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

BobbyLight · Post #241 » by **BobbyLight** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:32 pm

I'd rather have a shot at hitting on a mid-1st draft pick than JJ Redick and it's not even close.

paul · Post #242 » by **paul** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:32 pm

H2tObes · Post #243 » by **H2tObes** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:34 pm

BobbyLight wrote:I'd rather have a shot at hitting on a mid-1st draft pick than JJ Redick and it's not even close.

You're underrating the **** out of Redick

Are you saying you wouldn't trade a first straight up for him?

jeremyd236 · Post #244 » by **jeremyd236** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:35 pm

BobbyLight wrote:I'd rather have a shot at hitting on a mid-1st draft pick than JJ Redick and it's not even close.

I'd rather have the pick, only because Redick is an unrestricted free agent. But what the hell do you consider "hitting" on a mid-1st round pick? Kevin Durant? Lebron James?

Redick is the type of player you hope a 15-20 pick will be. 15/5 on good efficiency. I don't even like Redick, but I don't understand statements like this.

smauss · Post #245 » by **smauss** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:36 pm

Baddy Chuck wrote:
smauss wrote:We shouldn't include a pick period, unless it is to acquire a top tier all-star type talent IMHO.

Pretty much. Hammond has done a great job drafting, not sure why he'd be so fast to pull the trigger on that deal. I know you can't hit them all but what if Orlando came wanting Henson or Sanders for Redick, that's about where our pick is going to be.

If we can't make a deal with our current roster for yet again another nba player the quality of Reddick, then our roster is even poorer than I thought. Don't get me wrong, I think Reddick would be a good fit for us, I just think there is a better use for a 1st than this type of deal.

ETA: or maybe our crack magmnt team overvalues our current roster........ :roll:

Mihai · Post #246 » by **Mihai** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:36 pm

Bucks logic. Trade best defensive player and draft pick for a....6th man

Now i read that Orlando came with the idea. Hope Hambone said a big NO

arkknight1988 · Post #247 » by **arkknight1988** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:37 pm

superelkman wrote:
arkknight1988 wrote:Redick was a lottery pick and is living up to his potential. He gives you 15ppg and 5 assists. I don't care if you want him or not but ur disrespecting the hard work he has put in over the years to get where he is at

Didn't know JJ Redicks mom had an account on this forum.

Nope but I bet she's sexy AF

blazza18 · Post #248 » by **blazza18** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:39 pm

paul wrote:Ugh.

Overreaction much ?

GrandAdmiralDan · Post #249 » by **GrandAdmiralDan** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:43 pm

Baddy Chuck wrote:
BobbyLight wrote: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.

This

BobbyLight · Post #250 » by **BobbyLight** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:43 pm

jeremyd236 wrote:I'd rather have the pick, only because Redick is an unrestricted free agent. But what the hell do you consider "hitting" on a mid-1st round pick? Kevin Durant? Lebron James?

Redick is the type of player you hope a 15-20 pick will be. 15/5 on good efficiency. I don't even like Redick, but I don't understand statements like this.

Larry Sanders, John Henson... those pieces look like good value for where they were picked and I'd rather have a shot at that then JJ Redick. I guess this draft is supposed to suck, so maybe the pick doesn't even matter, but Redick is either gone or a 29 y/o average player locked up for more than he deserves contract wise to keep him here. I don't see the in-between being possible there, where we make this deal and then get to keep him with a team friendly deal.

sneakerdust · Post #251 » by **sneakerdust** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:46 pm

Is there any argument LRMAM is a better, younger, more versatile, harder to find (defense), more valuable player than Redick (a UFA,) on a better contract?

Why is this even a discussion? To plug a hole at the 2 spot with a spot up shooter because we're sick of watching Ellis? Yep the piece that puts us over the top :roll:

Trade deadline fever.

BobbyLight · Post #252 » by **BobbyLight** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:46 pm

H2tObes wrote:Are you saying you wouldn't trade a first straight up for him?

I actually would in this case, it just would have to be one or the other. I don't like the idea of giving up one of the best defensive players and our first for an average SG who might not even be real starting material. He's only starting on Orlando because... who the hell else starts.

But if this draft sucks like everyone says it does, giving up what's the 15 to 20 pick is fine with me. I just don't see why we sweeten that deal.

EDIT: That assume we keep him on a decent deal. A rental of Redick isn't worth anything. A pick or LRMAM.

GrandAdmiralDan wrote:This

You can say "This" all day, but remind me of the teams tripping over their feet to get Monta Ellis? Of course what the Bucks should do is get a pick or someone young with some potential, my whole thinking is not what the Bucks should do, I am preparing myself for what they will do.

El Duderino · Post #253 » by **El Duderino** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:47 pm

Baddy Chuck wrote:
BobbyLight wrote: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.

You're assuming a team out there would be willing to trade a decent young player or a 1st for Monta Ellis and his atrocious shooting, along with with below average defense at SG. I by no means would assume that.

ampd · Post #254 » by **ampd** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:47 pm

H2tObes wrote:
BobbyLight wrote:I'd rather have a shot at hitting on a mid-1st draft pick than JJ Redick and it's not even close.

You're underrating the **** out of Redick

Are you saying you wouldn't trade a first straight up for him?

In our situation I would not trade a 1st to rent JJ Redick for ~1/3 of a season, no. Would you trade Larry or Henson straight up to rent Redick for less than half a season?

EastSideBucksFan · Post #255 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:49 pm

If the Clippers wanted LRMAM and a 1st for Bledsoe....then DONE and DONE for me.

For Redick?

Easy no.

I was actually wondering about Tobias & 1st for Bledsoe....I don't think the Clips hang up on us.

They will need a SF and Tobias could be a great fit next to Blake Griffin and Jordan.

crkone · Post #256 » by **crkone** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:50 pm

ampd wrote:
H2tObes wrote:
BobbyLight wrote:I'd rather have a shot at hitting on a mid-1st draft pick than JJ Redick and it's not even close.

You're underrating the **** out of Redick

Are you saying you wouldn't trade a first straight up for him?

In our situation I would not trade a 1st to rent JJ Redick for ~1/3 of a season, no.

What if there was a good chance it would lead to the Bucks tanking next year as they couldn't resign Redick or Smith?

H2tObes · Post #257 » by **H2tObes** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:50 pm

BobbyLight wrote:
jeremyd236 wrote:I'd rather have the pick, only because Redick is an unrestricted free agent. But what the hell do you consider "hitting" on a mid-1st round pick? Kevin Durant? Lebron James?

Redick is the type of player you hope a 15-20 pick will be. 15/5 on good efficiency. I don't even like Redick, but I don't understand statements like this.

Larry Sanders, John Henson... those pieces look like good value for where they were picked and I'd rather have a shot at that then JJ Redick. I guess this draft is supposed to suck, so maybe the pick doesn't even matter, but Redick is either gone or a 29 y/o average player locked up for more than he deserves contract wise to keep him here. I don't see the in-between being possible there, where we make this deal and then get to keep him with a team friendly deal.

If we overpay him it will only be slightly imo, don't think anyone is going to throw huge money at the guy. He'll probably be a good player throughout his contract, doesn't rely on athleticism, so I don't think his age matters very much.

I think Hammond is an idiot as much as anyone, but if we can get Redick for Udoh/1st, you won't see me complaining. Even if he doesn't resign chances are we only lose scrub/scrub for it. If this trade goes down and there turns out to be a player better then Redick in our range, I'll eat crow.

Treebeard · Post #258 » by **Treebeard** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:50 pm

If the deal is Moute + 1st for Reddick, then absolutely no on both for both Bucks assets. Reddick doesn't bring back enough to justify either part of that potential trade.

Moute or the pick certainly can be in consideration for trades, but Moute is worth more than Reddick, and the first should only go out as deal closer add-in for a clear slam-dunk star

Jeez, Moute and the 1st - bad, bad, bad deal for the Bucks if it's true.

Baddy Chuck · Post #259 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:53 pm

El Duderino wrote:You're assuming a team out there would be willing to trade a decent young player or a 1st for Monta Ellis and his atrocious shooting, along with with below average defense at SG. I by no means would assume that.

I'd take a second or Marshon Brooks over 30 games of Smith and the looming fear that we give him the money he wants.

sneakerdust · Post #260 » by **sneakerdust** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:54 pm

Treebeard wrote:If the deal is Moute + 1st for Reddick, then absolutely no on both for both Bucks assets. Reddick doesn't bring back enough to justify either part of that potential trade.

Moute or the pick certainly can be in consideration for trades, but Moute is worth more than Reddick, and the first should only go out as deal closer add-in for a clear slam-dunk star

Jeez, Moute and the 1st - bad, bad, bad deal for the Bucks if it's true.

Bingo Ringo