Milwaukee Bucks 2019 - 20 Season Thread

[homer]

If the Bucks continue to win 60+ games, Bud will be the coach.

 

So the Bucks could win 60 games for four years, miss the Finals four times, and he'll remain the coach? Find that very hard to believe. The ownership of this team is not supermaxing Giannis and paying Middleton darn near it to lose conference finals.

 

Yes.

[wallus]

 

Yes.

 

Bud's playoff failures often overlook Lebron in his prime being unstoppable.

[brewerfan82]

Again, I want to make it clear I was not intending to criticize Bud, just that I don't think he can continue to dominate the regular season without real playoff results. The quiet criticism of him already is that he can transform teams into winners but isn't a get-you-over-the-hump guy. He has won 60 games in another city before. There was no realistic expectation of ATL winning titles, but there is in MKE and I do believe he's going to feel the heat if they won't get there this season.

Just curious, do *you* think the Bucks should consider a coaching change under these scenarios? Or do you just think ownership may consider it?

 

In regards to expectations, maybe the timing was coincidental with Giannis coming into his own and the right pieces being added to the team, or maybe it was my longtime pessimistic view of the Bucks, but I certainly had no championship aspirations for this team before I saw what Coach Bud was able to do with them. The change from the Kidd years to Bud's arrival has been so instantaneously stark I can't imagine not attributing a large portion of that to the coaching. It's pretty unfathomable to me to think a coaching change would somehow improve this teams' chances of winning a championship.

[RollieTime]

Bud has been here for exactly one year not including this season. He took a 44-38 7 seeded Bucks team over and brought them 60+ wins in his first season. After doing so in his first season as head coach of the Bucks, Milwaukee is now a destination where veterans come on low cost deals to try to win a championship.

 

In his second season, the Bucks will be pushing for 70 wins. If they lose in the ECF, yes it will be disappointing. But Bud will absolutely not be on the hot seat. If he fails to make the Finals after a third season of 60+ wins, yes I could see his seat getting warm, but he will at least get a 4th crack at making the Finals. At that point if he still can’t make the Finals, something might change. But there is no way Bud will be fired if they lose in the ECF again this season.

[Outlander]

It is hard to take seriously firing Bud after failing to make the finals one time. I guess in theory if he failed to make the finals in three more consecutive years with a healthy Giannis then yes he would be fired no doubt.

[Mr Southpaw]

Nice game last night . Started strong and played hard all game. Got George Hill back. Running on all cylinders against the Piston's…. Kinda funny.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Bud has been here for exactly one year not including this season. He took a 44-38 7 seeded Bucks team over and brought them 60+ wins in his first season. After doing so in his first season as head coach of the Bucks, Milwaukee is now a destination where veterans come on low cost deals to try to win a championship.

 

In his second season, the Bucks will be pushing for 70 wins. If they lose in the ECF, yes it will be disappointing. But Bud will absolutely not be on the hot seat. If he fails to make the Finals after a third season of 60+ wins, yes I could see his seat getting warm, but he will at least get a 4th crack at making the Finals. At that point if he still can’t make the Finals, something might change. But there is no way Bud will be fired if they lose in the ECF again this season.

 

I haven't said this and have made the opposite as clear as I can. The third season is weird because if Giannis decided to leave it just throws everything up in the air. Then it's probably doubly weird to get Giannis to resign and then bring in a new coach, that's just not going to happen unless there's some major rift between those two and he says he wants him fired.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

If the Bucks continue to win 60+ games, Bud will be the coach.

 

So the Bucks could win 60 games for four years, miss the Finals four times, and he'll remain the coach? Find that very hard to believe. The ownership of this team is not supermaxing Giannis and paying Middleton darn near it to lose conference finals.

 

Yes.

 

That's fine but I don't agree. After four years of not even making the Finals I cannot see them sitting on their hands. We'll probably never see this happen as it would require some incredible ineptitude not to get Giannis to win the East in four tries.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Again, I want to make it clear I was not intending to criticize Bud, just that I don't think he can continue to dominate the regular season without real playoff results. The quiet criticism of him already is that he can transform teams into winners but isn't a get-you-over-the-hump guy. He has won 60 games in another city before. There was no realistic expectation of ATL winning titles, but there is in MKE and I do believe he's going to feel the heat if they won't get there this season.

Just curious, do *you* think the Bucks should consider a coaching change under these scenarios? Or do you just think ownership may consider it?

 

In regards to expectations, maybe the timing was coincidental with Giannis coming into his own and the right pieces being added to the team, or maybe it was my longtime pessimistic view of the Bucks, but I certainly had no championship aspirations for this team before I saw what Coach Bud was able to do with them. The change from the Kidd years to Bud's arrival has been so instantaneously stark I can't imagine not attributing a large portion of that to the coaching. It's pretty unfathomable to me to think a coaching change would somehow improve this teams' chances of winning a championship.

 

If Giannis were not a FA after next season, I could definitely see ownership being pretty displeased, but that adds a wrinkle to the whole situation. It's really unlikely if not impossible that Giannis would re-sign and then they fire the coach a week before or after. If you're asking my opinion, yes, I would move on from Bud after a 4th year of 60 wins and not even winning the East. That's more than enough opportunity to prove you're a championship coach. It could just as easily be some glaring flaw with the personnel, but the coaches usually get blamed first. I think he's a great coach, but something would have to change if you can't get Giannis out of the East in four seasons.

[wallus]

I'm much more concerned if Bud's assistants will keep getting poached. Jenkins is having a good year in Memphis and I would not be surprised to see Ham get a serious look this offseason.

[tmwiese55]

Doc Rivers won a title 12 years ago and consistently has underachieved with loaded rosters ever since with the Clips, often losing first round, and he still has a job and has gotten promotions. It is more likely than that they'd keep him in the scenario mentioned. Possible they could try to change it up, but more than likely there isn't a clear upgrade available and they'd just keep doing what they're doing. Have to remember, this is still not some unbeatable superteam since it's only one superstar. Nothing should be viewed as locks or that you're a bumbling idiot if you don't win, they're more or less on the same level as the top 3-4 teams and those series can go either way. Just like last year, they're a couple breaks/calls or Giannis FTs in that game 3 away from being champs as it is. Doesn't make sense to axe the coach when you have a team and system built that clearly CAN win it all. If you have that going it's not worth the risk of messing it up

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Doc Rivers won a title 12 years ago and consistently has underachieved with loaded rosters ever since with the Clips, often losing first round, and he still has a job and has gotten promotions. It is more likely than that they'd keep him in the scenario mentioned. Possible they could try to change it up, but more than likely there isn't a clear upgrade available and they'd just keep doing what they're doing. Have to remember, this is still not some unbeatable superteam since it's only one superstar. Nothing should be viewed as locks or that you're a bumbling idiot if you don't win, they're more or less on the same level as the top 3-4 teams and those series can go either way. Just like last year, they're a couple breaks/calls or Giannis FTs in that game 3 away from being champs as it is. Doesn't make sense to axe the coach when you have a team and system built that clearly CAN win it all. If you have that going it's not worth the risk of messing it up

 

Well, sure. I mean if you're winning 50 games you are going to be employed somewhere. But I still think the Bucks situation is unique and comparisons like this don't give you the full perspective. They are under immense pressure to win with this roster, there is a lot of capital invested in this team right now and they are trying to prove to the world's best player that they can be a dynasty. He does not need to leave to have a legacy up there with the greats, which fairly or not, requires lots of championships.

 

On the bolded part: That can be completely true but doesn't necessarily mean people will react that way. There are teams in the NBA that spend years winning 50-55 games, but everyone knows they're not REALLY title contenders. Most of OKC's recent history for example. If the Bucks go down that road, like their 80s teams, that is an enormous failure. I think that the Bucks, as they stand right now, have a much higher expectation on them than most winning teams. This isn't like they have Chris Paul and Paul George. They have a guy who's embarrassing the league. He's playing 2/3 of most games and still humiliating everybody.

 

I think that the current Bucks ownership has shown under a small sample that they don't really make impulsive emotional decisions, but I do think their situation is unique.

[tmwiese55]

Well Doc doesn't have a job just somewhere, he still has it there with the Clips after year after year of losing in the 1st or 2nd round with two top 10 players in their prime. Tor did the other route last year and obviously that worked for them. Toronto's path is the rare one. The Bucks situation is actually much different in that they do not have some juggernaut roster assembled of stars, they have 1. If anything that should be giving him more leeway, not less like you're implying.

 

Of course it would be a failure to run it back 4ish times and never get the title. But again, you have the 1 star while the LA teams just put two top 5 guys together. Clips put two top 12ish guys together. But you have a team built here that clearly CAN win it, the logic of keep running it back and eventually the coin flip series will fall your way is perfectly smart and likely the safest and most likely route to a title. You're introducing a big variable that could mess things up in the other route, think of when they added Anthony Mason to a title contending team and it blew it all up. Or let's say Kidd had never been a HC yet and management said hey let's get him, proven champion player, cerebral player, doing well as assistant with LBJ, hey lets get him to get us over the top!! Seems logical right, welp he would mess this all up.

 

I mean yea if they fail 2 more times and Rick Carlisle or or Spoelstra is available then hey give it a shot but chances are something like that isn't going to be out there. Big pic, you know you have a top 5ish coach, the chances of upgrade are very low. BTW, when is Stevens getting fired?

[DuWayne Steurer]

Basketball isn't like baseball where you just have to get in the playoffs and then anything can happen. The best teams usually do win.

 

The Bucks were the best team in the east last year and are clearly the best team in the east this year. If they resign Giannis, they'll be the best team in the east next year. If they fail to make the finals, there's a reason, and it won't be random chance.

 

Is that all on Bud? Could be. I think they'll make it this year though. Doesnt hurt to talk about hypotheticals though. That's what message boards are for.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Well Doc doesn't have a job just somewhere, he still has it there with the Clips after year after year of losing in the 1st or 2nd round with two top 10 players in their prime. Tor did the other route last year and obviously that worked for them. Toronto's path is the rare one. The Bucks situation is actually much different in that they do not have some juggernaut roster assembled of stars, they have 1. If anything that should be giving him more leeway, not less like you're implying.

 

Of course it would be a failure to run it back 4ish times and never get the title. But again, you have the 1 star while the LA teams just put two top 5 guys together. Clips put two top 12ish guys together. But you have a team built here that clearly CAN win it, the logic of keep running it back and eventually the coin flip series will fall your way is perfectly smart and likely the safest and most likely route to a title. You're introducing a big variable that could mess things up in the other route, think of when they added Anthony Mason to a title contending team and it blew it all up. Or let's say Kidd had never been a HC yet and management said hey let's get him, proven champion player, cerebral player, doing well as assistant with LBJ, hey lets get him to get us over the top!! Seems logical right, welp he would mess this all up.

 

I mean yea if they fail 2 more times and Rick Carlisle or or Spoelstra is available then hey give it a shot but chances are something like that isn't going to be out there. Big pic, you know you have a top 5ish coach, the chances of upgrade are very low. BTW, when is Stevens getting fired?

 

Yes, but the big difference is that in all those season with the Clips, there is not one season in which they were a favorite to win the West, certainly never close to as clear a favorite as the Bucks are. This would be a different conversation if the Bucks were head to head with prime GSW, LeBron's Lakers or Boston's Big Three just to get to the Finals. I don't think anyone is going to be as forgiving if the Bucks can't win the East with Giannis, and they shouldn't be IMO. I don't think this year's Raptors are even close to the kind of team that would get the Bucks a pass for losing. We can say nothing is guaranteed but the Bucks should win this conference running away.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Basketball isn't like baseball where you just have to get in the playoffs and then anything can happen. The best teams usually do win.

 

The Bucks were the best team in the east last year and are clearly the best team in the east this year. If they resign Giannis, they'll be the best team in the east next year. If they fail to make the finals, there's a reason, and it won't be random chance.

 

Is that all on Bud? Could be. I think they'll make it this year though. Doesnt hurt to talk about hypotheticals though. That's what message boards are for.

 

This is exactly where I'm coming from particularly the first sentence. Someone posted in another thread that the "better team advances" rate is something like 80% in the NBA. The Bucks are clearly the best team. In hindsight, I'm not so sure they were last year, edging out TOR by 2 games or something in the regular season in which Kawhi missed a bunch of time. But this year they definitely are. Until there's a migration of superstars to the East, failing to win this conference 2, 3, or 4 years in a row is an inexcusable failure. Something that is much more likely to cost a coach his job than Doc Rivers not getting out of the Western Conference bloodbath.

[tmwiese55]

Basketball isn't like baseball where you just have to get in the playoffs and then anything can happen. The best teams usually do win.

 

The Bucks were the best team in the east last year and are clearly the best team in the east this year. If they resign Giannis, they'll be the best team in the east next year. If they fail to make the finals, there's a reason, and it won't be random chance.

 

Is that all on Bud? Could be. I think they'll make it this year though. Doesnt hurt to talk about hypotheticals though. That's what message boards are for.

 

The Bucks and Raps were even last year. Believe it or not, the nerdy projections stuff had the Raps as the favorite in spite of not having HCA. Micro, year to year, yea specific stuff will happen that isn't 'chance'. Stuff like Bledsoe clamming up, Giannis FTs, etc. But if you put out a team that is roughly 50/50 in any ECF and Finals situation many years in a row then math and odds come into play, eventually things will fall your way. This year, yea, they're much clearly a higher than 50% chance to win the ECF, if they lose it is huge failure (barring injury of course), no doubt about that. And that would be the first major blackmark on Bud. Last year's I guess I'd call a minor one, losing the series is fine but man blowing it after being up 2-0 is bad. Lose in the Finals to two superstar made teams when you're the underdog is what it is, run it back next year. These are not nearly fireable things for someone.

 

People that try to bring up the Bud Atl year are just clueless. They're essentially trying to make ait a negative on his resume that he was able to turn a team of role players into a 60 win team, win two rounds of playoffs, but lose to the GOAT in his prime in the ECF. There is no way that should be a negative.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

People that try to bring up the Bud Atl year are just clueless. They're essentially trying to make ait a negative on his resume that he was able to turn a team of role players into a 60 win team, win two rounds of playoffs, but lose to the GOAT in his prime in the ECF. There is no way that should be a negative.

 

Yes but this has been one of my points. Just because something is false doesn't mean it won't become the narrative. Coaches get unfair narratives all the time.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Im not bringing up the Atl years. And Lebron isn't the GOAT.

[tmwiese55]

Im not bringing up the Atl years. And Lebron isn't the GOAT.

 

I didn't say you were, but many do to tie it into what you're getting at. So, take away that Bud supposed negative and you're essentially talking about firing a guy for losing an ECF in a 50/50 series that could've gone either way. That is massively jumping to conclusions, small sample, etc and not how things are done.

 

Whatever, rephrase to one of the two best players ever so it's not debatable. Him or MJ argument can go either way

[DuWayne Steurer]

Im not talking about firing Bud after one 50/50 series. Im saying the hypothetical of him/the Bucks not making it after 3 straight years (if they dont) raises a legitimate question, even if they win 60 games per.

 

As I said, I think they're in this year and it becomes moot.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Im not talking about firing Bud after one 50/50 series. Im saying the hypothetical of him/the Bucks not making it after 3 straight years (if they dont) raises a legitimate question, even if they win 60 games per.

 

As I said, I think they're in this year and it becomes moot.

 

This is all I've been saying and that it just not a linear comparison with other teams who've been good for 3-5 seasons without a title. It's not that simple. There is a very clear championship expectation here with Giannis and the team as constructed. It is not like there are 5 teams in the East all at about the same level. It's not like a team where the best player is Blake Griffin, there is a heightened expectation and lack of patience when you're doing it with LeBron/Giannis/Kobe.

 

So the notion that Bud could win 55+ games for 3-4 years and get fired is not as absurd as it looks on its face.

[tmwiese55]

Yes, after 3-4 years it becomes a discussion. You're trying to have it now, after 1 year. I guess I just don't see the reason to be so negative and pessimistic. But yea it's a message board and we're here to speculate.

 

Also, Clippers had CP3 as their best player, clear top 3-5 in the league along with a clear top 10 in Blake. And multiple other borderlines all stars on the team. But, what the Clippers situation shows is that after 4-5 years of not getting over the hump, that teams do shake things up and make some moves, players do too. That will be the first step here if they don't win this year, who messed up in the playoffs and how can we improve the team to make it better so they can win. Obvious example, if Bledsoe clams up again well maybe a shakeup is then needed. As I've been saying, they are not clear cut above everyone else and talent ultimately is the biggest reason for winning the title. They'e going to be dogs to LA due to talent. First step would be what can they do to get more talent for the end of the playoffs.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Yes, after 3-4 years it becomes a discussion. You're trying to have it now, after 1 year. I guess I just don't see the reason to be so negative and pessimistic.

 

Also, Clippers had CP3 as their best player, clear top 3-5 in the league along with a clear top 10 in Blake. And multiple other borderlines all stars on the team. But, what the Clippers situation shows is that after 4-5 years of not getting over the hump, that teams do shake things up and make some moves, players do too. That will be the first step here if they don't win this year, who messed up in the playoffs and how can we improve the team to make it better so they can win. Obvious example, if Bledsoe clams up again well maybe a shakeup is then needed. As I've been saying, they are not clear cut above everyone else and talent ultimately is the biggest reason for winning the title. They'e going to be dogs to LA due to talent. First step would be what can they do to get more talent for the end of the playoffs.

 

I feel like this has been said about 10 times now, but nobody, including me, was suggesting Bud would be fired after this season. That discussion is 100% going to start making the rounds a lot more often though, if they do not win the East this year. And I believe it would be red-hot after 3 years if Bud was not tied to Giannis returning.

 

It also was not negative or pessimistic. It was merely an observation that the Bucks are in a unique position. They transformed overnight from blah to contender, but because of the situation they're in with Giannis, there is potentially a lot less patience to win big than there otherwise would be. It's a perfect storm of things that might make the coach's job less safe than it looks at face value.

 

Like we have both said though, we both think it is moot because they will win the conference this year. I don't think they will even be tested in the East and would be fairly surprised if anyone takes them to 6. I think they are that much better and have not even had their foot on the gas this year.

[tmwiese55]

That's fair. I'll try phrase better. What I'm getting is that what we're discussing now should be being discussed after like 3-4 years (or I suppose if they lose before Finals this year is fine) when that happens and that at that point saying he's a couple years away from being fired. At that point it should be like man if he doesn't do something more next year or two we should probably shake it up. Not discuss now with the idea of firing in a couple years. I'm basically saying we're like two years ahead of ourselves in this discussion. Folks are generally way too quick to just want to fire everyone.

 

Only about 16 months ago this team was a .500 team before he came in and changed them to what we are now, but he didn't win a title in the first year and we're already talking about how if he doesn't soon he's gotta get fired. IMO that's a very negative and pessimistic way to look at things, basically immediately going to worst case instead of enjoying the positive you have going on now. But like I said, it's a message board for speculation. And like we've said in other threads us WI sports fans have been beaten down into expecting painful defeats at that point and then the general skepticism that comes with it.