This is definitely something D'Antoni supports. Redd would be a nice fit for his system and I have no doubt that D'Antoni would like for Walsh to bring Redd to NY.

With that said, I don't think there is any chance the Bucks do this deal if pick 6 isn't involved. They are trying to move up in the draft and getting pick 6 would give them more resources to go and get someone like Mayo.

If Mayo isn't there at 6, I think this is something you definitely have to consider.

No way do I trade the 6 for Redd (with or w/o Mayo). But I would consider taking a chance on him.

Change in Team Outlook: -7.8 ppg, +5.3 rpg, and -2.5 apg.
Outgoing Players
Eddy Curry
6-11 C from Thornwood (HS)
13.2 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 0.5 apg in 25.9 minutes
Jerome James
7-1 C from Florida A&M
2.0 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 0.0 apg in 2.3 minutes
Jared Jeffries
6-11 SF from Indiana
3.7 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 0.9 apg in 18.1 minutes
Renaldo Balkman
6-7 SF from South Carolina
3.5 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 0.6 apg in 14.6 minutes
Mardy Collins
6-6 SG from Temple
3.1 ppg, 1.6 rpg, 1.9 apg in 13.8 minutes
$3 mil

Incoming Players
Michael Redd
6-6 SG from Ohio State
22.6 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 3.4 apg in 37.5 minutes
Bobby Simmons
6-6 SF from DePaul
7.6 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 1.1 apg in 21.7 minutes
Charlie Bell
6-3 PG from Michigan State
7.6 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 3.1 apg in 23.8 minutes

Now you have the latitude for a PG OR a Big Man(Randolph would be a great fit if this type of deal goes through). Personally I would go hard after Artest-MLE or trade if you pull this through.

Use Zach to get an extra pick and a smaller contract(Mo Cheeks you can have him-Let's say Randolph for Evans and the #16). Use the 16 on a center like Robin Lopez. A guy that will fit D'Antoni's system.

Lopez
Lee
Artest
Redd
Crawford

Bell, Randolph, Simmons, Q, Chandler off the Bench

Posted by islesfan:

Only for Randolph straight up.

that is it, and nothing else.. why is is that as soon as a "sexy" name is mentioned everyone wants to conjure up these 12 player deals and add our draft pick in for basically what amounts to a lateral move.... I would do zach for redd straight up.. If the bucks asked for 1 dollar more or even a pack of now a later, I would walk away!!

I wouldn't want to add Redd if that was the only trade we did.

However, lets say Walsh was able to trade pick 6, Malik, and Jerome James for Redd. Then, he is able to trade Marbury + a prospect (Lee if needed) to Indiana for Jermaine O'Neal.

After that, you still have your MLE available (Artest?).

We could end up with a rotation like this:

C-Curry
PF-Jermaine/Zach Randolph
SF-Artest/Chandler
SG-Redd/Q-Rich
PG- Crawford/Nate Robinson

Keep in mind, we would still have Balkman and Jeffries on the bench.

How many of you would pass that up?

Thats a lot of talent (the good kind). Probably too many guys that need the ball, but further trades could be made. Plus, D'Antoni's system emphasizes ball movement and I think everyone would still get shots.

[Edited by - s3231 on 06-15-2008 12:13 PM]

Posted by s3231:

I wouldn't want to add Redd if that was the only trade we did.

However, lets say Walsh was able to trade pick 6, Malik, and Jerome James for Redd. Then, he is able to trade Marbury + a prospect (Lee if needed) to Indiana for Jermaine O'Neal.

After that, you still have your MLE available (Artest?).

We could end up with a rotation like this:

C-Curry
PF-Jermaine/Zach Randolph
SF-Artest/Chandler
SG-Redd/Q-Rich
PG- Crawford/Nate Robinson

Keep in mind, we would still have Balkman and Jeffries on the bench.

How many of you would pass that up?

Thats a lot of talent (the good kind). Probably too many guys that need the ball, but further trades could be made. Plus, D'Antoni's system emphasizes ball movement and I think everyone would still get shots.

[Edited by - s3231 on 06-15-2008 12:13 PM]

The squad you suggest still needs a pg. This is where you might consider the Curry for TJ Ford trade, or even move Craw in a package for Ridnhour.

Also, depsite Redds salary, he's not a player you build around and hopefully no one here is under the impression we would build around him. He is a very good complimentary piece to a complete team a la Ray Allen in Boston. Obviously we still need a few more pieces to add to the mix, and definitely another player on a higher plain than Redd.

Posted by tkf:

Posted by islesfan:

Only for Randolph straight up.

that is it, and nothing else.. why is is that as soon as a "sexy" name is mentioned everyone wants to conjure up these 12 player deals and add our draft pick in for basically what amounts to a lateral move.... I would do zach for redd straight up.. If the bucks asked for 1 dollar more or even a pack of now a later, I would walk away!!

12 is a low number............ I'm weighting for the 4 team 18 player mega block buster. LOL


I would swap picks though.

I really think its a wait and see brcause we hired a 68 year old GM. We also brought in a coach accustmoed to winning 58 games who's only personell moves were Marcus Banks Jurmaine Jones and Jalen Rose. This is a combustible starphucing scenario IMHO.
I was hoping that we could grab a couple of nice lottery picks over this year and next year and set up for FA in 2010 or 2011[2010 is very tough] Im willing to be patient--nothing happens over night--NO kgs are coming here. We already haev blown so many lottery picks. Nothing has happened yet but I have a bad feeling. I know some people might say yeah Mike Redd for pick 6 but that is an Isiah Thomas/Scott Layden move that has been pulled opff with Mcdyess Marbury Crawford and Curry--and where has that brought us?

Posted by s3231:

I wouldn't want to add Redd if that was the only trade we did.

However, lets say Walsh was able to trade pick 6, Malik, and Jerome James for Redd. Then, he is able to trade Marbury + a prospect (Lee if needed) to Indiana for Jermaine O'Neal.

After that, you still have your MLE available (Artest?).

We could end up with a rotation like this:

C-Curry
PF-Jermaine/Zach Randolph
SF-Artest/Chandler
SG-Redd/Q-Rich
PG- Crawford/Nate Robinson

Keep in mind, we would still have Balkman and Jeffries on the bench.

How many of you would pass that up?

Thats a lot of talent (the good kind). Probably too many guys that need the ball, but further trades could be made. Plus, D'Antoni's system emphasizes ball movement and I think everyone would still get shots.

[Edited by - s3231 on 06-15-2008 12:13 PM]

If curry is on a team with Jermaine and Zach, you might as well bench Curry now cuz he will bitch out anyway.

Craw is essentially Rondo minus the defense. Craw right now is the better scorer. I have no problem with Craw playing point. He has the ball in his hands a lot anyway.

Problem I see with this line-up is artest and Redd. They are both 6'6" and score from the same areas and basically the same way. Having both are redundant.

I personally like the idea of having Craw and another equally ellusive guard next to him. Jemaine O'neal is the prototype center for todays nba. Right now he needs to be a reciever and pace himself the way Sheed and KG do. Zach likes to be in the mix inside on the boards and post so let him get his. The team has to get on him in practice about letting the ball go sooner when he is in trouble. Artest or Redd would be essential with zach and O'neal inside. Either player can florish cuz of the way they score which often is inbetween and off ball movement.

All this is why I advocate Nate taking over @ point. Nate would have to let the ball go as a passer with this type of team around him. Nate can hit the open jumper all day and its hard as all hell to stay in front of him.

Maybe the Knicks could trade Curry for Mo Williams instead. Insert Mo Williams who is a Knick killer, @ point next to Craw. Mo is a good defender and shooter.

So I got:
Zach
Artest
Jermaine
Mo Williams
Craw

That is a damn good team. Not a D'antoni style team but he is good enough to adapt his style to these players. This would be a tough ass team btw.

LMFAO ! I'm going to pull up a thread to expose once more.

When will people start listening to me!!!!!!