CV's Trade Value

[raferfenix]

Debates have been running rampant as to how much CV could and should cost us this summer. However, I have seen very little discussion of our potential options if the Bucks decide--for whatever reason--that it's best to trade him at the deadline.

So what is CV's value these days? Higher than Carl Landry, or do the Rockets still shut down that deal? Enough to get a team to take Gadz? Enough to combine with RJ for a bigger upgrade? Or, is he still viewed as Tim Thomas 2.0?

[paulpressey25]

The fact he is still going to be an RFA is a problem.

I think he's clearly worth more than Landry at this point.

[RayRayJones]

Based on January, I'd say he's higher than Landry (I've always thought he was in the first place and was one of the few strongly against that trade) and slightly better than TT2. I don't know about taking Gadz, because while Gadz is on a horrible contract and is at best a backup C, it's not like some teams out there couldn't use him. I don't think we'd be able to pair him with RJ to get an upgrade because there aren't any teams out there that will trade a big enough upgrade from what would be perceived as fair value for the two of them.

I don't think we'll trade him at the deadline. Right now, regardless of what the front office may lead on with Sessions or what not, I think it's absurd to think they've got the mindset of having CV be dumped at the end of the year with his play after his slow start. Everything we've heard from league sources and from the Bucks themselves is that it's RJ being shopped for relief, not CV for value.

[Baddy Chuck]

If we dump Rjeff (Lafrentz/Wally) I would like to bring him back, wouldn't bring him back over Sessions though. If we could though I'd consider using him to dump Gadz.

[raferfenix]

The Rockets are actively imploding, and with CV's dramatically improved play I can see them valuing him a ton more than they did before. McGrady is looking like his game has had it---at hte least in Houston, as many of their fans at least are saying he's been dogging it. Artest has also supposedly contributed in blowing up their lockerroom.

They are a team in desperate need of a long term #2 scorer next to Yao, and I'm hoping that with his improved play we can snag much more than Landry from them.

For instance---if we trade RJ (in this or another deal), Shane Battier would be a particularly great fit here (epitomizing all that is a Skiles kind of player). I can see Herb Kohl loving the added attention we'd get if we get Tracy Mcgrady, and even if his game is not resucitable he's a free agent year after next.

[apdamico]

The fact he is still going to be an RFA is a problem.

I think he's clearly worth more than Landry at this point.

I used to like the idea of CV for Landry, but not any longer. Hopefully Hammond has the same opinion concerning CV as he does with Sessions, "Couldn't see him in the plans 6-weeks ago, but now our opinion has changed". The fact that statement was only made about Sessions could mean Hammond is still shopping CV, but I think with CV's improved play, he's worth much more now than 6-weeks ago.

[midranger]

I find it hard to trust Hammond's opinions of young players.

[M. Pemulis]

I find it hard to trust Hammond's opinions of young players.

I don't. We could have traded Sessions and CV last offseason, but instead we got rid of Yi, locked up Bogut, and tested Sessions and CV. I'm happy with how that worked out. The Prince is a stud 2nd rounder, and JA isn't yet a bust, despite what Wilt fans would have us believe.

[europa]

The fact he is still going to be an RFA is a problem.

It's a problem but if a team really liked Villanueva it stands to reason they'd want to get him now and be in the driver's seat to re-sign him next summer. As a RFA, the chances of Villanueva leaving that team aren't strong assuming that team wants to keep him. What I find curious is we keep hearing these reports that teams are more impressed with Villanueva now and yet there isn't a single reported offer having been made since the Landry deal fell through. If teams are more interested, somebody should be offering Hammond something for the guy. But it's awfully quiet at the moment.

[paulpressey25]

Nobody wants to touch him because they can't value him. No one knows if he's exploding out and will be a 20/10 player for the next five years ala Jamison or if he'll revert back to a 13/6 bench guy.

Add in the second unknown variable of how much he costs next year. I'd value the enigma CV is right now at about $22 million dollars on a 3-4 year contract at most. But if I'm a GM and trade for CV, I could get burned as CV might do great in March and April and have someone like Memphis knock on the door with a 5-year/$50mm offer. As we learned with Tim Thomas, Mo Williams, Bell and Redd, it only takes one over-zealous team to screw up the market price of a guy.

It is too many variables. His play is a variable. His price is a variable. But that's where the Bucks are in the driver's seat to have a shot at getting him for a market or below market price. Even if it is the QO for next year.

[europa]

Nobody wants to touch him because they can't value him.

I agree his value is difficult to ascertain. And that's why I don't think it's a slam-dunk decision for Hammond to sign him no matter what.

[paulpressey25]

I agree his value is difficult to ascertain. And that's why I don't think it's a slam-dunk decision for Hammond to sign him no matter what.

It's a slam dunk at 3-years/$21 million. No team has gone broke or been handicapped with a 6-10" guy who at a minimum gives you 13/6 off the bench at that price. Three years is what takes the risk out.

Think of Jason Caffey at 7/$35 or Brian Cardinal and Etan Thomas at 6/$40. Those were awful deals.

[europa]

I agree his value is difficult to ascertain. And that's why I don't think it's a slam-dunk decision for Hammond to sign him no matter what.

It's a slam dunk at 3-years/$21 million. No team has gone broke or been handicapped with a 6-10" guy who at a minimum gives you 13/6 off the bench at that price. Three years is what takes the risk out.

3/$21M is what I posted a few weeks back as my price tag for Villanueva. I would not under any circumstances give him a longer deal unless the fourth year was a team option and I'd be very reluctant to give him a higher average salary. But I could live with 3/$21M for him.

[GrandAdmiralDan]

I find it hard to trust Hammond's opinions of young players.

I don't. We could have traded Sessions and CV last offseason, but instead we got rid of Yi, locked up Bogut, and tested Sessions and CV. I'm happy with how that worked out. The Prince is a stud 2nd rounder, and JA isn't yet a bust, despite what Wilt fans would have us believe.

I can't give Hammond credit on CV though, because Hammond was trying hard to trade CV. I don't think you can credit Hammond for not pulling the trigger on any of the trades he was offered for CV, because the only offers we were getting would have been rejected by even europa and CBQ

[europa]

because the only offers we were getting would have been rejected by even europa and CBQ

Yup. There's no way I would've traded him for the crap Hammond was being offered last summer. And if I didn't like the offers given my feelings about Villanueva, people can imagine for themselves how bad they must've been.

I still find it curious that we haven't heard a peep about any offers for Villanueva since the Houston deal fell through even though we keep getting reports about how more teams are impressed with his play this season.

[M. Pemulis]

I'm a big CV fan, but it worries me that his recent fantastic play is predicated on hitting 3s. What happens when his 3-point shooting comes back down to earth? Is he still worth that 4/32 contract some of us want to give him?

Also, let's not forget too that CV is marked by the league as a "lazy" player and a weak defender. Despite his improved play, league GMs might be wary of matching CV with their coach, particularly ones not as strong as Skiles. Maybe we end up getting him at 3/21 after all.

[europa]

Despite his improved play, league GMs might be wary of matching CV with their coach, particularly ones not as strong as Skiles.

This is an excellent point and it's one I was going to mention earlier but forgot to. I do think people around the league might be wondering if Villanueva is having success because he has such a demanding head coach and that if he's placed back in a situation like he's had previously he might regress again. I think that's a valid question and as you pointed out, it could impact his market value and help the Bucks should they decide they want to keep him.

[M. Pemulis]

I find it hard to trust Hammond's opinions of young players.

I don't. We could have traded Sessions and CV last offseason, but instead we got rid of Yi, locked up Bogut, and tested Sessions and CV. I'm happy with how that worked out. The Prince is a stud 2nd rounder, and JA isn't yet a bust, despite what Wilt fans would have us believe.

I can't give Hammond credit on CV though, because Hammond was trying hard to trade CV. I don't think you can credit Hammond for not pulling the trigger on any of the trades he was offered for CV, because the only offers we were getting would have been rejected by even europa and CBQ

Maybe you have more knowledge of just how little was being offered for CV, GAD, but my memory of last summer was that many on the board were incredibly down on CV, particularly with Skiles as coach, and would have been fine trading him for peanuts. To Hammond's credit he held onto CV and moved Yi, and we now find ourselves in a better position for having done so.

[europa]

Maybe you have more knowledge of just how little was being offered for CV, GAD, but my memory of last summer was that many on the board were incredibly down on CV, particularly with Skiles as coach, and would have been fine trading him for peanuts. To Hammond's credit he held onto CV and moved Yi, and we now find ourselves in a better position for having done so.

The common belief around the league - and this was supported in several published reports - was that Villanueva and Skiles wouldn't mesh. To Villanueva's credit, he's fit in well first coming off the bench and now as a starter playing by far the best ball of his career. He has definitely responded to Skiles' method of coaching this season.

[M. Pemulis]

The common belief around the league - and this was supported in several published reports - was that Villanueva and Skiles wouldn't mesh. To Villanueva's credit, he's fit in well first coming off the bench and now as a starter playing by far the best ball of his career. He has definitely responded to Skiles' method of coaching this season.

Agreed. Maybe I'm naive, but I find it far more plausible that CV's improved play is due to Skiles and not the fact that he's in a contract year. That's why I'm comfortable with 4/32.