Milwaukee Bucks Thread 2008–2009 (part 2)

[Crew2323]

I miss Kevin Hunt. He was good. Worlds better than Rod Burks.

[JJHardy7]

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.

I don't see how a one-year deal hurts that though? I also think he's done a good job with it in a certain way. He hasn't timed some trades right and that's a negative on him. I just don't see how a one-year deal hurts anything especially when this team needs to try and restore a fan base.

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.

So how has Hammond spent $25 million this season? He's barely 'added' anything payroll and actually shed a few million I believe. Let's not get carried too far away from the facts. Also if you count shedding RJ's contract beyond this year he's 'saved' the Bucks a ton of payroll. Does that not count for some reason? What about shedding Mo Williams last year? Not count? It's easy to cherry pick arguments, but I think you're wrong. He hasn't timed the return and all that...I'd agree with that, but to sit and say Hammond is adding all this payroll is blatantly ignoring the facts.

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.

You did with your so and so say 'hi' garbage. All those teams benefited big time from 'tanking' or sucking. The Celtics ended up getting lottery picks, but ask them how tanking to get the best chance of getting Tim Duncan worked...

I still disagree with you on what the Bucks are trying to do. If you want to completely rebuild, that's fine. It just won't be the Milwaukee Bucks and the NBA draft is such a crap shoot there's usually not a huge difference in draft picks unless there's a Duncan, LeBron, etc. type in the draft. That's just my opinion though. One thing the Bucks did do for awhile was trade their 1st rounders...that was dumb.

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.

Nothing they can do about it? I don't know if I agree with that. So your strategy is to just suck until the ping pong balls work out and hopefully you land a LeBron type? That's fine and all...but that's not realistic. Timing is everything.

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

There's no way they have the impact you're looking for. If the Bucks draft Wall, I will stop following him. That guy has bad news written all over him...oh and he can't shoot either.

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.

Bogut was the right pick...he was. It's just another example of why tanking won't always work. How is Redd all that different from the 'Big Dog'? You can't stand Redd, but you'll defend the 'Big Dog'? That's cherry picking...Redd is a better player than Glenn...that's pretty clear IMO....and Redd was also a 2nd round pick who was drafted WHEN the team was winning.

I could go on and on about your posts, but its clear you hate the Bucks and everything they do...that's fine. Some folks just have that opinion and will cherry pick arguments so it 'makes sense'. Hammond has gotten rid of a ton of payroll. That's a fact. I know it might be the 'cool' thing to do at realgm to just rip the team and everything they do, but that doesn't make it a fact...far from it. Your false statements get old...the Bucks will have close to $20 million extra next off-season (obviously they'll have to replace some guys) and two expiring contracts to dangle. Do the Bucks have issues? Sure, but it's not like they locked up 3 guys long-term this off-season. They have 2 guaranteed contracts for the 2011/2012 season. I think that'd be the definition of flexibility given the mess Hammond had when he took over...but I'm sure some will pile on because it's the cool thing to do.

[bbrauch2000]

Having expiring contracts and contract flexibility going into the 2011-2012 offseason could be absolutely huge. We are looking at a serious possibility of a further reduced salary cap going into next offseason and an ever increasing chance at a lockout that will curtail the types of contracts that can be given out. I wouldn't want to be a team locking in a guy to a max type contract right now when a new labor agreement could be in the mix in the next two seasons. Think about the Larry Bird rule guys that could get paid whatever they wanted going into the last agreement.

 

Hammond is putting together a young, athletic core that has a shot at catching lightning in a bottle. If they lose a bunch, it will at least be happening while playing the players we need to see play.

[nate82]

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

 

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

The L.A. Clippers say hello to you and this is where the Bucks are heading and if they start tanking I believe they will be the second coming of the Clippers.

[wallus]

I just wanted to say hi since it's the popular thing to do in this thread.... I like the move however.

[bullox]

All these NBA teams saying hi is a nice touch by their PR departments. Really like the direction the NBA is going.

[greeg35]

A year ago we were talking about how it would be a couple of years before Hammond would have a chance to start rebuilding after the mess Harris left, and now we're cutting bait? You don't overcome that kind of long term bad decision making in one year. Personally, I like the route of building a competitive franchise first, then getting the final pieces in place. I agree with those that say tanking is a bad idea for this particular franchise at this moment, and it isn't a guaranteed to work anyway.

[fondybrewfan]

Just my humble opinion but our best case scenario for next year is probably 45 wins, worst case is 30. I was a huge Bucks fan in the Big 3 era but the Bucks were dead to me when Ray Allen was traded for a bunch of crap.

 

I really want them to succeed but I just don't see it. They are meerly average at spots 1-5 without any real superstar. Their is just nothing to get excited about. I think Jennings could be a star and I have always liked Bogut but Bogut isn't the type of guy that is going to be the star of a team. He is a very solid 5 but he can't be the "Go To Guy". With Redd likely gone next year I would like them to go after a big time FA but it seems extremely unlikely that the Bucks are going to be able to make an impact FA signing unless they pull a 50 win season out of their butt this year.

 

I think a new arena outside of downtown would do that team a ton of good but I don't think that is going to happen anytime in the near future. I am sure I will watch them on TV but nothing about going to a Bucks game in the Bradley Center excites me.

[Diskono]

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

 

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

The L.A. Clippers say hello to you and this is where the Bucks are heading and if they start tanking I believe they will be the second coming of the Clippers.

I wouldn't say any of those teams "tanked" either. San Antonio just happened to be bad the year David Robinson was injured, they probably could have been a playoff team otherwise. Orlando lost Grant Hill for the entire season. Boston lost Paul Pierce for half of the season. There's a big difference between tanking and losing your best player for the season with an injury.

 

You could make an argument for Cleveland tanking, but that franchise had been horrible for years and wasn't going anywhere.

[Mr QL]

Bucks can't afford to tank anymore if they want to stay in Milwaukee. I don't think having massive amounts of cap room will really help us anyways either since we're not going to rake in any big FAs unless we overpay mediocre ones like Bobby Simmons. Getting a franchise player is pure luck. There is no use tanking in the lottery to get one.

[patrickgpe]

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.

 

I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the team loosing than anything else. When the bucks were good and while it didn't work out but Anthony Mason wanted to come here when he had other choices. Trevor Hoffman said recently that Milwaukee was a free agent destination spot. The problem is that the bucks have not been good for almost a decade. Couple that with being in the upper midwest with rough winters, i could see how free agents don't want to come here. If the bucks were an upper echelon team, i don't think that attitude exists.

[PrestigeWorldwide]

I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the team loosing than anything else. When the bucks were good and while it didn't work out but Anthony Mason wanted to come here when he had other choices. Trevor Hoffman said recently that Milwaukee was a free agent destination spot. The problem is that the bucks have not been good for almost a decade. Couple that with being in the upper midwest with rough winters, i could see how free agents don't want to come here. If the bucks were an upper echelon team, i don't think that attitude exists.

Granted a lot has changed since the early 90's, but in the case of Todd Day, he was the first Bucks lottery pick ever and they had gone to the playoffs 12 years in a row prior to that lottery season. While they didn't win any titles, they were certainly good enough that I feel reasonably certain Day's attitude had nothing to do with the team.

[patrickgpe]

well then why was green bay able to attract players after they signed White. There was really no hope of winning before 92 and the winters there are worse. I still think winning is the cure-all. The bucks of the late 80's and early 90's were a fringe playoff team. Its not like they were going to a team that actually had a chance to do any damage in the playoffs. Before 01. the bucks did not make a serious playoff run since 1986.

[JJHardy7]

well then why was green bay able to attract players after they signed White.

 

So what Reggie White in the NBA is coming to Milwaukee? Also, if your a Packer you only have to live in Green Bay until December or January. The NBA you'll live there through April...so you pretty much take on October through April in Milwaukee...that's not exactly the best time of the year.

[PrestigeWorldwide]

My point was that today I can see players not wanting to play here because the team stinks, but back then that simply was not the case. Richard Jefferson being bummed to get traded to Milwaukee in 2008 because the team was a perennial lottery participant? Sure. Day being devastated about joining a team that had a down year after 12 years in the playoffs? Not likely. On draft night no way did he hear Milwaukee and have that reaction because he thought "wow, they are always in the playoffs but haven't won a title, and now are on their way to being a league bottom feeder for the next decade."

[wallus]

Was I the only one who said "Todd Day, """darn""?"

[homer]

No one can say with a straight face that they thought Shaquille O'Neal would end his career in Cleveland. Things go in cycles and winning solves a lot of perception problems a city might have.

[Zycho32]

Jumping in on an unrelated note... is there a specific reason why teams don't dare to implement the sort of wide-open offense Pheonix was going with through most of the double-oughts? Seven seconds or less? Closest thing to 'Showtime'-style basketball in the 80's? Is there a reason a team with marginal talent and a lukewarm fanbase like Milwaukee doesn't adopt this sort of style to rack up high scoring games and drum up some interest?

[dadofandrew]

It's a lot easier to field a team with a scorer or two than it is 5-7 scorers. Take a look at expansion teams rosters over the years, they are loaded with defenders, rebounders, and such...15+ point guys are few and far between.

[Baldkin]

You don't really need scorers, you need shooters.

 

Look at how most of the guys from those Phoenix teams have fared after they got away from the inflated 7-seconds numbers.

 

The biggest issue with it, is you need the right guy to run the offense, otherwise you'll end up like the Knicks last year.

[patrickgpe]

1250 reporting that the bucks are willing to match sessions up to 3 million which i doubt will be good enough, as i'm going to guess he gets in the 4.5/million a year range from the knicks. Sessions and Jennings would of been a decent PG tandem too.

[Gobias Industries]

I'm hoping it's just a smokescreen by the Bucks' F.O. Sessions needs to be resigned. He's too young and talented for a team depleted of just that to let go.

 

That's why I don't get the Warrick signing. I like him as a player, but he's only gonna be here for one year. He's not part of the long term future, whereas Sessions should be. If that signing prevents us from matching an offer sheet, Hammond deserves to be fired.

[molitor fan]

Man, i just do not understand people advocating the firing of Hammond....he has done a pretty decent job, save for a couple hiccups.....

[Diskono]

1250 reporting that the bucks are willing to match sessions up to 3 million which i doubt will be good enough, as i'm going to guess he gets in the 4.5/million a year range from the knicks. Sessions and Jennings would of been a decent PG tandem too.

I don't think the Knicks are even all that interested. Sessions' agent has been claiming that the Knicks would be presenting an offer sheet "any day now" since the free agency window opened. I'm starting to think Sessions just ends up taking the QO. And probably firing his agent.

[JJHardy7]

Man, i just do not understand people advocating the firing of Hammond....he has done a pretty decent job, save for a couple hiccups.....

 

I agree. I think it'll be fair to judge him after the '10 - '11 season. There are some young pieces on this team. If Brandon Jennings is a flop though, Hammond could be in a lot of trouble. I do think BJ will be a very good player in the league, but time will tell I guess.