paulpressey25 wrote:europa wrote:
I'm struggling to see what "assets" the Bucks got.
Remember, Europa, I'm not comparing this to possible outcomes he could have done like trading healthy Bogut for Horford last year or accepting Steph Curry instead of what he took.
I'm merely looking at the fact a new owner or new GM taking over today has the potential for a load of cap space this summer if Monta opts out. Or you could have traded Monta earlier or in the next month for some type of asset. And we got another $10mm of cap space from Capt. Jack that they used on Ersan. Plus a good backup center which Hammond wasn't able to acquire anytime prior. And on the timing, had Hammond not dealt Bogut for something last March, we'd be sitting with $27 million of microfracture on the bench.
Show me other Hammond trades where the assets we acquired had the ability to be used in a very positive way. Other than Salmons, there just aren't any. Capt. Jack, Maggette, RJ, dropping 12 spots in the 2011 draft.
Realize I'm giving faint praise here.
The problem Press is this isn't a hypothetical. We know what the Bucks could have gotten. Instead, they chose (in my opinion) the lesser option. There's no speculation necessary. We know what the offer was and we know what the Bucks ultimately did. Given how far superior (again in my opinion) the initial offer was it's impossible for me to consider the Bogut trade to be anything other than a failure and a massive one at that. If we want to speculate I'll say again that the Bucks were holding all the cards there given how badly the Warriors wanted Bogut so on top of what GS offered I think if Hammond had played the situation right he could've bent them over and asked for even more. They wanted Bogut bad.