Let’s keep it rolling!

No need for a long intro because there is still a Part 3 of this mailbag coming on Friday! Let’s get to today’s questions.

(Editor’s note: Questions lightly edited for clarity)

My question revolves mostly around the ownership and their willingness to pay for player upgrades considering they’ve already talked about making no money from regular-season games. My question is this: Does the Bucks’ ownership group (particularly money) potentially stand in the way of the Bucks making a mid-season acquisition similar to that of PJ Tucker? — Josiah S.

Not really. The damage has already been done.

Bringing P.J. Tucker back with Bird rights was the only way the Bucks could have expanded the amount of money they were spending on their roster this season. As a few readers joked on Twitter, it was a use-it-or-lose-it situation for the Bucks. Either they could use his Bird rights and expand their salary or let him walk and they let him walk, but the rules regarding an in-season acquisition were not going to change if they kept him.

With or without Tucker, the Bucks were going to be a luxury tax team this season, so no matter what, they were going to be limited by the trade rules put in place for teams paying the luxury tax. Teams exceeding the luxury tax threshold can take back salaries up to 125 percent of their outgoing salaries, plus $100,000, in a trade. For example, if a taxpaying team trades a player with a $1,000,000 contract, they would be able to accept $1,350,000 back in incoming salary. Bucks general manager Jon Horst dealt with those limitations last season and still managed to find a deal for Tucker.

A lot of the narrative around PJ Tucker was about Bucks ownership being cheap by not resigning him.





Source link

By Noah

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *