http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4295423

i told you all this 3days ago, oh well now its OFFICIAL.     i cant see why they could at least get a second round pick for him in a sign and trade, i absolutley hate  letting talent get away for nothing.

quicksdraw:

i told you all this 3days ago, oh well now its OFFICIAL.     i cant see why they could at least get a second round pick for him in a sign and trade, i absolutley hate  letting talent get away for nothing.

We can now close the book on the TJ-CV trade. I have to admit I was wrong in predicting that Toronto would get the better of that trade by a wide margin. On balance they probably ended up a little better off than we did, but unfortunately neither player lived up to expectations.

quicksdraw:

i told you all this 3days ago, oh well now its OFFICIAL.     i cant see why they could at least get a second round pick for him in a sign and trade, i absolutley hate  letting talent get away for nothing.

 

Why would someone do a sign and trade for CV? I doubt he gets more than the MLE, and if that's the case then any team that wants him can just sign him without trading anything.

matt stairs:

quicksdraw:

i told you all this 3days ago, oh well now its OFFICIAL.     i cant see why they could at least get a second round pick for him in a sign and trade, i absolutley hate  letting talent get away for nothing.

 

Why would someone do a sign and trade for CV? I doubt he gets more than the MLE, and if that's the case then any team that wants him can just sign him without trading anything.

a sign and trade assures that team gets him, i am betting that he has more than a few teams interested in him

quicksdraw:

matt stairs:

quicksdraw:

i told you all this 3days ago, oh well now its OFFICIAL.     i cant see why they could at least get a second round pick for him in a sign and trade, i absolutley hate  letting talent get away for nothing.

 

Why would someone do a sign and trade for CV? I doubt he gets more than the MLE, and if that's the case then any team that wants him can just sign him without trading anything.

a sign and trade assures that team gets him, i am betting that he has more than a few teams interested in him

 

A sign and trade doesn't assure that any more than just signing him. They still have to come to an agreement on a contract before the sign and trade can take place. If anything a sign and trade just complicates the matter, the team would have to come to an agreement with CV, then come to an agreement with the Bucks on trade compensation.

matt stairs:

quicksdraw:

matt stairs:

quicksdraw:

i told you all this 3days ago, oh well now its OFFICIAL.     i cant see why they could at least get a second round pick for him in a sign and trade, i absolutley hate  letting talent get away for nothing.

 

Why would someone do a sign and trade for CV? I doubt he gets more than the MLE, and if that's the case then any team that wants him can just sign him without trading anything.

a sign and trade assures that team gets him, i am betting that he has more than a few teams interested in him

 

A sign and trade doesn't assure that any more than just signing him. They still have to come to an agreement on a contract before the sign and trade can take place. If anything a sign and trade just complicates the matter, the team would have to come to an agreement with CV, then come to an agreement with the Bucks on trade compensation.

well of course what do think a sign a trade is?  we sign cv to what he wants or thinks is fair then trade him to the teams that has agreeed to that contract, then we get something in return, its not that complicated.

4.5 mill for CV is minor compared with other salaries throughout the league. Not sure what direction they plan on going, but that is an above average player they let go.

 

 

 

quicksdraw:

well of course what do think a sign a trade is?  we sign cv to what he wants or thinks is fair then trade him to the teams that has agreeed to that contract, then we get something in return, its not that complicated.

 

Why would a team give something for Charlie Villanueva when it was pretty obvious the Bucks didn't have the cash to pay him the MLE? Even as a restricted FA any team offering the MLE or close to it would know the Bucks wouldn't match. What do you really think CV would get in a sign and trade?

matt stairs:

quicksdraw:

well of course what do think a sign a trade is?  we sign cv to what he wants or thinks is fair then trade him to the teams that has agreeed to that contract, then we get something in return, its not that complicated.

 

Why would a team give something for Charlie Villanueva when it was pretty obvious the Bucks didn't have the cash to pay him the MLE? Even as a restricted FA any team offering the MLE or close to it would know the Bucks wouldn't match. What do you really think CV would get in a sign and trade?

or the team would be looking to pay less so they sign him to a smaller deal and give up some type of small asset. 

Like say CLE, a 1st and Hickson

Their front court would be loaded and could easily spare hickson's salary and won't need the first next year since they are going to go crazy in the FA market

WiscoKing13:

or the team would be looking to pay less so they sign him to a smaller deal and give up some type of small asset. 

Like say CLE, a 1st and Hickson

Their front court would be loaded and could easily spare hickson's salary and won't need the first next year since they are going to go crazy in the FA market

Or they could just keep Hickson and their 1 and dare the Bucks to go into the luxury tax range (if they want to sign Sessions and Jennings) by offering the MLE. Not to mention Cleveland would have to get CV to agree to less money. Could that happen? Sure, but it seems far-fetched to say the least. Knowing the Bucks financial situation, and knowing a couple million extra really doesn't matter to Cleveland, if I'm Danny Ferry, I'd just offer 5/30 (basically the MLE with raises) and take my chances. Hickson and a 1st combined with another asset could easily land them a CV quality player in a trade if Milwaukee matched, either before the year or during. So I don't see why Cleveland would do Hickson and a 1st in a sign and trade. 

 

Sign and trades are one of those things that sound good on paper, but rarely seem to work out.

matt stairs:

WiscoKing13:

or the team would be looking to pay less so they sign him to a smaller deal and give up some type of small asset. 

Like say CLE, a 1st and Hickson

Their front court would be loaded and could easily spare hickson's salary and won't need the first next year since they are going to go crazy in the FA market

Or they could just keep Hickson and their 1 and dare the Bucks to go into the luxury tax range (if they want to sign Sessions and Jennings) by offering the MLE. Not to mention Cleveland would have to get CV to agree to less money. Could that happen? Sure, but it seems far-fetched to say the least. Knowing the Bucks financial situation, and knowing a couple million extra really doesn't matter to Cleveland, if I'm Danny Ferry, I'd just offer 5/30 (basically the MLE with raises) and take my chances. Hickson and a 1st combined with another asset could easily land them a CV quality player in a trade if Milwaukee matched, either before the year or during. So I don't see why Cleveland would do Hickson and a 1st in a sign and trade. 

 

Sign and trades are one of those things that sound good on paper, but rarely seem to work out.

why go further into the lux if you don't have to??  Sure they wanted to pay him 7 million thats fine, than the bucks make the cavs waste cap.

btw what finacial situation? we have 10 million to spend this off season and we didn't have to bring sessions back.  After they sign CV to an offer sheet we have 7 days to decide to match and try a sign and trade.  If it don't work let him walk

WiscoKing13:

matt stairs:

WiscoKing13:

or the team would be looking to pay less so they sign him to a smaller deal and give up some type of small asset. 

Like say CLE, a 1st and Hickson

Their front court would be loaded and could easily spare hickson's salary and won't need the first next year since they are going to go crazy in the FA market

Or they could just keep Hickson and their 1 and dare the Bucks to go into the luxury tax range (if they want to sign Sessions and Jennings) by offering the MLE. Not to mention Cleveland would have to get CV to agree to less money. Could that happen? Sure, but it seems far-fetched to say the least. Knowing the Bucks financial situation, and knowing a couple million extra really doesn't matter to Cleveland, if I'm Danny Ferry, I'd just offer 5/30 (basically the MLE with raises) and take my chances. Hickson and a 1st combined with another asset could easily land them a CV quality player in a trade if Milwaukee matched, either before the year or during. So I don't see why Cleveland would do Hickson and a 1st in a sign and trade. 

 

Sign and trades are one of those things that sound good on paper, but rarely seem to work out.

why go further into the lux if you don't have to??  Sure they wanted to pay him 7 million thats fine, than the bucks make the cavs waste cap.

btw what finacial situation? we have 10 million to spend this off season and we didn't have to bring sessions back.  After they sign CV to an offer sheet we have 7 days to decide to match and try a sign and trade.  If it don't work let him walk

I agree with you partly.  We may have 10 million to spend but does the senator want to spend it.  Unless if there is something else in the works, Kohl is not going to spend the extra ??? he would have to give CV.  This is nothing but a ??? cutting move.  I am not convinced that Sessions stays either. 

 

replace the ???  with  $$$$

Analogkid:

WiscoKing13:

matt stairs:

WiscoKing13:

or the team would be looking to pay less so they sign him to a smaller deal and give up some type of small asset. 

Like say CLE, a 1st and Hickson

Their front court would be loaded and could easily spare hickson's salary and won't need the first next year since they are going to go crazy in the FA market

Or they could just keep Hickson and their 1 and dare the Bucks to go into the luxury tax range (if they want to sign Sessions and Jennings) by offering the MLE. Not to mention Cleveland would have to get CV to agree to less money. Could that happen? Sure, but it seems far-fetched to say the least. Knowing the Bucks financial situation, and knowing a couple million extra really doesn't matter to Cleveland, if I'm Danny Ferry, I'd just offer 5/30 (basically the MLE with raises) and take my chances. Hickson and a 1st combined with another asset could easily land them a CV quality player in a trade if Milwaukee matched, either before the year or during. So I don't see why Cleveland would do Hickson and a 1st in a sign and trade. 

 

Sign and trades are one of those things that sound good on paper, but rarely seem to work out.

why go further into the lux if you don't have to??  Sure they wanted to pay him 7 million thats fine, than the bucks make the cavs waste cap.

btw what finacial situation? we have 10 million to spend this off season and we didn't have to bring sessions back.  After they sign CV to an offer sheet we have 7 days to decide to match and try a sign and trade.  If it don't work let him walk

I agree with you partly.  We may have 10 million to spend but does the senator want to spend it.  Unless if there is something else in the works, Kohl is not going to spend the extra ??? he would have to give CV.  This is nothing but a ??? cutting move.  I am not convinced that Sessions stays either. 

 

from what i've seen the past few years and kohls history

The bucks will be somewhere around the lux line, but not over it

Kohl is a good owner no matter what anyone says