Check out this TI from NOH

CBUCK06 · Post #1 » by **CBUCK06** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 11:09 pm

ecuhus1981 wrote:Jackson, Butler and Ely for Gadzuric, Bell and Sessions (Trade ID #4389437)

NOK nabs a couple of quality guards to help Paul. Truthfully, I could see Scott starting Bell over Peterson, but at least he would be a valuable veteran combo guard. Sessions is a tall PG prospect, and Gadzuric is a bad contract, but a good defender inside.
Paul, Peterson, Stojakovic, West, Chandler
Lue, Bell, Wright, Armstrong, Gadzuric

MIL shortens its contractual obligations, while adding a quality (HEALTHY!) SF defender in Butler.
Williams, Redd, Mason, Jianlian, Bogut
Jackson, Simmons, Butler, Villanueva, Ely

I'd be in favor of this deal. What are your thoughts?

WRau1 · Post #2 » by **WRau1** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 11:14 pm

I like Sessions. Let them have Storey or a future 2nd.

BuckFan25226 · Post #3 » by **BuckFan25226** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 11:28 pm

I don't want to get rid of Sessions, so no, I hate the deal.

BrewersGM · Post #4 » by **BrewersGM** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 11:34 pm

Sessions needs to stay...He could be our future is a trade goes down..

EastSideBucksFan · Post #5 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Sat Jan 5, 2008 11:57 pm

BrewersGM wrote:Sessions needs to stay...He could be our future is a trade goes down..

Give me a break

Sessions should never be a deal breaker.

Especially when you can unload Gadzuric and Bell and bring back a backup PG, possibly a starting SF, and a backup frontcourt player on small contracts.

I'd be down for this deal

MajorDad · Post #6 » by **MajorDad** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 12:21 am

please explain to me why this trade proposal is any smarter than the one that was locked for stupidity?

I see no real benefit in this trade other than getting rid of Gadz and bell. Why not have a trade to get rid of Mo and Voshkuhl and Simmons too? throw charlie in for good measure.

and NO, I don't believe for 1 second that Mo is better than Bibby. If Mo were better than Bibby, one would think that the Cavs would be contacting us rather than the Kings.

so why was that other thread locked? I've seen a lot worse proposals than that one. like the proposal of signing Gadz to a 6 year deal. OOps, that's a reality - not a stupid proposal. or that one about signing Simmons as the best free agent available - oops that was what harris said and a reality - not a stupid proposal.

or how about trading randolph for francis so we can waive Francis. Was that a great idea or what? or reality?

I don't think you should lock trade proposals because you think they're stupid. I've seen a lot stupider trades made by the Bucks GM that made me laugh and also cry.

MD _ you seem rather mean spirited today . what happened? did you go to last night's Bucks game?

FoDrizzle · Post #7 » by **FoDrizzle** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:09 am

Um, this proposal is quite reasonable actually. Some of you are clearly overvaluing a prospect like Sessions when this deal does exactly the things the Bucks need -- getting rid of bad contracts and a player that doesn't want to be here. The return isn't the greatest, but a veteran leader like Bobby J can be quite useful at times of turmoil like this, and Rasual is a decent rotational player, not to mention the difference in contracts between Gadz and Melvin Ely.

This trade won't improve the Bucks much immediately but I think it definitely improves Milwaukee's situation on a grand scale.

MajorDad · Post #8 » by **MajorDad** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:20 am

I liked the other proposa l better- it made me happy and laugh.

BucksRuleAll22 · Post #9 » by **BucksRuleAll22** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:21 am

I don't like it, I would if Sessions was not included. We havn't seen him play, at least I havn't and all I hear is good things about the guy. I can't wait to watch him.

MajorDad · Post #10 » by **MajorDad** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 3:59 am

Your trio of butler, jackson and ely have combined in tonight's game for a total of zero (0) points on 0for 1 shooting, 1 rebound and 1 foul. Ely didn't even play. and you want us to give up gadz , bell and sessions for that type of production?

ok, sure fine, here take them.

once again, I fail to see how this generates anything positive for the bucks other than it creates a 3 paragraph article for the Mil journa and it takes our minds out of reality for a while.

KingCammo · Post #11 » by **KingCammo** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:08 am

This Bucks board needs some more TI's!

CBUCK06 · Post #12 » by **CBUCK06** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:17 am

MajorDad wrote:Your trio of butler, jackson and ely have combined in tonight's game for a total of zero (0) points on 0for 1 shooting, 1 rebound and 1 foul. Ely didn't even play. and you want us to give up gadz , bell and sessions for that type of production?

ok, sure fine, here take them.

once again, I fail to see how this generates anything positive for the bucks other than it creates a 3 paragraph article for the Mil journa and it takes our minds out of reality for a while.

I just want us to give up Gadz. B-Jax is tough. Ely is...well you have a point there.

BrewersGM · Post #13 » by **BrewersGM** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:19 am

[quote="EastSideBucksFan"][/quote]

All I said is he needs to stay. I didnt say there is no way that the Bucks are not going to trade him! I like Sessions, I think they might want to keep him around. In other words they may have something with him, like a future!

cam2win · Post #14 » by **cam2win** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 4:24 am

I'm in favor of the deal. Heck all he had to say is we rid ourselves of 2 bad contracts.

MilBucksBackOnTop06 · Post #15 » by **MilBucksBackOnTop06** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 10:37 am

EastSideBucksFan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Give me a break

Sessions should never be a deal breaker.

Especially when you can unload Gadzuric and Bell and bring back a backup PG, possibly a starting SF, and a backup frontcourt player on small contracts.

I'd be down for this deal

Agreed. Sessions is all a sudden the 'savior' now because of impressive runs in the D-League?

This is laughable...we need to win now. This is the type of deal you do now if you are the Bucks.

Sessions is no deal breaker. :noway:

MilBucksBackOnTop06 · Post #16 » by **MilBucksBackOnTop06** » Sun Jan 6, 2008 10:41 am

MajorDad wrote:please explain to me why this trade proposal is any smarter than the one that was locked for stupidity?

I see no real benefit in this trade other than getting rid of Gadz and bell. Why not have a trade to get rid of Mo and Voshkuhl and Simmons too? throw charlie in for good measure.

and NO, I don't believe for 1 second that Mo is better than Bibby. If Mo were better than Bibby, one would think that the Cavs would be contacting us rather than the Kings.

so why was that other thread locked? I've seen a lot worse proposals than that one. like the proposal of signing Gadz to a 6 year deal. OOps, that's a reality - not a stupid proposal. or that one about signing Simmons as the best free agent available - oops that was what harris said and a reality - not a stupid proposal.

or how about trading randolph for francis so we can waive Francis. Was that a great idea or what? or reality?

I don't think you should lock trade proposals because you think they're stupid. I've seen a lot stupider trades made by the Bucks GM that made me laugh and also cry.

MD _ you seem rather mean spirited today . what happened? did you go to last night's Bucks game?

Well duh. Who is to say you can't make several deals!?

You can move em all in two or three seperate deals. Come on think man.
But any deal led by Harris will not be to clear cap space. It will be to win!

If you unload a guy with a contract so much the better. But I bet he would unload Redd if the right deal that made this team came along with his job on the line.