# Blazers... front-runners for Redd? (merged)



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

*Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*

That seems to be what THIS WRITER seems to think.

I'll be amazed if I survive to the trade deadline.

PBF


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*

I don't see it happening.

If Allen & Company are sticking to their guns, they'll wait till summer and then try and buy either Redd or Allen (Ray) long term, without sacrificing everything at the break.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*

Except that we won't be able to sign one of them in the summer since we have no cap space. Trading now so we can use the bird rights to resign him is the only way I can see it happen. Unless you mean a sign and trade, however then we'd be giving up something for him anyways. However, thats all dependant on Redd being willing to stay here, which I"m not certain he would be.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



yakbladder said:


> I don't see it happening.
> 
> If Allen & Company are sticking to their guns, they'll wait till summer and then try and buy either Redd or Allen (Ray) long term, without sacrificing everything at the break.


I think your way mistaken here. 

#1 they will be over the cap so they can't simply sign Allen or Redd, it would have to be Sign and trade and if that were the case the aforementioned players would basically have to be threatening their respective teams wiith coming here for the MLE. 

#2 Sacrifice what? They aren't gonna make the playoffs, so why not take a gamble. You have to take risks to be succesful in pro sports. The safe road is the mediocre road. If they lose a sf in the process so be it at least the gave it a shot, and besides they are over stocked there anyway.

Portlands absolute best shot if landing an established player is by trade since at this point Portland isn't the Free Agent hot seat desitination.

In Redds case we could always work out a S&T for him this summer, which will probably be more realistic than a S&T for Shareef, Damon or NVE, and more benefitial.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



Schilly said:


> I think your way mistaken here.
> 
> In Redds case we could always work out a S&T for him this summer, which will probably be more realistic than a S&T for Shareef, Damon or NVE, and more benefitial.


hm..IF the blazers can trade for Redd..and IF they can do a S&T with him...what can the cavs trade (since he wants to go there?)?


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



Hap said:


> hm..IF the blazers can trade for Redd..and IF they can do a S&T with him...what can the cavs trade (since he wants to go there?)?


Oh I know, Lebron James!!!!!! :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*

going on what schillvyster said...

Blazers trade for Redd...

than this summer, do a S&T with the Cavs for Eric Snow (backup PG) and Luke Jackson (a bit redundant if they get redd) and at least 1 pick, posssibly 2. 

The Cavs can, iirc, do this if they re-sign Z at a decent rate. Because they'd then be under the cap and wouldn't have to trade back exactly the same $$ (if jackson and snow don't match redd) as they get.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*

This, from today's PDX Columbian...



> Nash said, "I can't say today I'm optimistic" about making a trade before the deadline...


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



Schilly said:


> I think your way mistaken here.
> 
> #2 Sacrifice what? They aren't gonna make the playoffs, so why not take a gamble. You have to take risks to be succesful in pro sports. The safe road is the mediocre road. If they lose a sf in the process so be it at least the gave it a shot, and besides they are over stocked there anyway.


Exactly my point. The general rule in the NBA is team looking to go "over the top" in playoffs and put themselves in a position to win the whole thing is fleeced by team that is going nowhere or barely making the playoffs. 

Taking your presumption that we don't make the playoffs, why would you sacrifice player A, player B, and draft pick A right NOW for a player who could easily leave at the end of the year, rather than waiting to do a S&T at the end of the year? We're already renting up to three players, why would you rent a fourth? Unless Redd ends up in Cleveland by the trading deadline, I think he'll be amenable to at least discussing a move elsewhere at season's end. And if he doesn't want to discuss coming here at season's end, then he probably wouldn't have stayed anyways.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*

I think that I am going to have to agree. The only trade that seem like they really work on both ends is with Minnesota, the Wally & Johnson for Rahim. Sure you can throw in the New Jersey tibbet to the trade, but it does land Portland a shooter.

Is there really anything out there that Portland is holding out on? Dallas for Finley? Ugh, it looks just as bad in type as it did when I thought it up. :biggrin:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



yakbladder said:


> Exactly my point. The general rule in the NBA is team looking to go "over the top" in playoffs and put themselves in a position to win the whole thing is fleeced by team that is going nowhere or barely making the playoffs.


_*cough*_ DD for Jerm _*cough* *cough*_ (OK, OK, I know that Indy was far from going nowhere, but still.......)


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



yakbladder said:


> Exactly my point. The general rule in the NBA is team looking to go "over the top" in playoffs and put themselves in a position to win the whole thing is fleeced by team that is going nowhere or barely making the playoffs.


I don't agree with that general rule. I can't think of any cases where your general rule is what happened, actually. Maybe I'm just drawing a big blank.



> We're already renting up to three players, why would you rent a fourth?


Well, we'd be moving at least one of the expiring contracts in any deal, so we're not really adding a fourth... just swapping in one for another.

And as for WHY we would: because Redd would fill a need. He'd be a good fit both in the near and long terms.

SAR is the right age but doesn't fit because he plays the same position as our best player. Nick is old. Damon is Damon. None of them fit in with where the team is going.

Redd wouldn't make this team a championship-level team by himself, but he's still only 25 years old and would seem to provide an element that this team is lacking (both now and for the foreseeable future).

As for maybe losing him: I'm not worried. If Portland gets him in a trade and is willing to open its pocketbook, he's not going anywhere. Even ASSUMING that Cleveland has a lot of cap space (and I'm not sure that's going to be the case unless they renounce Z and McInnis), Portland can outbid Redd and if they treat him right it wouldn't make sense for him to turn down more money to go to Cleveland.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



> hm..IF the blazers can trade for Redd..and IF they can do a S&T with him...what can the cavs trade (since he wants to go there?)?


Didn't I just make a thread about this? :biggrin:


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

*More specualtion that we will land Redd*

I just emailed Jeff Roberston who use to do the blazer report on hoopsworld weekly and i asked him his thoughts on wether we make a deal and for who...heres his reply!

I don't see Pierce being dealt during the season. *I'm not sure it makes a ton of sense for Boston. *By dealing Pierce now for an expiring deal, they end up around $8 million under the cap and then have probably 2 draft picks this year (Lakers and theirs) which means they end up not actually under the cap at all, or if so, just barely above the mid-level, which is not insignificant. *So they either are trading Pierce for that above mid-level player or they are trading Pierce for a draft pick. *If they do it for the pick, they will wait until after the season.

I hear, and it makes sense, that Redd is the focus for Portland. *Portland wants to sell Milwaukee that they may lose Redd for nothing, but more significantly, that keeping Redd gives them no chance to grow. *If Milwaukee resigns him to what will amount to a max deal, they will end up likely over the cap for the short term, which means they don't get better. *Trading Redd, particularly for an expiring deal and with Van Horn, which would be the deal, gives them the ability to sign 2 top free agents or have the room to take on players that have big contracts and teams want to get rid of. *Let's say Portland makes the deal for Shareef and Outlaw for Redd and Van Horn. *That gives Portland the opportunity to sell Redd on staying in Portland and can overpay him to make it happen. *He ends up the shooting guard, with Telfair at point, Darius at 3, Zach at 4 and now 2 centers, not a bad nucleus. *Redd does not have to be the number 1 option, but gets a lot of shots out of the post and with a pass first point guard. *Milwaukee has TJ Ford, Williams at point guard, Joe Smith in the middle and 2 max contracts to hand out to whomever they want this summer and a high lottery pick. *Not too shabby, that's the Denver model of rebuilding quickly, which is in vogue. *If Portland has to throw in their first round pick, which would be likely, then you have 2 lottery picks and 2 max deals which really speeds up the process.

I definitely think Redd is the target and the Blazers will be ready and waiting to make that deal. END OF EMAIL!

Damn i miss his blazer reports....his reports blew the others away!

WOO...i hope its true!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



yakbladder said:


> Exactly my point. The general rule in the NBA is team looking to go "over the top" in playoffs and put themselves in a position to win the whole thing is fleeced by team that is going nowhere or barely making the playoffs.
> 
> Taking your presumption that we don't make the playoffs, why would you sacrifice player A, player B, and draft pick A right NOW for a player who could easily leave at the end of the year, rather than waiting to do a S&T at the end of the year? We're already renting up to three players, why would you rent a fourth? Unless Redd ends up in Cleveland by the trading deadline, I think he'll be amenable to at least discussing a move elsewhere at season's end. And if he doesn't want to discuss coming here at season's end, then he probably wouldn't have stayed anyways.


I think that's a risk you have to take.

There are more factors involved too. We don't know exactly what his reaciton to being on the Portland team would be. He might actually like the core we have.

Portland can offer a lot more money than Milwaukee can.

Redd would be more of a focus of the team in Portland Get a lot more touches than in Cleveland.

I think S&T is a very viable option for Portland if they have Redd. 

Another thing to consider is Portland would yet a gain be picking up a big expiring Contract that potentially could be moved during the season.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



Schilly said:


> I think that's a risk you have to take.
> 
> There are more factors involved too. We don't know exactly what his reaciton to being on the Portland team would be. He might actually like the core we have.
> 
> ...


Ok, where do I sign up. I was all for Trading Randolph for Reed a few months back, maybe your right, playing in Portland for the rest of the season might be just what the doctor ordered, Redd might want to stay and if he didn't he would Cleveland be willing to deal for him, let alone would Redd be willing to let Portland do a sign&trade?

I just wish it was Friday so I could step away from the computer!!!! :biggrin:


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

*More Specualtion*

I have emailed nash quite a few times in the last month about trades and always gotten a reply but yesterday i asked about Redd and got no reply which is weird since nash always is fast to reply if its even really him but it just adds fuel to the fire that we wil make a push to aquire redd.


I will say this...if we get redd, it will have been well worth the wait!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: More specualtion that we will land Redd*

me too.

but weren't you the one who said we'd still be a 20-30 win team WITH Pierce or Redd?


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

*Re: More specualtion that we will land Redd*

Thanks for posting that, always interesting to see another perspective. Redd really would be a great fit here if we can get him to stay.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



Schilly said:


> I think that's a risk you have to take.
> 
> There are more factors involved too. We don't know exactly what his reaciton to being on the Portland team would be. He might actually like the core we have.
> 
> ...


Schilly, I'd like to think you are correct on this one but I guess I'm just still hedging my bets. We don't really know what mgmt (and by that I mean Nash/Patterson, not Mo) has in mind for the long term future or who they are REALLY trying to push out the door. 

And while I agree that it's highly unlikely a team could capture Redd for the MLE next year, I also thought it was highly unlikely a team could capture Payton and Malone for MLE money. Not that it is the same scenario, it's just that pretty much as we all know, anything can happen.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

One thing to consider....

If Portland brigs in KVH and Maxs out Redd, but lets either Damon or NVE or Both simply walk, they still would have trimmed salary.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



Ed O said:


> I don't agree with that general rule. I can't think of any cases where your general rule is what happened, actually. Maybe I'm just drawing a big blank.
> 
> Ed O.


Ed, what about this, from 1987:

CHICAGO acquired F Ben Poquette from CLEVELAND in exchange for a future second-round draft pick.

Just kidding...

Let me restate then, rather than being fleeced, the idea is always that Team A gives up proven veteran player to Team B making a run. In exchange, Team B gives up some exceptionally good potential or up and coming players and usually a draft pick. Does the potential ever not pan out? Sure. But I think in the long run you see that Team A gets ten years out of potential star player X (whom they traded for) in exchange for losing the last 2-3 years of established player Y (whom they traded).

I'd be happy to reference some academic books, etc. if that would make the presentation look more classy.
:biggrin:


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Schilly said:


> One thing to consider....
> 
> If Portland brigs in KVH and Maxs out Redd, but lets either Damon or NVE or Both simply walk, they still would have trimmed salary.


QUIT ****ING AROUND, NASH! PULL THE TRIGGER!



PBF


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

So tell me exactly how we can resign Redd???


He is under 4 years in contract length, so you can not extend him.

You will not have Bird rights, and he will be an UFA to go where he pleases

No benefit to S&T

We will be over the cap still, and can not offer more than the MLE aka Arenas syndrome


So why will he resign with us for the MLE?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Actually there will be bird rights to Redd.


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

I say start emailing nash ASAP on getting redd!

LET HIM KNOW WE WANT REDD BADLY...HE OWES The FANS!

Seriously though if redd is traded it probaly will be here. If you look at the blazers trade policy/guidelines, redd makes sense in the fact that its keeping us a competive team, while trimming our payroll(assuming damon+van exel are not resigned) getting a talented player back that will help our team and bringing in good character and that all points to Redd cause theres no way this team can go into next season with da+telfair as the starting guards!

Nash for once....do the smart thing and make it happen! Also Quick has never mentioned this deal so in my mind thats all the more reason to love it and feel it has a good chance. Nash would never tell quick about this deal cause he would leak it all over....also quick isnt creative enough to come up with this type of deal! Quick thinks we trade with the bulls or cavs but have nothing to give us in return. Nash could really make up for the carter deal by getting us Redd!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> So tell me exactly how we can resign Redd???
> 
> 
> He is under 4 years in contract length, so you can not extend him.
> ...


I thought it was 3 year contracts that you can't extend, not 4 years.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Just out of curiosity....

Is Zach's new deal big enough to drop him into the Redd/KVH scenario instead of Shareef?

I would LOVE to hold onto Shareef *and* add Redd to that mix.

PBF


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*

We need Redd man. I am not sure if we can make up enough ground to get into the playoffs, but if we did I think we could scare some teams in the playoffs. If we got Redd, we would have ZERO weaknesses in the starting lineup. Our shooting now becomes outrageous. He would take so much of the heat off of Zach. You just couldn't double team Zach in the post anymore, otherwise he WILL kick it out to Redd for the trifecta. I really think we would re-sign him if we got him. I know Cleveland has LBJ, but we have a better interior presence on both ends of the court. A budding star at the point, and a rockin Rose Garden again. I';m not going to get my hopes up, because I went crazy when I did. I was too let down when we didn't get VC.Nash needs to get us our superstar 3 now!


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I still think dealing SAR, one of Outlaw\Khryapa or Monia and our 2005 1st round draft pick is a LOT to give up for a player who could just walk for nothing as an UNRESTRICTED FA. It is very cavalier to say ""He will take the money and sign with POR" right now and when we aren't the GM. But with the new CBA in doubt, and a team like CLE having potentially a LOT of cap space, IF Redd walked on POR it would be DISASTEROUS and set this franchise back a few years in the rebuilding process....

CLE COULD let Wagner, Diop, Harris, Taylor and McInnis walk, and then negotiate a moderate contract with Ilgauskas for $10m il or so and STILL have over $11 million to sign Redd away from POR.....THAT is a legitimate scenario.

Also, I realize the need for MIL to WANT another 1st round pick for Redd, but they unload KVH so they can have over $34 million in cap space to pursue free agents THIS year, they get a young prospect from POR, AND you think they should get ANOTHER potential lottery pick?

That is too much IMO...trade them a pick...fine...but lotto protect it this year..at minimum....but I think giving MIL the opportunity to add TWO premium FA AND get a young player is pretty hefty payment already, especially when Redd is a UFA and could end up being a half a year player for POR...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



Schilly said:


> I think that's a risk you have to take.
> 
> I think S&T is a very viable option for Portland if they have Redd.


Is it? He'll probably be a BYC player, right?

Ed O.


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

let me add this being very obvious.

THE ONLY WAY THE BLAZERS EVEN CONSIDER THIS DEAL IS IF.....THEY THINK REDD WILL RESIGN HERE!!! 

if theres not a 99% chance he will resign here then no dela will be made and that you cna take to the bank!


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> I still think dealing SAR, one of Outlaw\Khryapa or Monia and our 2005 1st round draft pick is a LOT to give up for a player who could just walk for nothing as an UNRESTRICTED FA. It is very cavalier to say ""He will take the money and sign with POR" right now and when we aren't the GM. But with the new CBA in doubt,


Legitimate point, Kmurph. I keep forgetting to throw the new CBA into the equation. Although the last info I read on the negotiations (posted by someone here), they were fairly close on numbers for the "soft cap" and one of the big sticking points was the reduction of guaranteed years in a contract - something, in my opinion, the player's need to give up on. Six years of guaranteed money is wayyyy too much.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers... front-runners for Redd?*



Ed O said:


> Is it? He'll probably be a BYC player, right?
> 
> Ed O.


I don't think that BYC affects a S&T, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Hap said:


> I thought it was 3 year contracts that you can't extend, not 4 years.


Larry ****'s FAQ #49 

Players with contracts fewer than 4 years can not be extended


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Actually there will be bird rights to Redd.


Are you sure? I thought I recalled it being talked about that he would not have Bird Rights... similiar to Arenas


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> Larry ****'s FAQ #49
> 
> Players with contracts fewer than 4 years can not be extended


but re-signing him doesn't mean the same as extending, iirc. 

He should have bird rights because he signed a 4 year deal, right?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Hap said:


> but re-signing him doesn't mean the same as extending, iirc.
> 
> He should have bird rights because he signed a 4 year deal, right?


I agree... but he was drafted in 2000... 2nd round...

I think he is on his 2nd contract. Therefore no Bird rights

You do not give rookie contracts to 2nd rounders usually


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> I agree... but he was drafted in 2000... 2nd round...
> 
> I think he is on his 2nd contract. Therefore no Bird rights
> 
> You do not give rookie contracts to 2nd rounders usually


Number of COntracts is Irrelevant

Thank you Mr. ****



> LARRY BIRD EXCEPTION -- This is the best known one. Players who qualify for this exception are called "Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA. This exception allows teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents, up to the player's maximum salary. The free agent in question must have played for three seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. *This means a player can obtain "Bird rights" by playing under three one-year contracts, a single contract of at least three years, or any combination*




He is completing his 5th year with the Bucks.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> Are you sure? I thought I recalled it being talked about that he would not have Bird Rights... similiar to Arenas


Arenas played for 2 years, not 5.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BYC does affect the trade Value, but if Cleveland is indeed under the Cap they can absorb that.


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

Arenas was a RFA. The problem was, he was a second-round pick just finishing up his *second* year. While he was restricted, since he did not have three years with the Warriors, there were no Bird Rights, so Golden State could only match Arenas' offers up to the extent of their cap room or the MLE, whichever was larger, rather than going over the cap to re-sign him.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

CrGiants said:


> Arenas was a RFA. The problem was, he was a second-round pick just finishing up his *second* year. While he was restricted, since he did not have three years with the Warriors, there were no Bird Rights, so Golden State could only match Arenas' offers up to the extent of their cap room or the MLE, whichever was larger, rather than going over the cap to re-sign him.



thank you...


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I think getting Redd is a dream come true in all honesty. If we can get Redd by giving Shareef and Outlaw I would be ecstatic, I don't know if I want to give this years first round pick though, maybe we can give Mil a couple 2nd round picks though. We MUST be sure that we can resign Michael Redd this off season, because giving up Outlaw and a couple picks if Redd walks would really suck a lot. I'm all for getting Redd, there wouldn't be a better player to get than him.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> I think getting Redd is a dream come true in all honesty. If we can get Redd by giving Shareef and Outlaw I would be ecstatic, I don't know if I want to give this years first round pick though, maybe we can give Mil a couple 2nd round picks though. We MUST be sure that we can resign Michael Redd this off season, because giving up Outlaw and a couple picks if Redd walks would really suck a lot. I'm all for getting Redd, there wouldn't be a better player to get than him.


I would send this years pick...Lottery Protected. In a sense we would be doing Milwaukee a favor by unloading KVH. But anything after say the 10th Pick won't help our team as much as Redd will.

Deal I'd send...
Shareef, Outlaw and 2005 1st (lottery Protected)

for 

Redd
Keith Van Horn

Or If Milwaukee wants to maximize it's cap space this summer, convince them that taking our 2006 pick is better for them.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I would send this years pick...Lottery Protected. In a sense we would be doing Milwaukee a favor by unloading KVH. But anything after say the 10th Pick won't help our team as much as Redd will.
> 
> Deal I'd send...
> Shareef, Outlaw and 2005 1st (lottery Protected)
> ...


Yeah I agree with you, if it is lottery protected then yea, great deal and I think Van Horn can be real valuable coming off the bench too, he can shoot the ball really well. I wouldn't mind giving up Outlaw, he seems to never put it together on the court. I would actually rather keep Viktor.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Did we come to a conclusion then ... so he is an unrestricted free agent with Bird rights then?

Hmmmm!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> Did we come to a conclusion then ... so he is an unrestricted free agent with Bird rights then?
> 
> Hmmmm!


Yes he is.

A Player only need be with a team for 3 years to qualify for Bird Rights Doesn't matter if it takes 3, 1 year deals.

Redd has been in Milwaukee for 4 and 1/2 seasons.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I know Nash has been clear on not taking back long term deals, but to get Michael Redd he would be a fool to pass up on the trade just because it included Keith Van Horn. 

Adding Redd to this mix would be a serious step towards building a dynasty for the future..... Seriously, that starting lineup of Telfair, Redd, Miles, Randolph, and Przybilla makes my mouth water...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

NateBishop3 said:


> I know Nash has been clear on not taking back long term deals, but to get Michael Redd he would be a fool to pass up on the trade just because it included Keith Van Horn.
> 
> Adding Redd to this mix would be a serious step towards building a dynasty for the future..... Seriously, that starting lineup of Telfair, Redd, Miles, Randolph, and Przybilla makes my mouth water...


KVH only has next season remaining on his Contract.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

From real gm guys...


Michael Redd will return to the Bucks line-up on Tuesday after missing the last three games heading into the All-Star break.

The next few days will be filled with Redd trade rumors and one gathering steam at the moment, according to the Journal Sentinel, is a trade which would send Redd and Keith Van Horn to the Warriors for Mike Dunleavy, Dale Davis and a package of draft picks.

The Warriors would have a lethal combination of two of the league's best young shooting guards.

Also in the mix for Redd are the Blazers, Timberwolves, Cavaliers and Grizzlies.

"Teams that need a shooting two-guard, why wouldn't they be looking for him?" Bucks coach Terry Porter said. "I'm sure there are some teams that would like to come in under the radar and make a solid offer."


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

plus KVH can easily play the PF spot.... and he is a smart player as well... something we can always use around here...

I would still hate to loose Travis for a rent a Redd


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> plus KVH can easily play the PF spot.... and he is a smart player as well... something we can always use around here...
> 
> I would still hate to loose Travis for a rent a Redd


BenchanOutlaw could turn into a PermaRedd.

What good is a commodity if he is so buried he never plays?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> From real gm guys...
> 
> The next few days will be filled with Redd trade rumors and one gathering steam at the moment, according to the Journal Sentinel, is a trade which would send Redd and Keith Van Horn to the Warriors for Mike Dunleavy, Dale Davis and a package of draft picks.


Man, the Warriors would have Richardson, Redd and Pietrus as natural 2 guards. I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. Even if they think Mikhael can play the 3, they'd have a LOT of money tied up in Redd and Richardson.

But the Warriors aren't afraid to spend money, irrespective of whether it makes a lot of sense or not 

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Man I don''t see why GSW would go after Redd. They already have JRich, and I can't see Redd resigning with them,because they have made the playoffs since????????


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Schilly said:


> BenchanOutlaw could turn into a PermaRedd.
> 
> What good is a commodity if he is so buried he never plays?


With the emphasis on the COULD... TO is signed

and because a 19-20 year old can improve quickly, and he can overtake someone in the lineup and prove that he belongs in the starting lineup. This is one reason it was reported Ainge has interest in TO... potential, that others can not see in him.. like Mo

Jermaine O'Neal syndrome all over again


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Man, the Warriors would have Richardson, Redd and Pietrus as natural 2 guards. I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. Even if they think Mikhael can play the 3, they'd have a LOT of money tied up in Redd and Richardson.
> 
> But the Warriors aren't afraid to spend money, irrespective of whether it makes a lot of sense or not
> 
> Ed O.


Agreed, I don't know where this makes sense but Chris Mullin as GM never seems to make sense. I just hope Portland can get Redd before deadline for Reef, Outlaw, and a 2nd rounder. That would be heaven. If we can get Redd to resign and find a way to keep Joel here long term I think the Blazers have the brightest future of all the league.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> With the emphasis on the COULD... TO is signed
> 
> and because a 19-20 year old can improve quickly, and he can overtake someone in the lineup and prove that he belongs in the starting lineup. This is one reason it was reported Ainge has interest in TO... potential, that others can not see in him.. like Mo
> 
> Jermaine O'Neal syndrome all over again


If we didn't already have Miles, VIktor , Monya and Ruben who are all SF's I would tend to agree with you. With Jermaine we thought he could be a Center and fill a need we had.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Many of us have been overlooking KVH in this deal. Don't get me wrong, Redd is the bread and butter behind this trade, but think about how effective having a 2nd shooter could be with a big guy like Van Horn spreading the floor.

As overpaid as he is, we would be adding 2 very good shooters. If all this is true, sign me up.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

I took the advice of a poster and emailed Mr. Nash. 

I said "Another Vote for Michael Redd. 'Nuf Said."

He replied "Thanks, if John Karey got as many, he would be president. Unfortunately, Milwaukee likes him as much or more". 


I think he gets the point, the fans want Redd. As to him playing down the possibility, it's anyone's guess. On one hand, he may be "glossing" it to avoid a media frenzy (remember the VC hype) Who could blame him for that? All that does is get other GM's to pick up the phone to try and one-up our offer at the 11th hour. On the other hand, maybe there's nothing there. Maybe Milwaukie isn't interested in SAR/Outlaw/pick. Maybe they DO want Telfair? Maybe they're keeping Redd? Who knows?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

1080 said in a teaser that the Redd talks could be more valid than we realize.

That's all I heard, but they are gonna be talking trade Rumors.


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

nash shot down teh carter rumors saying taht no trades were offered and it was a suprise to him that they were talking trades!!!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Can someone explain to me "Bird Rights"....



I just sent Nash an e-mail telling him to trade for Redd....Everyone else should send one too it would show him how much we want him....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Can someone explain to me "Bird Rights"....


Basically, it's if a player has been on the same team for three seasons, the team can go over the cap in order to re-sign him to any amount up to and including the max contract.

This is extended when a player's under the same contract for three or more years to the player's current team.

The idea is that it helps teams keep their best players, like the Celtics keeping Larry Bird.

There are a lot more nuances to it than that, but you can get more info at http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm (the "Larry ****'s Salary Cap FAQ" link to the left under "Useful Links"). See sections 23 through 27 for the dirt.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O. 

Thanks for the help.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Redd a hot topic.....*

Came across this Milwaukie publication talking about the possibilities of Redd being traded....

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 



> But the rumor mill is churning at full speed this week, with a number of teams reported to have serious interest in obtaining Redd. Among the teams that might want to swing a deal for the former Ohio State star: Golden State, Portland, Minnesota, Cleveland and Memphis.





> One such trade scenario could involve Portland forward Shareef Abdur-Rahim (expiring $14.6 million deal), another Trail Blazers player and a draft pick going to the Bucks in exchange for Redd and Van Horn.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Wow, 39 points tonight.

Do you think that would make the Bucks think twice about dealing him? Or at least increase their demands? Or does it have zero effect on our chances here?

I would guess all three...


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> I still think dealing SAR, one of Outlaw\Khryapa or Monia and our 2005 1st round draft pick is a LOT to give up for a player who could just walk for nothing as an UNRESTRICTED FA. It is very cavalier to say ""He will take the money and sign with POR" right now and when we aren't the GM. But with the new CBA in doubt, and a team like CLE having potentially a LOT of cap space, IF Redd walked on POR it would be DISASTEROUS and set this franchise back a few years in the rebuilding process....
> 
> CLE COULD let Wagner, Diop, Harris, Taylor and McInnis walk, and then negotiate a moderate contract with Ilgauskas for $10m il or so and STILL have over $11 million to sign Redd away from POR.....THAT is a legitimate scenario.
> 
> ...


This is basically the EXACT same reason(s) that I proposed a SAR/NVE(or Damon) for Redd/VanHorn/Hamilton/Smith trade on another board. No picks, no prospects. Just a chance for them to clear a HUGE chunk of payroll and a chance for us to legitimately sign Redd this summer. That would be a worthy risk, IMO, because worst case scenario would be losing Redd, having Van Horn and Smith for another year, but we'd still have our picks/prospects. Plus, Van Horn becomes an decently attractive expiring contract during the summer. Milwaukee fans liked it because it cleared major caproom, as well as the fact that it brought Van Exel home. Apparently, they LOVE him there.


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

In the postgame Milwaukee recap there were some interesting quotes.



> ``I said it all year long and I will say it again -- I am committed to Milwaukee, I want to come back and they have made a commitment to me,'' Redd said. ``They told me they are not going to trade me and I believe that.''


and



> Afterward, coach Terry Porter said the Bucks have no interest in trading him.
> 
> ``No way,'' he said. ``He is obviously a free agent, but we have expressed to him that he obviously is a very big piece of us going forward.''
> 
> ...



http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recaps/20050222/milcha.html



Sounds like this could be a sign that any rumblings are dead.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

doh.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

stupendous said:


> In the postgame Milwaukee recap there were some interesting quotes.
> 
> and
> 
> ...


money talks and bull**** walks.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

NateBishop3 said:


> Seriously, that starting lineup of Telfair, Redd, Miles, Randolph, and Przybilla makes my mouth water...


NO DOUBT...me too, Nate'!!! I'd be happier than a...(well, I better not complete that one :biggrin: )!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

stupendous said:


> In the postgame Milwaukee recap there were some interesting quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that kind of stuff gets said all the time...righ before the player is traded.
That way the Player can be traded and go out with "I Love you Michael" cheers from the fans rather than being accused of bailing on the team.


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

so then does loyalty really not matter then? I think that if I were running a business and a statement that I made was out in the open, I would hold true to what I said. I think that such a thing would hold true in the business of basketball... that is of course unless they get an offer that they absolutely cant refuse...aka nothing that we have.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

stupendous said:


> so then does loyalty really not matter then? I think that if I were running a business and a statement that I made was out in the open, I would hold true to what I said. I think that such a thing would hold true in the business of basketball... that is of course unless they get an offer that they absolutely cant refuse...aka nothing that we have.


So ion the world of proffesional sports we are to assume everything is chrystal clear and in the open? That's just simply not the way it works.

I have yet to see the Bucks management say that they aren't looking to move Redd.


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Of course that is not the way it always works, and management can at times say things to use as a tool for manipulation. 

However, I assume that the management has said something to Redd because of Redd's quote of

"They told me they are not going to trade me and I believe that.'"

They - being the Milwuakee management


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

well you never know


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> well you never know


Utherhimo!!!!!!!!!!! You made it over from O-Live, huh? Cool! Welcome to b-ballboards.net, man!

I used to be ZBo4MVP over there, but now I post under this name. Both there and here. For some reason my old screen-name came up lame over there, so I had to make a new one. Then I decided to standardize the name when I created my account over here. Anyways...welcome aboard, man!

:wave: :headbang: :greatjob: :usa:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

well yeah tired of the trolls and whin-os over there.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> well yeah tired of the trolls and whin-os over there.


Cool, dude! Well, like I said, WELCOME!

That's the same thing that happened to me. I thought, "Well, ya know, this board (O-Live) is kind of annoying considering the maturity level of the majority of posters...maybe I should take my posts elsewhere." So I did! And here I am. I still post over there every now and then, but not much, due to the abundance of trolls.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

most bitter ex-fans that feel they have to troll to justify them leaving, I hope we land a big fish or a whale to make them be silent for once.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> most bitter ex-fans that feel they have to troll to justify them leaving, I hope we land a big fish or a whale to make them be silent for once.


Hehehehehe...I like big fish...I like whales!!! Redd sure would do the trick, eh? I'd LOOOOOOOOOOVE to see this trade go down!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Despite the quotes from Redd, the rumor itself is picking up steam...

This from RealGM:



> The newest rumor swirling around the NBA grapevine has the Milwaukee Bucks and Portland Trailblazers swapping all-star talent. The rumored deal would have Michael Redd and Keith Van Horn heading to Portland in exchange for Shareef Abdur-Rahim and another player.
> 
> John Nash, the Blazers GM, was asked about the trade and only said he was "still listening to offers". Though he did go on to say that the Blazers "don't have any untouchables"


No new information here, but yesterday they had Golden State as the frontrunner. Anyway, they often say that rumors only get out after a deal is dead, but that's not always true. I'm still gonna keep holding my breath...


----------

