CBS: Deal on the table: LRMAM, 1st for Redick.

[mlloyd10]

If we trade for Smith and Redick and they walk at the end of the season then that's fine, I would rather throw more money at Milsap & Mayo anyways.

[whatthe_buck!?]

BTW, does anybody think Josh Smith gives anything near full effort in Milwaukee??

This is totally a Gary Payton situation in waiting.

Doubtful. He'd be mr. Nice guy and try to up his value then bash Milwaukee back handedly after he's gone.

I seriously don't think he's that smart. I think he'd be unhappy and he's the sort that says and acts exactly how he feels.

+1
This is getting ridiculous though, I can't second every goddam great point u make bucksfan. I'm gonna stop but just know that if I wasn't so lazy I probably would...

[Bucksfans1and2]

quote="Bucksfans1and2"]

Locked into the 8th seed for the length of those deals. Might as well deal Henson.

Yeah right, we are the 8th seed right now, and adding Redick & Smith would be a significant upgrade over Moute & Ellis. We be locked in to fighting for the 4th/5th seed.

For how much longer? Maybe you get up to the 5th seed next year. Then Smith and Reddick start to decline and you're stuck with them.

Redick's game doesn't rely on athleticism so I'm not worried about him at all, and Smith just turned 27 and isn't injury prone, he can play at least 3-4 more years at a high level.[/quote]

What about his defense? He's only a mediocre defender now. What happens when his speed goes to hell.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

BTW, does anybody think Josh Smith gives anything near full effort in Milwaukee??

This is totally a Gary Payton situation in waiting.

Don't like the comparison since Ellis is way closer to Payton than he is Allen. The reason the GP trade sucked balls is that Allen actually liked Milwaukee, was young, talented, and popular. Another thing wrong with your statement is assuming GP didn't try because he was in Milwaukee. GP decline was due to his age as you can tell by his time in LA. He wasn't completely opposed to Milwaukee and heard he was willing to resign before we canned Karl.

Ok but why would u want to trade one guy who doesn't like Milwaukee enough to give full effort for another?? Why wouldn't u argue against trading Ellis for Smith and instead advocate trading Ellis for a guy who's gonna be happy enough in Milwaukee to care and to try? That is unless u don't think Ellis can fetch a good player in return that doesn't have those kind of professionalism issues...

1. I thought BF12 was talking about the trades. I was just saying the trades aren't comparable and his version of what happened is very different then mine.

2. Josh Smith is better than Ellis IMO

3. If my car doesn't run, I'm willing to trade for your car even if I'm not sure if it runs.

4. I really think Ellis's value is so low, you aren't getting a above average starter for him unless its a Smith type situation.

[Baddy Chuck]

Viva Las Vegas.

[BobbyLight]

I understand not liking the deal this thread is focused on. Throwing in a first for Reddick is gag worthy.

I don't understand why anyone here cares about the Smith for Eillis deal. Neither are likely to stay and you know we'll offer deals to either way over market value to try and convince them otherwise. I'd rather take a chance on Smith over Ellis because I've watched about a season worth of Ellis and he is terrible. I might say the same about Smith after prolonged exposure, but they are both rentals and I think Smith could help this team more than Ellis has/is. Not that I even want that, I've always wanted a tear down, but since that isn't happening and I'm picking between Ellis and Smith, I pick Smith 100 times out of 100. Seriously, why care about a rental for rental deal?

[crkone]

Sanders wins you games. Elite Defensive Anchors are hell valuable.

Sanders will win you about 6-7 games by himself unless he has Chris Paul as his point guard. Ersan maybe 7-8 games. They would still need an uber efficient player like Dunleavy next to them and a ball dominant low turnover low efficiency to get to playoff worthiness. This isn't even discussing if other teams like the Cavs, Raptors, or Pistons take a leap next year.

Jennings wins you 4, Ersan wins you 7, Sanders wins you 7, Dunleavy wins you 4, Henson wins you 3. You get up to about 35 wins when you look at the entire team. Shooting for the 8th seed, getting the 9th seed.

That is if we match Jennings, but that is besides the point cause that could happen with Redick or Smith leaving. I feel like trading for both will backfire and leave the cupboards very bare for the Bucks. That may be the closest to tanking we'll ever get.

[jtrinaldi]

I would rather sign smith for 5/90 than Brandon 4/60 (which is what HE thinks he can get in open market)

[Baddy Chuck]

Seriously, why care about a rental for rental deal?

Because if we were a halfway competent franchise you trade your rental for a piece that can help even the slightest bit in the future. I don't think anyone cares about player a for player b (Monta for Smith), it's the fact that once again we are wasting assets on a guy who doesn't want to be here and has a huge bloated self image.

[whatthe_buck!?]

Jennings & Redick can guard them. Ellis & Brandon guard them now and we are a top 10 defensive team. Redick & Smith are better scorers then Moute & Ellis so our offense will improve as well. That lineup has two elite defenders and shot blockers, 2 great outside shooters, and Brandon who is a good 3 point shooter and could get hot and win you any game.

The only reason we're in the 8th seed right now and not the 9 slot is Bynums injury. Essentially right now we have the talent to be the 9th best team in the east, which is also a terribly talent-deficient conference compared to the west. I'm not saying that I don't think we won't be better with Smith and Redick in the lineup over Monta and Luc, I'm simply saying that whatever improvement we get isn't going to change our current trajectory as a not-bad-enough-to-draft-a-superstar-but-not-good-enough-to-contend team. Plus for whatever advantages that lineup give us, it still has a ton of holes against well constructed teams that may cancel out most of -if not all of- the advantages it offers...

[BobbyLight]

Seriously, why care about a rental for rental deal?

Because if we were a halfway competent franchise you trade your rental for a piece that can help even the slightest bit in the future. I don't think anyone cares about player a for player b (Monta for Smith), it's the fact that once again we are wasting assets on a guy who doesn't want to be here and has a huge bloated self image.

I don't disagree (in fact I very much so agree), but I don't see teams lining up to give us wonderful assets for their Monta Ellis rental... Just like we are giving up Ellis in a potential rental deal that isn't super duper appealing for us, either.

[whatthe_buck!?]

1. I thought BF12 was talking about the trades. I was just saying the trades aren't comparable and his version of what happened is very different then mine.

2. Josh Smith is better than Ellis IMO

3. If my car doesn't run, I'm willing to trade for your car even if I'm not sure if it runs.

4. I really think Ellis's value is so low, you aren't getting a above average starter for him unless its a Smith type situation.

Opportunity cost. If we trade him for Smith than we can't trade him for a pick, for E. Gordon etc. if the choice is keep him or trade him for Smith I keep him. No argument here. My fear is that the FO sees it as a keep him or trade him for smith type proposition and doesn't do due diligence to find other offers...

[whatthe_buck!?]

I understand not liking the deal this thread is focused on. Throwing in a first for Reddick is gag worthy.

I don't understand why anyone here cares about the Smith for Eillis deal. Neither are likely to stay and you know we'll offer deals to either way over market value to try and convince them otherwise. I'd rather take a chance on Smith over Ellis because I've watched about a season worth of Ellis and he is terrible. I might say the same about Smith after prolonged exposure, but they are both rentals and I think Smith could help this team more than Ellis has/is. Not that I even want that, I've always wanted a tear down, but since that isn't happening and I'm picking between Ellis and Smith, I pick Smith 100 times out of 100. Seriously, why care about a rental for rental deal?

Opportunity cost. Plus if we absolutely love Smith we can have him in the offseason anyway. We have the cap space to sigh him as a free agent.

[Siefer]

This deadline is going to be even more depressing than usual.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

1. I thought BF12 was talking about the trades. I was just saying the trades aren't comparable and his version of what happened is very different then mine.

2. Josh Smith is better than Ellis IMO

3. If my car doesn't run, I'm willing to trade for your car even if I'm not sure if it runs.

4. I really think Ellis's value is so low, you aren't getting a above average starter for him unless its a Smith type situation.

Opportunity cost. If we trade him for Smith than we can't trade him for a pick, for E. Gordon etc. if the choice is keep him or trade him for Smith I keep him. No argument here. My fear is that the FO sees it as a keep him or trade him for smith type proposition and doesn't do due diligence to find other offers...

Wait.... what?

I understand getting a better fit like Gordon, but I don't think it is realistic.

Our point of disagreement comes down to Smith Vs. Ellis. There is no opportunity cost here if that is your only option and yet you choose Ellis? Is that out of bitterness or do you really think Ellis on the Bucks is better than J Smith?

[whatthe_buck!?]

Plus, to get him don't we probably have to give up tobes at least?

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

Plus, to get him don't we probably have to give up tobes at least?

I was under the impression it was Dally. Never saw Tobes in this rumor.

[whatthe_buck!?]

1. I thought BF12 was talking about the trades. I was just saying the trades aren't comparable and his version of what happened is very different then mine.

2. Josh Smith is better than Ellis IMO

3. If my car doesn't run, I'm willing to trade for your car even if I'm not sure if it runs.

4. I really think Ellis's value is so low, you aren't getting a above average starter for him unless its a Smith type situation.

Opportunity cost. If we trade him for Smith than we can't trade him for a pick, for E. Gordon etc. if the choice is keep him or trade him for Smith I keep him. No argument here. My fear is that the FO sees it as a keep him or trade him for smith type proposition and doesn't do due diligence to find other offers...

Wait.... what?

I understand getting a better fit like Gordon, but I don't think it is realistic.

Our point of disagreement comes down to Smith Vs. Ellis. There is no opportunity cost here if that is your only option and yet you choose Ellis? Is that out of bitterness or do you really think Ellis on the Bucks is better than J Smith?

If that's the disagreement u see then there's no disagreement. If the only choice is trade Ellis strait up for Smith or keep him then I trade him for Smith every time, no question.

[paulpressey25]

So what are we thinking here? Dalembert and Monta for Smith and Morrow (or Devin Harris)?

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

Opportunity cost. If we trade him for Smith than we can't trade him for a pick, for E. Gordon etc. if the choice is keep him or trade him for Smith I keep him. No argument here. My fear is that the FO sees it as a keep him or trade him for smith type proposition and doesn't do due diligence to find other offers...

Wait.... what?

I understand getting a better fit like Gordon, but I don't think it is realistic.

Our point of disagreement comes down to Smith Vs. Ellis. There is no opportunity cost here if that is your only option and yet you choose Ellis? Is that out of bitterness or do you really think Ellis on the Bucks is better than J Smith?

If that's the disagreement u see then there's no disagreement. If the only choice is trade Ellis strait up for Smith or keep him then I trade him for Smith every time, no question.

Ok, that makes sense. I was confused on the bolded part.