Atlanta Rumoured to be talking trade with Milwaukee

HoopsGuru25 · Post #21 » by **HoopsGuru25** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:56 pm

mrh do you honestly believe what you're typing? Bibby is a better defender than Mo? I couldn't even say that Bibby was a better defender than Lue...he plays defense about as bad as it can be played at the NBA level. Bobby won under Rick Adlemen because he played with really good teammates. Bibby lose in Vancouver because he played with really bad teammates. Don't over-analyze it. Mo is better than Bibby on both ends of the court as of now. As for Parker and Arenas...I never said that Mo was better. However if Parker and Arenas wouldn't be in the NBA if they had the same scoring ability as Jason Kidd. I think you are missing the point actually..you said Mo couldn't be a legit starting point guard because he could only score...I showed you 3 other point guards who are considered good who are below average passers and defenders at their positions who are considered good. You are now backtracking from your previous statements.

I would love to have him on our team(I said I wouldn't trade him for Marvin). He's getting better every year and he's had a career year after a contract year. He improved his assists,turnovers,and scoring efficiency and he's still fairly young. The Bucks board also said that he is making more of an effort to get other players involved unlike previous years.

fo_o_fo_404 · Post #22 » by **fo_o_fo_404** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:58 pm

I'd do the deal.

I've always liked Mo Williams game, and in an uptempo offense, which we should be running, he'd be good for us. He's averaging nearly 7 assts. a game for the Bucks. I like his ball handling skills and his craftiness to find the open man. And he has shown no problem in creating his own shoot. We haven't had a PG distributing assists like that since Mookie. But he is a defensive liability, something Mookie was NOT....but I'd take the lesser of the two evils. He shoots nearly 48% from the field, 86 at the line, and 38 from 3 this season. What's not to like about that? The money owed to him?

Given the minutes, I think Charlie V would put up the same, if not, better numbers than Marvin. I like his post up abilities as well as his ability to shoot the 3...and make the 3. Marvin doesn't have that in his arsenal.

And finally, if we can get Speedy's money off the books..finally..I'm all for it.

HoopsGuru25 · Post #23 » by **HoopsGuru25** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:06 am

I hate to be so hard on Mo, because he's a decent player. He's just not what the Hawks need, and not worth giving up Marvin for.

Here's paulpressley25's (an intelligent Bucks' fan) perspective:

LOL No one is arguing over if Mo Williams is an elite point guard. Of course Bucks fans are going to want an upgrade because they have seen Cassell,Payton,and TJ Ford run their teams over the years. The Hawks need just need stability(some one who holds their own at their position) at the point guard position and he provides that. AJ is a career backup who we are forced to start because of how weak we are at the position. This team would improve alot if we had Andre Miller or Mo Williams starting at the point.

Post #24 » by **HMFFL** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:45 am

fo_o_fo_404 wrote:I'd do the deal.

I've always liked Mo Williams game, and in an uptempo offense, which we should be running, he'd be good for us.

You don't think we can find another up tempo point guard? I don't like the trade and feel we are giving up too much of our future. Marvin is just now coming into his own with his J, and we have yet to see what type of range he's going to offer during the next couple years.

Skyhawk1 · Post #25 » by **Skyhawk1** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:00 am

Marvin is not going anywhere. This trade is horrible. The guy is young and still has a lot to grow. I've said we're set at SF with him for the next 10 years. This trade doesn't make any sense at all.

lunarblues · Post #26 » by **lunarblues** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:06 am

i don't see this trade happening either. i would leave us with 4 point guards and only josh childress at the two. who is going to take marvin's 30 mins a night? CV is a power forward and we have plenty of them in smith, sheldon, zaza, horford and even solomon. all in all it would be a bad trade for us. i can see us trading childress/lue/speedy for mo but not marvin

Post #27 » by **dms269** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:21 am

lunarblues wrote:i don't see this trade happening either. i would leave us with 4 point guards and only josh childress at the two. who is going to take marvin's 30 mins a night? CV is a power forward and we have plenty of them in smith, sheldon, zaza, horford and even solomon. all in all it would be a bad trade for us. i can see us trading childress/lue/speedy for mo but not marvin

You mean only Chill at the 3 right?

positivetension · Post #28 » by **positivetension** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:39 am

How about something centered around: Ford, Graham, 1st for Claxton, Marvin?

lunarblues · Post #29 » by **lunarblues** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:41 am

yeah, i mean we could lose childress since mario west can do some of the things that josh does (defense, energy, rebounding) but marvin can shoot a jumper and that is something we can't do without.

all in all i don't think this trade happens. milwaukee already has enough small forwards and marvin would be redundant with yi and michael redd.

ACE_reppin_ATL · Post #30 » by **ACE_reppin_ATL** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:41 am

IMHO, I'd hate to see Marvin go, but to get rid of Speedy's while keeping Smoove, JJ, and Al is very tempting. Speedy is do nothing but costing us and he is giving us no production. Mo is a pg that can give us quality starter production that we haven't had since probably Mookie. He'll bring at least 16/7 if not more, hit 3s (Lord knows we need some outside shooting help), set us guys, and is just as quick as a healthy Claxton.

Charlie is also a nice filler, because he has tons of potential and in our system he could probably begin to flourish again. He's 6'11, drives the ball, posts up well, rebounds, knocks down 3s (Lord knows we need some outside shooting help - LOL) which also spreads the floor and pulls big men out of the paint - that also helps our rebounding guys clean the glass.

BUT to me, the DEAL BREAKER would be us giving them Law. That would be too much IMO. Even though you take a look at it from there side and think, "Well, they're taking a washed up Claxton who probably will retire after he finishes draining cash from us." But Law has a lot potential once the game slows down and he gets aggressive offensively. I think he has the skills to be "Tony Parker-like"

Mo / Acie - PG problems solved + AJ is a nice backup for the next 2-3 years. He is 4th in the NBA in assist-to-TO!!!

evildallas · Post #31 » by **evildallas** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:42 am

Any rumor involving Claxton seems bogus to me, just my opinion. Mo Williams shows good potential, but is a BYC player meaning we have to take back more salary with him to get it to work. The earlier mentioned deal would have to have someone like Jake Voskuhl and Royal Ivey to balance it. While the trade does a do over on Mo Williams's contract the 2 years of Speedy delay any cost savings until year 3, which can't be to Milwaukee's liking.

If the trade is for real it would be BK admitting publicly that he has made several huge mistakes and his whole philosophy in building the team was wrong. That's the message I receive when trading a former #2 overall pick that was chosen before 3 highly toted PG prospect for a lesser PG and dumping the salary of an injury-prone PG that you signed to a panicked deal after blowing the #5 pick in the draft. I'll believe something like that when it actually happens not when it is rumored.

JoshB914 · Post #32 » by **JoshB914** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:16 am

The Bucks fans didnt suggest Speedy I think it was just in fan created proposals. All it says is that they were trying to get IV and Marvin. I do think Mo could make us a much better team. But that contract isn't worth it, I'd rather have Miller who only has two years left.

Post #33 » by **dms269** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:29 pm

Most of the fans were wanting to give Mo for Marvin straight up, then if they had to give CV they were wanting basically Law+.

Why exactly do we need CV? He is just another pf that will need a chunk of pt, which we don't exactly have a ton to give. Not to mention the fact we would only have chill at the 3.

killbuckner · Post #34 » by **killbuckner** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:50 pm

Speedy is not going to get traded. If he ends up retiring he would come completely off the hawks cap. If he gets traded and retires then his new team doesn't get any cap relief at all. He is more risky to any other team than he is to the hawks.

conleyorbust · Post #35 » by **conleyorbust** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:05 pm

killbuckner wrote:Speedy is not going to get traded. If he ends up retiring he would come completely off the hawks cap. If he gets traded and retires then his new team doesn't get any cap relief at all. He is more risky to any other team than he is to the hawks.

I was gonna say this. My understanding is that he is gonna sit the whole season and re-evaluate for next season. If he can't play then he is eligible for a medical retirement which he might be open to taking. Otherwise he plays and we keep him for a year and then trade him as a one year expiring. If we trade him as a cap liability and then he retires, we lose big time. Is this basically correct?

uga_dawgs, I know its not your idea but at this point it seems like most people are viewing Charlie V as dead weight... or at least not the asset people thought he'd be.