TMS wrote:

rp wrote:

TMS wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:well when teams know that we're trying to get as much cap room as possible, they are going to try and squeeze us for whatever we got. walsh seems to think that the added capspace is more important than what he gave up. i respect that and hope it works out.

sorry but i can't respect a GM who got fleeced in a trade as much as DW did in this trade... there were clearly other viable options out there to dump Fishlips' contract... Jordan Hill, our 2 2nd round picks & swap rights with top 10 protection in 2011 should have been enough to get MIL to accept that deal for Warrick & Joe Blow... hell, i woulda made that trade & let them keep Warrick & taken Kurt Thomas back instead if they wanted & still think we make out much better than we did in this T-Mac deal.

Are you saying MIL will take JJ on same trade we made with HOU? Or Are you saying we can trade JJ separately? If so, what team is that and for who/what?

dude, i said we should have offered up a package of assets to MIL INSTEAD of the dumbass moronic trade we just made with HOU.

Fishlips
Jordan Hill
2 2nd round picks
swap rights in 2011 w/top 10 protection

for any of MIL's expirings they wanna throw back at us, Kurt Thomas, Elson, Warrick, Alexander, whoever... doesn't even matter who.

What assets are you talking about that MIL will take? You making assumption that MIL was willing to take JJ contract...

TMS wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:

TMS wrote:please, John Salmons has been erradic all year... don't tell me having a #8 lottery selection from last year's draft is worth less than John Salmons.

Erratic all year yet has a much better career than Jeffries. He can score and defend. His contract isn't even close to being as terrible as Jeffries. Salmons contributes to a team. He helped the Bulls out last year for their playoff run.

Alexander has been a bust in Milwaukee but Warrick is a decent signing for them. Salmons just fills the Bucks need at SG with Redds' injury.

Kurt Thomas & Francisco Elson would have been just as acceptable for me... i wouldn't even give a crap about getting Warrick from MIL, just get them to take Fishlips' contract & throw them back Jordan Hill & our 2 2nd round picks w/swap rights to 10 in next year's draft... to me that's a much more favorable deal for MIL than the one they got from CHI... they get to keep Warrick this season AND they get a promising PF/C to pair up with Bogut in their frontcourt.

But what you fail to see is that, to them at least, they're not doing someone a favor by just taking a garbage contract. They wanted SG help for a playoff run and got Salmons out of it. They didn't take Salmons just to take him. Salmons helps them, Jeffries wouldn't.

I'm not sure if Donnie tried Jeffries and Hill for Ridnour though. Maybe he did and they said no. I know Bucks fans were in favor of that deal.

TMS wrote:Jordan Hill & essentially the same other assets they got in this CHI deal are the assets i'm talking about that MIL will take! MIL was willing to take on a contract otherwise they wouldn't have made the Salmons deal... John Salmons is a journeyman vet, he doesn't hold more value than a #8 lottery selection from last year's draft, i'm sorry.

The Bucks made this move for now, not the future.

TMS wrote:Jordan Hill & essentially the same other assets they got in this CHI deal are the assets i'm talking about that MIL will take! MIL was willing to take on a contract otherwise they wouldn't have made the Salmons deal... John Salmons is a journeyman vet, he doesn't hold more value than a #8 lottery selection from last year's draft, i'm sorry.

Thats a big assumption on your part...but go with it...

rp wrote:

TMS wrote:Jordan Hill & essentially the same other assets they got in this CHI deal are the assets i'm talking about that MIL will take! MIL was willing to take on a contract otherwise they wouldn't have made the Salmons deal... John Salmons is a journeyman vet, he doesn't hold more value than a #8 lottery selection from last year's draft, i'm sorry.

Thats a big assumption on your part...but go with it...

i think assuming they would have had no interest in that package is a big assumption on yours... but go with it

Paladin55 wrote:Like you, I wanted to have Hill stay around and develop into a solid player here, but maybe Walsh and MDA have seen something in him during practice that we are not privy to.

I wish they would have seen that shyt in May and June '09 like the rest of us, instead of wasting a valuable asset on Whoopie Hill

Jordan Hill didn't show any court awareness or concept of the game and every time i went to knicks games this year, it looked like he was goofing off in the layup line instead of getting ready. he's not as much of a bust as joe alexander, but he is no one i would ever sign to a contract of any kind in the NBA.

to me, jordan hill was not some prize we gave up in the trade, he was more dead weight we were dumping so we could give his salary to someone who could earn it by playing basketball.

Pharzeone wrote:Man, I remember how guys were clamoring to get Joe Alexander in the draft. smh.

Amazing how things can turn around, and how wrong people can be about prospects.

it's very rare that i'm as down on a trade as i am on this one... the only other times i've been this trepidacious about a deal or signing we made was when we traded for Antonio McDyess, traded for Zach Randolph & signed Big Turd James dude... i didn't like the Tim Thomas trade either but i wasn't outraged by it... at least we didn't give up any future assets to get him, it was a lateral trade off... even when we traded for Dinglebury, Steve Francis, Jalen Rose, Mo Taylor, Q Rich, Jamal & Eddy Curry, i tried to be optimistic & kept an open mind... i am NOT one to emotionally react to trades for no reason... i think my record speaks for itself i try to be as fair as i can & as patient as i can when it comes to trades, signings & draft selections, but this trade we made just really reeks of us getting hosed big time to me... i hope i'm wrong.

TMS wrote:bro, Fishlips' sucktitude is besides the point... i'm #1 on his hater's list on these forums, u should know this by now... & Jordan Hill's value is not the only consideration in this discussion... we're talking about 2011 swap rights with only top 1 protection & a 2012 pick outright with only top 5, meanwhile CHI gets to only give up a pair of 2nd rounders & top 10 protection on swap rights to dump their albatross... it just never ceases to amaze me how we consistently seem to get fleeced in every single trade we make while other teams make deals that seem equitable to me.

it's very rare that i'm as down on a trade as i am on this one... the only other times i've been this trepidacious about a deal or signing we made was when we traded for Antonio McDyess, traded for Zach Randolph & signed Big Turd James dude... i didn't like the Tim Thomas trade either but i wasn't outraged by it... at least we didn't give up any future assets to get him, it was a lateral trade off... even when we traded for Dinglebury, Steve Francis, Jalen Rose, Mo Taylor, Q Rich, Jamal & Eddy Curry, i tried to be optimistic & kept an open mind... i am NOT one to emotionally react to trades for no reason... i think my record speaks for itself i try to be as fair as i can & as patient as i can when it comes to trades, signings & draft selections, but this trade we made just really reeks of us getting hosed big time to me... i hope i'm wrong.

well, i hope you are wrong, too. we did get held up a little - because everyone KNEW we needed to move Jeffries. Houston's GM was the one guy smart enough to say, "okay, i'll take jeffries, but here's what i need..."

but this has been the gamble, the philosophy the whole time - break down the team, go for broke in 2010. if we strike out on the big three, there are still all-star caliber players like joe johnson and rudy gay to go for and we can clean out the old and bring in new players. honestly, that makes me excited. i think it's a good plan and we've all said for years it has needed to happen.

draft picks are weird - you need to catch lightning in a bottle with them. we haven't done that since the mark jackson/rod strickland days. that hasn't worked all decade for us. so, we get to try free agency. i don't think it's short-sighted and i think there is a big chance we'll be happy by the end of july.