Lux Tax at $69.9mm. League says prepare for $61mm next year

[LUKE23]

I would agree. If Hammond adds 2010-11 salary to move Ridnour I'm not going to be happy. If the Mo trade was really a success, then an expiring Ridnour should be able to get us salary savings via a 2009-10 expiring.

[Rockmaninoff]

Based on the projections for next season, does this increase other teams desire to trade for Ridnour and his expiring contract? Personally I think it would.

Yes it would. That is why waiting is the prudent thing to do. Resign Sessions and Ilyasova, hold on to the expiring contracts, and let things play out naturally. Reactivate Adrian Griffin if need be.

Forcing the issue for Childress is a misstep. It will limit the Bucks' current options, and with the salary cap dropping perceptibly, likely future options as well.

[europa]

If we're focusing only on the financial aspect, if Hammond gets an expiring or a two-year deal for less than Ridnour is making he's still saving money compared to Mo, who will receive $26M over the next three years, including his high salary of $9.3M in 2010-11. Given the gloom and doom projection for 2010-11, that $9.3M for Mo could have been an absolute killer for the Bucks. So Hammond is still going to come out way ahead financially as a result of that deal.

If the Bucks can make the moves they want to make (Sessions, Childress, Ilyasova) and get under the tax in other ways, perhaps they'll look at keeping Ridnour rather than adding future salary and then remove his contract at the end of the season or for an expiring at the deadline. I think that's an option we need to now consider. I still think the odds favor him being traded but I don't think we should rule out Ridnour being kept at this time.

[Rockmaninoff]

Based on the projections for next season, does this increase other teams desire to trade for Ridnour and his expiring contract? Personally I think it would.

Now examine why that would be. These teams have long term liabilities and would prefer to get under the luxury tax in the short term by dumping said long term junk contracts. Teams will peddle 2 year crap for our 1 year version.

The silver lining is that we would likely get draft picks back with the crap.

[LUKE23]

If we're focusing only on the financial aspect, if Hammond gets an expiring or a two-year deal for less than Ridnour is making he's still saving money compared to Mo, who will receive $26M over the next three years

So what, he's far worse than Mo. I see you're backing off what you think we can get for Ridnour now. If we can't get expiring junk for Ridnour, then the Mo trade was a failure, bottom line.

If the Bucks can make the moves they want to make (Sessions, Childress, Ilyasova) and get under the tax in other ways, perhaps they'll look at keeping Ridnour rather than adding future salary and then remove his contract at the end of the season or for an expiring at the deadline.

Good lord hell no. He had better not be taking one second of PT from Sessions/Jennings next year.

[europa]

I'm not backing off anything Luke. I still Ridnour is going to be traded when it's all said and done. I simply said I do not believe Ridnour will be traded for a player who's going to be making $26M over three years like Mo is going to make, including $9.3M in 2010-11.

[LUKE23]

I'm not backing off anything Luke. I still Ridnour is going to be traded when it's all said and done. I simply said I do not believe Ridnour will be traded for a player who's going to be making $26M over three years like Mo is going to make, including $9.3M in 2010-11.

That isn't relevant. You don't just compare salaries without comparing talent. If Luke Ridnour, as a $6.5M expiring at a premium NBA position, cannot net us expiring garbage to save some money, then he's obviously viewed as worthless league-wide. If that is indeed the case, the Mo trade is a failure. Why can't you just admit this?

If Ridnour is taking any playing time from our young PG's next year, people will be absolutely livid and they will have every right to be.

[europa]

If we're going to focus on the financial aspect than yes how much Mo is going to make is quite relevant. And given the forecast for 2010-11, I'd say removing $9.3M in salary is pretty damn relevant.

As always, I prefer to see how this all plays out before working myself into a fever pitch. As I said, I still believe Ridnour will be traded. I expect Sessions to come in at a very reasonable rate and the Bucks are extremely high on Jennings so they want him to play as a rookie. That leaves Ridnour as the odd man out. It's possible, just possible is all I'm saying, that if the Bucks can work other ways to add/retain the players they want and get under the tax, they hold off on Ridnour. That's an option. It's one of many Hammond has at his disposal right now. That's the good news here in my opinon.

[LUKE23]

If we're going to focus on the financial aspect than yes how much Mo is going to make is quite relevant. And given the forecast for 2010-11, I'd say removing $9.3M in salary is pretty damn relevant.

2009-10 was the big year for us as far as clearing money. We knew that going in. Mo for Ridnour cleared $2M and we got a massive talent downgrade. If Ridnour is valued as much as you say he is, he should, as an expiring, be able to get us expiring trash. Agreed? Ok, good.

As always, I prefer to see how this all plays out before working myself into a fever pitch. As I said, I still believe Ridnour will be traded. I expect Sessions to come in at a very reasonable rate and the Bucks are extremely high on Jennings so they want him to play as a rookie. That leaves Ridnour as the odd man out. It's possible, just possible is all I'm saying, that if the Bucks can work other ways to add/retain the players they want and get under the tax, they hold off on Ridnour. That's an option. It's one of many Hammond has at his disposal right now. That's the good news here in my opinon.

Holding onto Ridnour is "an option"? That doesn't make any sense to me. If blocking our two young PG's with a very crappy veteran is "an option", I'm going to ask for plan B.

[europa]

Removing Mo's contract saved the team $26M over the next three years. Whether you want to admit that or not, that is saving money. That's $26M that can now either be saved or used in other ways, such as re-signing Sessions for example. I consider that good news. If you would rather lose Sessions and spend $26M on Mo, that's fine. That would have been an option too. I'm glad Hammond didn't choose it.

As far as the PG situation, again I'm going to let it play itself out before getting myself worked up about something that may never even happen.

[LUKE23]

That's fine, but if Ridnour is still on this team because Hammond can't get expiring trash for him, that's a massive strike against him. That would mean you got a completely worthless player who wasn't expiring at the time of the Mo trade. Not to mention we have two young PG's that need minutes.

[europa]

Or it means that Hammond may want to keep Ridnour in the short term and move him at the deadline if there's the possibility of a better deal then. Let's see how it plays out before we condemn Hammond, ok? Plenty of folks here have made that mistake already, such as the folks who insisted there's no way RJ would be traded after the last deadline and all that stuff. How did that prediction work out? Let's show some patience and let Hammond utilize all of the options at his disposal. I don't want Ridnour on the team any more than you do, Luke. I'm simply saying that Hammond has a number of options now and he needs to make sure he utilizes them all properly. The landscape is going to be constantly changing. That's why I insisted RJ could be traded this summer and why I'm not worried about Ridnour at the present time. I believe this can all be worked out.

My focus now is on re-signing Sessions and acquiring Childress. The key for me is what the Bucks would have to give up for Childress in a S&T. I think that will dictate a lot of what they will do after that. For example, if the Hawks take Bowen, then we know Thomas will probably be bought out (likely for around $1.3M) which will save $2.5M. Or if Thomas is dealt then we know we can shave off $2.05M after Bowen is waived and so on.

[Debit One]

Let's see how it plays out before we condemn Hammond, ok?

Unacceptable.

[Jollay]

If Ridnour is taking any playing time from our young PG's next year, people will be absolutely livid and they will have every right to be.

No, I think we might survive if we have Ridnour on the roster for a whole another year. And no, I think maybe Jennings won't be ruined by his 20th birthday because of that. Maybe even Luke Ridnour can pass on some info/knowledge to Jennings? Maybe?

It kills me when you act like these little moves are what will make or break us. I prefer getting an asset like Amir Johnson to merely giving away RJ for Szerbiak as well.

But when that didn't happen, that was the end of the world as well.

Hammond will rise and fall on Jennings, Meeks, Alexander, Mbah a Moute, and whoever we draft next year. When we get cap room, which is inevitable in 1-2 years, whatever FA then.

These cosmetic moves whether we get rid of Ridnour now or next year are minor. Jennings development is NOT going to be determined by Ridnour's presence on the roster for one year, and we are NOT going to significantly improve the state of the Bucks by getting rid of him a year early.

What solid young player will we acquire with 5.5 million with that that it will change the future of the franchise? We weren't goingto match CV anyway at his price, so please stop acting like ditching Ridnour is life or death.

It may be a good idea to do, but it really, really, really isn't essential to our long term good. We have what we need to get Sessions now, and if he wants significantly more, I wouuld rather just groom Jennings anyway.

[Jollay]

Or it means that Hammond may want to keep Ridnour in the short term and move him at the deadline if there's the possibility of a better deal then. Let's see how it plays out before we condemn Hammond, ok? .

I mean, seems like common sense to me...

[BobbyLight]

I haven't read this entire thread, but seeing next years estimated cap makes me want to take a pass on Childress. Those numbers for next year are going to kill a lot of teams. I bet the FA's who aren't signed aren't going to be getting what they might be looking for.

[LUKE23]

These cosmetic moves whether we get rid of Ridnour now or next year are minor. Jennings development is NOT going to be determined by Ridnour's presence on the roster for one year, and we are NOT going to significantly improve the state of the Bucks by getting rid of him a year early.

You don't think Ridnour being on the roster effects Jennings? So you think Ridnour would get zero minutes then I'm assuming? Please explain to me how Sessions/Jennings would get their needed development (i.e. learning through playing time), with Ridnour on the roster. In fact, give me the minute breakdown at PG if Ridnour is back.

[europa]

I haven't read this entire thread, but seeing next years estimated cap makes me want to take a pass on Childress. Those numbers for next year are going to kill a lot of teams. I bet the FA's who aren't signed aren't going to be getting what they might be looking for.

I wonder if these numbers make something like Alexander/Elson for Childress more possible. Alexander would be under contract already so while the Bucks would be increasing their salary with Childress, it's not like they'd be adding a salary slot they didn't already have. They would just be taking Alexander's slot and increasing the salary by $2M-$3M. This would also enable the Bucks to release Bowen and buy out Thomas and save over $4M there.

Has a player ever been traded by the team he was on during Summer League?

[LUKE23]

We shouldn't include any of our young pieces for Childress. The Hawks have no leverage here, and we know they are not going to match the offer because of their lux tax issues as well as the issues of Childress not wanting to return there. No young pieces should be included in a deal.

[europa]

If Childress was an old man or I was convinced Alexander would be better than Childress I would agree. Given how Childress is also young and I'm not convinced Alexander will be better, I'd sign off on the deal above without hesitation.