Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25
You can argue the Bucks haven't had two young players this good to build around since the days of Sidney Moncrief and Marques Johnson.
DocHoliday wrote:Bucks snubbed in power ranks
Youth movement has Milwaukee well-positioned to outperform No. 24 rankingEarlier this week, we published the latest version of the NBA Future Power Rankings, ESPN Insider's projection of on-court success for each team over the next three seasons. In large part, I agree with the projections and rankings. However, in identifying a team that I thought was "snubbed" and should have been rated higher, the answer for me was an easy one: the Milwaukee Bucks, ranked 24th.
Not only do I believe things will turn around in Milwaukee, but I think it'll happen much sooner than our esteemed rankings panel seems to believe. Here's a look at why the Bucks are poised to rise above their rank.
Moving on from mediocrity
The Bucks' developing roster is by far my biggest reason for optimism for the franchise. For too many years, even decades, the Bucks have unsuccessfully straddled the fence between rebuilding and moving into true contention. The end result has been an endless string of non-descript teams and players. The last really successful Bucks team was the 2000-01 version coached by George Karl, which won 52 games and reached the Eastern Conference finals, albeit in a circuit that lacked elite teams. That team was led by fifth-year guard Ray Allen, a draft night acquisition in 1996 after being selected fifth by Minnesota. Allen was joined by Glenn Robinson, taken first overall by the Bucks in 1994, and Sam Cassell, acquired in a dizzying 10-player trade in 1999. The trio gave the Bucks their offensive foundation, and Karl filled out the rotation with shooting and defense as he's done so well through his career. It was a short-lived peak, as the Bucks slipped right back into the cycle of mediocrity that's marked the franchise since Don Nelson left in 1987. Until last year, when Milwaukee finally hit bottom.
There has long been a perception that the Bucks were not allowed to truly tear down by their former owner, Senator Herb Kohl, who feared he'd alienate a fan base that was shrinking annually anyway. The result was a lot of middling first-round picks who kept Milwaukee from drafting the star player it needed but would never be able to sign in free agency. It's not an entirely accurate assessment. Milwaukee drafted first overall in 2005 and landed Utah center Andrew Bogut. At the time, Bogut wasn't a universally revered top pick, but he was a plausible choice, and he was emerging as an All-Star player before being injured and eventually shipped to Golden State. Some thought the Bucks should have taken Marvin Williams. With a decade of hindsight, we know they should have taken Chris Paul or Deron Williams. The Bucks also missed in 2007 at No. 6, when they took Yi Jianlian with Joakim Noah on the board, and in 2008, when at No. 8 they took Joe Alexander instead of Brook Lopez or Roy Hibbert.
These picks are easy to critique after the fact, and other than 2005, they weren't going to be franchise-makers anyway. The Bucks have actually drafted well given their usual double-digit draft slot, recently getting Brandon Jennings at No. 10, Larry Sanders at No. 15 and John Henson at No. 14. However, the Bucks may have finally hit the jackpot in 2013 when they landed Giannis Antetokounmpo at No. 15. Antetokounmpo wasn't expected to see much court time as a supremely talented and supremely raw rookie, but he got 1,897 minutes and mostly held his own, while flashing brilliant teases of the player he may become. This summer, he's looked like a good candidate to become this season's most improved player. By his third year, if the progress continues, Antetokounmpo could emerge as the foundation player the Bucks have lacked since Allen was in his prime.
Youth movement
Antetokounmpo's arrival coincided with the first real rock-bottom season Milwaukee has had in 20 years. The Bucks' 67 losses established a franchise nadir, worsting the 1993-94 squad that put them into position to draft Robinson. That was a missed pick as well, of course. With the 20-20 vision of retrospect, we now know Milwaukee should have taken Jason Kidd in 1994. Well, he's there now and he'll be coaching Antetokounmpo and Jabari Parker, the No. 2 pick of June's loaded draft. If Antetokounmpo doesn't emerge as a true, No. 1 type of superstar, Parker may well fit the bill. He's skilled, talented and should eventually develop into a top-10 scorer. Even better, he actually wants to be in Milwaukee and is a perfect complement to the length and defensive potential of Antetokounmpo and Sanders. And while the future rankings are only considering the next three seasons, when you realize that most franchise players declare themselves as such by their third or fourth season, the latter part of that range might well coincide with Milwaukee's climb up the ladder.
You can argue the Bucks haven't had two young players this good to build around since the days of Sidney Moncrief and Marques Johnson. Assuming Kidd adopts an up-tempo, high-pressure-defense style of play, Milwaukee should become one of the more fun teams to watch as soon as this season. They won't be good, but that's fine since Antetokounmpo, Parker, Sanders, Henson and Brandon Knight will be joined by another high lottery pick next year. A point guard with size and combo guard skills would be a great choice to pair with Knight and fill out the lineup and, lo and behold, there is just such a player available in Emmanuel Mudiay.
Front-office outlook, market momentum
I feel good about Milwaukee's management team of John Hammond and David Morway now that the new ownership group is in place, and it seems to have a good grasp of what a rebuilding process entails. This of course assumes that Kidd keeps his focus on the sideline, and not on the inner workings of the front office. The Bucks have all their own first-round picks, some extra second-rounders and a possible extra future first-rounder by virtue of this summer's Jared Dudley trade. There are some less-than-enthralling veteran deals on the books as a residual from the Kohl era, but those are finished after next season, and there is plenty of flexibility to come under the rising salary cap.
Milwaukee was ranked as the worst market by our panel, but I'm not buying it. There are smaller markets in the league, and there are definitely worse cities. Just in terms of urban design, walkability and public transportation -- and both the BMO Bradley Center and the likely spot of a new arena are in downtown Milwaukee -- the city is more appealing than a number of sprawled-out southern markets. And there are few sports fans as rabid as the ones in Wisconsin, and few whose leisure time is as dominated by rooting for their teams. That fan base has ebbed for the Bucks after decades of boring teams, but just as they have for the Brewers, a good Bucks team will have a distinct home-court advantage when the time comes. The aforementioned 2000-01 team ranked 13th in attendance, right at the NBA average. And even if none of these things were true, recent history in the NBA has shown us that a team's market is but a small factor in determining its on-court success.As a result, I think the Bucks' No. 24 slot in the Future Power Ranks -- which, remember, is a three-year look -- is far too low. Inserting them in at No. 12, after Toronto and in front of Phoenix, would be a better rank in my book.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/ ... -ranks-nba
BobbyLight wrote:I read the first post of this thread, thinking I missed something and saw the Bucks ranked at 26. I was all like "wtf?" and then saw it was from 2014.
That said, what's weird to me is that the top ten looks like it's going to be the teams that are great as of now, like they are assuming great teams just continue to be great. I know some do, but surely 4 or 5 times they have ranked in the top ten will not even be playoff teams in three years. Look at the Blazers after ONE year of roster turnover.
These kind of rankings are all fun and games and all, I'm not going to lose sleep over them. But I'd have the Bucks, Pelicans and Wolves in the top ten, personally.
Like, how are the Bulls in the top ten? Gasol will be done in three years, Noah won't be super effective, Derrick Rose is a shell of his former self and it's not like I can point to any of their young players and see a future superstar. Jimmy Butler is very good, maybe he is that superstar, but how many GM's would take the Bulls roster over the Bucks, Pelicans or Wolves? I'd bet zero.
buckboy wrote:Boston?
Hahah......no.
emunney wrote:1 is the Ws and 3 is the Cavs, which means 2, 4, 5 is some arrangement of Chicago, Houston, and SA.
MadBlueEdwards wrote:buckboy wrote:Boston?
Hahah......no.
Yeah, I hate Boston's roster, but that's not what's helping them out in these rankings anyway. They have money to spend, a big market city, a giant pile of draft picks, and what looks to be a solid young coach. I bet their team will look a lot different in two years.
EastSideBucksFan wrote:At some point this board is going to have to drop their stupid bullsht agendas and just enjoy the team for once.
drew881 wrote:The Wizards boner I don't quite get. I get the ESPN Boston boner.
Prince12 wrote:drew881 wrote:The Wizards boner I don't quite get. I get the ESPN Boston boner.
Assuming they get Durant? im not sure but the thunder are still top ten so who knows.
Aaron It Out wrote:His first big knock against Milwaukee is that we are a small-market. Give me a break. We have billionaire owners and the last 2 finals included San Antonio, Golden State, and Cleveland.
