Milwaukee Bucks 2010/2011

[samwise]

sam i'm not sure how fair of a question that is, last years team performed below expectations alot due to injuries. They could have brought out last years roster healthy and be a better basketball team than last year. baring another huge move the bucks are slotted to be a 40 win team, which will get the the 8th seed or drafting late in the lottery.

I agree that it was not a totally fair question but it speaks to the point I want to make. Many of the people upset with the trade, whether on Brewerfan, realgm, or at the Village Pub, seem to be more upset with previous moves Hammond made, specifically, Maggette, Salmons, and Gooden, then with this trade. /The past is the past and moving forward is the only option. The vitriol being launched at the Bucks, specifically John Hammond, is for simply spinning their wheels, constantly rebuilding, always on the fringe, and never being true contenders. I agree with all of these statements. But with Salmons and Maggette this team was never going to be a true contender, they really were not rebuilding, and they were stuck in neutral. (Some would say park, and after last year, some would say moving in reverse). So you make the most out of what you have. You turn 2 overpaid players, while moving back in a mediocre draft 9 spots, into a quality backup PG (Udrih), a starting SF (Jax), another backup PG (Livingston), and still get a potentially solid SF in the draft. The money is essentially a wash (actually we duck Salmons last year) and with a new CBA there may be a 15-20% salary reduction on each contract as well as the glorious Alan Houston clause where we can remove someone's contract from the salary cap (potentially Jax or Gooden).

 

My stance, we are a better team on the floor today than yesterday, in no way was our future compromised (I never saw anything special in Burks, Fredette, Thompson), and we still got a good player in the draft. At worst this was a lateral move and in no way deserves to be trashed. Trash the previous moves all you want but this trade, in this moment, was a good deal.

 

For the record, I believe Harris is a beast. Paul Pierce 2.0. Just my opinion.

[trwi7]

constantly rebuilding

Don't you mean never rebuilding?

[samwise]

I sat and looked at that post for 5 minutes and came to the conclusion that, constantly rebuilding, and never rebuilding, are the same thing. No matter what way you say it, the Bucks are there.

[patrickgpe]

i will admit that this draft was weak and saving cap room might have been the best move. I still have hope that with all the money coming off of the books this offseason, that barring a long lockout the bucks can bring in a decent free agent that can contribute while the young players develop. they are still weak in the backup sg and c positions. i like the harris pick more now than i did last night when it got called. I don't think Leuer will be anything special but it doesn't matter since he was a 2nd round pick with an unguaranteed contract.

[PrinceEatMeat]

I sat and looked at that post for 5 minutes and came to the conclusion that, constantly rebuilding, and never rebuilding, are the same thing. No matter what way you say it, the Bucks are there.

No they aren't. A rebuild doesn't involve adding highly paid veterans and random crappy role players. A rebuild would involve trading Bogut, Jennings, and anyone else possible, stockpiling lottery picks, and adding young players. All the Bucks have been doing recently is overpaying unworthy, old players, and then turning around and trading them for more of the same when those players don't work out. They also continuously seem to aim for a low seed in the playoffs, and end up drafting in the middle of the first round almost every year. None of that signals anything resembling a rebuild.

[Cdiddy34]

wow. some of you guys need to stick to baseball and quit pretending you watch more than just a game here and there during the nba season and playoffs.

 

any trade to ditch those albatross contracts is positive. hammonds rolled the dice with corey and lost, but it was something the team needed to try to do. i don't think many people thought john salmons was going to fall off the face of the earth.

 

in beno they get luke ridnour-like guard that can play alongside jennings which made a huge difference in his game (they wanted ridnour but couldn't afford him). stephen jackson is 1000000000x the player maggette is. i'm not worried about him at all.

 

tobias harris (whom i didn't even want them to select) is very young and very talented. they might have to wait with him.. which is okay because they have jackson, delfino, LRMAM anyway plus could play jennings/udrih together.

 

skiles just needs to give larry sanders minutes and stick with him this year, up front.

 

all that being said.. i wouldn't be surprised if they were part of another deal or two.

[fondybrewfan]

Honest question;

 

When was the last time a team in any professional sport just completely blew up the team for a 100% rebuild situation. I can't really recall anyone off the top of my head. Its impossible to do on football; in baseball marque players are traded all the time but its not like teams try to trade every good player they have for prospects.

 

Asking the Bucks to completely gut and rebuild seems a little unrealistic. Hell the Bucks might be in a position to draft top 5 anyways without blowing everything up. I could get behind trading one of Jennings or Bogut but not both.

 

But then again; having about 5 first round draft picks in the 2012 draft might not be a bad idea. The draft is shaping up to be much much deeper.

[bjkrautk]

Honest question;

 

When was the last time a team in any professional sport just completely blew up the team for a 100% rebuild situation. I can't really recall anyone off the top of my head. Its impossible to do on football; in baseball marque players are traded all the time but its not like teams try to trade every good player they have for prospects.

 

Asking the Bucks to completely gut and rebuild seems a little unrealistic. Hell the Bucks might be in a position to draft top 5 anyways without blowing everything up. I could get behind trading one of Jennings or Bogut but not both.

 

But then again; having about 5 first round draft picks in the 2012 draft might not be a bad idea. The draft is shaping up to be much much deeper.

Off the top of my head, the post-1997 World Series Marlins represent the quintessential fire sale. While they did not get rid of every talented player on the team, I think you'd be hard pressed to say they didn't blow up the roster.

 

EDIT: Not to state the obvious, but I think the Bucks shedding the big 3 (Allen, Big Dog, Cassell) nearly a decade ago would be another example.

 

Deals like that don't seem possible in the NBA, since the current CBA handcuffs a team's ability to shed bad contracts. Instead, you see GMs like Hammonds shuffling the deckchairs in hopes of catching lightning in a bottle. In theory, it should free the team up to go after better talent a few years down the line....but in practice, they seem to keep signing as many bad contracts as they trade away.

 

[trwi7]

When was the last time a team in any professional sport just completely blew up the team for a 100% rebuild situation.

Oklahoma City and Portland did it in the last few years.

[trwi7]

wow. some of you guys need to stick to baseball and quit pretending you watch more than just a game here and there during the nba season and playoffs.

 

Guarantee I've seen more Bucks games than you in the past 10 years.

 

any trade to ditch those albatross contracts is positive.

 

Not when you're taking on other bad contracts and dropping in the draft.

 

hammonds

 

Exhibit A to point 1. Hammond, not Hammonds.

 

(they wanted ridnour but couldn't afford him).

 

They couldn't afford Luke Ridnour at $4 million but they can afford Beno Udrih at $7 million? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[PrinceEatMeat]

wow. some of you guys need to stick to baseball and quit pretending you watch more than just a game here and there during the nba season and playoffs.

 

Guarantee I've seen more Bucks games than you in the past 10 years.

 

any trade to ditch those albatross contracts is positive.

 

Not when you're taking on other bad contracts and dropping in the draft.

 

hammonds

 

Exhibit A to point 1. Hammond, not Hammonds.

 

(they wanted ridnour but couldn't afford him).

 

They couldn't afford Luke Ridnour at $4 million but they can afford Beno Udrih at $7 million? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Yep, completely agree. We basically negated the dumping of those two contracts by picking up two other bad ones. Could've easily just kept Ridnour, making the Udrih move unnecessary. Also could've just not traded for Maggette and let Gadz and Bell expire. And not signed Salmons to such a crappy deal based on a half season of good play. It's all just a revolving door of crap going through. Most of the fans that are happy with this trade will want Jackson gone by halfway through the season when they realize he's not the answer just like every other acquisition Hammond has made. It just makes no sense. Hammond was better off letting his big contracts expire, stockpiling lotto picks in the next few years, and adding young players that way and through free agency.

[homer]

When was the last time a team in any professional sport just completely blew up the team for a 100% rebuild situation.

Oklahoma City and Portland did it in the last few years.

OKC already had one of the best players in the league when they did it.

 

Face it: in the NBA you either have to be extremely lucky with the lottery/draft or be a big market team. There's really no in between. How many small market teams have success in the NBA year in and year out? Unless something drastically changes with the CBA do you think OKC will be able to keep all their stars? No chance in Cudahy.

[Gobias Industries]

(they wanted ridnour but couldn't afford him).

 

They couldn't afford Luke Ridnour at $4 million but they can afford Beno Udrih at $7 million? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Classic.

 

Keep fighting the good fight, trwi.

[trwi7]

OKC already had one of the best players in the league when they did it.

No they didn't. They got the 2nd pick, let Rashard Lewis walk, traded Ray Allen for the 5th pick and then didn't sign any free agents to help them win. By not signing free agents, it opened up a ton of time for the young guys to develop and they were bad enough to get back into the top 5 in the draft and land Russell Westbrook and then James Harden. After those three developed and showed enough that they could be the key members of a consistent 50 win team, they then went out and got a center to help them in Perkins using Jeff Green who was the 5th pick in the draft with Durant.

 

That's the whole point. Stay high in the lotto until you get a star, don't sign any worthwhile free agent, keep cap space and accumulate picks so you have trade assets to use in the future when you feel the team needs a piece to get over the hump.

 

Compare that to what the Bucks did when they won the lotto in 2005. Draft Bogut, who was the wrong pick but even still, they then went out and signed Bobby Simmons for $42 million and Dan Gadzuric for $36 million. When Bogut looked bad in the preseason they panicked and traded their 2006 1st for Jamaal Magloire. They ended up winning what 41 games or something and were the 8th seed in the playoffs and got crushed by the Pistons.

 

 

 

 

[crewcrazy]

I can understand not liking the moves that were made, but I guess I don't get the criticisms of moving down in the draft. Who should the Bucks have drafted if they stayed at 10, or even moved up? In this draft, after the top two picks or so, there wasn't a huge difference in talent. Harris will help the Bucks just as much as anyone else they could've picked this year.

[trwi7]

Alec Burks would have been a great pick at 10.

[RockCoCougars]

First of all, isn't there a salary floor in the NBA? What is the goal here, to assemble a team of highly paid stiffs to lose as many games as possible, then wait for their contracts to expire to sign more stiffs because no decent free agent will come to Milwaukee? In this case, the draft would be the highlight of the year a la the 80's LA Clippers. Memphis is decent now. They should be, they've been picking in the lottery for the better part of 15 straight years. I know that OKC is held up as an example of a great rebuild, but once again, without Durant they'd probably be picking in the lottery. They have been far from perfect, basically trading Ray Allen for Jeff Green, and I still think James Harden is going to bust as well. That doesn't really matter, because any team with Durant would be good. Put Durant on the Bucks and they'd be a top 4 team in the East. Obviously Durant proves that good things can come from the draft, but what are the odds of landing a guy with his talent and personality (e.g. wouldn't bail from Milwaukee at the first opportunity- before any substantive rebuilding can develop). Tim Duncan is the only other guy in recent history with that mix that I can recall. Heck, Kareem was the father of the 'I want out of Milwaukee' movement.

[trwi7]

How can James Harden bust when he would easily be the second best player on the Bucks?

 

As far as bailing on Milwaukee. What free agent has EVER gone through their rookie contract without signing at least one extension? I can't think of any. I'm sure Chris Bosh didn't like it in Toronto, but he still signed an extension.

[JJHardy7]

This thread is getting a bit old...we can state facts like facts, but in reality we don't know what the best option would've been in the draft. Time will tell, but experts say this draft was bad. So the difference between 19 and 10 or even 30 shouldn't be all that great. There might be a few guys, but I'm willing to give the Bucks time. If Harris becomes a decent role player, I think the Bucks had a decent trade. I wouldn't mind blowing up the team, etc, but there were really no studs in this draft.

 

I think the Bucks give Hammond one more run and fire him after this year.

 

Also, trwi7 for someone who rips on the franchise and in this thread calling it horrible (or something of that nature)...maybe you should pick up a new NBA team to follow? With all due respect, I'd go insane watching my favorite NBA team and constantly ripping on it. I get it. You hate the Bucks and they are terrible. I try to wear my Bucks colored glasses and look at the glass half-full. We all know how tough some years have been, but for me part of being a fan is optimism. If I ever get as upset as some, I'll just pick a new NBA team or watch even more entertaining ball (college basketball).

 

Anyways...one point/question I have. I don't see how we don't have cap space. If anything, the past few years (we did screw up some contracts) we've created more in the future:

 

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

 

Obviously, we'll probably sign a filler or two and the picks, but we're down two one bad contract (Gooden) and one that might be bad in a few years (SJax). Redd's $18MM is off the books. I think if the team falters this year we'd be in a very good position to re-build with limited bad contracts. It'd be an ideal time to bring in a new coach and a new GM and build with the youth we've gained the past few years and bring in more youth.

 

Hopefully any player they sign in free agency is a one-year deal. I have my doubts taht JH will bring in the right guy with multi-year deals.

[trwi7]

I never said the Bucks didn't have cap space. The problem is always how they use cap space.

[Never Outhustled]

Alec Burks would have been a great pick at 10.

 

 

Draft the lazy guy? What kind of plan is that? Harris is a better pick. Harris was better as a freshman. Burks is a wimp who doesn't defend

[trwi7]

Yes, draft the "lazy guy." He way outproduced Brandon Roy at the same age and when you're the only one on the team that can create offense it takes a lot out of you. He wasn't a highly regarded recruit and somehow worked his way into the lottery. That doesn't sound like a lazy guy to me. 20/6/3 as a 19 year old in a good conference is well worth drafting.

 

On Harris.

 

While he did a decent job for a freshman of keeping turnovers to a minimum in the half-court (coughing the ball up on just 10.2% of his possessions, ranking him 4th), he doesn't seem to have a consistent means of scoring at this stage.

 

He ranks towards the bottom or middle of the pack in most areas, struggling in particular to score in isolation settings (.486 PPP) or jump-shots (.725 PPP, 27.5% FG%), especially in catch and shoot situations, where he's the 3rd least efficient player in this group after Malcolm Thomas and Chris Wright.

 

Not known as a spectacular athlete, Harris will surely have to improve the consistency of his jumper to make it in the NBA, but considering his age and work ethic, he should be able to do so.

On Burks.

 

Burks' ability to quickly create shots is evident in his transition numbers, as 21.8% of his possessions come on the break, the highest in the class. Burks is a talented shot creator in the halfcourt as well, with 16.1% of his possessions coming on pick-and-rolls (1st overall) and 19.0% coming on isolations (fourth overall). Burks' 0.897 PPP on isolations ranks dead in the middle of the class at ninth, but given the defensive attention he drew, it's still impressive.

 

Another interesting note on Burks' isolations is the equal rate he drove left and right, having 53 possessions on the season going right and 54 going left. His PPP was equally impressive in both directions, at 0.849 going right and 0.963 going left.

 

The area Burks fared the poorest was certainly with jump shots, where his 0.734 PPS ranked dead last, hurt by his poor three-point shooting and reliance on long two-point jumpers. Burks takes more pull-up jumpers per game (4) than any wing player in this class, but converts just 27% of these attempts. He takes far less (1.5) catch and shoot jumpers, but makes these at a 39% clip, which leaves some room for optimism that he can at least develop into a decent set-shooter.

So we could have taken a guy who is a far better shot creator both for himself and for others and who is only one year older than the guy we drafted. I just don't like Harris at all. To me he's just a role player.

 

 

 

 

[RockCoCougars]

Let's be honest. I'd say the odds are over 80% that neither Burks nor Harris will ever play in an all star game. I liked the Harris pick, but I'll admit that I'd be happy if Harris becomes a non-impact starter/6th man and has a Battier like career, but the odds are probably even stacked against that.

 

I hear the rebuilding thing, but you lose me on the point of giving an asset like Bogut away. He has shown the potential to be an all star type center, but his injuries have kept him off the court. He is at least outwardly amenable to staying in Milwaukee as well, which is a huge plus. I think that you have to build around him. I don't get the idea of trading him, taking big money stiffs back in return plus a lottery pick in a weak draft. This whole 'get bad to get good' thing is a crap shoot at best. I don't think that planning to get bad is entirely necessary. Look at Seattle, they heisted Ray Allen for the Bucks- I doubt that they were planning to tank when they made that trade (though they later flipped him for Green when they were moving). They then got lucky and hit the lottery for Durant jumping from 5th to 2nd. The other main example that I use here in Tim Duncan, same thing. David Robinson goes down, then the Spurs jump in the lottery. Being terrible isn't good enough, you have to be lucky as well. Ask the Timberwolves, who've been terrible outside of a 3-4 year window and have been getting screwed in the lottery for the better part of 20 years. How about Vancouver/Memphis or the Clippers? Those teams are looking a better, but both have had rebuilding processes that have lasted for over a decade while getting high lottery picks almost annually during that time.

 

Another thing to consider is that the Bucks could probably drop Bogut and Jennings for nothing and still win 25 games in the East. They'd have a better chance at being bad in the West.

[trwi7]

I hear the rebuilding thing, but you lose me on the point of giving an asset like Bogut away.

 

Nobody wants to "give him away." You ever hear the saying sometimes you have to take one step back to take two steps forward? That's what the Bucks need to do. You can't ever be anything in the NBA without a star player. In order to get a star player you have to be at the top of the lottery. Bogut prevents the Bucks from being at the top of the lottery and that's why some of us want him traded. It has nothing to do with Bogut being a bad player and we're not saying he's not a good player. He's just the classic in between player. Not bad enough to keep us from sucking but not good enough to ever lead us to anything meaningful.

 

David Robinson goes down, then the Spurs jump in the lottery.

 

That's exactly the point. Robinson goes down, the Spurs could've gone out and made a patchwork trade to try to make the playoffs but they didn't. They just said we'll take our lumps this year and maybe get some lottery luck and come back next year. And they did. And they won four championships by drafting one of the best players of all time.

 

Being terrible isn't good enough, you have to be lucky as well.

 

Of course it isn't good enough. You have to have good scouts and a good GM, which we have neither of right now. McKinney, Babcock, Hammond and everybody else in the front office could be fired right now and I wouldn't care because they all suck. Nobody is denying that luck is involved either, it's called the lottery for a reason. The thing is though in pretty much every draft you're going to get at least two all star players. It's also pretty much known that even the all star players aren't good in their rookie and sometimes even sophomore years so you give them a ton of playing time and experience while they learn and then continue to draft high.

 

Yes, Minnesota has gotten screwed in the lottery, but they would also have a good team if their management and scouts weren't stupid. 2006 they traded Brandon Roy for Randy Foye, 2007 they drafted Corey Brewer over Joakim Noah, 2008 they actually did something smart and traded O.J. Mayo for Kevin Love, 2009 they drafted Ricky Rubio, Jonny Flynn and Ty Lawson they ended up trading Lawson who turned out to be the best player they drafted and in 2010 they took Wes Johnson over younger, better players like Greg Monroe, Ed Davis and several others.

 

So they could be looking at a starting lineup of:

 

Lawson

Roy

???

Love

Monroe

 

That's way better than what they have now.

 

So once again, nobody is denying that tearing it all down and rebuilding is guaranteed to work. It's just the way best for a small market team to build.

 

Look at Portland as well. They cleared Zach Randolph and sucked. Traded the 4th pick (Tyrus Thomas) and Viktor Khyrapa for the 2nd pick (LaMarcus Aldridge) and a conditional 2nd round pick. They then traded Randy Foye (7th pick) who they acquired for Sebastian Telfair for Brandon Roy (6th pick). Just like that they got two young all star talents to build around. Yes they also made the wrong decision of taking Greg Oden over Kevin Durant or even Al Horford but just with those two trades that got them Roy and Aldridge they built up enough talent through the draft that they have averaged 51 wins the last three years. The Bucks on the other hand have one season where they've won 51 or more games in the last 25 years.

[RockCoCougars]

I hear you, trwi, you have good arguments. That said, I don't think Bogut makes that much of a difference. I think he's a good guy to build around, and I think he could be in the top half dozen centers in the league if everything went right, but I'm not fooling myself in thinking that he can be the main guy on a championship team. It follows that how many more wins will you get with Bogut as opposed to a Kurt Thomas/Mark Pope type combo? I'd say that it wouldn't be more than 5 or so. That said, I think that Bogut could be a nice secondary player on a championship team, so I'd prefer to keep him around. The major problem with the Bucks being bad is that they are in a division with Cleveland, Detroit and to a lesser degree, Indiana- with a ton of games against the likes of Washington, Charlotte, Toronto, New Jersey and the like. It would be easier for them to tank if they were in the West in a tough division.