Woelfel - 70% bogut's gone and maybe Jennings (update pg131)

Serge28 · Post #2181 » by **Serge28** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:27 am

europa wrote:
Serge28 wrote:Europa, don't play dumb! You know exactly what you said and exactly what you meant!

Of course I do. I said the Salmons trade was a great trade and it was. That should be rather obvious. I see no logical reason to state otherwise given how good Salmons was for the Bucks that season, how little it took to acquire him and the success the Bucks had as a result.

The decision to re-sign Salmons was not a good move. However, that's an entirely separate transaction and should be judged as such in my opinion.

Did the Salmons trade help the Bucks long-term? No. I don't think anyone will argue that.
Did the Salmons trade help the Bucks short-term? I say no because helping us make playoffs and lose in the first round is not my idea of a great short-term trade. It's something the Bucks have been doing for years and years. Ultimately, it changed nothing for us. The reason Bucks fans view Salmons trade as this great deal is because of our collective lowered set of expectations brought about by the suckiness of our franchise for so long.

Post #2182 » by **humanrefutation** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:27 am

Baddy Chuck wrote:
Nebula1 wrote:I think there's some good relationship potential in a 3 way with GS and ORL.

Just us and GSW I'd sign off on a Bogut/Dunleavy/Brockman for Biedrins/Udoh/Thompson/Wright deal

http://basketball.realgm.com/tradecheck ... de/6064455

Keeps our tank rolling and Udoh and Thompson are as good as picks. Wright is a decent throw in.

I think the GSW and ORL part will be tough. ORL wants Monta, but there really isn't much return for GSW.

How in the hell could you sign off on that? That is beyond awful.

Yeah, that's a terrible trade.

Baddy Chuck · Post #2183 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:27 am

nle2367 wrote:
Nebula1 wrote:I think there's some good relationship potential in a 3 way with GS and ORL.

Just us and GSW I'd sign off on a Bogut/Dunleavy/Brockman for Biedrins/Udoh/Thompson/Wright deal

http://basketball.realgm.com/tradecheck ... de/6064455

Keeps our tank rolling and Udoh and Thompson are as good as picks. Wright is a decent throw in.

I think the GSW and ORL part will be tough. ORL wants Monta, but there really isn't much return for GSW.

How dare you proposed a trade when the tradechecker even said it's a failed. smh.

ballboy

nle2367 · Post #2184 » by **nle2367** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:28 am

Baddy Chuck wrote:
nle2367 wrote:
Nebula1 wrote:I think there's some good relationship potential in a 3 way with GS and ORL.

Just us and GSW I'd sign off on a Bogut/Dunleavy/Brockman for Biedrins/Udoh/Thompson/Wright deal

http://basketball.realgm.com/tradecheck ... de/6064455

Keeps our tank rolling and Udoh and Thompson are as good as picks. Wright is a decent throw in.

I think the GSW and ORL part will be tough. ORL wants Monta, but there really isn't much return for GSW.

How dare you proposed a trade when the tradechecker even said it's a failed. smh.

ballboy

Don't worry. I've been around.

europa · Post #2185 » by **europa** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:28 am

The reason why Bucks fans view the Salmons trade positively is because he played at an All-Star level that season and the Bucks were on a 60-win pace with him. Combine that with the fact Hammond got him for dirt cheap and it was a great trade. Again, that should be quite obvious.

Serge28 · Post #2186 » by **Serge28** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:28 am

europa wrote:
Serge28 wrote:This is such an unfounded blind faith on your part.

What makes you think I have any faith this is going to work out well for the Bucks?

You keep making an argument, then getting called on it, then backing away and saying, "Wait a second! That's not what I think at all!" It's hilarious!

Post #2187 » by **blkout** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:29 am

paul wrote:
JayMKE wrote:
europa wrote:Ken Berger ‏ @KBergCBS Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Person involved in the talks says Rockets have now backed away from Bogut discussions to pursue another deal. Stay tuned.

thank you god

I suspect they were told to take their crap and try to sell it elsewhere lol. More a retreat than a back away I'm guessing.

"So here's our offer, Courtney Lee and Samuel Dalembert plus a top 30 protected 1st round pick"
"We're nearly on the same page, throw in Jonny Flynn and we have ourselves a deal"
"I don't think so. Good day to you sir"

Fairly sure that's how it went down.

Nebula1 · Post #2188 » by **Nebula1** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:30 am

Baddy Chuck wrote:How in the hell could you sign off on that? That is beyond awful.

I like it actually. Thompson is talented and it keeps our tank rolling. I'm cool with where Udoh is headed as a player and it gets Dunleavy off the team.

Obviously I'd rather get a lotto pick like Bogut for Ben Gordon/2012 1st, but I don't think it's going to happen. Thompson is as good a prospect as the 15 range picks.

It's a solid tank trade and still allows for Ersan to be traded for a pick.

europa · Post #2189 » by **europa** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:30 am

Serge28 wrote:
europa wrote:
Serge28 wrote:This is such an unfounded blind faith on your part.

What makes you think I have any faith this is going to work out well for the Bucks?

You keep making an argument, then getting called on it, then backing away and saying, "Wait a second! That's not what I think at all!" It's hilarious!

Actually, all I've done is point out the numerous flaws in your statements and the factual inaccuracies you continue to put forth with regard to my point of view.

Baddy Chuck · Post #2190 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:30 am

nle2367 wrote:
Baddy Chuck wrote:
nle2367 wrote:How dare you proposed a trade when the tradechecker even said it's a failed. smh.

ballboy

Don't worry. I've been around.

Then maybe you should work your way around the trade checker or click the link in the post that clearly states the trade would work. To quote literally the worst internet saying that has popped up in the past 10 years "smh".

Serge28 · Post #2191 » by **Serge28** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:31 am

skones wrote:Yeah, because the end of the FTD season SUCKED SO BAD. Are you **** kidding me? You can't sit there and tell me that ride we had there was fun as hell until Bogut went down, and guess what, that Atlanta series still turned out to be pretty damn good? If Bogut didn't go down, we may have actually made noise in the playoffs, and we might have been a lot better last year.

BUT, because hindsight is 20-20, you're going to sit there and tell me that that trade didn't work out? Get real.

20 years from now, will it matter? You telling me that I should consider the Salmons trade great because I had a good time watching the Bucks play? Are you **** kidding me? Let me tell you something, if all it takes to placate this fan base is a slightly winning season and a first round exist once every decade, then it's no wonder the Bucks are as **** as they are!

Post #2192 » by **humanrefutation** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:32 am

Baddy Chuck wrote:
humanrefutation wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the Bucks FO leaked the Rockets offer just so we'd crown Hammond if he landed Curry instead.

Either way, I'm not opposed to standing pat if that kinda garbage is being offered.

There's a reason there were Raptors fans coming in here hoping for a thee way where they get Curry for their pick.

There's a reason Curry was once the main piece for a potential CP3 trade.

There's a reason the Celtics apparently offered Rondo for Curry.

If Hammond did get Curry, he should get a lot of credit IMO, and I hate the man with a **** passion.

When I meant garbage - I meant the Rockets offer.

But, I wouldn't be enthused about landing Curry either. If the dude was healthy, I'd be down to make a move for him. But he just hasn't been. He seems to be perpetually stuck with ankle injuries. That worries me considerably, because it seems like it could be a career-long problem for him.

I know folks will point out Bogut's injury history, but I think his most recent injuries have been very unlucky, and they haven't been concentrated in one area like Curry's has been. Either way, I'd rather have an oft-injured center than an oft-injured guard, simply based on the value of the position.

JustinCredible · Post #2193 » by **JustinCredible** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:33 am

Is there even one source that has ever mentioned Curry? We have all made up this Curry trade but I haven't seen his name mentioned by anyone outside of this board. (other than Sparky who referenced this board)

nle2367 · Post #2194 » by **nle2367** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:35 am

Then maybe you should work your way around the trade checker or click the link in the post that clearly states the trade would work. To quote literally the worst internet saying that has popped up in the past 10 years "smh".

:Sorry, but this trade does not work.

Due to 16 and 21 being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. 16 and 21 had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did not happen here (only 16 met the condition). This trade does not satisfy the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/tradecheck ... z1oyKlYhFW
:

Salary cap doesnt' match. Obviously. And btw, WTF trade away 4 of their 5 starters? well... AB was the starter until recently..The trade sucks for Warriors.

Serge28 · Post #2195 » by **Serge28** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:35 am

europa wrote:
Serge28 wrote:
europa wrote:What makes you think I have any faith this is going to work out well for the Bucks?

You keep making an argument, then getting called on it, then backing away and saying, "Wait a second! That's not what I think at all!" It's hilarious!

Actually, all I've done is point out the numerous flaws in your statements and the factual inaccuracies you continue to put forth with regard to my point of view.

Whatever man. It's useless arguing with you. Anytime you get proven wrong, you just start denying and flip-flopping. It's like arguing against Mitt Romney - a damn waste of my time.

Sauce Boss · Post #2196 » by **Sauce Boss** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:35 am

If we end up with JRich and GSW parts with a low draft pick for Bogut that be absolutely gross. If they are trying to get SJax out of here with this type of move it be even worse, give up your best player to try and unload a bad deal, ick. I do like that we are shopping Bogut at least and I am ok with the Brandon rumors too. We need to just completely tear everything down, but I unfortunately don't see that as their approach.

Baddy Chuck · Post #2197 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:36 am

JustinCredible wrote:Is there even one source that has ever mentioned Curry? We have all made up this Curry trade but I haven't seen his name mentioned by anyone outside of this board. (other than Sparky who referenced this board)

Buckspack stated a deal with a non playoff team, with no pick and it was a risk. The same day I believe, Woelfel came out and said an "all star caliber young guard". Putting two and two together it's really only one person considering the team involved. Unless you believe Ellis is Hammond's guy.

Nebula1 · Post #2198 » by **Nebula1** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:37 am

humanrefutation wrote:Yeah, that's a terrible trade.

It's a tank trade while picking up two decent assets in Thompson and Udoh while letting us sink down the stretch. I'm not a big Curry fan because of his ankles and because he plays out of position.

I don't want to trade Bogut for any win now help. This trade is a solid tank trade.

Post #2199 » by **humanrefutation** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:37 am

nle2367 wrote:
Then maybe you should work your way around the trade checker or click the link in the post that clearly states the trade would work. To quote literally the worst internet saying that has popped up in the past 10 years "smh".

:Sorry, but this trade does not work.

Due to 16 and 21 being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. 16 and 21 had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did not happen here (only 16 met the condition). This trade does not satisfy the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/tradecheck ... z1oyKlYhFW
:

Salary cap doesnt' match. Obviously. And btw, WTF trade away 4 of their 5 starters? well... AB was the starter until recently..The trade sucks for Warriors.

Dude...the link you posted said that the trade works. What are you talking about?

skones · Post #2200 » by **skones** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:38 am

Serge28 wrote:
skones wrote:Yeah, because the end of the FTD season SUCKED SO BAD. Are you **** kidding me? You can't sit there and tell me that ride we had there was fun as hell until Bogut went down, and guess what, that Atlanta series still turned out to be pretty damn good? If Bogut didn't go down, we may have actually made noise in the playoffs, and we might have been a lot better last year.

BUT, because hindsight is 20-20, you're going to sit there and tell me that that trade didn't work out? Get real.

20 years from now, will it matter? You telling me that I should consider the Salmons trade great because I had a good time watching the Bucks play? Are you **** kidding me? Let me tell you something, if all it takes to placate this fan base is a slightly winning season and a first round exist once every decade, then it's no wonder the Bucks are as **** as they are!

I'm pretty done with this. You're not thinking rationally.

Like I stated earlier, hindsight is 20-20. That trade is completely separate than Salmons brand spanking new contract with Hammond. You seem to also be completely ignoring the Bogut injury, when that alone altered the course this franchise was headed in.

Honest to honest, I don't think this franchise would be in such a **** storm had Bogut stayed healthy through the end of that season.