TI: Bucks/Grizzlies

Simulack · Post #1 » by **Simulack** » Fri May 2, 2008 8:12 pm

This is totally hypothetical and dependent on the Grizzlies drafting Rose and came out of this thread on the trade board:

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0

On the 2nd page, I proposed a #7/CV deal for Conley as I thought it was a much better offer than the initial proposal.

Only two responses but both seem to think the Bucks are giving up way too much there. I know there were previously a number of people here very high on Conley who would have been more than willing to give up CV to move up to draft him last summer.

Is that still the case? or is this deal now too much for the Bucks? Has Conley's value dropped a bit after his rookie year?

SupremeHustle · Post #2 » by **SupremeHustle** » Fri May 2, 2008 8:19 pm

I think Sessions and Conley are about even right now, so I wouldn't give up anything to get Conley. But again, I'm not a big Conley fan.

midranger · Post #3 » by **midranger** » Fri May 2, 2008 8:34 pm

Conley didn't overwhelm in year 1. In fact, he underwhelmed quite a bit.

Chapter29 · Post #4 » by **Chapter29** » Fri May 2, 2008 9:07 pm

I still like Conley quite a bit, but I would imagine that his value has dipped a tad. That may however make trading him less likely as who wants to give up on their rookie anyways let alone get lower value for him?

europa · Post #5 » by **europa** » Fri May 2, 2008 9:10 pm

Villanueva/7 for Conley absolutely works for me. I'd love that deal for the Bucks.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #6 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Fri May 2, 2008 9:37 pm

I think we might be giving up too much, I would hope to get Conley and a little something else. Although I like Conley quite a bit, I would want us to at least get their second rounder along with Conley or something.

smauss · Post #7 » by **smauss** » Fri May 2, 2008 9:42 pm

Do it!

midranger · Post #8 » by **midranger** » Fri May 2, 2008 9:55 pm

7-CV-Mason for Conley-Mike Miller.

We need to add filler, but that cold be the basis. Memphis has already swung Gasol for garbage, might as well do the same with Miller.

Then trade Redd for Howard-Stackhouse.

Conley - Sessions
Miller - Mo
Howard - Miller
Yi - Ruffin
Bogut - Gadz

MikeIsGood · Post #9 » by **MikeIsGood** » Fri May 2, 2008 9:58 pm

Simulack wrote:On the 2nd page, I proposed a #7/CV deal for Conley as I thought it was a much better offer than the initial proposal.

Only two responses but both seem to think the Bucks are giving up way too much there. I know there were previously a number of people here very high on Conley who would have been more than willing to give up CV to move up to draft him last summer.

And I agree the Bucks give up too much given expected market value. I still like Conley a great deal, but his value has probably dropped on the open market after his lackluster rookie season. Rookie point guards often have uninspiring first years. As has been pointed out many times, Deron Williams had a similar rookie campaign stats-wise. But I think all things considered Conley's stock has dropped.

I really think it's a situation where Conley is more valuable to them than he would be in a trade. Let him develop and see if he breaks out in the next couple seasons. But, if they end up with Rose, I could see them wheelin' and dealin'.

showtimesam · Post #10 » by **showtimesam** » Fri May 2, 2008 11:20 pm

midranger wrote:7-CV-Mason for Conley-Mike Miller.

We need to add filler, but that cold be the basis. Memphis has already swung Gasol for garbage, might as well do the same with Miller.

Then trade Redd for Howard-Stackhouse.

Conley - Sessions
Miller - Mo
Howard - Miller
Yi - Ruffin
Bogut - Gadz

Wow, that would be an awesome offseason.

Except you should then ship Mo for Haslem so we can have a three man big rotation.

Plus there's really no room for Mo because he's far too tiny for the sg spot and all the pg minutes would be tied up by conley/sessions. Also I doubt Mo would accept that role anyways.

Post #11 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri May 2, 2008 11:26 pm

My issue with dumping the #7/CV for Conley is that we then have far less assets to rebuild the team with. Not that Conley isn't a big building block but I'd view Duhon/Sessions as an acceptable PG duo for next season.

If we made that trade, I think I'd keep Redd then. But then we've still got that big hole at SF assuming that we didn't make a Josh Howard trade.

Nebula1 · Post #12 » by **Nebula1** » Fri May 2, 2008 11:49 pm

Gadz for Cardinal.

btw, how is Mike Miller any better than Redd?

Nebula1 · Post #13 » by **Nebula1** » Fri May 2, 2008 11:53 pm

SupremeHustle wrote:I think Sessions and Conley are about even right now, so I wouldn't give up anything to get Conley. But again, I'm not a big Conley fan.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #14 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Fri May 2, 2008 11:57 pm

Nebula1 wrote:Gadz for Cardinal.

btw, how is Mike Miller any better than Redd?

He isn't very different, he's just taller really in my opinion.

Nebula1 · Post #15 » by **Nebula1** » Sat May 3, 2008 12:01 am

carmelbrownqueen wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

He isn't very different, he's just taller really in my opinion.

Not as good either, I don't think. I just think how these boards would be if we had Mike Miller this whole time instead of Mike Redd. Yikes. Guy couldn't even get it done with Gasol on his team.

EastSideBucksFan · Post #16 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Sat May 3, 2008 12:27 am

carmelbrownqueen wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

He isn't very different, he's just taller really in my opinion.

Not to hate on Redd as I really do like Redd.

But when you look at it objective

Shooting: Redd and Miller are about equal
Passing: Miller is better
Rebounding: Miller is better
Defense: Miller is better
Contract: Miller makes about $8M less than Redd

So, Miller is just as good if not a better option for us team wise at SG

carmelbrownqueen · Post #17 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Sat May 3, 2008 12:58 am

Miller doesn't play defense.. so I would say they are even in that regard.

El Duderino · Post #18 » by **El Duderino** » Sat May 3, 2008 1:06 am

carmelbrownqueen wrote:I think we might be giving up too much, I would hope to get Conley and a little something else. Although I like Conley quite a bit, I would want us to at least get their second rounder along with Conley or something.

Hammond would only consider trading CV and a fairly high lotto pick for Conley if he thought Conley would become a high quality starting PG in the NBA.

If that became true, then holding out for and extra second round pick isn't really that important. The trade would end up being a winner or loser pretty much based entirely on how good Conley developed into.

If he became a high quality starting PG, the trade is a winner, if not, we lose badly.

Simulack · Post #19 » by **Simulack** » Sat May 3, 2008 1:16 am

El Duderino wrote:If he became a high quality starting PG, the trade is a winner, if not, we lose badly.

That's the relevant question, agreed.

That's why I'm not overly concerned if we give up "too much" or not. To those who like him but still think its too much, what would be a fairer offer that Memphis would consider? If Memphis would just do it for the #7, great. But if you think Conley has the potential to be a quality NBA starting PG, do you really pass on trading for him if the Grizz demand CV in addition?

Has Conley's stock really dropped that much from being the #4 pick in a strong draft? He was no Chris Paul but his season was fairly respectable for a rookie PG who is only 20 years old.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'd do this deal either mainly because I would need to know what other options were out there. If we could get Miller included in some way, it would be a no-brainer.

Simulack · Post #20 » by **Simulack** » Sat May 3, 2008 1:23 am

The Miller/Redd comparison has been done to death and I'm squarely in the camp that this team would be better with Miller. I couldn't help but note that Miller was the #4 overall SF in Berri's rankings while Redd couldn't even crack the top 15 for SGs.