RealGM

As the chances of a trade with the current GM situation are reasonably slim but I'm going to figure out the teams strengths/weaknesses and go from there. I'm going to try to be realistic with all of this, so no MBBOT I'm not trading for McGrady + Randolph and drafting Jameer Nelson..

Strengths:

High volume scoring guard in Michael Redd. He shoots a good percentage (56.9% TS), doesn't turn the ball over alot and while his usage rate is high, it's not worryingly high like some supposed superstars. With his sort of efficiency he could be an extremely valuable asset to most teams, even the Bucks if the team were build differently.

Obviously Bogut is a plus, there aren't many teams with strong starting C's but the Bucks are one of them... the fact that he is more of a distributing player than anything almost counter-balances the fact that Redd isn't, and that's definitely a plus. It is plausible to have one or the other, just because Redd is a "ball hog" doesn't mean it really hurts the team so much because Bogut isn't, it's a balance.

The team is jam packed with tradeable pieces... not just within the team but in the draft as well, since lottery picks are a hot commodity especially in drafts as strong as the one coming up. The fact is no big name FA's are going to sign with the Bucks so the only real alternative is to either trade for players or to draft them, personally I think trading is the best route to take.

Weaknesses:

The point guard position is the one that stands out the most to me. Mo Williams isn't a point guard, as good as he is (and he is the one I'd keep out of him and Redd) he and Redd can't co-exist because they want to basically do the same things... Mo shoots well, dishes alot of assists, scores well but he isn't a PG. His assist rate is low and his pure point rating (another Hollinger stat) is below mid-range for PG's.

The power forward rotation is just weak. They are strong offensively but neither Yi or Charlie play any D and rebounding is a bit of a novelty unless CV is in the mood. Power forward is becoming the strongest position in the NBA and the Bucks just can't afford to have two guys there who don't play D, it's a recipe for disaster because it means Bogut has to defend guys like Bosh and it doesn't work.

Bobby Simmons

The team rotations kill me. Believe it or not, the Bucks actually have a reasonably strong bench... CV, Bell, Ivey, Mason, all decent enough to be coming off the bench and would be in the rotation for most NBA teams, the way they are used is all wrong though. The entire bench unit, or the majority on it, on the court for large stretches is just stupid, it's that NBA Live style of substution that just gives the other team an opportunity to take over games.

Milwaukee is a below average rebounding team, this is fine for teams like Phoenix (actually worse rebounders) who play such a fast pace and substitute some of their defense for the sake of scoring more points, but the Bucks are just **** on D and don't score enough to make up for what they lack defensively.

Shooting is a worry, for a guard based team who's offense (until recently) has revolved around shooting, to be rated 20th in three point shooting percentage is concerning. Not only that, most people notice while watching the team that the amount of open shots missed is just ridiculous. NBA teams shouldn't have to worry about guys consistently missing open shots, yet somehow the Bucks find a way to make this possible.

There are more weaknesses but I'll leave it, so far it looks like this...

+
Michael Redd's scoring ability
Bogut
Trade pieces

-
PG's
PF's
Bobby Simmons
Team rotations
Rebounding
Shooting

Believe it or not, these can all be addressed via trades... if the idea is to build around Redd and Bogut (as it should be imo) then you need to be going for guys who are high production, low usage... Redd dominates the ball alot so to accomodate him you give him guys who aren't going to take it away from him, but will still contribute when they need to.

The first thing I'd change is the PF position, purely because IMO this is the easiest thing to fix. Essentially you have two similar players, two scorers who don't play D... you can keep one of them, but two isn't going to work and limits your options as far as match-ups go severely. I'd get rid of CV, here are a list of guys who'd all be a better fit for this "new" Bucks team...

David Lee
Udonis Haslem
Kurt Thomas
Nick Collison
Shawn Marion

While Marion/Lee would be absolutely perfect, they are fairly unattainable so I'll narrow it down to the ones who you probably could get. And the reasons why...

Udonis Haslem:
A few people have suggested him, and rightly so. His rebound rate is fairly high, he would be a definite improvement over Yi and he scores at 13.1 pp40 which is barely below Yi as well, not to mention his shooting percentages are higher and his usage rate noticeably lower. High production - low usage, exactly what the team needs and a fairly perfect fit.

Kurt Thomas:
One that even surprised me, but Thomas is having a really good season. He's scoring at 11.5pp40, which is low but still decent especially when you consider he has a usage rate of only 12! His rebounding has been great, he's ranked 11th in the league in rebound rate (above Okafor, Dalembert and Horforard... and Zach Randolph), he shoots the ball well and doesn't turn it over. Efficient, high production - low usage.

Nick Collison:
Scores almost as well as Yi (13.7pp40 vs 14.1pp40), his rebound rate is noticeably better than his(and better than Haslem/Lee) and his usage rate is low enough to make a difference aswell. It'd be an instant upgrade at the PF position, and I think he (along with Thomas) are extremely attainable. He'd be an almost perfect role player for the Bucks, the only negative is that he turns the ball over a little bit too much.

My pick: Udonis Haslem

Next is the PG position. The hardest to fix I think because it's just not that easy to find good PG's out there who are available and not aged under 50, but here are a couple I've picked out...

Earl Watson
Antonio Daniels

Smaller list because there are less available players..

Earl Watson:
The first thing that stands out to me in comparison with Mo is his usage rate. Watson's is 18.2, Mo's is 22... this may not sound like a big difference, but it kinda is. His assist ratio is immensely high, 37.3... higher than Chris Paul's even (no that doesn't mean he's better) and he scores well enough (12.2p40) at a good clip to justify him being a legit offensive option aswell. He's a guy who "fits" into a line-up, you don't have to alter the team to fit around him.

Antonio Daniels:
He's had a fairly bad time at Washington but Daniels to me is still vastly underrated. I said I was susprised by the difference in usage rates between Watson and Mo, well Daniels is another 4 below Watson's... for what he provides (11.3pp40, 34.9 assist ratio, lower turnover ratio) that is fantastic. I'm not sure how keen people here are on him but I think he'd be a great player for the team, well, this "new look" one I'm trying to put together anyway.

My pick: Antonio Daniels

The next weakness to confront is Bobby. The guy was fantastic with the Clippers and I think everyone expected him to bring that to the Bucks... it hasn't um, worked out.. but still, he must have SOME trade value or at least could be thrown in with another player to make a trade work.

Guys I'd trade for to replace Bobby are...

Linus Kleiza
Francisco Garcia
Mike Miller
Josh Childress

All of those guys give you more than Bobby does offensively, at a low usage rate and they do it efficiently. Mike Miller shoots an insanely high percentage (60+% TS) but his defensive deficiencies put me off a bit, Childress would be ideal but I'm not sure how highly the Hawks value him, they might ask too much... same goes for Garcia, hell even Kleiza for that matter. Nonetheless, any of those four would be a significant (and I mean REALLY significant) upgrade at SF.

My pick: Josh Childress (his usage rate is so low, while his production is really high)

Bench guys I'd target would be (pick 2)...

Jeff McInnis
Brian Skinner
Rasual Butler
Brevin Knight
Keith Bogans
Maceo Baston
Shelden Williams

My picks: Skinner, Williams

So the team looks like this now, I'll take out CV + Mo + Simmons as they are the ones most people seem to think will be traded. I'm not going to try to work out how to actually make this happen so the team gets all of these players, but just assume draft picks are involved and various combinations of the above players are used...

C - Bogut
PF - Haslem
SF - Childress
SG - Redd
PG - Daniels

- Yi, Skinner, Mason, Williams, Bell, Ivey, Voshkul, Ruffin

Starting 5 numbers before:

C - 15.8 pp40 / 15.6 REB-r / 13.9 AST-r / 18.6 USG-r - 53 TS%
PF - 14.0 pp40 / 12.7 REB-r / 7.7 AST-r / 17.4 USG -r 49 TS%
SF - 13.0 pp40 / 9.2 REB-r / 12.4 AST-r / 16.4 USG -r 49 TS%
SG - 24.2 pp40 / 7.4 REB-r / 13.7 AST-r / 25.7 USG-r 56 TS%
PG - 17.9 pp40 / 5.6 REB-r / 26.8 AST-r / 22.0 USG-r 55 TS%

After:

C - 15.8 pp40 / 15.6 REB-r / 13.9 AST-r / 18.6 USG-r - 53 TS%
PF - 13.1 pp40 / 15.1 REB-r / 10.1 AST-r / 14.7 USG-r 52 TS%
SF - 16.2 pp40 / 9.9 REB-r / 11.6 AST-r / 15.4 USG -r 64 TS%
SG - 24.2 pp40 / 7.4 REB-r / 13.7 AST-r / 25.7 USG-r 56 TS%
PG - 11.3 pp40 / 5.5 REB-r / 34.9 AST-r / 14.4 USG -r 57 TS%

That second team gives more production in every category except scoring, but that would be cancelled out by the fact that the combined starting 5 usage rate drops from 100.1 to 88.8... which basically means Bogut and Redd get the ball a hell of a lot more and their increased production would make up for any lost scoring. The second team is also hugely more efficient, just look at those shooting percentages. The bench gets stronger... it's not a championship team (well, probably not) but it is a hell of a lot better than what's currently there. This team can be successful with Redd, it just has to be built properly and IMO these high production + efficiency/low usage guys are the way to do it.

Really good post. The only problem is that a team with Redd and Bogut and better guys around them still would not win more than 42 games IMO.

Somewhere this team has to get a star better than Redd or Bogut are now. Doesn't need to be a superstar but an all star. We have to get that either from Yi or this upcoming draft pick.

I like the idea of acquiring Collison and Watson, but I'm not sure how you do it. I'd put out there Bobby, CV and Mo and then also take back Wally if that worked under the cap. I'm not sure that Seattle would go for it though.

Somewhere this team has to get a star better than Redd or Bogut are now. Doesn't need to be a superstar but an all star.

I fully agree with that, I was operating under the idea of Redd being the closest thing the team has to a "star" but to actually be a contender there'd have to be an upgrade to a legit all-star. Who that could be I have no idea, this is where free agency would be nice if anyone actually wanted to play for the Bucks.

As much as Collison or Haslem would be a good fit, the question I have about those guys is whether you could trade for them and not start them. Would they be ok coming off the bench?

Arguably for better or worse, Yi is the starter here for the next year or two. So then you come back to the PG and SF positions being the biggest problem (assuming the model keeps Redd).

The question is whether to stealth tank at this point for a better chance at one of those top prospect PG's in the draft.

But of course we might have a shot at Mayo, at which point you maybe trade Redd. Maybe that's Herb's thinking--don't trade Mo or Redd until you see whether you get a PG or SG in the draft. But I think I'm giving Kohl too much credit for having a plan.

Is Herb, with his eye on the casual fan, ever going to consider trading Redd? And Yi is economic gravy. And Herb likes Mo.

I don't really expect any bold, "new vision" moves. Trade the "enigmatic" CV for secondary pieces? Maybe. That's the easiest way to make a surface change (at the cost of hurting the team).

Management, you seem to be fumbling in the dark. Maybe you'll surprise me.

paulpressey25 wrote:Really good post. The only problem is that a team with Redd and Bogut and better guys around them still would not win more than 42 games IMO.

Somewhere this team has to get a star better than Redd or Bogut are now. Doesn't need to be a superstar but an all star. We have to get that either from Yi or this upcoming draft pick.

I like the idea of acquiring Collison and Watson, but I'm not sure how you do it. I'd put out there Bobby, CV and Mo and then also take back Wally if that worked under the cap. I'm not sure that Seattle would go for it though.

I think Yi will have to be that guy. Or at least that's what we are hanging our hat on at this moment.

We are not going to be able to move Redd for that star. No one else on our roster outside of maybe Yi could land that star/near star player. I don't want to move Yi, so I don't think a star / all-star is in our future outside of developing our own youth or getting lucky in the upcoming draft.

I think we can very much be fine with a core of Redd, Yi and Bogut. Just need solid complimentary players around them.

To Citizen's point, which I think is dead on. Very good post.

Replace Mo with a defensively capable PG. -> Watson.

Replace Simmons with a defensively, ok even just a capable SF. ->Childress.

Replace CV with a defensively capable, athletic PF/C. -> tough one. Shelden Williams?

Could the assets of Mo, Simmons, CV or really anyone not named Redd, Yi or Bogut get these 3 players? Doubtful, but these are the type of players I would like to see around our core.

Citizen.Eras3d wrote: I'm going to try to be realistic with all of this, so no MBBOT I'm not trading for McGrady + Randolph and drafting Jameer Nelson..

You say you are going to be realistic, but you trade for guys that aren't really on the trading block.

McGrady and Randolph were definitely on the trading block this season (maybe still are), so I don't see how they are 'unrealistic'.

Yes because trades are only made when someone is on the trading block, a guy has never been unexpectedly traded before and only players talked about in the RealGM wiretap are available for trade.

The only one who would be more difficult to get is Haslem. Childress is off contract and the Hawks apparently aren't sure if they can keep him, Earl Watson has been on his way out since the start of the season, Shelden Williams never plays, Brian Skinner never plays, Antonio Daniels is a back-up. The other alternatives are all attainable.

Saying McGrady isn't unrealistic tells me you didn't actually understand the purpose of the thread, there's no way they'd move him without Redd and/or Yi.

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:Yes because trades are only made when someone is on the trading block, a guy has never been unexpectedly traded before and only players talked about in the RealGM wiretap are available for trade.

The only one who would be more difficult to get is Haslem. Childress is off contract and the Hawks apparently aren't sure if they can keep him, Earl Watson has been on his way out since the start of the season, Shelden Williams never plays, Brian Skinner never plays, Antonio Daniels is a back-up. The other alternatives are all attainable.

Saying McGrady isn't unrealistic tells me you didn't actually understand the purpose of the thread, there's no way they'd move him without Redd and/or Yi.

These players are very attainable. Just depends on if we have exactly what the other team needs. My point is that these guys are good real world examples of players that you could get with our available assets.

I keep focusing back on the Seattle players as being more attainable.........Collison/Watson/Wally would all be major helps here for the current team.....It's plausible we could toss Redd (and if needed CV) out there.....

I can't see Durant playing SG his whole career.......

These players are very attainable. Just depends on if we have exactly what the other team needs. My point is that these guys are good real world examples of players that you could get with our available assets.

Yep and that was exactly the point of the thread, there are players available, the Bucks have some of the pieces required to get these players.. it's just up to management to make it happen. Obviously it won't, so it's just up to us to discuss it instead.

I also agree that the Sonics players are more attainable than the others, Watson and Wally in particular.

And I know I'm in the minority, but I think Wally could help this team as much or more than Redd.....Wally isn't a scorer like Redd, but he appears to me to be more of a pure shooter who can nail the open jumper.

Dump Redd's contract and get another valuable piece like Collison in the deal and I'm sold.....

I feel the same about Mike Miller... he hasn't got the reputation that Redd has but I can't help but think that he offers just as much as Redd does, only on a lesser salary. He might not play much D but Mike isn't exactly Bruce Bowen in that department, plus he has spent the last however many years playing on a team where he wasn't the number one option so that wouldn't really be an issue.

Mike Miller is a better defensive player then Redd, marginally, but Miller is a far better athlete, averages close to 7 rebounds per game and would be MUCH less expensive.

Let's figure out a three way deal with the heat.

Miami gets redd

Grizzlies get:

Some expiring contracts (ricky davis)

Bucks get
Mike Miller
Jayson Williams
dorrel wright


I didn't trade check that but it seems to make sense from all three sides.

It's always seemed to me the really shrewd teams trade quantity for quality.

Getting quantity, it seems to me, just raises you toward the middle of the pack. Getting quality sets you above the pack.

A plethora of good players won't make us a contender. A few top-shelf players, accompanied by a few good players acquired NOT for major assets, will.

The direction should almost always be Up. Trade good for better. Trade many for few. Groom your draft picks to be rotation players. Don't solidify the team with free agents, improve the team.

We were forced to trade Kareem for a sack of pretty good players. LA did great. We muddled around as a half-good team.