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

[nostar]

I loved how vehement Roy got about Sanders being a knucklehead. I agree but I think in a respectable organization with a leader like Rondo and a coach like Stevens we could be getting a very valuable asset.

I'd move the Clippers 2015 pick to get Sanders. Not sure I'd part with the BKN pick this year (right now #20) because of how deep this draft is and how bad Atlanta could fare due to injury.

I'm not sure I'd part with a 1st to move Wallace. I'd honestly rather use the stretch provision than give up assets to move him. Right now he's a valuable player (our backup SF). It's not like we're going to make a huge splash in FA next season anyway. If the Bucks want to move Sanders for a pick and salary relief like Hump (instead of Wallace) this would work: http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=o8r5e2s

So yeah count me in as long as we're not shipping out any of our 1sts this year. The Clip pick is a reasonable starting point for Sanders. He's got issues but I'd risk it for the upside.

[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.

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.

The first two things don't make sense huh?

So when he's on the court, opposing teams score 98 points per 100 possessions. When he's off the court, they score 105 points per 100 possessions.
Hmm yeah I'd say he's helping them win.

Larry Sanders plays center. Guess what position John Henson plays? They have two starting caliber centers on their roster and one happens to be younger, more talented on offense and doesn't create bad press.
That player isn't Larry Sanders. It's John Henson. So yeah, playing Sanders does stunt the development of Henson when Henson is the center of their future.

Aren't you the same guy frothing over Roy's misleading stats earlier in the piece? Get over it man you're 100% wrong about Sanders stats and effectiveness. Fair enough if you don't like his attitude but the guy can ball.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Last season this would have been a DeMarcus Cousins thread.

[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.

The first two things don't make sense huh?

So when he's on the court, opposing teams score 98 points per 100 possessions. When he's off the court, they score 105 points per 100 possessions.
Hmm yeah I'd say he's helping them win.

Larry Sanders plays center. Guess what position John Henson plays? They have two starting caliber centers on their roster and one happens to be younger, more talented on offense and doesn't create bad press.
That player isn't Larry Sanders. It's John Henson. So yeah, playing Sanders does stunt the development of Henson when Henson is the center of their future.

Aren't you the same guy frothing over Roy's misleading stats earlier in the piece? Get over it man you're 100% wrong about Sanders stats and effectiveness. Fair enough if you don't like his attitude but the guy can ball.

They already knew what they had in Henson when they signed Sanders.  They didn't just decide they want to rid themselves of Sanders because Henson's growth was being stunted.  Henson can play power forward anyway.  The two could easily coexist.

[The One]

He is a very good rim protector.

We need a rim protector.

Seems like a match...just get it done without being ripped off.

I mean it's...LARRY SANDERS!

[Roy H.]

The first two things don't make sense huh?

So when he's on the court, opposing teams score 98 points per 100 possessions. When he's off the court, they score 105 points per 100 possessions.
Hmm yeah I'd say he's helping them win.

In terms of winning, it's not showing on the scoreboard.

According to 82games.com (meaning this might not be updated), The Bucks are outscored by 14.5 points per 100 possessions when Sanders is on the court.  The offense scores an anemic 90.7 points per 100 possessions with him playing, and allows 105.2 points.

The defense is indeed better with him on the floor (allowing 109.4 points when he is sitting), but the offense greatly improves (100.7 points / 100 possessions when he is not on the floor).

What that adds up to is that the Bucks are 5.8 points per 100 possessions worse with Sanders on the floor.

Now, +/- and on-court / off-court aren't my favorite stats, especially without context.  However, these numbers suggest that the Bucks aren't winning when Sanders is on the floor.

[Evantime34]

The first two things don't make sense huh?

So when he's on the court, opposing teams score 98 points per 100 possessions. When he's off the court, they score 105 points per 100 possessions.
Hmm yeah I'd say he's helping them win.

In terms of winning, it's not showing on the scoreboard.

According to 82games.com (meaning this might not be updated), The Bucks are outscored by 14.5 points per 100 possessions when Sanders is on the court.  The offense scores an anemic 90.7 points per 100 possessions with him playing, and allows 105.2 points.

The defense is indeed better with him on the floor (allowing 109.4 points when he is sitting), but the offense greatly improves (100.7 points / 100 possessions when he is not on the floor).

What that adds up to is that the Bucks are 5.8 points per 100 possessions worse with Sanders on the floor.

Now, +/- and on-court / off-court aren't my favorite stats, especially without context.  However, these numbers suggest that the Bucks aren't winning when Sanders is on the floor.

It's confusing because the article I posted earlier http://www.brewhoop.com/2014/1/22/5275028/nate-wolters-larry-sanders-bucks-defensive-splits comes up with the opposite conclusion, citing nba.com/stats but i can't find on off splits on that site. or on mysynergy sports

[D.o.s.]

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

To quote Richard Sherman (who got a whole lot of heat for, you know, being hyped up on winning the biggest football game of his career).

"The only reason it bothers me is because it seems like it's the accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays.

"There was a hockey game where they didn't even play hockey, they just threw the puck aside and started fighting. I saw that, and said, 'Oh man, I'm the thug? What's going on here?'"

[Who]

The first two things don't make sense huh?

So when he's on the court, opposing teams score 98 points per 100 possessions. When he's off the court, they score 105 points per 100 possessions.
Hmm yeah I'd say he's helping them win.

In terms of winning, it's not showing on the scoreboard.

According to 82games.com (meaning this might not be updated), The Bucks are outscored by 14.5 points per 100 possessions when Sanders is on the court.  The offense scores an anemic 90.7 points per 100 possessions with him playing, and allows 105.2 points.

The defense is indeed better with him on the floor (allowing 109.4 points when he is sitting), but the offense greatly improves (100.7 points / 100 possessions when he is not on the floor).

What that adds up to is that the Bucks are 5.8 points per 100 possessions worse with Sanders on the floor.

Now, +/- and on-court / off-court aren't my favorite stats, especially without context.  However, these numbers suggest that the Bucks aren't winning when Sanders is on the floor.

With Larry Sanders in lineup = Bucks have 2 wins and 13 losses, a .133 winning percentage
Without L.Sanders in lineup = Bucks have 6 wins and 20 losses, a .231 winning percentage

Not making a difference in W-L column either.

[SHAQATTACK]

No way DA goes for this guy.........to many wrong signals.......to much like Blatche for me.   

[ssspence]

The first two things don't make sense huh?

So when he's on the court, opposing teams score 98 points per 100 possessions. When he's off the court, they score 105 points per 100 possessions.
Hmm yeah I'd say he's helping them win.

In terms of winning, it's not showing on the scoreboard.

According to 82games.com (meaning this might not be updated), The Bucks are outscored by 14.5 points per 100 possessions when Sanders is on the court.  The offense scores an anemic 90.7 points per 100 possessions with him playing, and allows 105.2 points.

The defense is indeed better with him on the floor (allowing 109.4 points when he is sitting), but the offense greatly improves (100.7 points / 100 possessions when he is not on the floor).

What that adds up to is that the Bucks are 5.8 points per 100 possessions worse with Sanders on the floor.

Now, +/- and on-court / off-court aren't my favorite stats, especially without context.  However, these numbers suggest that the Bucks aren't winning when Sanders is on the floor.

The Bucks aren't winning with anyone on the floor. Where can we find these stats on Gerald Wallace? My offer would start (plus a pick or two) and end with him.

[Boris Badenov]

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

To quote Richard Sherman (who got a whole lot of heat for, you know, being hyped up on winning the biggest football game of his career).

"The only reason it bothers me is because it seems like it's the accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays.

"There was a hockey game where they didn't even play hockey, they just threw the puck aside and started fighting. I saw that, and said, 'Oh man, I'm the thug? What's going on here?'"

That picture, just to some more context, is of Sanders sitting in a pile of skateboards that he custom built.

Building custom skateboards is one of his hobbies, along with art.

[ssspence]

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

To quote Richard Sherman (who got a whole lot of heat for, you know, being hyped up on winning the biggest football game of his career).

"The only reason it bothers me is because it seems like it's the accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays.

"There was a hockey game where they didn't even play hockey, they just threw the puck aside and started fighting. I saw that, and said, 'Oh man, I'm the thug? What's going on here?'"

That picture, just to some more context, is of Sanders sitting in a pile of skateboards that he custom built.

Building custom skateboards is one of his hobbies, along with art.

this was art:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4AGKHllR7k

[D.o.s.]

He's also apparently looking into building a center or foundation for battered women.

So, really, I don't know if we'd want to keep him on the same team as Sully (too soon?)

[Celtic Fan Forever]

He's also apparently looking into building a center or foundation for battered women.

So, really, I don't know if we'd want to keep him on the same team as Sully (too soon?)

haha TP