What If Woelful's Right?

[smauss]

-= original quote snipped =-



I think they probably view either Bayless or Mayo, whoever falls to them there, as a higher upside player than Mo that also costs less than half on a per year basis. Seattle really isn't in win now mode, they are in amass talent mode. 6 first round picks in the next three years, they are probably banking on a complete young rebuild, starting with a Bayless/Durant/Green or Mayo/Durant/Green core.

God, now that I think of it, if Mayo falls to them that is kind of scary (Mayo + Durant).

My view was that Mo could bring some leadership at a position that is crucial to a young team. Also, it isn't like Mo isn't young either. I just don't think you can rebuild for 2-4 years and keep all the young players focussed on being a winning team and not get into a loosing mentality. I think a young vet running the point for them would be good for the team in the long term as well.

[smauss]

Also Luke, they need help scoring the ball from the PG position and we all know that Mo can do that, Luke Ridnaur(sp?) can't or at least hasn't consistently.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

What exactly is there not to like about him?

His assist/turnover ratio is absurdly bad.

He's basically a more explosive Redd with significantly higher athletic ability.

Plus even less passing, and more turnovers.

[europa]

I'm not as high on Gordon as many here, so the idea of trading up just to get him doesn't really interest me.

I don't see the appeal of trading Redd to move up to one spot (Clips) or two (Knicks) in a so-so draft. I think you can make an argument (and probably a pretty strong one) that none of the players after the Top 3 (assuming Mayo is ranked third) will be as good or better than Redd and I'm not sure it's a lock Mayo will be better than Redd either. Sure, you save a lot of money but if Hammond is looking to make deals that will improve the team immediately, I'm not sure adding two lower-lotto picks in a so-so draft is high on his agenda.

Now if Hammond believes Mayo will be a flat-out superstar or believes Beasley can become a great player and Yi needs to go, then I could see him trying to make a deal to move into the Top 3. But I wouldn't be surprised if he's dangling the 8th pick and either Mo, Villanueva or Redd to see if he can get a big-time vet, not a higher lotto pick. Just my gut call there. I still think if Hammond trades the pick and gets another first in return, it will be a lower pick and not a higher one. Again, just a guess on my part.

[Sigra]

its the Clippers and Knicks.

now you can stop bickering..

Yup

[paulpressey25]

Ilhan, what do you know on Galinari? Please compare him to a young Kukoc.

[Nowak008]

Hammond needs to get on the horn with Riles. Do what it takes to secure that #2 pick.

Yup.

Mo/CV/#8 for #2/Blount/Banks

[LUKE23]

-= original quote snipped =-

Plus even less passing, and more turnovers.

Except he's 19 years old and not even near his peak as a player for obvious reasons.

It will be fun when the Gordon haters are completely wrong next season though.

[htr]

Luke - I am as big of a badger fan as you are and thus saw Gordon a lot as well. If he is a legit 6'3", he's a guy we gotta pick (unless Love is there and we have something in the works for CV). One of those two though. My worry was that he'd measure in at slightly over 6'1". That's what I thought he looked like when Hughes/Flowers were guarding him. Maybe because he's always got his knees bent?

Anyway, Gordon would make me very happy assuming we deal one of Redd or Mo. He'd fit in real well here and likely would like it here a lot being a midwest guy and all.

[kukoc2gadz]

-= original quote snipped =-

Gordon's going to be a better player than Redd and cost significantly less for the next five years, so to me this is a no brainer. We'd probably have to take back a horrendous contract for the Knicks to consider it though.

Oh, yeah, Gordon is an absolute lock to be a better player than Michael Redd.

I mean, he's NEVER PLAYED a single game in the NBA, but how could he not be? Let's do this straight up now!

Let's all take a deep breath and try to evaluate Redd's value fairly. Let's start with last season's stats:

PPG 22.7
RPG 4.3
APG 3.4
SPG 0.9
BPG 0.2
FG% 0.442
FT% 0.820
3P% 0.362
MPG 37.5

What do we see? A top 10 scorer and everything else pretty average for SG. Numerically, a good comparison is Joe Johnson, who scores a little less, shoots a little worse, and has dishes more assists. They are essentially even in steals and rebounds.

Yes, Redd is often a lazy defender, is overpaid, and can be a black hole on offense. But even with these drawbacks, the guy still has real value around this league. So the take home lesson is:

Claiming a 19 year old college kid who's name is not Durant will DEFINITELY be better than Redd just makes you look foolish. Try something more nuanced, like: Gordon's got the talent to be a good scorer in this league and might be able to replace Redd in a few years. Or, let's commit to a total rebuild and just dump salary for prospects. That'd be more honest.

Ok, rant over.








[/list]

[LUKE23]

Luke - I am as big of a badger fan as you are and thus saw Gordon a lot as well. If he is a legit 6'3", he's a guy we gotta pick (unless Love is there and we have something in the works for CV). One of those two though. My worry was that he'd measure in at slightly over 6'1". That's what I thought he looked like when Hughes/Flowers were guarding him. Maybe because he's always got his knees bent?

Anyway, Gordon would make me very happy assuming we deal one of Redd or Mo. He'd fit in real well here and likely would like it here a lot being a midwest guy and all.

I figured he'd measure between 6-3 and 6-4, which is what he did. I knew he had long arms and good vertical explosion, but 6-9 and 40 inches were both higher than I expected. His athletic ability is absolutely top notch, on top of having a strong, compact frame and legit NBA range. The people who don't watch the games will point to his FG% and A/TO, ignoring that he shot 48% before his wrist injury, on top of dominating the ball as a freshman.

His ball-handling does need work, but the guy has all the tools to be a dynamite offensive player and a solid defensive player in the NBA. I would be ecstatic if he was there at #8, but I just doubt it's going to happen. My guess is either NY or LAC nabs him.

Him over Redd is a no brainer. He's a much better athlete than Redd is, and will be a better defender from day 1, on top of costing a quarter of what Redd will. The ideal backcourt pairing with him is Sessions given his size and then turning Redd into a long, defensive 3 in a trade.

[LUKE23]

-= original quote snipped =-

Gordon's going to be a better player than Redd and cost significantly less for the next five years, so to me this is a no brainer. We'd probably have to take back a horrendous contract for the Knicks to consider it though.

Oh, yeah, Gordon is an absolute lock to be a better player than Michael Redd.

I mean, he's NEVER PLAYED a single game in the NBA, but how could he not be? Let's do this straight up now!

Let's all take a deep breath and try to evaluate Redd's value fairly. Let's start with last season's stats:

PPG 22.7
RPG 4.3
APG 3.4
SPG 0.9
BPG 0.2
FG% 0.442
FT% 0.820
3P% 0.362
MPG 37.5

What do we see? A top 10 scorer and everything else pretty average for SG. Numerically, a good comparison is Joe Johnson, who scores a little less, shoots a little worse, and has dishes more assists. They are essentially even in steals and rebounds.

Yes, Redd is often a lazy defender, is overpaid, and can be a black hole on offense. But even with these drawbacks, the guy still has real value around this league. So the take home lesson is:

Claiming a 19 year old college kid who's name is not Durant will DEFINITELY be better than Redd just makes you look foolish. Try something more nuanced, like: Gordon's got the talent to be a good scorer in this league and might be able to replace Redd in a few years. Or, let's commit to a total rebuild and just dump salary for prospects. That'd be more honest.

Ok, rant over.








[/list]

Not really. Redd is a porous defender, an average rebounder, a very poor passer, and a good but not great scorer with regards to efficiency. He gets paid like a star player. Gordon may not be better as a rookie than Redd was THIS season, but he'll bring more to the table overall during his rookie contract.

Redd's lack of athletic ability really limits him in a lot of areas, mainly lateral quickness with defense, vertical explosion with rebounding, etc. That is not an issue with Gordon.

The question is Redd at $17M or Gordon at $4M per for the next five years (or thereabouts, I don't know rookie contract scales off the top of my head).

[DanoMac]

-= original quote snipped =-



Gordon's going to be a better player than Redd and cost significantly less for the next five years, so to me this is a no brainer. We'd probably have to take back a horrendous contract for the Knicks to consider it though.

Agreed.

[midranger]

Last year's #8 pick (B. Wright) will make ~ $11 million over the first 4 years of his NBA experience.

Mike Redd will make ~ $51 million over the next 3 years.

The rookie deal that Gordon will get, averages ~ 1/7th the salary of Mike Redd. That is huge.

[LUKE23]

Last year's #8 pick (B. Wright) will make ~ $11 million over the first 4 years of his NBA experience.

Mike Redd will make ~ $51 million over the next 3 years.

The rookie deal that Gordon will get, averages ~ 1/7th the salary of Mike Redd. That is huge.

That is why I would take back two undesirable contracts that are both one year shorter (two years) to get Gordon. Is there any doubt Gordon is going to be able to score? No. Is there any doubt he'll be a better defender than Redd given strength/wingspan/athletic ability? No. So what reasons are there to not to this deal?

I just don't want to hold onto a player when we get a younger core with more potential by dealing him.

A Sessions/Gordon/Yi/Bogut + #8 + whatever we can get for Mo/CV is a great start for a core in my opinion.

[ReasonablySober]

Like I said in another thread (or maybe it was this one...there are, like, four active draft threads) I doubt a team like Memphis or Seattle is looking to acquire expensive vets...but I could see it. The appeal of a guy like Redd is he's still in his prime, he's a guaranteed 22 points every night, and he's a former All-Star. If one of those two teams thinks they have a star in place, I could see them making a move to win now. Not contend, but enough that they're no longer at the bottom of the league in terms of wins.

[LUKE23]

Like I said in another thread (or maybe it was this one...there are, like, four active draft threads) I doubt a team like Memphis or Seattle is looking to acquire expensive vets...but I could see it. The appeal of a guy like Redd is he's still in his prime, he's a guaranteed 22 points every night, and he's a former All-Star. If one of those two teams thinks they have a star in place, I could see them making a move to win now. Not contend, but enough that they're no longer at the bottom of the league in terms of wins.

The one team I could see doing it outside of NY (NY would do it to unload maybe two bad contracts to get a talented player for D'Antoni) is the Clippers. If they can get Maggette and Brand back, and Livingston coming back (sounds like he is), they could do the Mobley/TT/#7 for Redd deal.

Livingston/Redd/Maggette/Brand/Kaman. That is pretty damn good.

[paulpressey25]

[quote="kukoc2gadz"][/quote]

Jollay? Is that you?

[midranger]

re: 2 year deals

I think that's where it's at for us. We'll be unable to move Simmons for an expiring without giving up extra value in all likelihood. That makes no sense for us.

Might as well bite the bullet and target that summer to clear the books. Plus, teams with bad 2 year deals (Tim Thomas, Cat Mobley hint, hint) would likely be willing to give up value to move these guys.

It just makes more sense to me.

[Nowak008]

Redd for either: #6 Jerome James/Q Rich
#7 Tim Tomas/Mobley

Make it happen Hammond.