Page 1 of 1
Who would have gotten the better deal?
Posted: Mon Apr 7, 2008 12:02 am
by DH34Phan
Bucks trade: Bobby Simmons and Dan Gadzuric
for
Knicks trade: Zach Randolph
This deal was close to happening at the trade deadline.
Posted: Mon Apr 7, 2008 12:03 am
by spacemonkey
Knicks...
Posted: Mon Apr 7, 2008 5:39 am
by warren weel im
No way the Bucks think they got the better. While ZBo is indeed a headcase, he gives you 16-10 night in and out.
Posted: Mon Apr 7, 2008 6:30 am
by pdub15
Bucks. Zach though prone to headcase issues gets u 16 and 10. That gives the Bucks an inside prensence which would help because Charlie V, Bogot, and Yi aren't that. They are bigs that face up and shoot jumpers. Michael Redd and Zach would be a nice 1-2 punch with Mo, Charlie, Bogot, & Yi being nice pieces around them. In the East you would definately compete.
Posted: Mon Apr 7, 2008 7:17 am
by trwi7
pdub15 wrote:Bucks. Zach though prone to headcase issues gets u 16 and 10. That gives the Bucks an inside prensence which would help because Charlie V, Bogot, and Yi aren't that. They are bigs that face up and shoot jumpers. Michael Redd and Zach would be a nice 1-2 punch with Mo, Charlie, Bogot, & Yi being nice pieces around them. In the East you would definately compete.
I'm just curious. Have you ever seen "Bogot" play? Because your description of him is not anything close to accurate.
Anyways the Bucks win this deal hands down. I was one of the biggest advocates of this trade on the Bucks board with everybody else saying no because of his character issues and taking away the development of Yi and Bogut. I was of the opinion that if you can get rid of two overpaid bums like Gadzuric and Simmons and pick up a productive player you do it.
Posted: Mon Apr 7, 2008 7:51 am
by DanTown8587
Clearly the Bucks win, they trade two awful contracts of players who should not get regular minutes for a starter. Plus, how much worse does it get in Milwaukee if they make this deal?