Trade Idea:Redd/CV for Crawford/Lee/Rose

[europa]

Well, IMO the ball movement has been good with Redd so far this year. I'd like to see him more under Skiles because the sample size is small, but overall he's forced very few shots this year.

Yup. He's played within the system so there's no reason at this point to want to trade him for that reason. I think if Hammond wanted to be rid of Redd's salary and not try to win, he would've traded him to the Cavs for the garbage they had to offer. But he didn't. He places a value on Redd's ability to score and that ability to score has looked even more valuable and important the past five games. So I doubt at this time that Hammond will make a decision on Redd now he clearly didn't want to make this past summer.

[LUKE23]

I expect zero moves this season. Given our salary window is three seasons (as far as financial flexibility), I don't think Hammond is in a big rush to try and make moves, and IMO he shouldn't be. Let this core play a season under Skiles.

[paulpressey25]

I think there are two reasons to give if you prefer Crawford to Redd. Ball movement and salary.

Yes.

And while I know Lee isn't the ideal PF, I'm at a loss where we find that guy. Lee would be fine as a stopgap and I think work well with Skiles. He'd be consistent which CV is not. And I'm not convinced yet that Joe Alexander has the aptitude or skills for rebounding.

We can't fill all this team's holes in one deal. And I'm trying to come up with something semi-realistic.

And no, this trade doesn't make us a player in Free Agency. But it allows us to have a PF slot at $7-$8mm a year now carved out with the savings between Redd and JC. I question whether we can afford a $7-8mm PF salary slot next season for any PF we might be able to acquire. More importantly, it allows Hammond a lot more flexibility in future trades. There are few if any teams that can take on Redd's $51 million.

[LUKE23]

And no, this trade doesn't make us a player in Free Agency. But it allows us to have a PF slot at $7-$8mm a year now carved out with the savings between Redd and JC. I question whether we can afford a $7-8mm PF salary slot next season for any PF we might be able to acquire. More importantly, it allows Hammond a lot more flexibility in future trades. There are few if any teams that can take on Redd's $51 million

I'm not going to look it up, but I'm willing to wager that even with the Redd to Crawford salary savings, if you count all of our current salaries on the books for next year and add in Sessions' expected extension figure (he will get re-signed), that we only have the MLE to spend next year whether we have Redd or Crawford.

If I had to ballpark it I'd say we're at around $55M with Crawford over Redd, and that is assuming we don't also re-up David Lee.

[paulpressey25]

I'm not going to look it up, but I'm willing to wager that even with the Redd to Crawford salary savings.

Here are the savings for next year:

Redd $17.0 million. Crawford $9.3 million.

CV's qualifying offer: $4.6 million. Lee's qualifying offer: $2.6 million.

Assume CV/Lee don't get good contract offers and take their QO's, we save $9.7 million next year in new salary savings from making this deal. $10 million of salary flexibility is big. Essentially in this scenario we get the Rose expiring contract as 100% salary relief if we lose Lee for nothing.

[europa]

Again I'll point out that Hammond had no interest in trading Redd for cap relief in the summer so I see no reason why he would want to do it now - especially given how Redd was playing well and really seemed to be buying into Skiles' system before his injury.

[LUKE23]

We are at $55M with Crawford and without Lee for 2009-10. If you add Sessions' extension and our 2009 first rounder to that, you're at $60M+. In other words, MLE only to use whether you have Redd or Crawford.

If you're doing this deal, it's because you think it helps us in the win column. I don't see that at all.

Like I said, nothing significant is happening for this team in FA until after 2010-11, barring a major complete scrap (Redd/RJ/Gadz all traded for 2008-09 expirings).

[Nowak008]

Why would NY do this? They are looking to shed salary not add to it. They are already in tax land, do they really want to pay 15 mil cash to "upgrade" to Redd?

[paulpressey25]

Again I'll point out that Hammond had no interest in trading Redd for cap relief in the summer so I see no reason why he would want to do it now

We just have different perspectives on the players. I see cap relief and two valuable guys coming back this way under the Knicks deal. Under the Cleveland garbage scenario, I didn't want that deal unless it was bringing back AV our way. Here, Lee isn't as good as AV IMO, but he's close. And Crawford is much better than Wally.

[europa]

Again I'll point out that Hammond had no interest in trading Redd for cap relief in the summer so I see no reason why he would want to do it now

We just have different perspectives on the players. I see cap relief and two valuable guys coming back this way under the Knicks deal. Under the Cleveland garbage scenario, I didn't want that deal unless it was bringing back AV our way. Here, Lee isn't as good as AV IMO, but he's close. And Crawford is much better than Wally.

I see one valuable guy (Lee) and another who is a significant downgrade from the team's best offensive player. Given the significant offensive issues the team has had without Redd and given how Hammond hasn't shown a strong inclination to want to trade Redd to save money, I don't see why he'd go for the deal you propose.

[xTitan]

Did Crawford play under Skiles in Chicago or was he gone? I am seriously wondering if those 2 would gel at all. I am guessing neither team would do this deal and I don't think either team is looking to deal now unless it is bad contracts....Gadz or Marbury.

[Big Chan]

I'm a Knick fan, and i hate Crawford. Even with saying that i wouldn't do this deal. The only way i would do it is if we could shed EVERYONE elses long term commitments before 2010 so we can get involved in FA. Redd is a good player, but he has the same deficiencies as Crawford, and i like Lee better than CV even if im being a bit of a homer. If a first round pick was involved i would jump on it, but this is a lateral move which adds salary, so i say no.

From your guys end i would say HELL NO, Crawford is a worse player than Redd and Lee is only marginally better than CV. Crawford would also NEVER get along with Skiles, absolutely never.

I also couldnt look at CV's hairless face 82 games a year

[LUKE23]

Crawford played for Skiles only the first partial season he coached the Bulls. He was jettisoned that offseason after the partial season.

[EastSideBucksFan]

Didn't Skiles exile Crawford from Chicago?


I can't see a reunion to be honest.

[MikeIsGood]

Since when is Crawford better with the three ball?

I'm still struggling to understand how anyone could say he's better than Redd. He's a considerably worse shooter, at best he's a wash defensively and he isn't close to Redd's equal in terms of getting to the line - which happens to be a pretty big deal for this team at the moment. I like Lee and would gladly take him over Villanueva, but just say no to Crawford.

Probably because of the way Crawford is shooting this year in D's new system. But lest we all forget that Redd has looked like a rejuvenated 3-point shooter himself. Not that it was ever abandoned, but so far this year when Redd has been on the floor he's been looking for and hitting more 3s than he has since he entered the Bucks starting lineup many seasons ago. It's been a small sample, but it felt like something that would continue because it was working. And Crawford's numbers are a small sample also.

I thought ball movement was fine when Redd was playing. When it got to the point that you'd say to yourself, "Same old Max Green," Skiles would yank him, and he'd come back later with better decision making and better effort on defense to boot.

I don't want to trade Redd without seeing more games with him healthy. If he had been healthy all season I think we'd have an improved record. I've liked what I've seen this year.

[Dexmor]

You guys are living in a fantasy land and when you don't know things you guess and half the time guess wrong. I don't mean all of you but enough but the ones who dont want RJ back or think Alexander will take his spot or Luc will or something insane like that.

1.Crawford might be shooting the lights out right now but it won't last. He is streaky scorer on hot streak not a pure shooter like Redd.
His defense is horrible worse then Redd's. As a matter of fact the only people who would want him over Redd are Bucks fans which makes this more baizzare.
2.Alexander is not going to overtake RJ in the lineup. Why some of you guys want him gone to is beyond me. I know his game better then almost anybody seeing as I have watched almost all of them since he has been in the league. I thought maybe I was missing something with Redd but now I know some of you take crazy pills.

It seems if your not a Buck your great but once you become a Buck you suck, I don't understand the hatred towards some of the players on the team and some of the overrated of the other guys.

[Joana]

How many Jamal Crawfords do the Knicks have in their roster? Ball movement? Ball movement would be the last thing I'd associate with Crawford, with defense coming in second. I really believe that some of you are thinking about some other player and mistaken his name. He may be sharing the ball a little bit more in D'Antoni's system (that fits him very well, btw), but so is Redd under Skiles. Honestly, I'd rather trade for Marbury's expiring than for Crawford.

Lee for a $7 million/year contract would be a huge mistake. In a couple of months, this board would be full filed with "Trade Lee for x" threads. What kind of improvement is Lee over Villanueva, LRMAM or Ilyasova? Considering that he'd have to be paired with Bogut on the defensive end, I'm not even sure if there's an improvement at all.

This trade would only have two purposes: save the ownership some bucks - but it wouldn't create any kind of cap room or flexibility, now or in the future -, and make the team much weaker.

What brings Redd's trade value down as of now is the obscene amount of money remaining to be paid in his contract. As long as he keeps playing as he's been so far this season, his trade value will raise in the future, merely because there'll be less money left in his contract and the risk will become more acceptable. Trade Redd for salaries would only make sense if we could translate that money into cap room.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Honestly, I'd rather trade for Marbury's expiring than for Crawford.

Me too I think - Redd + Gadz for Marbury's contract would be better if we're trying to redistribute salary. We could then use the full MLE this summer and the next to sign guys to more reasonable contracts than Crawford's.

[Nowak008]

Honestly, I'd rather trade for Marbury's expiring than for Crawford.

Me too I think - Redd + Gadz for Marbury's contract would be better if we're trying to redistribute salary. We could then use the full MLE this summer and the next to sign guys to more reasonable contracts than Crawford's.

Along with resigning Sessions and hopefully bringing Ersan over. I'd love to make that deal although, there not a chance the Knicks make that trade.

[LUKE23]

Knicks would consider that deal. They have no hope of getting under the salary cap the next three seasons no matter what they do, so for them it would be a move to improve talent, and they wouldn't be caring much about adding salary, especially since it's not past the three-year salary window.

From the Bucks standpoint, don't see the point unless we're going to do a full rebuild, which is unlikely less than one year into the Skiles/Hammond experiment.