Woeffel - Mystery GM candidate coming in next week

[blkout]

I don't understand the appeal of Noc on the Bucks, and this is coming from a fan of his. He's a glue guy that can help out a good team, but he won't make a bad team any better.

Yeah I agree. Gerald Wallace however I would take instantly.

[paul]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yeah I agree. Gerald Wallace however I would take instantly.

+1

[europa]

I thought the Mo comments were interesting as well. I'll let Europa handle the knives tomorrow when he reads this, but Woeffel made it sound like trading Mo won't be easy at this point.

I wish I could say I was surprised to hear this. He has a bad contract; he's yet to prove he can be a quality starting on a PG on a playoff team and I highly doubt the internal issues we know about here involving Mo are a secret around the league. In fact, I can guarantee at least some of them aren't.

The big problem with Mo (other than his major attitude problems right now) is the fact most teams can't pay nearly $9M a year for a backup and that may be his best role on the majority of teams around the league. He needs a precise fit in order to be a starter and there aren't many of those teams. Two of them (Cleveland and Miami) both could use him badly but the Cavs have nothing but crap (other than LeBron obviously) and the Heat could get a significantly better PG in the draft in Rose.

The good news is a lot can happen going forward and all it takes is one team to get a jones for Mo and a trade can happen. What concerns me is if Woelfel is correct trading Mo before the draft may be a tough sell - and that's the first move I wanted to see the Bucks try and make. But let's say the Heat get Beasley; now a Mo for Haslem deal makes sense for both teams (it always has) after the draft and maybe it could be done then.

If Woelfel is correct that may be the best deal the Bucks are going to get. Fortunately, it's a great move for this team to make in my opinion and would really provide a strong step forward in improving the team in the offseason.

As far as the GM thing goes, if Hammond wants the job offer him the job. I doubt he could be any worse than Harris given his strong pedigree.

Rather than focusing so hard on whether Redd is or isn't having a good year what struck me the most about the "untouchable" list is the one name who isn't on it - Yi. Perhaps Woelfel neglected to mention him but that doesn't make any sense. If Yi has become someone the Bucks are willing to move it's possible he could be a major asset this summer. He's had a horrible rookie year but if a team still values him highly that could help the Bucks acquire a major piece in return.

[coolhandluke121]

-= original quote snipped =-


He needs a precise fit in order to be a starter and there aren't many of those teams. Two of them (Cleveland and Miami) both could use him badly but the Cavs have nothing but crap (other than LeBron obviously) and the Heat could get a significantly better PG in the draft in Rose.

The Cavs have about $30 mill in expiring contracts next year, and their future first-round picks won't be as bad as people think. They're a one-man show, Big Z and Wallace will continue to decline, they haven't added any young talent in years except Gibson (big whoop!), and they're a serious Lebron injury away from picking in the top 10. Plus Washington and Atlanta will probably be much better next year, and Philly has the cap space to add a significant free agent this summer, so Cleveland could easily drop to 7th in the East next year even if Lebron is healthy all year.

What I'm saying is a bunch of expiring contracts and two future 1st-rounders, likely to be in the teens but possibly a little better, would be a better deal than people think for Mo or even Redd, who are both vastly overpaid. You could also force the Cavs to take Gadz in a deal. If you swipe their 2009 and 2011 first-rounders there's a chance one of those could turn into a surprisingly good pick, especially since Lebron could easily leave Cleveland in 2010. In fact, sending them a few albatross contracts like Redd and Gadz would ruin the only chance the Cavs have of getting better during the Lebron era (they have a ton of cap space lined up for 2010), making it more likely that he would depart via free agency. That would make the 2011 pick a high first-rounder!

The more I talk about it the more it makes sense. I would trade Redd and Gadz for Snow or Jones, Smith, and Szczerbiak, trade Mo for Haslem, and trade CV for a draft pick or something. The Bucks would have a ton of cap space and young prospects in 2010 (only Bogut under contract for a significant amount), and would purge themselves of the unathletic scorers who don't defend and don't give them a chance to win on a nightly basis.

[showtimesam]

-= original quote snipped =-


The more I talk about it the more it makes sense. I would trade Redd and Gadz for Snow or Jones, Smith, and Szczerbiak, trade Mo for Haslem, and trade CV for a draft pick or something. The Bucks would have a ton of cap space and young prospects in 2010 (only Bogut under contract for a significant amount), and would purge themselves of the unathletic scorers who don't defend and don't give them a chance to win on a nightly basis.

I would do this as well. Dumping crap contracts along with Redd for expirings is actually very valuable. It would allow the bucks to rebuild quickly, resign Bogut, and give the new GM the ability to bring in players that can win games in the future.

[InsideOut]

Have Redd play with a couple of all-stars and he'd look even more overpaid. Look at Boston's big 3. All three of them have seen a big drop in stats. Dantley and Aguirre

[paulpressey25]

I think if luck shined here and we landed Derrick Rose in the lotto, I'd keep Redd, make the Mo/Haslem trade and we'd be done.

But if not, I think before I'd offer Redd for expirings, I'd see if a "win-now" plan were possible.

I watched JO the other night, and he looked slow, old and rusty. That said, offensively his shot and moves are still there. Right down to the guy who scored 55 against us. I'd still explore sending Mo/CV/Bobby or Redd/Gadz for JO. I think a Bogut/JO frontline could do damn well for the next two years.

[raferfenix]

Why does everyone assume we can get Mo for Haslem? I would kill for that deal, but especially after hearing Woelful's report I'm much less convinced that we can do it.

Riley did try to sign Mo this offseason, but that was for only the MLE. Now he's quite overpaid, and Riley said yesteday that the Heat are planning on being a major player in the free agent market next offseason. Evne if they pass on that plan, they have to worry about the luxuary tax a whole lot, so paying Mo 9 mill a year could be a luxuary they literally can't afford.

Furthermore, even if they do think mo is worth that much money, trading Haslem is a whole lot to give up for an overpaid shoot first PG who is unable to play defense. I remember hoping we could trade for a similar glue guy role player in Shane Battier a few years ago, and he ended up going for RUDY GAY. Players like Haslem are hard to come by, and I certainly think it's essential for us to get role players like that who can help change the attitude that has been crippling our team, but we'd probably have to trade more than just Mo to do it.

[europa]

I think it would be a major mistake to trade Redd or even Mo for expirings. I'd be more inclined to deal Mo for expirings and a first but not Redd. Expirings are of little value to the Bucks at the present time because cap room does them no good. They won't be able to use it to sign top free agents and if they do use it will be to overpay grossly - either an outside free agent or their own.

I think the first order of business for this team is to improve the talent base and rid the team of players who aren't going to help this team win. In my opinion, focusing on cap room (which is often a myth anyway) is best left for the future once a stronger foundation has been established.

[showtimesam]

I think it would be a major mistake to trade Redd or even Mo for expirings. I'd be more inclined to deal Mo for expirings and a first but not Redd. Expirings are of little value to the Bucks at the present time because cap room does them no good. They won't be able to use it to sign top free agents and if they do use it will be to overpay grossly - either an outside free agent or their own.

I think the first order of business for this team is to improve the talent base and rid the team of players who aren't going to help this team win. In my opinion, focusing on cap room (which is often a myth anyway) is best left for the future once a stronger foundation has been established.

It could do alot of good to help ensure that the bucks are able to resign Bogut. I guess it depends how much money Kohl is willing to spend, but dealing mo or redd for expirings or much shorter contracts may be necessary in Kohls mind.

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-



It could do alot of good to help ensure that the bucks are able to resign Bogut. I guess it depends how much money Kohl is willing to spend, but dealing mo or redd for expirings or much shorter contracts may be necessary in Kohls mind.

I think that gets done anyway. I just think it's a mistake to trade the team's 1A or 1B player (Redd) and only get expirings in return. And even though there's no question in my mind Mo has to go, I don't think trading him just for expirings is a smart move either. If the Bucks are going to trade these players they need to upgrade the talent base in return. That's not to say they need to receive players better than Redd or Mo so much as they need to get talented players who may fit the team better long term. One-year rentals won't accomplish that.

There's no question expirings have value but they primarily have value to teams looking to move them for talent upgrades. Creating cap room has rarely worked and I don't think that's something the Bucks need to pursue at the present time. I think they need to address their glaring issues in terms of the core group and the team's overall lack of talent.

[fam3381]

It could do alot of good to help ensure that the bucks are able to resign Bogut. I guess it depends how much money Kohl is willing to spend, but dealing mo or redd for expirings or much shorter contracts may be necessary in Kohls mind.

Correct, the value of expiring contracts to the Bucks has nothing to do with our cap space and everything to do with the possibility that we pay the luxury tax in 09/10.

[coolhandluke121]

I think it would be a major mistake to trade Redd or even Mo for expirings. I'd be more inclined to deal Mo for expirings and a first but not Redd. Expirings are of little value to the Bucks at the present time because cap room does them no good. They won't be able to use it to sign top free agents and if they do use it will be to overpay grossly - either an outside free agent or their own.

I think the first order of business for this team is to improve the talent base and rid the team of players who aren't going to help this team win. In my opinion, focusing on cap room (which is often a myth anyway) is best left for the future once a stronger foundation has been established.

I agree for the most part, but there are some instances where a good player is so overpaid that it's okay to unload him for basically nothing, taking a step backward in order to take two steps forward down the road. It's not like they're unloading a Baron Davis or Vince Carter type of talent IMO. And won't Redd be 30 next season anyway?

Cap space usually isn't worth much, but that's because few teams plan it just so they can have a lot of cap space and a talented young nucleus in the same year that a number of good players will be unrestricted free agents. Getting all 3 of those things to line up is very difficult, but 2010 is a rare opportunity to do just that.

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-



Correct, the value of expiring contracts to the Bucks has nothing to do with our cap space and everything to do with the possibility that we pay the luxury tax in 09/10.

If the Bucks don't start getting the right talent in place, the luxury tax will be the least of this team's concerns in 09/10. This team is bleeding money and losing fans in droves. Putting a team together on the cheap is only going to make those two significant problems significantly worse.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Expirings are of tremendous value, because they will allow the team to keep Bogut and their draft picks. The idea that the Bucks could keep everyone, extend Bogut, and keep adding draft picks after that is ill-informed.

[InsideOut]

-= original quote snipped =-



I agree for the most part, but there are some instances where a good player is so overpaid that it's okay to unload him for basically nothing, taking a step backward in order to take two steps forward down the road. It's not like they're unloading a Baron Davis or Vince Carter type of talent IMO. And won't Redd be 30 next season anyway?

Cap space usually isn't worth much, but that's because few teams plan it just so they can have a lot of cap space and a talented young nucleus in the same year that a number of good players will be unrestricted free agents. Getting all 3 of those things to line up is very difficult, but 2010 is a rare opportunity to do just that.

Exactly. Philly got rid of Iverson and got better. Portland got rid of Randolph and got better. Toronto did move Vince for nothing and got better. Look at what NO did once Baron Davis left town. Detroit moved Stackhouse at his best and got better. There are bunches of teams that moved its best and most expensive player and in a year or two were on their way to perennial playoff appearances. I just can't understand why a Redd doesn't fall into this category. Philly was smart enough to see they weren't winning with Iverson and moved on. Now hey are better than us while we still pay crazy money to Michael Redd.

[Johnny Newman]

I thought the Mo comments were interesting as well. I'll let Europa handle the knives tomorrow when he reads this, but Woeffel made it sound like trading Mo won't be easy at this point.

I think we all said TT and KVH were unmoveable too.

[Bucks_Revenge]

-= original quote snipped =-

I think we all said TT and KVH were unmoveable too.

mo will be traded 95% sure.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Exactly. Philly got rid of Iverson and got better. Portland got rid of Randolph and got better. Toronto did move Vince for nothing and got better. Look at what NO did once Baron Davis left town. Detroit moved Stackhouse at his best and got better. There are bunches of teams that moved its best and most expensive player and in a year or two were on their way to perennial playoff appearances. I just can't understand why a Redd doesn't fall into this category. Philly was smart enough to see they weren't winning with Iverson and moved on. Now hey are better than us while we still pay crazy money to Michael Redd.

Great list; great point.

When a team loses their star, they free up touches for others to develop with, and either somebody already on the roster will rise to the challenge, or somebody new will be brought in quickly enough.

If you can speed up the process by trading your star for expirings and picks, so much the better.

[Bucks_Revenge]

-= original quote snipped =-



Exactly. Philly got rid of Iverson and got better. Portland got rid of Randolph and got better. Toronto did move Vince for nothing and got better. Look at what NO did once Baron Davis left town. Detroit moved Stackhouse at his best and got better. There are bunches of teams that moved its best and most expensive player and in a year or two were on their way to perennial playoff appearances. I just can't understand why a Redd doesn't fall into this category. Philly was smart enough to see they weren't winning with Iverson and moved on. Now hey are better than us while we still pay crazy money to Michael Redd.

we have an ignorant owner.