NYK-MIL Trade That Gets Bucks Under Cap in 2009

REDDzone · Post #41 » by **REDDzone** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:03 pm

This thread blows my mind. Replace a player who is good at scoring and bad at defense with a player equally bad at defense and worse at scoring?

I don't see the logic.

And as I have stated many times, if Mo is ever replaced at PG, it better be for a defensive PG.

Mo has shown he can lead a GREAT offense (top 5 or 6 in the league), its the D that is concerning.

Rockmaninoff · Post #42 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:06 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Billups >>> Lowry (not even close, Billups was damn near MVP level those years)
Hamilton >> Redd (equal offensively, Hamilton is a better defender)
Prince >>> Balkman (not even close)
Rasheed >>> Lee (not even close)
Wallace >>> Bogut (Bogut's a better offensive player, but Wallace was the top defender in the NBA those years along with being an elite rebounder)

Those teams are not even close.

This is where the intangables like chemistry come in. Billups was almost out of the league before he got with those guys. Wallace was a character castaway. Hamilton was average. Prince was a rookie. Ben was a scrub. But, anyway, flame on...

EDIT: This is also where a hands-off owner, a prophetic GM, and a great veteran coach come into play.

Rockmaninoff · Post #43 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:08 pm

REDDzone wrote:This thread blows my mind. Replace a player who is good at scoring and bad at defense with a player equally bad at defense and worse at scoring?

I don't see the logic.

And as I have stated many times, if Mo is ever replaced at PG, it better be for a defensive PG.

Mo has shown he can lead a GREAT offense (top 5 or 6 in the league), its the D that is concerning.

AGAIN, I wouldn't want to put Robinson in the starting point guard role (maybe PP, but not me). BUT, I also don't think that Williams is a bonefied starting point guard either. They are both 6th man type combo guards off the bench. Williams IS better for this role, except, he now costs too much for this role.

REDDzone · Post #44 » by **REDDzone** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:11 pm

Rockmaninoff wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

AGAIN, I wouldn't want to put Robinson in the starting point guard role (maybe PP, but not me). BUT, I also don't think that Williams is a bonefied starting point guard either. They are both 6th man type combo guards off the bench. Williams IS better for this role, except, he now costs too much for this role.

Sorry, I admit I sort of skimmed the thread.

I just dislike all Knicks, besides Lee/Balkman.

Fight the Tank · Post #45 » by **Fight the Tank** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:16 pm

Side question to this trade....Would any of you trade Yi for David Lee straight up? I think I would.

If only David Lee were Chinese.

Fight the Tank · Post #46 » by **Fight the Tank** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:19 pm

midranger wrote:IDK. I'm not blown away by any of the prospects this year, even the top few.

If we ended up at 7-8, I'd give a look at Lee (a productive player already), and Balkman (defensive prospect on the wing, which is likely what we'd be drafting anyway), and massive salary cap purge. Of course follow-up deals would be needed, but this is a start.

Redd for Larry Hughes + Chicago 1st (10th pick)

CV for Kyle Lowry

Draft Thabeet @ 10

Sign Childress with MLE

Mo - Lowry
Hughes - Bell
Childress - Mason
Yi - Lee
Bogut - Thabeet

Sessions
Balkman

Potential trade chips at the break include Mo, Marbury's expiring, Balkman, Desmond's expiring, Bell, etc... Plenty to choose from.

At the very least, the defense should be improved. Bogut would certainly have to step up as a 17-19 point scorer and Mo would have to chip in with 17 or so too. But, Rome wasn't built in a day. This would be a step toward changing the pervasive attitude here.

Very nice.... :clap:

LUKE23 · Post #47 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:22 pm

Bogutneedsball wrote:Side question to this trade....Would any of you trade Yi for David Lee straight up? I think I would.

If only David Lee were Chinese.

Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with race, Lee is a solid player but has zero ceiling, while Yi is much more of an unknown but has the athletic ability/skills to MAYBE become a star. There is a reason Yi was drafted 6th and Lee was taken 30th.

People are all enamored with all of these chemistry guys. We need a star first before any of that matters.

Fight the Tank · Post #48 » by **Fight the Tank** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:30 pm

LUKE23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with race, Lee is a solid player but has zero ceiling, while Yi is much more of an unknown but has the athletic ability/skills to MAYBE become a star. There is a reason Yi was drafted 6th and Lee was taken 30th.

People are all enamored with all of these chemistry guys. We need a star first before any of that matters.

I agree Yi may have more upside but they both may be about the same age. Also Yi is always going to be more committed to the Chinese then to the Bucks. I really hope the Bucks shop Yi this offseason.

coolhandluke121 · Post #49 » by **coolhandluke121** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:31 pm

That doesn't give the Bucks any cap space unless they let CV, Lee, or Bogut walk for nothing. Otherwise those 3 will have cap holds.

And Lee is overhyped because he's the only thing the Knicks have going for them. Some people in NY probably think they could get Boozer for Lee or something like that, but fortunately gm's don't rely on the NY media to do their scouting.

I love the idea of trading for Marbury but this is not the ticket at all. You have a chance to get a good player in the draft, but Lee and Balkman are just role players who have already peaked. It's only because they got minutes on a bad team that they've done anything at all. C'mon, you think adding a bad team's role players instead of a top 7 pick does anything for the Bucks??