Brockman to the Bucks?
- Thread starter MoneyMike916
- Start date
This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, just from the point of view that we get practically nothing in return. It's nice that we're sending Brockman somewhere that he might see more useful floor time (and maybe not - Bogut, Gooden, Ilyasova, Mbah a Moute, Sanders...), but I'd think his value to us was higher than a future mid-second. Without the rights to Hobson, this seems like a deal that could easily be bested if we have decided it's in Jon's best interest to go elsewhere - both from our point of view and probably from his as well, since he may be the #6 big man in Milwaukee as it stands.
as much as everyone would love brock to stay and at least be that glue guy on the bench...that's pretty selfish to say that don't ya think?
It's kind of disrespectful to him painting a picture of him being a great guy, but not enough of a good ball player.
If he is given the opportunity to play in Milwaukee, then by all means, let him go.
It's kind of disrespectful to him painting a picture of him being a great guy, but not enough of a good ball player.
If he is given the opportunity to play in Milwaukee, then by all means, let him go.
I wont lose any sleep over this but I did like his effort he showed on the court but on the other hand he is not a very skilled player.
So in terms of signed players we have 11:
Evans, Beno, Sloan, Garcia, Casspi, Greene, Cousins, Dalembert, Landry, Thompson, Whiteside.
It will be intresting how GP fills out this roster.
So in terms of signed players we have 11:
Evans, Beno, Sloan, Garcia, Casspi, Greene, Cousins, Dalembert, Landry, Thompson, Whiteside.
It will be intresting how GP fills out this roster.
People are forgetting the Brockman will likely be a free agent in a couple years. We could sign him back then if we need to, while letting him develop on someone else's team getting playing time. Based on everything that's been said Brockman and the Kings have a great relationship. He's already familiar with the system and the organization, so it would be easy for him to come back later, if we need him then, or we might not, if our bigs develop nicely. He just would not have developed on this team because we wouldn't have been able to give him the playing time. Who knows, maybe we bring him back in two or three years when we are really making our push?
Alternative 3: we could have kept him.
It really is a weird situation. Milwaukee, being over the salary cap, couldn't have even given Brockman an offer sheet if I've got it right. (Veteran's minimum, yes, but the QO was over vet minimum.) But instead they propose a sign-and-trade, sending back an unguaranteed contract and a second-rounder (practically nothing) when we have no risk of losing him. This seems to imply one of three things:
1. We regret giving Brockman the QO and are now trying to pawn him off. Seems unlikely to me. Now we will probably have to sign an emergency big man, and I don't think there's anybody that stands head and shoulders above Brockman. We may as well have kept him.
2. We are trying to "do the right thing" for Brockman, sending him somewhere he's going to play. Well, he was the #6 big man in our rotation, and I would guess he's going to be the #6 big man in Milwaukee's rotation behind Bogut, Gooden, Ilyasova, Mbah a Moute and Sanders. And Tiny Gallon (unsigned) may be in the mix there as well. I don't think he's going to see much more floor time in Milwaukee than he would have here. So are we really helping him out?
3. We really believe the package we are getting is preferable to Brockman. I don't think the mid-second-rounder is better than Brockman, so do we actually value Jackson? If we end up cutting his unguaranteed money, apparently not.
So, if (as seems likely to me) we could have kept him, we would have been perfectly happy keeping him, we're not really helping his career, and we're not getting good value back...why?
It really is a weird situation. Milwaukee, being over the salary cap, couldn't have even given Brockman an offer sheet if I've got it right. (Veteran's minimum, yes, but the QO was over vet minimum.) But instead they propose a sign-and-trade, sending back an unguaranteed contract and a second-rounder (practically nothing) when we have no risk of losing him. This seems to imply one of three things:
1. We regret giving Brockman the QO and are now trying to pawn him off. Seems unlikely to me. Now we will probably have to sign an emergency big man, and I don't think there's anybody that stands head and shoulders above Brockman. We may as well have kept him.
2. We are trying to "do the right thing" for Brockman, sending him somewhere he's going to play. Well, he was the #6 big man in our rotation, and I would guess he's going to be the #6 big man in Milwaukee's rotation behind Bogut, Gooden, Ilyasova, Mbah a Moute and Sanders. And Tiny Gallon (unsigned) may be in the mix there as well. I don't think he's going to see much more floor time in Milwaukee than he would have here. So are we really helping him out?
3. We really believe the package we are getting is preferable to Brockman. I don't think the mid-second-rounder is better than Brockman, so do we actually value Jackson? If we end up cutting his unguaranteed money, apparently not.
So, if (as seems likely to me) we could have kept him, we would have been perfectly happy keeping him, we're not really helping his career, and we're not getting good value back...why?
While we faciliated the Bucks, any number of other teams could have made him a similar offer outright that we might not want to match for our 6th big. Once Whiteside proved interesting enough to put on the floor for spot minutes, and those are going to be very far and few between as it is, I don't think we really were perfectly happy keeping him at $1.5 mil anymore. We still have to sign our 4th and 5th guards, one of which is going to see more floor time than Brockman ever could have.
I personally think we unloaded him so we could convert his roster position into a guard. I think we'll be carrying the league minimum, and I think we'll be paying the minimum salaries for the remaining spots, and I don't think we'll be picking up Sloan. In return for Brock, we got a second round pick, and built some goodwill with the Bucks and Brockman. I think a factor in this is that the Maloofs are going to be VERY tight with the money this year, while putting a quality product on the floor AND giving the kids time to develop. You can't just bring in a vet presence out of nowhere that will be new to the organization, unless they are a respected star in the leage. Cisco will be playing some of that vet leadership role, he's got tenure here.
All in all I think it's just a combination of needing to sign another guard, needing to keep payroll at a minimum, and not absolutely needing Brock, sad as it is, right at the moment. But like I said in an earlier post, maybe we bring him back in a couple years.
All in all I think it's just a combination of needing to sign another guard, needing to keep payroll at a minimum, and not absolutely needing Brock, sad as it is, right at the moment. But like I said in an earlier post, maybe we bring him back in a couple years.
Do the Kings want Morrison OR Douby? Sure they can shoot (well. Morrison can shoot in a game situation) but neither is a great defender, and I am sure there are better options for a scoring 2 guard down the road. I am not sure where Petrie is going with this move, but it does seem like he is doing Brockman a favor. And if they do free up money by waiving Darnell, they will most likely use that extra cash for the shooter they so covet. Hopefully, Petrie has his eye on a shooting guard and is trying to save some cash on this deal to sign a decent shooter either before or during training camp. There will be shooters available as the summer wears down, and even though the top flight 2 guards will be gone, there should be a decent shooter left for Petrie to maybe sign at a decent cost. It seems that this year there is a lot of teams looking for shooters, and even as teams overspend for semi decent shooters, Petrie waits and watches to see what might become available. I think that Petrie has pieces to move in a trade still to acquire a player who can be a good addition to the Kings and maybe give some other team some cap relief. It seems that teams that are not throwing around big money are doing all they can to save money by keeping their payrolls below the cap. I dont think that the Kings will EVER spend ever the cap, but lets give Petrie room to make his moves. I am certain that He is not done yet, and we have to wait till he is through wheeling and dealing to see what it is he has planned. I dont think we have seen all that Petrie is trying to do just yet. Just give the man some room to operate! Look at what he has done for this team in free agency and in the draft? Lets hope he has plans for the rest of the squad, especially our needs at the 2 and the backup pg. I dont think Petrie is going to go into the season with Garcia backing up the 1 and 2 spots. In fact, Garcia might be an asset in a trade for a good 2. I think that with all his recent injuries, Garcia has fallen out of favor in Sacramento , and would make a good small forward for some team looking for a 3 who would be willing to take a chance with his health. Garcia should be given an opportunity to play for a contender. He has not been very healthy for the Kings, but when he was healthy, he gave the Kings his all. I hope that Francisco gets to play where he wants, and if that is on a contender so be it.
Last edited:
About the emergency big man: normal balance on a 12 man roster would be 5 bigs 7 littles. We have our 5 bigs -- Daly, Cousins, Thompson, Landry, Whiteside -- and right now we have 5 "littles" (Reke, Beno, Cisco, Omri, Donte). So with Brockman or without we already needed to sign 2 more "littles", and Brockman's spot was always just going to be the 13th man to reach the league minimum roster size. That 13th man can be pretty much anything -- big, little, who knows. We didn't move him to be able to take a 13th man who was a little -- we haven't even found our 6th and 7th littles yet, let alone our 8th.
And if we really really wanted to sign another big man, we could just call up Chism. (Not saying we will, but there is that option if we really wanted to get front heavy)
This deal puts us further below the minimum salary threshold though. It'll be interesting to see who he tries to pick up to get us back to that point.
This deal puts us further below the minimum salary threshold though. It'll be interesting to see who he tries to pick up to get us back to that point.
This would be a bummer. Its just incredible how this obviously limited player means so much to this fanbase. He was kind of like our little secret last year. It would be hard to see him go.
Im not sure why we dont sign him though - his skills and toughness can help on and off the court. He's a good guy, and that can rub off on players. He brings it every night AND in practice .. he'd be a good guy for DMC to practice with, Brockman has the tendency to get under peoples skin, and that is something DMC needs help with.
Unless this is Geoff and the Kings 'rewarding' him for last season and sending him off to a place where he can crack the rotation. If thats the case, Im fine with it. The second round pick is a plus .. I mean, he could have gone to some team for nothing. Adding Jackson though makes little sense.
Im not sure why we dont sign him though - his skills and toughness can help on and off the court. He's a good guy, and that can rub off on players. He brings it every night AND in practice .. he'd be a good guy for DMC to practice with, Brockman has the tendency to get under peoples skin, and that is something DMC needs help with.
Unless this is Geoff and the Kings 'rewarding' him for last season and sending him off to a place where he can crack the rotation. If thats the case, Im fine with it. The second round pick is a plus .. I mean, he could have gone to some team for nothing. Adding Jackson though makes little sense.