# Michael Redd to Cavs?



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Very good trade for the Cavs if true. Varejao might be a big loss though, he has shown flashes of being a good big man in the NBA. 

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap.php#1103103129

According to The Morning Journal, if the Cavaliers offer rookies Luke Jackson and Anderson Varejao to Milwaukee, the Bucks might deal shooting guard Michael Redd, one of the most coveted free-agents this coming offseason.

Jackson and Varejao are just two of the many players that become eligable to be traded after transactions which occured during the offseason.

In accordance to Article VII, Section 8d of the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement, 'no player who signs a contract as a free agent or draft rookie may be traded before the later of three months following the date on which such contract was signed or December 15th of the salary cap year in which such contract was signed.'

Over 130 players, in addition to Jackson and Varejao, signed in the offseason became trade eligable Wednesday.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Yes, they are going to trade Michael Redd for Varejao and Luke Jackson. Yeah that's a fair trade for Milwaukee. 

Why doesn't Milwaukee throw in Desmond Mason while there at it? Make it fair.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Yes, they are going to trade Michael Redd for Varejao and Luke Jackson. Yeah that's a fair trade for Milwaukee.
> 
> Why doesn't Milwaukee throw in Desmond Mason while there at it? Make it fair.


Only if you sub Luke for Diop


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Yes, they are going to trade Michael Redd for Varejao and Luke Jackson. Yeah that's a fair trade for Milwaukee.
> 
> Why doesn't Milwaukee throw in Desmond Mason while there at it? Make it fair.


Actually if the Bucks think they're losing Redd anyways, it's a good deal. It really balances the floor for them. I think it's clear that Verejao is going to be a player in this league. And Luke Jackson is a nice 3. They move Desmond Mason to the 2, and presto, nice.

As for the Cavs, it hurts to lose Verejao. Hurts a lot. But you've got to give to get. And getting Redd would be huge for the Cavs. This would give them Redd's bird rights, no? So long as they resigned Z for certain in the summer, then this would be good.

And Pavlovic should be able to develop into a player somewhat of Luke's level. So that loss I can kind of live with.

Just what that trade would do for the Cavs this year would be tremendous.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Umm... no.

Jackson and Varejao have proven nothing. Michael Redd is an all-star caliber player traded for two rookies, who have done nothing. One can't even get off the end of the bench and IR. 

Try again. Milwaukee doesn't have to trade Redd at all, because they have his bird rights, also if they want to trade him, they surely can get more than Varejao and a scub like Jackson. 

If you can't see that this is a pathetic deal from the Bucks standpoint, then I don't know what to tell you. Luke Jackson can't even get garbage time for the Cavs, but he's going to start for Milwaukee? :laugh: Varejao isn't helping the Bucks more than having Redd.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Also, what is Luke's level? 11th man level? He isn't even doing anything.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I'm sure the Bucks have done their homework on both Luke and Anderson, otherwise this deal wouldn't even be rumored.

As far as the Bucks having Redd's bird rights, that doesn't mean anthing if they don't want to pay him to begin with. Luke and Anderson are both on their rookie contracts. And contrary to what you think, and this is coming admittedly from probably Anderson's biggest non-brazillian fan, Anderson is the real deal, and the Bucks would be getting a wonderful player.

I'd rather have Anderson on the cheap, than get an Eddy Curry or Kwame Brown who are going to also demand max contracts for only a portion of the well rounded game that Anderson can give you.

I would hate to see Anderson go honestly.

The Cavs probably don't even have to do this deal, since they can just wait until the offseason and try and sign Redd away outright, and still keep Luke and Anderson. But it would be nice to aquire Lebron some extra help this season.


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

I haven't seen enough of Jackson to form an opinion on but, I'd seriously miss Varejao, he's just a fun guy to watch play. But as with all things you gotta give to get and there is no way that the Cavs would pass on this. We would be left seriously thin in the frontcourt however especially since we aren't likely to have any picks in the next draft.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Losing Anderson is not a joke this guy is big time time prospect (as good a prospect as Curry and Chandler IMO, although that's not saying a whole lot now) and Luke I still believe will be a good player

This will leave the Cavs with likely four huge contract in a year or so (Lebron, Redd, Z, Gooden, McInnis?) will be way over the cap, no or late round first draft picks in the future, and no young players (both Diop, Wagner will be gone at the end of the year) to trade or develop a bench. I'd rather take the risk and try to pick up Redd in FA frankly then this trade. Z is getting old, and if anything happens we could only end up having the MLE to play with in the future.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Also SG as big a weakness as it is and as much as I'd like to get Redd this will not address one of the big reasons we lose games: we have no bench and no depth. Our starting five from 82games.com is top 5 in terms of output and watching games it is the bench that kills us. This trade does not and actually may worsen this deficit


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

Cavs with Redd = WATCH OUT!

I mean with a proven all star center like Z downlow, a solid rebounding PF in Gooden that is capable of having great nights, and a pure shooter in Redd to catch passes from THE INCOMARABLE LEBRON JAMES who would he averaging 25ppg 8asts 8rebs...this team would be dynamite.

If the Cavs got Redd King James' assits would increase dramatically were lookin at averages close to a triple double IMO.


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

I hear ya Pioneer, but I think we'd be fools to not consider making this deal. Redd is an all-star caliber player, and his 3pt shooting in particular would be a tremendous asset to this team. We'd be flat out unstoppable on offense..

At the same time though, i'm not too keen on giving up Varejao either. I also think he has unbelievable potential, people who haven't watched him play closely may not see it but from what i've seen he is a star in the making and we need him to replace Z down the line. Luke has to pan out to at least be decent considering how good a player he was at Oregon with Ridnour and Jones.

We would have zero bench though and be tied up with pricey deals for awhile, Snow, Z, Jmac, Redd would all eat up our cap. Then you factor in paying Gooden and Lebron down the line and we are in Knicks territory without the draft picks to build talent.

Tough choice, trading big for small almost always backfires but I think i'd have to pull the trigger unless we could have a solid chance of bringing him in this summer.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Stupidity is rampant, its like conjuntivitis in D.R. in the summertime...

Redd for Rookies?


----------



## Odomiles (Mar 23, 2004)

This "we wouldn't have a bench" talk is nonsense. Luke Jackson is always on the IR anyways, so it's not like you even have him coming off the bench.

So essentially, you're moving Ira Newble to the bench and plugging Michael Redd into the starting lineup. With Jackson on the IR anyways, it will be as if you haven't even lost any players. In terms of big men, you'll still have Scott Williams, Robert Traylor and Diop coming off the bench. It's not a great rotation, but at this point, it's not as if Anderson really makes it all that much better.

If you traded Dajuan Wagner for a Matt Bonner-type, or a second round pick to take one in next year's draft, then you'll be fine.

1st Unit

PG: Jeff McInnis
SG: Michael Redd
SF: LeBron James
PF: Drew Gooden
C: Zydrunas Ilgauskas

Bench

PG: Eric Snow
SG: Lucious Harris
SF: Ira Newble/Aleksandar Pavlovic 
PF: Robert Traylor
C: Scott Williams/DeSagana Diop

Obviously it isn't a great bench, but with your starting unit playing 36-38 mins a game, then it's not a big deal at all.

If you had a chance to pull off this deal, it would be stupid not to. I would even throw in a first round pick if you were guaranteed that Redd would re-sign.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Stupidity is rampant, its like conjuntivitis in D.R. in the summertime...
> 
> Redd for Rookies?


well just note that no one here made up the deal. It's coming from outside sources. We're just discussing the deal as rumored like the good fans we are.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

It came from Chad Ford and it doesn't make sense at all to one of the teams (the Bucks). What the Cavs would be offering is trash for an All-Star. It doesnt' work like that. If you'd rather not lose those guys you'd supposedly be trading than keep those bums. Varejao at this stage is still a back-up and Jackson is a not playing. How does that help the Bucks? Why not trade Michael Redd for a lap top and some shares in Microsoft to the Blazers? At least then Milwaukee could make some money. Getting Varejao and Jackson makes them considerably worse.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Getting Varejao and Jackson makes them considerably worse.


Worse than if they just lost Redd in free agency?

I don't understand your problem... deals like that happen all the time when a player is in free agency and the management doesn't think he's going to re-sign.


----------



## Larry Hughes for Retirement (Jul 5, 2004)

Hong Kong your an idiot if you cant understand why they might want to do this deal. If they think they might lose him they get nothing in return. They arent playing very well right now. So why not take young talent along with the youth with Mason and try something else......

either you let him go and get nothing and possibly not a playoff spot or you trade him and get younger and start over.


----------



## Captain Chaos (Dec 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LBJ to LJ for 3</b>!
> Hong Kong your an idiot if you cant understand why they might want to do this deal. If they think they might lose him they get nothing in return. They arent playing very well right now. So why not take young talent along with the youth with Mason and try something else......
> 
> either you let him go and get nothing and possibly not a playoff spot or you trade him and get younger and start over.


If the Bucks think they will lose Redd then they will definitely look at better deals. And the Bucks would be just plain stupid to get rid of Redd and Mason for a few young players. Mason is probably their 2nd best overall player. You don't dump your two best players for two guys who have done nothing in the NBA yet.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LBJ to LJ for 3</b>!
> Hong Kong your an idiot if you cant understand why they might want to do this deal. If they think they might lose him they get nothing in return. They arent playing very well right now. So why not take young talent along with the youth with Mason and try something else......
> 
> either you let him go and get nothing and possibly not a playoff spot or you trade him and get younger and start over.


I'm an idiot? Fix your spelling first. So you trade Michael Redd within the division for two nobodies? Yeah that's bright. When the deal doesn't happen, I'll be back to show you who the true idiot is. You don't know more about the game than I, so don't pretend to. 

How's Luke Jackson doing clown? :clown:


----------



## Larry Hughes for Retirement (Jul 5, 2004)

ITS A RUMOR........ The bucks are playing terrible and i didnt say they were going to trade mason either. 
Luke jackson is a rookie, you can come back in 2 years and if he has done nothing then he is garbage. You cannot make that comment now. Also Anderson V. has come along way and is going to be a stud.


----------



## Ben1 (May 20, 2003)

I think that the Bucks can do better than getting two rookies in return for an All-Star guard. Unless the Bucks have decided to start rebuilding, then this trade is good with both rookies having much potential, Varejao especially. 

From the Cavs' standpoint though, this is an excellent trade IMO. Redd is definitely a big upgrade at the 2 spot, much better than current starter Newble. If Redd can fit in and play well, and LeBron can continue his strong play, this makes this team a whole lot more dangerous and better.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Sorry guys, didn't realize this was Chad Ford. Probably not going to happen. 

I'll be more careful next time.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Sorry guys, didn't realize this was Chad Ford. Probably not going to happen.
> 
> I'll be more careful next time.


Yeah do that. :-D

You've pissed everyone off now because they think Cavs fans are unrealistic. Even though it's just responding to a reported rumor. Goddamn. This isn't an invitation to come here and diss Anderson and Luke. But you'd think it was. If it happens, fantastic. If it doesn't happen and the Cavs just sign Redd outright in the offseason, which is what everyone around here is looking forward to anyways, then EVEN better.

Trading for Redd, and losing Anderson and Luke...Great.

Signing Redd and losing nobody...EVEN BETAH.

Where is Michael Redd really taking the Bucks right now anyways? I don't think the Bucks consider him a franchise level player even though he wants to be paid like it. I think they will try to deal him for something. It remains to be seen how much other teams want to give up for him.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Anderson is a STUD. He is going to be a force for the Cavaliers- I would be very reluctant to trade the dude. For heaven's sake Paul Silas actually plays the guy. He must be freakin awesome for Silas to do that since he is the most stubborn verteran homer

Anyways this trade discussion is moot as mentioned in previous post


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Bumped this thread to see how people would feel about giving away Anderson now after he's gotten some playing time. This guy is the future of the Cleveland frontcourt


----------



## CavsTalk (Jun 10, 2003)

I said no then, Ill say no now.


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

Anderson is playing well and we have an excuse for the lack of playing time that Jackson has received (bulging disc in his back). There is just no way I'd want the Cavaliers to trade Varejao I liked him when I just had glimpses of what he could do, now that he's actually getting some run, I don't want him to go anywhere. Especially if Sasha keeps playing as well as he has lately. Redd would be nice, but I'd rather just pursue him as a free agent (although secretly I'd prefer Joe Johnson).


----------



## RJ May (Feb 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The OUTLAW</b>!
> Anderson is playing well and we have an excuse for the lack of playing time that Jackson has received (bulging disc in his back). There is just no way I'd want the Cavaliers to trade Varejao I liked him when I just had glimpses of what he could do, now that he's actually getting some run, I don't want him to go anywhere. Especially if Sasha keeps playing as well as he has lately. Redd would be nice, but I'd rather just pursue him as a free agent (although secretly I'd prefer Joe Johnson).


I think Joe and Bron would make a better duo myself but I don't see the suns giving up JJ.


----------

