Could we go after Lee?

[smauss]

As far as JA is concerned, we can debate this till we are smurfs.

Fixed.

[jr lucosa]

I'm not sure if we have the pieces to get him, i think they already have their CV in Al Harrington (but better), and i doubt the bucks trade JA for what would turn out to be a rental, i think hes okay, great rebounder, good hustle player, runs the floor well... is not that great defensively though.

[midranger]

europa has gone to the epi means of arguing historic precedence for determining what is right for the team at present.

I'm still waiting for that 3 game win streak of the 2005 team.

Though I see his point. We gave up on Yi after only a year and now he's going to be an All-Star. An All-Star starter nonetheless.

[midranger]

Also, Lee will be used to dump either Jefferies or Curry's awful deal for more cap savings in 2010. The Knicks entire focus right now is that summer.

So whatever team wants Lee better be prepared for one of those stiffs for the next 2.5 years.

[EastSideBucksFan]

I like David Lee, but I think the asking price is going to be too high for a guy you have to worry about resigning in the offseason. With our financial situation as it is, do we realistically have a shot to resign him?

I don't know, I think the Bucks need someone who can play both the 4 and the 5.

Camby or Brad Miller would be ideal fits here.

If they want CV and Gadz, or CV and change somehow in a package (Elson, Allen or Damon Jones) then by all means go for it.

But if they want JA or Sessions included to take on a bad contract for a chance to resign David Lee, I don't think we should really go that far for him.

[paulpressey25]

I'm sure many GM's would have loved to have traded one of their lotto picks at some point during their rookie seasons. The problem is that if you do so, you are admitting to your owner that in one of your most important decisions as GM, made just 8-10 months earlier, you blew it. And if you have the guts and your owner's green light to do it, you still have to fear that the guy will blow up on you with another team. It is politically very difficult to make a deal like that. That's why the most recent was Jerry West since he had the political capital to do it.

Europa, you'll notice though that your two favorite GM's (Hammond and Colangelo) had no problem immediately trading Yi and CV respectively right after they took their jobs simply because they weren't hamstrung by these guys being "their picks". But the concept is the same. Both guys still had some nebulous potential that a few other GM's in the league bought into, so they still had considerable value. And those two guys immediately cashed in that value because they knew it would dissipate quickly come year two. If you keep Alexander next year and he doesn't progress a whole lot, he now equals Chris Humphries or Skita and his value is zero.

Maybe around all-star break we'll have some sort of contest where everyone can pick three lotto picks from the 2008 draft that they'd deal for a player the caliber of David Lee or Brad Miller. It might be a fun thread to then bookmark and look at two years later assuming the threads remain archived. I'm convinced you can do a pretty decent job of picking some of the busts in the lotto by March 1 of their rookie years.

[GrandAdmiralDan]

He's a young guy that we could pair with Bogut and be good in the front court for years, IF he was willing to resign here. He's got a QO for next year, but if we could extend him I'd be all for it. I'm not sure if I'd give up JA for him (as CV is gone after this year, so basically it's a JA/Lee swap if you will) because Lee will be getting a pretty huge payday after this year (he's got a QO for any team that offers this offseason) and it'd be pretty difficult to match.

So basically, we're trading for a rent guy who's better than CV, sure, but then giving up our #1 prospect in JA. Not sure there. If we could get him to extend until say 2012-2013 like Bogut (or is he a year later?) then absolutely, but I don't know if he'd be willing.

Giving Lee an extension isn't an option. The deadline for that was October 31st.
The best we can do is tender him a QO to make him an RFA, and then either work out a contract with him or match an offer sheet that he signs with another team. Or, prior to him signing an offer sheet, we can work out an S&T with him and another team.

I don't want to make this another thread about Alexander either but when was the last time a Top 10 pick was traded during his rookie year? Billups? That was obviously a very short-sighted decision by the Celtics. Not to say Alexander will be as good as Billups, but teams rarely give up on a Top 10 pick - especially one they've identified as a project - this soon. I'd include Alexander in a trade if it netted a major impact player. I like Lee and advocated trading for him after Lee's rookie year but I don't think he's a major impact player.

I also really don't think you can use this "top 10 pick" precedent.

Especially considering the assessment of this particular draft that you and I both concur on (mainly because that's whet people around the league have tended to relay to us in regards tot his draft).

This draft had 3 players at the top who weren't even ridiculously strong talents themselves in Rose, Beasely, Mayo. Then Love and Westbrook the next tier down. And then basically picks #6 through #37 were all basically in the same tier. So a "top 10 pick" in this draft isn't really properly portraying the level of talent it implies.

Besides, what is the difference, besides from a PR perspective, of trading a "top 10 pick" at this point in their rookie year as opposed to on draft day or at any other point during the offseason prior to their rookie year? If you expand things to include those trades, the list expands significantly.

You still have that "short sighted" concern you brought up. The only real difference is that none of your fans have watched the player at all in your uniform and you are perhaps counting on that player to have an immediate role on your team and made other roster moves accordingly in the prior offseason.

Alexander is not filling an immediate role on the team this season. Other roster moves we made this offseason were more seemingly made in SPITE of Alexander's presence on the roster, not because of it.


As for David Lee, I'm a fan, but there is no way I'd take back Jerome James' contract while giving up Villanueva and Alexander.

[paulpressey25]

As for David Lee, I'm a fan, but there is no way I'd take back Jerome James' contract while giving up Villanueva and Alexander.

I think that CV/JA/Damon Jones for Malik Rose and David Lee works. But even I wouldn't give up Alexander for the right to a half season of Lee. At a minimum Lee will get the opportunity to sign a full MLE offer sheet with some team this summer should he want to do it. So that means you'd have offer him a Nocioni size contract to ensure he'd remain here. He's not worth 5/$40.

I would do it (trade JA) for 1.5 seasons of Brad Miller and the dumping of Gadz contract though.

[power4wardjinx]

He's worth 5/$40mil.

There's no cap room: If you trade for David Lee you have to dump Redd or Jefferson. There's really no other way around it, assuming Ridnour's not trade bait and you can't find anyone to take Gadz.

But it's not relevant because Hammond's not aggressive enough to seek the deal to get him in the first place. He'll be a Trailblazer soon.

EDIT: Meaning there is no room under the luxury tax limit to sign up a full roster. They trade for Lee and Kohl is paying luxury tax to keep him and Sessions, not to mention other Knicks players that would have to come over.

[europa]

Europa, you'll notice though that your two favorite GM's (Hammond and Colangelo) had no problem immediately trading Yi and CV respectively right after they took their jobs simply because they weren't hamstrung by these guys being "their picks".

And in both cases, the trades made were clear upgrades. As I stated before, if Hammond can turn Alexander into a player of Jefferson's caliber (or Ford's since you mention the Villanueva trade) sign me up. But I don't believe either David Lee or Mike Miller (another player mentioned in this thread) represent that type of upgrade. So I'm not as keen on including Alexander in a trade for a player of that caliber at the present time.

I also really don't think you can use this "top 10 pick" precedent.

I don't see why not. In recent NBA history, have you seen GMs trade a lottery pick during their rookie year, yes or no? I'm saying that it rarely happens and unless my facts are incorrect (and if they are, I stand corrected), then my point stands. Exceptions can be made but GMs rarely make this type of trade so soon. I'm not saying Alexander will not be traded this season. I'm saying that based on recent NBA history, it's unlikely and perhaps highly unlikely.

[europa]

But it's not relevant because Hammond's not aggressive enough to seek the deal to get him in the first place.

I've yet to see any signs from Hammond that would indicate he isn't an aggressive GM.

And Press, I wouldn't say Hammond is one of my favorite GMs. The jury's still out on how good of a GM he'll be. To this point I think he's done a very good job for the Bucks but the ultimate test will come over time and with the bottom line. The Bucks' last GM got off to a fine start too in my opinion but he wasn't able to sustain success with his personnel moves and, most importantly, his teams got progressively worse. So Hammond hasn't done anything conclusive yet. If his teams win, then the verdict on his work will be positive. If his teams lose or get worse with each passing season, then his work will be viewed negatively and he'll likely be out of a job. That's the deal.

[power4wardjinx]

But it's not relevant because Hammond's not aggressive enough to seek the deal to get him in the first place.

I've yet to see any signs from Hammond that would indicate he isn't an aggressive GM.

You think the Jefferson trade was at his instigation? He had no intention of trading Yi - Vandeweigh brought that to him. That was very unplanned. Why do you think we ended up drafting two small forwards on the very day we also traded for one?

As for the Mo trade, Ferry brought OK City into it when Cleveland & Milwaukee couldn't work anything out between them r.e. first Redd or Mo.

EDIT: Yes, Redd was on the table - Hammond took him off after the R.J. trade.

[europa]

I agree Hammond didn't want to trade Yi. He wanted to trade Villanueva but the Nets didn't want him. As far as Mo, Hammond spent the summer trying to trade him but nobody wanted him. The Cavs couldn't get Redd because they didn't have anything of value for him. Hammond was determined to trade Mo and so that deal came to fruition. And I'm well aware that Redd was on the table. Everybody on this team was available to some extent and that remains the case today.

Whether or not Hammond instigated this trade or that trade to me is irrelevant in my opinion. What matters is he's making moves that, in my opinion, have made this a better team and have begun laying the foundation for future improvement in the years to come. If Hammond wasn't making these moves then I would view him as lacking aggressiveness. But given how he completely made over this team in one summer, I'd say he's been extremely aggressive in terms of trying to improve this team utilizing the means at his disposal.

[power4wardjinx]

Yeah, I've read that before from GAD, that Charlie V was offered. I'll bet he offered a draft pick swap, too. Hammond must have been kidding because the only reason Vandeweigh was even talking to the Bucks r.e. Jefferson was that he was pursuing Yi. He's got manlove for Yi, even promised him he would "try to get him" if he got a GM gig after Denver. Vandeweigh set the Bucks course this summer, not Hammond.

Everything fell into place for the Bucks after this, including the cluster f$#@ at small forward on draft day.

As for the Cavs, Ferry was A) In contract negotiations with Boobie and Delonte; B) Unable to do anything with their biggest asset, Varejao, who had trade rejection rights and the same agent as Yi; and C) Unwilling to trade any of his rotation, anyway, except Joe Smith. That's why he brought Oklahoma city into it -- he had been talking to them r.e. Sasha Pavlovic & his expirings.

As late as mid-December, the reports were that the Bucks were not in the trading market but were willing to listen to offers -- basically the same stance as the summer. It's a very passive approach. The instigator is the aggressor, and that's relevant. The report out of NY now is that Portland is aggressively seeking David Lee. Who is going to end up with David Lee? The Trailblazers or the Bucks?

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

Lee is no longer the type of guy we need. A very good player don't get me wrong. But he is not a great defender or shotblocking low post presence we need. I sould still take him though and love to have him here...

A Milwaukee type blue collar guy. Would fit in very well with the locals here.

Rebounds, hustles, bangs, and can play in the open court or half court. I begged Larry Harris to look at him or Matt Walsh when he was drafted and we went with Ersan Ilyasova instead I think that draft.

Good energy player. If the Nuggets trying to rip the Knicks off and were throwing two first round picks and Chucky Atkins I would throw them Villanueva a native New Yorker and Damon Jones and a 2nd round or protected 1st rd pick for him?

But they would have to fork over another player. I would even take back Eddy Curry if they took back Dan G? Skiles had Curry in Chicago...

Not sure if Curry would want to come off the bench but I would bring Lee off the bench to play 35 minutes like he did before they trade Zach and Curry went down.

Lee plays best as a 6th man... and that is how teams see him. And if this proposed deal where he goes to Portland goes down for Jerryd Bayless, he sure as heck is not starting in Portland either, who for the life of me I do not understand why or what they are doing with that team?

Leave that team alone Pritchard!!!

But I would then throw Bogut at PF to play with Curry and tell him to improve his jumpshot. I would take Curry's deal if they take Gadzuric...and Damon Jones and perhaps Charlie Villanueva?

But that is just me...I will go to the trade checker...hold on...

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

Ok friends....It works!

It works in the trade checker...but we might have to take back a guard?

Bucks would get:

Milwaukee Trade Breakdown
Change in Team Outlook: -1.4 ppg, +1.2 rpg, and +0.2 apg.
Incoming Players
David Lee
6-9 PF from Florida
14.8 ppg, 11.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 34.2 minutes
Eddy Curry
6-11 C from Thornwood (HS)
0.0 ppg, 0.0 rpg, 0.0 apg in 0.0 minutes



Knicks would get:

Outgoing Players
Charlie Villanueva
6-10 PF from Connecticut
12.3 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.2 apg in 21.9 minutes
Damon Jones
6-3 PG / SG from Houston
No games yet played in 2008-2009
Dan Gadzuric
6-11 C from UCLA
3.9 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.5 apg in 12.9 minutes


There you go...Done!

SF Jefferson
PF Bogut
C Curry
PG Ridnour
SG Redd
F Lee
F Luc Richard
G Bell
F Alexander (Gotta do something about this spot....here.)

I didn't say I like this trade. Actually I hate it. But it can work. I would rather get Jermaine O'Neal but he is soft as butter and can't stay healthy. But neither can Bogut!

We need tougher players. Lee fits the bill. But if some of you did not have such a problem with Tim Thomas I would rather take him back then Curry.

In fact, let me go see if that works in the checker. LOL...

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

Ok, sorry if I am too engrossed in this deal...and clouding up the board. But here is another deal with New York I like better.

New York Trade Breakdown

Knicks get:

Change in Team Outlook: -13.3 ppg, -7.0 rpg, and -2.1 apg.
Incoming Players
Charlie Villanueva (Sad to see go...Good kid.)
6-10 PF from Connecticut
12.3 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.2 apg in 21.9 minutes
Damon Jones ...
6-3 PG / SG from Houston
No games yet played in 2008-2009
Dan Gadzuric
6-11 C from UCLA
3.9 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 0.5 apg in 12.9 minutes


Bucks get:

Outgoing Players
Wilson Chandler
6-8 SF from DePaul
14.7 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 1.9 apg in 33.8 minutes
David Lee
6-9 PF from Florida
14.8 ppg, 11.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 34.2 minutes
Eddy Curry Ok....If I must...
6-11 C from Thornwood (HS)
0.0 ppg, 0.0 rpg, 0.0 apg in 0.0 minutes

Now this is much better only because I like Wilson Chandler and Lee off our bench over Alexander.
Could not get around not having to take Eddy Curry in the deal.

I don't know if Eddy and Coach Skiles get along or whether that match is compatiable but they were in Chicago for awhile there...and did ok.

I know for a fact Skiles would seem to love the way Lee and Chandler play. So would we...all. Tim Thomas who I would like to have added has a Trade restriction so he cannot be moved.

To get Lee you will have to take on Curry. I would rather put up with him then I would Gadzuric or Elson. But Skiles, Hammond and Kohl might not...

SF Jefferson
PF Lee (Or put Bogut here and start Curry which is what I would do...to keep Curry happy?)
C Bogut
PG Ridnour (I rather have Nate 'The Great' Robinson...but oh well. Beggers cannot be choosy.)
SG Redd
F Chandler (Yes! Excellent with Luc Richard! Love it...)
F Luc Richard M'Bah Moute'
C Curry
G Bell
C Elson

Excellent rotation....good playoff trade. Exciting. Might get out of the first round if matchup is right.
Flexibility down the road...

Not the best deal but it is a start.

[europa]

The report out of NY now is that Portland is aggressively seeking David Lee. Who is going to end up with David Lee? The Trailblazers or the Bucks?

The team that wants him and has something the Knicks value. The Bucks don't have expiring deals and they have little value in terms of tradeable assets. That's not Hammond's fault. That's the fault of the prior regime. Right now, Hammond's top trade asset is Villanueva. He would trade Redd, but the return would have to be significant. Villanueva comes with a lower cost but obviously considerably more risk for the team acquiring him. But that's what Hammond has to work with. He could include Alexander, I suppose, but as I've been pointing out, teams rarely trade lottery picks during their rookie season so I'm not sure it's realistic to assume Alexander will be dealt unless the return is significant.

The Blazers have a wealth of young talent and more reasonable contracts (including two large expiring deals). They are positioned better at the present time to make this type of deal. If Walsh and D'Antoni were watching the Summer League, then they already know Bayless is a superstar, for example.

If you wish to consider Hammond a passive GM, that's your right. I don't. I see a GM who's done quite a lot already to remake a horrible team and one who's continuing to try and bring in the right pieces to improve this team now and in the years to come. I like what I've seen from him and his approach thus far.

[Big Mokeski]

It's a very passive approach. The instigator is the aggressor, and that's relevant. The report out of NY now is that Portland is aggressively seeking David Lee. Who is going to end up with David Lee? The Trailblazers or the Bucks?

I'm drawing two inferences from your use of the term "aggressive": first, you think that it's a good thing; and second, you think that it's defined by GMs who are constantly working the phones and proposing deals.

I think the second inference undercuts the first. For example, I'm a (sad, disgusted, pathetic) fan of the Pittsburgh Pirates, whose previous GM makes LH looks like a genius. Apparently he had a reputation of working the phones to make absolutely outrageous offers that no GM in his right mind would take; also, if someone called to inquire about a player, he'd totally overinflate the player's value. That sounds aggressive to me. It also sounds stupid and completely kills the GM's credibility. That GM lasted seven long, awful years, and the Pirates will continue to lose a long time in part as a result of Dave Littlefield's "aggressive" negotiations with other GMs. (He had a myriad of other problems as well, of course.)

I'd also suggest that being seen as aggressive in poker -- a similar game to that of being a GM, though obviously without the salary cap issues and with more zero sum and fewer repeat-player issues -- isn't necessarily a good thing. Often, the person who can lure another player into a raise by bluffing as to the value of his hand or his willingness to accept risk is the person who wins, and the aggressive person who constantly raises and bluffs might win some hands but is likely to lose in the long run. So I'm not sure why aggression is good in and of itself. It can be sometimes, but it can also backfire.

Finally, on the idea that accepting a deal presented by someone else makes one "passive": No, the passive approach is to propose nothing and then to sit back and say no -- and even then, that can be a good approach sometimes. But to say yes is still to take on a risk. Plus, human perception being what it is, the same deal can look different to someone depending upon whether he proposes it. If Hammond had gone to Kiki with that deal, Kiki might have rejected it or asked for more. If Kiki comes to Hammond with it, Hammond can briefly bluff and say, "Hmm, let me think about it and call you back," and then text Senator Kohl and say "OMG this is totally freaking awesome!!!! We gotta do this!!!!!" and then calmly call Kiki back and accept.

Appearing aggressive is often the wrong way to attempt to negotiate with others. So if you're trying to make the case that Hammond isn't being a good GM because he isn't being aggressive, you're not persuading me.

[Joana]

Why are people assuming that David Lee is a Skiles player? I don't agree.

In my opinion, Lee is a Skiles type of player just like Canada is a John Wayne type of country.