What If Woelful's Right?

[europa]

Here's what Chad Ford had to say about teams in the lottery dealing their picks:

I think it's more likely that the Bucks package No. 8 along with several other players on their roster to get another veteran to play alongside Andrew Bogut. I think Redd, Mo Williams and Charlie Villanueva are all available and Hammond is looking for players, not cap space. They could be an interesting mover and shaker in the draft.

I hope Ford is right about the bolded part above. It does make sense based on the comments Hammond has made so far. One of my main concerns is that if the Bucks do trade Redd, they end up getting Gasol'd. If Ford is correct, Hammond is not going to fall into that same trap and if he does trade Redd, it will be to bring back a player or players who will help the team improve. That would seem to eliminate deals with the Knicks or Clippers (unless that deal involved Brand).

[paulpressey25]

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

Make it happen Hammond.

We've all got our favorites to draft, but if we made that deal and could somehow come away with Love and Eric Gordon, I'd be pretty happy. (Insert the name of your two favorite guys in the top 10. )

And either Mobley or Q-Rich could give us some of Redd's offense. Not replace him. But at least some scoring.

[Redbeardwirc0830]

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

Make it happen Hammond.

i think this one is the only real one that makes sense for both teams


i dont see how that move makes us better...i would rather have redd and move mo/cv if it meant having Q rich and JJ on the team

we could probably even buy out thomas' contact

[LUKE23]

-= original quote snipped =-



I hope Ford is right about the bolded part above. It does make sense based on the comments Hammond has made so far. One of my main concerns is that if the Bucks do trade Redd, they end up getting Gasol'd. If Ford is correct, Hammond is not going to fall into that same trap and if he does trade Redd, it will be to bring back a player or players who will help the team improve.

They wouldn't be getting Gasoled if they did it for another top 7 pick. The Lakers gave up late, late firsts and bad players for Gasol (who also happens to be a significantly better player than Redd). If the Bucks can get a top 7 pick for Redd, that isn't on the same level at all.

[paulpressey25]

I would doubt that Tiny Tim would play for Skiles based on what went down in Chicago.

That said, Tiny Tim is a valuable bench player. He's owed about $6.2 million in each of the next two years.

Mobley has about $9mm each of the next two years owed to him.

Mobley would be 33 at the start of the season. Thomas is/will be 31.

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-



They wouldn't be getting Gasoled if they did it for another top 7 pick. The Lakers gave up late, late firsts and bad players for Gasol (who also happens to be a significantly better player than Redd). If the Bucks can get a top 7 pick for Redd, that isn't on the same level at all.

I'm not seeing a huge amount of value in the 6th or 7th picks in this draft. But that's me. If that's the best Hammond can get for Redd, I'd just as soon see the Bucks keep him. Again, my speculation is that Hammond isn't looking to deal for another marginal lottery pick, but rather combine the 8th pick with Mo, Villanueva or Redd and try to make a big move either in terms of a proven vet or maybe moving into the Top 3. I just don't see the point or the appeal of getting the 6th or 7th pick for Redd given how there's a strong possibility the player you're getting there will never be as good as Redd is.

[xTitan]

Who says there won't be multiple deals made? I would be a bit surprised if Hammond didn't draft someone in the first round, its rare that a new GM would come in and trade away a pick, they usually like to make a statement for the type of team they want to build by who they draft. I heard Johnny Mac on the D-list yesterday at the MACC Fund golf outing....he said 2 things, he really liked Harris and Larry K. but he feels the new regime has a plan and makes decisions decisively and they have what it takes to change the culture. The other thing he said is that personnel will need to change to improve and that it definitely will change, hinted at multiple changes.

[LUKE23]

-= original quote snipped =-



I'm not seeing a huge amount of value in the 6th or 7th picks in this draft. But that's me. If that's the best Hammond can get for Redd, I'd just as soon see the Bucks keep him. Again, my speculation is that Hammond isn't looking to deal for another marginal lottery pick, but rather combine the 8th pick with Mo, Villanueva or Redd and try to make a big move either in terms of a proven vet or maybe moving into the Top 3. I just don't see the point or the appeal of getting the 6th or 7th pick for Redd given how there's a strong possibility the player you're getting there will never be as good as Redd is.

This draft is as good as last years at the top, going by the projections. How is Redd any better than Gordon, Love, etc?

I don't get the people who keep saying this draft is weak. And how is the player taken at #7 not having a good chance at being as good as Redd is? What does Redd do besides score?

Redd is paid $17M a year and he can't rebound, defend a chair, or create. How is there no one available better than him at #7 when Redd was a second round pick (for a reason)?

[xTitan]

-= original quote snipped =-



This draft is as good as last years at the top, going by the projections. How is Redd any better than Gordon, Love, etc?

I don't get the people who keep saying this draft is weak. And how is the player taken at #7 not having a good chance at being as good as Redd is? What does Redd do besides score?

Redd is paid $17M a year and he can't rebound, defend a chair, or create. How is there no one available better than him at #7 when Redd was a second round pick (for a reason)?

I think this years draft and last years were both weak because so many of these guys have enough flaws where there could be multiple busts, the same as last years draft.

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-



This draft is as good as last years at the top, going by the projections. How is Redd any better than Gordon, Love, etc?

Redd has his flaws and I'm fine with trading him if the Bucks can improve in the process. But if an argument has to made to convince people why he's better than guys like Gordon and Love I think we have some serious problems in this forum. Redd isn't a superstar but he's a pretty darn good player. It's ok to acknowledge that even if you believe he needs to go in order for the team to improve.

As far as this year's draft, you're the first person I've seen who thinks this draft is as good as last year's. I don't think the two are remotely similar. There will be good players found. There always is. But, in my opinion, this draft looks weak and when you consider how many teams in the Top 10 are reportedly shopping their picks (including the Bucks), that leads me to believe plenty of people in the league feel the same way. Just my two cents.

[LUKE23]

-= original quote snipped =-



I think this years draft and last years were both weak because so many of these guys have enough flaws where there could be multiple busts, the same as last years draft.

Looking at the top 8 in this draft (Rose/Beasley/Mayo/Bayless/Love/Gordon/Westbrook/Randolph, I think you have possibly one bust in there, Randolph (who could be Bosh but could be Swift). Again, just my opinion, but I think people are vastly underrating the top 8 in this draft. I agree it is short on SUPERSTAR power, but so was last years.

But of those top 8, I don't see any busts outside of possibly Randolph.

[xTitan]

-= original quote snipped =-



Looking at the top 8 in this draft (Rose/Beasley/Mayo/Bayless/Love/Gordon/Westbrook/Randolph, I think you have possibly one bust in there, Randolph (who could be Bosh but could be Swift). Again, just my opinion, but I think people are vastly underrating the top 8 in this draft. I agree it is short on SUPERSTAR power, but so was last years.

But of those top 8, I don't see any busts outside of possibly Randolph.

I am not sold that Westbrook and Randolph...perhaps even Love are locked into the top 8. In your top 8 Randolph, Westbrook, Gordon, Bayless, and Love are all from from can't miss.

[LUKE23]

Top 8 last year were Oden/Durant/Horford/Conley/Green/Yi/Brewer/Wright.

Top 8 projected this year are Rose/Beasley/Mayo/Bayless/Love/Gordon/Randolph/Westbrook.

Last years is night and day better? How? Both drafts have two clear cut top 2 guys. Mayo is just as good if not better a prospect as Horford/Conley, Bayless/Love are easily comparable to Green, etc.

All that matters is up to 8, because that is our pick. There is zero chance you can argue last years being a ton better than this years. If anything, they are comparable, and I like the back end of the 8 this year (Westbrook/Randolph) better than Brewer/Wright.

[LUKE23]

-= original quote snipped =-



I am not sold that Westbrook and Randolph...perhaps even Love are locked into the top 8. In your top 8 Randolph, Westbrook, Gordon, Bayless, and Love are all from from can't miss.

That's fine, but the same can be said about last year. Most people argued that after the top four last year was where the questions started.

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-



I think this years draft and last years were both weak because so many of these guys have enough flaws where there could be multiple busts, the same as last years draft.

Outside of Rose and Beasley, I'm not sure there are any sure things in this draft so a large number of guys could bust. I don't think Mayo will bust but if people are expecting him to be a superstar than I could see him falling short of those expectations. I really think the value in this draft resides in the middle portion. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the best players in this draft come out of the 10-20 range.

[xTitan]

-= original quote snipped =-



That's fine, but the same can be said about last year. Most people argued that after the top four last year was where the questions started.

I agree with you, which makes my point I believe, I don't think either draft is great...they are extremely similiar.

[kukoc2gadz]

Gotta agree with this.

Luke and several others on this board want to deal Redd so badly that they underestimate his value and inflate the value of what we'd get in return. This shines through when they start to argue that marginal lottery picks -- in a very average draft -- will certainly be better NBA players. They MIGHT be in a few years, but it's real far from a sure thing.

Down with the myopic, trade-Redd-at-all costs outlook. Thankfully, Hammond & Co. are too smart to move him for so little.

-= original quote snipped =-
Redd has his flaws and I'm fine with trading him if the Bucks can improve in the process. But if an argument has to made to convince people why he's better than guys like Gordon and Love I think we have some serious problems in this forum. Redd isn't a superstar but he's a pretty darn good player. It's ok to acknowledge that even if you believe he needs to go in order for the team to improve.

As far as this year's draft, you're the first person I've seen who thinks this draft is as good as last year's. I don't think the two are remotely similar. There will be good players found. There always is. But, in my opinion, this draft looks weak and when you consider how many teams in the Top 10 are reportedly shopping their picks (including the Bucks), that leads me to believe plenty of people in the league feel the same way. Just my two cents.

[randy84]

I agree with europa. How many players in this draft are going to make one all star team? How many are going to be good enough to be asked to play in the Olympics?

I mean really, I don't see 1 -8 in this draft all becoming All-Star NBA players in the next two years. But the way some people talk they are guaranteeing that they will be.

I guess my question is if you are that good at predicting these type of things why aren't you running an NBA team?

[LUKE23]

I have yet to see a tangible argument made as to why a top 7 pick for Redd is "so little". I think Gordon will be a better player than Redd without question, even if it's not his rookie year. I'm not expecting a contender next year, what I do want is a team that can compete for several years, not a stop gap team with no ceiling.

But yes, I think Gordon will be a better player than Redd. Trust me, I'm not alone in that thought.

[europa]

Gotta agree with this.

Luke and several others on this board want to deal Redd so badly that they underestimate his value and inflate the value of what we'd get in return. This shines through when they start to argue that marginal lottery picks -- in a very average draft -- will certainly be better NBA players. They MIGHT be in a few years, but it's real far from a sure thing.

Down with the myopic, trade-Redd-at-all costs outlook. Thankfully, Hammond & Co. are too smart to move him for so little.


-= original quote snipped =-

Agreed. I'm fine with trading Redd. I have zero problems with doing that if it clearly improves the team. But that's the key - just giving Redd away makes no sense to me and it's my hope that doesn't make any sense to Hammond either. Going back to Chad Ford's comment, the word on the street seems to be Hammond is looking for players who can help the Bucks now, not cap space and if he's looking for players, my guess (and this is just my guess) is he's looking for vets, not more rookies. So I don't see Hammond trading Redd to get the 6th or 7th pick given how there's a strong chance the player taken there won't be as good as Redd or if he does become as good as Redd it may take him a few years to get to that level. Maybe that's what he'll do but that doesn't seem to be the vibe he's sending out right now.