If Milwaukee is trading bigs, and they have a bunch, why are they going to bring in another big?
Luc Richard Mbah a Moute
What the Bucks need are a high quality SF that can start and a third guard that can produce. Terry or Lee going there makes some sense but not Bass. They don't need him with a raft of PFs and Cs on board already.
So that they can trade Gooden -- a highly paid player who literally never plays, and is untradable outside a larger deal.
Hammond: 'Danny, I like Brandon fine, but why do I need him? I have a million 4s'
Ainge: 'Because I'm willing to swap him for Gooden, who might be the least tradable player in the league outside Bargnani and Ty Thomas. I'll take him if we can wrap this up.'
While one is expiring, also worth noting they're trading two bigs for one and a guard.
So their whole motivation for taking on Bass' remaining 2 years and $13.3 million and then sitting him and not playing him because of the amount of bigs they have that they are already playing is to get rid Gooden's remaining 2 years and $13.3 million.
I think I will take your advice and abandon the thread. That makes zero sense.
Good grief. Who said anything about Bass never playing? Bass is a better, younger player than Gooden. He's an upgrade... not a huge upgrade, but an upgrade nonetheless.
Sure -- if Milwaukee intended to literally never play Bass for the remainder of his contract -- like it appears they're going to do with Gooden -- then they wouldn't do the deal. I'd take it on faith that you might assume I wouldn't propose a trade where the opposing team intends to never play an acquired player a single minute -- though it seems that's asking to much.
Back to the point: The Bucks have little hope of being choosey in trading Gooden. Bass, whether he plays the remainder of his deal in MIL or is eventually traded, is a stronger asset than Gooden.
As I point out in an adjacent thread, I do think the Bucks lack of guard assets could mean this element is unnecessary. But I'd take Gooden in exchange for Bass if need be.