RealGM

paulpressey25 wrote:it's clear Skiles doesn't see JA as bringing enough to the table right now to be a rotational player on a win-now team.

True, but there's nothing to believe Hammond and/or Skiles believe that will be the case long term. If both of them believe he'll improve (and at this time there's no reason to think he won't), then they can afford now to be patient with him and not give up on him prematurely.

JA will be significantly better than Haislip. But this is a topic where most already have their mind made up, so I don't think debating it really gets anyone anywhere.

I'm at the point where I will probably just avoid all JA threads until next season.

I agree that noone will change their opinion about JA for a couple of years. I may very well be proven wrong in a year or two and if that happens I'll admit I was wrong. For the time being his late blossoming in college, his athleticism being his main attribute, his summer league, preseason and rookie year play are pointing toward a Haislip type player.

Now his work ethic, in my mind, will keep him in the league longer, but I don't think he'll amount to anything. Time will tell, though.

LUKE23 wrote:JA will be significantly better than Haislip. But this is a topic where most already have their mind made up, so I don't think debating it really gets anyone anywhere.

I'm at the point where I will probably just avoid all JA threads until next season.

That's how I feel about the Redd discussions.

europa wrote:

paulpressey25 wrote:it's clear Skiles doesn't see JA as bringing enough to the table right now to be a rotational player on a win-now team.

True, but there's nothing to believe Hammond and/or Skiles believe that will be the case long term. If both of them believe he'll improve (and at this time there's no reason to think he won't), then they can afford now to be patient with him and not give up on him prematurely.

It's strange that they haven't sent him down to the D-League, though. It's obvious he's not good enough in Skiles eyes to see any regular or meaningful minutes. If that's the case send him down and hope he gets some confidence and improves his skill set.

steger_3434 wrote:It's strange that they haven't sent him down to the D-League, though. It's obvious he's not good enough in Skiles eyes to see any regular or meaningful minutes. If that's the case send him down and hope he gets some confidence and improves his skill set.

I think that would be a good idea. The only reason I can see them not doing it is to get him into the Slam Dunk contest. But I think that's being shortsighted. I'd like to see him in the D League playing every day. It was a huge help for Sessions last year and I think it would help Alexander as well.

steger_3434 wrote:It's strange that they haven't sent him down to the D-League, though. .

It would be admitting too much for Hammond, Skiles and the Bucks PR staff. They've got JA photos plastered all over their commercials, pocket schedules, etc. Now we've got the dunk contest PR thing going.

Hammond and Skiles fell in love with this guy.

paulpressey25 wrote:

More Bang For The Bucks wrote:for those that are down with the proposed Sac deal what about?

Bucks get Salmons/Miller/Pietrus/Battie........give Redd/CV/Gadz/D Jones

I think that would be a steal for us. I can't see the Kings giving up Salmons and Miller for CV, Bogans, Gadz. I think you need to put a future #1 and/or Joe Alexander in there for them.

I don't know if Orlando would take on Redd's deal and get enough extra over the things they get from Pietrus.

I know my Kings trade idea was a low ball offer too. But I admitted the Kings would pass. Kings wouldnt take our worse 3 contracts either. Even with a first round and Joe Alexander in the deal even I bet. Id rather re up my trade with a first rounder and Joe Alexander. I will have to look back at my trade. I think it was CV,Bell,Lue and maybe Gadz in a 3 team and I had a 2 team deal. With Lue to Laker and Mihm went to Kings while our guy went there for Miller and Salmons.

My re up trade would be Alexander,CV,Bell,Lue,Gadz for Miller and Salmons. Unless the Kings didnt want Lue. Ship him to Lakers and Kings get Mihm instead of Lue. Then we go for playoffs with Redd or unload him for whatever.

europa wrote:Again, I don't know how good Alexander will be, but I've seen much greater basketball skills with him than I ever saw with Haislip.

Because you haven't seen Hailip in years. Currently, he's a much better player than Alexander and it's not even close. I agree Alexander has a higher ceiling though, or, at least a similar ceiling that he'll reach quicker.

I like the Matt Harpring comparison, that's clever, they're similar players. Harpring was way better than Joe when he joined the league, but I think Alexander can become a similar player to him.

Joana wrote:

europa wrote:Again, I don't know how good Alexander will be, but I've seen much greater basketball skills with him than I ever saw with Haislip.

Because you haven't seen Hailip in years. Currently, he's a much better player than Alexander and it's not even close.

Perhaps. But playing overseas is a far cry from playing in the NBA. You're right, I haven't seen him play in years but it's not like he left a very memorable impression the last time he was in this league. So I can't say I miss him.

blueedwards wrote:I know my Kings trade idea was a low ball offer too.

The Kings are a mess though, and I think need to be pursued here as they have two guys who could help us in Miller and Salmons. Brad Miller has been pretty much pouting the past month and trying to get traded. Although I don't think Milwaukee is the "contender" situation he'd like to see himself in.

That said, I'm not sure which top tier team right now would have the cap room and give up a decent asset for MIller in a belief he'd put them over the top for the title. Where I think Sacto would balk is the inclusion of Gadz. But I can't see us doing the deal if we can't move Gadz.

I believe the Kings wanted Gadz in the past like 2-3 seasons ago. Think we had Kenny Thomas coming back. I think Kohl vetoed that. lol Maybe Harris did. I dont have a link any more. I think that was the year before the Kings wanted Simmons too. Before Simmons went down with injury.

Three Way. Bucks, Kings & Lakers (trade checker approved).

Bucks Trade:
D.Jones - expiring
C.V - expiring
T.Lue - expiring
J.A - rookie prospect
For:
B.Miller - 1 year

Kings Trade:
B.Miller - 1 year
For:
D.Jones - expiring
C.V - expiring
C.Mihm - expiring
J.A - rookie prospect

Lakers Trade:
C.Mihm - expiring
For:
T.Lue - expiring

How would Brad Miller help us? Bogut is better than Miller, and you couldn't play them out on the court at the same time effectively. Furthermore, Miller is aging, losing mobility, and though scrappy... has never been a hard nosed defender. I just can't see Hammond and Skiles getting excited about that aquisition.

I do think Landry is a Hammond/Skiles type. I think that Gerald Wallace would fit in here. I'm certain Skiles would welcome Hinrich. Klieza would thrive here. Noccioni.

Those are all guys that can be had right now.

I'm not pretending to have inside information, or knowing anything outside of what we have been told in press conferences and reading between the lines of past moves. But Hammond and Skiles are not aiming for a title right now. They are trying to build a team that is going to defend and compete every night, finish 3-6 in the east, and then make the final push two or three seasons down the road. Accordingly: they want guys that defend from tip off to the final whistle, can space the floor on offense, have a good hoops IQ, and are coachable (won't go Sprewell on a coach who corrects a mistake).

I think we have a very strong trading chip in Sessions (if the organazation does not think he is our long term answer at the point). I think CV has some value. I think there are 2-3 teams that would take Redd. Good grief, Gadz might have even played his way in to "tradable" status. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Will Perdude wrote:How would Brad Miller help us? Bogut is better than Miller, and you couldn't play them out on the court at the same time effectively.

I think you could. Miller seems to like going with the Sikma role now where he plays way out on the three point line. He's played somewhat the PF role with Hawes playing C at times.

But the bigger point to this trade would be not having our team performance drop off a cliff when Bogut is not on the court. I think we only have one effective big---Bogut. That's it. And teams with bigger front-lines exploit that all the time.

I agree that Bogut is our only decent big. And Miller would be a vey good backup. But is that what he wants at this stage of his career? To come be a backup in Milwaukeee? Who knows.

Miller was tougher in Chicago than he has been in Sacto.

My biggest concern Press is that our defense hinges on quick rotations that pack in the middle and prevent penetration. You can get away with Brad launching outside shots on that end, but Miller and Bogut wouldn't work on D.

Bogut and Miller are very complimentary. Every time they play against one another, Miller pulls Bogut out of the paint and shoots jumpers over him. Had a couple of very good games against AB last year.

Miller's been playing outside the paint for years now and he's more mobile than Bogut. He's like a more talented Malik Allen. He's a good shooter, more consistent than Charlie. In the East, you'd match him against the PFs (can't you picture him guarding him Yi?) and use him to spell Bogut. We'd still need a banger off the bench, but so do most teams in the NBA - there aren't very many. We could always pick up Richard Hendrix.

Edit: That's a great trade austuf!!

Why don't we figure out how to get Salmons? The Kings tried to trade him to Toronto but the Raptors rejected it because he didn't want to play in Canada for some strange reason. I don't get why the Kings would try to trade him but everything there is tied to new arena politics. They'd trade the entire team for a supportive county board, I suppose. Big contracts are the last thing the Maloofs should be looking at, so we'd have to do a three-way if Redd was involved.

power4wardjinx wrote:so I'm not sure why we're talking about a Redd trade to Sacramento?

Because Hammond doesn't appear inclined at the present time to trade Redd. He wants to trade Villanueva and if the Landry/Villanueva deal was on the table, that means Villanueva's value is significantly higher than it was in the summer when nobody offered anything of value for him. Adding Landry would be a huge move for the Bucks and would enable Hammond to get a look at how good this team will be without removing a critical element (Redd). So far Hammond has shown more of an inclination to add talent around Redd than trading Redd. I'm not sure he's ready to alter that approach just yet.

europa wrote:

power4wardjinx wrote:so I'm not sure why we're talking about a Redd trade to Sacramento?

Because Hammond doesn't appear inclined at the present time to trade Redd. He wants to trade Villanueva and if the Landry/Villanueva deal was on the table, that means Villanueva's value is significantly higher than it was in the summer when nobody offered anything of value for him. Adding Landry would be a huge move for the Bucks and would enable Hammond to get a look at how good this team will be without removing a critical element (Redd). So far Hammond has shown more of an inclination to add talent around Redd than trading Redd. I'm not sure he's ready to alter that approach just yet.

That's the question, isn't it? These unnamed NBA officials are speculating that it's only a matter of time before this thinking is altered -- and he's a miserable fit on a Skiles team so I don't know what's holding him back. But that's what concerns me -- the bolded part. Charlie V is one thing, but Charlie Bell now - who loves playing for Skiles (referring to the TI you posted on the other thread). I see Charlie B bucking Redd for PT - he's campaigning for it!!!

We've been down this road putting pieces around Redd, and it hasn't worked. It could be argued we have a coach now, but that coach would rather have a different shooting guard.