1/12/2009 Woelfel: Conley deal waiting for Herb (poll added)

[andonewheel]

I'm gonna be so depressed if this deal goes down. Conley is not really an improvement over Sessions, and we're already giving up on our project Joe, less than 40 games into his career? What a terrible move.

[rilamann]

True Like,Luc Rich gets big time minutes and crunch time minutes but then agian Luc Rich isnt a rookie for he is a basketball god haha.But in all seriousness Luc Rich looks about polished and cofident as a rookie as we've seen in long time and thats pretty rare.

JA on the other hand does get that deer in headlights look everytime he steps on the court,I think if he got consistient PT even if it was 5/10 minutes a night he would settle in and get more comfortable on an NBA court.

I agree with some of you guys that say JA should be sent to the d-league for a while,I think that would be huge for his confidence.

[stellation]

Ramon turns UFA or RFA at the end of this season?

[Buck You]

He'll be a RFA if he stays with us but I think if he gets traded he'll be unrestricted. I could be wrong though.

[LUKE23]

Ramon turns UFA or RFA at the end of this season?

RFA.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Uh! You've got yourself in trouble. Adamcz will soon castigate you for such an appalling demonstration of disrespect towards a great mind of the game like Chad Ford. How can you insinuate he has no idea about the issue he's talking because he doesn't even watch the games? Besides, who needs to watch games anyway? Open your mind.

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of the conversation that unfolded between the two of us (and others) over multiple threads. You specifically said you don't care about the opinions of Steve Kerr and Kenny Smith (among others), then got mad and retracted that portion of the statement when I linked to it in a later thread. I can see that Chad Ford remains on the list of the pundits you don't care about and/or don't respect (that fine line is still blurry to me, but who cares), and that's fine.

The much bigger picture though, is that in spite of your numerous passionate attacks on the work of Dave Berri, you refuse to name an individual who meets the standard that you accuse Dave Berri of not meeting. It would seem that you think it's safer and more fun to attack then to defend, and are therefore unwilling to let your name be linked with someone who's work may later turn out to be wrong. That creates a problem though: If you aren't willing to go on the record with saying that "Individual X is better at predicting NBA occurrences than Berri is," then no standard is established for him to fall short of. He still may be the best predictor who ever lived.

I think if you are tearing apart someone's work - even if anonymously - you have an obligation to suggest an alternative which passes your muster. For the time being you are only a rock thrower. If you are going to passive aggressively refer back to the thread where you made your attacks, I'll remind you that you still haven't named an alternate writer (stat based, visual based, zodiac based, who cares) who will do a better job predicting the NBA season than Berri going forward.

[LUKE23]

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of the conversation that unfolded between the two of us (and others) over multiple threads. You specifically said you don't care about the opinions of Steve Kerr and Kenny Smith (among others), then got mad and retracted that portion of the statement when I linked to it in a later thread. I can see that Chad Ford remains on the list of the pundits you don't care about and/or don't respect (that fine line is still blurry to me, but who cares), and that's fine.

The much bigger picture though, is that in spite of your numerous passionate attacks on the work of Dave Berri, you refuse to name an individual who meets the standard that you accuse Dave Berri of not meeting. It would seem that you think it's safer and more fun to attack then to defend, and are therefore unwilling to let your name be linked with someone who's work may later turn out to be wrong. That creates a problem though: If you aren't willing to go on the record with saying that "Individual X is better at predicting NBA occurrences than Berri is," then no standard is established for him to fall short of. He still may be the best predictor who ever lived.

I think if you are tearing apart someone's work - even if anonymously - you have an obligation to suggest an alternative which passes your muster. For the time being you are only a rock thrower. If you are going to passive aggressively refer back to the thread where you made your attacks, I'll remind you that you still haven't named an alternate writer (stat based, visual based, zodiac based, who cares) who will do a better job predicting the NBA season than Berri going forward.

Boom goes the dynamite.

[smauss]

Chad Ford's take on the possible trade:

David (Vegas): Chad, not sure I understand the Conley for Sessions/Alexander deal from the Bucks' side. Is Alexander a big bust? Is Conley's upside that high? What's his true ceiling (especially if the Grizz think it's below Lowry's)?

SportsNation Chad Ford: (1:11 PM ET ) I really like Conley, he's just not in the right situation in Memphis. However, right now, Sessions is the better player. I think it's a very good trade for Memphis, though long term, it might swing in the Bucks favor. As for Alexander ... I'm skeptical. He's a great athlete and a talented kid, but I don't think he has any real feel for the game. There's a reason Mbah a Moute (also a rookie) has gobbled all of his minutes. Either way, Ridnour should be a reserve, not the starter, in Milwaukee. I don't understand what Scott Skiles is doing there.

This constant hate on Ridnour has me thinking that many "experts" outside of Milwaukee do not watch any Bucks games. Ridnour has played great this year, and has clearly been outperforming all of the other point guards on the team. Why should he be a reserve then?

Many in Milwaukee, and here as well.

[JoeHova]

Ridnour has not played great this year, by what standard has he been great? He's been better than many of us expected but still below average, especially when his defense is considered. Great is laughable.

[Joana]

Uh! You've got yourself in trouble. Adamcz will soon castigate you for such an appalling demonstration of disrespect towards a great mind of the game like Chad Ford. How can you insinuate he has no idea about the issue he's talking because he doesn't even watch the games? Besides, who needs to watch games anyway? Open your mind.

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of the conversation that unfolded between the two of us (and others) over multiple threads. You specifically said you don't care about the opinions of Steve Kerr and Kenny Smith (among others), then got mad and retracted that portion of the statement when I linked to it in a later thread. I can see that Chad Ford remains on the list of the pundits you don't care about and/or don't respect (that fine line is still blurry to me, but who cares), and that's fine.

The much bigger picture though, is that in spite of your numerous passionate attacks on the work of Dave Berri, you refuse to name an individual who meets the standard that you accuse Dave Berri of not meeting. It would seem that you think it's safer and more fun to attack then to defend, and are therefore unwilling to let your name be linked with someone who's work may later turn out to be wrong. That creates a problem though: If you aren't willing to go on the record with saying that "Individual X is better at predicting NBA occurrences than Berri is," then no standard is established for him to fall short of. He still may be the best predictor who ever lived.

I think if you are tearing apart someone's work - even if anonymously - you have an obligation to suggest an alternative which passes your muster. For the time being you are only a rock thrower. If you are going to passive aggressively refer back to the thread where you made your attacks, I'll remind you that you still haven't named an alternate writer (stat based, visual based, zodiac based, who cares) who will do a better job predicting the NBA season than Berri going forward.

Once again, you misquote me and lie about what I said. Once again: "I tend to think that most sportswriters and pundits don't even watch a decent number games and don't know the rules.". That's what I said and I don't retract ANYTHING about it. Are we clear?

I'm now expecting you to provide the quote where I specifically said I don't care about the opinions of Steve Kerr, for example. I'm waiting for it. If you don't provide it, I - and everybody else - can assume you are a shameless liar who doesn't mind to misquote people, misrepresent their positions by taking out of context parts of their statements and simply inventing stuff, like the specific mention to Steve Kerr.

Then, you keep committing the same mistake: " you refuse to name an individual who meets the standard that you accuse Dave Berri of not meeting."I'll say it very slowly: nobody meets the standard that you and others (including Berri himself) think Berri meets - and claim he meets. Is this that hard to understand? What do you need? A picture? It's probably my rusty and challenged English that makes this so hard to understand? If so, my apologies. If some guy says he can transform water into gold I can't call his claim a fraud without pointing out somewhere else I believe that can transform water into gold? Really, I think a 8 years old can see the fallacy here. It's amusing - although certainly not surprising (few things that come from open-minded experts are surprising" - that you seemingly can't. And, we're still waiting that you provide evidence to support this claim " Because his (Berri) track record seems better than most of the guys listed above". The burden of proof is, first of all, on you. If Berri can make accurate pre-season predictions, let's see it. I've been waiting for awhile now. I can't believe it's so complicated and complex to provide some empirical evidence.

[paulpressey25]

I think some of the national commentary on Sessions v. Ridnour stems more from the national media's perception of the Bucks. i.e. that we are a very poor franchise that should be developing young players (i.e. Sessions) rather than trying to restore the career of a middle of the road PG (Ridnour)

It all goes back to Adamcz's win now or rebuild question. IMO the national media's perception is that we should be rebuilding and giving guys like Sessions the starting job, even if it means a few less victories.

[SupremeHustle]

Uh! You've got yourself in trouble. Adamcz will soon castigate you for such an appalling demonstration of disrespect towards a great mind of the game like Chad Ford. How can you insinuate he has no idea about the issue he's talking because he doesn't even watch the games? Besides, who needs to watch games anyway? Open your mind.

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of the conversation that unfolded between the two of us (and others) over multiple threads. You specifically said you don't care about the opinions of Steve Kerr and Kenny Smith (among others), then got mad and retracted that portion of the statement when I linked to it in a later thread. I can see that Chad Ford remains on the list of the pundits you don't care about and/or don't respect (that fine line is still blurry to me, but who cares), and that's fine.

The much bigger picture though, is that in spite of your numerous passionate attacks on the work of Dave Berri, you refuse to name an individual who meets the standard that you accuse Dave Berri of not meeting. It would seem that you think it's safer and more fun to attack then to defend, and are therefore unwilling to let your name be linked with someone who's work may later turn out to be wrong. That creates a problem though: If you aren't willing to go on the record with saying that "Individual X is better at predicting NBA occurrences than Berri is," then no standard is established for him to fall short of. He still may be the best predictor who ever lived.

I think if you are tearing apart someone's work - even if anonymously - you have an obligation to suggest an alternative which passes your muster. For the time being you are only a rock thrower. If you are going to passive aggressively refer back to the thread where you made your attacks, I'll remind you that you still haven't named an alternate writer (stat based, visual based, zodiac based, who cares) who will do a better job predicting the NBA season than Berri going forward.

Once again, you misquote me and lie about what I said. Once again: "I tend to think that most sportswriters and pundits don't even watch a decent number games and don't know the rules.". That's what I said and I don't retract ANYTHING about it. Are we clear?

I'm now expecting you to provide the quote where I specifically said I don't care about the opinions of Steve Kerr, for example. I'm waiting for it. If you don't provide it, I - and everybody else - can assume you are a shameless liar who doesn't mind to misquote people, misrepresent their positions by taking out of context parts of their statements and simply inventing stuff, like the specific mention to Steve Kerr.

Then, you keep committing the same mistake: " you refuse to name an individual who meets the standard that you accuse Dave Berri of not meeting."I'll say it very slowly: nobody meets the standard that you and others (including Berri himself) think Berri meets - and claim he meets. Is this that hard to understand? What do you need? A picture? It's probably my rusty and challenged English that makes this so hard to understand? If so, my apologies. If some guy says he can transform water into gold I can't call his claim a fraud without pointing out somewhere else I believe that can transform water into gold? Really, I think a 8 years old can see the fallacy here. It's amusing - although certainly not surprising (few things that come from open-minded experts are surprising" - that you seemingly can't. And, we're still waiting that you provide evidence to support this claim " Because his (Berri) track record seems better than most of the guys listed above".

Pop goes the firecracker.

[Rockmaninoff]

Ridnour has been doing a fine Jason Kidd impersonation. I can't take credit for that comparison; Ty over at BucksDiary coined that around the end of November, I believe. Now, Ridnour may only be the poor man's Kidd, but that really works well with Redd/Jefferson/Villanueva/Bogut.

Hated the trade at the time, because I knew it would allow them to bury Sessions, but quickly grew to appreciate it after watching Ridnour play defense.

Oh, and, how does one go about becoming an 'open-minded expert'. Sounds like fun.

[Joana]

I think some of the national commentary on Sessions v. Ridnour stems more from the national media's perception of the Bucks. i.e. that we are a very poor franchise that should be developing young players (i.e. Sessions) rather than trying to restore the career of a middle of the road PG (Ridnour)

It all goes back to Adamcz's win now or rebuild question. IMO the national media's perception is that we should be rebuilding and giving guys like Sessions the starting job, even if it means a few less victories.

Hmmm... no. The national perception is that Sessions is a vastly superior player in relation to Ridnour that would deliver more wins to this franchise right now - Hollinger stated exactly this with a different wording, for example.

They are clearly open-minded experts who believe that a fair salary to Sessions would be around $10.2 million. aboveAverage is absolutely right: they simply don't watch a lot of Bucks games. This has been evident for me, as a Bucks fan, for some years now.

[Joana]

Oh, and, how does one go about becoming an 'open-minded expert'. Sounds like fun.

I believe the first step is to stop watching basketball games. That will allow you to "question assumptions". I believe that you'll quickly improve your basketball expertise - to the point that suddenly you understand more about the game than Kevin McHale - but not than Charles Barkley, David Berri or Stephen A. Smith, about whose opinions you must care. Respect the experts! I'm trying to figure out what to do next. Not having a clue about the difference between the SG and the SF in the Bucks offensive system is probably another requisite.

[MetroDrugUnit]

I heard that Herb is just waiting for his wife to sign off on it. I guess she is the Ultimate Decision Maker.

[EastSideBucksFan]

If league-wide its determined that Sessions deserves $10M then I 100% agree he needs to be shipped.

There's no way he deserves that money, thats ridiculous

[Captain Erv]

It'd be nice if Woelfel would provide some sort of update to the story...he must be hangin' with Enlund and Gardner today.

[europa]

I think some of the national commentary on Sessions v. Ridnour stems more from the national media's perception of the Bucks. i.e. that we are a very poor franchise that should be developing young players (i.e. Sessions) rather than trying to restore the career of a middle of the road PG (Ridnour)

It all goes back to Adamcz's win now or rebuild question. IMO the national media's perception is that we should be rebuilding and giving guys like Sessions the starting job, even if it means a few less victories.

I disagree. I think it has to do with the belief around that Sessions is more talented than Ridnour. I don't think the team's approach is at issue whatsoever. It's all about the perception of talent.

[carmelbrownqueen]

It'd be nice if Woelfel would provide some sort of update to the story...he must be hangin' with Enlund and Gardner today.

He actually gave an update on what he knew this morning on 1250. In short, he received his information on Sunday and didn't appear to know anything else.