Cavs in dicussions with Bucks for Redd AND Charlie V....

[Splitz]

Friendly question to all supporters of a Redd deal...


Do you put a deal for Redd ahead of any type of deal that would net us a 2/3 hybrid type of player like Childress?

I see the validity in the case for Redd but then at the same time if we are a team with a defensive identity that wants to bring back 2 guys in one deal (Redd and Charlie) that are not known as solid defenders, then I have to wonder when our team defense starts to get diluted. I am willing to deal with Charlie because I think we are bleeding for a scorer from the 4 position but I get uneasy sliding in anyone to start at the 2 that :

1.) Doesn't have the ability to play some SF minutes.
2.) Is not a good defender.

Now Mike is a great defensive mind that's for damn sure but the Magic series showed that without the right personnel, he is essentially neutralized against teams like Orlando. I don't see how Michael Redd does anything but hurt us worse defending the perimeter.

 

[PIP]

I don't get it, I simply don't... Was Delonte West really our problem ?? No.

Now, with that said, I do agree we need to increase the size of the backcourt, and DWest should be the major contributer off the bench.. However, if we're going to target that area (which shouldn't be our first concern)-- I'd much rather see us do it was a role piece (Childress, Barnes type) or go ahead and get a guy that can create for himself and others (Carter)

We're talking about a guy that is coming off a major injury here and is really not a good all around player..

 

[The Oi]

Friendly question to all supporters of a Redd deal...

Do you put a deal for Redd ahead of any type of deal that would net us a 2/3 hybrid type of player like Childress?

I see the validity in the case for Redd but then at the same time if we are a team with a defensive identity that wants to bring back 2 guys in one deal (Redd and Charlie) that are not known as solid defenders, then I have to wonder when out team defense starts to get diluted. I am willing to deal with Charlie because I think we are bleeding for a scorer from the 4 position but I get uneasy sliding in anyone to start at the 2 that :

1.) Doesn't have the ability to play some SF minutes.
2.) Is not a good defender.

Now Mike is a great defensive mind that's for damn sure but the Magic series showed that without the right personnel, he is essentially neutralized against teams like Orlando. I don't see how Michael Redd does anything but hurt us worse defending the perimeter.

This all depends on whether there is any bad blood between Mo and Redd. And I also didn't watch those two enough to know whether they had chemistry or not. Obviously Mo is locked in as our starter at PG right now, so Redd and Charlie V would take SG and SF/PF respectively.

Not sure why you'd be concerned about whether Redd could play as a SF?? LeBron and Charlie would both be getting the bulk of the SF minutes and depending on match-ups, Redd could play a limited amount there as well. I don't see that as a problem whatsoever.

As for your concerns about defense, I just don't think it's a problem with Mike's system and ability to get guys to buy in. You'd also assume that IF we traded for them, it would mean that they WILL play defense. If that wasn't the case, Ferry wouldn't make the move. We all know what the Cavs are about at this point.

That trade immediately improves our team SIGNIFICANTLY and allows us to create match-up problems rather than have to deal with them.

A starting five of:

C: ??
PF: Charlie Villanueva
SF: LeBron James
SG: Michael Redd
PG: Mo Williams

creates a lot of problems for opposing defenses. That's four players on the floor that can shoot from outside as well as drive to the basket.

If this trade was on the table I'd be very disappointed if we didn't take it.

 

[glockcoma]

Friendly question to all supporters of a Redd deal...


Do you put a deal for Redd ahead of any type of deal that would net us a 2/3 hybrid type of player like Childress?

I see the validity in the case for Redd but then at the same time if we are a team with a defensive identity that wants to bring back 2 guys in one deal (Redd and Charlie) that are not known as solid defenders, then I have to wonder when out team defense starts to get diluted. I am willing to deal with Charlie because I think we are bleeding for a scorer from the 4 position but I get uneasy sliding in anyone to start at the 2 that :

1.) Doesn't have the ability to play some SF minutes.
2.) Is not a good defender.

Now Mike is a great defensive mind that's for damn sure but the Magic series showed that without the right personnel, he is essentially neutralized against teams like Orlando. I don't see how Michael Redd does anything but hurt us worse defending the perimeter.

Childress would definately by my first choice, or right up there.

You bring up a very valid point about the inability to play some spot minutes at the 3. That would be crucial, I guess it all depends on what issue(s) we decide to address on draft night. If we are able pick up a SF whom we feel is NBA ready then obviously it isn't that big of a concern, but if we decide to draft a 1/4/5 man, then it becomes a huge concern.

In regards to the team defense becoming dilluted, you are absolutely right. If our lineup on the court were to include Chuckie V and Redd at the same time, then you'd almost have to play Delonte at point and Varejao at the 5 (assuming we're capable of re-signing him).

 

[RDriesen]

I'd rather have Childress.

 

[The Shoulder]

This all depends on whether there is any bad blood between Mo and Redd. And I also didn't watch those two enough to know whether they had chemistry or not. Obviously Mo is locked in as our starter at PG right now, so Redd and Charlie V would take SG and SF/PF respectively.

Not sure why you'd be concerned about whether Redd could play as a SF?? LeBron and Charlie would both be getting the bulk of the SF minutes and depending on match-ups, Redd could play a limited amount there as well. I don't see that as a problem whatsoever.

As for your concerns about defense, I just don't think it's a problem with Mike's system and ability to get guys to buy in. You'd also assume that IF we traded for them, it would mean that they WILL play defense. If that wasn't the case, Ferry wouldn't make the move. We all know what the Cavs are about at this point.

That trade immediately improves our team SIGNIFICANTLY and allows us to create match-up problems rather than have to deal with them.

A starting five of:

C: ??
PF: Charlie Villanueva
SF: LeBron James
SG: Michael Redd
PG: Mo Williams

creates a lot of problems for opposing defenses. That's four players on the floor that can shoot from outside as well as drive to the basket.

If this trade was on the table I'd be very disappointed if we didn't take it.

so pretty much, we swap role players with the Bucks?

 

[Grayson]

Sorry, I worded that poorly. Should have said more talent. Tyler has skill no doubt. Just think there are far better players than him in this draft. I wouldn't draft a guy, that high, for what he brings to a team.

Can't argue with that, there are better players. But there's alot to be said for adding a winner, a hard worker, and a player that produces.

 

[CleFan22]

Is this trade even possible.

Some guy said we cannot sign and trade AV in a package deal after June 30th because he is an unrestricted FA? And he would have to pick up his option for his contract for the trade to work?

 

[NarlCavs]

Can't believe there's been 11 pages on a very questionable rumor that likely has no truth to it.
This trade really couldn't have been discussed since 2 of the key players in it are FA's and no negotiations with FA's are allowed until July 1. If any took place teams could possibly be penalized with having draft picks taken away.
This deal would also require Varejao and Villanueva agreeing to new contracts with their new teams in order to agree to a sign and trade. That means negotiations would have to have taken place. It also means Varejao would have to agree to sign with and go play with Milwaukee and I don't see that happening.

 

[Shakalu M.D.]

This all depends on whether there is any bad blood between Mo and Redd. And I also didn't watch those two enough to know whether they had chemistry or not. Obviously Mo is locked in as our starter at PG right now, so Redd and Charlie V would take SG and SF/PF respectively.

Not sure why you'd be concerned about whether Redd could play as a SF?? LeBron and Charlie would both be getting the bulk of the SF minutes and depending on match-ups, Redd could play a limited amount there as well. I don't see that as a problem whatsoever.

As for your concerns about defense, I just don't think it's a problem with Mike's system and ability to get guys to buy in. You'd also assume that IF we traded for them, it would mean that they WILL play defense. If that wasn't the case, Ferry wouldn't make the move. We all know what the Cavs are about at this point.

That trade immediately improves our team SIGNIFICANTLY and allows us to create match-up problems rather than have to deal with them.

A starting five of:

C: ??
PF: Charlie Villanueva
SF: LeBron James
SG: Michael Redd
PG: Mo Williams

creates a lot of problems for opposing defenses. That's four players on the floor that can shoot from outside as well as drive to the basket.

If this trade was on the table I'd be very disappointed if we didn't take it.

My main concern with Redd isn't whether or not he'd put in the effort on D. It's him becoming Wally 2.0. Yes he's younger, yes he's a better shooter and overall scorer, however he just had knee surgery and has been injured frequently in the past few years. I'm concerned with him matching up against other 2 guards with speed who would simply blow right past him causing the D to collapse.

If his knee isn't that big of a problem then great, he could be a good defender here. If it causes him to lose a step like I think it does, he could be a massive liability on the defensive end with his lack of quickness.

Another concern of mine was already pointed out, and that is how well he gets along with Mo. Mo is our PG and it's going to stay that way, I've read things that mentioned that the 2 of them didn't get along in Milwaukee. I don't know whether or not they would work well together here.

When it comes to CV I would take him on the team. He has the tools to become a good defender so if he buys in he could be great. Offensively he's already a very good PF. I've been evaluating my position on CV for a while now. At first I really didn't want him on the team, but after reflecting on it for a while I think he would be a great great pickup. Although there needs to be a clause in his contract that he uses rogaine and wears fake eyebrows.

 

[maj]

No idea how that would work. I didn't hear exactly what he said, but i know a few people who did. Was basically that it wouldn't involve Ben Wallace and would revolve around Andy and Sasha. Maybe Boobie would be added in.

I don't get why Milwaukee would make the deal though. An allstar 2-guard and a young talented bigman for a bench bigman and an expiring contract? I mean that would be the dumbest trade ever.

nope, it would be the SECOND dumbest trade ever.
What did Memphis get for Pau last year?:chuckles:

 

[DeeThree]

The whole Redd/CV thing makes me giggle and think of TJ...

Anyone remember him? Saying how the Bucks were so much better than the Cavs, and how their roster was so much superior...

And now people want Mo, Redd and CV on this team.

Thank you Lebron.

 

[sam_slam911]

As much as I love Redd, no I definitely wouldn't bank on him regaining his status as a good defender once again. But I'd pretty much guarantee he'd work his butt off trying to. I think it's definitely possible he could be a decent team defender, but we would need a lock down one on one defender like Childress for select situations. That's why I say getting Redd would be fantastic, but would make a few more moves necessary.

And that's when you start going into fantasy talk, picking up Redd, Charlie V, a swingman defender and a low post defensive center. But I guess there are other possibilities, maybe if we traded for Redd we'd draft a guy like Sam Young, who granted won't be immediately at Childress' level defensively, but I think he'll make a very quick adaptation to the league defensively. Or even Anthony Parker as another cheaper solution.

I wouldn't be pissed if we didn't get Redd. I think he'd be fantastic but I guess more of a luxury than a solution to an existing problem. But if a deal for him and Villanueva could be worked so that we still have assets to fill the gaps afterwards, I'd make it in a second. Unlikely, but so is everything else. And maybe I'm being a little biased here cause I fucking love Mike Redd.

 

[Triplethreat]

Anyone maybe feeling a 3 way here?

 

[Shakalu M.D.]

Anyone maybe feeling a 3 way here?

A good 3 way or a bad 3 way

Edit: Now I see why you call yourself Triplethreat :chuckles: