Rumor: Bogut/10 To T'Wolves For 2

Post #81 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:50 pm

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

^ He gets it.

emunney · Post #82 » by **emunney** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:52 pm

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

His contract is longer that is also absorbing salary.

It's not longer, it's the same length. Not that it matters.

El Duderino · Post #83 » by **El Duderino** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:56 pm

DrugBust wrote:I wouldn't love the deal, but I'd do it.

Ditto

I'd hope for more, but we are so far away from contending with this core and Bogut will just be wasting away prime years on bad or mediocre Bucks teams.

emunney · Post #84 » by **emunney** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:58 pm

Pretty much the worst thing we could do would be to let irrelevant players like Salmons, Gooden and Maggette color our other personnel decisions. It's obviously not ideal that they're on the roster, but our real 1st, 2nd and 3rd priorities in rebuilding should be getting 1, 2 and 3 very good players.

Scoops · Post #85 » by **Scoops** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:07 pm

I would love the deal. Do it do it do it.

Sigra · Post #86 » by **Sigra** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:07 pm

Terrible. We would lost our main asset just to move 8 spots in terrible draft?

Debit One wrote:Call #10 Burks and #2 Williams - you would trade Burks and Bogut for a guy who is by no means a sure thing?

That is best way to look at this. Burks could be better than Williams at the end of day and our posters would trade Bogut and Burks for Williams. Insanity.

But if this trade somehow hapens I will look forward to still be on same forum with my australlian friends :wink:

averageposter · Post #87 » by **averageposter** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:10 pm

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

His contract is longer that is also absorbing salary.

It's not longer, it's the same length. Not that it matters.

My bad it was less than I thought but still worth it for the Clippers

Williams 2 year 17 million left on his deal at the time of the trade
Moon's contract is only partially guaranteed the following year.

Davis 2 years 29 million left on his deal at the time of the trade..

Clippers shed 5 million per year plus some if Moon is cut.

LUKE23 · Post #88 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:12 pm

Haven't ready any of the thread, so don't know if this is still a legit rumor or not. It won't happen, but if it were, no way I'd include 10, considering Bogut is likely the best player in the deal.

If we can do this without 10, I"m down.

RiotPunch · Post #89 » by **RiotPunch** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:18 pm

I definitely would want more for Bogut than just #2, throwing in #10 is a little much for me. Guys I would want thrown in from Minny would be either Wes Johnson or Michael Beasley.

I am also not convinced Derrick Williams will become an all-star caliber player, I actually agree with sigra that we could very well get a similar impact guy at #10. Although, I can see why this trade is well-liked if one thinks Williams will be a great player down the road, if that's the case, you pull the trigger here.

stellation · Post #90 » by **stellation** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:18 pm

If he has to be traded, it'd be nice to trade him to somewhere Australians actually travel to- I mean we're pretty avid travelers as a nation, but GS/NJ/NY would be much better options.

That said, Bogut/10 for 2 seems paying way too much for #2 in this draft. But for Minnesota, you get Bogut next to Love and if Rubio pans out? Giddy up.

LUKE23 · Post #91 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:21 pm

Bogut would go #1 in this draft without question. To include 10 is unacceptable and simply not needed. If that is what Minny is demanding, they can sit and spin.

Neapolitan Buck · Post #92 » by **Neapolitan Buck** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:27 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Bogut would go #1 in this draft without question. To include 10 is unacceptable and simply not needed. If that is what Minny is demanding, they can sit and spin.

trwi7 · Post #93 » by **trwi7** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:29 pm

I'm not sure Bogut would go #1 over Irving.

Sigra · Post #94 » by **Sigra** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:30 pm

I was reading T'Wolves board few minutes ago. Even they know that Bogut alone for #2 is fair.

hurtem · Post #95 » by **hurtem** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:31 pm

Sweet Jesus, no flipping way. I'm not trading Bogut for #2 straight up. The answer to the question is easy, would you trade Bogut for Evan Turner? No flipping way! No flipping way! Bogut and #10 for #2 is enough to make me hate the the org, the fans, the whole got damn city of milwaukee.

LUKE23 · Post #96 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:34 pm

trwi7 wrote:I'm not sure Bogut would go #1 over Irving.

He went over two better prospects in 2005, so I disagree.

Either way, Bogut/10 for #2 isn't a good return for us, especially if the main justification for it is 'but we'd be bad next year". I'm going to need more than that for by far our best asset. I also wouldn't put it past Skiles, assuming we didn't have big injuries and Salmons played at least normal to get that team to 33-35 wins next year, taking us out of "land a superstar territory".

If we are going to trade Bogut and rebuild, then I want as many assets as possible. Bogut for 2 is more than fair as it stands. If they want more, too bad.

LUKE23 · Post #97 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:34 pm

Smurf wrote:I was reading T'Wolves board few minutes ago. Even they know that Bogut alone for #2 is fair.

Everyone does.

Post #98 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:39 pm

Bogut when he was coming out would go #1 overall in this draft.

But the injured version he is right now that can't score efficiently wouldn't.

smauss · Post #99 » by **smauss** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:40 pm

Horrible deal! Bogut for #2 straight up fine but we need to keep #10. Maybe we could get a third team and do Baddy/#10 for #2. Obviously, Minny doesn't need another 1.

LUKE23 · Post #100 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:42 pm

DrugBust wrote:Bogut when he was coming out would go #1 overall in this draft.

But the injured version he is right now that can't score efficiently wouldn't.

I fail to see how last years Bogut is the "normal" Bogut though. Maybe taking the most pessimistic view moving forward, but I can't agree that that is what he's going to be from now on.

There is absolutely no way I include 10 in this trade. Even Minny fans know Bogut for 2 is fair.