# Brandon Jennings



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Supposedly he's in the trading block. Do we make a move to acquire him?? He would definitely add some youth, speed and athleticism to our backcourt.


----------



## ii9ce (Feb 1, 2005)

Am a big fan of Jennings. Have no idea what sort of contract his got with the Bucks....maybe a switch for Walton?


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Smh, Luke Walton for Brandon Jennings? Quit being so delusional.

Not sure if Jennings is a great fit in the Triangle, but the kid seems willing to learn. I would hope the Bucks don't move him, especially not for junk.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

lol...perfect trade
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=3quoz98

yes please


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

GregOden said:


> *Smh, Luke Walton for Brandon Jennings? Quit being so delusional.*
> 
> Not sure if Jennings is a great fit in the Triangle, but the kid seems willing to learn. I would hope the Bucks don't move him, especially not for junk.


He is on hell of a passer.:laugh:


----------



## Ron (May 8, 2002)

We can't get a box of crackers for Luke, and we already raped Milwaukee once, back in 1975.

They still haven't forgotten.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

GregOden said:


> Smh, Luke Walton for Brandon Jennings? Quit being so delusional.


You're right. We should make them throw in a first round pick too.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

GregOden said:


> Smh, Luke Walton for Brandon Jennings? Quit being so delusional.
> 
> Not sure if Jennings is a great fit in the Triangle, but the kid seems willing to learn. I would hope the Bucks don't move him, especially not for junk.


Unless Shaw if retained, I don't think the Lakers will be running the triangle next year. I'd probably take a chance on Jennings. He's not perfect but he's far better than anything we've had at that position since Van Exel. Who knows, maybe Fisher can mentor him in his new role as a backup. Lord knows he isn't contributing jack on the court anymore.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Pinball said:


> Unless Shaw if retained, I don't think the Lakers will be running the triangle next year. I'd probably take a chance on Jennings. He's not perfect but he's far better than anything we've had at that position since Van Exel. Who knows, maybe Fisher can mentor him in his new role as a backup. Lord knows he isn't contributing jack on the court anymore.


What could you possibly trade for him?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Love this thread, whether it's serious or not.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I don't know if we have anyone that the Bucks will want and that we are willing to give up. If we can cheat the system and pull another talented player for garbage then I'm all for it, Jennings still has a chance to become a good pro.


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

lol yeah. Jennings would be great. In the meantime, we should swap S.Blake for Blake Griffin.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

opcorn:


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

John Salmons for Kobe Bryant, great deal for the Bucks.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

GregOden said:


> John Salmons for Kobe Bryant, great deal for the Bucks.


Like Ron said, we already raped them once in 1975. Don't need to do it again.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

It is impossible to get equal value for Kareem... but at least Bridgeman and Winters were decent players for the Bucks. Poor Milwaukee.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

No sure why he is on the block. he shoots it terribly from the field and isn't much of a distributor or defender. The Bucks giving up on such a young player already when their team has had so many injuries.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> No sure why he is on the block. he shoots it terribly from the field and isn't much of a distributor or defender. The Bucks giving up on such a young player already when their team has had so many injuries.


He can be an amazing distributor, the rest of our teams shooting is so bad it costs him around 3-4 assissts a game.. put him in the right spot and 15 and 9 isnt out of the question.. his shooting is an issue.. he needs to go the kidd route and only shoot wide open threes, cause that all he can really do


----------



## ceejaynj (Oct 9, 2005)

Dornado said:


> It is impossible to get equal value for Kareem... but at least Bridgeman and Winters were decent players for the Bucks. Poor Milwaukee.


If I remember correctly, didn't we also give them Elmore Smith and a first round pick that turned out to be David Meyers from UCLA?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Doesn't Elmore Smith still hold the record for most blocks in a game? I think the Bucks owe us a favor for delivering him.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Kareem did the bucks a favor by making his intentions known well in advance.. yes kareem made the lakers a powerhouse.. but that really had as much to as them getting magic as getting kareem.. even after that trade the bucks remained a consistant 50 game winner from that point through the 80's.. we obviously never got to the lakers level but we remained competitive thanks to that deal.. thats better than nothing


----------



## ceejaynj (Oct 9, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> Doesn't Elmore Smith still hold the record for most blocks in a game?


I recall when I was a kid he blocked 17 or 18 shots in a game...which was a record for a long time. Don't know if it still stands or not.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> Doesn't Elmore Smith still hold the record for most blocks in a game? I think the Bucks owe us a favor for delivering him.


Still stands. Probably always will, unless Manute Bol ever happens again.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

Record is still held by Elmore Smith.

Doubt Jennings winds up in L.A.


----------

