Bucks and Warriors

omeloon · Post #1 » by **omeloon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:59 am

Charlie V for 2008 1st, Pietrus, and Barnes??

ORRRRR

Milwaukee gets more defensive on the wings, and adds a draft pick. Warriors add some size and talent to their front court while giving up two guys who may jet this summer anyways.

Biedrens
Charlie V, Harrington, Wright
JAckson, (Harrington)
Ellis, (Jackson), Marco
Baron, Hudson

$*DIPSET BOI*$ · Post #2 » by **$*DIPSET BOI*$** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:01 am

Both of those trades suck.

Post #3 » by **VintaGe36** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:03 am

GSW values Jackson ALOT more than they could ever value CV or Simmons.

GSW was downright TERRIBLE with Jackson out at the beginning of the year, neither CV or Simmons would make them think about trading him.

The 2nd is really bad too.

Gadz wont start, so hes a REALLY expensive backup,

So Pietrus,Barnes AND A 1st for CV And the displeasure of taking Gadz?

IMHO GSW PASSES without a 2nd thought.

4ho5ive · Post #4 » by **4ho5ive** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:14 am

Wow, this is really bad. Hopefully you are just a disgruntled NJN fan that is upset with tonights loss.

IrishRainbow · Post #5 » by **IrishRainbow** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:46 pm

....again. Is there a pen the Bucks can use?

X_____________

Post #6 » by **gswhoops** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:36 pm

Hopelessly bad for Golden State.

turk3d · Post #7 » by **turk3d** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:57 pm

I'd rather sign CWeb for vets minimum than get Charlie V. for the lousy deal you're proposing. CV straight for Mickey Pete would be the best you could hope for and I'm not sure of that even. CV seems like an Al Harrington clone (and an inferior one at that I might add).

hermes · Post #8 » by **hermes** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:51 pm

bad for the warriors

Post #9 » by **warriorfan650** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:58 pm

We beef up our front court with CV who's like a poor mans version of Harrington who can't rebound either? And to get this all we have to do is trade one of the most vital pieces of our entire team and we can also get back a long contract center we won't use who will get in the way of us being able to re-sign Ellis and Biedrins?

If the sarcasm hasn't hit you, the answer is a clear no.

omeloon · Post #10 » by **omeloon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:43 pm

Pietrus is gone come summer time, and who knows if Barnes re-signs after getting low-balled. So figured the draft pick was well worth Charlie V. Maybe Gadzuric for the trade exception would not have to be included, I just thought Charlie V would be a nice addition. He's a pretty solid rebounder.

Post #11 » by **gswhoops** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:35 pm

omeloon wrote:Pietrus is gone come summer time, and who knows if Barnes re-signs after getting low-balled. So figured the draft pick was well worth Charlie V.

We don't want CV. He's a poor man's Harrington. Definitely not if we have to take on Gadz, which might costs us the ability to resign Ellis or Biedrins this offseason.

omeloon · Post #12 » by **omeloon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:49 pm

Well I edited it. I definitely agree it would be incredibly stupid to deal Stephen Jackson. I just knew I wanted to send Charlie V to GS in some sort of trade, and thats one of few deals I can think of.

I still think that Charlie V for Barnes, Pietrus, and your pick makes a lot of sense though. Charlie V has some nice size and length, having him play some big man minutes wouldn't be bad at all. Harrington's a bit tougher than CV, and Charlie's a better passer, so I think they might be able to compliment each other well

turk3d · Post #13 » by **turk3d** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:50 pm

gswhoops wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

We don't want CV. He's a poor man's Harrington. Definitely not if we have to take on Gadz, which might costs us the ability to resign Ellis or Biedrins this offseason.

We don't care if Pietrus walks next season but he is available to someone who thinks he can help them this season or who may want to get the jump on signing him next season without any obligation. Depending on how things turn out for us next year (which is a long way off to us) we can get in line and bid for him too should we desire to. Even though we'd be happy to move him this season, it's only going to be for something worthwhile (same goes for POB) and we're not going to take back any negative or big contracts or any players that don't provide any immediate help.

At least we know what Pietrus can do (can contribute and provide us with an occasional spark). A guy like CV (who has trouble getting minutes even in Milwaukee and whose effect on chemistry is questionable) is an unknown commodity to us. At least we know that Pete is a good guy and adds something positive from an attitude standpoint.

Barnes falls into the same category for us as Pietrus but even more so. He's perhaps our best sub and even an occasional starter for us and on top of that, we have no contractural obligation to him come next year either. Definitely a real asset. Our FO has done a real good job of eliminating our contractural obligations come next season. This was no accident, and I don't think that this will be jeopardized to bring in any deadweight contracts. They've pretty much been eliminated.

Post #14 » by **gswhoops** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:51 pm

Still no.

Warriors' best offer if Pietrus for Vily straight up. Nothing more.

omeloon · Post #15 » by **omeloon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:19 pm

Wouldn't even give up your draft pick for the potential of CV?!!

Pietrus should have very little value in a trade because of his contract situation.

I understand wanting to keep Barnes, but Pietrus clearly wants out.

Post #16 » by **gswhoops** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:39 pm

omeloon wrote:Wouldn't even give up your draft pick for the potential of CV?!!

Potential? He's been in the league for 3 years and hasn't shown the potential to be anything more than a poor man's Harrington. I'd much rather keep our pick and use it to fill a more pressing need.

turk3d · Post #17 » by **turk3d** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:46 pm

omeloon wrote:Wouldn't even give up your draft pick for the potential of CV?!!

Pietrus should have very little value in a trade because of his contract situation.

I understand wanting to keep Barnes, but Pietrus clearly wants out.

Both were lottery picks. Pietrus has more experience and shown more thus far in his career. You probably won't find anyone better out there who you could get for Villaneuva (who doesn't have much trade value himself as he is unproven at this point and could be considered a big dissapointment so far). Pietrus fits into your team right now (you drafted Yi, therefore there isn't much of a future for Villaneuva in Milwaukee at least as a starter). Maybe we should be the ones asking for a draft pick.

As for you saying not much trade value in Pietrus, maybe not but it depends on what you're trying to do. If you are trying to save money and like the fact that you're not obligated to resign Pietrus next year (consider it an audition) however whoever picks up Charlie is committed to at least another 3.5 M next season, so perhaps you should be the ones giving us a draft pick (could be conditional as to whether or not Pietrus resigns with you). So I'm sorry, I'm not buying your logic (and I'm pretty sure neither will the Warriors front office).

omeloon · Post #18 » by **omeloon** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:18 pm

i hate the Bucks lol, I just want to see Charlie on the Warriors