I swear my last Michael Redd Trade

DanTown8587 · Post #1 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:19 pm

O.k, if this is as hated as the other trades, I will just have to scratch my head cause three hours later I still feel like this is a good deal.

Milwaukee Gets:
Jamaal Crawford
Jerome James
Malik Rose
Smush Parker
Mark Blount
New York #1

NYK Gets:
Michael Redd
Charlie Bell
Dan Gadzuric
Jason Williams
Ricky Davis

MIA GETS
Stephon Marbury
David Lee
Bobby Simmons
Jake Voshkul

I know that most Buck fans hate me right now and probably will feel that theygave up too much, but I will say that you do get rid of the Gadzuric, Simmons and Bell contracts just as well, while taking back only one bad contract in Blount. In two years you will have nearly 19 million in expiring contracts. You also stockpile two likely top 10 picks in the draft and Crawford gives you 75% of what Redd does while costing half as much. The only downer was having to take back the Blount contract to get rid of Simmons.

The Knicks probably realize they are in a bad place, so what do they do? They trade for a very good player in Redd and get over 15 million in expiring deals. Though they take back Bell and Gadzuric, they are both good role players that could help out the Knicks.

Miami takes a huge flier on trading the expiring contracts of Williams and Davis for Marbury, who still has a little something left, so they get Lee for their trouble. They also get to dump Blount for Simmons, who can play a little of the two and three and be a good insurance policy in case you want to shut down Wade at all. And Voshkul gives them a body down low and an expiring contract.

MIL
Williams/Parker
Crawford/Mason
Yi/Rose
Villaneuva/Blount
Bogut/James

NY
Robinson/Williams
Redd/Bell
Davis/Richardson
Randolph/Jefferies
Curry/Gadzuric

MIA
Marbury/Quinn
Wade/Cook
Simmons/Lee
Haslem/Voshkul
Shaq/Barron

Post #2 » by **BBallFreak** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:21 pm

Ugh. I hate Marbury, but I might have to do this trade simply because I like Lee.

skones · Post #3 » by **skones** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:27 pm

JUST STOP! This is ANOTHER awful trade for Milwaukee. We deal Redd but still manage to take **** deals in Crawford, James, and Blount. Honestly, we don't clear any salary and we trade our best player. Honestly, that first is nice, but you can't just strap us with all this garbage.

CRAWFORD, NOBODY WANTS HIM! He doesn't give 75% of what Redd does. He's no where close to being the same scorer, and he does what he does while BARELY shooting above 40%. That's completely ignoring his extremely poor shot selection as well.

New York rapes.

Teddy KGB · Post #4 » by **Teddy KGB** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:31 pm

NYK would decline IMO. They're not in a position to win now and so trading Lee + their 08 1st for a player who wouldn't put them over the top would be extremely stupid imo. That would make the franchise unsalvagably bad

DanTown8587 · Post #5 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:36 pm

skones wrote:JUST STOP! This is ANOTHER awful trade for Milwaukee. We deal Redd but still manage to take **** deals in Crawford, James, and Blount. Honestly, we don't clear any salary and we trade our best player. Honestly, that first is nice, but you can't just strap us with all this garbage.

CRAWFORD, NOBODY WANTS HIM! He doesn't give 75% of what Redd does. He's no where close to being the same scorer, and he does what he does while BARELY shooting above 40%. That's completely ignoring his extremely poor shot selection as well.

New York rapes.

I take Crawford out, send Davis to Milwaukee. That make it a better deal for you then?

DanTown8587 · Post #6 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:41 pm

Skones, all I see is you saying every deal i give is terrible, but I just think you want fair talent for Redd, but you cannot get fair talent you are also dumping salary. If the league allowed it, would you trade Maggette and #1 for Redd?

skones · Post #7 » by **skones** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 1:54 pm

Every deal you give IS horrible. If Redd's going. We should get expiring deals AND picks. IF the pick isn't good enough, add a solid young player to go along with it. Your deals all make it difficult to rebuild under the circumstances, either that or we don't get anywhere near sufficient value.

Maggette and a number one right now? No. Maggete walks at the end of this season, and who knows how the Clippers shake out with Redd in the lineup. When Brand returns who knows what happens? I mean if all we get for Redd is a pick ranging from 8 to 10, that's not good return AT ALL.

DanTown8587 · Post #8 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:00 pm

Alright, i'm done with Redd because it seems that you guys in Milwaukee have an inflated sense about him, cause thats all I'm saying about it. You guys want to be a bad team with bad contracts, keep Redd, i dont care. I was going with the "trading redd changes franchise" so thats why the talent level isn't there: I was dumping bad contracts too. Because when you have so much money tied up already to guys like Gad and Bell, you cannot afford to sign FA or even extend your guys, and in two years when Villaneuva walks, I wont care then either. I look at the Bulls and laugh, cause they have two choices this off-season: fork over money to Gordon and Deng and have your team for the next five years or let one of them walk.

Simulack · Post #9 » by **Simulack** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:01 pm

DanTown8587 wrote:Skones, all I see is you saying every deal i give is terrible, but I just think you want fair talent for Redd, but you cannot get fair talent you are also dumping salary. If the league allowed it, would you trade Maggette and #1 for Redd?

Clippers #1 this year? I certainly would. Even if Maggette walks, thats an expiring and what is currently the #6 for Redd. Very comparable to what the Sonics got for Ray.

Of course other salary would have to be added in there.

I'd also probably do the original trade although I'd have to look more closely at the contracts involved.

DanTown8587 · Post #10 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:02 pm

ok, you want expiring, if Miami called said we have Davis, Williams and cook, and a #1 for Redd, you take it?

skones · Post #11 » by **skones** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:03 pm

DanTown8587 wrote:I was dumping bad contracts too. Because when you have so much money tied up already to guys like Gad and Bell

Dumping bad contracts doesn't do a team any good when you strap them with deals that are just as bad FYI.

Simulack · Post #12 » by **Simulack** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:04 pm

DanTown8587 wrote:ok, you want expiring, if Miami called said we have Davis, Williams and cook, and a #1 for Redd, you take it?

They can't trade their #1 pick right now because its owed to Minnesota if it isn't in the lottery. At that point, they can't trade Williams and other expirings.

DanTown8587 · Post #13 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:07 pm

i meant a number #1 in general terms, so to be technical, the 10 first cause you cant trade consecutive picks. And please name the bad contracts you take back, cause Rose and James are dead after next season, blount two years. and in this NBA-crawford is reasonably priced.

skones · Post #14 » by **skones** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:07 pm

Check out the Mil/Mia/NO deal Dan. That's more like it. In that deal, we get two nice prospects while dumping Simmons. We take on NO lengthy deals, and a pick may be added in via Miami (not 2008 ) or New Orleans. THATS the type of deal we'd be looking for.

skones · Post #15 » by **skones** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:12 pm

DanTown8587 wrote:i meant a number #1 in general terms, so to be technical, the 10 first cause you cant trade consecutive picks. And please name the bad contracts you take back, cause Rose and James are dead after next season, blount two years. and in this NBA-crawford is reasonably priced.

James IS NOT dead after next season. He'll be paid 6.6 million in 2009/2010. Crawford is also overpaid. You look at points and see, oh 19 a game not bad, but look at the guys game. He doesn't play defense, he takes bad shots, and he shoots a poor percentage. Combine with the fact that he's locked up for a while yet, thats not the type of guy you want to rebuild with.

DanTown8587 · Post #16 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:15 pm

James and Rose both are two years left deals. And you cant be serious in telling me Redd is far and away better than Crawford considering price. Couldn't find the trade, but if you get prospects, picks and dump a salary it seems a little unbalanced

skones · Post #17 » by **skones** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:19 pm

DanTown8587 wrote:James and Rose both are two years left deals. And you cant be serious in telling me Redd is far and away better than Crawford considering price. Couldn't find the trade, but if you get prospects, picks and dump a salary it seems a little unbalanced

Redd is a better player than Crawford and ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE. As for James. He has three years including this season. There is no way he doesn't pick up his player option.

DanTown8587 · Post #18 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:24 pm

I cant figure out why you hate Crawford so much.

DanTown8587 · Post #19 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:27 pm

I don't see how your trade helps Milwaukee btw.

skones · Post #20 » by **skones** » Mon Jan 7, 2008 2:30 pm

Crawford isn't a very good player. He's got a lot of gaping holes in his game, none of which Milwaukee wants a part of.

As for my trade, how do you not? We get two very young promising players in Dorell Wright and Julian Wright and we unload A LOT of salary this offseason and next. On top of that, a future pick may be sent to Milwaukee by either NO or Miami and that just puts it over the top for us.