RealGM

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=787862

Overall, this column wasn't completely and totally worthless.
Especially for the average fan, I suppose.

There is one part that I really took issue with, though.

Again, prove it, but already the new general manager has given the Bucks what they haven’t had in years — near-future cap flexibility — by somehow making Simmons and Williams go away.

Naturally, seeing the above is something that would bug me.
What the hell is Hunt talking about?

Does he mean that we can easily have space below the salary cap next off season?
No, that can't be it, because it isn't true. Then again, that could very well be what he meant. Whether or not something is true or accurate seems of little concern over at the MJS.

What's stranger is to add in the "what they haven't had in years" part. Again, an odd thing to say. Especially when mentioning Simmons. The reason Simmons was even here was because the Bucks DID have cap space in the 2005 offseason. Hunt makes it sound like he's talking about 5+ years ago with his "in years" comment, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and not count the 2005 offseason.

How about the 2007 offseason? Another season where we once again DID have cap space. Considering he also mentioned Williams, who we signed to his current contract during that offseason, you would think he would have mentioned that.

Did making the Mo Williams trade give us more payroll flexibility? Regardless of any attempts at having cap space, absolutely. The Simmons trade didn't really do the same thing at all though. Kind of the opposite, in a way. Part of the reason the Nets were willing to do that trade was because of the financial savings from THEIR end and the payroll flexibility it provided THEM in their quest to have cap space in the 2010 offseason.

In that Jefferson trade, the Bucks took on $42.6 mil in salary over 3 years for ONE player (3 years of Jefferson if he decides not to be a free agent after that 2nd year) and sent out $30.7 mil over that same period for TWO players (3 years of Yi and 2 years of Simmons).
Basically the opposite of what Hunt said.

Either way, saying "what they haven't had in years" makes no sense. I'm a fan of current Bucks GM John Hammond, but that assigns way too much credit to current Bucks GM John Hammond by setting up a fictitious comparison.

Hunt's e-mail is at the bottom of the piece. Shoot him an e-mail and wait for his response. It's sort of depressing that this guy that covers the Bucks knows so little about their cap situation or the NBA CBA in general. I don't want to share what he sent me, but it was wrong on so many levels.

The part that killed me was "good draft" as though Alexander has somehow shown enough at this point to be labeled a good #8 overall pick, let alone a #8 in the 2nd round pick.

Also, how does breaking up the Mo-Redd backcourt by adding Luke Ridnour make it any less "soft"?

What this was, was the classic rah-rah, I need to justify my job piece that required no thought or research. It shows.

Why doesn't Hunt see that the Bucks put themselves in a three-year window mode with salaries? RJ, Redd, and Gadzuric all expire the same season, and the Ridnour trade was done for part fit/part financial aspects to cut Mo's deal and get Ridnours deal which expires in that three year window.

I firmly believe the Bucks go forward with the current roster for at least two seasons. If they aren't showing any signs of doing anything significant, I believe Hammond has the foresight to trade Redd, RJ, and Gadzuric's expiring deals and try and to what Seattle did in terms of rebuilding.

I think that at the beginning of the 11-12 season, Bogut, Sessions, Alexander, and Bell are the only players on the current roster still on the team.

Why would he put the rebuild on hold for two years? I still don't get it.

We still don't have a Top-30 player on this team. MAYBE, IF Jefferson refinds his game we will, but as it stands now we don't.

Trying to compete in the NBA with 3 guys in the Top-35-50 and a bunch of crap is like [insert cliche here].

It shouldn't take two years to recognize the failure that is this Bucks team.

If they're a top five team in the East come February then run with it. If they're a fringe playoff team then it's a tossup as to whether or not they should make a move. If they're sitting at 11th or 12th in the East then it's time to start the rebuild.

This isn't a team with a lot of young talent that simply needs time to grow into their games.

Pretty simple. Because it will be much easier to get better value for RJ/Redd/Gadzuric when they are expiring deals as opposed to two years remaining, and IMO I do believe they should give a new coach two seasons before you make definitive judgments.

I know people are going to get very emotional very early this year on this forum, but I don't think Hammond will follow suit.

So the Bucks should put off the inevitable rebuild for two years so they can possibly get better value then?

DrugBust wrote: I don't want to share what he sent me, but it was wrong on so many levels.

Can you share why he thinks the bucks will have "near-future cap flexibility"?

DrugBust wrote:So the Bucks should put off the inevitable rebuild for two years so they can possibly get better value then?

They would actually be putting it off one-year, not two. And it's the right choice.

It's pretty obvious they should make smart decisions and not emotional ones. It's a good combination: two years to work with Skiles and more value obtained, I will take that over one year with Skiles and less value obtained.

This ties into the "newspapers are dead" thread. We have amateurs and hobbyists writing blogs at a much higher level than the paid writers for the newspapers. If I were Hunt or Howard I'd take my job a little more seriously or start thinking about a new line of work.

I'll share this nugget. I can't help it; it's too good to keep to myself:

Michael Hunt wrote:In two years they'll be able to use all their mid-level exception because they'll be under the cap, which is a huge luxury they didn't have before Simmons and Williams were moved.

Haha. Apparently RJ, Redd, Gadzuric, Bogut, Bell, Alexander all on the cap = under the cap. Those six alone make $59.15M in 10-11 (assuming Bogut's salary is a flat $12M per year without incentives). That's not even counting the next two years players drafted, Sessions hopeful extension, etc.

Now you have to be under the cap to use the MLE? And the way our salaries currently stand, we won't be under the cap in 2 years anyway.

Mike Hunt at work. Worthless.

Just post the whole reply DB. It's gotta be gold.

In my original e-mail I also mentioned how unless the Bucks move one or more of their higher priced players that there was little to no chance they would be under the cap until the summer of '11. I mentioned that my hope was that if the Bucks were at the bottom of the standings in February that Hammond would move someone like Redd and/or Jefferson and blow the roster up.

Here was his full response:

Michael Hunt wrote:Thanks, Matt.

Actually, the Bucks' payroll drops by $13 million the year after next and another $39 million the year after that. In two years they'll be able to use all their mid-level exception because they'll be under the cap, which is a huge luxury they didn't have before Simmons and Williams were moved. I'm not sure you fully understand how hard it is to trade players in the NBA when you're trading contracts almost dollar for dollar. Consequently, you can't blow up an entire team.

Give Michael Hunt credit....he knows we need a new arena for the Bucks to stay here.....and he does try to push that one.

But you guys are right...he'd be about the 567th ranked poster on our board as it relates to Bucks knowledge.

I knew we were in trouble when Homer interviewed him a few years ago when he got promoted to Sports columnist. In the interview Homer asked him what he thought of Bill Schroeder (then the starting Packers WR). Hunt didn't know who he was.

In a random sample of 100 posters from this board, probably about 87 would destroy Hunt in terms of Bucks knowledge.

If Hunt did a minimal amount of research, he would know how wrong he was about the Bucks cap sitatuion. I went to Google, typed in "nba salaries", clicked on the first link, clicked on the "Milwaukee Bucks" link, and determined he was wrong. Granted the first link was hoopshype, which isnt the most reliable source, but it also literally took me 30 seconds. It just proves he spent literally no time writing that article.