ImageImage

The best thing for the Bucks

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25

El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 20,545
And1: 1,328
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

The best thing for the Bucks 

Post#1 » by El Duderino » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:57 am

Was this season playing out pretty much as it has. If this team had managed to find a way to scrape out roughly 40 wins and grabbed a 7th/8th seed, it likely would have been good enough for Kohl to be content because we made the playoffs even if we'd have been nothing more than chum in the water for the sharks once the playoffs actually started.

This franchise has needed a change in direction for awhile, the team has been built up largely to be a soft finesse hodgepodge mix of talented offensive players who don't defend or play with toughness.

My gut instinct about Kohl would lead me to believe that a playoff berth of any kind could get Kohl to look past the obvious that the franchise needs to make some major changes if the goal is ever to be more than a 7th/8th seed if things go perfectly.

Not only does at the very least the backcourt need breaking up or both going, nobody should be off limits on this team during the offseason. No offseason like last year of just signing a band-aid like Mason, praying it can help bring that 40th win. Even though Van Gundy was stating the obvious, the fundamental makeup of the team is to flawed to ever make real noise, the parts don't fit.

Like everyone else, sure it would be fun to see the Bucks play some playoff basketball this year. If though i had the choice of

A. The Bucks winning say 40-41 games and being a 7th/8th seed, but no real major moves were made in the offseason.

B. The Bucks winning 32-34 games, but it leads to some significant changes.

I can only speak for myself, but i'm picking B without giving it a second thought. Ideally i'd rather we won the 34ish games and Yi started showing much better consistency, but one of my bigger fears going into this season was the Bucks scraping out a late playoff berth and thus greatly reducing Kohl's impetus to OK some drastic changes.

I can't get myself to cheer for the Bucks to lose in games, but i'm certainly not getting all angry either by the losses. I can only hope Kohl watching this year will finally push him to say enough and it's time the break this marshmallow roster up. If it does get that to happen, i'll gladly take the trade off of this year being crappy basketball to watch.
User avatar
L&H_05
RealGM
Posts: 11,569
And1: 94
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Location: I love this game !
     

 

Post#2 » by L&H_05 » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:16 am

What I don't understand is that you guys talk about change, but you do it every season, and your GM always has the Bucks name out there in plenty of discussions, and at least 2 of the last 3 off seasons the Bucks have had some big time changes..

They didn't work out, but it's not like the attempt every summer was not there..

Changing coaches, getting the #1 pick, signing Mags and Simmons, trading TJ for CV, getting Blake, Boykins etc...

As it turns out the direction needs to change, but at the time most Bucks fans were all for the direction... The success in Phoenix, Seattle for a short time, and some of those other up and down run&gun teams really were laying the blueprint, but it's difficult to replicate..

So, I understand what you're saying to an extent, but to say the franchise has needed a change of direction for sometime just doesn't make sense, since this direction was just beginning a couple seasons ago..

Unless of course you're associating this team (soft, perimeter based, no defense) with the Big 3 teams ???

In which case, that wouldn't make much sense since the big 3 team had playoff success...

If you're not associating this style of team with those early 00's teams, I would say it's premature to say the direction has needed to change for awhile..
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 20,545
And1: 1,328
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

 

Post#3 » by El Duderino » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:27 am

So, I understand what you're saying to an extent, but to say the franchise has needed a change of direction for sometime just doesn't make sense, since this direction was just beginning a couple seasons ago.


I'm talking the last three years. I was dreading the Bucks winning roughly 40 games this year and making the playoffs, then think a core largely made up of the key guys on this team could in the not to distant future develop into a real contender.

I dont think the group of Mo/Redd/Yi/Bogut will ever develop into the core that revives this franchise. A 40 win season though could have been enough for Kohl to accept future mediocrity at best and greatly lessen a drive reshape the makeup of this team.

Just say trading CV and drafting a player this offseason isn't enough, my guess is this poor season will be what rattles Kohl enough to to at the very least break up our guard tandem along with other moves.
icat2000
RealGM
Posts: 14,254
And1: 42
Joined: Feb 25, 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia

 

Post#4 » by icat2000 » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:41 am

Bucks go no where with the current backcourt.
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 20,545
And1: 1,328
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

 

Post#5 » by El Duderino » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:51 am

icat2000 wrote:Bucks go no where with the current backcourt.



Even though i started this thread and want those two broke up, i wouldn't say the Bucks can't go nowhere with these two. I do think if those two are kept together next year, Yi is improved a lot, Villanueva got traded for a solid bench player, Krystkowiak gets better via experience, and our first round pick in the draft helped out some, i could see next years Bucks make the playoffs in the 6th-8th seed range.

That's the best case i could see though and not often does the best case work out that way. The ceiling looks very low IMO with this back court duo, no SF, and a lazy/soft guy like Villanueva being a key backup.

Making a big move could no doubt backfire, but i'd rather take that chance than staying the course and hoping the next to years if things go near perfectly, we might get a 7th seed.
magpies
Senior
Posts: 585
And1: 0
Joined: May 15, 2007

 

Post#6 » by magpies » Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:54 am

icat2000 wrote:Bucks go no where with the current backcourt.


Yes he does, its a place called ELSEWHERE
User avatar
paul
RealGM
Posts: 32,398
And1: 1,038
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
 

 

Post#7 » by paul » Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:06 am

When I opened this thread i thought it was a question not a statement. If it was a question my answer would have been Jason Kidd.
El Duderino
RealGM
Posts: 20,545
And1: 1,328
Joined: May 30, 2005
Location: Working on pad level

 

Post#8 » by El Duderino » Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:24 am

paul wrote:When I opened this thread i thought it was a question not a statement. If it was a question my answer would have been Jason Kidd.



Maybe if we had a time machine and had a Jason Kidd in his 20's.
icat2000
RealGM
Posts: 14,254
And1: 42
Joined: Feb 25, 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia

 

Post#9 » by icat2000 » Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:42 am

I think Kidd would be good and bring Sessions up to learn from him. Bogut would thrive of the play-making skills of Kidd.Yi and CV too. And we desperately need a veteran leader.
User avatar
paul
RealGM
Posts: 32,398
And1: 1,038
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
 

 

Post#10 » by paul » Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:34 am

El Duderino wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




Maybe if we had a time machine and had a Jason Kidd in his 20's.


Call me crazy but I'd trade Redd for him straight up, although I'm sure the nets don't want another chucking 2. The benefit that would come from Kidd (yes even in his mid 30's) would be enourmous imo, particularly for Bogut, Yi and Sessions (or any other young pg we drafted).
User avatar
europa
RealGM
Posts: 44,919
And1: 471
Joined: Jun 25, 2005
Location: Right Behind You

 

Post#11 » by europa » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:47 pm

paul wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Call me crazy but I'd trade Redd for him straight up


The Nets don't need Redd since they already have Carter. If you want to get the Nets interested in a deal for Kidd, it would have to revolve around Mo, Villanueva and filler. Not sure they'd go for it but you could at least try and sell Mo as Kidd's replacement and Villanueva as part of the inevitable youth movement that would be a result of trading Kidd.

I agree with L&H. It's not that the Bucks haven't made major changes - they've made major changes every season. It's the fact that so many of their major changes have either been the wrong ones or turned out much worse then they anticipated. So they're in an endless cycle of having to keep making major changes until they figure out a formula that will work. And more bad seasons are a result.

I think the Bucks could win with a Mo/Redd backcourt if enough of the other pieces were in place. But at this point, I think one or both of them need to go. I'm not sure on this particular team the two of them together in the starting lineup is conducive to building a contender. I think at some point both of them might need to go. Redd is starting to morph into the Ray Allen I wanted to see traded a few seasons ago and after watching Nash and Williams totally outclass Mo, my doubts about whether this team can ever win big with Mo at PG have returned.

I'm not sure what moves will be made because I'm not sure whether Kohl wants to entrust Harris any authority given his recent failures. This team is such a mess right now and so many things need to be done to fix it.
Nothing will not break me.
Bucks_Revenge
Banned User
Posts: 7,978
And1: 1
Joined: Oct 13, 2004

 

Post#12 » by Bucks_Revenge » Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:02 pm

even though none of you will agree...I think not re-signing Kukoc was a big mistake he was our only veteran leader and everyone in the locker room respected him but LH wanted to go young and see where that got him.

Return to Milwaukee Bucks