BrewBalls

I think the Bucks still need to make a few minor moves to balance out thier roster. We cannot go into the season with 5 point guards, 4 centers and JOB as our only back up PF. I would do the following: 1 Three way trade with Cavs and Warriors. Bucks Out - Mayo, Gutierrez and Plumlee Cavs Out - Haywood and Christmas Warriors Out - Lee and Future 2nd RdPick Bucks In - Lee and Christmas Cavs In - Mayo, Plumlee and 2nd Rd Pick Warriors In - Haywood and Gutierrez Bucks get a stretch 4 who can play next to Henson and a young big who they can develop. Cavs get a bench scorer, back up big and a future pick. Warriors get salary relief ($13.5M) which should lower their luxury tax. 2. Sign Alan Anderson (2yrs/$8M) He can play either SG or SF and offers another scoring option coming off the bench. 3. Waive O'Bryant PG - MCW, Vasquez, Bayless, Ennis SG - Middleton, Anderson, Vaughn SF - Giannis, Inglis PF - Parker, Lee, Christmas C - Monroe, Henson, Zaza

I think this years draft lacks elite level players but is stocked with solid role players. I could see the Bucks taking nine different players (Portis, Grant, Jones, Hunter, Looney, Dekker, Harrell, Anderson, Hollis-Jefferson) at 17 with any of them being a solid contributor going forward. I even think you can get a solid bench piece in the early second round (Rozier, Mickey, Christmas, Hernangomez, Brown and Upshaw). --------- Moderator note: Please feel free to use this topic to continue any discussion from the previous thread. For those who want to catch up, here's a link to the last two pages of that topic: viewtopic.php?f=67&t=32908&start=360

I like either Portis or Grant. Portis fills the role vaccated by Ersan and should be a solid contributor due to his high basketball IQ and motor while Grant would be the perfect 6th man and back up to MCW since I'm not sold on Ennis. Or better yet trade Henson to Boston for #16 and draft both players.

Based on advanced metrics, Middleton is a top five SG in the league. Yes definitely is worth $15M per, especially when you take into account the cap increases projected over the next few years. We could even sign a center to a max deal along with resigning Khris as long as we sign the center first. Then Khris' Bird rights would kick in. As for centers, I would like M. Gasol or Jordan but think they will both likely sign elsewhere. So I would lay my sights on Monroe, R. Lopez and Chandler. Monroe will likely get a max contract starting around $16M per while the other two could be had for closer to $12 per. Although, I wouldn't go more than 3 years for Chandler (preferably 2 with a team option).

Right, because a) his revenues increased and b) he knew that the public would balk after last year's collapse. But, I think Rick Schlesinger and his crew are savvy enough to take advantage if an opportunity presents itself. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the Brewers could increase attendance by 100k without the Bucks as competition, that's only a bit over 1,200 a game, and increase the price of their luxury box leases. That could mitigate a good chunk of the loss right there. And, obviously, the Packers can justify a ticket and luxury box lease increase however they would like. Clearly with the secondary market like it is, they're not meeting demand as it is. Since none of us are economists here, I think we'd be well advised not to say how much or how little would be redirected towards other substitute options. But, we should realize that there's a risk out there. How many stadium deals have actually lived up to the hype? On the whole, stadium deals come with big promises. Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe that a couple of sharp billionaires are going to win any deal. Of course the Billionairs are going to win. Otherwise why invest $150M of your own money? Also, its business which markets Wisconsin and Milwaukee on a global scale. How much money does the state invest in marketing to attract visitors for out of state to increase revenue? This is much bigger than allowing a couple of billionaires to profit on their inverstment while asking the state, county and city to chip in if they want their piece of the pie. I do hope that there's a way for the Bucks to stick around, and hey I don't have a vote so it's only my opinion, but I don't think downtown Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin will fall apart without them.

If you do the math the Packers and Brewers would need to increase prices $8.75 per ticket to just make up the revenue lost from Bucks tickets. I'll breakdown the math below. Bucks: Attendance = 611,226 Avg Ticket = $50.30 Total Ticket Sales = $30,744,667 Brewers Attendance + Packers Attendance = 2,797,384 + 625,114 = 3,422,498. So for simplicity we will use $30.75M in ;lost ticket sales and 3.5M tickets sold. This means you would need to increase tickets on average $8.75 per ticket. Although this doesn't seem like much, The Packers have already increased tickets each of the past five seasons and prefer to stay close to the average NFL ticket price to keep tickets affordable for all Packer fans. This increase would put them in the top 25% in terms of ticket prices. As for the Brewers who attract the majority of the fans, you are expecting Mark A to approve a 33% increase ($26.32 to $35.07) and still expect them to attact fans at a similar clip with a product which is clearly regressing. Not sure your plan will work out the way you think it will.

This doesn't work for either team. The Packers are resticted by a salary cap and the Brewers are already operating in the red with a $100M payroll. I can't see you making up $70M in lost wages by simply raising ticket prices. The Packer's salary cap is a % of league revenue. If league revenue goes up, the salary cap goes up, player salaries go up, and state income tax revenue goes up. And, the Brewers won't raise their payroll if their revenue goes up and they again find themselves in the black and looking to compete? C'mon, Mark A is perhaps too competitive for his own good. There's no reason to doubt that less competition for entertainment dollars will lead to more revenue for the Packers and Brewers and that inevitably leads to higher payrolls and more income tax. There's a case to be made for the Bucks arena, but the case isn't made stronger by willfully ignoring the fact that there are other competing interests for the entertainment dollars of SE Wisconsin residents, some of which will benefit from the Bucks leaving and mitigate their absence. The history of arena deals is replete with examples of the benefits being greatly exaggerated. This is a risky deal. It could go south in many ways that are out of control of the State of Wisconsin. A Wall Street collapse or a significant rise in interest rates, for example could kill the spin off developments. Ignoring things like interest, substitution effects, and the need for the spinoffs to materialize is simply ignoring the risks of this project. Also, yeah the new uniforms of the Bucks look pretty great. I'm not saying some of the entertainment dollars will not be redirected just that you are not going to make up more than 20% of the difference doing so. Inflation plays a role in payroll increases just as much as revenues. And professional sports franchises get the majority of their revenue from TV contracts which are signed for extended periods. The Brewers were able to start the season with a $104M payroll because their new TV contract kicked in, not because Mark A raises ticket prices.

Your explaination doesn't make sense for the following reasons. 1.The Packers cannot simply choose to increase salaries because their is a salary cap in the NFL and cannot refer to its steady increase becasue this increase is likely in line with inflation. 2. The Brewers payroll is already maxed out due to being in the smallest market and having the worst TV contract in baseball. They also have been operating in the red the past few seasons and will likely need to ticket increase just to get back in the black. 3. There is no way increased ticket prices alone will suddenly cause the Packers and Brewers to increase their payrolls $70M to make up the difference. As for the $7-$10M numbers I threw out. $7M in the current amount of income tax the state receives from NBA players per year. It is estimated to increase to $10M once the salary cap increases after next season. I don't see this number going down if the players salaries are all scheduled to increase in the next few years. Besides this number will be $0 if the Bucks relocate. "Under the proposal, the state would issue $55 million in bonds, which paid back over 20 years would cost $80 million. The city would contribute $47 million, including building a new parking structure. The county also would issue $55 million in bonds and the Wisconsin Center District would issue $93 million in bonds." http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2015/06/04/milwaukee-bucks-arena-deal-to-be-announced/28467421/ The majority of the money being put up is by the WCD which will own and operate the new arena. So the majority of the money will be paid back by the revenue earned by operating the new arena over the next 20 years. Governor Walker also gave the number $419M will be lost over the next 20 years if nothing is done. Meaning the negative economic impact will be $419M in lost revenue if the Bucks leave.

Currently the state collects around $7M per year from the Bucks and visiting NBA teams. This is projected to increase to roughly $10M per year when the cap goes up after the 2016/17 season. In twenty years the state will have recovered all of the money they invested and then some.

Been to both and actually preferred Whitesnake even without Tawny Kitean. I bet Vanilla Ice is hoping the Bucks leave so he can book up an entire week for a concert and home flipping seminar. Another 34 "headliners" and it will be "Bucks who?" Marquette HS volleyball games, Billy Crystal stand-up...these dates are going fast The Knit and Crochet Show just booked. Wow! Who needs those evil Milwaukee Bucks? Hello easy street!

This doesn't work for either team. The Packers are resticted by a salary cap and the Brewers are already operating in the red with a $100M payroll. I can't see you making up $70M in lost wages by simply raising ticket prices. The Packers (meaning the city) seem to have no trouble reinvesting back into their stadium. So why would the city approve a $140M renovation of the atrium and pro shop if it was economically irresponsible to do so like your so called studies say? You're exactly correct. It is a lot more complicated to determine. I was using a simple calculation as an example but the actual economic impact of the Bucks relocating would be much worse on the local economy. you are taking away hundreds of front office jobs, thousands of part time jobs for gamedays, loss of sales of surrounding restuarants, bars and stores selling Bucks apparel and parking fees. If you have ever been near an arena or stadium on game day every restuarant and bar is packed and the streets are filled with fans who normally are not in from this area. The impact on our largest city would be devastating from an economic standpoint regardless of whatever creative accounting practices the state comes up with to balance their budget.

Globetrotters and Whitesnake concerts Been to both and actually preferred Whitesnake even without Tawny Kitean. I bet Vanilla Ice is hoping the Bucks leave so he can book up an entire week for a concert and home flipping seminar. Another 34 "headliners" and it will be "Bucks who?"

You don't think that if the Bucks leave, the Brewers and Packers won't raise the prices on their suites? The fact that the Packers sell out every game and a limited amount of suites, shows that they could raise prices higher. There's a limited supply, but no doubt high demand. You cannot recoup all of the lost sales tax from losing 500,000 in attendance in Milwaukee by simply raising ticket prices in Green Bay. Even if this did offset the lost sales tax how do you make up the lost jock taxes which can no longer be collected on NBA games in the state? Again the majority of the revenue for NBA teams doesn't come from ticket and concession sales but TV contracts. So how do you recover the lost income taxes of million dollar athletes is my question to you?

Speaking of Uniforms I hope they go with a cream color for home unis. I also think a blue trim would be a cool touch.

None of these acts of shows have employees making over $50K per night and also bringing in another team making the same. How many hot dog venders, Orchestra members or Harlem Globetrotters does it take to match these salaries? And don't forget all of the front office jobs lost. Also, I'm not worried about people finding something to spend thier money on on a Friday or Saturday night. But what about a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday night when they normally don't go out. And to say corporations will just funnel more money into the other sports teams is ridiculous. Most of these corporate sponsors (i.e. H.D. Miller, CocaCola) spend money at all venues. Will Harley Davidson buy a second suite at Miller Park if the Bucks leave? There are only so many suites and tickets to buy and the Packers sellout every game.

The Bucks arena is in no way related to the University of Wisconsin budget cuts. The state has to include $120 million into this new budget for the Bradley Center to cover maintenance costs and $20M in current debt if the the Bucks leave.This money was already spent if a new arena is built or not. The state is not robbing Peter (UW) to pay Pual (the Bucks). Did you listen to the press conference yesterday? If not, here's the link: http://www.scrippsmedia.com/tmj4/wi-sports/milwaukee-bucks/Bucks-Arena-deal-announcement-expected-this-afternoon-306134461.html Please do not attempt to bundle seperate issues which are not even remotely related (except by dollar amount) to make your point. Stick to the actual facts and if you do not know the facts then do some research before commneting. Baloney. The State has many more options than come up with $140 million immediately if the Bucks leave. They can refinance, prioritize and defer maintenance as they want. If they can delay freeway construction, they can delay maintenance on an existing, usable arena. Heck, it's probably too late for the Bucks to move this year anyways. Might even be too late for next year. It's not like the BC is currently vacant with no tenants or events for the upcoming year. Marquette for instance. Even if they do decide to come up with $140 million, that still leaves $110 million of uncommitted taxpayer money that could be used for a variety of things. Or, they could, you know, accept the Medicare money. That stick is one created out of thin air for political purposes, to make the carrot of a new arena look more enticing. Outstate legislators have to tell something to their constituents to justify their vote. Don't confuse rigged political choices as the only choices in this situation. Those numbers were not pulled out of thin air and if its so easy to drum up $140M then it shouldn't have any effect on the average taxpayer. And if the state defers maintentance on a far from usable arena then they could lose their other tenants. Have you ever seen a mismanaged strip mall in a old and deserted urban area, the store fronts are vacant. And by building this arena the state is making an investment to rebuild and revive a barren wasteland which is currently Park East in the heart of our largest city.

And nobody has ever built a great economy here by pumping millions more into the UW System. I'm sure you're familiar with the problem WI has with "brain drain." People graduate and leave the state in record droves. That's not adding anything to our economy. Spending hundreds of millions on new academic buildings when often times the existing facilities were just fine adds nothing to the economy. Or having redundant 2 and 4 year campuses close by in rural areas. Point being, $80MM in state money for an arena has zero effect on educating students in this state of any age. But if you feel it does, then you should want the money spent on the arena, because it will be less than doing nothing. You used the example earlier of how the jock tax can be made up by people using their entertainment dollar elsewhere. I see where you're going with that, but you're mixing two different things- sales tax and jock tax. Yes, you may be able to make up for some of lost sales tax revenue by losing 41 Bucks games a year. Many of those people will buy a hot dog somewhere else. But that has nothing to do with the jock tax. That tax revenue goes to ZERO if the Bucks leave. Great point. This tax revenue is currently about $7M per year and is projected to rise to $10M once the new TV deal goes into effect. This means you are taking $200M out of the state budget over the next 20 years. Now add in the fact the state estimates it will cost $20M per year to maintain the Bradley Center without a majority tenant and you can see how this will have a negative impact on the state.

The Bucks arena is in no way related to the University of Wisconsin budget cuts. The state has to include $120 million into this new budget for the Bradley Center to cover maintenance costs and $20M in current debt if the the Bucks leave.This money was already spent if a new arena is built or not. The state is not robbing Peter (UW) to pay Pual (the Bucks). Did you listen to the press conference yesterday? If not, here's the link: http://www.scrippsmedia.com/tmj4/wi-sports/milwaukee-bucks/Bucks-Arena-deal-announcement-expected-this-afternoon-306134461.html Please do not attempt to bundle seperate issues which are not even remotely related (except by dollar amount) to make your point. Stick to the actual facts and if you do not know the facts then do some research before commneting.

The loss of the Bucks puts the state on the hook for roughly $120M to maintain and payoff the debt for the Bradley Center. Either way taxpayers will be paying for an arena, the question is will it be to maintain a dated arena with no main tenant or a new one with a global brand which will draw in additional business to a vacant part of the city? Also there is no way the state will recoup all of the lost tax revenue from the Bucks leaving from people attending more concerts, movies and other forms of entertainment. The simple fact is the new NBA TV deal will almost double the taxes the state currently collects over the next 10 years. Compared to Marcus Theatres hiring more minimum wage workers at their theaters on a nightly basis. If you look at the number of employees at a professional sporting event, its easily in over a thousand. This doesn't even include local bars and restaurants who serve these people before and after the games.

Rumors are the Spurs are trying to clear cap space to make a run at Aldridge and are willing to trade Splitter and throw in their first round pick (#26) to get a deal done. We could offer Ennis and Plumlee for Splitter and the 26th pick. Then draft either Hernangomez or Upshaw to be our future center. Both would need some time to develop which Splitter czn provide since he's under contract for the next two seasons. Thoughts?

Signing Robin Lopez for 4 years and $10-12M per would be a good investement and a great complimentary starter to our core four and at 27 should maintain value throughout the contract. He can defend the pick and roll, is a good passer and doesn't require the ball on offense. MCW, Middleton, Parker, Giannis and RoLo would be a solid starting five going forward.

Zunino is a young and a former top prospect. I doubt they're ready to give up on him yet. Would they take on Lucroy for him? Plus they throw in Paxton and another prospect arm and we give Lohse or Garza? Helps them go after it now while we "retool." If we are trading Lucroy to Seattle, I would want a package of Walker/Paxton, Kivlehan, Marlette and Hultzen. This gives us on starting pitcher who can step in immediately and another with a high ceiling who is coming back from shoulder surgery along with an offensive catcher still a couple years away and 3B prospect who can take over in 2016. The Brewers would be buying low on Walker and Hultzen hoping one or both become a top of the rotation starter to slot next to Peralta and Nelson.

Done, but like homer said the guy from Brookfiled has a pretty big lead. I wonder if he is related to Sam Dekker.

Another thing to think about is if we do trade away the majority of our starters (i.e. Gomez, Parra, Garza, Lohse, Segura, Lind and possibly Ramirez) we might reach 100 losses this season and likely get a top 3 ick in next years draft. This should net us another stud prospect to add to the haul we receive for trading the aforementioned players. This could definitely help to jump start our rebuild.

The 2014 Packers wish to argue.I should have been more clear. One game should never define a NBA team. Football is completely different since there are far less games.