The Official Playoffs Thread

[europa]

I think there's an excellent chance the Bucks and Blazers make a deal if Pritchard hadn't gotten greedy and demanded Sessions be part of the trade. Both teams appeared to want what the other had to offer and I believe some variation of RJ for Raef/Outlaw gets done. But like Press said, Pritchard outsmarted himself. For at least one game in this year's playoff, that decision didn't look like the correct one.

In other words, Skiles likes his players better than Portlands. He wasn't wrong.

I like RJ more than Outlaw too which is why I think the Blazers should have made the trade.

For the Bucks, the deal was never about trying to upgrade in terms of talent. It was all about financial flexibility and Hammond wanting to bring back at least one player of reasonable value (likely Outlaw) as opposed to just a straight salary dump.

[europa]

I think the glaring issues are at PG and SF and they need Oden to become a dynamic player at C.

And I'm not sure Oden is going to become that guy. I thought Paul was jumping the gun on him a few months ago, but the more I watch, the more I see "Bogut". i.e. a player who can be pretty good, but isn't a 6-8 time all-star player like most expected.

Right now, he's not as good as Bogut in my opinion. But I do think we need to give him time. My concern with him in college was what I saw as a very limited offensive game. Two years later, I still see a very limited offensive game. And his foul problems are limiting his defensive upside. Again, we need to give him time but when you can't take a starting job from Joel Pryzbilla, that can't be viewed as a positive in any way.

I'm whining on the RJ trade from our perspective, but again, there was zero downside for Pritchard to make the Raef/Outlaw for RJ trade, other than money which Paul Allen has plenty of.

I think he made a mistake. I think it would've been a great trade for the Blazers in terms of giving them some things they badly needed. It was one of those ideal trades for both teams which is probably why it didn't happen. Other than Roy, the Blazers looked like they were deers caught in headlights last night. They were completely overwhelmed by the moment. That wouldn't have happened with RJ.

[paulpressey25]

Right now, he's not as good as Bogut in my opinion. .

I think the Bogut of today is better than Oden.

The thought being though that Bogut in his rookie year never really took it to anyone like the great centers all did their rookie year. Same problem with Oden. He never really took it to anyone (other than us) this year.

And his health issues appear to be "Sam Bowie-esque"

I would thought have done the "Epi plan" of trading for Conley and then trying somehow to trade Bogut for Oden.....that would have been a plan. Might not have worked. But would have been a plan.

[power4wardjinx]

In other words, such a trade was too good for Portland. Heaping all the arguments for trading Michael Redd onto RJ because Redd was hurt is a terrible way to run a team. Hammond was smart to resist the temptation. He knew it was wrong. It's offensively wrong.

[europa]

I don't see it as a correlation between Redd and RJ. If the Bucks had stayed healthy, based on what they were showing I think keeping both of them could have paid off with a rewarding season. But once Redd was lost and Bogut was virtually certain to be done I think it was in the Bucks' best interests to trade RJ and shift into financial flexibility mode. Larry Harris did the same thing in his second season when he dumped Van Horn. I applauded that decision at the time because that season was over and Harris needed to start preparing his team for the future. Realistically, this season was over without Redd and Bogut. I appreciate the effort put in to try and make the playoffs but I think you can make a strong argument that Hammond should have done what Harris did in his second year.

Now it's entirely possible the decision to keep RJ will pay off. I don't rule that out by any means. Maybe Hammond will find other ways to shave salary this summer and either keep RJ or maybe a better deal for RJ will come along which provides more of a talent upgrade. And if that happens, the decision to keep RJ will have been validated. We'll have to see how it plays out.

[paulpressey25]

The bottom line is that one of either Redd or RJ had to go to give this team the financial flexibility to do anything the next two-years in the way of bringing in new players via draft, trade, re-signing our own guys (CV, Ramon, Bogans) or MLE players.

The odds are strong that one of the four or so possible assets we could have instead of Redd or RJ will be more important to the long-term development of the team (and maybe the short-term as well).

Again, this is not a one-summer fix Hammond has to work around here to re-sign Ramon. We'll be under the gun barrel of the luxury tax next summer as well.

[LUKE23]

It is very simple, if you think Redd/RJ/Bogut core can contend, then you ride it out and make minor moves around them. You can't make MAJOR moves around those three because they make over $40M per year. So everything you do around them will be minimal improvements.

If you DON'T think Redd/RJ/Bogut core can contend, then you rebuild AS SOON AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. What is the point of keeping a core led by two nearing 30 wing players together if you don't think they can win a title?

That is why I never will or have understood teams that sit in middle ground in the NBA. You're much better off being Boston or OKC (two sides of the spectrum). But there if Hammond realistically didn't think Redd/RJ/Bogut could win a championship, then they shouldn't be kept together while Bogut ages another 2.5 years.

I was praying Hammond would take a CLEAR direction when he came in. He had a clean slate with the fans. He did not. Maybe he thinks Sessions/Redd/RJ/Bogut can win a title.

[paulpressey25]

If you DON'T think Redd/RJ/Bogut core can contend

"Contend for the Title" never comes up in the discussions that take place in the Bucks front offices. Kohl is a big believer in the theory that you do not win a title unless you have a mega-star. History supports that.

So he's allowed tanking in 1994, 2005 and 2007 when he felt there was a mega-star out there. But other than that, he just wants a 45-50 game winner that he can enjoy, makes money with, represents Milwaukee well and provides fun Saturday nights for the fans.

Don't take that to mean he doesn't want a title. He's just too realistic on how hard it is to get that lucky game changing player.

Maybe that has been the problem. He sets the goals for 45-50 wins and we underachieve at 35-40 wins. Maybe he needs to set the goal as title contender (55-60 wins) and if we fail we'd end up at 45-50 wins.

[trwi7]

So he's allowed tanking in 1994, 2005 and 2007 when he felt there was a mega-star out there. But other than that, he just wants a 45-50 game winner that he can enjoy, makes money with, represents Milwaukee well and provides fun Saturday nights for the fans.

If he thinks that way, why wouldn't he support a rebuild? He doesn't spend as much money on payroll, we lose about 10 more games per year, not that big of a deal since we're already not making the playoffs and you improve your draft position to get a mega-star.

So either this is a lie and Kohl doesn't know it takes a mega-star to compete for a title or what we've been told about Kohl not accepting a rebuild is a lie.

[jerrod]

i thought i remembered the first game starting way earlier than 2. wtf am i supposed to do until then?

[trwi7]

i thought i remembered the first game starting way earlier than 2. wtf am i supposed to do until then?

Watch Jeff Suppan pitch.

[paulpressey25]

So either this is a lie and Kohl doesn't know it takes a mega-star to compete for a title or what we've been told about Kohl not accepting a rebuild is a lie.

Don't know. But I've listened to every Kohl interview over the years and tried to parse them. He frequently references that winning a title is impossible unless you have a Jordan, Shaq or LeBron caliber player on your roster. (Which he is correct on). Then talks about how we just didn't get lucky in those years we tanked, where a LeBron or Dwight Howard was waiting for us to pick them.

[REDDzone]

i thought i remembered the first game starting way earlier than 2. wtf am i supposed to do until then?

Ya WTF I thought the Hornets game started at a weird time like 10 or something.

[REDDzone]

Ya WTF I thought the Hornets game started at a weird time like 10 or something.

Okay nevermind NBA.COM says 10:30, I must have been much more drunk last night than I thought though because I failed to use the context clues that a) it was two west teams so they would play and night, and b) there was a gigantic PM next to 10:30.

[jerrod]

there aren't too many people that make claims like you do. that should tell you something.

You're kidding, right? This entire forum is filled with people who make claims, yourself included. The fact you just ignored that should tell you something.

it doesn't matter to me, but i think you're completely wrong about that. neither i nor most people on here would ever claim that a young player could never be an all star, or never be a starter on a playoff team. that's so shortsighted and arrogant that it hurts.

but who cares, movin' on.


kyle korver needs to get his slow white ass out to the 3 point line to cover trevor ariza

[jerrod]

jvg just called him chris brown...must be the way the lakers started beating up on the jazz when he came in.


wow, that was pretty insensitive of me

[Ayt]

Go Jazz. Only down 9.

[trwi7]

Lakers are shooting 60% from the field, Utah 38.5%.

Lakers are 5-10 on 3s, Utah is 2-9

Lakers are 18-23 on free throws, Utah is 13-16.

How is Utah only down by 12?

[jeremyd236]

Turnovers

[emunney]

Offensive rebounds: Utah- 13, LA-1