The Official Playoffs Thread

Post #441 » by **paulpressey25** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:39 am

LUKE23 wrote:Yeah, DeRozan at 10 is a dream, IMO.

I'll sport a sig that says "DrugBust is a genius" for the entire month of July if both DeRozan is there when we pick and this team loses Sessions in free agency.

LUKE23 · Post #442 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:41 am

I'll sport a sig that says "DrugBust is a genius" for the entire month of July if both DeRozan is there when we pick and this team loses Sessions in free agency.

I don't think Hammond/Skiles would pick DeRozan even if he was there.

Newz · Post #443 » by **Newz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:41 am

LUKE23 wrote:Yeah, DeRozan at 10 is a dream, IMO.

DeRozen who I hope the Bucks get, though I don't think it's going to happen. Once players go through their workouts and GMs really sit down and think about it, I believe he'll be the 3rd pick... He may even leap frog Rubio and go second.

Before he came out of highschool he was touted as one of the 'next big things' and he really has all of the talent in the world. He would be my third choice after Griffin and Rubio, easily.

europa · Post #444 » by **europa** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:42 am

LUKE23 wrote:
I'll sport a sig that says "DrugBust is a genius" for the entire month of July if both DeRozan is there when we pick and this team loses Sessions in free agency.

I don't think Hammond/Skiles would pick DeRozan even if he was there.

Just because they screwed the pooch with Alexander? So now you think they're incapable of making a good draft pick again?

Post #445 » by **paulpressey25** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:42 am

LukePliska wrote:[I think Jamal Crawford is a really talented player, but I don't think he is nearly as good as Redd.

I entirely agree with that. It just comes back to the money. His 2008 salary was $8.6 million a year. For $8 million a year less in salary, I can live with the downgrade. Crawford can still bust zones and make teams pay for open 3's. He can also get off 3's when guarded.

europa · Post #446 » by **europa** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:44 am

You'll forgive me Press if I'd like a better "zone buster" than a career 40% shooter.

Newz · Post #447 » by **Newz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:45 am

paulpressey25 wrote:
LukePliska wrote:[I think Jamal Crawford is a really talented player, but I don't think he is nearly as good as Redd.

I entirely agree with that. It just comes back to the money. His 2008 salary was $8.6 million a year. For $8 million a year less in salary, I can live with the downgrade. Crawford can still bust zones and make teams pay for open 3's. He can also get off 3's when guarded.

Yeah, but will he stay within his role and play within the team concept? I just don't think so because he has never done it.

Crawford is one of the guys I would not trade Redd for, regardless of how much less money he makes. Unless it was an expiring deal, then I would probably just deal for Crawford and bring him off of the bench when we have no one else on the floor who can score, then he can just jack up shots and dribble around like an idiot for as long as he wants.

Newz · Post #448 » by **Newz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:45 am

europa wrote:You'll forgive me Press if I'd like a better "zone buster" than a career 40% shooter.

Post #449 » by **paulpressey25** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:48 am

LukePliska wrote:Crawford is one of the guys I would not trade Redd for, regardless of how much less money he makes.

Right, but the trade was also bringing David Lee back this way. The deal idea was Lee/Malik Rose/Crawford for Redd/CV.

Even if you didn't like that deal back in November, wouldn't we have ended up this season (and next) in a much better position? Now we've got a real rebounding PF in Lee and can use the salary space we have to resign him.

Malik Rose and Crawford would have helped us this year in small doses.

LUKE23 · Post #450 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am

Just because they screwed the pooch with Alexander? So now you think they're incapable of making a good draft pick again?

No, because they will perceive him not ready to contribute in 2009-10.

europa · Post #451 » by **europa** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:50 am

LUKE23 wrote:
Just because they screwed the pooch with Alexander? So now you think they're incapable of making a good draft pick again?

No, because they will perceive him not ready to contribute in 2009-10.

I'm not seeing that. He looks like a guy who will be ready to provide some help as a rookie - even if it's as a bench player.

lawrybeard · Post #452 » by **lawrybeard** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:51 am

There is no stopping Tony Parker.

xTitan · Post #453 » by **xTitan** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:51 am

So he missed on his first pick and hit a home run with his second pick, he is a combo of Wolf/Thompson....that is what the good ones do.

Newz · Post #454 » by **Newz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:52 am

paulpressey25 wrote:
LukePliska wrote:Crawford is one of the guys I would not trade Redd for, regardless of how much less money he makes.

Right, but the trade was also bringing David Lee back this way. The deal idea was Lee/Malik Rose/Crawford for Redd/CV.

Even if you didn't like that deal back in November, wouldn't we have ended up this season (and next) in a much better position? Now we've got a real rebounding PF in Lee and can use the salary space we have to resign him.

Malik Rose and Crawford would have helped us this year in small doses.

I would have to think about that one.

Right now it obviously look good because we are going to lose CV for nothing and Redd got hurt... At the time I would have probably turned it down though because I just think Crawford is a total pile.

I really do like David Lee though... Lee/Bogut/CV would be a really good 3-man rotation up front... Isn't David Lee demanding like 10 mil a year now though? I like David Lee, but I sure as hell wouldn't give him 10m a year.

Post #455 » by **paulpressey25** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:53 am

LUKE23 wrote:No, because they will perceive him not ready to contribute in 2009-10.

I'll wait until draft night to proclaim the Bucks braintrust as being dumb enough to pass on DeRozan if he is there. I think they would pick him. Or at least I'd hope they would.

Then again, if on June 25th we select Chase Budinger with the 10th pick......well, let's just say maybe it will be better of the board software overloads again and shuts down for the night.

europa · Post #456 » by **europa** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:54 am

paulpressey25 wrote:Then again, if on June 25th we select Chase Budinger with the 10th pick......well, let's just say maybe it will be better of the board software overloads again and shuts down for the night.

I'll be drinking heavily if they draft Budinger. Good thing I don't see that happening. I think they go PG if they don't land one of the top players in the draft.

Newz · Post #457 » by **Newz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:55 am

paulpressey25 wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:No, because they will perceive him not ready to contribute in 2009-10.

I'll wait until draft night to proclaim the Bucks braintrust as being dumb enough to pass on DeRozan if he is there. I think they would pick him. Or at least I'd hope they would.

Then again, if on June 25th we select Chase Budinger with the 10th pick......well, let's just say maybe it will be better of the board software overloads again and shuts down for the night.

If we pick Chase Budinger...

I don't even know what I would do. I would not be a fan of John Hammond, to say the least.

Post #458 » by **paulpressey25** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:56 am

LukePliska wrote:I like David Lee, but I sure as hell wouldn't give him 10m a year.

He won't get $10mm a year. I do not think he's got any leverage in this economy. And most NBA teams know he's a great garbageman but at most a 5-year/$40mm type guy like what Nocioni got during a better economy two years ago. More likely he get an Anderson Varajao 3-year/$22mm type deal.

We'd basically be trading Redd's shooting and his $17m salary for Crawful's $9mm and Lee's $8mm a year. It would be a wash salary wise. But I agree you have to like David Lee. And some people do not. We really don't know who will "thrive" next to Bogut.

europa · Post #459 » by **europa** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:56 am

Mavs did a great job of holding Parker under 30 in the first half.

Newz · Post #460 » by **Newz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:56 am

europa wrote:
paulpressey25 wrote:Then again, if on June 25th we select Chase Budinger with the 10th pick......well, let's just say maybe it will be better of the board software overloads again and shuts down for the night.

I'll be drinking heavily if they draft Budinger. Good thing I don't see that happening. I think they go PG if they don't land one of the top players in the draft.

For some reason I think we are going to go after Ty Lawson... Which I guess I wouldn't be too upset about.