Good bye Mo Williams? (Latest: signed)

[Roscoe Chill]

Al's right. People are getting too caught up in the money as if this is on baseball's scale. Take a look at annual salaries across the board in the NBA.

[litesrn]

Agree fully - it's a ridiculous amount of $$$, but fully in line with league standards.

I'd also like to "third" my vote for qrk's post as "best in thread."http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[qrk10000]

Exactly NDOG44. The Bucks have not been shy to dish out some large contracts over the past decade, but it really has not hampered them in any way. They still have been able to resign players and be active in free agency without taking a luxury cap hit.

 

I did the math wrong earlier when looking at the latest estimated offer from the Bucks of six years / $52 million (late night yesterday). I thought initially that it was still just for five years. Six years averages out to be about $8.5 million a season which is not drastically higher than their initial offer of $8 million per season. As Al said, this is a no-brainer. He is still being paid $2-4 million a year less than the top tier of point guards and that is right about where he should be. If he improves on last year's numbers, this could turn out to be a steal for the Bucks.

[TheMCG]

I think it's the six years that bothers me. He needs to learn that he's a PG by year two for this to pan out. I'm sick of his "run it up the court, heave" routine. If only we could've drafted Conley. Or perhaps a Yi/Mo trade for Conley/future pick or something. I'm not good with the trades, but from watching Bucks games over the past couple of years, I know this is a team that would excel with a traditional point guard running the ship. Mo is unfortunately not that.

[qrk10000]

It is hard to judge if that is Mo's fault or the fault of the people drawing up this team's game plans. We have had coaches that publicly stated that they wanted to play a "run and gun" style of play so Mo was doing what he was told. I personally don't even have a problem with that if they would have actually committed to doing it. However, there were many times where they would change their minds and try to play a half-court offense that made them look ridiculous, especially the Bucks' frontcourt. The Bucks have enough young, athletic players to play a successful full-court offense. In fact, I don't think there is currently a player on our team that doesn't fit that mold. It is just a matter of whether or not the Bucks will actually stick with it or abandon it immediately when they face a team that plays a little defense.

[aracko]

6 more years of Lottery Births.

 

Mo is a great guy, but not a good PG.

[don1481]

Quote:

---

If you are basing it solely on the fact that he was not a traditional point guard, consider this: When Redd went down, Mo was our offense. He had to shoot more because no one else could. I was encouraged by the fact that he still managed to average over 6 assists per game while scoring as much as he did. Also remember, he shot almost 45% from the field, and that is not bad for a point guard. That is better than Baron Davis, Chris Paul, TJ Ford, Gilbert Arenas, Stephon Marbury, Mike Bibby, and Raymond Felton.

---

 

I've already addressed the perception that Mo was "our offense." If you compare the offensive load Mo had to shoulder versus, say, Chris Paul, you'll find out that Paul had even fewer offensive weapons to work with... namely pretty much Desmond Mason... because of injury. Yet Paul took fewer shots and got to the FT line far more and had a significantly better assist/turnover ratio and more assists. While Ruben Patterson/Earl Boykins/Charlie Bell aren't exactly what I'd consider "good" options, they're still better options (namely because there are more of them for him to... what's that word? Pass to) than what Chris Paul had to work with.

 

Quote:

---

Take a look at the class. Baron Davis has a player option and Shaun Livingston and Devin Harris have team options (both of which would almost certainly be exercised). Next best player after them is Carlos Arroyo, hardly an upgrade. Free agency will not be an option in 2008.

---

 

Given Livingston's inability to stay healthy, I'm seriously wondering if he's going to be a Clipper for much longer. That said, I'll agree that FA isn't an option... but what about the draft? I'd say "what about a trade?" but the only option that we'd have would be Redd. As much of a one-dimensional player as Redd is... the few remaining Bucks fans might revolt if he's traded.

 

Quote:

---

There are a lot of talented freshmen point guards that will be eligible for the draft in 2008, but there is no guarantee that they will want to come out or will even be good enough to in the first place. Plus, drafting a freshman point guard is certainly a project as point guard is one of the hardest positions to transition into in the NBA. Essentially the Bucks could be looking at doing the same thing and hoping someone is available in 2009 then.

---

 

Actually this is now a

moot point. Mo's signed. I will be off sobbing in a corner as we see 6 more years of poor ball distribution and ill-advised shots taken when the shot clock's down to 2.

 

I guess this season'll be the big test for Mo. IF he grows like qrk's thinking he will, then the signing will be justifiable. However, if Mo cannot improve significantly his assist:turnover ration (which would probably result in improved assist totals) and cut down on his shots, then the Bucks will be in trouble again and stuck for 5 more seasons.

[BrewCityUnit]

Mo just signed....good news

[olsonnet]

Glad to see Mo signed. Sure we could have let him go and pretty much given up on this year with a temp solution at PG, but even then there would be no guarantee we'd be able to sign a top PG in free agency next year.

 

In the awful East, without multiple long-term injuries to the starters, this should easily be a playoff team next year and beyond.

 

Now just get the Yi thing done one way or another (sign or trade) and we'll be good.

[qrk10000]

If you compare the offensive load Mo had to shoulder versus, say, Chris Paul, you'll find out that Paul had even fewer offensive weapons to work with... namely pretty much Desmond Mason... because of injury.

 

Chris Paul actually had several pretty good options in David West, Desmond Mason (as you mentioned) and Peja Stojakovic (before he got hurt). They had some decent role players in Rasual Butler, Bobby Jackson, Devin Brown and Tyson Chandler too.

 

Once Redd went down, Mo really had very little to work with. Charlie Bell and Ruben Patterson are nice role players but neither can be counted on to shoulder the load offensively like David West can. Boykins was fun to watch but all he did was make Mo's job even harder due to his limited size and complete inability to guard anyone. When Mo and Redd are in the backcourt together, they are a very nice tandem and complement each other nicely.

 

Regardless, I don't think it is even fair to compare Paul to Mo because Paul is a much, much better player. My only point in bringing him up was that Mo actually did shoot the ball pretty well for a point guard, better than some people give him credit for. You are dead on about the turnovers, though, and that is certainly something he needs to work on this year. Having a healthy team around him will certainly help in that area as he won't have to be double-teamed as much.

 

Given Livingston's inability to stay healthy, I'm seriously wondering if he's going to be a Clipper for much longer.

 

Agreed, he has great hair, though.

 

That said, I'll agree that FA isn't an option... but what about the draft? I'd say "what about a trade?" but the only option that we'd have would be Redd. As much of a one-dimensional player as Redd is... the few remaining Bucks fans might revolt if he's traded.

 

I guess that is the point I was trying to make before. It is difficult to even tell who will be going in the draft yet. OJ Mayo has superstar potential but he is not a true point guard and whose to say he will even come out this year? Derrick Rose looks like a nice player too but I hope we are not in a position to be drafting him because he will probably go in the first two picks. I think the most realistic option at this point (and again, this is purely speculation at this point because injuries or poor play could jeopardize where/when these guys are drafted) is Darrren Collison from UCLA. When I have watched him, he has looked like a hard worker who likes to play defense (certainly a good thing) but he is still very green at point guard. When you compare these guys to Mo, it makes him look even more attractive.

 

As for which Bucks are tradeable, I think Bogut, Villanueva, and Yi are all very, very tradeable. Ersan Ilyasova (if he resigns) should fall into that category very soon too. I think he is on the verge of becoming a very nice player.

 

However, if Mo cannot improve significantly his assist:turnover ration (which would probably result in improved assist totals) and cut down on his shots, then the Bucks will be in trouble again and stuck for 5 more seasons.

 

Agreed, but I think having a healthy cast around him, more offensive weapons, and another year under his belt will go a long ways towards improving that facet of his game. He is still a young guy with a great attitude and a willingness to get better. Hopefully Coach K will do a better job than Stots of drawing up gameplans that spread the ball around and utilize our big guys more. That will only help Redd and Mo.

[don1481]

Quote:

---

Chris Paul actually had several pretty good options in David West, Desmond Mason (as you mentioned) and Peja Stojakovic (before he got hurt). They had some decent role players in Rasual Butler, Bobby Jackson, Devin Brown and Tyson Chandler too.

---

 

West played in about the same number of games as Redd, so those two basically cancel each other out in terms of being "available options." Peja didn't even play in 15 games, so he doesn't count as an option at all.

 

Of those remaining options, none scored over 10.5 PPG last year. And none are exactly "options" any more than Patterson/Bell/Boykins were.

 

Quote:

---

I think Bogut, Villanueva, and Yi are all very, very tradeable.

---

 

Villanueva's coming off of an injury-filled season. He's not tradeable in the sense that he'll return very much until he proves he's healthy. Bogut's really not that tradeable; he wouldn't exactly get all that much in return. Yi... I think enough has been said about the drama there.

 

Quote:

---

Hopefully Coach K will do a better job than Stots of drawing up gameplans that spread the ball around and utilize our big guys more.

---

 

I hope so, but I also hope that Larry K has the wherewithal to sit Mo if he refuses to distribute the ball.

 

This will be the third coach that Mo's been the PG under (Porter, Stotts, Larry K - I'm not really counting the 15 game audition as "under Larry K" just yet), and if Mo's not distributing the ball (improving that assist:turnover ratio) by the end of the year (assuming that the team remains somewhat healthy), then it's not the system that's at fault - it's Mo.

 

Of course, I will hope that Mo proves me wrong, but after watching him last season all the time at the BC (the beauty of having season tickets), I can't help but note that he'd have a wide-open Andrew Bogut all the time down low and instead of passing, he'd just... dribble. And dribble. And heave up a last second shot. And Bogut would just glare at him. Same thing would also happen with Villanueva. These are things that can't be viewed on TV, since the camera doesn't focus on that. Mo's stats, on paper, are good (minus the assist:turnover rate) but as we've all argued here countless times regarding baseball and the Brewers, the stat line doesn't always paint the entire picture.

[qrk10000]

Of those remaining options, none scored over 10.5 PPG last year. And none are exactly "options" any more than Patterson/Bell/Boykins were.

 

That is my point, though. Mo didn't have any better options than Chris Paul did yet still managed to shoot pretty well. The difference is that Paul is a 100% pure point guard with terrific ball-handling skills and thus will naturally have less turnovers. He is a better player than Mo, too, drafted high in the 1st round and has lived up to everyone's expectations for him. I still believe that with the team being healthy, the addition of Yi, a new coach, and more experience under Mo's belt, he will be even better. He has improved each year so why couldn't that trend continue?

 

Villanueva's coming off of an injury-filled season. He's not tradeable in the sense that he'll return very much until he proves he's healthy. Bogut's really not that tradeable; he wouldn't exactly get all that much in return.

 

I disagree here. There is always a demand for big men, especially centers. While Bogut has not played like a #1 pick yet, he did improve last year and is still a lot better than most the NBA centers out there (and he is young and cheap). If the Bucks were to trade him, they certainly would get a decent return. Villanueva falls under the same category but has an asterik next to him due to the injuries he faced last year. If he is healthy this season and can play small forward, his stock should rise greatly. I think the Bucks are very high on him, though, and are not considering trading him anytime soon.

 

I hope so, but I also hope that Larry K has the wherewithal to sit Mo if he refuses to distribute the ball.

 

I don't think that will ever be an issue. There have never been any reports that Mo Williams has refused to distribute the ball.

 

This will be the third coach that Mo's been the PG under (Porter, Stotts, Larry K - I'm not really counting the 15 game audition as "under Larry K" just yet), and if Mo's not distributing the ball (improving that assist:turnover ratio) by the end of the year (assuming that the team remains somewhat healthy), then it's not the system that's at fault - it's Mo.

 

Agreed, but if the Bucks are injured as a whole again this year, than Mo certainly cannot be solely to blame.

 

I can't help but note that he'd have a wide-open Andrew Bogut all the time down low and instead of passing, he'd just... dribble. And dribble. And heave up a last second shot. And Bogut would just glare at him. Same thing would also happen with Villanueva.

 

The beauty of Terry Stots. This was the Bucks gameplan 3/4's of the time. I never understood this either. However, that is why it is interesting that Bogut would express his anger about Stots and not call out Redd or Williams. The Bucks seemed to always want to play isolation with Redd or Williams and that was just plain silly.

 

Of course I can remember many, many times where Bogut got the ball and passed it away immediately when he could have taken a shot or turned it over. So far, he has not proven to be an aggressive player inside at all. Hopefully that will change this season, though.

 

the beauty of having season tickets

 

Absolutely. I was a season ticket holder for several years and last year attended probably around 20-25 games (most of them free thanks to a friend who works for WTMJ). You do see a lot more in person than you do on TV. You don't have to listen to the Bucks' 2nd head coach, Johnny Mac, then either. Haha.

[don1481]

Quote:

---

The beauty of Terry Stots. This was the Bucks gameplan 3/4's of the time.

---

 

Yes, and you can imagine how many times I wanted to go over and wring his neck.

 

Quote:

---

However, that is why it is interesting that Bogut would express his anger about Stots and not call out Redd or Williams.

---

 

Because the worst thing you can do is pick fights in the media with your teammates. Bogut's not that stupid.

 

Quote:

---

Mo didn't have any better options than Chris Paul did yet still managed to shoot pretty well.

---

 

Yes, but the issue here is solely with the *number* of shots/game Mo takes. For a point guard, it's rather high.

[qrk10000]

Yes, but the issue here is solely with the *number* of shots/game Mo takes. For a point guard, it's rather high.

 

To be fair, he took only 1.8 shots a game more than Chris Paul and took a similar amount of shots to Deron Williams, Baron Davis, and Tony Parker.

 

I think some of that could be attributed to games in which he acted as a "2nd shooting guard" when the Bucks had Redd and Boykins or Blake in the game. He was expected to take a lot of shots in those instances.

 

I do agree, though, that I hope he does not have to shoot that much next season. He'll have more weapons to work with and if the Bucks can be more diverse with their scoring, they should be a better team. However if he is making 45% or more of his shots, I don't have as much of a problem with it. Sam Cassell was a successful point guard for us that almost led us to the NBA Finals and he took a ton of shots. It is the guards that take a ton of shots and shoot 40% that drive me nuts.

[don1481]

Quote:

---

o be fair, he took only 1.8 shots a game more than Chris Paul and took a similar amount of shots to Deron Williams, Baron Davis, and Tony Parker.

---

 

"Only" 1.8? That's still a couple of ill-advised shots/game.

 

Mo took 15.4 shots/game. Deron took 13.5 (1.9 fewer), Davis took 16.3 (but also averaged 3 PPG more than Mo), and Parker took 14.2.

 

I don't consider 15.4 to be all that similar to 13.5 or 14.2. You could make a case for 16.3, but that's pushing it.

 

Quote:

---

Sam Cassell was a successful point guard for us that almost led us to the NBA Finals and he took a ton of shots

---

 

The Bucks also had three big-time scoring weapons (Cassell, Allen/Payton (after the Allen trade), Robinson) plus Redd as the 6th man back then. It could also be argued that the Bucks did well in spite of Cassell's shoot-first mentality.

 

In 2000-2001, Cassell took 14.9 shots/game. In 2001-2002, he took over 16. In 2002-2003, he took 14.9 once again. So yeah, he took a lot of shots, but he had a lot more assists.

[qrk10000]

"Only" 1.8? That's still a couple of ill-advised shots/game.

 

Are they ill-advised if he is hitting 45% of them? Almost 1 out of those 2 shots went in. We could both name times when those shots were not good ones but we could also name times when they are.

 

The Bucks also had three big-time scoring weapons (Cassell, Allen/Payton (after the Allen trade), Robinson) plus Redd as the 6th man back then. It could also be argued that the Bucks did well in spite of Cassell's shoot-first mentality.

 

Exactly, that is my point. The Bucks had serious weapons at that time and one of those weapons was Sam Cassell. I know he frustrated a lot of fans (myself included) because he took a lot of shots. He loved doing it all himself, especially if he was "shown up" by someone on the other end of the floor. My point is, though, that because he hit a lot of those shots, they won. He hit a lot of clutch shots in the waning minutes of games (similar to some of those long three's that Mo has hit with time expiring). I think Mo Williams is very close to the level that Cassell played on (good rebounder, decent passer, good free throw shooter, good field goal percentage, same amount of steals) and very well could pass him up.

 

In 2000-2001, Cassell took 14.9 shots/game. In 2001-2002, he took over 16. In 2002-2003, he took 14.9 once again. So yeah, he took a lot of shots, but he had a lot more assists.

 

Take a look at those numbers again. Cassell has averaged only 4.9 assists per game for his career compared to Mo averaging 4.6 assists per game for his career with only 2 seasons as a full-time starter. That is hardly a lot more. If you compare 2001-2003, it is even less impressive and that is with guys like Ray Allen and the Big Dog to pass to.

 

Remember, in 2004/05, Mo averaged 9.2 shots per game and in 2005/06 he averaged 10.8 shots per game. It is not like he has been taking 15 shots per game his whole career. He has only done that for one season when our #1 scorer went down with an injury and he was the only other real option that we had. Even when Redd was around, he was the #2 option so obviously he would be expected to take more shots. As you said before, let's see how the season go and whether or not he repeats his numbers from last year. It is hard to tell exactly what he might do since he has only been in the league for a few years.

[don1481]

Quote:

---

Take a look at those numbers again. Cassell has averaged only 4.9 assists per game for his career compared to Mo averaging 4.6 assists per game for his career with only 2 seasons as a full-time starter. That is hardly a lot more. If you compare 2001-2003, it is even less impressive and that is with guys like Ray Allen and the Big Dog to pass to.

---

 

Wrong. In the three seasons that I've been talking about, when the Bucks were "contenders," Cassell averaged 7.6, 6.7, and 5.8 assists/game. While not "spectacular," they're better than the 4.9 you mention on the career.

[qrk10000]

Don, sorry, his career numbers are 4.9 assists per game. Look it up if you don't believe me. I am not discrediting you on his numbers in Milwaukee but look at regression. It was 9.0 in 99/00 but by 02/03 it was 5.8. That is not very good for a starting point guard. Keep in mind that Cassell was 33 by this point. Mo is only 24. I think Mo has considerable upside and with better and healthier targets (still not as good as Cassell's), his assists should go up. I really hope they can sign Yi because he should do a lot to strengthen the front court.

[qrk10000]

Don, I want to correct my previous assertion. I was looking at his playoff numbers. I believe his career numbers are actually 6.1 assists per game, much better than 4.9. I still stand by his numbers in Milwaukee, though. Mo should surpass them with a better surrounding cast.

[don1481]

Quote:

---

Mo should surpass them with a better surrounding cast.

---

 

I hope Mo can. And cut down on his turnovers and shots/game. I wouldn't mind seeing Mo score around 13-14/game if he can get 8+ assists/game, because that would most likely mean the Bucks are doing a far better job of distribution.