OT: Kidd Wants To Be Traded (Update)

[nwy2211]

-= original quote snipped =-



You found the one exception in over 30+ years of NBA basketball. While they didn't have a superstar they did have 4 all-stars and the defensive player of the year in Wallace. It's actually harder to do what Detroit did than win the lottery and get a James, Duncan or Shaq. There is an interesting article on 82games.com on building a winner. For over 50 years the team that won the NBA title either had a 1st team all NBA player or a 1st team all-NBA defensive player. The Bucks have nobody close to any of these and trading for over the hill vets sure isn't going to bring us one.

I am not saying I am in favor of trading for Kidd, but we need to do something. Unless we get the number 1 pick i dont see us getting any help in the draft next year. I think the only player that will make an impact immediately will be Beasley, otherwise we'll have another player to try and develop, aka Yi

[ReasonablySober]

-= original quote snipped =-



There's plenty wrong with it when that becomes a consistent pattern - which it is on the verge of becoming for the Bucks. Three tanking efforts in four years is pathetic. The Bucks are close to becoming the new version of the Hawks - a team that spends nearly a decade in the lottery with nothing to show for it. Or what the Clippers used to be and may be becoming again.

Hell, if it WAS a consistent pattern we wouldn't be having this discussion. The Bucks problem stems from the fact that they actually want to be compete but can't get to that completely awful status.

In 2007 we saw a .500 team stuck in NBA purgatory before they were hit with a ridiculous string of injuries.

In 2006 they made the playoffs as a 8th seed despite being 2 games under .500.

In 2005 we got to 30 wins and I'm shocked we even saw that many. That team wasn't tanking, they simply had no talent.

You could say the same thing about 2004 as well. A few nice players but not a single, legit star. One of them missed a significant amount of time with a serious injury, one that also cost his team in 2005.

My point is this. The Bucks have yet to completely clean house and tank. If they were truly trying to get bad they would trade Redd, trade Mo and throw in the towel. Look at what Memphis is doing. That's tanking with a purpose. Same with Philly last season or Toronto the year before. Or Orlando the year before them. There are a lot of examples where teams didn't wait for that injury bug to hit. They saw a team with little talent and no hope for the future, so they cut ties and decided to get terrible. Watch the Nets here in the coming months. You can bet your ass they'll be doing the same.

[Newz]

It sure would be nice if some day the Bucks had someone who was over the hill and almost averaging a triple double.

I bet the Nets are real happy about having him... He is sure making their team (Which is a lot more talented than our team, especially after we give up the pieces to get Kidd) a title contender and big time playoff threat, hey?

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-



I bet the Nets are real happy about having him... He is sure making their team (Which is a lot more talented than our team, especially after we give up the pieces to get Kidd) a title contender and big time playoff threat, hey?

No argument about this season, but again the primary problems on that team in my opinion are the incredibly horrible play they've gotten at PF and C, their lack of depth and Carter not playing to his ability.

And DrugBust, the Bucks have tanked twice in three years. If they do so again, that will be three times in four years. That, to me, is a consistent pattern and it's not a positive one. The Bucks are in danger of becoming the Hawks and the old Clippers. A totally mucked up team that spends year after year in the lottery going nowhere.

[InsideOut]

-= original quote snipped =-



There's plenty wrong with it when that becomes a consistent pattern - which it is on the verge of becoming for the Bucks. Three tanking efforts in four years is pathetic. The Bucks are close to becoming the new version of the Hawks - a team that spends nearly a decade in the lottery with nothing to show for it. Or what the Clippers used to be and may be becoming again.

And what is your plan to turn the Bucks around while avoiding the lottery? Bring in Kidd for 14 months and then what? Let's play a game. You get to be GM for a day and do whatever you want. Please show us some realistic moves the Bucks can make right now that will turn us into a contender in 3 years. Because you hate lottery picks let's assume the Bucks finish with the 14th pick this season and next. So without any lottery picks show us how LH can turn Redd, Mo, Simmons, Bogut, Yi, Mason, Bell... into a team that can get past Boston and Detroit in the next 3 years. Its one thing to say you're sick of the lottery (we all are) but quite another to show us the path out of the lottery. So show us your moves without lottery picks and give us your contending line-up as it would look in 3 years. I'll be honest, I'm not smart enough to come up with one. I can get us to season after season of 41 wins and a first round crushing but without high lottery picks I can't turn us into a contender. Show me the way.

[DH34Phan]

-= original quote snipped =-



No argument about this season, but again the primary problems on that team in my opinion are the incredibly horrible play they've gotten at PF and C, their lack of depth and Carter not playing to his ability.

Carter, even while playing badly, is as good as Redd. Our PF situation is no better than in NJ. Our center position is a lot better yes, but their SF situation is infinitely better than ours.

Overall, they are more talented, and still have only 2 more wins that us.

Kidd gets us to 40 wins tops next year, and after that he is either gone or retired. I would rather trade Mo and CV for guys that are going to impact the team for more than one season.

[ReasonablySober]

-= original quote snipped =-



No argument about this season, but again the primary problems on that team in my opinion are the incredibly horrible play they've gotten at PF and C, their lack of depth and Carter not playing to his ability.

And DrugBust, the Bucks have tanked twice in three years. If they do so again, that will be three times in four years. That, to me, is a consistent pattern and it's not a positive one. The Bucks are in danger of becoming the Hawks and the old Clippers. A totally mucked up team that spends year after year in the lottery going nowhere.

There's a difference between seeing no talent and dealing away what you can, and getting hit by injuries, the likes of which result in a bad record. If the Bucks don't lose Simmons, Mo and Redd to extremely long periods of time they likely end up another 8th seed and out in the playoffs.

As for 2005, take a look at that roster. They didn't tank, they just weren't any good. I give them credit for having five teams end up with worse records.

[europa]

I don't hate lottery picks. I hate the idea of spending years in the lottery believing that's going to help a team that simply cannot afford more losing from a fan perspective and (most importantly) from a financial perspective.

I have provided a number of realistic options the Bucks could have pursued the past two off-seasons and this year. I think pursuing Kidd is more of a reach but if the market shrinks for him (which it seems to be doing) the Bucks could have a shot if they were aggressive. But again, I fully expect them to not go after Kidd.

That said, there is no magical solution to fixing this team. The problems run deep and there are many, both on and off the court. However, I do know that this team badly needs leadership and needs someone to show them on the court the right way to play. Could another rookie be the answer? Maybe. But I'd rather get someone who clearly can do it, has proven repeatedly he can do it, and then add him to the mix and see what happens.

I simply don't see any downside to that approach. It's not like the current one of tanking and banking on the lottery is producing a winning formula.

[Newz]

-= original quote snipped =-


Carter, even while playing badly, is as good as Redd. Our PF situation is no better than in NJ. Our center position is a lot better yes, but their SF situation is infinitely better than ours.

Overall, they are more talented, and still have only 2 more wins that us.

Kidd gets us to 40 wins tops next year, and after that he is either gone or retired. I would rather trade Mo and CV for guys that are going to impact the team for more than one season.

IMO we have to choose a path.

We either trade Mo/Bogut/Yi/CV type guys to get two more stars to put around Redd or we trade Redd, Mo and CV to try and get young, defensive minded role players or guys with massive upsides as well as expiring contracts so we can just start from scratch again.

[ReasonablySober]

I don't hate lottery picks. I hate the idea of spending years in the lottery believing that's going to help a team that simply cannot afford more losing from a fan perspective and (most importantly) from a financial perspective.

I have provided a number of realistic options the Bucks could have pursued the past two off-seasons and this year. I think pursuing Kidd is more of a reach but if the market shrinks for him (which it seems to be doing) the Bucks could have a shot if they were aggressive. But again, I fully expect them to not go after Kidd.

That said, there is no magical solution to fixing this team. The problems run deep and there are many, both on and off the court. However, I do know that this team badly needs leadership and needs someone to show them on the court the right way to play. Could another rookie be the answer? Maybe. But I'd rather get someone who clearly can do it, has proven repeatedly he can do it, and then add him to the mix and see what happens.

I simply don't see any downside to that approach. It's not like the current one of tanking and banking on the lottery is producing a winning formula.

They aren't tanking. We haven't even SEEN tanking around here. Did we see some questionable coaching decisions last year AFTER being crushed by injuries? Yes.

But we haven't seen a cleansing of the roster like you have seen in Minnesota, Chicago, Philly, Memphis, Boston, Orlando, Seattle, New Orleans, Cleveland....

Those teams saw the talent on their team, decided it wasn't enough to get them anywhere and traded it KNOWING it was going to make them worse. THAT is tanking.

When have the Bucks done that?

[DH34Phan]

-= original quote snipped =-

We either trade Mo/Bogut/Yi/CV type guys to get two more stars to put around Redd or we trade Redd, Mo and CV to try and get [b]young, defensive minded role players or guys with massive upsides as well as expiring contracts so we can just start from scratch again.[/b]

That is what I think should have been done after we got the #1 pick in 2005.

Instead of still trying to make it Michael's team, and hand out crazy contracts such as Bobby and Gadz', we should have built then and there around Bogut.

Instead, now we are 2 and a half seasons later, haven't made any progess when it comes to winning, and are in salary cap hell.

[ReasonablySober]

-= original quote snipped =-


That is what I think should have been done after we got the #1 pick in 2005.

Instead of still trying to make it Michael's team, and hand out crazy contracts such as Bobby and Gadz', we should have built then and there around Bogut.

Instead, now we are 2 and a half seasons later, haven't made any progess when it comes to winning, and are in salary cap hell.

Maybe the Bucks were the poster child for what not to do in that situation.

You look at what Portland and Seattle did when they struck gold in the lotto. First thing they did was get rid of the high priced pseudo-stars on the team. Lewis, Allen, Randolph, etc.

You're right. Maybe that's what should have been done when the Bucks got Bogut.

[showtimesam]

I agree...
Looking back, the bucks building around redd, and paying big money to gadz and simmons to "win now" was a move that is setting this franchise back considerably.

That would have been a good offseason to sign and trade redd, and build a young core around our number one pick.

[El Duderino]

I agree...
Looking back, the bucks building around redd, and paying big money to gadz and simmons to "win now" was a move that is setting this franchise back considerably.

That would have been a good offseason to sign and trade redd, and build a young core around our number one pick.

This seems to have been the Kohl plan for quite awhile, just get into the playoffs any way possible, regardless if it's a meaningless 7th/8th seed that only comes because we play in a bad conference and in a league that puts half it's teams in the playoffs.

Then Herb can say we made the playoffs and pretend the team had a good year and is on a good path.

[paulpressey25]

-=We haven't even SEEN tanking around here. .....

But we haven't seen a cleansing of the roster like you have seen in Minnesota, Chicago, Philly, Memphis, Boston, Orlando, Seattle, New Orleans, Cleveland.........

Oh...I've seen this done before. In the 1991-92 period the team dumped everybody...all the veterans...Sikma, Jay Humphries, etc.........sent em packing in trades to bring in top young talent like Blue Edwards.....great draft picks we acquired to get guys like John Barry, Alaa Ablenaadby....

We used our 1992 number ones on our backcourt of the future in Todd Day and Lee Mayberry. We gave those guys 40 minutes a night to get experience and to keep tanking more and more.....

Then we drafted Baker and gave him tons of minutes.....we tanked the 1993-94 season when Dunleavy would sign and play CBA players 30mpg to purposely get a shot at Glenn Robinson......I remember Dunleavy pulling the starters for entire fourth quarters of tie games in the spring of 1994. Kohl signed off on this whole multi-year tanking escapade when he brought on Dunleavy.

Then we tanked some more to get Ray Ray in the 1996 draft.....

Five seasons of purposeful blowing it up and tanking....all to get a 37-win team.....It wasn't until we hired a GM who knew what the heck he was doing in George Karl that things got better.

We need a new GM more than we need more tanking.

Back on topic, John Hollinger had this in his chat today:
John Hollinger: ........ And let me throw in another thought too -- if you're renting a point guard for the next 16 months, would you rather it be Kidd or Andre Miller? Obviously, Kidd's past is superior, but he's four years older and makes more than twice as much, and Miller is playing great right now.

[raferfenix]

The biggest things the bucks need to do are to ensure the development of Bogut and Yi as well as get the fan base interested again. If getting Kidd or Miller for only players not in our long term future anyways can do that, we need to do it.

Far too many teams tank for picks and never have them develop, and a team with our sorry draft record should be wary of such a plan.