Per Marc Stein: Bucks plan to buyout Larry Sanders

[crimson_stallion]

The guy is a nut job who has zero work ethic.  Please let him nowhere near this team.

[BornReady]

i would try get him on a buyout depending on the price

hes talented but doesnt have the mentality

[Jonny CC]

I see some people are saying that 3@$11M may not be outrageous for Sander's potential so I will throw out an idea again:

Trade Wallace for Sanders.

Milwaukee will cut Wallace anyway and save money.  Boston get Sanders but without claiming him and then can reduce the cost of the transaction by the amount of Wallace's salary that they send out.

If I am Ainge, I only do this if Sanders can convince me that he really means it when he says he wants to be an NBA player and isn't just giving this lip service to get even more money off the NBA.

TP. High risk, high reward... or bust. If the Bucks agree to give the Cs the lesser of their own 2017 first rounder/the Clippers 2017 first rounder they own, I would run that risk. The Bucks would be saving 20M and would get a veteran leader/coach in Wallace. Win-win.

Why would you want Sanders on his existing contract?  I would rather wait until after the buyout and see if you can get him cheap. 

[Redz]

A Zebra can't change its stripes: ....

Is a saying, I think his talent is immense and he would be perfect to compensate for Sully's defensive and rim protection liabilities but this guy is and can be a headcase.  His contract is horrible folks and he is not going to play for free.

But a Zebra can change its behavior.

Did you know that there are zebras running wild in San Simeon, California that are descended from ones that were part William Randolph Hearst's private zoo?  If they can make it, there's hope for Larry Sanders.

[sofutomygaha]

A Zebra can't change its stripes: ....

Is a saying, I think his talent is immense and he would be perfect to compensate for Sully's defensive and rim protection liabilities but this guy is and can be a headcase.  His contract is horrible folks and he is not going to play for free.

But a Zebra can change its behavior.

Did you know that there are zebras running wild in San Simeon, California that are descended from ones that were part William H. Hearst's private zoo?  If they can make it, there's hope for Larry Sanders.

There's nothing in the rule book that says a zebra can't play basketball!!

[Celts Fan 508]

I see some people are saying that 3@$11M may not be outrageous for Sander's potential so I will throw out an idea again:

Trade Wallace for Sanders.

Milwaukee will cut Wallace anyway and save money.  Boston get Sanders but without claiming him and then can reduce the cost of the transaction by the amount of Wallace's salary that they send out.

If I am Ainge, I only do this if Sanders can convince me that he really means it when he says he wants to be an NBA player and isn't just giving this lip service to get even more money off the NBA.

TP. High risk, high reward... or bust. If the Bucks agree to give the Cs the lesser of their own 2017 first rounder/the Clippers 2017 first rounder they own, I would run that risk. The Bucks would be saving 20M and would get a veteran leader/coach in Wallace. Win-win.

Why would you want Sanders on his existing contract?  I would rather wait until after the buyout and see if you can get him cheap.

Im not the OP to your question, but a few reasons would be 1.) guarantees you get him  2.)  his contract is only 1 year longer than Wallace's  3.) he fills a need for this team while Wallace is basically a coach  4.)  if he is right then we get a steal, if not then he fills a bench spot until he becomes an expiring contract

If I knew he wanted Boston I would wait, but if not and we could do Wallace for Sanders and a pick I would do it.  I have waited for the Wallace expiring contract for a while so I would only do it for a first from the Bucks, if we have to throw in a second or 2 I would do it.

[Redz]

A Zebra can't change its stripes: ....

Is a saying, I think his talent is immense and he would be perfect to compensate for Sully's defensive and rim protection liabilities but this guy is and can be a headcase.  His contract is horrible folks and he is not going to play for free.

But a Zebra can change its behavior.

Did you know that there are zebras running wild in San Simeon, California that are descended from ones that were part William H. Hearst's private zoo?  If they can make it, there's hope for Larry Sanders.

There's nothing in the rule book that says a zebra can't play basketball!!

Might be confusing for the refs. 

[Nerf DPOY]

I see some people are saying that 3@$11M may not be outrageous for Sander's potential so I will throw out an idea again:

Trade Wallace for Sanders.

Milwaukee will cut Wallace anyway and save money.  Boston get Sanders but without claiming him and then can reduce the cost of the transaction by the amount of Wallace's salary that they send out.

If I am Ainge, I only do this if Sanders can convince me that he really means it when he says he wants to be an NBA player and isn't just giving this lip service to get even more money off the NBA.

TP. High risk, high reward... or bust. If the Bucks agree to give the Cs the lesser of their own 2017 first rounder/the Clippers 2017 first rounder they own, I would run that risk. The Bucks would be saving 20M and would get a veteran leader/coach in Wallace. Win-win.

Why would you want Sanders on his existing contract?  I would rather wait until after the buyout and see if you can get him cheap.

Im not the OP to your question, but a few reasons would be 1.) guarantees you get him  2.)  his contract is only 1 year longer than Wallace's  3.) he fills a need for this team while Wallace is basically a coach  4.)  if he is right then we get a steal, if not then he fills a bench spot until he becomes an expiring contract

If I knew he wanted Boston I would wait, but if not and we could do Wallace for Sanders and a pick I would do it.  I have waited for the Wallace expiring contract for a while so I would only do it for a first from the Bucks, if we have to throw in a second or 2 I would do it.

Sanders' contract is 2 years longer than Wallace's.

[esel1000]

A Zebra can't change its stripes: ....

Is a saying, I think his talent is immense and he would be perfect to compensate for Sully's defensive and rim protection liabilities but this guy is and can be a headcase.  His contract is horrible folks and he is not going to play for free.

But a Zebra can change its behavior.

Did you know that there are zebras running wild in San Simeon, California that are descended from ones that were part William H. Hearst's private zoo?  If they can make it, there's hope for Larry Sanders.

There's nothing in the rule book that says a zebra can't play basketball!!

Might be confusing for the refs.

Was going to say I thought three zebras played for the Heat for a few years

[Celts Fan 508]

I see some people are saying that 3@$11M may not be outrageous for Sander's potential so I will throw out an idea again:

Trade Wallace for Sanders.

Milwaukee will cut Wallace anyway and save money.  Boston get Sanders but without claiming him and then can reduce the cost of the transaction by the amount of Wallace's salary that they send out.

If I am Ainge, I only do this if Sanders can convince me that he really means it when he says he wants to be an NBA player and isn't just giving this lip service to get even more money off the NBA.

TP. High risk, high reward... or bust. If the Bucks agree to give the Cs the lesser of their own 2017 first rounder/the Clippers 2017 first rounder they own, I would run that risk. The Bucks would be saving 20M and would get a veteran leader/coach in Wallace. Win-win.

Why would you want Sanders on his existing contract?  I would rather wait until after the buyout and see if you can get him cheap.

Im not the OP to your question, but a few reasons would be 1.) guarantees you get him  2.)  his contract is only 1 year longer than Wallace's  3.) he fills a need for this team while Wallace is basically a coach  4.)  if he is right then we get a steal, if not then he fills a bench spot until he becomes an expiring contract

If I knew he wanted Boston I would wait, but if not and we could do Wallace for Sanders and a pick I would do it.  I have waited for the Wallace expiring contract for a while so I would only do it for a first from the Bucks, if we have to throw in a second or 2 I would do it.

Sanders' contract is 2 years longer than Wallace's.

Didn't he sign a 4 year $44 million contract prior to the 2013-14 season?  Was that an extension onto his prior deal?  If it is 2 years longer then no way I would do it.

[fairweatherfan]

I see some people are saying that 3@$11M may not be outrageous for Sander's potential so I will throw out an idea again:

Trade Wallace for Sanders.

Milwaukee will cut Wallace anyway and save money.  Boston get Sanders but without claiming him and then can reduce the cost of the transaction by the amount of Wallace's salary that they send out.

If I am Ainge, I only do this if Sanders can convince me that he really means it when he says he wants to be an NBA player and isn't just giving this lip service to get even more money off the NBA.

TP. High risk, high reward... or bust. If the Bucks agree to give the Cs the lesser of their own 2017 first rounder/the Clippers 2017 first rounder they own, I would run that risk. The Bucks would be saving 20M and would get a veteran leader/coach in Wallace. Win-win.

Why would you want Sanders on his existing contract?  I would rather wait until after the buyout and see if you can get him cheap.

Im not the OP to your question, but a few reasons would be 1.) guarantees you get him  2.)  his contract is only 1 year longer than Wallace's  3.) he fills a need for this team while Wallace is basically a coach  4.)  if he is right then we get a steal, if not then he fills a bench spot until he becomes an expiring contract

If I knew he wanted Boston I would wait, but if not and we could do Wallace for Sanders and a pick I would do it.  I have waited for the Wallace expiring contract for a while so I would only do it for a first from the Bucks, if we have to throw in a second or 2 I would do it.

Sanders' contract is 2 years longer than Wallace's.

Didn't he sign a 4 year $44 million contract prior to the 2013-14 season?  Was that an extension onto his prior deal?  If it is 2 years longer then no way I would do it.

He signed then but the extension started this year.  3 years left.

[Nerf DPOY]

I see some people are saying that 3@$11M may not be outrageous for Sander's potential so I will throw out an idea again:

Trade Wallace for Sanders.

Milwaukee will cut Wallace anyway and save money.  Boston get Sanders but without claiming him and then can reduce the cost of the transaction by the amount of Wallace's salary that they send out.

If I am Ainge, I only do this if Sanders can convince me that he really means it when he says he wants to be an NBA player and isn't just giving this lip service to get even more money off the NBA.

TP. High risk, high reward... or bust. If the Bucks agree to give the Cs the lesser of their own 2017 first rounder/the Clippers 2017 first rounder they own, I would run that risk. The Bucks would be saving 20M and would get a veteran leader/coach in Wallace. Win-win.

Why would you want Sanders on his existing contract?  I would rather wait until after the buyout and see if you can get him cheap.

Im not the OP to your question, but a few reasons would be 1.) guarantees you get him  2.)  his contract is only 1 year longer than Wallace's  3.) he fills a need for this team while Wallace is basically a coach  4.)  if he is right then we get a steal, if not then he fills a bench spot until he becomes an expiring contract

If I knew he wanted Boston I would wait, but if not and we could do Wallace for Sanders and a pick I would do it.  I have waited for the Wallace expiring contract for a while so I would only do it for a first from the Bucks, if we have to throw in a second or 2 I would do it.

Sanders' contract is 2 years longer than Wallace's.

Didn't he sign a 4 year $44 million contract prior to the 2013-14 season?  Was that an extension onto his prior deal?  If it is 2 years longer then no way I would do it.

Yeah I think onto that deal, as in they didn't tear up his remaining year's deal. All I really know is what Hoopshype salary page says.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/milwaukee.htm

[hwangjini_1]

A Zebra can't change its stripes: ....

Is a saying, I think his talent is immense and he would be perfect to compensate for Sully's defensive and rim protection liabilities but this guy is and can be a headcase.  His contract is horrible folks and he is not going to play for free.

But a Zebra can change its behavior.

Did you know that there are zebras running wild in San Simeon, California that are descended from ones that were part William H. Hearst's private zoo?  If they can make it, there's hope for Larry Sanders.

There's nothing in the rule book that says a zebra can't play basketball!!

Might be confusing for the refs.

and that's assuming the refs could even keep up with a team of zebras. look at this!

"Zebras are very fast-moving animals, and can reach speeds of up to  40 mph when galloping across the plains. This is just fast enough to outpace predators such as lions."
 why that's a really, really fast break! 

[Celts Fan 508]

I see some people are saying that 3@$11M may not be outrageous for Sander's potential so I will throw out an idea again:

Trade Wallace for Sanders.

Milwaukee will cut Wallace anyway and save money.  Boston get Sanders but without claiming him and then can reduce the cost of the transaction by the amount of Wallace's salary that they send out.

If I am Ainge, I only do this if Sanders can convince me that he really means it when he says he wants to be an NBA player and isn't just giving this lip service to get even more money off the NBA.

TP. High risk, high reward... or bust. If the Bucks agree to give the Cs the lesser of their own 2017 first rounder/the Clippers 2017 first rounder they own, I would run that risk. The Bucks would be saving 20M and would get a veteran leader/coach in Wallace. Win-win.

Why would you want Sanders on his existing contract?  I would rather wait until after the buyout and see if you can get him cheap.

Im not the OP to your question, but a few reasons would be 1.) guarantees you get him  2.)  his contract is only 1 year longer than Wallace's  3.) he fills a need for this team while Wallace is basically a coach  4.)  if he is right then we get a steal, if not then he fills a bench spot until he becomes an expiring contract

If I knew he wanted Boston I would wait, but if not and we could do Wallace for Sanders and a pick I would do it.  I have waited for the Wallace expiring contract for a while so I would only do it for a first from the Bucks, if we have to throw in a second or 2 I would do it.

Sanders' contract is 2 years longer than Wallace's.

Didn't he sign a 4 year $44 million contract prior to the 2013-14 season?  Was that an extension onto his prior deal?  If it is 2 years longer then no way I would do it.

Yeah I think onto that deal, as in they didn't tear up his remaining year's deal. All I really know is what Hoopshype salary page says.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/milwaukee.htm

TP, that changes everything, makes no sense now

[LarBrd33]

He's signed on for 3 more seasons after this.  If they buy him out isnt that dead money staying on their cap for the next few seasons ?