ImageImage

Kohl defends why he declined the Randolph Trade...

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25

Bucks_Revenge
Banned User
Posts: 7,978
And1: 1
Joined: Oct 13, 2004

Kohl defends why he declined the Randolph Trade... 

Post#1 » by Bucks_Revenge » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:28 pm

don't want to impugn him, because I've never met him," Kohl said about Randolph. "Zach started out in Portland, and at the point they traded him, they really wanted to do that. He did not help them win."

"Then they traded him to New York, and within six months they wanted him out. They were prepared to trade him to the Bucks or anyone else. And he had three years, plus this year, remaining on his contract, which was over $50 million."

"Now any owner, I submit, who would not take an interest in that and would not want to be a part of that decision, is not doing his job. When it comes to decisions of that magnitude, the owner needs to be on board."


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=730301

I guess he is right a little.
#1knickfan
Banned User
Posts: 3,590
And1: 2
Joined: Apr 26, 2007

 

Post#2 » by #1knickfan » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:42 pm

Ha....so it wasn't that the Bucks didn't want to do the deal. The problem was that the Bucks have a smart enough owner to put the orchestrator of their struggling team on a short leash unlike Dolan.
User avatar
LUKE23
RealGM
Posts: 72,752
And1: 6,957
Joined: May 26, 2005
Location: Stunville
       

 

Post#3 » by LUKE23 » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:43 pm

#1knickfan wrote:Ha....so it wasn't that the Bucks didn't want to do the deal. The problem was that the Bucks have a smart enough owner to put the orchestrator of their struggling team on a short leash unlike Dolan.


I think you are a member of the only fanbase that would call anything about the Bucks "smart".
LockDownD
Pro Prospect
Posts: 946
And1: 11
Joined: Oct 08, 2006
Location: Save your urolagniac fantasies for a more approriate board

 

Post#4 » by LockDownD » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:50 pm

I do not mettle in affairs

I did block the Randolph trade

we need a fresh perspective

I will check with Ron and Co.

I would be open to hiring Pres. of b.b. operations, sure, in title only

stop talking out of both sides of your mouth, no one is buying it anymore. Your commitment maybe to win but your management is fruitless.
User avatar
BuckFan25226
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,707
And1: 1,091
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Wauwatosa, WI

 

Post#5 » by BuckFan25226 » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:37 pm

If there is one trade I am happy about Kohl nixing, it's the Randolph deal.
"didnt you watch the game with the raptors?bucks is also a playoff team ,they have enough ability to find wins from dalas and utach,
blow jazzs bitches and mavericks bitches out !"

- yiyiyi
User avatar
blkout
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,689
And1: 1,914
Joined: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Melbourne
 

 

Post#6 » by blkout » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:42 pm

BuckFan25226 wrote:If there is one trade I am happy about Kohl nixing, it's the Randolph deal.
Image
User avatar
jerrod
RealGM
Posts: 34,178
And1: 133
Joined: Aug 31, 2003
Location: The Berkeley of the midwest/ born with the intent/ to distress any government/ right of the left
     

 

Post#7 » by jerrod » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:44 pm

i'm willing to bet that if boozer was here, this wouldn't have come up
Ruzious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,909
And1: 11,582
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

 

Post#8 » by Ruzious » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:47 pm

While I'm glad the Bucks didn't trade for Randoph, you can't have the owner interfering like that and succeed, imo. Hopefully, the new GM will have more autonomy. And hopefully, he'll be competent!
User avatar
moocow007
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 98,229
And1: 25,675
Joined: Jan 07, 2002
Location: In front of the computer, where else?
       

 

Post#9 » by moocow007 » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:15 pm

jerrod wrote:i'm willing to bet that if boozer was here, this wouldn't have come up


You wouldn't have been able to get Boozer for the Bucks players mentioned in the RAndolh deal is the problem.

Randolph is most definitely no winner but the way Kohl presented it he made it seem like that he was looking at dealing key players that are known winners making significantly less than $50 million which was not the case at all...on any level.

The Bucks essentially would have been dealing 3 lesser players making slightly more money combined for a single more talented player making slightly less money with none of the players involved having helped any of the teams they've been on win anything.
midranger
RealGM
Posts: 39,434
And1: 11,238
Joined: May 12, 2002

 

Post#10 » by midranger » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:22 pm

moocow007 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



You wouldn't have been able to get Boozer for the Bucks players mentioned in the RAndolh deal is the problem.

Randolph is most definitely no winner but the way Kohl presented it he made it seem like that he was looking at dealing key players that are known winners making significantly less than $50 million which was not the case at all...on any level.

The Bucks essentially would have been dealing 3 lesser players making slightly more money combined for a single more talented player making slightly less money with none of the players involved having helped any of the teams they've been on win anything.


Two years ago, Larry Harris presented Herb Kohl with this deal, already agreed upon by the Utah Jazz....

Mo Williams and Jamaal Magloire for Carlos Boozer and Ronnie Brewer's pick

At the time, Boozer was seem somewhat like Randolph and Kohl killed the trade and told Harris that he had to find a low priced PF which lead directly to TJ Ford for Charlie Villanueva.

Also, this past summer, Kohl killed a Yi/Simmons for Marion deal.
User avatar
moocow007
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 98,229
And1: 25,675
Joined: Jan 07, 2002
Location: In front of the computer, where else?
       

 

Post#11 » by moocow007 » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:31 pm

midranger wrote:Two years ago, Larry Harris presented Herb Kohl with this deal, already agreed upon by the Utah Jazz....

Mo Williams and Jamaal Magloire for Carlos Boozer and Ronnie Brewer's pick

At the time, Boozer was seem somewhat like Randolph and Kohl killed the trade and told Harris that he had to find a low priced PF which lead directly to TJ Ford for Charlie Villanueva.

Also, this past summer, Kohl killed a Yi/Simmons for Marion deal.


Oh I don't disagree and Kohl does seem to cabosh a lot of deals for whatever reasons that may not seem to be basketball related.

My point regarding Boozer was really more along the lines of the Boozer of today (in response to the other poster seeming to imply that if Kohl was presented with an offer of today's Boozer for that same package that he probably wouldn't turn it down).

I mean back then Magliore was an All-Star C in the Eastern conference and Boozer was in the midst of all that "did he trick a blind man, is he sitting because of a hang nail" crap and his value was extremely low (which you know since he was pretty much Randolph level then).
midranger
RealGM
Posts: 39,434
And1: 11,238
Joined: May 12, 2002

 

Post#12 » by midranger » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:37 pm

I got you. Our GM had the vision to buy low on Boozer and it would have saved this team. Instead Kohl doomed it.

That is why the other poster was saying Randolph's name never would have come up had Boozer been here.
User avatar
moocow007
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 98,229
And1: 25,675
Joined: Jan 07, 2002
Location: In front of the computer, where else?
       

 

Post#13 » by moocow007 » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:43 pm

midranger wrote:I got you. Our GM had the vision to buy low on Boozer and it would have saved this team. Instead Kohl doomed it.

That is why the other poster was saying Randolph's name never would have come up had Boozer been here.


Oh ok...yeah Boozer definitely would have changed the whole Bucks franchise had he made the deal.
old skool
General Manager
Posts: 7,981
And1: 3,727
Joined: Jul 07, 2005
Location: Chi

 

Post#14 » by old skool » Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:34 pm

Every team has made and held off on trades that can be viewed negatively with hindsight.

The trade for Randolph would not have been horrible for the Bucks from standpoint of talent exchange, but it would have been bad on many other levels.

1. Randolph appears to be a cancer who drags down his team.

2. Putting Randolph on the Bucks roster would be pointless unless the Bucks were willing to sit Yi and CV. That would be OK in a "win now" situation, but it would be ignoring the future.

3. Giving up Simmons and Bell would take away the Bucks second best SF and PG. This would leave them very thin at those two positions - and over loaded at PF.

This trade would move a couple of bad contracts. And pick up a bad contract. It save a few dollars down the road, but only if the Bucks replace the players traded with minimum contracts.

Meanwhile, the Bucks would lose Bell - a rotation players who can fill multiple roles.

I don't see how this trade would have been good for the Bucks. It looks like a classic Harris move - lots of action for the sake of action.

When the Bucks had virtually no talent, that was a decent strategy. But the team DOES have talent. Redd, and Mo and Bogut, and Yi and CV. They have some decent pieces. Trades need to have a purpose.

oLd sKool
NeedsMoreCheese
RealGM
Posts: 43,042
And1: 8,369
Joined: Apr 22, 2002
   

 

Post#15 » by NeedsMoreCheese » Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:40 pm

I still mantain this is how it went down

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=765086
User avatar
paulpressey25
Senior Mod - Bucks
Senior Mod - Bucks
Posts: 62,522
And1: 29,525
Joined: Oct 27, 2002
     

 

Post#16 » by paulpressey25 » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:46 am

The Randolph decision was a no brainer.....heck look at this headline from the wiretap. Would a "20/10" guy ever be "sat down" at any point in a season?

Randolph To Sit As Knicks Turn To Young Players
March 20, 2008 - 6:20 pm
Sports Illustrated -
Isiah Thomas has revealed that the Knicks are now playing for the future, with Zach Randolph probably not being used for at least the next two games, the Associated Press is reporting.
In depth discussions here - shorter stuff on Twitter

https://twitter.com/paulpressey25
User avatar
jerrod
RealGM
Posts: 34,178
And1: 133
Joined: Aug 31, 2003
Location: The Berkeley of the midwest/ born with the intent/ to distress any government/ right of the left
     

 

Post#17 » by jerrod » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:05 am

paulpressey25 wrote:The Randolph decision was a no brainer.....heck look at this headline from the wiretap. Would a "20/10" guy ever be "sat down" at any point in a season?

Randolph To Sit As Knicks Turn To Young Players
March 20, 2008 - 6:20 pm
Sports Illustrated -
Isiah Thomas has revealed that the Knicks are now playing for the future, with Zach Randolph probably not being used for at least the next two games, the Associated Press is reporting.



bogut and redd were "sat down" last year
midranger
RealGM
Posts: 39,434
And1: 11,238
Joined: May 12, 2002

 

Post#18 » by midranger » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:10 am

jerrod wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




bogut and redd were "sat down" last year


Seriously. Is it really a shocker?
User avatar
paulpressey25
Senior Mod - Bucks
Senior Mod - Bucks
Posts: 62,522
And1: 29,525
Joined: Oct 27, 2002
     

 

Post#19 » by paulpressey25 » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:11 am

jerrod wrote:-=bogut and redd were "sat down" last year


I said you don't sit "20/10" guys.....you cited Bogut (Mr. 13/9) and Redd (The Zach Randolph of SG's) so I think my statement was consistent.
In depth discussions here - shorter stuff on Twitter

https://twitter.com/paulpressey25
User avatar
REDDzone
RealGM
Posts: 30,209
And1: 5,132
Joined: Oct 06, 2006
Location: The Hooker Control Service is Back in Business.
 

 

Post#20 » by REDDzone » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:12 am

jerrod wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




bogut and redd were "sat down" last year


They suck too.

:D
Stephen Jackson wrote:Make sure u want these problems. Goggle me slime. Im in da streets.

Return to Milwaukee Bucks