LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1 ... 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next  [ 835 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017

Author Message
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 14, 2017, 2:44 PM Post
Posts: 1751
We all understand how trades were made back then. That's irrelevant.

The fact is the team thought Tractor Traylor was a better player than Dirk (and Pierce) then actually added the 19th pick for good measure. So the fact that they couldn't have drafted Dirk isn't true. They absolutely could have and did.

The end result was a trade that would prove to be one of the top 5 worst trades in pro sports.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 14, 2017, 3:32 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4480
Boomer5 said:
We all understand how trades were made back then. That's irrelevant.

The fact is the team thought Tractor Traylor was a better player than Dirk (and Pierce) then actually added the 19th pick for good measure. So the fact that they couldn't have drafted Dirk isn't true. They absolutely could have and did.

The end result was a trade that would prove to be one of the top 5 worst trades in pro sports.


Saying that is the same as saying Bill Belichik traded away Clay Matthews.

"I wasted so much time in my life hating Juventus or A.C. Milan that I should have spent hating the Cardinals." ~kalle8

Twitter: @MKEHiker
Website: http://www.mkehiker.com


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 14, 2017, 3:36 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4480
OnTheBlack said:
Baldkin said:
If you think Kidd is a good coach, that's a non-starter with me.
They didn't draft Giannis. Giannis was drafted and the owners were gifted the #2 overall pick.

The fact that I can come back with an incredibly long list of stupidly horrible moves that this new ownership group has made since taking over and you listed 2 things that are... well, not spectacular and they were both in last year's draft, that gives me no faith in this group moving forward.



Likewise if you don't think he is.


I honestly, and I know this will sound sarcastic, but I honestly want to know what you think makes him a good coach. I simply don't think he does the fundamental aspect of his job very well, which is putting players (and as a result the team) in the best position to succeed.

"I wasted so much time in my life hating Juventus or A.C. Milan that I should have spent hating the Cardinals." ~kalle8

Twitter: @MKEHiker
Website: http://www.mkehiker.com


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 14, 2017, 4:06 PM Post
Posts: 1751
Baldkin said:
Boomer5 said:
We all understand how trades were made back then. That's irrelevant.

The fact is the team thought Tractor Traylor was a better player than Dirk (and Pierce) then actually added the 19th pick for good measure. So the fact that they couldn't have drafted Dirk isn't true. They absolutely could have and did.

The end result was a trade that would prove to be one of the top 5 worst trades in pro sports.


Saying that is the same as saying Bill Belichik traded away Clay Matthews.


Im fine with that statement too. The draft means you pick the players you like who are available when your turn comes up. If you trade out it means you don't see the value in that specific player.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 14, 2017, 8:38 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 4112
Regardless of if we could've "kept" Dirk or not, the main point I was making was that the Bucks (and lots of people) thought the Bucks mode off like a bandit in that trade when it was made. But obviously it worked completely the opposite. People that work hard and make good evaluations get good players. Back in the day, the Bucks mainly made the poor choice. Allen for Maybury was probably the exception to that.

More recent drafting has shown to be much better.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 15, 2017, 1:42 AM Post
Posts: 301
Baldkin said:
OnTheBlack said:
Baldkin said:
If you think Kidd is a good coach, that's a non-starter with me.
They didn't draft Giannis. Giannis was drafted and the owners were gifted the #2 overall pick.

The fact that I can come back with an incredibly long list of stupidly horrible moves that this new ownership group has made since taking over and you listed 2 things that are... well, not spectacular and they were both in last year's draft, that gives me no faith in this group moving forward.



Likewise if you don't think he is.


I honestly, and I know this will sound sarcastic, but I honestly want to know what you think makes him a good coach. I simply don't think he does the fundamental aspect of his job very well, which is putting players (and as a result the team) in the best position to succeed.



Ok, something has to give. The Bucks haven't made ANY good moves since the new owners came in, right? And their coach...the guy who has brought in guys like KG to work with Giannis is a terrible coach.

Then how exactly did we pick the rookie of the year in the 2nd round? How did a kid who wasn't supposed to be eligible for this years draft become an impact starter for a team that lost it's 2nd best player and started and contributed to the Bucks in the playoffs this year?

I thought Kidd was an awful hire at the time. But I think he's done a good job...or at the very least the young core has improved with him as coach. I don't buy the "he doesn't put guys in position to succeed," as that's pretty much the fans canned answer.

I'd also like to point out every fanbase complains about every coach. Bulls fans hated Tibs, Cards fans bashed LaRussa(especially hitting the pitcher 8th, but other times). And even in New England when they went through a little lull there was a large contingent of the fanbase that complained.

Plus, this is a guy who put Plumelee in a position to actually look good for a few weeks. That right there ought to put him next to Phil and Red in the NBA coaching pantheon.


Seriously though, moving Monroe to the bench, moving Maker into the starting lineup, how he brought back Middleton slowly, how he turned over the starting job to Brogdon...these are further down on my list than helping the young guys develop, but still areas in which I think he did good.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 15, 2017, 1:47 AM Post
Posts: 301
Baldkin said:
Boomer5 said:
We all understand how trades were made back then. That's irrelevant.

The fact is the team thought Tractor Traylor was a better player than Dirk (and Pierce) then actually added the 19th pick for good measure. So the fact that they couldn't have drafted Dirk isn't true. They absolutely could have and did.

The end result was a trade that would prove to be one of the top 5 worst trades in pro sports.


Saying that is the same as saying Bill Belichik traded away Clay Matthews.



Almost....now make Clay Matthews a 18 year old kid who almost nobody else is looking at and who has built his trust up within ONE single person and by extension one organization(Dallas) and make Matthews a player who almost certainly isn't going to come to Green Bay even if he is drafted the following season...and NOW that's a even closer comparison.

The end result of the "Dirk trade" was one of the most mythical and misunderstood trades in sports history. They don't make that trade, the Mavs pick Dirk with their original pick and that's the end of the story.

Dirk was never playing on the Bucks. You can massage it however you like. More than blame, there should be credit going to the Mavs and Nelson for their scouting. You want to blame them for missing out on Pierce, fine, but lots of teams passed on him and if you want to use hindsight when evaluating draft picks, ever team can be made to look dumb.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 15, 2017, 9:58 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4583
IF they sign Rose to a contract of equal or less length than what Henson has left (3 years or less) and trade Henson / 1 for salary relief, i think that is OK. Henson doesn't fit this team at all. I would rather see that money be spent on someone other than Rose though. In theory it should be a late 1st which is a crapshoot in the NBA.

seems like ownership is more concerned in bringing in a name that will sell jerseys rather than someone that can help this team and now we have a GM that is over his head and will do the owners bidding.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 15, 2017, 1:27 PM Post
Posts: 1751
patrickgpe said:
IF they sign Rose to a contract of equal or less length than what Henson has left (3 years or less) and trade Henson / 1 for salary relief, i think that is OK. Henson doesn't fit this team at all. I would rather see that money be spent on someone other than Rose though. In theory it should be a late 1st which is a crapshoot in the NBA.

seems like ownership is more concerned in bringing in a name that will sell jerseys rather than someone that can help this team and now we have a GM that is over his head and will do the owners bidding.


Trading a number 1 should always be a no go for a small market team unless you're clearing space to bring in a young All Star. Rose is the opposite of that. Just coach up the guys you have instead. Rose is done.

Let's hope that when they do this insane move that they buy an early 2nd round pick instead of selling them.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 16, 2017, 12:05 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 17004
patrickgpe said:
Henson doesn't fit this team at all.


Neither does Rose. Like it's hard to think of a worse fit at PG on this team.

Cards' fans wear jorts.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 16, 2017, 7:18 PM Post
Posts: 1251
trwi7 said:
patrickgpe said:
Henson doesn't fit this team at all.


Neither does Rose. Like it's hard to think of a worse fit at PG on this team.


I'm in the camp of lets try something new. John Henson has zero future here and is no more than a warm butt on a bench. The bench may actually start on fire pretty soon it's so hot from him sitting on it. Sure Rose isn't ideal, but I don't really see much downside. Maybe his knees get a little better with another year and he becomes a bit closer to what he once was. You can always use slashers. Giannis can't be asked to do everything, even Lebron can't do it all himself.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 16, 2017, 8:07 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 17004
Slashers are fine only if you do something with it. He's a bad passer with tunnel vision and a poor finisher at the rim. How does that help?

Cards' fans wear jorts.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 16, 2017, 8:51 PM Post
Posts: 1251
trwi7 said:
Slashers are fine only if you do something with it. He's a bad passer with tunnel vision and a poor finisher at the rim. How does that help?


I guess (last season and when the Bulls were actually good) 47-48% from the field and 5-6 assists per is bad these days. He was a double digit per in assists during the time the Bulls were good. Add the 85-90% from the FT line. Do elaborate on how he was supposed to be effective as a slasher when guys like Ron Baker or Justin Holiday is playing alongside him, or ball hog Carmelo? Courtney Lee is a bit player and was probably the 3rd best player on the team. It wouldn't surprise me if Rose had tunnel vision...wouldn't you also?

Nobody thinks they are getting MVP possibly HOF Derrick Rose. Those days have passed. But as far as i'm concerned watching John Henson be a lead weight on this team for his salary if we can move him and sign Rose to a similar deal why not? It ain't like Dellavadova is banging down the door to start, and I like Brogdon as a super sub. For the money total trash players are getting right now, Rose for 6-8 million is a bargain lottery ticket in my opinion.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 16, 2017, 9:31 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 17004
superfly said:
But as far as i'm concerned watching John Henson be a lead weight on this team for his salary if we can move him and sign Rose to a similar deal why not?


Because getting rid of a bad player and then signing another bad player to the same contract is stupid?

Cards' fans wear jorts.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 16, 2017, 11:41 PM Post
Posts: 301
trwi7 said:
superfly said:
But as far as i'm concerned watching John Henson be a lead weight on this team for his salary if we can move him and sign Rose to a similar deal why not?


Because getting rid of a bad player and then signing another bad player to the same contract is stupid?



Yeah, Rose isn't a "bad player." That's just ridiculous. I don't think he's a good fit with this team, but saying he's a bad player is just overstating it.

And I could at least see Rose having a role on this team. I could see him being a scorer off the bench. Henson doesn't have any role.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 17, 2017, 1:02 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 17004
Name what he does well. Terrible defender and below average efficiency on offense is pretty much the textbook definition of bad player.

Cards' fans wear jorts.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 17, 2017, 7:14 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1036
Rose is not good. He's a ball dominant guard who can't shoot. He goes completely against the style of this team. They need a shooter who can play off of the ball. He was an amazing player, about 3 knee injuries ago. His ability to get through traffic was elite. He's lost that step. He's a name, and that is about it. He won't be paid as a bench guy, and Kidd won't consider him a bench guy. He's a net negative. I'd rather pay Henson to play in Oshkosh than sign Rose. This is the signing good teams avoid. It's signing Tim Lincecum today, and pretending that he is Cy Young Tim Lincecum.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 17, 2017, 9:25 AM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 2097
I would be really disappointed in the Bucks if the signed Rose. Feels like a bad idea.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 17, 2017, 10:44 AM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 4112
I guess (last season and when the Bulls were actually good) 47-48% from the field and 5-6 assists per is bad these days. He was a double digit per in assists during the time the Bulls were good. Add the 85-90% from the FT line.

He hasn't been above 5 assists per game in 5 years. In 2012, he had 7.9 assists per game, which is still a ways from double digits. He only shot close to 47-48% in three seasons(last year and 2008-2010).

Add in that he shoots 3pters under 30%. He has no value to this team, IMO.


 Top
 
Offline  Re: Milwaukee Bucks 2016 - 2017
Posted: July 18, 2017, 10:49 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4583
putting this here because this is one of the dumbest things i have ever saw: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2722 ... m=referral

home uniforms will now be known as the "association edition"
road uniforms will now be known as the "icon edition"

8 teams will have classic edition uniforms, i doubt but would love to see the bucks as one of them with the uniforms from the late 80's with the different shades of greens


 Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1 ... 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42  Next  [ 835 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test