Should the Bucks take Randolph/Balkman?

[Stopshere2]

I've read over 40 pages of discussion on the rumored trade of Simmons/Gadz/CV for Randolph/Balkman.
Regardless of the merits of this trade going through, or not going through, it has the potential to polarize the fanbase.

Rather than continue what is becoming a circular debate, could fans (especially those who don't want to get belted for their opinion in the respective threads) just vote a straight up yes or no on this proposal - no qualifiers, variations or concessions.

I'll send the results to Herb - a politician can't resist a poll

[Simulack]

Can we still continue the circular debate after we vote? I'd like to hit 10k posts by halftime.

[trwi7]

Yes. You're saving money until the year Randolph becomes a huge expiring contract and you're getting better talent.

[Stopshere2]

Can we still continue the circular debate after we vote? I'd like to hit 10k posts by halftime.

knock yourself out, post whore

I'd just like to see people's opinion without ifs or buts, because the only info we have is that this is the trade on offer - not Lee, Nate, etc. Now get back to that thread.

[emunney]

I'm obviously voting no, but in the case that it happens, my fandom decreases by zero. I'm willing to be optimistic considering that there could be significant upside in the unlikely case that everything goes right following the trade.

[Stopshere2]

hmmm 9-5 in favor of the trade hardly appears to be a represntative sample but it sure counters the predominant no vote in the discussion threads.

Those bastard Knicks fans better not be muddying the vote - their thread has most people against it.

[blkout]

No.

If Randolph was willing to play 20-25 minutes off the bench, yes.

[Wise1]

I'm obviously voting no, but in the case that it happens, my fandom decreases by zero. I'm willing to be optimistic considering that there could be significant upside in the unlikely case that everything goes right following the trade.

With Zach and Redd, the Bucks would have over 35 million dollars in expiring contracts come 2010-2011 with only Bogut (x mil) and Mo (8.5 mil) making any significant money.

For the garbage that we're giving up, I'd rather go with Z-Bo knowing that ultimately his contract along with Redd's will give the team a virtual winfall of free agent dollars to spend when Bogut, Yi, and Mo are either in or reaching their prime years.

[tyland]

I honestly can't decide at the moment. Their are pro and cons either way that could benefit and hamper the team.

I guess we free up another roster spot where we can pick up another prospect from the D-League for a trial. Who, I'm not sure though. Any ideas?

[emunney]

-= original quote snipped =-



With Zach and Redd, the Bucks would have over 35 million dollars in expiring contracts come 2010-2011 with only Bogut (x mil) and Mo (8.5 mil) making any significant money.

Sorry, I don't measure cap space in dollars, so I have no idea what you're talking about. My preferred unit is Desmond Masons (Dez's).

[ReasonablySober]

I voted yes. Simmons and Gadz bring exactly nothing to the table and Wise1 brings up a great point about the possibility of having two monster expiring contracts in a few years. Not that I think either would still be Bucks by that point, but it's an option.

[Wise1]

Over 35 million Dez's it is then.

[Simulack]

I voted yes. Give him CV's minutes at the 4 spot and Gadz minutes at C unless he proves he can co-exist out there with Bogut. That way they aren't on the court very much at the same time at least in the beginning.

[trwi7]

I voted yes. Give him CV's minutes at the 4 spot and Gadz minutes at C unless he proves he can co-exist out there with Bogut. That way they aren't on the court very much at the same time at least in the beginning.

So you don't want him to get any minutes at C?

[raferfenix]

I fear that this kind of move would doom our team to be horrible defensively for a long time. It also culd be tragically bad for Bogut's development and for our team's general efforts to share the ball more.

Unless We think Balkman is going to be an incredible defender, this trade would be real hard for me to stomach.

[Stopshere2]

Yi and CV's combined 9/4/1 against the Warriors, along with their pathetic defence, sure makes Randolph look like an attractive trade.

[Simulack]

Yi and CV's combined 9/4/1 against the Warriors, along with their pathetic defence, sure makes Randolph look like an attractive trade.

What's your opinion on the trade then? for it?

[midranger]

Wait, is there a "No, trade Redd instead" option?

I think if we're keeping one incredibly overpaid, blackhole, no defense playing, chemistry killer, incapable of leading a team or improving his teammates' games... we could probably stand to add another. Maybe they'd cancel each other out.


At least that way people couldn't bitch about not having two Redd/Randolph quality players on the team.

[Stopshere2]

-= original quote snipped =-



What's your opinion on the trade then? for it?

Well, Yi is going nuts in garbage time and he's gonna finish with 11 and 3. How could I think that we need Zach?

[InsideOut]

I think if we're keeping one incredibly overpaid, blackhole, no defense playing, chemistry killer, incapable of leading a team or improving his teammates' games... we could probably stand to add another. Maybe they'd cancel each other out.

Two negatives do make a positive.