#12, Brockman, Leuer, SL for #14, Dalembert

Balls2TheWalls · Post #541 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:56 pm

I just don't get it. This is probably the best trade Hammond has made. At least on a scale of having to deal with a GM that is crap (this is the constant in the whole deal), be excited when you don't get totally hosed in a trade.

msiris · Post #542 » by **msiris** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:56 pm

paul wrote:Very sad to see Leuer in particular go, but it's a vast improvement on Hammonds last trade.

No its not a back breaker, but Houston still win, since they moved up amd still have two other picks right behind it.

WEFFPIM · Post #543 » by **WEFFPIM** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:56 pm

Can we overrate Jon Leuer some more, please?

Balls2TheWalls · Post #544 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:58 pm

Isn't this the same Jon Leuer that was on pace to give up like a 50 point game to Chris Bosh? He couldn't defend my dead grandmother. So we traded 2 role players and a bum, moved down 2 spots and got a starting defensive specialist center.

SupremeHustle · Post #545 » by **SupremeHustle** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:58 pm

Did the Bucks end up getting another player with Dalembert and 14?

Balls2TheWalls · Post #546 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:58 pm

SupremeHustle wrote:Did the Bucks end up getting another player with Dalembert and 14?

Money and a 2nd round pick.

midranger · Post #547 » by **midranger** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:58 pm

I think it's possible to say that a trade is very good value wise, but just not correct for a given situation.

Like the Bogut trade. Given Bogut's significant injury history coupled with Jax's cancerous attitude and contract, it was probably near "fair" value wise. But for us, it was an unusually terrible trade. Just no sense whatsoever.

SupremeHustle · Post #548 » by **SupremeHustle** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:59 pm

Balls2TheWalls wrote:
SupremeHustle wrote:Did the Bucks end up getting another player with Dalembert and 14?

Money and a 2nd round pick.

Thanks.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #549 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:59 pm

No offense to Jon L. but I didn't see him as having that high of a ceiling so losing him isn't a big deal to me.

Balls2TheWalls · Post #550 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:59 pm

midranger wrote:I think it's possible to say that a trade is very good value wise, but just not correct for a given situation.

Like the Bogut trade. Given Bogut's significant injury history coupled with Jax's cancerous attitude and contract, it was probably near "fair" value wise. But for us, it was an unusually terrible trade. Just no sense whatsoever.

I think that this trade makes a lot more sense than the Bogut trade. I would be enjoying the Bogut trade much more if we were talking about building around Stephan Curry instead of wanting to dump Ellis ASAP.

Frank Nova · Post #551 » by **Frank Nova** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:00 pm

Bfinkish wrote:how about drafting rivers at 14 and pairing him with gooden to ship the 2 out to boston and we get boston's 21 and 22 overall and go sullinger and quincy miller with crowder in the 2nd.....

Rivers probably isn't there at 14. 1 of Ross or Lamb should be though. Just amnesty Gooden. No sense in continuing the fall back process. Zero difference in 12 and 14. Potential huge difference in 14 and 21. Certainly not worth the risk just to unload Gooden when u can do it without losing any asset. Plus say Rivers does make it to 14, he's all but guaranteed to be better than anyone taken in the 20s. Seems like the type of move everyone here cries about; trading away a good asset to remove a cancer. Sound familiar?

europa · Post #552 » by **europa** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:01 pm

The Bogut trade was putrid. This trade was positive in nearly every respect. Again, the only negative I see is losing Leuer. If you didn't Leuer was going to amount to much this was a slam-dunk good trade for the Bucks. It probably was anyway all things considered.

Now that's all contingent on not doing something stupid with the 14th pick. If that happens all bets are off.

Balls2TheWalls · Post #553 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:01 pm

weezybaby856 wrote:
Bfinkish wrote:how about drafting rivers at 14 and pairing him with gooden to ship the 2 out to boston and we get boston's 21 and 22 overall and go sullinger and quincy miller with crowder in the 2nd.....

Rivers probably isn't there at 14. 1 of Ross or Lamb should be though. Just amnesty Gooden. No sense in continuing the fall back process. Zero difference in 12 and 14. Potential huge difference in 14 and 21. Certainly not worth the risk just to unload Gooden when u can do it without losing any asset. Plus say Rivers does make it to 14, he's all but guaranteed to be better than anyone taken in the 20s. Seems like the type of move everyone here cries about; trading away a good asset to remove a cancer. Sound familiar?

Especially when you can just remove the cancer by signing a piece of paper.

msiris · Post #554 » by **msiris** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:02 pm

jakecronus8 wrote:Forgive me if I sound like a pessimist dick with all these posts, it's just so GD hard to have any faith in any John Hammond move after the last 4 years.

You are justified. A lot of us feel that way. This trade is not a killer, but its not going to change anything either.

jakecronus8 · Post #555 » by **jakecronus8** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:02 pm

If you are a tanker and/or want Hammond gone, this trade is negative.

skones · Post #556 » by **skones** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:03 pm

msiris wrote:
paul wrote:Very sad to see Leuer in particular go, but it's a vast improvement on Hammonds last trade.
No its not a back breaker, but Houston still win, since they moved up amd still have two other picks right behind it.

What Houston already has has nothing to do with who won the trade. The two picks they already have don't matter in the least.

midranger · Post #557 » by **midranger** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:03 pm

Balls2TheWalls wrote:
midranger wrote:I think it's possible to say that a trade is very good value wise, but just not correct for a given situation.

Like the Bogut trade. Given Bogut's significant injury history coupled with Jax's cancerous attitude and contract, it was probably near "fair" value wise. But for us, it was an unusually terrible trade. Just no sense whatsoever.

I think that this trade makes a lot more sense than the Bogut trade. I would be enjoying the Bogut trade much more if we were talking about building around Stephan Curry instead of wanting to dump Ellis ASAP.

No doubt.

I think it makes us a better team next year without sacrificing much at all. I'm just not sure that's what we need.

jakecronus8 · Post #558 » by **jakecronus8** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:03 pm

Balls2TheWalls wrote:
weezybaby856 wrote:
Bfinkish wrote:how about drafting rivers at 14 and pairing him with gooden to ship the 2 out to boston and we get boston's 21 and 22 overall and go sullinger and quincy miller with crowder in the 2nd.....

Rivers probably isn't there at 14. 1 of Ross or Lamb should be though. Just amnesty Gooden. No sense in continuing the fall back process. Zero difference in 12 and 14. Potential huge difference in 14 and 21. Certainly not worth the risk just to unload Gooden when u can do it without losing any asset. Plus say Rivers does make it to 14, he's all but guaranteed to be better than anyone taken in the 20s. Seems like the type of move everyone here cries about; trading away a good asset to remove a cancer. Sound familiar?

Especially when you can just remove the cancer by signing a piece of paper.

To be fair, it would involve burning a lot of pieces of paper.

europa · Post #559 » by **europa** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:05 pm

jakecronus8 wrote:If you are a tanker and/or want Hammond gone, this trade is negative.

The Bucks aren't going to tank, though. So while we can hope for that it simply isn't realistic at the present time. I don't think this trade does anything to solidify Hammond's status after his contract ends. Lots of things can and will happen before then.

Balls2TheWalls · Post #560 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:05 pm

midranger wrote:No doubt.

I think it makes us a better team next year without sacrificing much at all. I'm just not sure that's what we need.

The trade makes a lot of sense if the hands of the GM are tied. If we had a non-meddlesome owner, the roster is really built with C4 strapped to it. The roster could be destroyed in a blink. That is really how you have to view it. If we are trying to win now, this is a slam dunk trade.