Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Counterpoint RE: Hammonds

I don't really understand what is going on with the Bucks. Granted, I haven't truly cared about any of this since about 2002, but the landscape of the NBA confuses the shit out of me. Let's retrace this thing back a few years:

1) We give someone named Bobby Simmons a crapload of money.

2) He immediately gets hurt and plays like 4 games for us in 2 years.

3) Due to the money spent on Simmons, the resulting injury and other injuries, we crap out and get a top 5 pick.

4) We spend the pick on Yi even though he made it clear he didn't want to come here, and the Bucks knew nothing about him other than he could work the shit out of a folding chair in workout tapes.

5) We completely give up on Yi after one year, and trade he and Bobby to the Nets for Richard Jefferson.

6) Everyone gets hurt again, and we decide that losing money like every other team isn't worth it any more, so we trade Jefferson for three corpses.

7) Next year we may have like $1 billion in cap room.

So where are we going from here? Is there anyone on our team that is good enough to be the best player on an NBA team? I would argue no.

For the record, I completely agree with Bear on Sessions and Villanueva. Sessions cieling is Redd (who we already have on our team). Villa has already hit his ceiling, and will totally stop caring again next year. But for them to decide to gut the entire team and to rely on draft picks is both exhausting and near impossible.

I can't recall any team that was able to pull this off unless you count Orlando in the mid-90's, and that was only because they lucked out and got Shaq and Penny in the draft (and could've had Webber instead of Penny too). Oklahoma City and Portland appear to be close to making some noise based on similar roster moves, but they may never get there. Teams like the Clips and Grizzlies have been trying to do this for years and have failed miserably.

So what do we do? The obvious answer is to hire the Sports Guy as GM. He seems to know everything about the NBA. I'm clearly not smart enough to figure out all the cap ramifications. And I'm not that good at evaluating NBA talent. But it seems to me that if you get rid of everyone for expiring contracts, you better have someone that resembles an NBA player to replace them. And right now, I don't think the Bucks do. And LeBron, D-Wade and Melo aren't stepping foot in Milwaukee no matter what. Bombing out for the next three years guaranteed and hoping for high picks is stupid. You need to mix the draft with veterans, although hovering around the 8 seed every year isn't going to get it done. You need to pick your spots to bomb (like the Spurs did when they got Duncan), and load up on good vets when you can to make a run or two.

Actually, I think old man Kohl should sell the team to someone who wants to spend money. I'm not saying Herb doesn't because lord knows he has lost enough on the team. But realistically, if the Bucks don't get out of the semi-shithole that is the Bradley Center pretty soon. They may not be in Milwaukee long. Which wouldn't bother me that much other than I like the idea of a team in Milwaukee.

I'm not sure what my point is other than the trade doesn't make me like the Bucks any more, I'll tell you that much.

3 comments:

Bear said...

You do know that Hammond wasn't the GM that created this mess right? It was Larry Harris, so between point 4 and 5, we switched GMs.

The statement of the fact that the Bucks will have 40 million coming off the books in the next two years implies that they would spend that cash on veteran players, not keep bombing out and hoping they got lucky in the draft, my idea is that while we are gutting the team for these next two years, we will bomb and hopefully stay in the top 3, after that you need to have something close to a winner constructed and add role players and vets where neccesary.

If the Bucks move, where are they going to? Name a city, no one else wants an NBA team or has the fan base to support it either. Well except maybe Vegas, but I don't think that would ever be allowed...

Juicelaw said...

Kansas City? They just built a new arena trying to get a hockey or basketball team.

Seattle? They supported one forever only to be raped by thier owner.

Bear said...

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/10650757

KC doesn't give a shit about the NBA.

Seattle lost its team, yes in part because of a shitty owner, but also in part because the city wanted nothing to do with building a new arena, gee that sounds familiar doesn't it? Why would someone buy the Bucks and move them into the same situation they have now in Milwaukee?