the Bucks off-season, not how much George Hill is going to make. This crap is like listening(or rather reading) two kids bickering about who's on their side of the seat.

NOT at the fact that we're waiving Hill. We're losing a quality player(at least in the playoffs...usually) and that is never a good thing. I'm just SOOOO glad we can now actually talk about what's REALLY going to happen and not have the conversation dominated by what we should do...even though we all knew we'd never actually do that. Edit-Even better, they're talking about trying to re-sign him. I'm gonna guess it'll be ~6 per year. Maybe 3 years two guaranteed at 12 and a third like this one with 1 guaranteed and the rest not guaranteed to bring it to maybe 13 total?

Alright, but FB is a pretty distant afterthought with Uconn I'd think. They've had a couple decent years and teams outta there, but it's BB school. Wouldn't they help out a great deal in negotiating a TV deal for instance?

Pfft....you casual fans....

If I was either LA team, I'd rather have multiple contributors to what they currently have than another Max in the case of the Lakers and two in the case of the Clippers. Looking at that Clippers roster, that's pretty amazing they pushed the Warriors to 6. They're built with a great supporting cast, but they didn't have one star at all last year, especially after they traded Harris. Doc coulda been COY for what he did there as well. I doubt we'll get Beverly, but my point all along is that we can find a PG. That while Hill was good in the playoffs, you really don't want to pay him that much money when he's been really medicore the last couple years. Darren Collison has hit 42.4 pct of his 3's the last 4 years and has hit over 40 pct over the last 1200 he's taken and while he's not Beverly or Hill defensively, he doesn't have to be. There are guys who we can find. George Hill wasn't on anyone on here's radar going into the year. Edit-I'm thinking about too many things at once. Given how good the Clips front office has been, you'd imagine they'd definitely keep Beverly. They may need to wait to sign him to see what Kawhi does, but yeah, your point kinda went over my head. The Clips can add Kawhi and still pay Beverly whatever they agree to. He should be back in LA next year.

Right. That's why I was advocating you free up the cap space to sign the guys who you don't have bird rights to OR try to sign someone else. Patrick Beverly has hit 40 pct of his last 1000 three-pointers. He was harassing the hell outta Kevin Durant on the block and up in Steph's face on the perimeter. He's probably the best defensive PG in the NBA and he can shoot it. So hypothetically, you sign him for ~3/21, you use the rest on Lopez, maybe Morris is willing to sign for the MLE then(NOT using salary cap space as you'd then be at the cap, which I believe is what Ontheblack was saying, but I could be wrong). I don't think that's what we'll actually do. I could see Collison signing. But I don't think we're going to clear any cap space to sign anyone other than Lopez. I think they'll be able to find a veteran PG later on(or use the MLE on Hill, he did say he was more concerned with winning than money when asked). It's been reported Beverly is looking for 3/40, so that 3/21 is not even close to what it will take. Looking for and what he'll get may be different. But those were just a couple guys I mentioned. Ricky Rubio should be cheap. Daren Collison, it was reported may sign for the vets minimum. And honestly, I don't think that's too unreasonable for Beverly. I've just seen much lower projections for how much he'd get this year. But split the difference, maybe 3/30 would get it done. Or maybe it wouldn't. He's got quite a few visits lined up but most of the teams that he's talking to have cap room, but are the teams that are looking to add one, maybe two max level players like the Clippers who obviously wouldn't use the room they have until the Kawhi situation is settled, the Lakers who are in the same boat and could be in on Kyrire(Though that's the place I'd least like to see him go....I actually hope the Lakers use their cap space on Kyrie instead of Beverly and 1 or 2 other good players). The Nets, the Knicks, and Dallas I thought? Anyway, it's not Beverly or bust. Oh, and one other thing, not related to this thread, can we stop with the whining back and forth about who was right, who says they're right, how many times you turn out to be right and all the rest of it and just have a big boy talk about the off-season? That's not directed at any ONE person. There are at least TWO making this a way too petty. Bicker in PM's. Or use the Foe feature. I've come to love it.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2373154-every-top-25-teams-fastest-40-time-ever-recorded-at-the-nfl-combine#slide2 Michael Bennett, RB Time: 4.13 Year: 2001 Draft result: First round, Minnesota Michael Bennett had one amazing season in college, followed by a near-record performance at the NFL combine. A promising first two pro seasons continued his meteoric rise from track star to football phenom, but almost as quickly that career went downhill and swiftly fizzled out. It was a fittingly whirlwind few years for one of the fastest football players ever. Bennett ran for 1,681 yards for Wisconsin in 2000 and then turned pro and missed Bo Jackson's combined record of 4.12 seconds by a hundredth of a second. The Minnesota Vikings took him late in the first round of the 2001 draft, and as a rookie he led the team with 682 yards but only scored twice. In 2002 he made the Pro Bowl after rushing for 1,296 yards, but then over the next three seasons he only had 1,196 yards as injuries cut short his progress. Between 2006 and 2010 he played for four different teams yet never had more than 241 yards in a single season.

I think we are forgetting Michael Bennett was Olympic sprinter fast. His burst & speed is something we will probably never see again at any position at Wisconsin or maybe Big 10. He was one of the fastest in college history clocking in a record 4.13 in the 40-yard dash, the second fastest in NFL history behind only Bo Jackson who ran a 4.12. His flaw was he had no patience and would far to often beat lineman to the hole. He only had 1 year to shine due to Dayne and he went on to become 1st round pick in that 1 year. He even made a pro bowl in NFL but Wisconsin never talk about him & overlook him. Let Bennett start 3 years like Taylor & Gordon we’re able to.....or 4 like Dayne & Davis had....or like Ball & White with 3-4 years to get ton of carries... and we have a much greater debate. Bennett just happened to be behind the best RB in college history who got 30 touches a game. For anyone who has forgot his explosiveness [sarcasm]Only guys he couldn’t out run we’re the cops after a burglary![/sarcasm] For those forgot he was sent to prison for 5 years in 2017. I remember Bennett VERY well. Played against him in HS. Rather I got to watch for the most part as I was a Freshmen, but he embarrassed some very good athletes who were very good football players themselves. I played against 4 great backs in HS. Bennett, Jamal Butler from Oak Creek, Brian Calhoun from Oak Creek and then a kid from Cudahy who got a scholarship to Vandy. That was Navarre's team. Can't even recall his name. Maybe Matzek or something like that. Anyway, Bennett was incredible. Angles just didn't matter vs Bennett. And we played a lot of fast guys. Butler was a pretty close second. That guy might actually have been as good as Bennett, but got into too much trouble in HS. I believe he had a scholarship to Iowa until he was pulled over with drugs and a gun. He was much better/tougher than Brian Calhoun though. I'm shocked Calhoun had the success he did. He got a lot thicker and ended up having one helluva year in the Big10 and then made the right decision to get out and get paid, because he did not like to get hit. I see his 40 time at the combine is listed as 4.38 and Ron Dayne at 4.45. There's no way. I remember at the time they were talking about how he was like 4.13. I think this was before the electronic times. And he had some thump to him if he needed it. What he didn't have was the vision of a guy like Gordon or the feel that Gordon had. But he certainly could have developed it had he not gotten hurt(and there was a guy on Gordon's Kenosha team that was actually a better recruit IIRC than him that went to UW but was just crushed by the injury bug...like multiple ACL's). I think it's pretty fair to say that Bennett...just from a straight speed and athletic ability sense was a cut above anyone else we're talking about at LEAST. Maybe 3 or 4.

Right. That's why I was advocating you free up the cap space to sign the guys who you don't have bird rights to OR try to sign someone else. Patrick Beverly has hit 40 pct of his last 1000 three-pointers. He was harassing the hell outta Kevin Durant on the block and up in Steph's face on the perimeter. He's probably the best defensive PG in the NBA and he can shoot it. So hypothetically, you sign him for ~3/21, you use the rest on Lopez, maybe Morris is willing to sign for the MLE then(NOT using salary cap space as you'd then be at the cap, which I believe is what Ontheblack was saying, but I could be wrong). I don't think that's what we'll actually do. I could see Collison signing. But I don't think we're going to clear any cap space to sign anyone other than Lopez. I think they'll be able to find a veteran PG later on(or use the MLE on Hill, he did say he was more concerned with winning than money when asked).