ATL: KG Barks, Melo cries, Knicks hire spies.

JimmyTheKid · Post #41 » by **JimmyTheKid** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:34 pm

LUKE23 wrote:So this one Curry injury completely negates everything?

Nope. Its also his injury history. And his injuries going forward. You really want another 5-8 years of watching our best player in and out of the lineup?

LUKE23 · Post #42 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:36 pm

JimmyTheKid wrote:
Nope. Its also his injury history. And his injuries going forward. You really want another 5-8 years of watching our best player in and out of the lineup?

When the healthy team actually has a ceiling, of course. You can take your 42 win ceiling team, I'll take the team that has a chance at much higher but if injured actually has a shot at a good pick.

Ellis doesn't help us win. Whatsoever. The fact that he is healthy is absolutely 100% irrelevant to me.

emunney · Post #43 » by **emunney** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:36 pm

If I trade you a grape for $50 and then burn the $50, bad trade for me?

JimmyTheKid · Post #44 » by **JimmyTheKid** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:47 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
JimmyTheKid wrote:
Nope. Its also his injury history. And his injuries going forward. You really want another 5-8 years of watching our best player in and out of the lineup?

When the healthy team actually has a ceiling, of course. You can take your 42 win ceiling team, I'll take the team that has a chance at much higher but if injured actually has a shot at a good pick.

Ellis doesn't help us win. Whatsoever. The fact that he is healthy is absolutely 100% irrelevant to me.

Because thats what I want. Another year scrapping for the 8th seed. I'm not talking about tanking or ceiling or contending or anything else. I'm only talking about the haul. The trade in isolation. Its all I've ever argued or debated after reading hundreds of posts by Bucks fans blasting the deal like it was the worst trade in NBA history. I know this organization has been funny bad. I've seen 3 winning seasons in my entire basketball watching life.

This particular argument has always been about the trade and the trade only.

oft-injured-Bogut/sociopath-SJax (a conveniently forgotten part of the deal) for Ellis/Udoh/Kwame expiring

LUKE23 · Post #45 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:53 pm

JimmyTheKid wrote:
Because thats what I want. Another year scrapping for the 8th seed. I'm not talking about tanking or ceiling or contending or anything else. I'm only talking about the haul. The trade in isolation. Its all I've ever argued or debated after reading hundreds of posts by Bucks fans blasting the deal like it was the worst trade in NBA history. I know this organization has been funny bad. I've seen 3 winning seasons in my entire basketball watching life.

This particular argument has always been about the trade and the trade only.

oft-injured-Bogut/sociopath-SJax (a conveniently forgotten part of the deal) for Ellis/Udoh/Kwame expiring

Yes, I'd take the Curry deal over the Monta deal. That has been the debate the entire time for me as well. If Curry's healthy, with our current set of frontcourt defensive players, we are actually a team that can play both sides of the ball and reasonably project to 45+ wins and remains young. If Curry isn't healthy, we're a lottery team. The bottom line with trading Bogut for me was always about the top asset we got back, not a smorgasbord of meh assets. I fully realize Curry had a ton of risk, but I'll take high risk high reward over a player I never wanted to see don a Bucks uniform. Like I said, my opinion will change if Ellis turns into something good at the deadline. But I would have done the Houston or Curry deal over the Monta deal as it stands today. I never wanted Ellis and I said this months before we acquired him. To me his only "asset" value is via trade. He has negative on court value.

Post #46 » by **paulpressey25** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:28 pm

emunney wrote:If I trade you a grape for $50 and then burn the $50, bad trade for me?

I can even improve on the analogy. Let's say we did that Rockets deal where the prime asset coming back was pick #14.

Then comes draft night. We take Henson as #12 with our organic pick. Suns take the PG. Lamb is still on the board. But the Bucks select......Royce White and all his attendant problems. And better yet, the Bucks decide to then install Royce as the starting PG and trade Jennings.

Was the Bogut trade awful because we took Royce White? No. What we did with the asset was. Same thing with Monta. We decided to keep him and pair him with Jennings. That's on us.

And if Ersan's contract ends up being a boat anchor, again that's on us. We would have mismanaged the cap room and real dollars saved in the Bogut trade.

LUKE23 · Post #47 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:39 pm

But we wouldn't have taken White. I know you're trying to make an example here, but I think we should deal in reality. I guess I need it to be explained to me how Ellis is an asset though, if:

1. He hasn't helped us win a relevant amount of games. You could easily argue he's actually cost us wins.
2. He doesn't garner anything worthwhile at the trade deadline (still up for debate).

I mean, I get the signing Ersan and Udoh aspect of it. But if those are the lasting items of a Bogut deal, when we could have had Curry or Jeremy Lamb, I think I know which one I'm picking.

emunney · Post #48 » by **emunney** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:23 pm

Let's say we had made the trade for Curry. Then we turned around in the offseason and dealt Curry for a future 2nd rounder. Where was the mistake made?

LUKE23 · Post #49 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:25 pm

emunney wrote:Let's say we had made the trade for Curry. Then we turned around in the offseason and dealt Curry for a future 2nd rounder. Where was the mistake made?

The second deal.

Let me flip it on you though: what if we get nothing but junk offers for Monta at this deadline? Who's fault?

emunney · Post #50 » by **emunney** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:30 pm

We have already **** up by not moving him over the summer or by including a 3rd team in the original deal. No argument there.

LUKE23 · Post #51 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:33 pm

I guess my main point there was that if we don't get any worthwhile asset offers this trade deadline, then we overestimated Monta's value to begin with, and thus, how much of an "asset" (something PP has called him repeatedly) was he really? The fact of us trading him or not trading him is on us, but to me the key is what we're offered for him, in terms of the "asset" argument. He sure as hell hasn't been an on court win impact asset, I think we all agree there. So he has to be a trade asset.

emunney · Post #52 » by **emunney** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:35 pm

I think in the past you've identified players as assets even though we haven't actually traded them (Sessions, for example). What's different here?

LUKE23 · Post #53 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:36 pm

emunney wrote:I think in the past you've identified players as assets even though we haven't actually traded them (Sessions, for example). What's different here?

Right, I did, and I will with Monta if we get solid offers for him. I was playing the hypothetical that we didn't (or won't).

Post #54 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:39 pm

I honestly think it's pointless to speculate on Ellis's worth. You and I know Ellis sucks all kinds of ass. You would think that GMs running NBA teams would be smart enough to know this. But NBA GMs make stupid trades and hand out stupid money all the time. They look at box score stats and see ohhhh flashy guard. So who in the hell knows what kind of package he'll get.

LUKE23 · Post #55 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:41 pm

DrugBust wrote:I honestly think it's pointless to speculate on Ellis's worth. You and I know Ellis sucks all kinds of ass. You would think that GMs running NBA teams would be smart enough to know this. But NBA GMs make stupid trades and hand out stupid money all the time. They look at box score stats and see ohhhh flashy guard. So who in the hell knows what kind of package he'll get.

I agree there, I was more speaking to the scenario where we get crap offers. Not that I fully predict it, just if it happened. Do we still view Ellis as a positive asset in the Bogut deal, if he's both not helping us win and not landing us future assets of worth?

Thunder Muscle · Post #56 » by **Thunder Muscle** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:42 pm

DrugBust wrote:So who in the hell knows what kind of package he'll get.

I agree. I think it's impossible to gauge his worth. His efficiency #'s are awful, but in the end he gets his points and can be flashy. Is there a GM desperate enough to add him or are they wise to his flaws? It's hard to say.

Post #57 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:45 pm

Well of course he's not a positive asset if those are the two things to which we're basing our assumptions. But while we know he's not winning us games, we have absolutely no idea if he'll land us future assets of worth. Furthermore, we don't know if Hammond pulls the trigger if offered future assets of worth. Maybe Hammond is in fact one of the dumb GMs and thinks we need him to make the playoffs, and if he walks he walks. Then we complicate the situation in that perhaps Hammond made a good Bogut deal because some team offered up something worth more for Ellis than what Bogut is worth, but Hammond turned it down because he's a **** idiot.

Blarg. Like I said, it's pointless to speculate because we don't know.

averageposter · Post #58 » by **averageposter** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:52 pm

As far as Monta offers go for me it comes down to, do opposing Gms buy into all the crap we believe that Monta may be shoveled re his option. In other words your numbers are down because you are playing in Milwaukee's system, a fresh start will bring you back to career norms and all that. Nobody signs up for 25% from three and sub 40% from the field on a guy who is shooting 20 times a game willingly. If your buying that he'll get better I see no reason he wouldn't have decent value.

Even worst case there is the possibility that because he's either expiring, or a year left guy, that some trade value is added back to the floor in cap savings. Plus he's the kind of guy where you can disguise a cap deal as a lateral move because of his name value.

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #59 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:52 pm

LUKE23 wrote:But we wouldn't have taken White. I know you're trying to make an example here, but I think we should deal in reality I guess I need it to be explained to me how Ellis is an asset though, if:

1. He hasn't helped us win a relevant amount of games. You could easily argue he's actually cost us wins.
2. He doesn't garner anything worthwhile at the trade deadline (still up for debate).

I mean, I get the signing Ersan and Udoh aspect of it. But if those are the lasting items of a Bogut deal, when we could have had Curry or Jeremy Lamb, I think I know which one I'm picking.

yeah lets not use a perfect example from pp about why this was a good trade... acquiring a nice asset, that we may bungle from here..... because thats not reality.

instead lets talk about why all the hypothetical trades that didnt occur that make this a bad trade because thats reality..... and you deal in reality :roll:

Post #60 » by **paulpressey25** » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:54 pm

No one on here would have predicted that we'd move the 3/$26 that we still owed John Salmons for a better player (Beno) who only made 2/$14 and for our troubles we'd be able to move up in the draft from pick 10 to pick 7 (a move that in the past we'd regularly spend another first rounder to accomplish----see 1995, 1998 and 2000 Bucks drafts).

I think Monta is worth more than Salmons right now. It is all on Hammond to make a good deal. I am confident one is out there. I am not confident he will be able to find it.