I'm willing to go into next season with Sessions

[El Duderino]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yup. This would be the ideal time to trade for him. In my opinion, he's too talented for this season to be the start of a downward slide. And he's only 27 so it's not like he's some old vet on his last legs.

I'm not a huge Hinrich fan, but to get him we'd obviously have to send a player making money back to the Bulls and there is nobody on the Bucks roster who makes good money that i want to stay on the team.

The problem i see is if i'm Chicago, i'd want no part of Redd, Mo, or Simmons in trading Hinrich.

[Nebula1]

Basically we're talking about an insurance plan since Ramon has ONLY 17 games under his belt. I don't think it's wise to spend alot of money on the insurance plan or use a draft pick. There are veterans out there who can get it down.

[EastSideBucksFan]

If Skiles is hired I wonder if he will bring Chris Duhon with him. I don't remember if they got along or not. Duhon isn't perfect but I think we would be alright with Duhon/Sessions at PG and then Bell as our 3rd PG.

That would give us three defenders in the backcourt.

Not too bad.

Plus Mason can guard some two's and theres some options to play some solid D with those guys. As long as Sessions makes some developments in that area, but I think with less minutes next year and better conditioning this summer I think he's got some potential to be a good defender.

You could then use Mo as trade bait without having to get a PG back. You could look to bringing in a SF or PF. Mo/CV and or #1, shop it around and see what we could get. I'd rather get a PF since I think it would be easier to sign a SF if we wanted to. Guys like Quinton Ross or Maurice Evans come to mind as good, athletic defenders who won't be too expensive this summer.

It will be interesting how it all pans out. I'm very curious to see what Hammond has up his sleeve.

[steger_3434]

If Skiles is hired I wonder if he will bring Chris Duhon with him. I don't remember if they got along or not. Duhon isn't perfect but I think we would be alright with Duhon/Sessions at PG and then Bell as our 3rd PG.

That would give us three defenders in the backcourt.

Not too bad.

Plus Mason can guard some two's and theres some options to play some solid D with those guys. As long as Sessions makes some developments in that area, but I think with less minutes next year and better conditioning this summer I think he's got some potential to be a good defender.

You could then use Mo as trade bait without having to get a PG back. You could look to bringing in a SF or PF. Mo/CV and or #1, shop it around and see what we could get. I'd rather get a PF since I think it would be easier to sign a SF if we wanted to. Guys like Quinton Ross or Maurice Evans come to mind as good, athletic defenders who won't be too expensive this summer.

It will be interesting how it all pans out. I'm very curious to see what Hammond has up his sleeve.

To me this is a LH move. Duhon torched us in the last game against the Bulls. LH philosophy is to grab this guy pronto. No thanks.

[europa]

-= original quote snipped =-



I'm not a huge Hinrich fan, but to get him we'd obviously have to send a player making money back to the Bulls and there is nobody on the Bucks roster who makes good money that i want to stay on the team.

The problem i see is if i'm Chicago, i'd want no part of Redd, Mo, or Simmons in trading Hinrich.

I agree. I think the Bucks and Bulls make terrible trade partners. And that sucks because I think Hinrich is a Hammond-type of player.

[ReasonablySober]

-= original quote snipped =-



You need to keep in mind I didnt say Mo wouldnt be an effective player/scorer on a good team I just dont think he will ever be an effective POINT GUARD on a good team.

Calm down,you Mo guys are experencing some serious PMS latley (post Mo syndrome).

With that said I wouldnt want Mo on my team period because of his ego and bad attitude.


Love the name calling btw,it does wonders for your credibility and the point you are trying to make.

Now we're just arguing semantics.

Mo Williams, like I've said numerous times, would best be suited on a team in which he doesn't have to be the primary playmaker in a halfcourt set. He's not Steve Nash or Chris Paul or Deron Williams. He doesn't have the innate ability to dissect a defense and move players around like chess pieces and control everything. He's run plays that have resulted in Bogut getting easy dunks and layups. Hell, I think he has one or two of those every night. But he no, he's not that 'true point guard' that everyone wants.

However, there are plenty of good teams without a Steve Nash or Paul or Williams type PG. Most have an off guard that can break a defense down and create for others (Kobe, LeBron, T-Mac, Roy, Iverson, Pierce) or a dominant bigman that absolutely demands the ball (Garnett, Duncan, Howard, Bosh, Nowitzski, Ming).

The Bucks don't have either. It really is simple as that.

So when I read something like "Mo Williams will never be a starting PG on a playoff team", I hope people realize how stupid that sounds.

It should be obvious to anyone alive that the Bucks not only didn't have the talent to be a playoff team, but apparently they didn't have the coaching as well. Then you look at the record without Mo. If he was as bad as others have said, wouldn't the Bucks record improve without him, the same way Washington's did when Arenas went down? Or the way Philly got better without Iverson last season? The Bucks winning percentage has gotten noticeably worse.

Same with the defense. If he's the main reason the Bucks defense is so terrible, how is it possible that the Bucks are giving up more points on higher percentages when he isn't in the lineup?

[Nebula1]

Mo would probably be better for the Magic than Nelson is.

[xTitan]

Now we're just arguing semantics.

Mo Williams, like I've said numerous times, would best be suited on a team in which he doesn't have to be the primary playmaker in a halfcourt set. He's not Steve Nash or Chris Paul or Deron Williams. He doesn't have the innate ability to dissect a defense and move players around like chess pieces and control everything. He's run plays that have resulted in Bogut getting easy dunks and layups. Hell, I think he has one or two of those every night. But he no, he's not that 'true point guard' that everyone wants.

However, there are plenty of good teams without a Steve Nash or Paul or Williams type PG. Most have an off guard that can break a defense down and create for others (Kobe, LeBron, T-Mac, Roy, Iverson, Pierce) or a dominant bigman that absolutely demands the ball (Garnett, Duncan, Howard, Bosh, Nowitzski, Ming).

The Bucks don't have either. It really is simple as that.

So when I read something like "Mo Williams will never be a starting PG on a playoff team", I hope people realize how stupid that sounds.

It should be obvious to anyone alive that the Bucks not only didn't have the talent to be a playoff team, but apparently they didn't have the coaching as well. Then you look at the record without Mo. If he was as bad as others have said, wouldn't the Bucks record improve without him, the same way Washington's did when Arenas went down? Or the way Philly got better without Iverson last season? The Bucks winning percentage has gotten noticeably worse.

Same with the defense. If he's the main reason the Bucks defense is so terrible, how is it possible that the Bucks are giving up more points on higher percentages when he isn't in the lineup?

I find this post to be quite humorous, you start out talking about arguing sementics and then you fall right into the same trap. When most of us use the term point we refer to the player that runs your offense, whenter it be point guard or point forward. You make one very obvious point to start out and that is Mo Williams is not a primary playmaker which is 100% correct, most of us consider the POINT GUARD to be the primary playmaker, thats why Williams will never be a starting PG on a playoff team. If Williams is on Cleveland he would only be considered a PG by name because you have to put a label on him, in reality he would be a shooting guard because the team is run by James...you are the one arguing semantics....how about this, Mo Williams will never be the main playmaker on a playoff team.....we will make that very easy.


Your other arguement about having a bad record when Williams is out also is a huge stretch, the record was bad with Redd out and I don't believe the Bucks won a game with Bogut out.....this is because the team overall is not good, I thought the Bucks played better team basketball without Williams, everyone seemed to share on offense. I will also agree that Mo Williams is NOT the sole reason there defense sucks, he is definitely part of the problem but not the only reason, that is for sure. He does have a low basketball IQ and is a complete douche, but perhaps he just wanted the most money he could get and wants out of Milwaukee, just not going about it the classy way.

[ReasonablySober]

I find this post to be quite humorous, you start out talking about arguing sementics and then you fall right into the same trap. When most of us use the term point we refer to the player that runs your offense, whenter it be point guard or point forward. You make one very obvious point to start out and that is Mo Williams is not a primary playmaker which is 100% correct, most of us consider the POINT GUARD to be the primary playmaker, thats why Williams will never be a starting PG on a playoff team. If Williams is on Cleveland he would only be considered a PG by name because you have to put a label on him, in reality he would be a shooting guard because the team is run by James...you are the one arguing semantics....how about this, Mo Williams will never be the main playmaker on a playoff team.....we will make that very easy.


Your other arguement about having a bad record when Williams is out also is a huge stretch, the record was bad with Redd out and I don't believe the Bucks won a game with Bogut out.....this is because the team overall is not good, I thought the Bucks played better team basketball without Williams, everyone seemed to share on offense. I will also agree that Mo Williams is NOT the sole reason there defense sucks, he is definitely part of the problem but not the only reason, that is for sure. He does have a low basketball IQ and is a complete douche, but perhaps he just wanted the most money he could get and wants out of Milwaukee, just not going about it the classy way.

There. I'd completely agree with that. But if that's what we're using as the criteria here, then you might as well expand that to the rest of the roster. Redd did it for one season but has come up well short lately. Bogut's a 3rd option on a playoff team.

But I've never once thought Williams would be the main playmaker on a playoff team. But he could certainly play point guard for a lot of playoff teams.

[crkone]

Williams could play point guard for a few playoff teams; Cavs, Celts(?), Lakers, Magic, Rockets, Wizards. Some may not agree to all of those but he is at least on even ground with most of them, besides his defense.

I would like to go into next season with the best PG available for the scheme the new HC will employ.