RealGM

Would you unload Redd just to get rid of Mo and Gadz and start over? Rose and Starbury would be here for one year and then off the books. After that we just have Bogut, Yi, Bell, Sessions, Simmons and whoever we draft this year as guys we're committed too. The team obviously isn't going to win right away, but at least we have the junk off the books and our GM can start over.

I would consider it if they tossed in their draft pick. But that is awful to think about. We'd stink out loud for a couple of years. But I guess Johnny boy is going to have to make some painful changes to right the ship.

I'd do that.

I would love this trade, and it would make Hammonds rebuilding process much easier.

However, Donnie Walsh is running things in new york now so I'm not sure if he'd be on board with adding two stat whores and dead weight (gadz).

He already has enough of those in NY.

Why do you guys assume Hammond wants to "start over" and get younger? Why do you think he wants another draft pick?

He's stated that he'd like trading a draft pick for a proven player, and this trade doesn't make any sense in that regard.

thats the worse trade possible for the bucks...and from what I understand Hammond is not a blow it up type of GM....sorry tanking fans.

ssssssnake wrote:Would you unload Redd just to get rid of Mo and Gadz and start over?

Would you unload Mo just to get rid of Redd?

why not just trade Mo Will to Portland for Raef (expiring), Jack, and fillers?

ssssssnake wrote:Would you unload Redd just to get rid of Mo and Gadz and start over? Rose and Starbury would be here for one year and then off the books. After that we just have Bogut, Yi, Bell, Sessions, Simmons and whoever we draft this year as guys we're committed too. The team obviously isn't going to win right away, but at least we have the junk off the books and our GM can start over.

This trade is garbage. I rather deal Mo first in a easy trade then sacrifice like 4 years of lossing first. Starbury is garbage now. Rose isn't nothing either. I rather trade for Brand or some vet to pair up with Bogut and Redd. Not gut the Bucks out completely for a kill for draft pick we could screw up drafting. I say the trade bait is anyone but Bogut and Redd. I want vets now. Or try a Mo and #7 and Cv for Josh Smith and him extended and a filler.

it's been said man y times before- Milwaukee is not a ver y smart tea m whe n it comes to being able t o use extra ca p space. and it's not like Kobe or lebron want to come t o Milwaukee eve n if we had 40 million in ca p space. if we acquired Starbury and rose and tried t o use their ca p space , al l we would attract is more mediocre free agents, and we'd over pay them.

if we trade Mo, redd and gadz , we need to trade them for either draft picks or actual players we can use and also keep. like Artest, A miller and G o'neal.

We have to get something for Mo and Redd.

I'd rather wait two years to clean the cap rather than getting nothing for those two guys.

why do some people think just because you have cap space that we can sign any player...has anyone noticed that some players take less money to go to a team they really want to go to.

stop with the cap space trades until we are a winning franchise again, and then the players will take notice.

Even though I am not a fan of the Anthony Mason signing and he was a cancer he was an all star the year before we signed him, the point is when you win players in that status will want to sign here.

I'm a fan of cap space simply because it would allow us to take back more salary than we give out.

To say nothing of the fact that if the Bucks wanted, they could trade Marbury again next Februray to a team looking to dump cap space like the Grizzlies did this spring.

I want both Redd and Mo gone as much as many others here, but i'd hope in trading both that we get more than just expiring contracts.


With that said, my guess is Walsh wouldn't make this trade either. Thomas put the Knicks in cap hell and the last thing that team needs is a duo of overpaid soft non-defenders that only really score well and would just prolong their cap problems.

The Knicks already have their fill of soft shooters that don't defend and provide no leadership.

NO!

by taking on the expiring contracts of starberry and rose, and essentually just giving away redd and M o for nothing but expiring contracts, that would appear to me that those in favor of this trade would also be in favor of tanking another season away. it seems odd you want to give away our best players for expiring contracts, but you always seem against tanking. any deal involving starberry for redd would have to include unprotetcted lottery draft picks.

wouldn't keeping Larry K as coach accomplish the same thing?

MajorDad wrote:it's been said man y times before- Milwaukee is not a ver y smart tea m whe n it comes to being able t o use extra ca p space. and it's not like Kobe or lebron want to come t o Milwaukee eve n if we had 40 million in ca p space. if we acquired Starbury and rose and tried t o use their ca p space , al l we would attract is more mediocre free agents, and we'd over pay them.

if we trade Mo, redd and gadz , we need to trade them for either draft picks or actual players we can use and also keep. like Artest, A miller and G o'neal.

Precisely. Mo & Redd have some value. The Bucks should be able to get somebody solid for the two of them. If the Bucks get nothing, it is a complete waste of an opportunity to improve the team.

midranger wrote:I'd rather wait two years to clean the cap rather than getting nothing for those two guys.

Yeah, that's kind of where I'm at too. I've had this realization since the Mo signing that the Bucks were flat out screwed for a few years. Everyone else seems to want to fix it quick by trading our junk for good players. I know that's not going to happen so I tossed out a reasonable trade that might work that would get rid of our junk.


I agree though. I think the Bucks should just stay the course, make sure to extend the right players. Make sure to not bring in any more high priced junk and let the garbage fall off the books naturally. It sucks because the Bucks are going to suck really bad for the next 3 years, but that is where we're at. If this is what an exciting GM brings, give me antoher Ted Thompson.

ssssssnake wrote:Would you unload Redd just to get rid of Mo and Gadz and start over? Rose and Starbury would be here for one year and then off the books. After that we just have Bogut, Yi, Bell, Sessions, Simmons and whoever we draft this year as guys we're committed too. The team obviously isn't going to win right away, but at least we have the junk off the books and our GM can start over.

You ARE JUST copying everything I say!

I said this a thousdand times and you are repeating it here instead of giving me credit for having said it.

You all do that to me all the time that bugs the hell out of me...at times. So I have to run in here and let you know. Of course you bring a guy we drafted Stephon Marbury in.

Keep Malik Rose and bring in Zach Randolph or Randolph Morris and or Wilson Chandler with him instead. But Malik will do too if that is a deal breaker...

Yes you bring in a guy like Marbury like I said 3 months ago! Either him or a Steve Francis who Van Gundy has coached and can handle, and allow a guy like Sessions who whoever to mature under them!

Both Van Gundy or Larry Brown can handle a pysche like these men if you want to go that way but that is what you need. Marbury has a big contract like you said that comes off the books as well.

You still want to win as well. Many of you will roll your eyes at Marbury and Francis but then again what do we all know?

WHAT HAVE WE WON!?

This is what you do...don't draft one like Rose! You need MICHAEL BEASELEY OR ERIC GORDON....MARK MY WORDS!

[quote="NotYoAvgNBAFan"][/quote]