Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Bucks looking to grab Diaw or TT or 10?


BOBCATS_BALL!

Recommended Posts

UPDATED this in my thread as well, but here you go.

Classic Bobcats:

From Bonnell:

There are definitely serious talks going on between the Charlotte Bobcats and Milwaukee Bucks. Don't know all the particulars yet, but it sounds like the Bobcats could end with the 10th pick and maybe send No. 19 to Milwaukee.

Don't know what veterans are involved, but here's a curiosity: Stephen Jackson and Corey Maggette have similar contract numbers, both in salary size and length of contracts. The Bucks would love to move Maggette. Don't know that the Bobcats would see him as an asset.

Horrible, self-mutilating, and redundant... you know, the usual Bobcats strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We shouldn't be giving up anything else if we're giving them 9mil in an expiring. We should get the 10th for that alone.

I disagree. We'd atleast have to swap picks and give them the 19th. Then we'd have back to back picks. Diaw is not worth the 10th overall pick, even with that expiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. We'd atleast have to swap picks and give them the 19th. Then we'd have back to back picks. Diaw is not worth the 10th overall pick, even with that expiring.

It depends, especially if the new CBA will have a hard cap.

Diaw's game itself isn't worth the 10 pick, but his contract is in that case. I've seen plenty similar deals in the past, we all have.

How many times as an NBA fan have you looked at a trade and thought "Wow, they actually did that?"

Problem is, we're always the team that "actually did that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. We'd atleast have to swap picks and give them the 19th. Then we'd have back to back picks. Diaw is not worth the 10th overall pick, even with that expiring.

We know he's not worth a 10, but maybe we can fool em :biggrin5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want the 10th pick, but I'm hoping to get Vucevic with the 19th, so I don't want to give it up.

Yeah I guess if you are looking for Vucevic then 10 would be too high in terms of value. I wouldn't mind snagging him either. I just don't see Diaw alone for the 10th going down.

As long as we aren't trading Thomas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I guess if you are looking for Vucevic then 10 would be too high in terms of value. I wouldn't mind snagging him either. I just don't see Diaw alone for the 10th going down.

As long as we aren't trading Thomas.

I'd be willing to give them TT for the 10th. I'm sure another team would be willing to take Diaw's expiring as well.

Another idea because Maggette's name keeps popping up, what if we took Maggette back with the 10th, and gave them Diaw?

That way we still keep the 19th and makes more sense for both sides because we'd be taking back an older player with a bad contract and giving them an expiring in its place. I don't want Maggette or his contract, but if we can get the 10th and keep the 19th out of it, I'd do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...