NardDogNation wrote:Does that make sense for either team? Is the value for either side approximate? Because we desperately need a 5/young rim protector and Henson seems to be buried on the Bucks' bench despite showing promise the past few years.

Nah- The Bucks have OJ Mayo- why would they want to take on JR? I think maybe they would do an OJ for JR trade, but that would mean extra salary for us.

TPercy wrote:Is brandon knight possible?

Nope, he's been beasting (Last time I heard- haven't really been following them much)

smackeddog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Does that make sense for either team? Is the value for either side approximate? Because we desperately need a 5/young rim protector and Henson seems to be buried on the Bucks' bench despite showing promise the past few years.

Nah- The Bucks have OJ Mayo- why would they want to take on JR? I think maybe they would do an OJ for JR trade, but that would mean extra salary for us.

Tim Hardaway Jr. not JR Smith.

NardDogNation wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Does that make sense for either team? Is the value for either side approximate? Because we desperately need a 5/young rim protector and Henson seems to be buried on the Bucks' bench despite showing promise the past few years.

Nah- The Bucks have OJ Mayo- why would they want to take on JR? I think maybe they would do an OJ for JR trade, but that would mean extra salary for us.

Tim Hardaway Jr. not JR Smith.

Ha- oops! I'd just read that article on JR, so I must have had him on my mind when I read the thread title!

smackeddog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

TPercy wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

TPercy wrote:Is brandon knight possible?

Nope, he's been beasting (Last time I heard- haven't really been following them much)

this is a really decent guard if we can acquire him in free agency can shoot, get to the rim, quick and his defense isnt bad at all. If we can't get reggie Jackson this dude would be a great option.

His numbers are looking pretty good (18pts, 44%FG, 37% 3PT, 6.7 Assists, 6 rebounds), only bad thing is his TOs (4)- whats his defense like? I haven't really watched him that much, but I'll never understand why the Pistons traded him for Brandon Jennings!

His defense is pretty good. Think of him as a finesse version of Chauncey Billups. They both had similar problems earlier in their career in creating for others but inevitably found their niche. From what I understand, Knight is a really smart kid graduating high school with a 4.3 and completed enough AP classes to be considered a rising junior by the end of his freshmen year. Smart people make smart players, so I'd definitely look to get him in free agency. I've presumed that the Bucks will match though, so I haven't considered him a serious FA target.

Ah- thanks. I hate Restricted free agency- it's going to ruin everything for us!

It might be possible to get him by overpaying and/or frontloading the contract. My earlier opinion was formed on what Herb Kohl and Bucks management would do. They've had a trend of paying top dollar for players in spite of their talent but their is now a new ownership group/management in town, so who knows what they'll do.

VCoug wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Does that make sense for either team? Is the value for either side approximate? Because we desperately need a 5/young rim protector and Henson seems to be buried on the Bucks' bench despite showing promise the past few years.

Done and done! Nate Wolters is an interesting PG prospect; I at least prefer him as a backup PG instead of Larkin. And Henson does look like a good 25ish MPG defensive big man.

I wanted to Wolters in the draft and now even more. His value is not high, but he is a good triangle PG, minus the defense.
I do like his abilities as a PG, but once again, if you can't defend then why do we need a distributing pg who won't get that chance?
(Funny, Larkin is a pesky defender but for all the triangle is cracked up to be, he seems to have a problem. Think it is a tough go for him.)
I understand Wolter's scoring is nice, but I am afraid Phil wants a defensively inclined PG who can shoot. Actually, a SG would suffice, like Shump perhaps?

StarksEwing1 wrote:Not sure why everyone wants to get rid of tim. He was the only bright Spot last year. This year despite getting little playing time still scores. Tough to be consistent when only getting 10 minutes

what was bright about him last year?

StarksEwing1 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:Not sure why everyone wants to get rid of tim. He was the only bright Spot last year. This year despite getting little playing time still scores. Tough to be consistent when only getting 10 minutes

what was bright about him last year?

you Always seem pissed off mreinman lol

I mean ... don't get me wrong ... I love THJ ... but