Trades that may send Redd out of town...

TripleDouble · Post #1 » by **TripleDouble** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:24 pm

This topic has been has been and will be beaten to death, but I think that is being done rightfully so. The way things seem to be trending, it looks like Milwaukee and Redd will ultimately part company. While I do not hold out hope that it will happen this year, I do believe it will happen within the next 24-30 months. With Harris being a lame duck, we will have to wait for him to leave in order to see the Senator approve a change like that. Because I would rather see it happen sooner than later, I have looked around to see what may be possible if Harris was unshackled, and this is what I could find. All of these trades work out money wise, but picks and/or players may need to be added to make these trades acceptable to both teams. Please let me know if any of these are plausible starting points.

Trade 1:
Bucks
Redd
CV

Bulls
Nocioni
Tyrus Thomas
Thabo
Joe Smith

It looks like TT and Thabo will not pan out the way the Bulls would like, and this gives them a chance to let Gordon (who also looks like he has peeked) go while signing Deng. CV will also give them some much needed inside scoring.

Trade 2:
Bucks
Redd
CV
Gadz

Mavs
Josh Howard
Dampier
Hassell

The Mavs cut Dampier

BobbyLight · Post #2 » by **BobbyLight** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:51 pm

I like 1 and 2, but can't see either happening. The Bucks get back too much in the first deal for it to make sense to the Bulls. The Mavs laugh at the second deal because Josh Howard is a better all around player than Redd can ever dream to be. The Mavs already have their second bannana and it's Howard. They don't need Redd.

Garbs_7 · Post #3 » by **Garbs_7** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:54 pm

I like all of those except the Lakers one. I dont think we are getting enough back for Redd and CV there. Some very intriguing ideas there, and would love to see what other teams think of these. The Indiana one is ok, I like Granger a lot, but it doesnt really make our defense much better, and I think Murphy's contract is pretty long for around 7-9 mil per?

If the suns would do that deal, I would have to say pull the trigger, only issue is Marion's FA status, and I think he wants Redd type money or more so that could be a problem, but:

Williams/Ivey
R. Bell/C. Bell
Marion/Simmons
Yi/Ruffin/Simmons
Bogut/Voskuhl

Looks very nice, and much deeper at the wings. Mason/Simmons become very expendable after this, I love it.

Im also a big fan of the Bulls trade. Its makes us a bit weak at SG and too stacked at PF. But Nocioni is a very good 3/4 who should be playing 35 mins a night. Thomas is an athletic freak who we could use, Thabo is a very good defender with potential and i'd love to get Smith back. Some of these look pretty reasonable and would make our team a lot better/more effective but sadly, I dont think our organisation has the balls to pull this off. After Bulls trade:

Williams/Ivey
Bell/Mason/Thabo
Nocioni/Simmons
Yi/Thomas/Smith
Bogut/Voskuhl

TripleDouble · Post #4 » by **TripleDouble** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:29 pm

2ss2ls wrote:I like 1 and 2, but can't see either happening. The Bucks get back too much in the first deal for it to make sense to the Bulls. The Mavs laugh at the second deal because Josh Howard is a better all around player than Redd can ever dream to be. The Mavs already have their second bannana and it's Howard. They don't need Redd.

The Bulls deal will only work if they believe that TT isn't going to pan out for them (I think it is obvious that Thabo will not), and they also realize that Gordan is not worth the significant raise he is looking for. I belive this deal is plausable (with some tweaking) under those circumstances. If they are not ready to write off those two players than you are correct.

I agree that the Dallas deal is highly unlikely, but that is why I included "at least a 1st" would be needed. In any case I don't think the Mavs can be motivated to move Howard, so this deal is the least likely to me as well.

schwartz57 · Post #5 » by **schwartz57** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:41 pm

I have to believe that if we trade Redd or CV, Simmons or Gadz would have to go with. of course it doesnt need to happen, but that is the only way we can get rid of our bad contracts. Yes Redd's is a bad contract as well but at least he is skilled at something more than waving a towel.

TripleDouble · Post #6 » by **TripleDouble** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:32 pm

So far, Mavs fans are adamantly against it, and both Lakers and Pacers fans are adamantly for the proposals.

TripleDouble · Post #7 » by **TripleDouble** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:34 pm

Also a Houston fan has come up with:

"Rox might do:

Battier+James+Scola+Snyder+Head

for

Redd + CV "

EastSideBucksFan · Post #8 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:38 pm

I'm not all for trading Redd, but IMO any trade that sends Redd out of town has to include Gadz.

I'd rather send Gadz than Simmons b/c Simmons can actually play some minutes and only has two more years on his deal. Gadz is not playing and has 3 years left.

TripleDouble · Post #9 » by **TripleDouble** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:43 pm

EastSideBucksFan wrote:I'm not all for trading Redd, but IMO any trade that sends Redd out of town has to include Gadz.

I'd rather send Gadz than Simmons b/c Simmons can actually play some minutes and only has two more years on his deal. Gadz is not playing and has 3 years left.

I am not completely sold on trading Redd either (I want it to happen right away or not at all), but I do believe that is inevitable with a new GM. The problem with including Gadz or Simmons is the amount of Salary coming back. I tried to avoid taking back any bad contracts, and even than it was hard to find enough money to cover Redd. The few times I was able to find a way to include Gadz I posted, otherwise it will be hard to include either of them.

ahagen87 · Post #10 » by **ahagen87** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:45 pm

I like the pacers and bulls deal a lot but also think that rockets one would be nice as well

CableKC · Post #11 » by **CableKC** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:00 pm

I am really surprised that you guys are even entertaining the thought of moving Redd. I didn't know that things got that bad with him.

Post #12 » by **blkout** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:16 pm

Redd for Childress, Shelden Williams + filler & pick.

TripleDouble · Post #13 » by **TripleDouble** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:17 pm

Redd isn't a cancer or a problem, but his style doesn't work with Mo in the backcourt with him. With those two Bogut and Yi never see the ball, the team is not gelling at all, and the Bucks have tried to build around Redd without success. With the promise of both Bogut and Yi, the team is turning towards building around them.

The choice than comes down to Redd or Mo. Mo is younger, cheaper, can pass, and can play with the other guys. Redd has yet to be able to (at least with this team). Redd is a great guy, but his time here is going to ultimately end.

L&H_05 · Post #14 » by **L&H_05** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:22 pm

I'm not sure the 76ers trade nor the Mavs trade makes sense..

Josh Howard is a better player than Mike... Mike might put up the numbers, but Howard plays both ends at a very high level...

As for the 76ers, they're clearing cap space, and I don't see them taking Redd.. Nor do I get why they would trade Iggy ?? I know they've yet to reach an extension, but his potential is pretty high, and it's not like they're plugging Redd into a championship roster...

Makes no sense..

Post #15 » by **blkout** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:23 pm

The problem with all but 2 of these trades is that you're essentially replacing Michael Redd with Michael Redd. Those guys wouldn't free up the ball much for Bogut/Mo more than Redd already does, and alot of them don't produce as much as he does in the first place...

Usage rates...

REDD: 25.8

Nocioni: 23.9
Howard: 23.4
Daniels: 20.2
Iguodala: 23.4

I'd do the Marion/Odom trades.

TripleDouble · Post #16 » by **TripleDouble** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:40 pm

L&H_05 wrote:I'm not sure the 76ers trade nor the Mavs trade makes sense..

Josh Howard is a better player than Mike... Mike might put up the numbers, but Howard plays both ends at a very high level...

As for the 76ers, they're clearing cap space, and I don't see them taking Redd.. Nor do I get why they would trade Iggy ?? I know they've yet to reach an extension, but his potential is pretty high, and it's not like they're plugging Redd into a championship roster...

Makes no sense..

Yeah, I got ripped for the Dallas trade, which was obviously more scewed than I thought. The one 76er fan who responded, actually like the trade. That is completely dependant on the 76ers thinking they will lose Iggy, or them being sick of his attitude.

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:The problem with all but 2 of these trades is that you're essentially replacing Michael Redd with Michael Redd. Those guys wouldn't free up the ball much for Bogut/Mo more than Redd already does, and alot of them don't produce as much as he does in the first place...

That is a great point I did not consider. I just tried to find places that could make sense. Unless we just dump Redd for cap space, I think you will be taking back someone who likes the ball. Some of those rates you posted supprised me, but they do make sense with Howard and Iggy.

Rockmaninoff · Post #17 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:51 pm

So, the elephant in the room is still Kirilenko and Almond for Redd, right?

I guess I still don't see what's bad about that deal and then doing CV and Gadz to the Nets for Collins and Wright. We'd get Redd 2.0 in Almond, except he would be our in the flow of the offense, set shooter at the right price. Maybe not this year, but next. Mo would start at the 2. Wright is a young G/F who could grow with the Bogut/Yi/Mo core. Collins expires 2 years earlier than Gadz. With Mo at starting 2 guard, we can bring Sessions up and give him some minutes. We should at least see what he can do at this level, before drafting another point guard.

Ivey/Bell
Williams/Almond
Simmons/Wright
Kirilenko/Yi
Bogut/Yi

...with a little Sessions, Ruffin, Voskuhl, and Mason sprinkled in sounds good to me.

CableKC · Post #18 » by **CableKC** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:45 pm

I had concerns regarding what the salary implications would be for hte 2008/2009 season...but after discussing it with Scoot on the Pacer Real GM board....if you guys are willing to take on Murphy just to get Granger....then I have no problem with the trade.

Although my preference is to move JONeal first.....I would easily trade Granger ( as long as he is packaged with Murphy ) if it meant getting back a Starting quality SG and a Big Man that can run/rebound.

We may have ZERO depth....but as long as Redd and CV aren't injury prone.....I would do this and make a run for the Playoffs for a season before dumping JONeal as an Expiring Contract in teh 2009/2010 season.

BTW....Granger also is a solid defender. He's not a lockdown defender at the SF spot...but he's one of our better defenders on team.

Post #19 » by **paulpressey25** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:50 pm

These are some good ones....

For me the Pacers trade is a slam dunk....because we get three guys who can contribute and we need that. Then let Bogut, Yi and Granger grow together and see what we have in two years.

I'd also trade Redd and Gadz for JO, but like the first Pacers deal better.

xTitan · Post #20 » by **xTitan** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:58 pm

CableKC wrote:I had concerns regarding what the salary implications would be for hte 2008/2009 season...but after discussing it with Scoot on the Pacer Real GM board....if you guys are willing to take on Murphy just to get Granger....then I have no problem with the trade.

Although my preference is to move JONeal first.....I would easily trade Granger ( as long as he is packaged with Murphy ) if it meant getting back a Starting quality SG and a Big Man that can run/rebound.

We may have ZERO depth....but as long as Redd and CV aren't injury prone.....I would do this and make a run for the Playoffs for a season before dumping JONeal as an Expiring Contract in teh 2009/2010 season.

BTW....Granger also is a solid defender. He's not a lockdown defender at the SF spot...but he's one of our better defenders on team.

I have always liked Granger alot, do you guys have issues with him? If so, I am curious as to what they would be.