Sessions Update:Ramon signs T-Wolves OS (page 310 update)

[Wise1]

There was no player on Skiles' cockroach Bulls teams that was/is better than Michael Redd. Those teams managed to win a few games and make the playoffs. The talent on this team is not as bad as you think. If Jennings is indeed an impact rookie, everyone on the roster will benefit from it. We do have "unproven" talent yes. But talent nonetheless imo.

[Sigra]

No, because if we don't win 40 it won't be because of him, it will be because we weren't talented enough going in. Look at the roster Sigra. We don't have starting caliber players at SF or PF, and our PG's are Ridnour and a rookie.

I know everyone is expecting this team that works really hard and plays unselfish, but you need top end talent to win. If Jennings is a stud from the get go, then I hear you, but if he isn't, this will be a lottery team.

Every player we picked up this offseason other than Jennings is meant to be a bench player on a good team.

You miss my point. I think we HAVE top talent and I think his name is Andrew Bogut. As I said many times, I think Bogut is 16th most valuable player in NBA (after LeBron, Kobe, Howard, Paul, Wade, Garnett, Duncan, D.Williams, Dirk, Pierce, Parker, Carmelo, Billups, Roy, Gasol). Considering that Kobe-Gasol, Garnett-Pierce, Carmelo-Billups and Duncan-Parker play in same teams that means that I think that only 11 teams have player(s) better than Bogut. So if I am right then with Skiles, great defense, great rebounding, 16th MVP in NBA, and solid role players we should win at least 40 games. If I am wrong and Bogut is not that good then we will not win 40 games and then we should think about trading Bogut because if I am wrong then we indeed don't have top talent and we should trade our best player while he still has value because when we get that talent he will be old.

[LUKE23]

I knew what you were saying, I just disagree with you that the rest of the roster is good enough to win 40. I'd have Bogut around 25ish in terms of impact as well, so we're not far off there.

[LUKE23]

We do have "unproven" talent yes. But talent nonetheless imo.

I think that if Jennings is not legit in year 1, we have starter-caliber (on solid teams) talent at only two positions, SG and C. I don't think any of the SF or PF's we have should start (ideally) on a good team. We shall see.

[illiance]

You miss my point. I think we HAVE top talent and I think his name is Andrew Bogut. As I said many times, I think Bogut is 16th most valuable player in NBA (after LeBron, Kobe, Howard, Paul, Wade, Garnett, Duncan, D.Williams, Dirk, Pierce, Parker, Carmelo, Billups, Roy, Gasol).

I know even you don't believe that. A career 13-9 guy is not the 16th best player in the league.

There was no player on Skiles' cockroach Bulls teams that was/is better than Michael Redd. Those teams managed to win a few games and make the playoffs. The talent on this team is not as bad as you think. If Jennings is indeed an impact rookie, everyone on the roster will benefit from it. We do have "unproven" talent yes. But talent nonetheless imo.

Even though the Bulls didn't have an All-Star, we had about 2-4 fringe All-Stars and played fabulous defense. Maybe the Bucks won't be as defensively challenged without Sessions and CV because that's their only chance to be comparable to the Skiles Bulls.

[AussieBuck]

We do have "unproven" talent yes. But talent nonetheless imo.

I think that if Jennings is not legit in year 1, we have starter-caliber (on solid teams) talent at only two positions, SG and C. I don't think any of the SF or PF's we have should start (ideally) on a good team. We shall see.

Plus Redd might not be any good until 2010 if at all on that knee.

[paulpressey25]

And don't forget that Hammond tried to dump Ridnour with Alexander to New Jersey for expirings.

I did forget that. I blame him for the fact he tried to dump his lotto pick along with his PG he acquired in trade about six-months after making those moves. But nonetheless, it would have been nice if NJ had accepted that deal. We could have then started the summer after cutting Salim with about $55mm in guaranteed salaries. We could have then kept RJ, signed our pick, signed Warrick, maybe signed Ersan and had plenty of luxury tax room to keep Sessions and maybe even try to fend off suitors by offering CV the QO.

[paulpressey25]

So it foreshadowed that Bogut would be a bad man-to-man defender in the NBA because he allowed David Harrison to score 14 points against in limited action? If anything that event chips away at the relevancy of summer league results.

I probably should have clarified when I posted that 2005 summer league blurb that I was going more for the fact that Bogut got ejected from a summer league game. Sort of foreshadowed in an artistic way the frustration we'd have with Bogut from that point forward.

If Bogut had gone on to be a top tier player the last four years, it wouldn't mean anything. In hindsight it seems like a George Costanza type moment that symbolizes our franchise.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

Even though the Bulls didn't have an All-Star, we had about 2-4 fringe All-Stars and played fabulous defense. Maybe the Bucks won't be as defensively challenged without Sessions and CV because that's their only chance to be comparable to the Skiles Bulls.

who exactly were the fringe allstars? gordon and deng... then who?

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

We do have "unproven" talent yes. But talent nonetheless imo.

I think that if Jennings is not legit in year 1, we have starter-caliber (on solid teams) talent at only two positions, SG and C. I don't think any of the SF or PF's we have should start (ideally) on a good team. We shall see.

if all our guys who are "solid backups" were in their 30's than it would be something to complain about. but their not. they are all in their early-mid 20's.

a team with a ton of young guys who would all be "good" backups on "good" teams is exactly what you want from a youth movement. if our young guys couldnt contribute on a good team, id have more pause for concern.
2 solid starters, and a quiver of young cheap hungry guys is exactly what wed all want moving forward.

eliminate 25ish million with gads, bell, ridnour, elson, thomas, sharpe, and bowens dead contract... and we have a pretty nice roster moving forward for the money. many of those contracts could and will come off the books this year and next... maybe even at the deadlines for more talent.
add in a coach who can get the most out of his team and....the future looks rosy bro.
you catchin my waves yet man?

[InsideOut]

There was no player on Skiles' cockroach Bulls teams that was/is better than Michael Redd. Those teams managed to win a few games and make the playoffs. The talent on this team is not as bad as you think. If Jennings is indeed an impact rookie, everyone on the roster will benefit from it. We do have "unproven" talent yes. But talent nonetheless imo.

Is "unproven talent" just another way of saying guys that have never done (or proven) anything? I don't see that as a positive.

Whatever happened to that Skiles Bulls team? Didn't they fire Skiles, blow it up and start over?

I think you over value Redd. He is a one dimensional scorer. Name me all the teams that won anything that were lead by a guy as one dimensional as Redd? Seriously, having a guy like that on your team (even without the max deal) doesn't historically seem to translate into wins.

[Dobber-16]

We do have "unproven" talent yes. But talent nonetheless imo.

I think that if Jennings is not legit in year 1, we have starter-caliber (on solid teams) talent at only two positions, SG and C. I don't think any of the SF or PF's we have should start (ideally) on a good team. We shall see.

if all our guys who are "solid backups" were in their 30's than it would be something to complain about. but their not. they are all in their early-mid 20's.

a team with a ton of young guys who would all be "good" backups on "good" teams is exactly what you want from a youth movement. if our young guys couldnt contribute on a good team, id have more pause for concern.
2 solid starters, and a quiver of young cheap hungry guys is exactly what wed all want moving forward.

eliminate 25ish million with gads, bell, ridnour, elson, thomas, sharpe, and bowens dead contract... and we have a pretty nice roster moving forward for the money. those contracts could and will come off the books this year... maybe even at the deadline for more talent, and the future looks even rosier.

catch my waves man?

I'm rolling with you Ghost.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

There was no player on Skiles' cockroach Bulls teams that was/is better than Michael Redd. Those teams managed to win a few games and make the playoffs. The talent on this team is not as bad as you think. If Jennings is indeed an impact rookie, everyone on the roster will benefit from it. We do have "unproven" talent yes. But talent nonetheless imo.

Is "unproven talent" just another way of saying guys that have never done (or proven) anything? I don't see that as a positive.

Whatever happened to that Skiles Bulls team? Didn't they fire Skiles, blow it up and start over?

I think you over value Redd. He is a one dimensional scorer. Name me all the teams that won anything that were lead by a guy as one dimensional as Redd? Seriously, having a guy like that on your team (even without the max deal) doesn't historically seem to translate into wins.

how many teams are loaded with guys who have "proven something"? the top 8-10 maybe? when youre in the midst of transitioning to a youth movement what do you expect?

the bulls blew it up? i missed that. they have regressed, but they are still a talented team in transition that could go either way depending on what happens with a couple of the young guys. hinrich and thomas not improving have defintiely held them back, but still....they can compete. skiles ran his course, but then again.... maybe thats why the bulls regressed too.

redds value is as a good guy veteran, who can keep this team in any game by himself. he may not be able to keep us in a playoff hunt by himself... but any game he gives us a chance to win. thats the EXACT type of vet youd want ANY young team to build around if they didnt have a superstar. its MUCH harder to build a team without a guy like redd. you have to stumble into one. 4-5 years from now, if all goes well, redd will be a veteran role player, and a solid lockerroom guy on an established perennial playoff team. thats IF we can get some young guys to step up...

young guys stepping up is the challenge of all rebuilding franchises, and we will rebuild no differently than anyone. redd wont have anything to do with that, except to hopefully keep us competitive in the process.
not being competive is certainly NOT the way to build a winner.

[InsideOut]

There was no player on Skiles' cockroach Bulls teams that was/is better than Michael Redd. Those teams managed to win a few games and make the playoffs. The talent on this team is not as bad as you think. If Jennings is indeed an impact rookie, everyone on the roster will benefit from it. We do have "unproven" talent yes. But talent nonetheless imo.

Is "unproven talent" just another way of saying guys that have never done (or proven) anything? I don't see that as a positive.

Whatever happened to that Skiles Bulls team? Didn't they fire Skiles, blow it up and start over?

I think you over value Redd. He is a one dimensional scorer. Name me all the teams that won anything that were lead by a guy as one dimensional as Redd? Seriously, having a guy like that on your team (even without the max deal) doesn't historically seem to translate into wins.

how many teams are loaded with guys who have "proven something"? the top 8-10 maybe? when youre in the midst of transitioning to a youth movement what do you expect?

I expect to win 35 games and not the 40-45 Wise thinks we'll win.

[Wise1]

There was no player on Skiles' cockroach Bulls teams that was/is better than Michael Redd. Those teams managed to win a few games and make the playoffs. The talent on this team is not as bad as you think. If Jennings is indeed an impact rookie, everyone on the roster will benefit from it. We do have "unproven" talent yes. But talent nonetheless imo.

Is "unproven talent" just another way of saying guys that have never done (or proven) anything? I don't see that as a positive.

Whatever happened to that Skiles Bulls team? Didn't they fire Skiles, blow it up and start over?

I think you over value Redd. He is a one dimensional scorer. Name me all the teams that won anything that were lead by a guy as one dimensional as Redd? Seriously, having a guy like that on your team (even without the max deal) doesn't historically seem to translate into wins.

Ask yourself if "unproven" necessarily means that a player won't produce. Is it not true that every player that enters the NBA for the first time is unproven? "Never done anything" is overblown since EVERY player entering the league fits that description...Kobe, Lebron, Duncan, ect.. If you don't see "unproven" as a positive, then I suppose your a general skeptic of every player that enters the NBA for the first time.

"Whatever happened to the Skiles Bulls team"? Who cares. The point is that those teams won games and made the playoffs. That's exactly what the Bucks are trying to do now. Are they a championship contender at this point? Of course not, but they are beginning to build a team that can at least make the playoffs.

"Name me all the teams that won anything that were led by a guy as one dimensional as Redd"?

So are you admitting that Redd is the best player on the team? Sounds like it. How about this. YOU name me a team that has ever won anything that didn't have a player that can consistently score the basketball. Redd, at his best, is a piece of the puzzle...not the entire game. He is a "shooting guard". That's his role on the team. His role is not to lead the team in assists and rebounds or be anywhere near the top in those departments.

If Bogut becomes a consistent offensive and defensive low post threat nightly and Jennings develops into an impact playmaker, then Redd would be an ideal third wheel and the Bucks would probably be a perenial playoff contender. Unfortunately, Bogut has not stepped up and earned the title of the team's best player due to his maddening inconsistency in the area of effort.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

lets assume this...

...redd comes back as redd moving forward
...bogut comes back as bogut moving forward
...jennings plays like most other naismith hs POY that have played in the nba without injury
...1-2 guys like mam, ilyasova, delfino, warrick, meeks, alexander, ukic becomes a "ben wallace/tayshaun prince level talent"
...1 guy in the next couple drafts or FA class score biggish
...2 guys like ridnour, bell, or thomas is added or retained for an odd open backup spot

then what?

50-55wins is what.

[InsideOut]

Ask yourself if "unproven" necessarily means that a player won't produce. Is it not true that every player that enters the NBA for the first time is unproven? "Never done anything" is overblown since EVERY player entering the league fits that description...Kobe, Lebron, Duncan, ect.. If you don't see "unproven" as a positive, then I suppose your a general skeptic of every player that enters the NBA for the first time.

I never said unproven means they won't produce...just that they never have. If the guy is 25+ and been in the league a while then calling him unproven is not a good thing (think most of the guys Hammond has added). 19 and unproven is not as bad as you still have time (BJ). The best thing to have is obviously proven guys. I don't think we have a proven #1 or #2 guy on a title team. I give Hammond 2 more years to start adding those types of guys.

"Name me all the teams that won anything that were led by a guy as one dimensional as Redd"?

So are you admitting that Redd is the best player on the team? Sounds like it. How about this. YOU name me a team that has ever won anything that didn't have a player that can consistently score the basketball. Redd, at his best, is a piece of the puzzle...not the entire game. He is a "shooting guard". That's his role on the team. His role is not to lead the team in assists and rebounds or be anywhere near the top in those departments.

If Bogut becomes a consistent offensive and defensive low post threat nightly and Jennings develops into an impact playmaker, then Redd would be an ideal third wheel and the Bucks would probably be a perenial playoff contender. Unfortunately, Bogut has not stepped up and earned the title of the team's best player due to his maddening inconsistency in the area of effort.

I don't care or even think about Redd being our best player. I just realize that as long as people think that it means the Bucks aren't going anywhere. Also, being the best player on a team that averages 29 wins over 3 seasons isn't exactly something I'd want to be known for.

All title teams have a guy that can score the ball. The thing is those guys also played great D, were leaders, and could do a few other things better than average as well. I agree when Redd is the 3rd guy and making $8 million for us that we'll be in much better shape. Until then we'll win 35 games and have cap trouble. What we do these next two seasons will go a long way toward how good we'll be the 3+ seasons after that. Winning 30 games and getting high picks will help. Winning 45 games and adding guys via trade will help. Winning 40 games and being stuck in limbo will doom us.

[Baddy Chuck]

..jennings plays like most other naismith hs POY that have played in the nba without injury

Do you mean Louis Williams? Kevin Love? Raymond Felton? Gerald Wallace?

Because he sure as hell won't have an impact like James or Howard.

[Wise1]

..jennings plays like most other naismith hs POY that have played in the nba without injury

Do you mean Louis Williams? Kevin Love? Raymond Felton? Gerald Wallace?

Because he sure as hell won't have an impact like James or Howard.

We're only asking that he have an impact like National Player of the Year TJ Ford.

[LUKE23]

50-55 wins is what.

Wow.