Will the Bucks trade Michael Redd?

[DowJones]

I am a Cleveland fan and I would LOVE to get him. I don't know where you guys are at as far as a franchise goes. If you are trying to re-build then you will probably like to move Redd. If not, then he stays. I am sure that you guys wouldn't want to trade Redd to an in-division team though. I know Cleveland could offer all the expiring contracts you guys want, draft picks, and even take 1 or 2 bad contracts off your hands.

If you guys are in a similar position this time next year, will the franchise just look to re-build around Yi or would you still keep Redd?

[kebzach]

Trade Redd and 1-2 bad contracts too?

Where do I sign?

[paulpressey25]

You needed to be here for all the trade Redd threads before the deadline.....

Me personally, I would have sent him your way for Gooden and Hughes who both put up big numbers tonight helping the Bulls win.....

If you guys re-load and find some other assets to trade, I'm sure you'd find some takers here. But most didn't want to send Redd to Cleveland because you didn't have either a top tier player to send us in return or a top tier young guy or really high draft pick.

I think the team will trade either Redd or Mo Williams in the offseason.

[wichmae]

I actually think Hughes would be a really good fit alongside Mo.

[ReddManBogieMan]

Redd for Lebron, sure then I'll trade him!

Bucks aren't rebuilding again, they built this team around Redd and now they are going to let it develop.

SORRY

[DowJones]

It makes sense. I actually like your parts but not the whole. I just think you have too many offensive players and not much in the way of toughness on the inside. I also view Redd as an excellent sidekick to a superstar, but not a great guy to build your team around.

Cleveland could offer something like this...

Wally Szczerbiak
Eric Snow
Damon Jones
1st round draft pick in 2008 and 2010

In exchange for...

Michael Redd
Bobby Simmons
Dan Gadzuric


I could maybe see you guys doing it if you want to blow this thing up and re-build. Cleveland would take all of your bad contracts away with 1 trade. You guys would suck next year, but maybe that isn't a bad thing because you could get a high draft pick and really start to re-build around Yi and Bogut. You also get 2 1st round picks from Cleveland, even if they are lower-level picks. Plus you have TONS of cap room to sign someone else who you other wise wouldn't be able to get. So it is sort of like that player you sign is also included in the deal.

Cleveland does that because adding Michael Redd for little to nothing would probably make us the best team in the East and a strong favorite (if not the favorite) for the NBA title.

[ReddManBogieMan]

How about we give you a bunch of garbage and some crappy low-end picks for your best player?

I say NO
...but a lot of other idiots on here will probably go for it.

[DowJones]

Well it isn't just about a straight trade in terms of talent. Clearly you guys would be getting screwed in terms of talent. What Cleveland would be offering is a chance to start over. They would be taking back your horrible contracts and clearing up tons of cap-space for you to sign new players to deals that you wouldn't be able to before the trade. You guys would be going down the same path that Minnesota is. You will stink for a few years, but at least you cleared out all your bad contracts and you are in a position to re-build. You really can't re-build if you have a bunch of high-paid players that are good enough to keep you in the running for the 7th or 8th seed. Michael Redd and the rest of those guys in the trade aren't going to get any better...they will probably get worse.

[AussieBuck]

How about we give you a bunch of garbage and some crappy low-end picks for your best player?

I say NO
...but a lot of other idiots on here will probably go for it.

Sooo I guess whoever disagrees with you is an idiot? At least you are aware that you are one regardless.

[ReddManBogieMan]

-= original quote snipped =-


Sooo I guess whoever disagrees with you is an idiot? At least you are aware that you are one regardless.

What!?
Try not talking out of your @$$hole, you might make some sense.

Why don't you go drink another Fosters mate.

[AussieBuck]

-= original quote snipped =-



What!?
Try not talking out of your @$$hole, you might make some sense.

Why don't you go drink another Fosters mate.

Read what your wrote champ. Australian's don't drink Fosters either.

[trwi7]

-= original quote snipped =-



What!?
Try not talking out of your @$$hole, you might make some sense.

Why don't you go drink another Fosters mate.

Damnit why did you change it? If you would've kept "you might make some senses" then I could've made fun of you.

[ReddManBogieMan]

Nice catch trwi7

[ReddManBogieMan]

-= original quote snipped =-


Read what your wrote champ. Australian's don't drink Fosters either.

Hey, if you think trading Redd for a lump of crap is a good idea than you are an idiot. I'm sorry if I offended you since I obviously hurt your feelings.

[GrandAdmiralDan]

It makes sense. I actually like your parts but not the whole. I just think you have too many offensive players and not much in the way of toughness on the inside. I also view Redd as an excellent sidekick to a superstar, but not a great guy to build your team around.

Actually, that line of thinking is shared by many people here.
ReddManBogieMan doesn't represent any kind of consensus by any means. Things have shifted regarding people's opinions of Redd this season, and I believe we are to the point where the significant majority of people here desire that we trade Redd. Major differences still exist on what people would be willing to trade Redd in exchange for though.

Cleveland could offer something like this...

Wally Szczerbiak
Eric Snow
Damon Jones
1st round draft pick in 2008 and 2010

In exchange for...

Michael Redd
Bobby Simmons
Dan Gadzuric


I could maybe see you guys doing it if you want to blow this thing up and re-build. Cleveland would take all of your bad contracts away with 1 trade. You guys would suck next year, but maybe that isn't a bad thing because you could get a high draft pick and really start to re-build around Yi and Bogut. You also get 2 1st round picks from Cleveland, even if they are lower-level picks. Plus you have TONS of cap room to sign someone else who you other wise wouldn't be able to get. So it is sort of like that player you sign is also included in the deal.

Cleveland does that because adding Michael Redd for little to nothing would probably make us the best team in the East and a strong favorite (if not the favorite) for the NBA title.

Perhaps.
We wouldn't have as much cap space as you might think though for the 2009 offseason. We'll undoubtedly have a few more salaries for the 09-10 season than our payroll is currently showing for that year. To begin with, there is Andrew Bogut and the first year of his new contract (or extension). Then you have CHarlie Villanueva. We might not intend to keep him since Yi is here, but I really doubt we keep him here until that offseason and then just let him walk as a RFA. I would imagine we either trade him at some point prior to that, re-sign him, or ship him out in a S&T that 2008 offseason. Point being, there will be salary that needs to be accounted for as a result of Villanueva.

Then you've got to add in the Bucks 2008 1st round pick, and that 2008 1st from the Cavs. Then the Bucks 2009 1st round pick. Probably a small cap hold for Ramon Sessions. Will Ersan Ilyasova have returned by then or will we just still have a small cap hold for him? 2008 2nd round pick, 2009 2nd round pick, and whatever free agent or free agents we signed in the 2008 offseason to fill out the roster that also have 09-10 salaries.

We most likely would be either the team with the most cap space or second most cap space that offseason, perhaps in the ballpark of $15 mil.
Would we use that all (well, almost all) on one player? On who? How much would we have to overpay them to come here? Would we have to overpay along the lines of how Orlando overpaid Rashard Lewis? Is that player going to be as good or better than Michael Redd?

Quite a lot of questions there. Tough call.

Also I'd like to point out that by the time we're trading Simmons in that scenario (the 2008 offseason) he only has two years left on his deal. We'll have already paid the first three years of his deal (well, insurance did reimburse us for 80% of the 06-07 salary, but that's besides the point here). Simmons COULD still turn things around, in which case he does not have negative value for Cleveland, but even if he doesn't, it is only that 08-09 season of Simmons that the Cavs really have to swallow then, since after that Simmons himself would be an expiring contract that the Cavs can try to flip in another trade to load up the roster around LeBron.

[th87]

-= original quote snipped =-



Hey, if you think trading Redd for a lump of crap is a good idea than you are an idiot. I'm sorry if I offended you since I obviously hurt your feelings.

It's not a lump of crap - it's expirings. Gives us a chance to reload, since Redd hasn't taken us anywhere.

I'd trade Redd for the right deal (not necessarily this one), and thus I'm the guy that's a realist. You must be the other guy.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

That proposed deal is a pretty good one - I can see reasons for and against it, and it isn't a home run for either team. Usually how real deals are.

[Chapter29]

I would much sooner trade Mo than Redd.

I think that trade is reasonable, but quite honestly only for the picks.

Wally too me is very average, Snow is an old man (though a better PG than anyone on our roster) and I cannot stand Jones. Do we really need another backcourt player who cannot defend? I don't think so. We've exceeded our quota already.

I understand the logic of dumping our high priced scrubs and that this is RealGM, but I don't care one bit about salaries, I care about the talent on the roster. I seldom if ever am for giving up the best player in a trade and liquidating his talent into multiple players or picks.

No deal.

[jeremyd236]

NO DEAL HOWIE

[GrandAdmiralDan]

That proposed deal is a pretty good one - I can see reasons for and against it, and it isn't a home run for either team. Usually how real deals are.

Yep.

I would much sooner trade Mo than Redd.

I think that trade is reasonable, but quite honestly only for the picks.

Wally too me is very average, Snow is an old man (though a better PG than anyone on our roster) and I cannot stand Jones. Do we really need another backcourt player who cannot defend? I don't think so. We've exceeded our quota already.

Yeah, those players are mainly important for their expiring contracts. They would only be one year stop gap players and then they'd be gone (unless Snow wanted to play another year at the minimum salary)

I understand the logic of dumping our high priced scrubs and that this is RealGM, but I don't care one bit about salaries, I care about the talent on the roster. I seldom if ever am for giving up the best player in a trade and liquidating his talent into multiple players or picks.

No deal.

That bold part is a contradictory statement. If you care about the talent on the roster, then you must also care about salaries, since the talent on your roster is directly and indirectly impacted by salaries. That is how the economics of the NBA work. I understand you almost certainly realize that. I'm not saying that as if you don't/can't grasp the concept, but that statement in bold is unfortunately not fitting with the reality of the NBA. If that is just an idealistic statement on your part (that's what I would guess) then I share the sentiment. But I am resigned to being a realist on these matters as opposed to an idealist.