SI Article on the Bucks' Struggles

[smauss]

-= original quote snipped =-



I think Press might have been the only other person who was on my side with that trade. Maybe a couple of other people were too but I don't recall many others. I like Yi's potential but if that trade was available right now I'd still make it. I think a lot of people in this forum really under-estimated just how good Al Horford is going to be and what a significant impact he could make for the Milwaukee Bucks alongside Bogut.

As far as this story, the basic foundation of it suggests the Bucks have accumulated "talent" but haven't put together a team. That sure sounds familiar.

I know I'm a forgetable type but Gee europa, I thought your memory was better than that!

EDIT: btw, it was CV + 6th for the 3rd.....

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-



I know I'm a forgetable type but Gee europa, I thought your memory was better than that!

Well it was quite awhile ago. Seriously, I'm sorry I forgot to add you. Honestly, though, when you get blitzed like I did for saying how much I liked that trade proposal you tend to remember the people who hammer you more than the ones who agreed with you.

[smauss]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well it was quite awhile ago. Seriously, I'm sorry I forgot to add you. Honestly, though, when you get blitzed like I did for saying how much I liked that trade proposal you tend to remember the people who hammer you more than the ones who agreed with you.

Hey, no problem. I'm not a front line kind of poster anyway. What do you think about my questioning the BPA philosophy in the draft, neglecting coaching and style of play?

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-



Hey, no problem. I'm not a front line kind of poster anyway. What do you think about my questioning the BPA philosophy in the draft, neglecting coaching and style of play?

I believe firmly in taking BPA no matter what. If the Bucks, for example, make the lottery and a center is the best player on the board I think you take him. If two players are close, you go for need or the one who best fits the type of team you're trying to build. I don't think you should neglect coaching or style of play but I think it's a huge mistake to pass on quality players and reach for need.

[smauss]

-= original quote snipped =-



I believe firmly in taking BPA no matter what. If the Bucks, for example, make the lottery and a center is the best player on the board I think you take him. If two players are close, you go for need or the one who best fits the type of team you're trying to build. I don't think you should neglect coaching or style of play but I think it's a huge mistake to pass on quality players and reach for need.

I don't disagree if you simply look for need but I think to look simply at the best athlete; not considering coach and style of play is just as foolish. As a matter of fact, I believe that BPA that you select will not perform even close to his best if put on a team that's style and coaching philosophy doesn't match. I think there needs to be a better balance in consideration. Players are people not spare parts that a GM uses in the attempt to upgrade or "trick-out" like one does a car. I think our drafting mentality has broken down to individual data to the point of neglecting all else.

I also understand the "acquiring assets" mentality but if you place a young player on a team that doesn't suite them at all, he won't put up numbers and won't look very good and his value will suffer.

I say all that to say that I believe there needs to be better balance in weighing what player to select. In your scenario europa, if the BPA is a center and would fit in well with our coaching philosophy and style I would certainly select him all other potential circumstances aside. That is why, IMHO, there needs to be an overall blueprint or framework for an organization in which to rate or prioritize players.

[europa]

It's not about acquiring assets. It's about not passing on quality talent. Now often, the talent isn't all that much different between 2 or 3 players so that's when you factor in the other issues such as coaching, style of play and so forth. But if you have one player who is clearly without question better than anybody else you take him - even if you already have a star at that position or even if he doesn't fit your coach or your style of play. I think the worst thing you can do is take lesser talent and shortchange your team's potential for improvement. At the very least, if you take the superior player you open up your trade possibilities for down the road which is another way to improve your team.

[smauss]

It's not about acquiring assets. It's about not passing on quality talent. Now often, the talent isn't all that much different between 2 or 3 players so that's when you factor in the other issues such as coaching, style of play and so forth. But if you have one player who is clearly without question better than anybody else you take him - even if you already have a star at that position or even if he doesn't fit your coach or your style of play. I think the worst thing you can do is take lesser talent and shortchange your team's potential for improvement. At the very least, if you take the superior player you open up your trade possibilities for down the road which is another way to improve your team.

Again, I don't disagree but I believe that this situation happens much less frequently than most think......

[bango_the_buck]

-= original quote snipped =-



Well it was quite awhile ago. Seriously, I'm sorry I forgot to add you. Honestly, though, when you get blitzed like I did for saying how much I liked that trade proposal you tend to remember the people who hammer you more than the ones who agreed with you.

Yeah, that was me doing most of the blitzing. You and I waged a holy war over that trade proposal (it was definitely 6 + CV for 3).

I'm a firm believer in drafting BPA as well. That's why I was so against that trade (even though I really wanted Horford and thought he was more of what we needed). Teams really do their homework and try their best to know a player inside and out, but its still a crap shoot. You never really know who is going to blossom and who is going to bust (whether it be injuries or what have you). The player you get at 6 (Yi) could very well end up being better than the one you get at 3 (Horford).

The example I always think of is the Hershel Walker trade. Minnesota thought he was their Savior and gave up the farm to get him. He ends up having a mediocre career and Dallas ends up with a dynasty...