Woelfel on trade rumors (Redd on block)

[power4wardjinx]

"Measuring stick games" are like omg super important, duh! If you look at the schedule, it says MSG next to the measuring stick games. San Antonio wasn't one of them so just disregard it of course.

not disregarding, it just has a different context after they were embarassed on the home court by the #5-positioned team in the East. They've got 2 more vs. Detroit, 2 more vs. Miami, 2 vs. Chicago, 3 vs. Atlanta and 4 vs. New Jersey. A split in Tex is nice but I'll take the wins we have vs. the Bulls and the Heat over a win vs. the Spurs anyday.

[KnicksManiac]

How about this:

Knicks trade: Eddy Curry, Jared Jeffries, Nate Robinson, David Lee?
Bucks trade: Michael Redd and Dan Gadzuric

Thoughts?

[Tommy Udo 6]

Other players that executives say are available include Philadelphia 76ers center Sam Dalembert, Charlotte Bobcats guard Raymond Felton and forward Adam Morrison, Chicago Bulls forward Drew Gooden and guard Larry Hughes and Sacramento Kings center Brad Miller. …

We've talked a lot over the years about a "Redd for Gooden/Hughes" trade when those players were with the Cav's. I'd still do that deal right now if the Bulls would. I think those two players would give us enough veteran help to make the playoffs. If needed, we could add CV into the deal.

Bulls would probably make that swap - Gooden/Hughes for Redd - but Bulls would need a PF back. Gooden is our only post scorer so CV would almost certainly have to be in the trade

[power4wardjinx]

How about this:

Knicks trade: Eddy Curry, Jared Jeffries, Nate Robinson, David Lee?
Bucks trade: Michael Redd and Dan Gadzuric

Thoughts?

David Lee's the man - but TWO stiffs have to come along with him? Messy trade, but Lee's a keeper. Skiles would probably lose it if the Bucks did this.

[Tommy Udo 6]

Skiles was a major factor in Bulls dumping Curry...no way he comes to Milwaukee.

[power4wardjinx]

Skiles was a major factor in Bulls dumping Curry...no way he comes to Milwaukee.

Yep, I remember. I followed the Baby Bulls pretty closely. Skiles didn't like any of the big guys he found there, did he. Curry and Chandler went straight into Skiles' doghouse. Curry didn't seem to give a #@#% ...

[paulpressey25]

Concur with Jinx that the Detroit game was more important than San Antonio. Why? Because the Bucks for years have been beating SA. We match up well and Bogut comes to play Duncan. Think back to two years ago when the Bucks were on that six-game win streak. We again won right after Christmas down in San Antonio. Yet, we come back to start the year with back to backs against Cleveland and games against Chicago (meaningful teams we need to beat to make the playoffs) and we get our butts handed to us. Why? Because at the time Chicago and Cleveland were tough defensive teams that seem to have a way of getting in Bogut and Redd's head among others. Until we solve the puzzle of those type of teams in our conference, we still aren't going anywhere.

I like the Redd for Mike Miller/Reggie Evans three way Rafer thought up.

I'd also do the Knicks trade if Skiles could get along with Curry. That deal dumps Redd and Gadz and we get back a better backup C and a PF in Lee. Nate would provide some spark off the bench.

[paul]

If some people think that it's worth taking on the complete crap that is Eddy Curry for the sake of getting Lee then ok, I disagree but ok. But if anyone thinks that Curry is a piece that we might actually want they have lost their freaking minds. His complete lack of effort and horrendous attitude despite, or perhaps in spite of having loads of ability makes him very close to my #1 most despised player in the game. I flat out HATE the very thought of Curry and would be extremely upset if I ever had the misfortune of seeing him in a Bucks uni.

David Lee is however a guy I could definitely see both Skiles and Hammond coveting, I think both his play and attitude would fit in with what they are trying to build here - the question becomes are they willing to take two massive negatives to get the one positive and a close to neutral in Nate, personally I really doubt it. We give up easily the best player in the deal, I highly doubt they'd take that much crap back in that case.

[eagle13]

Well Cats want Curry so you could make that a 3 way and get Wallace back.

NO to Hughes. He makes almost as much as Redd for more years. Plus he sucks.

[trwi7]

He makes almost as much as Redd for more years.

And by more years, you of course mean less years.

[paulpressey25]

Yeah Paul, I don't know what I was smoking in my reply on that Knicks deal. After this year Curry makes $10.5 and $11.2. Jeffries makes $6.4 and $6.8. Lee we'd need to resign. Nate we'd need to resign or let walk if he get's an offer sheet.

So we'd be giving up Redd's future $35mm and Gadz's $14 million or sending out $50mm but we'd be bringing in $34 million and still needing to pay Lee maybe $8mm a year. So you really don't have salary savings. And Lee might just play out next year to hit the 2010 FA class.

I guess the question is if you like Curry and David Lee better than Redd or Gadz (assuming Jarred Jeffries and Gadz really net each other out). Jeffries is the part that kills this for me. Replace Jeffries with "Q" and the Knicks can keep Nate, and then I'd do this.

That would get us Curry, Lee and Q who would all help and give us much more salary flexibility in exchange for Redd and Gadz.

[emunney]

Concur with Jinx that the Detroit game was more important than San Antonio. Why? Because the Bucks for years have been beating SA. We match up well and Bogut comes to play Duncan. Think back to two years ago when the Bucks were on that six-game win streak. We again won right after Christmas down in San Antonio. Yet, we come back to start the year with back to backs against Cleveland and games against Chicago (meaningful teams we need to beat to make the playoffs) and we get our butts handed to us. Why? Because at the time Chicago and Cleveland were tough defensive teams that seem to have a way of getting in Bogut and Redd's head among others. Until we solve the puzzle of those type of teams in our conference, we still aren't going anywhere.

The Detroit game was a "measuring stick game" in the same sense that every game you measure yourself against your opponent. It seems arbitrary and meaningless to pick out one game and say, "The result of this game is absolute truth. Unless we win this game, we've really accomplished nothing." There is no rational basis for that. My guess is that if we'd have beaten Detroit, SA would become the "measuring stick game," and if we'd have lost that, then people would say the Detroit game was meaningless because we couldn't beat SA as we have in years past. Every game is a separate measurement. What if we played Detroit twice and split the games? Does that mean we're identical teams?

There are 82 games in an NBA season and the number of those games we win will determine whether we get in the playoffs. If we'd beaten Detroit and lost to SA, we'd be closer to Detroit in the standings. That is the only additional significance of the Detroit game.

The SA game is all Bogut's matchup with Duncan. If you have a guy on your team who consistently outplays Duncan in that matchup, you will always be in that game. That doesn't take anything away from that win, though. Good or bad matchup, SA is still a vastly superior team to us, and we shouldn't be penciling in a win in their building. The bigger key is that we didn't get down on ourselves after the Detroit game, and then followed that up with a strong effort against an arguably even better team in Houston on the back to back. The team is coming together well. The insinuation that the loss against Detroit preemptively kills the joy over the win at San Antonio is pretty baffling.

We don't play well every game regardless of the opponent, but we are trending in the right direction.

[paulpressey25]

There are 82 games in an NBA season and the number of those games we win will determine whether we get in the playoffs. If we'd beaten Detroit and lost to SA, we'd be closer to Detroit in the standings. That is the only additional significance of the Detroit game.

I respectfully disagree based on these thoughts:

a) The Detroit game was a home game on four days rest. If you are going to be a good team, you've got to win those type of home games. I suppose you could say San Antonio meant more since it was a road win. I'm not sure where I shake out on that though since I think defending the home turf is more important. Ty had a good point where he said good teams seem to win every home game save for splitting against the top 6-7 teams in the league, and then beat every below .500 team on the road.

b) The real problem I had with Detroit was that it continued the pattern we've seen the last four-five years of our team beating or playing tough some Western Conference teams in one-off games (primarily SA) and still being either too soft or undersized to take it to the teams we play much more frequently. i.e. Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Philly, New Jersey, Toronto, etc.

I agree though the trend is heading upward.

[raferfenix]

PP----glad you like the Miller/Evans package. What do you think about it if it also includes a Craig Smith for CV swap?

[EastSideBucksFan]

PP----glad you like the Miller/Evans package. What do you think about it if it also includes a Craig Smith for CV swap?

Why is Craig Smith such a horrible rebounder?

I liked him at first, but I think Bucks fans think too highly of him cause he dropped like 25 points on us last year.

[emunney]

b) The real problem I had with Detroit was that it continued the pattern we've seen the last four-five years of our team beating or playing tough some Western Conference teams in one-off games (primarily SA) and still being either too soft or undersized to take it to the teams we play much more frequently. i.e. Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Philly, New Jersey, Toronto, etc.

I don't see the pattern. I don't think our winning percentage against those teams is significantly different than it is against the rest of the league. I'll add it up in a minute, but I doubt if there's a major difference.

[power4wardjinx]

There are 82 games in an NBA season and the number of those games we win will determine whether we get in the playoffs. If we'd beaten Detroit and lost to SA, we'd be closer to Detroit in the standings. That is the only additional significance of the Detroit game.

OK, that's 1 important reason.

#2 - It was at home. Winning at home sells tix, makes people happy.

#3 - We play them 4 times, and they handed it to us the 1st time. But we weren't healthy, no Bogut. This time we were healthy, rested, and at home. And Skiles wanted to make a statement. They didn't show up, didn't compete. Mental toughness is a big issue with the Bucks.

#4 - The Bucks build the team to compete in the East, not in the West against Tim Duncan or Shaq. The Pistons, with all their adjustment problems with AI, put the Bucks in their place -- and that place is a long way from the 5 seed.

Luke and SKiles pulled it together in SA, just as Luke pulled it together in the final four minutes against Utah. They get all the credit in the world for that. But they've had to fight to do it and the Bucks were within a shot or two of losing all three of those games.

Detroit was bad, bad night. How they respond to it could determine the course of the season. THAT's how important the game was. San ANtonio's not the response. It's just the start of the response. Houston was slop, but they were tired. Nice job considering.

Tonight's game is certainly more important than the Houston game, wouldn't you agree?

[power4wardjinx]

double post

[Joana]

In an alternative universe where the order of the games was reversed, we would have lost to the Spurs had we played them instead of the Pistons in that home game; and we'd probably have followed that with a victory over Detroit at the Palace.

What would the distinguished esoterists of this forum read on that hypothetical sucession of events?

[raferfenix]

PP----glad you like the Miller/Evans package. What do you think about it if it also includes a Craig Smith for CV swap?

Why is Craig Smith such a horrible rebounder?

I liked him at first, but I think Bucks fans think too highly of him cause he dropped like 25 points on us last year.

From my understanding he's a tough as nails defender/rebounder type who can also mix it up a little in the post. I was thinking he'd be similar to a Leon Powe. If his rebounding is poor that obviously changes things, but I can easily see Skiles thinking he can get the most out of him.