RealGM

The bucks come into the 010 summer with a ton of expirings and would be willing to move them for the right long term peice
Redd-18.3 mil, possibly insured for most of the season
Gadz!!!!!-7.25 YES BUCKS FANS HE IS AN ASSET!
Delfino-3.5-only guaranteed for 500k
Possibly Salmons if he opts in-5.8 mil

Bucks can just offer cap space with delfino, save money with redds deal(if insured), cut down on years of a deal with any of the expirings and take on a bad contract to get the right young player.

Anyways post your offers for the bucks or just stat who would be on the block for other teams.

Tough thing is there's quite a few teams that probably offer the same type assets (other than the insured Redd contract, if he doesn't play at all, once he plays, it's non-insured...I think retroactively).


The Pacers are one. Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster, McRoberts, etc. $33 million or so right there in expirings.

Sixers would be another with Dalembert, Kapono and Green as expiring contract, plus a lottery pick, Young, Speights and Lou Williams as potential attached assets.

Scoot McGroot wrote:Tough thing is there's quite a few teams that probably offer the same type assets (other than the insured Redd contract, if he doesn't play at all, once he plays, it's non-insured...I think retroactively).


The Pacers are one. Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster, McRoberts, etc. $33 million or so right there in expirings.

good point the market could be flooded expiring contracts and their aren't a lot of teams looking to dumb long term contracts. Although at the same time their might not be a lot of franchises looking to take on a big contract post new CBA

Yeah theres plenty of expirings out there but what does the free agent crop look like? Nothing even close to this years talent.

unless players opt in and become FA in 2011.....

more important then the fact there will be plenty of expiring contracts, is the fact that there will likely be several teams with cap-space.

If a team is looking to dump a player for financial reasons, cap-space will generally be a lot more attractive then expiring contracts, as the cap-space would offer immediate relief, not relief 6 r 7 months down the road

Wizenheimer wrote:more important then the fact there will be plenty of expiring contracts, is the fact that there will likely be several teams with cap-space.

If a team is looking to dump a player for financial reasons, cap-space will generally be a lot more attractive then expiring contracts, as the cap-space would offer immediate relief, not relief 6 r 7 months down the road

Great post. Right now, nobody is going to give you much for expirings.

Ask again when it becomes more valuable, after other teams' cap space has been spent, and after we're closer to the trade deadline, and the pro-rated salary of the expirings has shrink.

I think we will see teams begin to explore how they can pillage another team by pawning off these contracts starting in the off-season. What I do not agree in, is whether the Bucks actually become "buyers" this early when all they have done so far is try to be sellers over the past few seasons.

Some teams do the selling because they want to position for 2010 (NY, Miami, NJ, Chi) while some teams do it simply to cut costs to the ever-shrinking ability of a team to earn nowadays. I believe Milwaukee belongs to latter group and thus would try to improve internally (picks, cheap signings) rather than splash Redd and Gadz via trade.

warren weel im wrote:I think we will see teams begin to explore how they can pillage another team by pawning off these contracts starting in the off-season. What I do not agree in, is whether the Bucks actually become "buyers" this early when all they have done so far is try to be sellers over the past few seasons.

Some teams do the selling because they want to position for 2010 (NY, Miami, NJ, Chi) while some teams do it simply to cut costs to the ever-shrinking ability of a team to earn nowadays. I believe Milwaukee belongs to latter group and thus would try to improve internally (picks, cheap signings) rather than splash Redd and Gadz via trade.

I don't think we've been sellers at all, we were just screwed with long term contracts.
The first our new GM hammond came in and did was RJ for simmons/yi. We could of moved RJ last trade deadline but we wanted to win, we need money this offseason to fill a roster so thas why we moved RJ. Hell this deadline we took on 010 money by taking on salmons.

If the bucks can move any of our expirings for the right long term pieces we'd do it. Were more worried about the next CBA than how much the players cost.

Its true. The Bucks have been lukewarm at swinging major trades simply because they aren't winning and they also aren't sucking.

And it indeed is a paradox of sorts how you would trade Yi/Simmons for RJ then trade RJ for lesser later on. Had the Bucks held onto Yi and Simmons, they could have netted 2 very good players during the deadline.

I want Joe Alexander and John Salmons

Scoot McGroot wrote:Tough thing is there's quite a few teams that probably offer the same type assets (other than the insured Redd contract, if he doesn't play at all, once he plays, it's non-insured...I think retroactively).


The Pacers are one. Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster, McRoberts, etc. $33 million or so right there in expirings.

Not only the other teams with expirings, but think of the teams with similar, or better, assets with pure cap space that likely won't land Wade, Bosh or LeBron...NJ, Minny, OKC, Sacramento, etc. those teams can offer similar packages and offer back ZERO financial commitments, along with the creation of the TPE the deal would generate.

Those teams have the upper hand in 'salary' dumps of high level players.

Weren't Salmons and Alexander just traded for each other?

warren weel im wrote:Its true. The Bucks have been lukewarm at swinging major trades simply because they aren't winning and they also aren't sucking.

And it indeed is a paradox of sorts how you would trade Yi/Simmons for RJ then trade RJ for lesser later on. Had the Bucks held onto Yi and Simmons, they could have netted 2 very good players during the deadline.

no we'd be in worse shape since simmons couldn't of been dealt last summer for instant saving to fill out a roster. So we wouldn't of even been in a spot to buy

The Bucks may use their expirings at the deadline next year, but only if they can get back a piece they feel would be part of their long term core of players. They won't take on salary next year going into the next CBA just for the heck of it. In 2011 they will have a lot of cap space, they won't take on salary to screw that up. They also are unlikely to use the cap space to sign a high profile FA, since the chances of them landing Melo as a FA are non-existant. They will use the cap space to make some financial trades where they take on more salary, and sign lesser FAs to short contracts to not screw up future cap space.