Reply With Quote
That said John Henson could be nice, wouldn't have any ego problem with playing 4th big and I'm not sure he has a place in this Bucks team even long term. Problem is why would they give up such a young player when his value isn't set yet.
I wish I could fast forward to the trade deadline tbh, I don't believe in the current rotation but at the same time I feel we are pretty close.
The whole thing is pretty reminiscing of 2004/2005, the backdoor sweep and the need to trade for a big...
That said John Henson could be nice, wouldn't have any ego problem with playing 4th big and I'm not sure he has a place in this Bucks team even long term. Problem is why would they give up such a young player when his value isn't set yet.
Also about Milwaukee: It's going to be interesting to see what the Bucks do with Jennings. Word is that he doesn't want to come back and that Milwaukee is looking to move him as a result. I was looking at possible suitors for him (none of whom are the Spurs, if anyone was getting worried about me suggesting them) and it wouldn't shock me if Utah made a play. People on this board talk about the Jazz trying to get a young point guard, and Jennings may be the best of those on the market.
So what would a Jazz/Bucks deal look like? I think like this:
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=bnl2nlu
If the Jazz want Jennings, taking Gooden isn't a horrible price. They'd trade some of their cap room (they'd still have a bunch in the offseason) and let the Bucks get out of Gooden's contract instead of giving Milwaukee picks. The Bucks get out of two bad situations without losing much. As a tallish combo guard, Burks is a player that could mesh well with the shorter shooting guards the Bucks have.
What's more interesting is that the Bucks would get Millsap back, and they'd have no reason to keep him. They probably would slide him into the starting four spot next to Sanders. But they have so many young players and long-term deals for front-court players that it may make sense to just buy Millsap out, especially because Milwaukee would probably have to be a fading team for them to make this trade in the first place. If they bought out Millsap and made him a free agent... well it's clear why such a possible deal interests me.
I was thinking a bit along these lines, Gooden would have to be part of the package if the Bucks make a trade and the Jazz is indeed one of the teams that wants a young PG badly.
How about something like :
Gooden Burks Henson to SA
Jennings to the Jazz
Green BonBon and De Colo to the Bucks
We get two young potential studs, taking Gooden's salary for just one player is not worth it, it would have to be at least two to start making sense.
Jazz would say yes, the Bucks may give too much to essentially get rid of Gooden...
Burks isn't better than Green. He could be a good player to put with Tony and Manu, though. At best, that's a wash, and then you have Gooden taking up too much money for too long to not even play. Henson may have potential, but he can barely get off the bench in Milwaukee. So I don't think that's even close to worth it. And forget the Jazz trying to take back no money in that deal. They can have Gooden's salary on their books. Also, I think that trade pushes the Spurs above the tax, so that's a deal-stopper.
If Utah took Gooden and the Spurs took Milsap, I could see that being much better. Add in Diaw for Henson and you may be able to keep the Spurs under the tax. Something like this:
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=cc3cr9o
But with Green instead of Neal, and maybe Mills instead of Joseph or De Colo. That should keep the Spurs out of the tax, and get the players you want. I think Utah should have to pay the most, since they're the team that'd really be getting what they want. I worry about replacing Green in the lineup and about the lack of a true power-forward. Milsap is nice and all, but Henson will have to be really good really early in order for the Spurs' big rotation to not be worse than it is right now.
On the plus side, that opens up even more cap room for the Spurs next offseason.
Yeah including Burks was wishful thinking more than filling a real need. I don't think the Bucks would want Boris tho.
But I def like Bonner to the Bucks, is there a better sub for Ilyasova out there?
Diaw only has one year left on his deal (which is an option, to boot), so his contract is much better than Gooden's. I could see them accepting him to make the salaries work. Switching him and Bonner doesn't really harm the trade, though, so if Utah is good with him (and if Diaw doesn't veto anything) then the trade could happen anyway. I really wouldn't want to give up both Bonner and Diaw in a deal, though the prospect of bringing over a player like Gelabale and using Jack as a full-time stretch four may make it an easier proposition to swallow.
Last edited by Chinook; 12-22-2012 at 11:25 PM.
It also wouldn't shock me if Ilyasova is traded this year. He doesn't even start all of their games anymore. While I don't think he's been a huge bust or anything, I'm not sure if what he brings is worth it to the Bucks for what they're paying him. It's very possible that they'd simply look for the best deal out there for their bigs on long-term deals and just deal with whomever is left.
While Gooden does have a bit of familiarity with the Spurs system he just didn't seem to fit so well with the team.
Since it seems they won't go after Baynes, the most realistic outcome may be a tosb like Ben Wallace who could play with Boris since Boris Tiago is too soft. Wouldn't really mind tbh.
Still we have too many players, have to get rid of some of them...
Not necessarily Spurs-related, but I wouldn't be shocked to see New Orleans move Gordon for a really good player. Indiana has a situation on their hands with Granger's return coming up and Paul George being a good fit at the small-forward. I could see the Pacers wanting a player like Gordon to play the two while leaving George at the three. So a Granger for Gordon swap is possible.
But...
I think there is room for a more-complicated scenario to come into play. Word around the street is that the Grizzlies are looking to get under the tax by moving Arthur for nothing and/or moving Gay for a cheaper player. While cost-cutting is the priority, I imagine Memphis would like to get a good enough player in return to not run their chances this year. Granger makes about $3.5 Million less than Gay this year, and he is a better shooter, which would fit Memphis' inside-attack system better than the slashing Gay. I could see the Grizzlies being interested in a deal with Indiana as a result.
So bam: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=cwf84n5
The Pelicans get a "star" player to pair with Davis. With Davis and Lopez signed to cheap, long-term deals, New Orleans can afford to pay Gay a little more than he's worth. This hurts their chances of tanking this year, but they probably aren't going to draft anyone better than Gay anyhow. All they'd need after this trade would be some better guards.
Indiana gets a player who is a better fit for their team. They also get a hometown hero for a discounted price. Gordon's injury makes him risky, but it's not like Granger has been healthy either so far.
Memphis gets a player on a shorter deal who could excel in their scheme. He's been injured this year, but he doesn't have a big history of that, and he's on a shorter deal than Gay and is movable if something goes wrong. In the very least, he's about as good as the Grizzlies can expect to get from a salary dump.
Houston is just there to make the number work. If Memphis makes the Gay for Granger swap, they'd still need to shed about a million more dollars to get under the tax. Trading Bayless for Douglas gets them there.
Last edited by Chinook; 12-23-2012 at 06:15 PM.
Good scenario, makes sense for everyone.
How could buying out an asset of that caliber ever make sense? Even if you think he's not a fit, he could easily be re-routed for a quality piece or two. No team would even consider for a second buying him out. It wouldn't matter if they had a clear cut starter and five PF's.
If moving Milsap were that easy, the Jazz would've done it by now. Most contenders don't have 9 Million bucks worth of useless (like expendable) players lying around. Non-contenders would have no reason to give up assets for him. I'm not saying you're wrong about the Bucks not waiving him if they got him, mind you. I just don't think it's impossible that they don't find a taker and decide to save some money.
Who could you see trading for Milsap in that scenario?
I don't agree with buying him out, but the Spurs are a team that seems like a good trade partner. Spurs have Jackson that is an expiring contract plus some decent role players plus a first rounder they could offer. That is why I mentioned it as at least something to keep an eye on. Millsap is good though, so I could see someone offering more of a basketball talent in return.
Milwaukee will never touch Jackson again. So in the scenario I laid out, the Spurs would have to take Gooden, which I think we can all agree they shouldn't do. I can totally understand the idea that Millsap have legitimate suitors. But I have a hard time finding teams that can really give up what the Bucks or Jazz would want. Maybe most likely if that the Bucks would just keep Millsap and possibly look to re-sign him and move other players like Mbah a Moute.
Spurs should just deal direct. Send UTA Jack/Neal/First Rounder for Millsap
I see that as being a deal that Utah would have to settle for. If Millsap can bring back a player like Jennings, I think that's more tempting to the Jazz than Neal. It would be more compelling the Spurs also took back Bell's contract, which is doable. I don't know. It's an option. With Mo Williams getting hurt, I can see the Jazz making a trade pretty quickly. I think they'd rather move Jefferson, but obviously it's harder to find a deal for him.
The Jazz still like Millsap better than big Al thon I agree with Chinook they would need a nice PG back to give him up.
You think moving Millsap is difficult? As I said in this thread a few weeks back, I think they'll find it difficult to get what they'd want, but they could move him in a second if they wanted to, even if the return is nothing more than a middling package, like the one I proposed from the Spurs.
It's not impossible, because technically they could do it. I'm just saying, no one would do that, nor does it make sense for anyone to.
I don't think that package would appeal to the Bucks at all. I mean, if we just forget the scenario and go back to simple Jazz-trading-Millsap idea, then we can talk about it for sure. But even then, I can't see who's willing to offer a good package. He's worth it (I think he's even better than he plays right now), but I don't see any teams that look like potential partners. That's why I keep asking. I'm not challenging; I'm legitimately curious.
Millsap makes the most sense for a contender IMO. While their might be some cusp teams that could bolster their chances to make the playoffs, to me the most likely Millsap destination is a contender. Now assuming that is true, how many contenders have the expiring deals they would likely want in addition to other assets (draft picks, solid role players...)? When you examine it like that, Spurs are definitley near the top of the list.
I agree UTA will be looking for more, but will they find it? Millsap is a really solid player so I wouldn't be shocked, but they are also in a tough spot because everyone knows he pretty much needs to be traded and can walk for free next year. So options may be a bit more limited than you would normally think.
They don't have to trade him since they really like him. Will Atlanta trade Smith for a bag of potatoes because he could walk? No.
Nothing UTA has done says the "really like him". If they really liked him, they would not allow for Favors to continually eat into his minutes and bench him for crunch time. He can walk for nothing because he is an unrestricted free agent in the off season. That changes the variables quite drastically.
They may like him, but they don't really like him as evidenced to the situation going on there. ATL will absolutely trade Josh for a bag of chips if they think they are not going to re-sign him and that he will walk for nothing. Getting expiring contracts + a first round pick + possibly a solid role player is a of a lot better than losing an asset for nothing because he does not fit into your plans.
Well every single analyst out there think they should let big Al walk and try to re-sign Millsap but if they know he won't stay no matter what (hard to know) then yeah they may deal him for what they can get.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
