TI: Ridnour for Mo Evans

LUKE23 · Post #1 » by **LUKE23** » Thu May 28, 2009 3:04 pm

Hey guys,

Bucks fan here. Was just wondering what Hawks fans thoughts on this deal would be? Bucks are looking to clear salary to re-sign Sessions, this would give the Hawks a pretty good backup PG, and one that is expiring. You clear a little salary for 2010-11 by losing Evans $2.5M. Thoughts?

killbuckner · Post #2 » by **killbuckner** » Thu May 28, 2009 3:13 pm

In order for the Hawks to get under the cap to absorb Ridnour they would have to renounce Marvin, Bibby, Childress, and Zaza. For some reason I don't think they would trade all those guys for Ridnour.

HoopsGuru25 · Post #3 » by **HoopsGuru25** » Thu May 28, 2009 3:28 pm

I think the trade would be Ridnour/filler for Mo/Speedy. I don't think I'd do it though.

raleigh · Post #4 » by **raleigh** » Thu May 28, 2009 4:15 pm

Why not just Speedy straight-up for Ridnour?

That saves the Bucks $1.3M, and the Hawks get real competition for Law off the bench...

killbuckner · Post #5 » by **killbuckner** » Thu May 28, 2009 4:50 pm

Ridnour is already an expiring contract- the point of the deal is for someone to absorb salary so they can sign Sessions and Villanueva.

raleigh · Post #6 » by **raleigh** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:06 pm

Eh?

Claxton makes $5.2M next year, Ridnour $6.5M.

It does save money for the Bucks. Not as much, of course, but it still helps.

parson · Post #7 » by **parson** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:08 pm

Without a trade, we'd have Murray, Acie and Speedy. Plus, we'd be negotiating with Bibby. We cannot trade for ANOTHER PG without getting rid of one (or 2) first.

I like Ridnour off the bench for us; he runs a good fast break and he manages the half court offense well. But not with 4 other PGs sitting on the bench.

parson · Post #8 » by **parson** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:10 pm

Besides, Luke23, we'd be more interested in Sessions than Ridnour.

raleigh · Post #9 » by **raleigh** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:32 pm

parson wrote:Without a trade, we'd have Murray, Acie and Speedy. Plus, we'd be negotiating with Bibby. We cannot trade for ANOTHER PG without getting rid of one (or 2) first.

I like Ridnour off the bench for us; he runs a good fast break and he manages the half court offense well. But not with 4 other PGs sitting on the bench.

Murray is a FA.

The Hawks only PG's under contract are Claxton and Law. I don't see how it would hurt to flip Claxton for Ridnour, if the Bucks are game.

evildallas · Post #10 » by **evildallas** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:34 pm

Luke23, your idea is sound, but your trading partner is not. To do what you want you need to find a team under the cap to trade with. There aren't many of those. If Memphis chooses to go with Thabeet in the draft they would be your best candidate.

In all likelihood due to the Gilbert Arenas rule, the Bucks are most likely to match any offer for Sessions with the top possible being the MLE. Then it would be the goal of the team to dump enough salary to get back under the luxury tax by the end of the session. Ridnour dump would be one way, but a more likely way would be smaller deals with savings of a Mil here, a Mil there to get down. The ideal move would be to find someone to take the last 2 years of Michael Redd once he's healthy. Also, I don't see anyway the Bucks can keep Charlie V and stay with the fiscal goals of the ownership though.

These are the sad realities when you have 2 max/near max players and another over 10 mil. It just doesn't leave enough cash to keep everyone.