Hollinger Talks Bucks On Jan. 26th

europa · Post #1 » by **europa** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:08 pm

In my fearless predictions for 2009, I said Milwaukee would make the playoffs. Perhaps I should have been more precise and said, "Milwaukee will make the playoffs provided Michael Redd doesn't blow out his knee in the next few weeks."

With their starting shooting guard on the shelf for the rest of the year, it's very much an open question whether the Bucks can hang on to the No. 8 spot in the East. The glass-half-full approach is to say that the Bucks have coped without Redd much better than they've done without Andrew Bogut, so as long as Bogut returns they might be OK. They have a major schedule advantage over New Jersey, New York and Charlotte, and a 3.5-game edge on Toronto and Indiana, so they may be able to hold off the competition regardless.

Today's Playoff Odds project Milwaukee to get in at 39-43, three games ahead of Charlotte, Indiana and Toronto; of course, those odds don't take into account the loss of Redd. The Bucks are fortunate in the sense that they've played a league-high 47 games so far, so they may have banked enough wins with Redd playing to hang on for a 16-19 finish and squeeze in.

LUKE23 · Post #2 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:15 pm

I'd be pretty surprised if we finished 16-19.

BucksRuleAll22 · Post #3 » by **BucksRuleAll22** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:43 pm

I wish the season just started so that we atleast have a high lottery pick to look forward to. I can't name one good thing now the Bucks offer. I think we are in the worst situation of every team in the NBA now with Max Redd out for this season and maybe far into next.

We are not rebuilding and we are praying for a shot to slip into the playoffs and get hammered by a top seed if not swept.

jeremyd236 · Post #4 » by **jeremyd236** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:47 pm

Far into next season? Let's not get carried away

LUKE23 · Post #5 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:50 pm

jeremyd236 wrote:Far into next season? Let's not get carried away

It's probably an accurate statement actually.

Kerb Hohl · Post #6 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:56 pm

jeremyd236 wrote:Far into next season? Let's not get carried away

To that point, these are the only teams I see arguing having bleaker futures up until the end of next year and projecting forward:
-Washington
-Maybe Indiana
-Maybe Sacramento
-LA Clippers
-Golden State
-Maybe Memphis

I would argue that a few of these teams may be smarter and may be able to deal away trash contracts. We may not have that luxury.

jeremyd236 · Post #7 » by **jeremyd236** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:01 pm

CharlosVllnueva wrote:
jeremyd236 wrote:Far into next season? Let's not get carried away

To that point, these are the only teams I see arguing having bleaker futures up until the end of next year and projecting forward:
-Washington
-Maybe Indiana
-Maybe Sacramento
-LA Clippers
-Golden State
-Maybe Memphis

I would argue that a few of these teams may be smarter and may be able to deal away trash contracts. We may not have that luxury.

Well if our roster stays as is, I couldn't argue against that.

However, the only possibilities people on here are giving us are:
A. Keep our current roster, lose CV/Sessions, everybody cries
B. Trade RJ for expirings, resign CV and/or Sessions

But I think there could be more in store for us around the deadline, even though Hammond denies it. If he traded CV, I could see it being used to get rid of further cap space (Gadz), or to get a young player back as well. There are a lot of options for Hammond to pursue here, hopefully he just picks one instead of mixing everything.

Kerb Hohl · Post #8 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 pm

jeremyd236 wrote:
CharlosVllnueva wrote:
jeremyd236 wrote:Far into next season? Let's not get carried away

To that point, these are the only teams I see arguing having bleaker futures up until the end of next year and projecting forward:
-Washington
-Maybe Indiana
-Maybe Sacramento
-LA Clippers
-Golden State
-Maybe Memphis

I would argue that a few of these teams may be smarter and may be able to deal away trash contracts. We may not have that luxury.

Well if our roster stays as is, I couldn't argue against that.

However, the only possibilities people on here are giving us are:
A. Keep our current roster, lose CV/Sessions, everybody cries
B. Trade RJ for expirings, resign CV and/or Sessions

But I think there could be more in store for us around the deadline, even though Hammond denies it. If he traded CV, I could see it being used to get rid of further cap space (Gadz), or to get a young player back as well. There are a lot of options for Hammond to pursue here, hopefully he just picks one instead of mixing everything.

I agree with the majority of that. I still think even if we somehow got RJ for expiring straight up (almost impossible), I would still like to deal CV and/or Sessions and if not, sign one MAYBE both. We need to blow it up now and get whatever we can for our current assets. Unless we are playing extremely well from now until the deadline, RJ + CV + Seeions + Gadz + maybe Bell for any combination that brings back 2 young players with time on their contracts, and/or 2 expirings, and/or a draft pick or two. I'd take a combination of 3 or 4 of those.