Woelfel on trade rumors (Redd on block)

[LUKE23]

I don't think comments made to the public mean anything, no good GM or coach is going to reveal what they actually think to the public. I agree with most of the rest of your post.

[paulpressey25]

Just cut Orlando out and trade Villanueva, Croshere, Lue, Jones, Elson and Potsie and cash (to cut some of those guys) and maybe a 1st for Salmons and Miller.

The problem is we would have to trade either Max or Jefferson unless Kohl is willing to pay the luxury tax next year.

I'd be very reluctant to trade the future first. Then again, this team needs direction and if you added Salmons AND Miller while keeping Redd, I'd think we'd have a pretty good win-now team.

Miller would do wonders for Bogut and our frontcourt and Salmons could provide the instant offense off the bench.

We'd finally have a clear direction. Win now. Trade approved.

[europa]

I'd agree that many fans of teams might consider Redd "crap." I highly doubt those in the know around the league do despite the fact he isn't playing as well as he is capable.

I don't think he's crap, and I think he's capable of playing better and reasonably ok within Skiles's system.

But two points: First, I think we all agree that at least since he's returned from his injury, all things considered he hasn't helped the team much. Second, and more important, relative to his contract, he's a net loss, and a pretty big one, for the team as he's currently playing. And that's why it's difficult for me to imagine that there's much demand for him today among not-incompetent, sane GMs, of which the vast majority of NBA GMs are. Which is all the more reason to spend the rest of the season seeing if his skills are in fact not in fatal decline.

I agree with your points. All I'm saying is I doubt GMs and personnel people around the league believe Redd is "crap." The fact of the matter is, people around the league have always viewed Redd more favorably (and often much more favorably) than those in this forum have. There's no question Redd isn't playing as well as he's capable and I doubt that's lost on anyone. But the difference between how fans of teams view players and how GMs and personnel people view them is usually quite different.

In this very thread, we have one post advocating a trade for Larry Hughes involving Redd which makes me shake my head. I'm not sure how anyone can rip on Redd for being overpaid (which he is) and then turn around and want Larry Hughes on this team.

Back to Redd, he isn't playing well but again since he and everyone else who was hurt have gotten healthy, this team is playing better. So it stands to reason that if Redd (and RJ and Bogut and Ridnour and everyone else) improves their play, this team could have a good season. I don't think that's lost on Hammond or Skiles and that's why I don't believe Hammond is in a rush to be rid of Redd. If the right deal comes along he'll make it. But my guess is he wants to see what this team can do with Redd while continuing to add the right additional pieces alongside him. That's been his approach since Day 1 and he's yet to waver from it.

[LUKE23]

Yeah, no trading picks please, unless it's in a deal for a stud.

[trwi7]

I'd be very reluctant to trade the future first.

It doesn't really bother me since this team doesn't know how to use them anyways.

[europa]

I don't think comments made to the public mean anything, no good GM or coach is going to reveal what they actually think to the public.

I agree they won't reveal everything but when they do make comments and their actions subsequently support those comments (which has been the case all along with Hammond), then we can begin to place trust in what they have to say. I place a lot of trust in what Hammond has said because his actions have supported his comments at nearly every turn.

[paulpressey25]

In this very thread, we have one post advocating a trade for Larry Hughes involving Redd which makes me shake my head. I'm not sure how anyone can rip on Redd for being overpaid (which he is) and then turn around and want Larry Hughes on this team.

I know you won't buy into it, but since this is what we do here, I'll give it another go.

We owe Redd after this year $17mm and $18.3 million.

Hughes is owed next year $13.6 then he's done. Gooden is owed $7.1mm and he expires this summer. So we save about $20 million in salary.

Given what we've gotten from Redd to date, Hughes could provide some of that in a different way (not as much scoring, but a better 3-ball and a more active defender who might do better in this system with Ridnour pushing things)

And while Gooden isn't much, he's been a consistent 12/9 type guy, at a position where we desparately need some consistency. Plus he's a big enough body to bang in situations where LRMAM is not able to.

[europa]

I'd consider Gooden although I'm not a big fan. I want nothing to do with Larry Hughes. Never have. Never will.

[jerrod]

I'd be very reluctant to trade the future first.

It doesn't really bother me since this team doesn't know how to use them anyways.

what are you talking about? a first and a 2nd and can get us 2 more forwards!!!!

[paulpressey25]

Yeah, no trading picks please, unless it's in a deal for a stud.

I'm usually there as well, but don't you think adding Brad Miller and Salmons and only really subtracting CV gets this team the 6-7th seed in the East at least? That would put our pick at maybe the 15-18 range. I can't see giving that up killing us. Unlike other years, I don't sense this team will collapse nor can I see Skiles ever allowing a tanking collapse.

The only thing on Trw's deal that I'd want to do is push Gadz on them. If you reworked it to be Salmons/Miller for Gadz/CV/Jones/Alexander/#1 (top ten protected) I think I'd do that. And yes, I'd much prefer to keep JA, but if that is what it took, I'd do it.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

europa, time has unfortunately proven you one of the least capable people around here in evaluating Redd's talent and value. First you criticized Redd for Iguodala proposals, then Redd for Kevin Martin, and later Redd for Ronnie Brewer or John Salmons. It is now obvious to nearly everyone who follows basketball that every one of those players has more value than Redd does, but you have never gone ahead and said "I have been wrong for years now."

Rather than coming clean and admitting that everyone else saw more clearly Redd's value than you did, you continue to criticize trade ideas, and defend yourself with the elusive "those around the league" allusions. If it's true that your opinions were supported then and now by those around the league, then it only means that a handful of core realgm posters are better talent evaluators than those around the league are. Being completely serious now, that is certainly possible, since those around the league, are merely a bunch of ex-players who were ultimately selected by random rich people with non-basketball backgrounds.

http://www.insidehoops.com/nba-owners.shtm
Is it possible that people such as Herb Kohl and the others on that list could have selected basketball executives who are capable of mis-valuing all sorts of players? It probably happens all the time.

We've got all sorts of intelligent forum members who have watched 1000's of games over the years, and who have access to an unimaginable amount of data. Our track record is quite mixed, just as the track record of NBA executives is quite mixed. They make great and horrible draft picks and trades just as we do, and once again, they were chosen for their job not by an all-knowing god of basketball, but by rich people who may or may not have the slightest clue how to pick the picker.

My point is - stop ignoring a history of being wrong about this particular subject. The possibility that basketball executives are just as wrong as you doesn't change anything.

[europa]

I'm not sure Hammond would be willing to part with both Alexander and next year's first at the present time. I don't think he's in a rush to give up on Alexander just yet.

[LUKE23]

I actually think we are a playoff team right now. I wouldn't sacrifice picks for 2-3 extra wins this year.

But we're 15-18 with basically the hardest schedule in the league up to this point if you count road/home splits and # of back to backs, along with SOS against. I don't think we have the talent to get past say the 6 seed at best if everything goes right, but I wouldn't make moves that sacrifice future growth, unless we're really adding an impact player.

The picture will be clearer after a January where we should be able to get our record above the .500 mark.

[trwi7]

Doesn't everybody say they want to trade the pick because the 2009 draft is weak? So if this trade was proposed you wouldn't take it?

And PP, if the season ended today, we would have the 15th pick. We're a half game out of the 7th seed and 3.5 out of the 6th seed. Assuming upgrading from CV to Miller and adding wing depth with Salmons plus an easier schedule, I don't think it's a stretch to say we could get the 6th seed which would push our pick to the 18th-20th range.

[paulpressey25]

I'm not sure Hammond would be willing to part with both Alexander and next year's first at the present time. I don't think he's in a rush to give up on Alexander just yet.

I agree, for Hammond to do this, it would mean a lot because I'm sure he values young players and picks. But I'd have to think Skiles wants to win now to prove himself and also to teach this club how to win.

The question is how much he loves his own draft pick (JA). If Hammond truly now thinks that JA will never be more than Matt Harping, let's pull the trigger. I'm not saying he thinks that though. But if he has different opinions now on Alexander, you'd like to think he'd trade him now while he still has some value from "potential"

[steger_3434]

Just thought I'd throw it out there that JA's stats are now worse than Haislip's when comparing rookie years. Just saying.

[europa]

Just thought I'd throw it out there that JA's stats are now worse than Haislip's when comparing rookie years. Just saying.

One significant point, though, is Haislip's rookie season was arguably his best. I have no idea if Alexander will be a good player, a great one or if he'll suck but I'm willing to bet that this season won't be his best.

[trwi7]

One significant point, though, is Haislip's rookie season was arguably his best.

His second season was easily his best.

[paulpressey25]

Mentally we all knew Haislip didn't appear to be the most motivated guy. On that basis alone, Alexander will be a better player I think. He'll get smarter over time and figure out the little things he needs to do to make it in the league.

You still come back though to the Harpring analogy (yes I know, he's a different player, etc, etc) but the point being he might not ever be more than a Matt Harpring equivalent player. If some team still as of today values him higher than that, you have to think about it. Especially if the trade is a win-now trade, because 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.

[europa]

One significant point, though, is Haislip's rookie season was arguably his best.

His second season was easily his best.

He improved in some areas but the Bucks trusted him less and he played fewer minutes. In any event, his production wasn't very good.

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. Combine that with his proven work ethic and the trajectory of improvement he's displayed in the past and I'm more than willing to bet that this season won't be his best as a pro. I'll also bet that he'll be a better player over time than Haislip was.