Rumor: Bogut/10 To T'Wolves For 2

[msiris]

Bogut for Darko and the 2nd pick is plenty.

[ReasonablySober]

Groan. Good luck giving up Bogut AND the 10th overall pick and trying to rebuild without getting rid of Gooden/Maggette/Salmons.

They aren't winning the Bucks any games. If anything they're costing the team wins.

Those three aren't holding up a rebuild.

[skones]

They're holding up a rebuild if you can't get rid of them for the foreseeable future. We don't have the assets to clear them.

[emunney]

In what way are they holding up a rebuild? Why do we need to clear them?

[trwi7]

They're holding up a rebuild if you can't get rid of them for the foreseeable future. We don't have the assets to clear them.

So just keep them then. Maggette is gone in two years, Salmons in three, Gooden in four. If Derrick Williams is a stud, none of those players will prevent us from paying him when the time comes. Same for any other player we may draft.

Just let them sit on the bench or fill in minutes as backups or whatever.

[Newz]

They're holding up a rebuild if you can't get rid of them for the foreseeable future. We don't have the assets to clear them.

So just keep them then. Maggette is gone in two years, Salmons in three, Gooden in four. If Derrick Williams is a stud, none of those players will prevent us from paying him when the time comes. Same for any other player we may draft.

Just let them sit on the bench or fill in minutes as backups or whatever.

Twirly speaks the truth.

[paulpressey25]

I may be smoking something, but I think Salmons we can deal to a contender for an expiring at some point next season. In any event, I'm not worried about our new three amigos. They'll weigh down the payroll but won't stop the rebuild.

[emunney]

If anything, they'd help keep us above that tricky minimum payroll threshhold.

[Newz]

I don't know why you need a ton of cap room to do a rebuild.

What are we going to sit in the lottery for one year, focus on the draft and then blow 15-30 million on free agents?

Rebuilding usually means sitting in the lottery for 2-3 years while playing your young guys. Having three over the hill, worthless veterans that will be gone in 3-4 years isn't that big of a deal when your rebuilding.

When you're trying to 'win now' like we are? Then yeah, it's a huge deal.

[skones]

They're holding up a rebuild if you can't get rid of them for the foreseeable future. We don't have the assets to clear them.

So just keep them then. Maggette is gone in two years, Salmons in three, Gooden in four. If Derrick Williams is a stud, none of those players will prevent us from paying him when the time comes. Same for any other player we may draft.

Just let them sit on the bench or fill in minutes as backups or whatever.

COMPLETELY disagree. Two years, three years, four years? You can't be serious. That's a lifetime in the NBA, and that puts a serious hindrance on your ability to rebuild. Hell, four years from now, this team may not even be in Milwaukee. In order to rebuild the right way, you need to maintain cap flexibility. Keeping those guys around will not allow us to attain that. Does anyone REALLY think that Derrick Williams is going to be an absolute stud? A guy who will be any better than a 2nd or 3rd option on a good team? If this team is ACTUALLY going to rebuild, clearing those contracts should be Priorities 1, 2, and 3.

[emunney]

What part of rebuilding the right way requires cap flexibility at the beginning of the process? What did OKC do that required 20m+ of space to maneuver?

[averageposter]

What part of rebuilding the right way requires cap flexibility at the beginning of the process? What did OKC do that required 20m+ of space to maneuver?

Cleveland acquired the first pick in the draft absorbing Davis's contract, OKC has been paid in draft picks to eat contracts as has Portland. There are lots of examples of that. It would be better to be able to increase your odds by adding picks in that manner, but to your point we can obviously lose at any time capped out or not.

[ReasonablySober]

What part of rebuilding the right way requires cap flexibility at the beginning of the process? What did OKC do that required 20m+ of space to maneuver?

Cleveland acquired the first pick in the draft absorbing Davis's contract, OKC has been paid in draft picks to eat contracts as has Portland. There are lots of examples of that. It would be better to be able to increase your odds by adding picks in that manner, but to your point we can obviously lose at any time capped out or not.

No they didn't.

[mattg]

What part of rebuilding the right way requires cap flexibility at the beginning of the process? What did OKC do that required 20m+ of space to maneuver?

exactly. When good is cap space if we can't even get good free agents to sign here anyway? Conceivably if you get under the cap far enough you could pull off a trade for a highly paid veteran while sending very little salary back or something, but not initiating a rebuild because you MIGHT be able to make a trade in the future is stupid. Why wait to start towards where you want to be because you have a few players who aren't in the long term plan? You're rebuilding anyway, it's a period where the roster will be in flux as it is. Obviously you'd like to move the dead weight, but if youre planning on sucking anyway, why waste assets to move those guys?

[emunney]

What part of rebuilding the right way requires cap flexibility at the beginning of the process? What did OKC do that required 20m+ of space to maneuver?

Cleveland acquired the first pick in the draft absorbing Davis's contract, OKC has been paid in draft picks to eat contracts as has Portland. There are lots of examples of that. It would be better to be able to increase your odds by adding picks in that manner, but to your point we can obviously lose at any time capped out or not.

They acquired what looked like the 8th pick by swapping contracts. And we will have just as much flexibility as they have/had.

[averageposter]

What part of rebuilding the right way requires cap flexibility at the beginning of the process? What did OKC do that required 20m+ of space to maneuver?

Cleveland acquired the first pick in the draft absorbing Davis's contract, OKC has been paid in draft picks to eat contracts as has Portland. There are lots of examples of that. It would be better to be able to increase your odds by adding picks in that manner, but to your point we can obviously lose at any time capped out or not.

No they didn't.

So it wasn't the clippers unprotected pick that was traded to the Cavs in the Williams Davis swap that got selected #1

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/ ... no-1-pick/

[MrLynch07]

What part of rebuilding the right way requires cap flexibility at the beginning of the process? What did OKC do that required 20m+ of space to maneuver?

Cleveland acquired the first pick in the draft absorbing Davis's contract, OKC has been paid in draft picks to eat contracts as has Portland. There are lots of examples of that. It would be better to be able to increase your odds by adding picks in that manner, but to your point we can obviously lose at any time capped out or not.

No they didn't.

Yeah they did

"What does a rebuilding team do when it wants draft picks to help recover from the departure of the league's two-time MVP? It trades another of its popular players for a first-round pick, and agrees to take on almost $28 million in salary for an aging, oft-injured point guard.

Such is the fate of the Cleveland Cavaliers that it celebrated a trade Thursday that took point guard Baron Davis from his home in Los Angeles and dropped him in Cleveland in the middle of winter. Davis goes from playing on the same team as Blake Griffin to joining a 10-47 team."

Cavaliers Get Top Pick From Clippers
Numerous storylines have already developed from last night’s NBA Draft Lottery, including Timberwolves president David Kahn insinuating corruption. Here’s another: Cleveland acquired the No.1 overall pick as part of its mid-season trade with the Los Angeles Clippers. L.A. sent Baron Davis’ enormous contract to Cleveland along with its first-round pick, which had a 2.8% chance of landing at the top

[Debit One]

Bogut + #10 for #2 is unfathomably bad, IMO. Call #10 Burks and #2 Williams - you would trade Burks and Bogut for a guy who is by no means a sure thing?

I simply do not believe that even a straight up Williams for Bogut is even close to Bogut's fair value. If the Bucks are willing to put Bogut on the block I have to believe that he can fetch more than that in the way of talent.

[emunney]

Point is they didn't absorb his contract. They traded another high salary for it.

[averageposter]

Point is they didn't absorb his contract. They traded another high salary for it.

His contract is longer that is also absorbing salary.