Milwaukee Bucks Thread 2008–2009 (part 2)

[yoshii8]

I wouldn't count out the Bucks bringing back Sessions. I think there are still ways to bring the Bucks far enough under the luxury tax to match an offer sheet. Also we don't even know how much the offer sheet will be for Sessions.

 

BTW I love the Warrick signing, I think he will play a major role this season. He is an unbelieviable athlete, and is getting to be a better basketball player. If nothing else he will provide some highlight dunks that we haven't seen since D-Mase and T.J. Ford played together.

[sargennm]

Yeah, if the Bucks don't match the offer sheet, it will have to do with the length of his contract rather than the size of his year-to-year salary. The changes the Bucks have made are not high profile, but I like them much better than what they did last year. This team has the building blocks it needs to be a very good team in the future and an interesting (maybe even exciting in a "scoring 110 points in a loss" kinda way).

[MarquesJohnson2000]

Now they're released Salim Stoudamire.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/52212417.html

[patrickgpe]

i heard on 1250 that if they don't trade / release bowen today, his 2 million guaranteed becomes 4.

[bucks2281]

Looks like the Nuggets took Malik Allen off of our hands, too.

[MarquesJohnson2000]

Bucks are busier today than the Brewers.

[patrickgpe]

bowen released, saved 2 million.

[brewdude15]

Goodbye Allen, Bowen, and Stoudemire. Hello Warrick and Weems. Boy I hope this team gets turned around soon. With all the money we're saving, hopefully we'll be in good shape sooner than later.

[trwi7]

With all the money we're saving, hopefully we'll be in good shape sooner than later.

What money are we saving? We save about $3 million from getting rid of those three. Then we spend $3 million on Hakim Warrick. Hammond is basically trying to acquire every tweener forward in the NBA. It appears he's still trying to grab a hold of one of the last playoff spots which is just awful.

[BrewCrewForever]

The Bucks offseason has be somewhat excited for their season for the first time in years. That says a lot.

[homer]

What money are we saving? We save about $3 million from getting rid of those three. Then we spend $3 million on Hakim Warrick. Hammond is basically trying to acquire every tweener forward in the NBA. It appears he's still trying to grab a hold of one of the last playoff spots which is just awful.

1) To get a playoff spot with this roster would be quite an achievement

2) Warrick is only on a one year contract

3) At least he's bringing in guys with upside and not retreads

4) Warrick and A.Johnson were pretty productive when they were on the court last year. One or both could blossom.

5) Yes, they are a bit small of front.

[trwi7]

To get a playoff spot with this roster would be quite an achievement

 

I agree. It's not a good achievement though and it's not something they should be trying to do, which is what's happening.

 

Warrick is only on a one year contract

 

So was Jake Voskuhl. That doesn't mean it's not a waste of money.

 

At least he's bringing in guys with upside and not retreads

 

Warrick is 27. He is what he is. And Tyronn Lue, Malik Allen and Francisco Elson say hi.

 

Warrick and A.Johnson were pretty productive when they were on the court last year. One or both could blossom.

 

Like I said, Warrick is 27. He is what he is. Amir Johnson is a foul machine. He can't stay on the court. So Warrick is in his prime, he's not blossoming and you can't blossom when you can't stay on the court which is the case with Johnson. In fact, we should've just kept Oberto and saved the money instead of needlessly wasting it on a guy who hasn't been productive his four years in the league.

[Mr QL]

I like Warrick and think he'll fit with what we're trying to do as a team well. It's refreshing to actually have some sort of direction and style instead of randomly adding and removing pieces. It's not like some 6 year deal like we use to throw out to role players so whatever if it doesn't work out. I think Warrick still has some room to grow as a player with Skiles as his coach.. It'll be upsetting if they opted to sign Hakim instead of Sessions if it turns out that way though. Make the Knicks pay him full MLE at least.

 

This will be a pretty big endorsement of Brandon Jennings if Sessions is let go.

 

I'm optimistic about this season. I think we'll do better than expected and maybe compete for the 8th seed(which I know is nails on the chalkboard to the perpetual tanking crowd) Even if things turn out bad I think we could unload Redd and maybe Ridnour at the deadline providing they're healthy. I'm not "panac'd" about it.

[homer]

I agree. It's not a good achievement though and it's not something they should be trying to do, which is what's happening.

 

What exactly should he be trying to do? It's fairly apparent they aren't signing any long term deals until they get Redd and Gadz off the books. Given that, is he just supposed to sign some schmuck off the scrap heap for $600,000? Are you suggesting they play for the lottery or something?

 

So was Jake Voskuhl. That doesn't mean it's not a waste of money.

 

Again, what should he be spending money on? And Warrick is no Voskuhl. Warrick starts, is athletic, and produces.

 

Warrick is 27. He is what he is. And Tyronn Lue, Malik Allen and Francisco Elson say hi.

 

Are you honestly comparing Warrick to Lue, Allen, and Elson? And Ilyasova and Amir Johnson say hi back.

 

Like I said, Warrick is 27. He is what he is. Amir Johnson is a foul machine. He can't stay on the court. So Warrick is in his prime, he's not blossoming and you can't blossom when you can't stay on the court which is the case with Johnson. In fact, we should've just kept Oberto and saved the money instead of needlessly wasting it on a guy who hasn't been productive his four years in the league.

 

Warrick's PER has gone up every year he's been in the league. You keep talking about saving money. It's not like they put it in the bank to save for some free agent in 2010. I get the distinct impression you want them to tank until Redd and Gadz are gone.

[JJHardy7]

I agree with homer. If they were doing everything they could to make a 'run' to the playoffs this year, they would've kept RJ. There's nothing wrong with adding some decent pieces and spending money. It's not like Warrick just signed a 5-year deal. I think he's a pretty good role player and I have no complaints with the price.

 

I also wouldn't look back at last year's off-season and complain about Lue, Allen, and Elson...you need to give a new GM some time to be able to do what he wants. The Bucks didn't have a lot of options to do that last year...they will in the future.

 

What's the big deal if the Bucks do make the playoffs with Jennings at the point? Most of their core will be signed a for a few years...I don't see that as a bad thing. I also don't think it's a slam dunk to make it...a lot of things would have to go right. I think the '10 - '11 Bucks team will be pretty good, but this year will be more of learning process for Jennings, etc.

[davego]

Just my 2-cents, but I see the 2009-10 team shaping up as team that should be decent on defense and might struggle to score. Lots of "athletic" players the fit multiple positions. Would seem to be more of a team that Scott likes to coach. Redd and Bogut are going to have to provide consistent offense.

[trwi7]

 

Are you suggesting they play for the lottery or something?

Yes. This team is bad. Hakim Warrick isn't going to make a difference. Until this team gets a star player, they're going nowhere. So get the high picks, get your star and then you might actually go somewhere.

 

Again, what should he be spending money on?

 

No one. We had a full roster. We don't need to be spending money to turn some of our third string guys into fourth string guys, especially when we're not getting a legit starter back.

 

And Warrick is no Voskuhl. Warrick starts, is athletic, and produces.

 

It's still a waste of money in our situation.

 

Are you honestly comparing Warrick to Lue, Allen, and Elson?

 

Well, sort of. Warrick actually costs less than those three clowns.

 

And Ilyasova and Amir Johnson say hi back.

 

I already mentioned Johnson being a bad trade, so I don't know why you brought him in there. Ilyasova was a cheap fill-in to fill out the roster, which was needed.

 

Warrick's PER has gone up every year he's been in the league.

 

05-06: 17.8

06-07: 17.3

07-08: 19.0

08-09: 19.4

 

Opponents PER:

 

05-06: 18.3

06-07: 19.2

07-08: 20.1

08-09: 16.5

 

So yeah, only one year has his PER been higher than his opponents.

 

You keep talking about saving money. It's not like they put it in the bank to save for some free agent in 2010.

 

But they should. With the talent on this team they should be rolling with a $40-50 million payroll, not $70 million. Nobody is going to show up either way, but that will save Kohl $20-30 million that he could use later when we actually have a good team. We keep spending money on scrub bench players to be 14th and 15th men (not saying Warrick is one of them) which we don't need instead of just pocketing that money and using it later.

 

I get the distinct impression you want them to tank until Redd and Gadz are gone.

 

I want them to tank until we get a legitimate star to build around. Whether that takes one year, five years or 20 years.

[JJHardy7]

Yes. This team is bad. Hakim Warrick isn't going to make a difference. Until this team gets a star player, they're going nowhere. So get the high picks, get your star and then you might actually go somewhere.

We usually don't agree on the Bucks and we don't here...so you expect a team that is struggling big-time to fill seats to just tank before the season starts? Hello your Las Vegas Bucks! They simply can't give the impression they're doing that and need to at least compete. While your logic might make basketball sense in your mind, tanking in basketball is a terrible idea IMO for two reasons. If the Bucks keep stinking and even admit to tanking, they're gone. They're on shaky ground the way it is and I still believe they'll be gone within 5 years if something doesn't change. The second reason is tanking doesn't get you anywhere. We could tank, lose the lottery, and get screwed. I don't know how you and the guys at realgm get so upset about Warrick. It's a small contract...who cares? He has talent and he isn't old...he's in his prime. I get the feeling that some Bucks 'fans' will complain just to complain. Saying the team should tank is one quick way for the team to move out of Milwaukee...the Bucks desperately need to put a team together that can compete and build the fan base.

I want them to tank until we get a legitimate star to build around. Whether that takes one year, five years or 20 years.

The team won't be in Milwaukee with your idea. I also think they have their guy in Jennings. If BJ can step up his first year and Amir can play to his potential (I know that's a huge if), this team could surprise. More likely though this team competes every night, but still finds itself late in the lottery. There's nothing wrong with that given that some major pieces are still fairly young and expiring contracts are coming closer and closer. I also feel Redd is going to have a career year if 100% healthy and that should make him very tradeable come the deadline. I know that makes you excited about trading him since you know that Redd is a top 20 player in the league http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[trwi7]

We usually don't agree on the Bucks and we don't here...so you expect a team that is struggling big-time to fill seats to just tank before the season starts? Hello your Las Vegas Bucks! They simply can't give the impression they're doing that and need to at least compete. While your logic might make basketball sense in your mind, tanking in basketball is a terrible idea IMO for two reasons. If the Bucks keep stinking and even admit to tanking, they're gone. They're on shaky ground the way it is and I still believe they'll be gone within 5 years if something doesn't change.

 

Then I'd rather have them be gone. Much better not having a team to follow than having an awful team that just keeps spinning its wheels to follow.

 

The second reason is tanking doesn't get you anywhere.

 

Orlando, Cleveland, San Antonio, Boston and several other teams say hi.

 

I don't know how you and the guys at realgm get so upset about Warrick. It's a small contract...who cares?

 

Why should we get upset about Jake Voskuhl's contract? It's small, who cares? Same goes for Lue, Elson and Allen. The problem with it is these contracts add up over the years. Don't preach financial flexibility and then add the fifth tweener forward to your already full roster.

 

the Bucks desperately need to put a team together that can compete and build the fan base.

 

The only way they are going to build a fan base is a consistent 50 game winner. People aren't going to show up to see a .500 team win one game in a playoff series only to be ousted by a much better team.

[LouisEly]

I want them to tank until we get a legitimate star to build around.

 

The Seattle SuperSonics say hi.

 

Orlando, Cleveland, San Antonio, Boston and several other teams say hi.

 

Even if they had tanked last year and won the lottery, Blake Griffin is no Dwight Howard, LeBron James, or Tim Duncan. And Boston won their title with trades for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett and by exceeding the salary cap, something the Bucks cannot do, not by tanking and getting the #1 overall pick.

 

Found this interesting in the article on ESPN.com regarding Bowen's release:

 

Via his Twitter account Friday night, Bowen wrote: "Just got off the plane [and] got word that I will not be in Milwaukee for Christmas!"

 

I think that tells you what you need to know about what players think about Milwaukee.

[JJHardy7]

Then I'd rather have them be gone. Much better not having a team to follow than having an awful team that just keeps spinning its wheels to follow.

Now I see where you get all your negative opinions...

I think you also need to remember most NBA players probably wish Milwaukee didn't have a basketball team either...that's why I have a hard time knocking on Warrick's one-year deal. At least somebody chose to go there...

Orlando, Cleveland, San Antonio, Boston and several other teams say hi.

What's with this saying 'hi' garbage? Tanking for a team that barely has a fan base is not smart. The ping pong balls don't guarantee anything either. Is there a LeBron type guy that was born and raised in Wisconsin and would just love being close to home? Next year's draft doesn't look like it has anybody that could change a franchise as quick as you think...you bring up extreme examples to make a 'point'. We've had the number 1 pick twice in the past 15 years or so...what did that get us?

Why should we get upset about Jake Voskuhl's contract? It's small, who cares? Same goes for Lue, Elson and Allen. The problem with it is these contracts add up over the years. Don't preach financial flexibility and then add the fifth tweener forward to your already full roster.

So what would you have done with the $3 million besides using it to tank somehow? It's not something I'm concerned about and injuries can happen...as the Bucks found out last year. One-year contracts give financial flexibility and also roster flexibility...expiring contracts still have value, right?

The only way they are going to build a fan base is a consistent 50 game winner. People aren't going to show up to see a .500 team win one game in a playoff series only to be ousted by a much better team.

I don't think you need to win 50 games every year...you need to be competitive and make the playoffs more than you didn't...the team that went to the conference finals last year created some crazy electricity in Milwaukee. Milwaukee is probably sick of all the dumb roster moves over the years. I do like Redd and Bogut, but besides those two there has been next to zero consistency, the coaching carousels, and the GM changes. The city and the team need some consistency. Firing Terry Porter still has to be one of the dumbest things I've seen a GM do in a long, long, long time. The Bucks lost a ton of credibility in that fiasco IMO. The best way to build a team is exactly what the Bucks are doing...they ARE giving themselves financial flexibility and are slowly selecting guys that they want part of their future. This off-season had some nice moves, but I think the Bucks are positioning themselves for next summer. I don't think the Bucks will get a huge free agent because hardly anybody wants to be a Buck. I do think though that teams will blow a ton of money on the 'main' guys and with the cap projecting to go down next year there should be some talent available for a decent price.

[trwi7]

The Seattle SuperSonics say hi.

 

I know they moved, but I would love to have a talent base like Oklahoma City's.

 

And Boston won their title with trades for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett and by exceeding the salary cap

 

Boston traded their lottery pick for Ray Allen and accumulated enough assets (including a young 20/10 big) to get Garnett. What assets do the Bucks have to use? A max SG who's injured, some expiring contracts, mid lottery picks, a bunch of tweener forwards and that's about it.

[trwi7]

that's why I have a hard time knocking on Warrick's one-year deal. At least somebody chose to go there...

 

He chose to go here because we were offering the most money. Same thing goes for most free agents. They go where the money is. And Hammond shouldn't preach financial flexibility when he does a half-assed job of achieving financial flexibility. And don't whine when you say you don't have financial flexibility when you had oppurtunities to get it.

 

Tanking for a team that barely has a fan base is not smart.

 

If you put a bunch of young players out on the court as opposed to a bunch of mediocre veterans and both win the same amount of games, who do you think people are going to watch? Also, don't you think it would help to trim the payroll to the $45 million range instead of keeping it in the $70 million range saving Kohl $25 million? There's no way that attendance makes up for any of that.

 

The ping pong balls don't guarantee anything either.

 

Who said they did? Isn't that the definition of the lottery? I do know that winning while trying to rebuild has never worked and never will work. That's what we've been doing through Kohl's ownership. I think those results speak volumes about that strategy.

 

Is there a LeBron type guy that was born and raised in Wisconsin and would just love being close to home?

 

Who cares? If we draft them, there's nothing they can do about it. He's ours for at least five years if he's any good and likely longer since most players sign extensions at the end of their rookie contracts for financial security.

 

Next year's draft doesn't look like it has anybody that could change a franchise as quick as you think

 

I would say John Wall and Derrick Favors could change a franchise pretty quick.

 

We've had the number 1 pick twice in the past 15 years or so...what did that get us?

 

Well Robinson brought us our best team under Kohl's ownership, as did Ray. Bogut was a bad pick in comparison to Paul and Williams. Look at the three contending Bucks teams over their history. Kareem, Moncrief/Johnson and Robinson/Allen were all drafted high in the lottery.

 

expiring contracts still have value, right?

 

Expiring contracts only have value if you're willing to take on long term contracts. Our expiring contracts are going to be more valuable to us by just letting them expire than anything we could get for them.

 

Firing Terry Porter still has to be one of the dumbest things I've seen a GM do in a long, long, long time.

 

That came from Kohl. He thought he could get a big name coach and when they all declined he was left scrambling for a coach and had to go with Stotts. You can't blame Harris for that.

 

The best way to build a team is exactly what the Bucks are doing...they ARE giving themselves financial flexibility

 

No they're not. Giving yourself financial flexibility would be taking the RJ for Wally trade that was available at the deadline. It would be not wasting $3 million on the Francisco Elson's and Malik Allen's of the world and then giving them player options. It would be trading Redd for salary flexibility ASAP instead of trying to extract extra value for him. It would be taking Joe Smith's expiring contract in the Mo Williams trade instead of getting Oklahoma City involved and taking the two year contract of Luke Ridnour instead.

 

but I think the Bucks are positioning themselves for next summer.

 

That's not happening unless Redd is traded. We have no cap space until 2011 unless Redd is traded.

[craigharmann]

Via his Twitter account Friday night, Bowen wrote: "Just got off the plane [and] got word that I will not be in Milwaukee for Christmas!"

 

I think that tells you what you need to know about what players think about Milwaukee.

I think it's more about how much Bruce loves San Antonio as opposed to what he thinks about Milwaukee. After he was traded, he had an article in the local paper about how much he loves the city, and how much he's felt the love and support from the community.

[sveumrules]

i'm sure lots of you have already seen this, but this video does a pretty great job of summing up the attitude most in the NBA have towards the good land of mil-ee-wau-kay.