Amico/Fox sports: Bucks open to Larry Sanders trade for draft picks...

[ssspence]

It's that contract.

So trade the worst contract in the NBA for it. OK... JR Smith has the worst deal in the NBA... make that the second worst.

[fairweatherfan]

It's that contract.

So trade the worst contract in the NBA for it. OK... JR Smith has the worst deal in the NBA... make that the second worst.

Wallace's contract is a lot worse than JR's.  JR is toxic right now, not his salary.

[LarBrd33]

At this point, the Bucks should be sending back draft picks.  He's been that bad.

* He's averaging 6.7 points per game.  That's really bad, but is the second highest total of his four-year career;

* He's shooting 43.3% from the field, which is atrocious for a guy of his size and athleticism.  An anomaly?  Nope.  He's shot below 46% in three out of his four seasons.  He's been a terrible FT shooter, too;

* He's got character issues, both in public and in the locker room;

* He's vastly overpaid starting next year ($44 million over four years);

* He's overrated as a defender, and can't stay out of foul trouble (5.0 PF per 36 minutes).

I've called this guy "Javale McGee 2.0", but that's probably vastly unfair to Javale.  It just doesn't make sense to give up draft picks for the pleasure of having Sanders take up 20% of your salary cap for the next four seasons.

As crazy as it is to say, I'm not even sure if I'd do Wallace + a #2 for Sanders.  You probably have to, I guess, for the potential.  However, between Sanders' attitude, offensive ineptitude, and terrible contract (again, a year longer than Wallace's), I'd be very hesitant.

Sanders has been a disaster this year.  I agree with all of this.  His stock has plummeted.  You shouldn't be giving up multiple 1sts to get this guy.

[snively]

Sanders' contract is poison pill - yet to see any one factor that into trade proposals.  Wouldn't we just use the Paul Pierce trade exception to avoid all the CBA gymnastics that come with trading for a poison pill and just absorb Sanders current $3 mil salary?

Then follow it up with a cost cutting trade to put us under the tax.

So something like trade exception plus the 2014 Brooklyn pick for Sanders, and then swap Bass for Udoh to shave $2 mil and keep us under the tax. (Or better yet, Wallace and the Clips pick for Butler).

As for Sanders the player, I'm a fan and I'd be all over this buy low opportunity.  Sure Asik is the surer bet, but he may not even be available, and Sanders has the physical tools to be a better player than Asik.

[ssspence]

It's that contract.

So trade the worst contract in the NBA for it. OK... JR Smith has the worst deal in the NBA... make that the second worst.

Wallace's contract is a lot worse than JR's.  JR is toxic right now, not his salary.

What's the difference? With NBA deals, it's about commitment. I'd argue being married to Smith is worse than Wallace. Leaving aside that he's a toxic individual, the only skill he's ever had that's even remotely valuable as an NBA player is shooting. And he can't shoot anymore.

Anyway, at least Wallace could act as a mentor to GA. By the time they need to pay him beyond his rookie deal, Wallace will have expired.

[fairweatherfan]

It's that contract.

So trade the worst contract in the NBA for it. OK... JR Smith has the worst deal in the NBA... make that the second worst.

Wallace's contract is a lot worse than JR's.  JR is toxic right now, not his salary.

What's the difference? With NBA deals, it's about commitment. I'd argue being married to Smith is worse than Wallace. Leaving aside that he's a toxic individual, the only skill he's ever had that's even remotely valuable as an NBA player is shooting. And he can't shoot anymore.

The difference is that the contract is guaranteed to not change. 

Wallace makes $12 million more over the same number of years (if JR doesn't opt out early) for less production at an older age.  And he's not exactly a positive locker room influence these days either. 

Danny would trade Wallace's contract for JR's in a heartbeat and deal with the personality problems later.  Heck, Danny would probably rather make that trade and just pay JR to stay away than keep the Wallace deal.

[LooseCannon]

Let's imagine two deals.  Asik for Bass, Bogans, the lesser of the Celtics 2014 picks (with top-10 protection), and the protected Philly pick or Sanders for Wallace, those picks, and the Clippers pick.

Which deal is better? (You can say both stink.)

I think the you should knock a first off each deal.

Those ideas are based on what I think the other teams might hold out for, not what I would want to pay.

[LooseCannon]

But Green makes no sense for the Rockets -- need a third team. And Wallace is a non-starter in an Asik deal.

Green makes a lot of sense for the Rockets.  They were reportedly looking for either a SF or PF and Green can play both.  He can hit a three and will defer to guys like Harden and Howard on offense instead of trying to force himself into the game.  He can provide perimeter defense.

As a combo forward off the bench, he would be an upgrade over Francisco Garcia and Omri Casspi.  As a PF, he'd be a bigger three-point threat than Robinson.

They'd prefer a better rebounder, but if Green is available, he fits a lot of the things they could use.

Rationalize however you want, but one thing you won't see: the Rockets trading for Jeff Green.

It makes sense that they would want him for the right price.  I'm not sure Ainge and Morey can agree on the right price, so I doubt Green gets traded to Houston, but I think it's something that gets looked at.

[ssspence]

It's that contract.

So trade the worst contract in the NBA for it. OK... JR Smith has the worst deal in the NBA... make that the second worst.

Wallace's contract is a lot worse than JR's.  JR is toxic right now, not his salary.

What's the difference? With NBA deals, it's about commitment. I'd argue being married to Smith is worse than Wallace. Leaving aside that he's a toxic individual, the only skill he's ever had that's even remotely valuable as an NBA player is shooting. And he can't shoot anymore.

The difference is that the contract is guaranteed to not change. 

Wallace makes $12 million more over the same number of years (if JR doesn't opt out early) for less production at an older age.  And he's not exactly a positive locker room influence these days either. 

Danny would trade Wallace's contract for JR's in a heartbeat and deal with the personality problems later.  Heck, Danny would probably rather make that trade and just pay JR to stay away than keep the Wallace deal.

I think we're getting into the weeds here. Yes, Smith is cheaper (i thought he had one more year on his deal). My point was: hard to imagine the Bucks taking on Smith in exchange for Sanders when they're trying to tidy up their locker room.

[ssspence]

But Green makes no sense for the Rockets -- need a third team. And Wallace is a non-starter in an Asik deal.

Green makes a lot of sense for the Rockets.  They were reportedly looking for either a SF or PF and Green can play both.  He can hit a three and will defer to guys like Harden and Howard on offense instead of trying to force himself into the game.  He can provide perimeter defense.

As a combo forward off the bench, he would be an upgrade over Francisco Garcia and Omri Casspi.  As a PF, he'd be a bigger three-point threat than Robinson.

They'd prefer a better rebounder, but if Green is available, he fits a lot of the things they could use.

Rationalize however you want, but one thing you won't see: the Rockets trading for Jeff Green.

It makes sense that they would want him for the right price.  I'm not sure Ainge and Morey can agree on the right price, so I doubt Green gets traded to Houston, but I think it's something that gets looked at.

No.

1) Green is not a 4, he's a 3. Their defense is soft enough without Green playing PF;

2) The Rockets are not committing to two more seasons of Green when they have Parsons, who needs to be paid this summer; 

3) Morey is too smart to trade for Green. He's not going to start in front of Parsons, and doesn't have the motor to be an energy bench guy. Green is just not a very attractive trade asset.

Put another way, if the teams wanted to exchange these players, why didn't they in December? They clearly talked about it. And it's not because Green was too valuable, or whatever we were fed by Steve Bulpett.

[LooseCannon]

Put another way, if the teams wanted to exchange these players, why didn't they in December? They clearly talked about it. And it's not because Green was too valuable, or whatever we were fed by Steve Bulpett.

I wouldn't be shocked if Morey's counter-offer to the reported Bass/Lee/1st offer was Green and a first that wasn't the Clippers pick.  I don't think Morey or Ainge are interested in moving Asik or Green for pennies on the dollar just to be rid of them, but they are open to making a deal that brings in more value than it sends out.

I believe that Green would be a reasonable fit, better than most other options out there, and that Morey would be willing to trade for him if the price is low enough but that Ainge would not give away Green at a price low enough for Morey to want to do a trade, but it's probably close enough that they would talk about it and see if they can find a third team to be a sucker so that Boston and Houston both win the trade.

[chambers]

I've read through all 5 pages of this topic and all I can say is WOW! Everyone who knows the
C's and wants them to get back to contender status knows we absolutely have to get a rebounding, defensive minded center. Yet, most of the posts here are against taking a chance on Sanders?

One of the most important parts of a rebuild is having patience. 

Yes, the team needs a rebounding / defensive-minded center.  But that doesn't mean the team should be willing to give up any amount of assets or pay any amount of money to acquire and keep such a player.

Absolutely true.  But by most accounts, Sanders would be available for a bargain price right now, because of the nightclub incident, and contract-wise, you would have a hard time doing much better for a defensive anchor type center.  He is locked up longterm in the bottom half of the market for that type of player (not counting those on rookie contracts). 

There are absolutely questions about this guy, but if you can get him for a reasonable deal, then this is what you are patient for.

This is what I'm saying. You wait for players like this to become available and buy low. 4 months ago the Bucks wouldn't even pick up the phone unless a lottery pick was in the conversation.
They're obviously rebuilding now so Sanders is a problem because:
1)He helps them win now
2)he stunts the development of John Henson
3)he has behavioral issues which the Bucks don't want to deal with in a 'blow it up' patch of years ahead.

If you move Gerald Wallace's deal for one mid/late first round contract, plus you get a defensive anchor who's locked in to a reasonable 4 year deal for another mid first round pick, then I can't see how it's so objectionable.
Especially when that defensive anchor has displayed the ability and talent to be a premier shot blocker and rim protector.
When Sanders is on the floor the Bucks are a top 5 defense, when he's off they're not.
PS. apologies to Roy for getting slightly heated earlier in the discussion.

[chambers]

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/8/20/4628666/larry-sanders-contract-milwaukee-bucks

He averaged 2.8 blocks per game in 2012-13, good enough for second in the league behind the Oklahoma City Thunder's Serge Ibaka. According to Basketball-Reference.com, Sanders was also second in the NBA to JaVale McGee in block percentage, sending away 7.6 percent of opponent two-point shot attempts while he was on the floor. He was third in the league among starting centers by allowing just 0.76 points per possession, which trails only Marc Gasol and Kendrick Perkins, according to MySynergySports. Sanders was also among some of the best defenders in the NBA in terms of on-court defensive rating (98.8 points per 100 possessions) versus off-court (105.6 points per 100 possessions) defensive rating. Finally, a study presented at the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference by Kirk Goldsberry found that Sanders held opponents to the lowest shooting percentage on attempts inside of five feet in the league.

And despite being on the thin side, Sanders was a decent enough rebounder, snaring 18.6 percent of the Bucks' available rebounds, good for ninth in the league.

If judged on his defense alone, Sanders is easily worthy of his new deal.

[Monkhouse]

I would lock up Sanders in a heart beat. If we only needed to offer Clippers, next years Nets pick and a couple 2nd rounders with Gerald Wallace.

[SHAQATTACK]

At this point, the Bucks should be sending back draft picks.  He's been that bad.

* He's averaging 6.7 points per game.  That's really bad, but is the second highest total of his four-year career;

* He's shooting 43.3% from the field, which is atrocious for a guy of his size and athleticism.  An anomaly?  Nope.  He's shot below 46% in three out of his four seasons.  He's been a terrible FT shooter, too;

* He's got character issues, both in public and in the locker room;

* He's vastly overpaid starting next year ($44 million over four years);

* He's overrated as a defender, and can't stay out of foul trouble (5.0 PF per 36 minutes).

I've called this guy "Javale McGee 2.0", but that's probably vastly unfair to Javale.  It just doesn't make sense to give up draft picks for the pleasure of having Sanders take up 20% of your salary cap for the next four seasons.

As crazy as it is to say, I'm not even sure if I'd do Wallace + a #2 for Sanders.  You probably have to, I guess, for the potential.  However, between Sanders' attitude, offensive ineptitude, and terrible contract (again, a year longer than Wallace's), I'd be very hesitant.

Somebody with. ...common sense here about this player.........I don get all the craziness over this guy ......is it a teenie thing or young kids dream player.......LOL......I totally agree with the above post .