Brockman to the Bucks?

Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#31
#31
NME said:
We probably aren't getting anything back of this level anyway, but Hobson is potentially a much better fit than CDR.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if we did get something reasonable back. After all, we did make the qualifying offer to Brockman, and the Bucks can't force our hand if we don't want them to. We're clearly willing to hold on to Brockman for about $900K, it's not like we're trying to dump his salary, so I don't see why we'd give him away for nothing.

As far as Hobson goes, there are at least a few reasons why it would be reasonable to assume that Milwaukee would let him go. They are a bit full-up at the 1/2/3 - Maggette and Delfino will probably play most of the 3, Salmons and CDR will probably take most of the 2, and Jennings will cover the 1. They'll probably want a backup point to spell Jennings, but I don't think that's Hobson. In addition, they've apparently yet to sign him, so they could simply trade his rights with no recently-signed-player trade delays like we had with Donte.
 
funkykingston

funkykingston

Super Moderator
Staff member
#32
#32
I wonder if it wasn't Brockman and his agent that approached the Kings with the idea of trading him.

The Kings have Landry, Thompson and Whiteside fighting for PF minutes with Donte likely taking some minutes depending on matchups. Brockman has to recognize that guys like him (11th or 12th man undersized scrappers) don't often have long NBA careers and that for him to continue to make an NBA roster he has to get some playing time to show his value.

If this is true I'll miss having him on the Kings, but I hope he gets some PT if he goes elsewhere.
 
Jkbiker

Jkbiker

Starter
#33
#33
If Delfino or CDR could be traded and not leave Bucks short at the G/F position
At 3.5 Mil or 900k the salaries would not bad for us either

If they are really the backups for Maggette and salmons may not happen
I guess Hobson is better than nothing
I think any of the above would be a good move by GF to get something of value
for Brockman who would not be getting minutes from us

And would be at a position of need for us too
 
Last edited:
CruzDude

CruzDude

Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
#34
#34
1 TeAm DiMe 0 said:
if we're "trading" him, might as well trade him for Chris Douglas-Roberts
Click to expand...
Who is the only guy on the Bucks making similar to Brockman. On the other hand, Chism played very well in summer league and has an all around offensive game, is bigger than Brockman and overall would be a step up and can be had for the same relative price ($800k or so). Sure, we'd miss the floor burns and kamakazi approach to defense, but you can't have everything.
 
Dime Dropper

Dime Dropper

All-Star
#39
#39
Jackson is closer to 6'6'' than 6'9''. Liked him in college, but he's not going to be an effective NBA player.

Love Brock, but he won't get any PT. The 2nd rounder could be useful down the line.
 
NME

NME

Starter
#40
#40
chasen4r1 said:
This trade makes no sense. If we're going to trade him shouldn't it be for a position of need? Why are we trading Brockman for another PF who is of lesser value to us?
Click to expand...
His contract makes the sign and trade work, and then we waive his non-guaranteed deal.
 
P

Peter_Gibbons

Starter
#41
#41
Darnell Jackson has a $854,389 contract for next season NON GUARANTEED.

So I think the Kings just decided to shred Brockman's salary since they saw Whiteside play well enough to take up the last bits of mins Brock could've would've got.... and get a future 2nd rounder out of it.
 
Fear the Putin

Fear the Putin

Starter
#43
#43
CruzDude said:
Who is the only guy on the Bucks making similar to Brockman. On the other hand, Chism played very well in summer league and has an all around offensive game, is bigger than Brockman and overall would be a step up and can be had for the same relative price ($800k or so). Sure, we'd miss the floor burns and kamakazi approach to defense, but you can't have everything.
Click to expand...
mbah a moute makes $854K....CDR makes $854K this year and a qualifying offer next year for $1.1 mil
 
iowamcnabb

iowamcnabb

Hall of Famer
#45
#45
So we shed less than a mil and pick up a mid second rounder? Isn't the guy's locker room presence, local celebrity status and tough nosed practice attitude worth more than that?
 
NoBonus

NoBonus

Starter
#47
#47
iowamcnabb said:
So we shed less than a mil and pick up a mid second rounder? Isn't the guy's locker room presence, local celebrity status and tough nosed practice attitude worth more than that?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but how good of a career can the guy have playing the last spot on the bench? Not a very good one. Hopefully he will see some floor time in Mil.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#49
#49
Guys -- we aren't "shedding" anything here. If we wanted to shed Brockman's salary, all we would have had to do is not even offer him a contract.

I'm not sure what is up here, but quite possibly Brockman looking for a better situation and us accomodating him, or us just realizing that we had no place for him and trying to push the 2nd round pick value off into the future. Either way I'd rather just have Brockman.
 
iowamcnabb

iowamcnabb

Hall of Famer
#50
#50
NoBonus said:
Yeah, but how good of a career can the guy have playing the last spot on the bench? Not a very good one. Hopefully he will see some floor time in Mil.[/QUOTE


Yeh I most certainly wish him well. The second rounder doesn't really have much value to the Kings so they probably could have let him sign to team of his choice if they didnt have long term interest in him.
Click to expand...
 
NME

NME

Starter
#51
#51
If it's a sign and trade, then Brockman is "signing" so its not like we're forcing him to go somewhere. He could have just waited for another offer. Once Whiteside looked worthy of seeing some spot minutes this year, I think it changed the calculation, so at least we're getting a little something that we wouldn't have if Brockman just walked.
 
funkykingston

funkykingston

Super Moderator
Staff member
#52
#52
Now I'm relatively convinced that this was just a deal to get Brockman in a better situation. A goodwill gesture on Petrie's part since he and Jon both recognized that his chance at PT was slim with all the frontcourt players the Kings have. Obviously the team wanted to keep him (or they wouldn't have even bothered with the qualifying offer) but when a team that wanted him and could offer him the possibility of more minutes, Petrie did him a favor and shipped him out.

Geoff has long been known as a GM that would do little favors like that for players.
 
Tetsujin

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#54
#54
Bricklayer said:
Guys -- we aren't "shedding" anything here. If we wanted to shed Brockman's salary, all we would have had to do is not even offer him a contract.

I'm not sure what is up here, but quite possibly Brockman looking for a better situation and us accomodating him, or us just realizing that we had no place for him and trying to push the 2nd round pick value off into the future. Either way I'd rather just have Brockman.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I feel more like this is a situation where we're trying to help Brock out more than we're trying to help ourselves out.
 
NoBonus

NoBonus

Starter
#55
#55
I think once they saw they Whiteside could do everything Brockman can do, plus block shots and has a lot more potential, that having Brockman on the roster was kind of pointless for the Kings and Brockman. Now the Kings have more cap space (providing they waive Darnell) for signing Adam Morrison and Quincy Douby. The second round pick is just fodder, but could mean something knowing Geoff.
 
chasen4r1

chasen4r1

Starter
#57
#57
I'm disappointed with this. Brockman displayed the very image the Kings were going for. He wasn't an all star, but he seems much more valuable to our team than a future 2nd rounder. The only positive I really see out of this is Brockman may be in a better situation and he might get more time. Good for him, too bad for us.
 
L

Larry David

Starter
#58
#58
Bricklayer said:
Guys -- we aren't "shedding" anything here. If we wanted to shed Brockman's salary, all we would have had to do is not even offer him a contract.

I'm not sure what is up here, but quite possibly Brockman looking for a better situation and us accomodating him, or us just realizing that we had no place for him and trying to push the 2nd round pick value off into the future. Either way I'd rather just have Brockman.
Click to expand...
I'm just as confused because teams can retract their qualifying offer by July 23. So it's not just about letting him go to the Bucks. It's was either pay him peanuts for insurance or trade him for a 2nd round pick. I'd rather have Brockman - even if he wasn't playing.
 
NoBonus

NoBonus

Starter
#60
#60
Larry David said:
I'm just as confused because teams can retract their qualifying offer by July 23. So it's not just about letting him go to the Bucks. It's was either pay him peanuts for insurance or trade him for a 2nd round pick. I'd rather have Brockman - even if he wasn't playing.
Click to expand...
But you know that is not right for Brockman... it's like "If you love someone, set them free.", you know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.