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

[sofutomygaha]

Comparing Sanders to McGee is off the deep end. There is a lot more than shot blocking that goes into defense- Sanders had such a huge impact on the Bucks defense last year that there were whole academic studies dedicated measuring how much he deterred people from even attempting to drive to the basket or shoot close in. Last season Sanders did something on defense that JaVale McGee has never had any idea how to do, and it had to start with playing his position well. He knows how to play defense and he has the gifts to do it with Dwight Howard-esque effectiveness.

I agree, though, with you guys who are scared of his off-the-court craziness. It would be foolish to invest 4 years in a player who gets himself hurt in night club brawls, unless you had strong indications that is was over and done with.

[obnoxiousmime]

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.

Morey doesn't want anyone whose contract overlaps with Parsons' extension year. Unless it's a star which Green is not. Also, Green plays the same position.

I bet he'd do the deal for Bass (even with the rumors that he and Howard don't get along) and Boston's unprotected 1st but Ainge obviously wasn't going to do that.

[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.

Morey doesn't want anyone whose contract overlaps with Parsons' extension year. Unless it's a star which Green is not. Also, Green plays the same position.

I bet he'd do the deal for Bass (even with the rumors that he and Howard don't get along) and Boston's unprotected 1st but Ainge obviously wasn't going to do that.

It wouldn't shock me if Morey surprises everybody by selling high and packaging Parsons in a trade.  It also wouldn't shock me if Morey gives Parsons a contract that some people think is excessive.

Morey would have no problems with Green's contract, given sufficient draft compensation.  Ainge isn't going to give him that.

[ssspence]

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.

Morey doesn't want anyone whose contract overlaps with Parsons' extension year. Unless it's a star which Green is not. Also, Green plays the same position.

I bet he'd do the deal for Bass (even with the rumors that he and Howard don't get along) and Boston's unprotected 1st but Ainge obviously wasn't going to do that.

It wouldn't shock me if Morey surprises everybody by selling high and packaging Parsons in a trade.  It also wouldn't shock me if Morey gives Parsons a contract that some people think is excessive.

Morey would have no problems with Green's contract, given sufficient draft compensation.  Ainge isn't going to give him that.

So nothing would shock you. Neat. Why sink a thread about Larry Sanders with this garble?

[pearljammer10]

If we could trade Wallace and two of our future, somewhat protected firsts for Sanders I would not hesitate.

[D.o.s.]

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.

Sanders' contract extension is 4 years 44 million, 11/year with an 11 million cap hit.

That's the opposite of a poison pill contract. Asik has a poison pill contract. A posion pill contract is designed to make it harder for the player you're trying to sign to stay with their original team (See Lin, Jeremy). You'd almost never give your own players a poison pill/backloaded contract, and Sanders absolutely doesn't have one.

[Snakehead]

Not like you are getting him on a great deal.  That could be a lot to ask for given that Sanders has only had 1 good season really.

And has looked not smart, by the way.  Which is unfortunate and not something I am eager to deal with.

[biggs]

I like Sanders, but the timing feels wrong. Maybe on draft day we can take another look. 

[Lucky17]

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.

Sanders' contract extension is 4 years 44 million, 11/year with an 11 million cap hit.

That's the opposite of a poison pill contract. Asik has a poison pill contract. A posion pill contract is designed to make it harder for the player you're trying to sign to stay with their original team (See Lin, Jeremy). You'd almost never give your own players a poison pill/backloaded contract, and Sanders absolutely doesn't have one.

Both ESPN's Trade Machine and Larry Coon seem to think otherwise:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q89

89. What is the Poison Pill Provision?

"Poison Pill" isn't a defined term in the CBA, but there are a couple situations that are commonly referred to as a poison pill -- meaning a contract clause that creates a financial hardship.

The first is when a team extends a first round draft pick's rookie scale contract (see question number 59) and then trades the player between the date the extension is signed and the date it takes effect. When this happens, the player's trade value for the receiving team is the average of the salaries in the last year of the rookie scale contract and each year of the extension. The sending team uses the player's actual salary when calculating their total outgoing salary, and uses the current-year maximum salary in place of the (unknown) maximum salary for a future season, if necessary.

For example, if a player on the last year of his rookie scale contract earns $2 million in 2011-12, and his contract is extended for four seasons starting at $10 million, with 4.5% raises, then his salary in each season will be:

Season    Salary
2011-12    $2,000,000
2012-13    $10,000,000
2013-14    $10,450,000
2014-15    $10,900,000
2015-16    $11,350,000

If this player is traded during the 2011-12 season, then his outgoing salary from the sending team's perspective is his actual salary -- $2 million. But the player's incoming salary from the receiving team's perspective is $8.94 million -- the average of all five seasons. Such a player would be very difficult to trade -- a legal trade can only be accomplished if both teams add additional salary to the transaction, or if they include a third team that is able to absorb excess salary.

The Gilbert Arenas provision (see question number 45) has also been described as containing a poison pill. This is in reference to the third season of contracts signed according to this provision, which can contain a substantially larger salary than the first two seasons. Houston used this provision to its advantage when signing Jeremy Lin and Omer Asik in 2012.

[ssspence]

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.

Sanders' contract extension is 4 years 44 million, 11/year with an 11 million cap hit.

That's the opposite of a poison pill contract. Asik has a poison pill contract. A posion pill contract is designed to make it harder for the player you're trying to sign to stay with their original team (See Lin, Jeremy). You'd almost never give your own players a poison pill/backloaded contract, and Sanders absolutely doesn't have one.

More importantly, Sanders + Butler (expiring / plays Wallace's position) for Wallace + Bogans + 1st works fine. Posted this much earlier in the thread.

Originally, a PPP was used to acknowledge a rookie scale deal pre-agreed extension (ala Sanders), which makes 'matching salaries' difficult. That was always my understanding. Seems like ur stance is a little to certain on that one DOS.

[D.o.s.]

... did y'all know it's really hard to type with your foot in your mouth?

[ssspence]

... did y'all know it's really hard to type with your foot in your mouth?

Hahhaaha. Happens to us all.

Doesn't matter. The Cs have a bunch of different combos that could work with Milwaukee. 

[saltlover]

The bucks are going to want our 1st pick to even get a conservation stated

Why is Larry Sanders worth a lottery pick?

He's better than you think and he wants to win.

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/The%20Dwight%20Effect%20A%20New%20Ensemble%20of%20Interior%20Defense%20Analytics%20for%20the%20NBA.pdf

So Andrea Bargnani is the second best interior defender in the NBA?

Let's trade for him.  He's a better scorer, and imagine what he'd be like with Rondo throwing him passes!  He's only got one year left on his contract, too.

The only problem is, the Knicks would probably want multiple lottery picks.  The guy averages 16 points per 36 minutes, has 3PT range, and is an elite, game-changing defender according to analytics.  Let's do it, Danny!

(Now, does that make any sense to anybody?)

The paper doesn't say that Andrea Bargnani is the 2nd best interior defender.  It says that when he's within 5-feet of the shooter, opponents shoot their 2nd-worst field goal percentage relative to average given the location on the floor.  However, it also says he was 90th of 93rd in percentage of shots defended when he was within 5 feet of the shooter.  In other words, if Bargnani is near you, he'll have an effect on your shot.  However, he's more often than not too far from you to have an impact.  That doesn't seem implausible.  I mean, he's tall.  But he was only within 5-feet of the shooter on 33% of the shots in which he was close enough to be labeled the defender (never mind those times where it's probably his man but he's still at mid-court), whereas Sanders was within 5-feet of the shooter on 52% of the shots he defended (12th overall, and most of anyone defending at least the amount of shots he defended).  EDIT:  Not sure how to read the chart in the paper -- if shots within 1 ft of the shooter are included from the 5 ft within the shooter total or excluded.  Regardless, Bargnani is rarely near the shooter, and thus why he has a deservedly bad defensive reputation.

The Bargnani result was a little fluky, but not fluky enough to discount that Sanders might have been a very good defender the past two seasons.  (Also, if you're an Asik hater, he comes out as relatively middling in the paper.)

[moiso]

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.

The Bucks have the same kind of team they had when they resigned Sanders.  They are not in a different "mode" now than they were a few months ago.  They don't want to get rid of him because he is helping them win now because he isn't.  And they already had John Henson for two years when they signed Sanders so they did not suddenly decide that Sanders is stunting Henson's growth.  The first two things on your list make no sense at all.

[fitzhickey]

Another way of looking at this info.

The Bucks are not exactly lighting the world on fire with their attendance numbers. I suspect the last thing they want to do is alienate their fans with a player's behavior.

When you're a dude who's twitter picture is this:


And your twitter handle is "Nappy Gilmore"

And you tweet things like:

Nappy Gilmore ™ ‏@LarrySanders Dec 5
Good thing I didn't get jumped by a bunch of black guys because then it would of been gang related lol sheeeesh

Nappy Gilmore ™ ‏@LarrySanders Dec 5
S/O to all my "thugs"...(FFT)

Nappy Gilmore ™ ‏@LarrySanders Dec 5
My life = your entertainment. .. hope your amused lol

There is, rightly or wrongly, PR involved. It's much easier to let this stuff slide--in the sense that its alienating to a substantial part of the NBA's fan base, not because there's anything inherently wrong with any of it--when you're on a 50 win team. When you're a 7 win team, then it becomes a problem.

I thought that was Wiz Khalifa for a second  but seriously he seems really thuggish