More randolph to mil

[The Fish]

New York Trade with the bucks

Incoming Players
Michael Ruffin
Royal Ivey
Charlie Villanueva
Jake Voskuhl
Desmond Mason
Bobby Simmons

Outgoing Players
Jamal Crawford
Zach Randolph


Trade ID #4399762


Well it works at least im thinking a draft pick would need to go to ny maybe 09 1st with some protection

[TripleDouble]

so, the Bucks trade their entire bench (which consists of some potential and some role players) for two bad attitudes, who are lazy and overpaid, although talented (not quite as much as they themselves think, though)...and the Bucks include the pick?

[The Fish]

well my knowledge of the bucks is about zero and besides i never said it was a good trade just that it worked i do remember randolph being pretty good when he wasn't a focal point on offense so maybe he could get back to being in that sort of role or maybe be the go to guy in the second unit. i actually mentioned the pick cause i was afraid of getting flamed by knicks fans so im not very attached to it

[#1knickfan]

so, the Bucks trade their entire bench (which consists of some potential and some role players) for two bad attitudes, who are lazy and overpaid, although talented (not quite as much as they themselves think, though)...and the Bucks include the pick?

You act like this deal would be doing the Knicks a favor.

[moocow007]

-= original quote snipped =-



You act like this deal would be doing the Knicks a favor.

Whatever do you mean? Bobby Simmons was good...once. And Charlie V is a great all around talent that just hasn't had a chance...really...really. And Michael Ruffin? Come on! How can anyone not like Michael Ruffin? Where's the love for the closest thing to the Chunkster himself since the original Goonies days?!?!? And you forget they're not Knicks so they are better than they are.

[TripleDouble]

I was not really commenting on it from the Knicks side. They may not like it either. I was really saying why it wouldn't be good for the Bucks. You trade the entire bench (which again has actually been good for the Bucks when given the chance - i.e. Redd and Mo sharing the ball) for two highly questionable players.

If I try to look at it from an outside perspective for the Knicks it doesn't look very good either, because they trade 2 starters (I think they start) for a buch of bench/role players, with CV being the only exception and he is an enigma.

for the record:
Ruffin - a good 11-12th guy off the bench, tough defens and rebounding

Ivey - actually has been a very good backup for us. Not much offense, but is exactly what you want off the bench - good effort and plays within the offense

CV - can be great on offense, and can be non-existant. Terrible defense although he can get some blocks. Good offensive rebounder, but plays lazy.

Voskuhl - shouldn't be in the league, he should only play when everyone else has fouled out.

Mason - he could be a good bench guy, problem is he thinks he's a starter and doesn't play well off the bench.

Simmons - injured and hasn't played well at all for the Bucks, but could be good in a different system...maybe.


So all in all neither team should want to do this deal.

[moocow007]

I was not really commenting on it from the Knicks side. They may not like it either. I was really saying why it wouldn't be good for the Bucks. You trade the entire bench (which again has actually been good for the Bucks when given the chance - i.e. Redd and Mo sharing the ball) for two highly questionable players.

If I try to look at it from an outside perspective for the Knicks it doesn't look very good either, because they trade 2 starters (I think they start) for a buch of bench/role players, with CV being the only exception and he is an enigma.

for the record:
Ruffin - a good 11-12th guy off the bench, tough defens and rebounding

Ivey - actually has been a very good backup for us. Not much offense, but is exactly what you want off the bench - good effort and plays within the offense

CV - can be great on offense, and can be non-existant. Terrible defense although he can get some blocks. Good offensive rebounder, but plays lazy.

Voskuhl - shouldn't be in the league, he should only play when everyone else has fouled out.

Mason - he could be a good bench guy, problem is he thinks he's a starter and doesn't play well off the bench.

Simmons - injured and hasn't played well at all for the Bucks, but could be good in a different system...maybe.


So all in all neither team should want to do this deal.

Yeah I think pretty much.

Honestly, don't have a clue why the Bucks would want Randolph. Just not a fit. Randolph is not untradeable and obviously has a lot of talent but he should be going to a team that really needs a PF, that have the players and/or coach that can get him righted and focused. That's really not the Bucks at all.

The bench? Honestly, if the Bucks are looking at wholesale changes or to do a major shakeup they can always get a new bench. Enough guys that are either still free agents, or who are doing well in D-League or who will or have been released can do that. So if a deal comes along THAT IS RIGHT for them, trading their entire bench is the least of their worries.

From the Knicks standpoint, the last thing they need is more players on their bench. The Knicks have 15 guaranteed contracts that, aside from their young players, are sizeable in length and/or dollars. They simply cannot make a trade of this nature 2 for 6 even if they wanted to (and there really is no reason for them wanting to here).

From the Knicks standpoint, this is basically to dump Randolph cause it's highly unlikely anyone of the players they'd be getting would be make a noticeable impact here (except maybe CV). Crawford may not be the defensive whiz that people bitch about, but he is still an extremely talented player and a genuinely nice person (have no clue where the "cancer" tag comes from). In fact one of the bigger criticisms among knowledgeable Knick fans is that the reason Crawford doesn't produce like he does when Marbury is out is because he's a nice guy and defers to Marbury. Cause honesty, Crawford is a different player (in a good way) when Marbury isn't there (a lot more drives to the basket, a lot more aggressive all around, a lot less jacking up jump shots). And it takes more than a few games of Nate Robinson looking like a young Tiny Archibald to eliminate the fact that Crawford is the Knicks only SG that they can rely on beyond next season. They are not going to deal him no matter how people seem to focus on his minuses and ignore his pluses.

[hermes]

i don't think there is a team that would want both randolph and crawford in the same trade

[TripleDouble]

-= original quote snipped =-
The bench? Honestly, if the Bucks are looking at wholesale changes or to do a major shakeup they can always get a new bench. Enough guys that are either still free agents, or who are doing well in D-League or who will or have been released can do that. So if a deal comes along THAT IS RIGHT for them, trading their entire bench is the least of their worries.

I am not against trading the entire bench at all. I tried to show they are solid, but solid can be replaced, like you said. I just don't want in any way to do it for that package.

<edit> as for Crawford, I am glad to hear the positives about him, as I liked him coming out of Mich. However he doesn't fit in our team as long as we have both Redd and Bell. Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not see Crawford as a guy able to play the 3. If not he is needed at this point by the Bucks, because we have depth at the 2. Again not a guy that would entice me to trade our bench.

[#1knickfan]

-= original quote snipped =-


I am not against trading the entire bench at all. I tried to show they are solid, but solid can be replaced, like you said. I just don't want in any way to do it for that package.

<edit> as for Crawford, I am glad to hear the positives about him, as I liked him coming out of Mich. However he doesn't fit in our team as long as we have both Redd and Bell. Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not see Crawford as a guy able to play the 3. If not he is needed at this point by the Bucks, because we have depth at the 2. Again not a guy that would entice me to trade our bench.

Well Crawford is certainly way too small to play 3 but is more than big enough to play some 1. He does have the ball handling ability to do it but he's spent his entire career at the 2 so he doesn't really have the mentality to play the point. That being said he's still a young guy and with the right coach and veteran point guard to guide him he can learn the position so he's at least competent at that spot. But there isn't any chance of him learning how to do that here in NY so we'll take him for what he is.

[Baddy Chuck]

Take out Crawford, Mason, Ivey amd Ruffin and it could prolly go down.