Milwaukee Bucks 2010/2011

[trwi7]

Team needs more than one lottery pick to fix this mess. At the very least you need one to get a star player and another to clear some contracts.

[MarquesJohnson2000]

Gooden, in particular, struck me as a horrible deal. I don't think he had ever had a contract longer than two years in his career, and we gave him a five year deal on the first day of free agency. Insane.

[RockCoCougars]

Just a couple of thoughts...

 

--Looking back at the offseason from a distance and with the benefit of hindsight, it's absolutely laughable that the Bucks acquired Salmons, Gooden and Maggette. There was a reason Drew Gooden played for about ten different teams during his career ... and we signed him to a fat FA deal?

 

--Herb Kohl doesn't get it. He doesn't get the notoriety like Donald Sterling or Peter Angelos, but he is the biggest reason why the Bucks have been toiling since the 1980s. Kohl is a truly atrocious owner for encouraging this vicious cycle of gunning for the 8-seed, pretty much every year except 2001 and 2010. We're 22-36 -- what's to gain from trying for 2 home games against Boston v. tanking for a potentially franchise-altering player?

 

Best-case scenario? Tank, get a good lottery slot, and lose a season to a lockout that hopefully will bring some major CBA changes, like a franchise tag, hard cap, non-guaranteed contracts, etc.

Hindsight is 20/20. Salmons played absolutely out of his mind for a contract last year. The team would have never went on their 'push' without him. In my opinion, his complete disappearance this year has probably been the primary reason that they have tanked. As for the Maggette deal, most were on board because they were dumping Danny Z and Bell. I'll admit that I was in favor of the Gooden signing as well, but lots of others hated that one from the start. Frankly, I think the decision to let both Ridnour and Kurt Thomas to walk probably hurt the team more than the new acquisitions. The injuries haven't helped matters either. I'm not sure that you couldn't say that the Bucks weren't gunning for the 8 seed last year, because everyone wanted to blow things up then in early February as well, with most questioning the Salmons trade, etc..

 

As for tanking to get a high pick, I've been a Bucks fan for nearly 40 years and they've had the #1 pick three times during my fandom. They got Kent Benson, Glenn Robinson and Bogut. Hardly franchise altering players. Take a look at the top three picks over the past several years, and you will see many more megabusts than franchise players. Many of the #1 picks were complete flops.

[Invader3K]

--Herb Kohl doesn't get it. He doesn't get the notoriety like Donald Sterling or Peter Angelos, but he is the biggest reason why the Bucks have been toiling since the 1980s. Kohl is a truly atrocious owner for encouraging this vicious cycle of gunning for the 8-seed, pretty much every year except 2001 and 2010. We're 22-36 -- what's to gain from trying for 2 home games against Boston v. tanking for a potentially franchise-altering player?

.

One would think that after not seeing any attendance spike following last year's playoff appearance (which, given, was pretty remarkable), he would have given this up.

[trwi7]

RockCoCougars wrote:

As for tanking to get a high pick, I've been a Bucks fan for nearly 40 years and they've had the #1 pick three times during my fandom. They got Kent Benson, Glenn Robinson and Bogut. Hardly franchise altering players. Take a look at the top three picks over the past several years, and you will see many more megabusts than franchise players. Many of the #1 picks were complete flops.

Umm, Kareem? Allen? Vin Baker was traded for Terrell Brandon who we traded to get Cassell. So we traded Marbury the 4th pick for Allen the 5th pick, drafted Glenn #1 overall and traded a former lottery pick in Baker for Terrell Brandon who we later acquired Cassell for. Cassell/Allen/Robinson were all acquired using lottery picks.

 

Kareem #1 overall pick.

 

We were contenders with Moncrief (5th overall pick), Junior Bridgeman (8th overall pick) and Marques Johnson (3rd overall pick).

 

The only time the Bucks have ever had contending teams is with high draft picks. The problem is Kohl wants to "win now while rebuilding" which leads to a bunch of 30-40 win seasons, not good enough to beat good teams and not bad enough to draft high enough to get star talent.

 

It's amazing how the Bucks decline started when Kohl bought the team.

 

 

[hurricanecrush]

It's amazing how the Bucks decline started when Kohl bought the team.

Bingo! Before Kohl, the Bucks had the second highest franchise winning percentage, behind only Boston. I bet we're in the bottom 6 or 7 now. It's sad too, because I was a huge Bucks fan growing up and now I'm just a fair-weather bandwagon jumper.

[GoudaBrew]

The only time the Bucks have ever had contending teams is with high draft picks. The problem is Kohl wants to "win now while rebuilding" which leads to a bunch of 30-40 win seasons, not good enough to beat good teams and not bad enough to draft high enough to get star talent.

Otherwise known as NBA Hell. Over half the league has to be in this position. No wonder the NBA isn't widely popular.

[RockCoCougars]

RockCoCougars wrote:

As for tanking to get a high pick, I've been a Bucks fan for nearly 40 years and they've had the #1 pick three times during my fandom. They got Kent Benson, Glenn Robinson and Bogut. Hardly franchise altering players. Take a look at the top three picks over the past several years, and you will see many more megabusts than franchise players. Many of the #1 picks were complete flops.

Umm, Kareem? Allen? Vin Baker was traded for Terrell Brandon who we traded to get Cassell. So we traded Marbury the 4th pick for Allen the 5th pick, drafted Glenn #1 overall and traded a former lottery pick in Baker for Terrell Brandon who we later acquired Cassell for. Cassell/Allen/Robinson were all acquired using lottery picks.

 

Kareem #1 overall pick.

 

We were contenders with Moncrief (5th overall pick), Junior Bridgeman (8th overall pick) and Marques Johnson (3rd overall pick).

 

The only time the Bucks have ever had contending teams is with high draft picks. The problem is Kohl wants to "win now while rebuilding" which leads to a bunch of 30-40 win seasons, not good enough to beat good teams and not bad enough to draft high enough to get star talent.

 

It's amazing how the Bucks decline started when Kohl bought the team.

 

Kareem was drafted before my time, I said during my fandom. At any rate, he was a once in a generation type player. The success of the Bucks throughout the 70's and 80's can be largely attributed either directly or indirectly toward winning the coin flip with Phoenix. I'm not sure whether anyone in the organization is shooting for sustained mediocrity, because I'm sure that almost everyone (fans alike) had higher expectations for this season. This may have been more true back in the early 90's when they were trading first round picks for Danny Schayes.

 

All I'm trying to say is that relying on high draft choices is a gamble. Though I will agree with the basic premise that you need one 'megastar' to win a title in the NBA, if you draft high, you are just as likely to end up with a Michael Olawakandi as you are a Tim Duncan. Going further, the draft this year is universally considered weak, so I see no need to tank games at this point.

[JJHardy7]

--Looking back at the offseason from a distance and with the benefit of hindsight, it's absolutely laughable that the Bucks acquired Salmons, Gooden and Maggette. There was a reason Drew Gooden played for about ten different teams during his career ... and we signed him to a fat FA deal?

 

Salmons -- Got hot at the right time and we decided to pony up. I don't hate the deal...even now...but I think in a year or two we'll hate this one more than Gooden's.

 

Gooden -- Not a ton of money (still a lot), but several red flags. I'd be interested to know who else was going after him...same thing with Salmons.

 

Maggette - I liked this trade and still do. We didn't give up much to get him. Is he limited as a player? Yes, but that doesn't mean he's useless (some will argue).

 

I think missing on some picks recently hurts as well. How many first round picks are left on the roster? 3? Bogut, Jennings & Sanders? Joe A, Yi, and not having first rounders some years has hurt as welll. Even this year...with 3 second round picks we somehow screw all of that up as well. I think you can afford some misses in free agency if you can draft...having poor free agent moves and poor drafts...that's not good.

 

 

Also...haven't seen him much...but what's with Jodie Meeks? Why'd we trade him? Seems like we should've just kept him and not re-signed Salmons.

[danzig6767]

--Looking back at the offseason from a distance and with the benefit of hindsight, it's absolutely laughable that the Bucks acquired Salmons, Gooden and Maggette. There was a reason Drew Gooden played for about ten different teams during his career ... and we signed him to a fat FA deal?

 

Salmons -- Got hot at the right time and we decided to pony up. I don't hate the deal...even now...but I think in a year or two we'll hate this one more than Gooden's.

 

Gooden -- Not a ton of money (still a lot), but several red flags. I'd be interested to know who else was going after him...same thing with Salmons.

 

Maggette - I liked this trade and still do. We didn't give up much to get him. Is he limited as a player? Yes, but that doesn't mean he's useless (some will argue).

 

I think missing on some picks recently hurts as well. How many first round picks are left on the roster? 3? Bogut, Jennings & Sanders? Joe A, Yi, and not having first rounders some years has hurt as welll. Even this year...with 3 second round picks we somehow screw all of that up as well. I think you can afford some misses in free agency if you can draft...having poor free agent moves and poor drafts...that's not good.

 

 

Also...haven't seen him much...but what's with Jodie Meeks? Why'd we trade him? Seems like we should've just kept him and not re-signed Salmons.

Gooden didn't get a lot of money?

 

Look through the NBA since the CBA put in the rules allowing for MLE contracts. In the vast majority of cases when teams give out these 5/yr 30-35 million dollar contracts to mediocre at best players like Gooden, Travis Outlaw, Gadzuric, Al Harrington, Trevor Ariza, Tyrus Thomas, Morris Peterson, Josh Childress, etc, not long after the ink is dry on the contract the teams end up look for someone else to take the contract off their hands. This is especially the case for teams caught in no mans land of no legit chance to contend and not being bad enough to get a top 3 pick in the draft where most of the league's star were chosen. Teams giving out these moronic 5/yr 30 plus million dollar MLE contracts often may as well have lit that money on fire instead.

 

It blows me away how many NBA GM's make the same silly mistake every offseason even though history has proven that in the vast majority of instances, giving very mediocre NBA vagabonds a 5/yr contract is a terrible decision that they'll quickly come to badly regret. The handful of really smart/savvy GM's though are smart enough to not dive head first into a pile of steaming garbage that is full MLE contracts to very mediocre NBA vagabonds.

[JJHardy7]

My point is with Gooden it's not back breaking. Was it smart? No. A combination of those would be back breaking.

[trwi7]

A combination of those would be back breaking.

 

So Salmons, Gooden and Maggette?

[LouisEly]

Cassell/Allen/Robinson were all acquired using lottery picks.

 

All depends on the talent that is available when you have the pick. If it's 2003 when you have James, Anthony, Bosh, and Wade it's worthwhile. If it's 2004 where after Howard you have Okafor, Gordon, Livingston, Harris... doesn't do any good if you don't have #1. Same with 2007 where there's nothing after the 3rd overall pick, then you aren't going to get anything in trade value for that player down the road.

[RockCoCougars]

Cassell/Allen/Robinson were all acquired using lottery picks.

 

All depends on the talent that is available when you have the pick. If it's 2003 when you have James, Anthony, Bosh, and Wade it's worthwhile. If it's 2004 where after Howard you have Okafor, Gordon, Livingston, Harris... doesn't do any good if you don't have #1. Same with 2007 where there's nothing after the 3rd overall pick, then you aren't going to get anything in trade value for that player down the road.

Precisely. This year's draft is shaping up to be very weak. When the Bucks won the lottery for Bogut, hindsight says they may have been better off not to. The draft is a crapshoot mostly based on the talent available. Can you imagine if the Bucks had won the lottery in '97 and were able to get Duncan? Look at the Spurs, they have won with Duncan and lower draft choices. Look at some of the Bucks last lottery picks, Alexander, Yi, Haislip, Traylor and Respert were huge misses. I think Ford and Day were somewhere in between. That means you are left with Baker, Robinson, Allen, Bogut and Jennings (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) as wins. Therefore you have 5 wins, 5 mega busts and 2 pushes, a 50/50 ratio. This is with two #1 picks (both of whom were eclipsed by picks after them). BTW, even though they were not drafted by the Bucks, I'm counting Allen and Traylor as draft choices because they were Bucks at the end of the night.

[danzig6767]

Cassell/Allen/Robinson were all acquired using lottery picks.

 

All depends on the talent that is available when you have the pick. If it's 2003 when you have James, Anthony, Bosh, and Wade it's worthwhile. If it's 2004 where after Howard you have Okafor, Gordon, Livingston, Harris... doesn't do any good if you don't have #1. Same with 2007 where there's nothing after the 3rd overall pick, then you aren't going to get anything in trade value for that player down the road.

Precisely. This year's draft is shaping up to be very weak.

It's true that this draft is projected to be weaker than usual, but it doesn't always end up working out that way. For example, going into the 2007 and 2008 drafts, the 2007 draft was projected to be much stronger. Well, looking back at the two drafts in the lottery.

 

2007-- Durant, Horford, and Noah have turned into upper tier players. Green and Conley are solid starters at their positions.

 

2008-- Rose, Westbrook, and Love have turned into upper tier players. Gordon i'd take over Green or Conley. Lopez is a quality center. Mayo, Gallinari, and Augustin are very solid NBA players.

 

So even though this coming draft doesn't look particularly strong, i'd much prefer seeing the Buck drafting as high as possible over seeing them likely fail in a bid to win the 8th seed where even if they got in, a four game butt whipping in the first round of the playoffs likely would await. Can you imagine the Bucks and their utterly pathetic offense having to face say Boston and their great defense in the first round of the playoffs? It likely would be embarrassing to watch as the Bucks struggled to score 80 points in 2-3 of those games. They have only scored 100 points in a game three separate times more than they've scored in the 70's. Think about that. In 1/3 of their games, they've scored 85 points or less.

 

That's why i want the Bucks to end up with the highest possible draft pick. In 2007 before the draft, it was reported multiple times that the Bucks liked Westbrook, but people weren't sure if he'd make it to our 8th pick. Come draft night, it surprised some when OKC took Westbrook at the 3rd pick and bummed me out because that's who i wanted for the Bucks. Well, Westbrook has developed into an elite PG who should only get better, has fabulous size for the position, is a great defender, and has ridiculous athletic ability. The Bucks ended up with Joe (at least i banged some Energee dancers) Alexander. So yea, i understand this coming draft could be weak, but odds are that at least 1-3 of those kids picked in the lottery will end up developing into really good players. Odds also are high that those kids will be picked among the first 5-6 picks. As that 2007 draft showed, it can matter big time when you pick 8th instead of top 3-5.

[RockCoCougars]

It's true that this draft is projected to be weaker than usual, but it doesn't always end up working out that way. For example, going into the 2007 and 2008 drafts, the 2007 draft was projected to be much stronger. Well, looking back at the two drafts in the lottery.

 

2007-- Durant, Horford, and Noah have turned into upper tier players. Green and Conley are solid starters at their positions.

 

2008-- Rose, Westbrook, and Love have turned into upper tier players. Gordon i'd take over Green or Conley. Lopez is a quality center. Mayo, Gallinari, and Augustin are very solid NBA players.

 

So even though this coming draft doesn't look particularly strong, i'd much prefer seeing the Buck drafting as high as possible over seeing them likely fail in a bid to win the 8th seed where even if they got in, a four game butt whipping in the first round of the playoffs likely would await. Can you imagine the Bucks and their utterly pathetic offense having to face say Boston and their great defense in the first round of the playoffs? It likely would be embarrassing to watch as the Bucks struggled to score 80 points in 2-3 of those games. They have only scored 100 points in a game three separate times more than they've scored in the 70's. Think about that. In 1/3 of their games, they've scored 85 points or less.

 

That's why i want the Bucks to end up with the highest possible draft pick. In 2007 before the draft, it was reported multiple times that the Bucks liked Westbrook, but people weren't sure if he'd make it to our 8th pick. Come draft night, it surprised some when OKC took Westbrook at the 3rd pick and bummed me out because that's who i wanted for the Bucks. Well, Westbrook has developed into an elite PG who should only get better, has fabulous size for the position, is a great defender, and has ridiculous athletic ability. The Bucks ended up with Joe (at least i banged some Energee dancers) Alexander. So yea, i understand this coming draft could be weak, but odds are that at least 1-3 of those kids picked in the lottery will end up developing into really good players. Odds also are high that those kids will be picked among the first 5-6 picks. As that 2007 draft showed, it can matter big time when you pick 8th instead of top 3-5.

Your points are valid, but right now the Bucks are pretty firmly entrenched in the 9 spot. If they tanked the rest of the season, they may be able to move up to 7, but the bottom 6 teams are pretty locked in. By playing to win, they either make the playoffs- if not, there's only really two teams that they could fall behind in draft position. So basically, it's make the playoffs and pick 15th (I think), or fall short and pick 7-11 (with a slight chance at the lottery). I'm not sure there is too much of a difference. Maybe I'm jaded because 2 of their last 3 top 8 picks were Yi and Alexander, but I'd rather make a late run for the playoffs.

[trwi7]

John Hammond said on the Pro Hoops Show tonight that the Bucks couldn't match an offer for Ramon Sessions because he was an unrestricted free agent. I have never been as down on the Bucks as I am now.

[Gobias Industries]

Yep, I've been reading that thread on realgm and its just appalling that a few fans are still defending him.

 

Note: this was not just a simple misspeak. Hammond actually went in depth about Ramon being a UFA. The guy is either way in over his head (he is) or is just a flat out liar. I'm done with the Bucks until they fire his ass.

[lcbj68c]

Kemba declared and is projected around 9. Could that be near the Bucks pick? Would you care? Would you want him? Would he fit the current regime?

[brettac1]

I think he's a cool player. I'd watch him as a Buck.

[davego]

He will have to get stronger and have to add a bit of a fade to his mid-range jumper. I'd take my chances with him.

 

Going forward, defined roles and health will "fix" this team. One area is out of what can be controlled. The other is obviously a need of improvement.

[Paulus88]

I don't think he's a good fit, can he and Jennings (two low efficiency players) really play together, can he defend the 2, can either run an offense, Isn't Walker's ceiling Ben Gordon/Jason Terry. I'd only take him if they're getting rid of Jennings and even then I'd rather get a true point guard

 

Hopefully they get somebody on the wing who can create offense

[Gobias Industries]

Jennings is basically a d league level player, so I'd really have no problem bringing in Kemba in hopes he can become the above avg pg it appears Jennings will never be. And who knows, maybe he pushes Jennings and we have the "problem" of having two good young pg prospects.

[yoshii8]

Jennings is basically a d league level player

Wow, you really think so? He's had a tough 2nd year, but I know he is much better than that. I would have no problem w/ him starting again next year, as long as they bring in a legit backup PG.

 

I wouldn't hate the Kemba Walker pick, but I think there are better options like Alec Burks from Colorado. I think Kemba's speed in the NBA wouldn't be that great of an asset as it was in college.

[Gobias Industries]

I have no problem starting him again next year in hopes he has a good off season. He's cheap and young, so might as well give him another year. Maybe he turns it around??? Stranger things have happened.

 

But the guy has so much working against him....size, historically bad efficiency numbers given the amount of shots he takes, court vision is abysmal, delusions of grandeur, etc. I think he profiles to be a decent backup pg. If you can get a future first rounder for him I think you do it and don't think twice.

 

Right now, the pg position is loaded with good, young prospects and perennial all stars. Guys drafted behind him are now even starting to surpass him in production and potential (Lawson, Holiday, Collison). The odds he ever becomes an above avg starter are very slim.

 

I'm pretty much sold on Burks too after reading about him on RealGM. Of course, with Barnes, Sullinger, and Perry Jones dropping out of the draft, he'll probably go a couple picks ahead of us. Another good reason we should have shut down Bogut (needs arthroscopic surgery on his elbow) when it was clear the 8th seed was the absolute best case scenario.

 

Unbelievable how this organization screws up every little decision. They're basically like the bizarro Packers when you compare the FO's. Like I said a couple posts above, I'm done with the Bucks and won't spend another cent on them until Hammond is gone.