Bucks News, Transactions and Trade Ideas - 2025 Off-season

[BigO]

For 2 & a half yrs here Bobby was junk. He reverted back to what he was before for the last couple months. Then in the playoffs posted a mediocre ts% of 51 & defensively he's terrible in rotation. We'd also be paying him into his mid 30's. Have to stop doing that w/ players.

The upgrade would be substantial now, let alone later. We need to get better in the starting lineup at big more than wing. Though we need to do that in a lot of places, including wing. It's a pickle. Might be a moot point, if we're in win now, are compelled to back into retaining Bobby.

Another BS hit piece on BP that I once again will not let go unanswered.

You say BP was junk for 2.5 years. Here's what he did his first three years:

1) 52.3% shooting, 47.7% on threes, 7.1 rebounds

2) 47.9%-39.3%-9.1 rebounds

3) 49.6%- 37%-9.6 rebounds and was critical in the championship game.

Here's the predictable response: But, but, but he was awful defensively and Bud wouldn't play him against the Nets because he was so bad.

More BS.

He wasn't awful defensively and the narrative is just junk.

As for the Nets series, he didn't play particularly well in the few minutes he was allowed on the court, but that was a series where Bud was totally outcoached by a first year coach and almost lost to a depleted Nets team. So his substitution patterns are not to be respected.

BP is not a great player, but have some objectivity. He wasn't junk his first 2.5 years here and saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

I like some of your takes, but the BP stuff is out of whack.

[RogerMurdock]

From everything I have read, it's extremely unlikely the Bucks receive a DPE for Lillard. He needs to be ruled out through June 15, 2026 by a NBA-appointed doctor.

They have:

$14.1M NTMLE
$5.1M BAE
$7.2M TPE (Midds trade)

And no more JAE

[emunney]

For 2 & a half yrs here Bobby was junk. He reverted back to what he was before for the last couple months. Then in the playoffs posted a mediocre ts% of 51 & defensively he's terrible in rotation. We'd also be paying him into his mid 30's. Have to stop doing that w/ players.

The upgrade would be substantial now, let alone later. We need to get better in the starting lineup at big more than wing. Though we need to do that in a lot of places, including wing. It's a pickle. Might be a moot point, if we're in win now, are compelled to back into retaining Bobby.

Another BS hit piece on BP that I once again will not let go unanswered.

You say BP was junk for 2.5 years. Here's what he did his first three years:

1) 52.3% shooting, 47.7% on threes, 7.1 rebounds

2) 47.9%-39.3%-9.1 rebounds

3) 49.6%- 37%-9.6 rebounds and was critical in the championship game.

Here's the predictable response: But, but, but he was awful defensively and Bud wouldn't play him against the Nets because he was so bad.

More BS.

He wasn't awful defensively and the narrative is just junk.

As for the Nets series, he didn't play particularly well in the few minutes he was allowed on the court, but that was a series where Bud was totally outcoached by a first year coach and almost lost to a depleted Nets team. So his substitution patterns are not to be respected.

BP is not a great player, but have some objectivity. He wasn't junk his first 2.5 years here and saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

I like some of your takes, but the BP stuff is out of whack.

Bud's insistence on playing the drop with Brook on screens set for Durant 35+ feet from the rim very nearly cost us that series and made a great player in Durant look like a living god.

To tie it back to our other discussion on Doc's stubbornness, this is the kind of thing I was talking about -- his stubbornness is a trait shared by all professional coaches, and, relative to that baseline, Doc's willingness to totally change the rotation mid-series was unusually flexible. Which is not to say it wasn't far too late, and also not to say, by reasonable person standards, that he is not stubborn.

[KidA24]

For 2 & a half yrs here Bobby was junk. He reverted back to what he was before for the last couple months. Then in the playoffs posted a mediocre ts% of 51 & defensively he's terrible in rotation. We'd also be paying him into his mid 30's. Have to stop doing that w/ players.

The upgrade would be substantial now, let alone later. We need to get better in the starting lineup at big more than wing. Though we need to do that in a lot of places, including wing. It's a pickle. Might be a moot point, if we're in win now, are compelled to back into retaining Bobby.

Another BS hit piece on BP that I once again will not let go unanswered.

You say BP was junk for 2.5 years. Here's what he did his first three years:

1) 52.3% shooting, 47.7% on threes, 7.1 rebounds

2) 47.9%-39.3%-9.1 rebounds

3) 49.6%- 37%-9.6 rebounds and was critical in the championship game.

Here's the predictable response: But, but, but he was awful defensively and Bud wouldn't play him against the Nets because he was so bad.

More BS.

He wasn't awful defensively and the narrative is just junk.

As for the Nets series, he didn't play particularly well in the few minutes he was allowed on the court, but that was a series where Bud was totally outcoached by a first year coach and almost lost to a depleted Nets team. So his substitution patterns are not to be respected.

BP is not a great player, but have some objectivity. He wasn't junk his first 2.5 years here and saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

I like some of your takes, but the BP stuff is out of whack.

Bud's insistence on playing the drop with Brook on screens set for Durant 35+ feet from the rim very nearly cost us that series and made a great player in Durant look like a living god.

To tie it back to our other discussion on Doc's stubbornness, this is the kind of thing I was talking about -- his stubbornness is a trait shared by all professional coaches, and, relative to that baseline, Doc's willingness to totally change the rotation mid-series was unusually flexible. Which is not to say it wasn't far too late, and also not to say, by reasonable person standards, that he is not stubborn.

I'd argue the bigger problem that series was the utter refusal to play Harden off the court by attacking him every single time down.

The refusal by Giannis and Jrue especially to put him in actions was inexplicable.

[smauss]

For 2 & a half yrs here Bobby was junk. He reverted back to what he was before for the last couple months. Then in the playoffs posted a mediocre ts% of 51 & defensively he's terrible in rotation. We'd also be paying him into his mid 30's. Have to stop doing that w/ players.

The upgrade would be substantial now, let alone later. We need to get better in the starting lineup at big more than wing. Though we need to do that in a lot of places, including wing. It's a pickle. Might be a moot point, if we're in win now, are compelled to back into retaining Bobby.

Another BS hit piece on BP that I once again will not let go unanswered.

You say BP was junk for 2.5 years. Here's what he did his first three years:

1) 52.3% shooting, 47.7% on threes, 7.1 rebounds

2) 47.9%-39.3%-9.1 rebounds

3) 49.6%- 37%-9.6 rebounds and was critical in the championship game.

Here's the predictable response: But, but, but he was awful defensively and Bud wouldn't play him against the Nets because he was so bad.

More BS.

He wasn't awful defensively and the narrative is just junk.

As for the Nets series, he didn't play particularly well in the few minutes he was allowed on the court, but that was a series where Bud was totally outcoached by a first year coach and almost lost to a depleted Nets team. So his substitution patterns are not to be respected.

BP is not a great player, but have some objectivity. He wasn't junk his first 2.5 years here and saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

I like some of your takes, but the BP stuff is out of whack.

Bud's insistence on playing the drop with Brook on screens set for Durant 35+ feet from the rim very nearly cost us that series and made a great player in Durant look like a living god.

To tie it back to our other discussion on Doc's stubbornness, this is the kind of thing I was talking about -- his stubbornness is a trait shared by all professional coaches, and, relative to that baseline, Doc's willingness to totally change the rotation mid-series was unusually flexible. Which is not to say it wasn't far too late, and also not to say, by reasonable person standards, that he is not stubborn.

Haha, after reading your answer on Doc's "stubbornness" I chuckled as you appear to be a "positive maybe" , but I get it. Good coaches have to fight the temptation to make changes to quickly before giving it a chance or waiting too long out of pride refusing to change that which is obviously not working. It can be a fine line. I would consider Doc more on the stubborn side of things, especially after watching him playing old tired vets rather than giving the younger guys a go. BTW, I was not happy with the Doc hire from the getgo - and I'm a MU guy!

[Bernman]

Vecenie called it embarrassing that took so long to change the lineup. It was 30 games or so going back to the regular season. And it was a harebrained idea nobody would have had in the 1st place. He gets no credit for changing after we were almost out.

Reportedly an assistant on the Bucks complains Doc doesn't put the time in & regularly cancels meetings. Another that he doesn't listen to his assistants. So the guy's beyond a joke and you can't put anything on assistants. If a couple of them (not Ham) were at the helm, it'd be far different.

[BigO]

In regard to rigidity in coaches, here's my best analogy:

I used to play a lot of chess. I wasn't great, but not bad.

There were people I played who I knew I could beat if I got them into relying on certain pieces. They were great using their Queen and rooks (for example), but if i got them into situations relying on their knights or bishops, they could be had petty easily.

Bud and Doc are like that, although in different ways.

What they have in common is that they feel much more comfortable using certain schemes and going against certain schemes and using certain personnel groups.

I want a coach who has no set dogma and is knowledgable about coaching and using a vast array of schemes and personnel. It's what makes Spoelstra stand out.

In college, you used to have guys like the Bennetts or to a lesser degree Bo Ryan, who had a specific way of doing things. With the advent of the shot clock and the three point line, they almost became dinosaurs. Even Greg Gard has had to change.

[RogerMurdock]

In college, you used to have guys like the Bennetts or to a lesser degree Bo Ryan, who had a specific way of doing things. With the advent of the shot clock and the three point line, they almost became dinosaurs. Even Greg Gard has had to change.

When do you think college basketball adopted the three pointer and the shot clock?

[JimmyTheKid]

Vecenie called it embarrassing that took so long to change the lineup. It was 30 games or so going back to the regular season. And it was a harebrained idea nobody would have had in the 1st place. He gets no credit for changing after we were almost out.

Reportedly an assistant on the Bucks complains Doc doesn't put the time in & regularly cancels meetings. Another that he doesn't listen to his assistants. So the guy's beyond a joke and you can't put anything on assistants. If a couple of them (not Ham) were at the helm, it'd be far different.

None whatsoever. Brook being unplayable against certain (many) teams doesn't just date back to this season or last. To have him guarding Hali in space after a lazy switch, or implementing a gimmicky zone to keep him close to the hoop, was downright embarrassing. Usually that sort of incompetence results in a canning. And Taurean Prince was obviously not our best available option at shooting guard. In fact, both Brook and Taurean should have been strictly insurance in case of foul trouble or injury. Yet here on May 9th Doc Rivers is still the coach of my favorite team. Do we win the series if Brook doesn't play a single minute? Eh maybe, maybe not. I do know one thing though. We have Giannis and Pacers don't. And Giannis was healthy. And another season of his prime is in the rearview. Because of Doc.

[-Jragon-]

Playing BP in the playoffs was a tank move. He was never near an offensive player if the team ran any action he was lost and usually can't even figure out who to go by. It's not just coaching because he's always been like this. When Bud tried to use in as the drop guy as Brook sat was the only time he was regularly in position to make a play but he didn't have to athleticism to challenge anyone anyways. The faster we trade guys like this the better; these slow plodders are dinosaurs now.

[-Jragon-]

Keeping BP over PJ maybe cost us a 2nd ring.

[BigO]

In college, you used to have guys like the Bennetts or to a lesser degree Bo Ryan, who had a specific way of doing things. With the advent of the shot clock and the three point line, they almost became dinosaurs. Even Greg Gard has had to change.

When do you think college basketball adopted the three pointer and the shot clock?

It's not what date they made the changes. It's how basketball has changed over time because of those changes.

Players, due to the changes, have evolved into better three point shooters and spread the court so much more. It's really night and day. I don't like all the changes, but it is what it is.

The more knowledgable coaches are on different schemes and can assess what's on the court faster than other coaches, the more successful they are.

[-Jragon-]

we probably never win another series unless he becomes 75+% free throws. It's too hard to win down the stretch when the opponent is scoring 3 at a time and they can come back anytime they want and foul Giannis and we get 0 or 1 too often.

You're talking about 3 more made free throws over this last series. Absolutely inconsequential. Giannis has win 8 playoff series without ever hitting 75% from the line. This is because he's the best player in every series.

Far, far more important would be to not have a max contract teammate who shoots 22% from the floor.

There was more context in another post. Say we're up 8 with like 1.5 min left and Imagine a team (well Indy just did it) comes down bombing and making 3s, but Giannis gets the ball each time we have it and they foul him for some high pressure free throws in which he makes 1 each time. That lead vanishes like nothing. Giannis would have to improve his ft shooting a lot to continue being an end of game option. If not, he should be a decoy and only get the ball, in the last 2 min, if he has a dunk. Dame was supposed to be that dude but even healthy, Doc never helped him get that Dame Time feel. AG did.

[-Jragon-]

Another BS hit piece on BP that I once again will not let go unanswered.

You say BP was junk for 2.5 years. Here's what he did his first three years:

1) 52.3% shooting, 47.7% on threes, 7.1 rebounds

2) 47.9%-39.3%-9.1 rebounds

3) 49.6%- 37%-9.6 rebounds and was critical in the championship game.

Here's the predictable response: But, but, but he was awful defensively and Bud wouldn't play him against the Nets because he was so bad.

More BS.

He wasn't awful defensively and the narrative is just junk.

As for the Nets series, he didn't play particularly well in the few minutes he was allowed on the court, but that was a series where Bud was totally outcoached by a first year coach and almost lost to a depleted Nets team. So his substitution patterns are not to be respected.

BP is not a great player, but have some objectivity. He wasn't junk his first 2.5 years here and saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

I like some of your takes, but the BP stuff is out of whack.

Bud's insistence on playing the drop with Brook on screens set for Durant 35+ feet from the rim very nearly cost us that series and made a great player in Durant look like a living god.

To tie it back to our other discussion on Doc's stubbornness, this is the kind of thing I was talking about -- his stubbornness is a trait shared by all professional coaches, and, relative to that baseline, Doc's willingness to totally change the rotation mid-series was unusually flexible. Which is not to say it wasn't far too late, and also not to say, by reasonable person standards, that he is not stubborn.

Haha, after reading your answer on Doc's "stubbornness" I chuckled as you appear to be a "positive maybe" , but I get it. Good coaches have to fight the temptation to make changes to quickly before giving it a chance or waiting too long out of pride refusing to change that which is obviously not working. It can be a fine line. I would consider Doc more on the stubborn side of things, especially after watching him playing old tired vets rather than giving the younger guys a go. BTW, I was not happy with the Doc hire from the getgo - and I'm a MU guy!

I think he's saying that that starting lineup change should have been done after the trade deadline instead of waiting for it to be a dumpster fire playoff hail mary. That would have given that group several weeks to gel. Indy's starting lineup didn't have to get changed partway through the playoffs, did it. More than half in here caught on that TP had to come off the bench long before the playoffs.

[emunney]

For the most part, I'd categorize these things under "has many bad ideas". I also don't consider 'flexible' or 'stubborn' as having inherent valance. We call it stubborn when we don't like the underlying thing it promotes and resolute when we do. They're neutral traits that can serve or negate good or bad ideas.

[emunney]

Bud's insistence on playing the drop with Brook on screens set for Durant 35+ feet from the rim very nearly cost us that series and made a great player in Durant look like a living god.

To tie it back to our other discussion on Doc's stubbornness, this is the kind of thing I was talking about -- his stubbornness is a trait shared by all professional coaches, and, relative to that baseline, Doc's willingness to totally change the rotation mid-series was unusually flexible. Which is not to say it wasn't far too late, and also not to say, by reasonable person standards, that he is not stubborn.

Haha, after reading your answer on Doc's "stubbornness" I chuckled as you appear to be a "positive maybe" , but I get it. Good coaches have to fight the temptation to make changes to quickly before giving it a chance or waiting too long out of pride refusing to change that which is obviously not working. It can be a fine line. I would consider Doc more on the stubborn side of things, especially after watching him playing old tired vets rather than giving the younger guys a go. BTW, I was not happy with the Doc hire from the getgo - and I'm a MU guy!

I think he's saying that that starting lineup change should have been done after the trade deadline instead of waiting for it to be a dumpster fire playoff hail mary. That would have given that group several weeks to gel. Indy's starting lineup didn't have to get changed partway through the playoffs, did it. More than half in here caught on that TP had to come off the bench long before the playoffs.

An actually smart coach would have looked at our roster and said, "We're playing 3 guards" from day 1. Not only is it the only place we had quality depth, but it's a strategy that provides an ideal complement to our all-world interior superstar. It should have been done much earlier, and also, separately, he totally stumbled into it by throwing it out there in what looked at the time like an unwinnable game. Total shot in the dark. My point is just that he had an idea of how things should be done, he saw something different work, and he made the change.

I'm pretty convinced that the median poster here is probably top quintile intelligence in the NBA (any of the geniuses you know devote their lives to coaching/playing sports?), so I'm not especially compelled by the idea that you or I or whoever would have done it earlier. The question is what NBA coaches do, and they are a very, very entrenched group. Especially the ones who've been in the league for as long as Doc has.

[jakecronus8]

Keeping BP over PJ maybe cost us a 2nd ring.

This has to stop. Even 4 years ago Tucker sucked donkey balls on the court. But “we dogs” I guess. Catchphrases are memorable

[-Jragon-]

Keeping BP over PJ maybe cost us a 2nd ring.

This has to stop. Even 4 years ago Tucker sucked donkey balls on the court. But “we dogs” I guess. Catchphrases are memorable

Aggressive defense and corner 3s... seems pretty effective for the teams the send us home every year.

[emunney]

False choice. We should have kept them both. Bobby's been good for us. We pulled 2 years for PJ off the table. He played meaningful minutes for good teams in both of those years. We failed miserably in our attempts to backfill the things he contributed.

[-Jragon-]

In regard to rigidity in coaches, here's my best analogy:

I used to play a lot of chess. I wasn't great, but not bad.

There were people I played who I knew I could beat if I got them into relying on certain pieces. They were great using their Queen and rooks (for example), but if i got them into situations relying on their knights or bishops, they could be had petty easily.

Bud and Doc are like that, although in different ways.

What they have in common is that they feel much more comfortable using certain schemes and going against certain schemes and using certain personnel groups.

I want a coach who has no set dogma and is knowledgable about coaching and using a vast array of schemes and personnel. It's what makes Spoelstra stand out.

In college, you used to have guys like the Bennetts or to a lesser degree Bo Ryan, who had a specific way of doing things. With the advent of the shot clock and the three point line, they almost became dinosaurs. Even Greg Gard has had to change.

Did you want Nurse?

Wasn't something about Giannis wanting a former player as his coach? (as opposed to Bud)