Everybody (that just read the title): HAHAHAHAHA!!! (as they roll on the floor and tears stream from their eyes)
Me: No seriously! I really think they are still a good team!
Everybody: HAHAHAHAHA!!! (the laughter gets stronger and they gasp for air)
Me: Stop laughing! This Cavs team could be pretty damn good!
Everybody: HAHAHAHAHA!!! (the laughter still increases in intensity but everybody appears to be physically hurt from laughing so hard)
Me: Honestly, the Cavs are good and can make the playoffs!
Everybody: (Silence. Everybody has died from a combination of extreme laughter, disbelief and too much LeBron Kool-Aid)
While I don't think anybody will actually die from laughter from me saying the Cavs will be good this year, I also don't think it's too far fetched. Seriously, NOBODY is giving Cleveland a shot at being good this year. In my honest opinion, the people who don't think the Cavs can play playoff basketball this year don't know their history, they don't watch basketball and they definitely don't KNOW basketball. You heard it here first, ladies and gentleman, the Cleveland Cavaliers are a playoff team.
People forget that basketball is TRULY a TEAM game. Individuals don't win championships in the NBA. They never have. The Cavaliers won 61 games last year, not just LeBron, the Cavaliers. They had the best record in the league last year. It doesn't matter the situation, you can't lose just one player in this era of the NBA and drop 40 wins. Historically it's rare; recently, unfounded. LeBron James is a great player and might be one of the best ever, but he's still one of five. LeBron can't guard 5 guys (or one in some cases, honestly) and LeBron can't score on 5 guys either. He needs talent around him to win games just like every other star. Kobe needs Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum, Trevor Ariza/Ron Artest, Derek Fisher etc., and Paul Pierce needs Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins. So the argument here is that LeBron didn't have what Kobe or Paul had while in Cleveland...but he still won more games. Why is there somewhat of a deadlock in the Kobe/LeBron debate? Shouldn't LeBron be regarded as infinitely better if he played with a team of scrubs and won 61 games while Kobe played with all-stars and only managed 57 wins? Isn't LeBron WAY better than Kobe?
That's where it gets really funny and people become super hypocrites. People say on the one hand that Kobe is better than LeBron but on the other that LeBron needs more help in Cleveland as...wait for it...wait for it...LeBron is WINNING MORE GAMES THAN KOBE! It makes my brain hurt. Kobe > LeBron; Kobe's support > LeBron's support; LeBron's wins > Kobe's wins. Yeah, the playoffs were different and the conferences were different, but how is LeBron's supporting cast so weak if he's worse than Kobe and his team wins more than Kobe's? By the way Kobe IS better than LeBron (at this point for sure). So take Kobe off this Lakers team and do they make the playoffs? I think they do. Do they win the championship, no, but are they in the playoff mix, YES! You subtract LeBron from the Cavs and everybody assumes it's equal to a bomb going off under Quicken Loans Arena. General consensus is Cleveland will suck without LeBron. It just doesn't make sense to me. It's absurd!
Michael Jordan is the greatest player ever. He's better than LeBron without question to this point. He's also better than Kobe. Let me (re)tell a story about Michael Jordan in case you've forgotten. Jordan leaves the Bulls after the 1992-93 season and the Bulls are destitute without him. Wait...they weren't?...they were contenders in 1993-94 even without the G.O.A.T.?! Yes. While Michael Jordan was pretending to be a baseball player the Bulls won 55 games (only two less than the previous year). They definitely folded in the playoffs in '94 but, damn they were still good. The argument was that they still had Scottie Pippen (valid argument really, Scottie was better than OK) but they were still contenders without the best player ever. Outside of Pippen, there wasn't exactly a bunch of superstars on that team (seriously Horace Grant and B.J. Armstrong are the next best). That team was still REALLY good minus their unquestioned superduperstar.
If the Bulls in 1993-94 can compete for the championship, why can't the 2010-11 Cavs be in the playoffs in a talent diluted era? They can! Did Mo Williams, Antawn Jamison and Anderson Varejao die? No, they are still breathing and can still ball. Is this a team that has tasted victory? Is this a team of playoff experienced veterans? Is this a team with an outrageously large chip on their shoulders? YES IT IS! These guys didn't come in off the street, they were part of a 61-win team less than 5 months ago. They aren't going to roll over and play dead! The Cavs weren't just about LeBron, and maybe the shadow he cast covered the true talents of this team. These guys can step up and play!
Look at a guy like Leon Powe; just over two years ago this guy was HUGE in the playoffs and couldn't really be stopped for the Celtics as they WON the championship. By the way he's healthy and motivated this upcoming season for the first time since then. Look at J.J. Hickson who averaged 4 points and 3 rebounds more a game than previously (with similar minutes mind you) when his role was expanded in February because of injuries on the team. He got the opportunity to be a bigger part of the team and seized it with both hands and he's only 22! Ramon Sessions is only 24 and less than two years ago he was setting Milwaukee ablaze with his play. When he finally got a shot to play in the 2008-09 season with the Bucks he averaged a 18.5 ppg and 7.4 apg in all of February (where he got his biggest chance). He also had a win share per 48 minutes (an estimate of how many wins a player contributes per 48 minutes) of 0.123 (league average is 0.100). Put it this way; he was responsible for more wins that season than Carmelo Anthony, Joe Johnson and Allen Iverson (you know, guys on the All-Star team). When Sessions had the opportunity to play he was a winner and he's only 24. This feels like a 'where the hell did these guys come from?' team. We know all their names, to an extent, but they never had the chance. I wish they were in Indiana so they could be the Hoosiers.
This team scares the hell out of me. They are sneaky talented and young, they have players that never got a good chance to shine, they have experience in the Playoffs/Finals, they have the 'Nobody Believes In Us' card/HUGE chip on their shoulders, and they're fighting with the Bobcats, Knicks, Pacers, and NOBODY ELSE for the 7th and 8th seeds in the East. It's ridiculous to think they can't grab one of those seeds.
Michael Jordan got cut from his high school team. The Cleveland Cavaliers are being cut by everybody for the 2010-11 playoffs. Michael made everybody pay, the Cavs might just do the same.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Good Grief: No Love For Moncrief
"When you play against [Sidney] Moncrief, you're in for a night of all-around basketball. He'll hound you everywhere you go, both ends of the court. You just expect it."
Nice praise. The quote sounds like Moncrief was reasonably well respected while he played or had really nice teammates that gathered some words together to make him sound like a valuable NBA player/teammate. 'He's a gamer' is what this quote means coming from most people. This quote, however, did not come from most people; it came from the greatest ever. It came from Michael Jordan. Jordan didn't and doesn't throw praise around when unwarranted. He's a bitter man who spends more time talking about his doubters and the people he defeated than people he praised (look at his Hall of Fame induction speech for crying out loud). So for MJ to offer up a comment like this, to a division foe no less, it shows a lot of respect for Moncrief coming from the greatest player the game of basketball has ever seen.
Sidney Moncrief is the Rodney Dangerfield of the NBA, the dude gets no respect. It takes every good-natured fiber in my body NOT to back-hand slap "NBA fans" who don't know, respect or care about Moncrief's game. Sidney "the Squid" Moncrief belongs in the Hall of Fame and he deserves to be known by not only fair weather Bucks fans but NBA fans in general.
Before Moncrief even set foot on NBA hardwood, he was a basketball legend. He resurrected the basketball program for the University or Arkansas. Say what you will about Marvin Delph, Ron Brewer and Eddie Sutton (people probably don't have much to say since they didn't know about Moncrief in the first place; I could back-hand myself at this point. FRUSTRATED!) but Moncrief was the unquestioned leader and straw that stirred the drink for Arkansas. College basketball in Arkansas, at the time, was like football is in North Carolina right now (Who cares? When does basketball season start?). Moncrief changed that and Arkansas cares about basketball to this day. Moncrief averaged 16.9 points per game (PPG) and 8.3 rebounds per game (RPG) over his college career and 22.0 PPG and 9.6 RPG in his senior season (Moncrief was 6'3" at best and damn near averaged a double-double with points and rebounds, who does that now? Nobody.). He's part of the '2,000 point, 1,000 rebound' club in Division 1 (HE'S ONLY 6'3"!!!).
When the Bucks drafted him fifth overall (after David Greenwood and Greg Kelser...who?) I'm sure they hoped that they got a guy that could lead their team through the decade of the 80s. As you'll find, YES, the Bucks got that guy.
In the 80s, basketball was dominated by the Lakers and the Celtics; Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. Use your best guess and try to figure out who the 3rd best team in the 80s was (hint: it ain't the Philadelphia 76ers, the Detroit Pistons or the Portland Trailblazers). I'll wait...
(Cue the Jeopardy! music while I fix myself a drink because the answer is one that the casual NBA fan has no idea about.)
The Milwaukee Bucks of the 80s had the 3rd best winning percentage of the decade behind the Celtics and Lakers. They took bronze in the 80s which was THE BEST decade of basketball that we've EVER seen. The Celtics and Lakers of the 80s are viewed, arguably (but there shouldn't be much argument), as the best teams the league has ever seen. We're talking Bird, Magic, McHale, Kareem, Parrish, Worthy, Ainge, Cooper, DJ etc...and that's just two teams! Not to mention (but to mention) the aforementioned Jordan, Barkley, Gervin, Bernard King, Moses, Dr. J, Olajuwon, Wilkins, Karl Malone, Isiah Thomas, Ewing, Stockton, Drexler etc. This was the best basketball era ever and the Bucks had the third best team in that era. Who was the constant for the Bucks in that decade? Who was their unquestioned leader? Sid "The Squid" Moncrief, that's who.
Sidney Moncrief's career started in 1979-80 and here's the Bucks' record with Moncrief:
1979-80: 49-33 (seventh best in the league; won division)
1980-81: 60-22 (third best in the league; won division)
1981-82: 55-27 (fourth best in the league; won division)
1982-83: 51-31 (sixth best in the league; won division)
1983-84: 50-32 (fourth best in the league; won division)
1984-85: 59-23 (third best in the league; won division)
1985-86: 57-25 (third best in the league; won division)
1986-87: 50-32 (sixth best in the league: third in division)
1987-88: 42-40 (twelfth best in the league; fifth in division)
1988-89: 49-33 (eighth best in the league; fourth in division)
So, Moncrief as team leader compiled a 522-298 record as the heart and soul of the Milwaukee Bucks. That's better than a 52-30 record average for a decade, and not just any decade, only the best decade of basketball ever. If the Bucks go 52-30 in this era, Bucks' fans are catatonic from excitement (once again 52-30 was their AVERAGE during the 80s). In the 80s, it was shooting under par without winning a trophy. Not to mention they NEVER had a losing record (aka; Always competitive, if not elite). Let's look at the playoffs:
1979-80: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Seattle as underdogs in 7 games
1980-81: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Philadelphia as underdogs in 7 games (lost by 1 in game 7)
1981-82: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Philadelphia as underdogs in 6 games
1982-83: Lost in Conference Final to Philadelphia as underdogs in 5 games (Lost to the champions and swept Boston in the prior series. Yeah, the Larry Bird Celtics.)
1983-84: Lost in Conference Final to Boston as underdogs in 5 games (Boston won it all this year.)
1984-85: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Philadelphia as underdogs in 4 games
1985-86: Lost in Conference Finals to Boston as underdogs in 4 games (Boston won it all this year.)
1986-87: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Boston as underdogs in 7 (One of the more underrated playoff series of that decade, it REALLY could've gone either way and was always close.)
1987-88: Lost in first round to Atlanta as underdogs in game 5 of 5 game series
1988-89: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Detroit in 4 games (Detroit won it all this year.)
The Bucks were contenders every year he played, seriously. They lost to 4 eventual champions in the playoffs during the 80s and were always in the mix. 'The Squid' never missed the playoffs while he played for the Bucks. When Sidney Moncrief played for the Bucks, they were a force to be reckoned with in the best era the NBA has seen to this point. It makes you wonder how things would transpire had the Celtics, Lakers and, to a lesser degree, the 76ers not been the best the NBA has ever seen.
Notice I haven't said Matt Foley 'jack squat' about what Moncrief did on his own in that era. The Milwaukee Bucks were constant contenders while he was their best player. Here's the short version of what he accomplished in that lofty era:
While Mocrief was dominating on defense, he was also taking care of business on offense (1981-82 19.8 PPG, 1982-83 22.5 PPG, 1983-84 20.9 PPG, 1984-85 21.7 PPG, 1985-86 20.2 PPG). It's not unusual to score over 20 PPG in this league, but you know what is? Being a defensive specialist that can score over 20 PPG while shooting over 50% (for Moncrief's career!) from the field and 83% from the free throw line as a 6'3" guard. Bruce Bowen is praised for his wing defense in the current era but he doesn't have to guard Jordan, Wilkins, Bird and the like. Yeah, I mean the same guys Moncrief had to battle with on a regular basis. Bowen averaged 6.1 PPG a year over his career while Moncrief averaged over double that at 15.6 a game for his career. So Bowen is viewed as an ultimate perimeter defender in this current era, without scoring ability. Moncrief was an elite perimeter defender, if not the best, WITH scoring ability in an elite era. If Bowen is revered in an era that is diluted unlike Moncrief's era, shouldn't Sidney Moncrief be a first ballot Hall of Famer? He's arguably the best defender of his era and could hold up his end of the donkey on the offensive end as well.
All of Moncrief's accomplishments came in a time where the NBA talent level was at it's peak. Sidney Moncrief was an elite performer and should be recognized as such whether Michael Jordan believed it or not.
Yeah, Michael Jordan respected him, but it's more than that. Sidney 'the Squid' Moncrief made the playoffs 10 years in a row, lead his team there every year, established the Defensive Player of the Year award as the first and second recipient, was a 5 time All-Star, 5 time All-NBA guy, 5 time NBA All Defensive team guy and was the top dog on a team that won more games than everyone except the Celtics and Lakers in the 80s. Put "The Squid" in the Hall of Fame, and keep him in your brains people. RESPECT.
Nice praise. The quote sounds like Moncrief was reasonably well respected while he played or had really nice teammates that gathered some words together to make him sound like a valuable NBA player/teammate. 'He's a gamer' is what this quote means coming from most people. This quote, however, did not come from most people; it came from the greatest ever. It came from Michael Jordan. Jordan didn't and doesn't throw praise around when unwarranted. He's a bitter man who spends more time talking about his doubters and the people he defeated than people he praised (look at his Hall of Fame induction speech for crying out loud). So for MJ to offer up a comment like this, to a division foe no less, it shows a lot of respect for Moncrief coming from the greatest player the game of basketball has ever seen.
Sidney Moncrief is the Rodney Dangerfield of the NBA, the dude gets no respect. It takes every good-natured fiber in my body NOT to back-hand slap "NBA fans" who don't know, respect or care about Moncrief's game. Sidney "the Squid" Moncrief belongs in the Hall of Fame and he deserves to be known by not only fair weather Bucks fans but NBA fans in general.
Before Moncrief even set foot on NBA hardwood, he was a basketball legend. He resurrected the basketball program for the University or Arkansas. Say what you will about Marvin Delph, Ron Brewer and Eddie Sutton (people probably don't have much to say since they didn't know about Moncrief in the first place; I could back-hand myself at this point. FRUSTRATED!) but Moncrief was the unquestioned leader and straw that stirred the drink for Arkansas. College basketball in Arkansas, at the time, was like football is in North Carolina right now (Who cares? When does basketball season start?). Moncrief changed that and Arkansas cares about basketball to this day. Moncrief averaged 16.9 points per game (PPG) and 8.3 rebounds per game (RPG) over his college career and 22.0 PPG and 9.6 RPG in his senior season (Moncrief was 6'3" at best and damn near averaged a double-double with points and rebounds, who does that now? Nobody.). He's part of the '2,000 point, 1,000 rebound' club in Division 1 (HE'S ONLY 6'3"!!!).
When the Bucks drafted him fifth overall (after David Greenwood and Greg Kelser...who?) I'm sure they hoped that they got a guy that could lead their team through the decade of the 80s. As you'll find, YES, the Bucks got that guy.
In the 80s, basketball was dominated by the Lakers and the Celtics; Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. Use your best guess and try to figure out who the 3rd best team in the 80s was (hint: it ain't the Philadelphia 76ers, the Detroit Pistons or the Portland Trailblazers). I'll wait...
(Cue the Jeopardy! music while I fix myself a drink because the answer is one that the casual NBA fan has no idea about.)
The Milwaukee Bucks of the 80s had the 3rd best winning percentage of the decade behind the Celtics and Lakers. They took bronze in the 80s which was THE BEST decade of basketball that we've EVER seen. The Celtics and Lakers of the 80s are viewed, arguably (but there shouldn't be much argument), as the best teams the league has ever seen. We're talking Bird, Magic, McHale, Kareem, Parrish, Worthy, Ainge, Cooper, DJ etc...and that's just two teams! Not to mention (but to mention) the aforementioned Jordan, Barkley, Gervin, Bernard King, Moses, Dr. J, Olajuwon, Wilkins, Karl Malone, Isiah Thomas, Ewing, Stockton, Drexler etc. This was the best basketball era ever and the Bucks had the third best team in that era. Who was the constant for the Bucks in that decade? Who was their unquestioned leader? Sid "The Squid" Moncrief, that's who.
Sidney Moncrief's career started in 1979-80 and here's the Bucks' record with Moncrief:
1979-80: 49-33 (seventh best in the league; won division)
1980-81: 60-22 (third best in the league; won division)
1981-82: 55-27 (fourth best in the league; won division)
1982-83: 51-31 (sixth best in the league; won division)
1983-84: 50-32 (fourth best in the league; won division)
1984-85: 59-23 (third best in the league; won division)
1985-86: 57-25 (third best in the league; won division)
1986-87: 50-32 (sixth best in the league: third in division)
1987-88: 42-40 (twelfth best in the league; fifth in division)
1988-89: 49-33 (eighth best in the league; fourth in division)
So, Moncrief as team leader compiled a 522-298 record as the heart and soul of the Milwaukee Bucks. That's better than a 52-30 record average for a decade, and not just any decade, only the best decade of basketball ever. If the Bucks go 52-30 in this era, Bucks' fans are catatonic from excitement (once again 52-30 was their AVERAGE during the 80s). In the 80s, it was shooting under par without winning a trophy. Not to mention they NEVER had a losing record (aka; Always competitive, if not elite). Let's look at the playoffs:
1979-80: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Seattle as underdogs in 7 games
1980-81: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Philadelphia as underdogs in 7 games (lost by 1 in game 7)
1981-82: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Philadelphia as underdogs in 6 games
1982-83: Lost in Conference Final to Philadelphia as underdogs in 5 games (Lost to the champions and swept Boston in the prior series. Yeah, the Larry Bird Celtics.)
1983-84: Lost in Conference Final to Boston as underdogs in 5 games (Boston won it all this year.)
1984-85: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Philadelphia as underdogs in 4 games
1985-86: Lost in Conference Finals to Boston as underdogs in 4 games (Boston won it all this year.)
1986-87: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Boston as underdogs in 7 (One of the more underrated playoff series of that decade, it REALLY could've gone either way and was always close.)
1987-88: Lost in first round to Atlanta as underdogs in game 5 of 5 game series
1988-89: Lost in Conference Semifinals to Detroit in 4 games (Detroit won it all this year.)
The Bucks were contenders every year he played, seriously. They lost to 4 eventual champions in the playoffs during the 80s and were always in the mix. 'The Squid' never missed the playoffs while he played for the Bucks. When Sidney Moncrief played for the Bucks, they were a force to be reckoned with in the best era the NBA has seen to this point. It makes you wonder how things would transpire had the Celtics, Lakers and, to a lesser degree, the 76ers not been the best the NBA has ever seen.
Notice I haven't said Matt Foley 'jack squat' about what Moncrief did on his own in that era. The Milwaukee Bucks were constant contenders while he was their best player. Here's the short version of what he accomplished in that lofty era:
- Two time Defensive Player of the Year (1983, 1984)
- All NBA First Team (1982-83)
- Four time All NBA Second Team (1981-82, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86)
- Four time NBA All-Defensive First Team (1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86)
- NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1981-82)
- Five time All-Star (1981-82 through 1985-86)
- Two time All-Star Game Starter (1983-84 and 1985-86)
- Top 10 in MVP voting (1981-1986)
While Mocrief was dominating on defense, he was also taking care of business on offense (1981-82 19.8 PPG, 1982-83 22.5 PPG, 1983-84 20.9 PPG, 1984-85 21.7 PPG, 1985-86 20.2 PPG). It's not unusual to score over 20 PPG in this league, but you know what is? Being a defensive specialist that can score over 20 PPG while shooting over 50% (for Moncrief's career!) from the field and 83% from the free throw line as a 6'3" guard. Bruce Bowen is praised for his wing defense in the current era but he doesn't have to guard Jordan, Wilkins, Bird and the like. Yeah, I mean the same guys Moncrief had to battle with on a regular basis. Bowen averaged 6.1 PPG a year over his career while Moncrief averaged over double that at 15.6 a game for his career. So Bowen is viewed as an ultimate perimeter defender in this current era, without scoring ability. Moncrief was an elite perimeter defender, if not the best, WITH scoring ability in an elite era. If Bowen is revered in an era that is diluted unlike Moncrief's era, shouldn't Sidney Moncrief be a first ballot Hall of Famer? He's arguably the best defender of his era and could hold up his end of the donkey on the offensive end as well.
All of Moncrief's accomplishments came in a time where the NBA talent level was at it's peak. Sidney Moncrief was an elite performer and should be recognized as such whether Michael Jordan believed it or not.
Yeah, Michael Jordan respected him, but it's more than that. Sidney 'the Squid' Moncrief made the playoffs 10 years in a row, lead his team there every year, established the Defensive Player of the Year award as the first and second recipient, was a 5 time All-Star, 5 time All-NBA guy, 5 time NBA All Defensive team guy and was the top dog on a team that won more games than everyone except the Celtics and Lakers in the 80s. Put "The Squid" in the Hall of Fame, and keep him in your brains people. RESPECT.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Carmelo Anthony Looks Good In Red and Green
Carmelo Anthony wants out of Denver. I don't blame him really and I like that he hasn't publicly demanded a trade (that's really a punk move to publicly demand a trade; you signed the contract so don't boo hoo when it doesn't go your way, you made your bed.). The Nuggets, in their current state, remind me of the Bucks from the 80s; really good, perennial top 5 in their respective conference but not quite good enough to compete for a championship. Carmelo came out in the same draft as LeBron, Wade and Bosh (and DARKO!) so it must feel a little awkward watching those guys have the ability to form a ridiculous super alliance while he's stuck being second round fodder at best in Denver. Anthony has his wish list (New York or Chicago) and the Nuggets front office has their "best" suitor (New Jersey). But what about a dark horse? Bucks are similar to horses, so why not a dark BUCK? Carmelo Anthony should become a Milwaukee Buck. Here's why and how it should happen.
It just makes sense: It really does. Carmelo is perfect for Milwaukee. Milwaukee is perfect for Carmelo (see how that works?). Think about it; the Bucks were arguably one of the worst offensive teams in the league in 2009-10 (The Bucks were 23rd in offensive efficiency, 25th in Effective Field Goal Percentage and tied for 27th in True Shooting Percentage [field goal percentage if accounting for 3 point and free throw shooting], thanks John Hollinger). We lacked a really solid offensive/scoring player, outside of our short time with John Salmons, Bogut as a convenient option at best and flashes from a struggling rookie in Brandon Jennings. Salmons is a dog historically, and amazes with his ability to be Jesus Shuttlesworth one year and can vanish into thin air the next. Can we hang our hats on a still raw Jennings, an Aussie who's arm EXPLODED and may never fully recover, and "Jimmy Hoffa" Salmons? Not at all.
What would it mean to add a guy like Carmelo Anthony? - A great chance at a championship, that's what! Carmelo is so good offensively that the other guys can pick their spots. While Jennings was chucking ill-advised shots at the end of a close game, Melo was sinking game winners in Denver. We lacked an offensive alpha dog last season and can you guess what Carmelo is??? An offensive ALPHA mutha' f&%$in' DOG! Exactly what this offensively challenged Bucks team needs! Anthony was ranked 13th last season in Player Efficiency, averaged 28.2 points per game while shooting over 45% from the field and 83% from the stripe, and actually raised all those averages in the playoffs. He is possibly the best scorer in the league and the Bucks are one of the worst scoring teams in the league. If Anthony is on last year's Bucks team they don't lose to the Hawks and have a shot to beat the Celtics and you can, in the words of Kobe, "take that to the bank!" If Bogut is healthy, they challenge the Lakers for the chip. One player (or two if you count Bogut) means the difference between first round exit and playing for the Larry O'Brien trophy. Melo has the grapefruits to take and (to a very successful degree) make the game winner. Milwaukee needs Carmelo.
Oh but wait, yeah the Bucks need Anthony but guess what?! Carmelo Anthony NEEDS the Bucks. Look at the other "suitors:"
New York Knicks: Carmelo and Amare are an AMAZING front court scoring combo! Unfortunately, nobody can pass to them and their next best player would probably warm the bench if he played for the Timberwolves. 8th seed in the East at best. NEXT!
Chicago Bulls: Anthony is in an awkward position in every close game in the fourth quarter when Derrick Rose decides he can actually shoot from long range (he can't) and Carlos Boozer is coasting while thinking about how he fleeced another team into thinking he's a top big man on a contender. Carmelo could be a second banana, but a third? Probably not. By the way Joakim Noah (the only real gamer/intangibles guy on the Bulls roster) is on the Nuggets because it took him being traded to get Carmelo there in the first place. NEXT!
Houston Rockets: Carmelo is a darling in Houston, they have some nice pieces and with him they can make a nice playoff run...but they don't have the ability to win a championship. Sound familiar? Yeah, they'd be Denver Nuggets South! NEXT!
New Jersey Nets: Remember when David Caruso left 'NYPD Blue?' Caruso was on his way to Hollywood to rip things up. TV was small potatoes and he was going to make it in Hollywood. His best effort? "Jade" starring Linda Fiorentino. What? Who? Exactly! New Jersey offers the slim opportunity of being in a big market (Brooklyn) with big upside and opportunity. Next thing you know, you're starring in "Jade" related to commercial success as starring for the New Jersey Nets related to NBA success. Melo leaving Denver for New Jersey and uncertainty = David Caruso leaving 'NYPD Blue' for 'Jade.' By the way, Caruso returned to TV (small market stuff) and became quite successful on 'C.S.I. Miami.' So maybe Melo should cut out that far-fetched plan and head straight to...
The Milwaukee Bucks!: If the Bucks had a craigslist posting it might read like this: "Wanted: Offensive alpha dog with clutch chops to complement defensively excellent team with championship aspirations." Carmelo Anthony has to answer that post. He doesn't have to try as hard defensively because his supporting cast plays defense like he's never seen from any team he's been on. Not to mention: Bogut > Nene, K-Mart, Jennings future > Billups future, Milwaukee's supporting cast > Denver's supporting cast. Carmelo in Milwaukee with a healthy Andrew Bogut and Brandon Jennings = possible dynasty. All the important guys are UNDER 27! Compare that situation to Miami's, seriously; Bogut is far better than Bosh, Carmelo is in the discussion with LeBron, and Jennings is a guy capable of competing with Wade and he's barely old enough to drink (yes Wade is better but reaching the end of his prime, while Jennings is a BABY and might become transcendent). Couple that with Miami having a pu pu platter for a supporting cast and Milwaukee having great defense, a good defensive coach, John Salmons, Luc Richard M'bah a Moute, Drew Gooden, Corey Maggette and Carlos Delfino. Is it that inconceivable to think the Bucks, with Carmelo Anthony, can beat the Heat? Absolutely not! Look at this lineup:
C - Andrew Bogut (all star, top 3 defensive center)
PF - Drew Gooden/ Luc Richard M'bah a Moute (effective scorer, rebounder/athletic, defensive stopper)
SF - Carmelo Anthony ('nuff said)
SG - John Salmons (extremely good player when motivated; championship goals motivate)
PG - Brandon Jennings (2009-10 Rookie of the Year* [* = I'm a homer!])
Bench: Corey Maggette, Gooden/M'bah a Moute, Carlos Delfino, Keyon Dooling, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Jon Brockman, Tiny Gallon etc. (we're deep)
This team competes for the NBA Finals championship for years to come. No bull.
Denver should trade Carmelo to Milwaukee because: It makes sense for both sides. Denver knows that they are in limbo right now. They can't really compete but they don't want to rebuild. Milwaukee is young, disciplined and on the upswing. They can't really compete but they are one good piece away from being championship contenders. Denver needs good young players and cap space. Milwaukee needs an alpha dog scorer. Denver and Milwaukee are yin and yang. They are the 'black and white cookie' trade partners. It makes so much sense it hurts. There are a lot of trade possibilities, but this one makes complete, ridiculously evident, give me a break, no sh*t, of course sense:
Denver trades: Carmelo Anthony and J.R. Smith
Milwaukee trades: Michael Redd, Larry Sanders, Ersan Ilyasova/Chris Douglas-Roberts, Francisco Elson's Trade Exception, and one or two future 1st round draft picks
Let's break the trade down: If Denver is giving up Carmelo they want good, young, athletic players, draft picks and above all cap space. Denver should take this trade everyday of the week because it offers everything they need. First of all, they get 2010 first round draft pick Larry Sanders, who looks like he could be an extremely talented, athletic, and defensive minded (think young Kenyon Martin) power forward/center that may have 3 point range to boot. Second, they get either Ersan Ilyasova (a guy who is 6'10", can hit the 3 at high percentage, buys into playing solid defense, and is a stud on Turkey's national team) or Chris Douglas-Roberts (an extremely effective scorer, overachiever, good all-around gamer, perennial 6th Man of the Year guy from here on out) in the young blue-chipper portion of the trade. Third, the Bucks can throw one or two future first round picks at the Nuggets. Fourth and most importantly, the Bucks can offer much needed cap relief to the Nuggets. Denver will not only get $18 million off the books by picking up Michael Redd but another near $2 million in relief with the Elson Trade Exception. Denver gets two solid young players who can immediately be big parts in their rotation (one of which could be an all-star and the other a valuable 6th man/starter down the road), at least one first round draft pick and a guy whose contract is bigger than Carmelo's coming off the books with more salary relief on top of that. Take into account, they are desperate to get rid of J.R. Smith (which would also be a good fit in Milwaukee) and it works out freakishly well from Denver's end.
It's already known how Milwaukee can benefit; we get an alpha dog that is locked in and can potentially sign an extension (he's contending and happy and there is a possible new collective bargaining agreement in the future that may mean less money for players; he's happy, he'll sign an extension) and also we get a 40% from 3 point range guy who can score 20+ on any given night in Smith. Where does either team lose? The Nuggets get good young players, draft picks and cap relief for a guy who was going to leave them without compensation anyway. The Bucks get their first real alpha dog since Lew Alcindor/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (wow) and the opportunity to play for a championship for the better part of the next decade. Milwaukee should be more excited about that idea than Ben Roethlisberger at a sorority house with a pocket full of roofies (Why go there? Nobody is reading and Ben's a sketchy asshole, that's why!). It's a better deal than the Nets Troy Murphy, Kris Humphries, Derrick Favors excuse for a deal is. If the Nets are the gold standard, the Bucks are platinum.
Carmelo should be a Milwaukee Buck. Let's make it happen, John Hammond! I laid the groundwork, all you need to do is make a phone call.
It just makes sense: It really does. Carmelo is perfect for Milwaukee. Milwaukee is perfect for Carmelo (see how that works?). Think about it; the Bucks were arguably one of the worst offensive teams in the league in 2009-10 (The Bucks were 23rd in offensive efficiency, 25th in Effective Field Goal Percentage and tied for 27th in True Shooting Percentage [field goal percentage if accounting for 3 point and free throw shooting], thanks John Hollinger). We lacked a really solid offensive/scoring player, outside of our short time with John Salmons, Bogut as a convenient option at best and flashes from a struggling rookie in Brandon Jennings. Salmons is a dog historically, and amazes with his ability to be Jesus Shuttlesworth one year and can vanish into thin air the next. Can we hang our hats on a still raw Jennings, an Aussie who's arm EXPLODED and may never fully recover, and "Jimmy Hoffa" Salmons? Not at all.
What would it mean to add a guy like Carmelo Anthony? - A great chance at a championship, that's what! Carmelo is so good offensively that the other guys can pick their spots. While Jennings was chucking ill-advised shots at the end of a close game, Melo was sinking game winners in Denver. We lacked an offensive alpha dog last season and can you guess what Carmelo is??? An offensive ALPHA mutha' f&%$in' DOG! Exactly what this offensively challenged Bucks team needs! Anthony was ranked 13th last season in Player Efficiency, averaged 28.2 points per game while shooting over 45% from the field and 83% from the stripe, and actually raised all those averages in the playoffs. He is possibly the best scorer in the league and the Bucks are one of the worst scoring teams in the league. If Anthony is on last year's Bucks team they don't lose to the Hawks and have a shot to beat the Celtics and you can, in the words of Kobe, "take that to the bank!" If Bogut is healthy, they challenge the Lakers for the chip. One player (or two if you count Bogut) means the difference between first round exit and playing for the Larry O'Brien trophy. Melo has the grapefruits to take and (to a very successful degree) make the game winner. Milwaukee needs Carmelo.
Oh but wait, yeah the Bucks need Anthony but guess what?! Carmelo Anthony NEEDS the Bucks. Look at the other "suitors:"
New York Knicks: Carmelo and Amare are an AMAZING front court scoring combo! Unfortunately, nobody can pass to them and their next best player would probably warm the bench if he played for the Timberwolves. 8th seed in the East at best. NEXT!
Chicago Bulls: Anthony is in an awkward position in every close game in the fourth quarter when Derrick Rose decides he can actually shoot from long range (he can't) and Carlos Boozer is coasting while thinking about how he fleeced another team into thinking he's a top big man on a contender. Carmelo could be a second banana, but a third? Probably not. By the way Joakim Noah (the only real gamer/intangibles guy on the Bulls roster) is on the Nuggets because it took him being traded to get Carmelo there in the first place. NEXT!
Houston Rockets: Carmelo is a darling in Houston, they have some nice pieces and with him they can make a nice playoff run...but they don't have the ability to win a championship. Sound familiar? Yeah, they'd be Denver Nuggets South! NEXT!
New Jersey Nets: Remember when David Caruso left 'NYPD Blue?' Caruso was on his way to Hollywood to rip things up. TV was small potatoes and he was going to make it in Hollywood. His best effort? "Jade" starring Linda Fiorentino. What? Who? Exactly! New Jersey offers the slim opportunity of being in a big market (Brooklyn) with big upside and opportunity. Next thing you know, you're starring in "Jade" related to commercial success as starring for the New Jersey Nets related to NBA success. Melo leaving Denver for New Jersey and uncertainty = David Caruso leaving 'NYPD Blue' for 'Jade.' By the way, Caruso returned to TV (small market stuff) and became quite successful on 'C.S.I. Miami.' So maybe Melo should cut out that far-fetched plan and head straight to...
The Milwaukee Bucks!: If the Bucks had a craigslist posting it might read like this: "Wanted: Offensive alpha dog with clutch chops to complement defensively excellent team with championship aspirations." Carmelo Anthony has to answer that post. He doesn't have to try as hard defensively because his supporting cast plays defense like he's never seen from any team he's been on. Not to mention: Bogut > Nene, K-Mart, Jennings future > Billups future, Milwaukee's supporting cast > Denver's supporting cast. Carmelo in Milwaukee with a healthy Andrew Bogut and Brandon Jennings = possible dynasty. All the important guys are UNDER 27! Compare that situation to Miami's, seriously; Bogut is far better than Bosh, Carmelo is in the discussion with LeBron, and Jennings is a guy capable of competing with Wade and he's barely old enough to drink (yes Wade is better but reaching the end of his prime, while Jennings is a BABY and might become transcendent). Couple that with Miami having a pu pu platter for a supporting cast and Milwaukee having great defense, a good defensive coach, John Salmons, Luc Richard M'bah a Moute, Drew Gooden, Corey Maggette and Carlos Delfino. Is it that inconceivable to think the Bucks, with Carmelo Anthony, can beat the Heat? Absolutely not! Look at this lineup:
C - Andrew Bogut (all star, top 3 defensive center)
PF - Drew Gooden/ Luc Richard M'bah a Moute (effective scorer, rebounder/athletic, defensive stopper)
SF - Carmelo Anthony ('nuff said)
SG - John Salmons (extremely good player when motivated; championship goals motivate)
PG - Brandon Jennings (2009-10 Rookie of the Year* [* = I'm a homer!])
Bench: Corey Maggette, Gooden/M'bah a Moute, Carlos Delfino, Keyon Dooling, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Jon Brockman, Tiny Gallon etc. (we're deep)
This team competes for the NBA Finals championship for years to come. No bull.
Denver should trade Carmelo to Milwaukee because: It makes sense for both sides. Denver knows that they are in limbo right now. They can't really compete but they don't want to rebuild. Milwaukee is young, disciplined and on the upswing. They can't really compete but they are one good piece away from being championship contenders. Denver needs good young players and cap space. Milwaukee needs an alpha dog scorer. Denver and Milwaukee are yin and yang. They are the 'black and white cookie' trade partners. It makes so much sense it hurts. There are a lot of trade possibilities, but this one makes complete, ridiculously evident, give me a break, no sh*t, of course sense:
Denver trades: Carmelo Anthony and J.R. Smith
Milwaukee trades: Michael Redd, Larry Sanders, Ersan Ilyasova/Chris Douglas-Roberts, Francisco Elson's Trade Exception, and one or two future 1st round draft picks
Let's break the trade down: If Denver is giving up Carmelo they want good, young, athletic players, draft picks and above all cap space. Denver should take this trade everyday of the week because it offers everything they need. First of all, they get 2010 first round draft pick Larry Sanders, who looks like he could be an extremely talented, athletic, and defensive minded (think young Kenyon Martin) power forward/center that may have 3 point range to boot. Second, they get either Ersan Ilyasova (a guy who is 6'10", can hit the 3 at high percentage, buys into playing solid defense, and is a stud on Turkey's national team) or Chris Douglas-Roberts (an extremely effective scorer, overachiever, good all-around gamer, perennial 6th Man of the Year guy from here on out) in the young blue-chipper portion of the trade. Third, the Bucks can throw one or two future first round picks at the Nuggets. Fourth and most importantly, the Bucks can offer much needed cap relief to the Nuggets. Denver will not only get $18 million off the books by picking up Michael Redd but another near $2 million in relief with the Elson Trade Exception. Denver gets two solid young players who can immediately be big parts in their rotation (one of which could be an all-star and the other a valuable 6th man/starter down the road), at least one first round draft pick and a guy whose contract is bigger than Carmelo's coming off the books with more salary relief on top of that. Take into account, they are desperate to get rid of J.R. Smith (which would also be a good fit in Milwaukee) and it works out freakishly well from Denver's end.
It's already known how Milwaukee can benefit; we get an alpha dog that is locked in and can potentially sign an extension (he's contending and happy and there is a possible new collective bargaining agreement in the future that may mean less money for players; he's happy, he'll sign an extension) and also we get a 40% from 3 point range guy who can score 20+ on any given night in Smith. Where does either team lose? The Nuggets get good young players, draft picks and cap relief for a guy who was going to leave them without compensation anyway. The Bucks get their first real alpha dog since Lew Alcindor/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (wow) and the opportunity to play for a championship for the better part of the next decade. Milwaukee should be more excited about that idea than Ben Roethlisberger at a sorority house with a pocket full of roofies (Why go there? Nobody is reading and Ben's a sketchy asshole, that's why!). It's a better deal than the Nets Troy Murphy, Kris Humphries, Derrick Favors excuse for a deal is. If the Nets are the gold standard, the Bucks are platinum.
Carmelo should be a Milwaukee Buck. Let's make it happen, John Hammond! I laid the groundwork, all you need to do is make a phone call.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
No Bucking Around Part II
(Part I was an extremely defeatist, pessimistic view of how the 2010-2011 Bucks season will play out. In this episode, we're all about positivity. Full Disclosure: This post is a lot closer to how I really feel. If the season goes badly, I'll delete this preface I'm currently writing and pretend I believed more in the DOOM AND GLOOM portion. In other words, I'm weak and a front runner. Let's do this!)
YEAH, WE ARE THAT GOOD
The future looks so bright, I gotta wear two pairs of shades! The 2010-2011 Milwaukee Bucks are 2 Legit 2 Quit. Maybe Hammer won't hurt 'em, but Yung Buck will. No more Timbuk 3 or MC Hammer references, I promise (maybe). Honestly though, this Bucks team has more going for it than anything the early 2000s Karl, Big Dog, Ray Ray, Cassell era ever had to offer. We're talking about a team that can potentially exceed what the Bucks did in 2001 when they won the Eastern Conference Finals and lost to the Lakers in a hard-fought 7 game series (Wait, the 76ers won the 2001 Eastern Conference Finals?! There must've been a scandal! The referees must've been terrible! Oh yeah, that's right it was fixed in order to get Allen Iverson into the Finals. Tim Donaghy, if you read this, don't get whiplash from nodding your head too vigorously). The current Bucks have the ability to match up with anybody, including the Miami MommasBoys and the Los Angeles Kobes. Here's somethings to consider while you clear your May/June 2011 schedule in anticipation for the Bucks playoff run:
2010 Rookie of the Year, Brandon Jennings*: I think by law I have to put an asterisk next to phrases that are false, even if they are complete fact. Brandon WAS and IS and forever WILL BE the rightful owner of the 2010 Rookie of the Year award. You can say whatever you want negatively about this guy; he shoots a low percentage, he gambles too much, he doesn't create for teammates enough, he's too slight...blah, blah, blah it's all inconsequential. Yeah, his shooting percentage left a lot to be desired (37% aka YIKES) but really think about that. Was Jennings forced to try and create offense and take questionable shots because his team was the most offensively challenged team in the league? YES, OF COURSE! He should be lauded actually, regardless of the low percentage, because he showed GRAPEFRUITS being THE GUY on his team.
Look at a guy like Nick Anderson, talented as the day is long, destined to be a perennial All-Star at worst. He misses a few free throws in a clutch playoff situation...he becomes Cameron from 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' in the pool scene and never recovers and is never heard from again. Anderson lacked what Jennings has in spades; a little thing called confidence in himself. Jennings knows he can ball, believes it to his core and can't be dissuaded. He can miss 100 shots in a row but it won't affect his confidence; he has the kind of short term memory that champions are made of. He shot poorly yes, but he is capable of making those shots and he knows it. It's only a matter of time when the bad luck ends, the heartbreaking layups go in and the midrange jumper falls (Seriously, a simple mathematical formula suggests that had Jennings made just 42% by having some bounces go his way, he would have scored 26 a game. Ok, so it's a biased formula I developed but still, you have to admit if his shots were getting the right bounces and momentum kicked in, he easily could've scored 26 a game). The point is, this guy is built in a mold of guys like Jordan, Bird and Magic (with less talent; don't freak out purists! I meant in mindset, that is all). He has the sheer will to improve and push himself to another level and I believe he will.
Did I mention he isn't old enough to drink? HE'S 20! At the age of 20, he lead a team of role players and castoffs (with Bogut injured) to the playoffs, not to mention a Game 7 against a heavily favored Atlanta Hawks team. How does a team lose their franchise center, have a team of castoffs and role players and still make the playoffs and make noise? BRANDON JENNINGS! That's how! Don't look too closely at the stats (look at Monta Ellis and his great stats for crying out loud; where did his team finish?); stats are misleading. Jennings was more than essential to the Bucks' success. There hasn't been a rookie PG that's had that kind of effect on a team's success (given the lack of talent) since Magic Johnson. Yeah, I went there. The Bucks played 89 games including the playoffs last season; Jennings started 89 games including the playoffs last season. He's an absolute warrior and the Bucks miss the playoffs without him. Can you imagine what this guy could do if his shots were falling? He was the number one option on a solid playoff team (a guy who couldn't even ORDER shots at a bar let alone have them fall in the hoop). This guy has no true ceiling. He could reinvent what it means to be a point guard.
Jennings finished third in ROY voting to Tyreke Evans and Stephen Curry. Jennings: 7 playoff games on a less than stellar team > Evans & Curry: watching Jennings run a playoff team on TV from their sofas. 'Nuff said.
Bo-gutty: Andrew Bogut is coming back. We won't need to watch Bogut hyping the team during the playoffs again while wearing a Brother Love style suit because he'll be too busy dominating the competition. Bogut was an all-star over Al Horford regardless of what the history books say. He's unquestionably a top 3 center when healthy (only Dwight Howard and Pau Gasol can be considered better than him). Coming out of Utah, he was the most electrifying offensive center that the league had seen in a long time and Milwaukee rewarded him with the number 1 pick in 2005. He's seen as somewhat of a disappointment for a number 1 pick (ridiculous, Kwame Brown anybody?) but a person who truly understands basketball paints a different picture. Outside of the 08-09 season where he was constantly hobbled, he has improved every year:
05-06: 9.4 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 0.8 BPG
06-07: 12.3 PPG, 8.8 RPG, 0.5 BPG
07-08: 14.3 PPG, 9.8 RPG, 1.7 BPG
09-10: 15.9 PPG, 10.2 RPG, 2.5 BPG
That's a pretty steady and encouraging incline. Centers, historically, take longer to develop and become what they should be. Just looking at these stats makes me giddy. He's improved markedly in every healthy season quite convincingly. I mean look at his blocks! He went from a guy who couldn't block shots (0.8 per game, 0.5 per game respectively in his first two seasons) to the second best shot blocker in the league last season! After his arm exploded and he missed the last part of the season, he STILL finished second in the league in blocked shots with 175. He's the second best defensive center in the league in 2010 (not just measuring blocked shots but his defense in general) and he couldn't block shots just 4 years ago. The guy is improvement personified. If he continues his pace of improvement he'll average 22.3 PPG, 13.4 RPG and 4.2 BPG before he hits 30 years old (and I don't think that these stats, outside of maybe the blocks, are a stretch). Oh yeah, HE'S ONLY 25! This guy is young and he's only improving, yet he's already the third best center in the league. So he's arguably the 2nd best defensive center in the league, a good low post scorer who has a bit of range to boot, an extremely effective passer and is probably a top 5 shot blocker. He has 20-12-5-3 written all over him as in...uh...errrr...I'm not sure we've seen a center like this before outside of flashes from Arvydas Sabonis after his knees stopped functioning and he finally made it to the NBA. I'm salivating. Not to mention, he's the unquestioned leader of this team, paired with Jennings, and he completely buys into Scott Skiles system. Skiles is an extremely good coach when his team believes in his defensive minded schemes. If Bogut continues to improve and buy into Skiles, the rest of the team follows suit.
John Hammond did and has done WORK!: Let's break down the offseason additions;
Corey Maggette: He makes me cringe. He makes everybody cringe given his past. He's an under performer and a coach killer for crying out loud! Can you blame him? Honestly, look at his former coaches: A pre-championship Doc Rivers (who won the Coach of the Year award while having Maggette but only for a his rookie year), Alvin Gentry, Dennis Johnson, Mike Dunleavy and the Artist Formerly Known as Don Nelson. Outside of a raw Rivers, Maggette had nothing from a good coaching standpoint. He spent the majority of his NBA career in the Dunleavy realm. I'm not sure how I'd act in that situation. Maggette's situation in LA was so bad, he signed with the Warriors. Fault him, if you will, for chasing money but after working under Mike Dunleavy that long you must lose a lot mentally (not irrevocably though, I believe). $9 million and Don Nelson's corpse is better than Mike Dunleavy, even if you know it's still bad. My point is the guy never had a good shot or a good situation or a good coach (outside of Mike Krzyzyzxcgvqbnrxcqnsky from Duke over a decade ago). Maggette is a prolific scorer (19.8 PPG last year) who gets to the line (a perennial weakness for Milwaukee) and can shoot 80% from the charity stripe. He's long, athletic and can basically fly on offense. If anybody can make him play defense (which he is completely built/designed to do) it's Scott Skiles and his Kool-Aid drinkin' minions.
If he doesn't pan out, we can bury him ala Starbury. His contract sucks, but it's nothing compared to Michael Redd's (nearly double Maggette's contract and at least Maggette can still play the game). He isn't exactly necessary to what we do, but he has potential to be a HUGE part of what we do. There isn't much to lose, but a fu...err...buck-ton to gain from this pickup.
The other pickups are what really gets me excited. First and foremost, Larry Sanders the Bucks first round pick. When this guy's NBA career is finished, I'd believe at this point that it turned out the way anybody can predict; energy bench guy who stuck around for 10+ years, a high flying 10/10 guy who played insanely good defense for a dynasty (fingers crossed), a guy who redefined the athletic, defensive minded, shot blocking/rebounding power forward position by hitting 40% from 3, or another Haislip. I don't know what to make of this guy, but I do know this; he could be REALLY good...like "I've never seen anybody like this!" good. If he can develop a solid post scoring game and be able to hit the 3 consistently...WOW. He'd be Rasheed Wallace with the athleticism of Shawn Kemp...wait those names don't exactly bode well unless you add the personality of Kevin Durant...if only. Even I think the previous bit I wrote is ridiculous, but a guy can dream. All nonsense aside, the guy can be damn good.
Drew Gooden has gotten a bad rap. The guy is actually pretty damn good. He can really score and rebound, which is something not exactly commonplace in recent Bucks history short of Bogut. He brings experience and ability to a team that has lacked those qualities in a PF in longer than I care to remember. How is he not a good fit? He can even play the center position (with a drop off in defense I have to admit). Not to mention the guy has spectacular facial hair, that's gotta count for something.
CDR is interesting. He was the dominant player on a dominant Final Four team (not exactly something to hang one's hat on, considering the immortal Sean May), he showed flashes on a ridiculously bad Nets team before he had fallen out of favor with Kiki Vandeweghe for his attitude (seriously, how would you act if Kiki became your coach and you were on the historically bad Nets team from 2009-10?), and has the ability to be the scoring guard off the bench we've lacked since...well...Michael Redd came off the bench. He's not a slam dunk but he's intriguing.
Keyon Dooling has been signed to replace Luke Ridnour as Jennings' backup and as you may have guessed from the (overly and sometimes ridiculously) gushy nature of this post, I love him in this position. He's a veteran who can slash and hit the 3 and basically pick up exactly where Jennings leaves off when going to the bench. Ridnour played admirably in his backup role but I think Dooling can exceed his production. Plain and simple, Dooling is and plays bigger than Ridnour against other PGs, so it's a step up defensively (Ridnour was as good at defense as Chevy Chase was at hosting a late night talk show; terrible doesn't begin to describe it).
Wait...we added and didn't subtract much of anything?: Yer Damn Right! John Salmons, Carlos Delfino, Ersan Ilyasova (gained invaluable experience/confidence in the WBC regardless of how badly he played in the final), and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute are all back and ready to be just as indispensable as last season. We gained Corey Maggette, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Drew Gooden, Keyon Dooling, Larry Sanders and EARL FREAKING BOYKINS (I would've had a paragraph for Boykins but I thought the hyperbole might get out of hand, if it hasn't already)! The right pieces are there, they really are. I don't see a weakness in this roster barring injury. We can match up big and small, we're fast, we're athletic, we're dedicated to Scott Skiles defense (Scott Skiles defense = we'll kick your ass because we work harder than you do), we have some extremely good blue chippers, Brandon Jennings is THE NEW TRUTH, and Andrew Bogut is a top 3 big man (the other two top big men played in the Finals less than two years ago, by the way). What's not to love? The Bucks are ready to make the rest of the NBA Ned Beatty in 'Deliverance'. FEAR THE DEER!
YEAH, WE ARE THAT GOOD
The future looks so bright, I gotta wear two pairs of shades! The 2010-2011 Milwaukee Bucks are 2 Legit 2 Quit. Maybe Hammer won't hurt 'em, but Yung Buck will. No more Timbuk 3 or MC Hammer references, I promise (maybe). Honestly though, this Bucks team has more going for it than anything the early 2000s Karl, Big Dog, Ray Ray, Cassell era ever had to offer. We're talking about a team that can potentially exceed what the Bucks did in 2001 when they won the Eastern Conference Finals and lost to the Lakers in a hard-fought 7 game series (Wait, the 76ers won the 2001 Eastern Conference Finals?! There must've been a scandal! The referees must've been terrible! Oh yeah, that's right it was fixed in order to get Allen Iverson into the Finals. Tim Donaghy, if you read this, don't get whiplash from nodding your head too vigorously). The current Bucks have the ability to match up with anybody, including the Miami MommasBoys and the Los Angeles Kobes. Here's somethings to consider while you clear your May/June 2011 schedule in anticipation for the Bucks playoff run:
2010 Rookie of the Year, Brandon Jennings*: I think by law I have to put an asterisk next to phrases that are false, even if they are complete fact. Brandon WAS and IS and forever WILL BE the rightful owner of the 2010 Rookie of the Year award. You can say whatever you want negatively about this guy; he shoots a low percentage, he gambles too much, he doesn't create for teammates enough, he's too slight...blah, blah, blah it's all inconsequential. Yeah, his shooting percentage left a lot to be desired (37% aka YIKES) but really think about that. Was Jennings forced to try and create offense and take questionable shots because his team was the most offensively challenged team in the league? YES, OF COURSE! He should be lauded actually, regardless of the low percentage, because he showed GRAPEFRUITS being THE GUY on his team.
Look at a guy like Nick Anderson, talented as the day is long, destined to be a perennial All-Star at worst. He misses a few free throws in a clutch playoff situation...he becomes Cameron from 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' in the pool scene and never recovers and is never heard from again. Anderson lacked what Jennings has in spades; a little thing called confidence in himself. Jennings knows he can ball, believes it to his core and can't be dissuaded. He can miss 100 shots in a row but it won't affect his confidence; he has the kind of short term memory that champions are made of. He shot poorly yes, but he is capable of making those shots and he knows it. It's only a matter of time when the bad luck ends, the heartbreaking layups go in and the midrange jumper falls (Seriously, a simple mathematical formula suggests that had Jennings made just 42% by having some bounces go his way, he would have scored 26 a game. Ok, so it's a biased formula I developed but still, you have to admit if his shots were getting the right bounces and momentum kicked in, he easily could've scored 26 a game). The point is, this guy is built in a mold of guys like Jordan, Bird and Magic (with less talent; don't freak out purists! I meant in mindset, that is all). He has the sheer will to improve and push himself to another level and I believe he will.
Did I mention he isn't old enough to drink? HE'S 20! At the age of 20, he lead a team of role players and castoffs (with Bogut injured) to the playoffs, not to mention a Game 7 against a heavily favored Atlanta Hawks team. How does a team lose their franchise center, have a team of castoffs and role players and still make the playoffs and make noise? BRANDON JENNINGS! That's how! Don't look too closely at the stats (look at Monta Ellis and his great stats for crying out loud; where did his team finish?); stats are misleading. Jennings was more than essential to the Bucks' success. There hasn't been a rookie PG that's had that kind of effect on a team's success (given the lack of talent) since Magic Johnson. Yeah, I went there. The Bucks played 89 games including the playoffs last season; Jennings started 89 games including the playoffs last season. He's an absolute warrior and the Bucks miss the playoffs without him. Can you imagine what this guy could do if his shots were falling? He was the number one option on a solid playoff team (a guy who couldn't even ORDER shots at a bar let alone have them fall in the hoop). This guy has no true ceiling. He could reinvent what it means to be a point guard.
Jennings finished third in ROY voting to Tyreke Evans and Stephen Curry. Jennings: 7 playoff games on a less than stellar team > Evans & Curry: watching Jennings run a playoff team on TV from their sofas. 'Nuff said.
Bo-gutty: Andrew Bogut is coming back. We won't need to watch Bogut hyping the team during the playoffs again while wearing a Brother Love style suit because he'll be too busy dominating the competition. Bogut was an all-star over Al Horford regardless of what the history books say. He's unquestionably a top 3 center when healthy (only Dwight Howard and Pau Gasol can be considered better than him). Coming out of Utah, he was the most electrifying offensive center that the league had seen in a long time and Milwaukee rewarded him with the number 1 pick in 2005. He's seen as somewhat of a disappointment for a number 1 pick (ridiculous, Kwame Brown anybody?) but a person who truly understands basketball paints a different picture. Outside of the 08-09 season where he was constantly hobbled, he has improved every year:
05-06: 9.4 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 0.8 BPG
06-07: 12.3 PPG, 8.8 RPG, 0.5 BPG
07-08: 14.3 PPG, 9.8 RPG, 1.7 BPG
09-10: 15.9 PPG, 10.2 RPG, 2.5 BPG
That's a pretty steady and encouraging incline. Centers, historically, take longer to develop and become what they should be. Just looking at these stats makes me giddy. He's improved markedly in every healthy season quite convincingly. I mean look at his blocks! He went from a guy who couldn't block shots (0.8 per game, 0.5 per game respectively in his first two seasons) to the second best shot blocker in the league last season! After his arm exploded and he missed the last part of the season, he STILL finished second in the league in blocked shots with 175. He's the second best defensive center in the league in 2010 (not just measuring blocked shots but his defense in general) and he couldn't block shots just 4 years ago. The guy is improvement personified. If he continues his pace of improvement he'll average 22.3 PPG, 13.4 RPG and 4.2 BPG before he hits 30 years old (and I don't think that these stats, outside of maybe the blocks, are a stretch). Oh yeah, HE'S ONLY 25! This guy is young and he's only improving, yet he's already the third best center in the league. So he's arguably the 2nd best defensive center in the league, a good low post scorer who has a bit of range to boot, an extremely effective passer and is probably a top 5 shot blocker. He has 20-12-5-3 written all over him as in...uh...errrr...I'm not sure we've seen a center like this before outside of flashes from Arvydas Sabonis after his knees stopped functioning and he finally made it to the NBA. I'm salivating. Not to mention, he's the unquestioned leader of this team, paired with Jennings, and he completely buys into Scott Skiles system. Skiles is an extremely good coach when his team believes in his defensive minded schemes. If Bogut continues to improve and buy into Skiles, the rest of the team follows suit.
John Hammond did and has done WORK!: Let's break down the offseason additions;
Corey Maggette: He makes me cringe. He makes everybody cringe given his past. He's an under performer and a coach killer for crying out loud! Can you blame him? Honestly, look at his former coaches: A pre-championship Doc Rivers (who won the Coach of the Year award while having Maggette but only for a his rookie year), Alvin Gentry, Dennis Johnson, Mike Dunleavy and the Artist Formerly Known as Don Nelson. Outside of a raw Rivers, Maggette had nothing from a good coaching standpoint. He spent the majority of his NBA career in the Dunleavy realm. I'm not sure how I'd act in that situation. Maggette's situation in LA was so bad, he signed with the Warriors. Fault him, if you will, for chasing money but after working under Mike Dunleavy that long you must lose a lot mentally (not irrevocably though, I believe). $9 million and Don Nelson's corpse is better than Mike Dunleavy, even if you know it's still bad. My point is the guy never had a good shot or a good situation or a good coach (outside of Mike Krzyzyzxcgvqbnrxcqnsky from Duke over a decade ago). Maggette is a prolific scorer (19.8 PPG last year) who gets to the line (a perennial weakness for Milwaukee) and can shoot 80% from the charity stripe. He's long, athletic and can basically fly on offense. If anybody can make him play defense (which he is completely built/designed to do) it's Scott Skiles and his Kool-Aid drinkin' minions.
If he doesn't pan out, we can bury him ala Starbury. His contract sucks, but it's nothing compared to Michael Redd's (nearly double Maggette's contract and at least Maggette can still play the game). He isn't exactly necessary to what we do, but he has potential to be a HUGE part of what we do. There isn't much to lose, but a fu...err...buck-ton to gain from this pickup.
The other pickups are what really gets me excited. First and foremost, Larry Sanders the Bucks first round pick. When this guy's NBA career is finished, I'd believe at this point that it turned out the way anybody can predict; energy bench guy who stuck around for 10+ years, a high flying 10/10 guy who played insanely good defense for a dynasty (fingers crossed), a guy who redefined the athletic, defensive minded, shot blocking/rebounding power forward position by hitting 40% from 3, or another Haislip. I don't know what to make of this guy, but I do know this; he could be REALLY good...like "I've never seen anybody like this!" good. If he can develop a solid post scoring game and be able to hit the 3 consistently...WOW. He'd be Rasheed Wallace with the athleticism of Shawn Kemp...wait those names don't exactly bode well unless you add the personality of Kevin Durant...if only. Even I think the previous bit I wrote is ridiculous, but a guy can dream. All nonsense aside, the guy can be damn good.
Drew Gooden has gotten a bad rap. The guy is actually pretty damn good. He can really score and rebound, which is something not exactly commonplace in recent Bucks history short of Bogut. He brings experience and ability to a team that has lacked those qualities in a PF in longer than I care to remember. How is he not a good fit? He can even play the center position (with a drop off in defense I have to admit). Not to mention the guy has spectacular facial hair, that's gotta count for something.
CDR is interesting. He was the dominant player on a dominant Final Four team (not exactly something to hang one's hat on, considering the immortal Sean May), he showed flashes on a ridiculously bad Nets team before he had fallen out of favor with Kiki Vandeweghe for his attitude (seriously, how would you act if Kiki became your coach and you were on the historically bad Nets team from 2009-10?), and has the ability to be the scoring guard off the bench we've lacked since...well...Michael Redd came off the bench. He's not a slam dunk but he's intriguing.
Keyon Dooling has been signed to replace Luke Ridnour as Jennings' backup and as you may have guessed from the (overly and sometimes ridiculously) gushy nature of this post, I love him in this position. He's a veteran who can slash and hit the 3 and basically pick up exactly where Jennings leaves off when going to the bench. Ridnour played admirably in his backup role but I think Dooling can exceed his production. Plain and simple, Dooling is and plays bigger than Ridnour against other PGs, so it's a step up defensively (Ridnour was as good at defense as Chevy Chase was at hosting a late night talk show; terrible doesn't begin to describe it).
Wait...we added and didn't subtract much of anything?: Yer Damn Right! John Salmons, Carlos Delfino, Ersan Ilyasova (gained invaluable experience/confidence in the WBC regardless of how badly he played in the final), and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute are all back and ready to be just as indispensable as last season. We gained Corey Maggette, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Drew Gooden, Keyon Dooling, Larry Sanders and EARL FREAKING BOYKINS (I would've had a paragraph for Boykins but I thought the hyperbole might get out of hand, if it hasn't already)! The right pieces are there, they really are. I don't see a weakness in this roster barring injury. We can match up big and small, we're fast, we're athletic, we're dedicated to Scott Skiles defense (Scott Skiles defense = we'll kick your ass because we work harder than you do), we have some extremely good blue chippers, Brandon Jennings is THE NEW TRUTH, and Andrew Bogut is a top 3 big man (the other two top big men played in the Finals less than two years ago, by the way). What's not to love? The Bucks are ready to make the rest of the NBA Ned Beatty in 'Deliverance'. FEAR THE DEER!
Thursday, September 16, 2010
No Bucking Around
I'm feeling schizophrenic about the 2010 Milwaukee Bucks; with that being said I'd like both sides to weigh in.
DOOM AND GLOOM
The Milwaukee Bucks are fu...ahem...bucked up. It takes some kind of optimist to look at this roster, the ascension of the Eastern Conference as a dominant conference and the lingering questions from a promising (misleading) finish to the 2009-2010 season to even dream that these Milwaukee Bucks can make ANY playoff noise, let alone be a contender. It's going to be a cold and snowy winter in Wisconsin, so I can't blame fans for pretending that the Bucks are going to be more than a fringe playoff team at best (we need something to look forward to in this town!). However, the Bucks bandwagon lacks the four wheel drive to get anywhere in the southeastern Wisconsin snow and we'll see people leaping off en masse when the Bucks are in the Central Division cellar come February. Don't get your hopes up Brew City; the winter is long enough so don't heap more misery on yourself by thinking this Bucks team will make you proud to wear red and green. Consider this:
Overexposed/Overvalued aka HypeMachine Victims: Milwaukee finished very respectably last season. Too respectably. Think about Golden State as an 8th seed taking down the 1st seed in Dallas back in 2007. People forget that Golden State was trendy that year, they weren't elite but you had to plan for their style of play, Baron Davis was a homegrown darling, they were fun to watch and they had a perfectly constructed Don Nelson team that was designed to exploit every weakness of an overrated Dallas Mavericks team (that Nelson had constructed as well) and probably no other playoff team. Fun underdogs... it doesn't get more trendy and despite the United States' dominance in everything, true or perceived, we love an underdog! The Warriors flamed out in the next round but were still a huge success story, we've never seen a first round series play out that way. Of course after that, Golden State is highly overrated the next season, Don Nelson dies (although he manages to still move and speak), Baron's ego grows and he takes a step back and all the momentum the Warriors built in the playoffs just makes the target on their backs bigger. Do they sniff the playoffs the next year? No. The years after, up to this one? NO! They regressed every season and have comfortably been returned to turd sandwich status.
The Bucks are a bit different, but also the same. Lots of hype to end their season, trendy underdogs, a few fun young players, a small market and constructed perfectly to take down the Atlanta Hawks but probably no other playoff team. Different styles of play completely, but otherwise a similar makeup to a spunky 2007 Golden State Warriors team. They take the full strength Atlanta Hawks (overrated on a similar level to Dallas in 2007) to seven games! Next season looks as bright as 2008 did for G-State. Bologna sausage. Turd sandwich.
Atlanta was/is a pathetic team. They crapped the bed something fierce against the Magic in the second round, hell they set records with how bad they rolled over. Those Atlanta Hawks that the Bucks COULDN'T beat in seven games, have permanent handprints on their ankles from their Orlando Magic prison shower beating in round 2. In the Conference Finals, Orlando proceeded to get manhandled by a Boston Celtics team that is closer to getting AARP cards than they are to their primes.
In a nutshell, the Bucks weren't that good and they were dismissed by a bad team that was destroyed by a team that rolled over for a team that has dinner at 4pm while looking at Del Boca Vista brochures as their Jitterbug phones vibrate next to them. The Bucks only succeeded in making themselves more of a target in a conference and division that they, frankly, can't handle. Hype doesn't win basketball games. Ball don't lie.
Superstars?: Yeah, yeah, yeah things would've been different in the playoffs had Andrew Bogut been healthy. Even my pessimist side has to admit Bogut looked GREAT before his arm EXPLODED during that fateful fastbreak against the Suns. He should've been an all-star and I can type that with complete conviction. Two things really strike me though; first off why hasn't Bogut played like a beasty top 5 center in any other season outside of last? Secondly, HIS ARM EXPLODED!!! Who knows if he can come back and pick up where he left off right before the injury? The prognosis isn't exactly stellar; the Bucks front office won't give any real details on the big Aussie's recovery or lack thereof (if he was progressing nicely, the front office would mention it, they have to sell tickets but they haven't said squat). Even if he does come back, we've seen centers in this league look dominant (anybody remember Jamaal Magloire? Sigh) and turn into oatmeal the following season. Where is it written that Bogut was actually turning the corner and becoming an elite center before his injury and it wasn't just a really good stretch/season ala Magloire, Erick Dampier, Tyson Chandler, Sam Dalembert? Sigh.
Before you put Brandon Jennings on a throne, maybe you should sit on your La-Z-Boy and really think beyond the hype. Look at how Jennings started his rookie season compared to how he finished it:
November '09: 22.1 PPG (including 55 against Golden State), 42% FG, 49% 3FG, 5.6 APG, 3.8 RPG
April '10: 13.8 PPG, 37% FG, 28% 3FG, 4.5 APG, 2.6 RPG
So, he came in under the radar and nobody expected him to do anything. They let him play and didn't account for him. He scores 55 points against the defensively challenged Warriors, people start talking about him, he gets hooked up to the HypeMachine and teams plan for him. Jennings, after the Golden State game, immediately became average at best. He shot less than 36% from the field for the rest of the season...ahem...HE SHOT LESS THAN 36% FROM THE FIELD FOR THE REST OF THE SEASON!
Jennings is quick and can get to the rim without much of a problem. Great, right? WRONG! For the season he actually shot better from 3 point land than anywhere else on the floor (37.0% overall, 37.4% from 3). While 37.4% is respectable from 3, it's not exactly lights out. Consider that while you're digesting the fact that Jennings shot LESS THAN 37% within the three point arc. So, logically speaking, the closer and more high percentage Jennings' shots were, the more likely he was to miss. Couple that with the ease that he can get to the rim and the stats are quite alarming. Seriously, outside of porn, nobody has ever exceeded Brandon Jennings' ability to get to the hole without finishing.
(Last point: In his first NBA game he lead everyone to believe he was a triple-double threat with the 17-9-9 he laid on a pathetic 76ers squad. His season averages: 15-3-6...not exactly Jason Kidd. Somewhere, Kenny Anderson is feeling a little bit less lonely in this world.)
The top of the East is STRONG: Miami, Boston, Orlando, Chicago. Think they Fear the Deer? I think not.
Offseason Moves: There's no denying Milwaukee was a defensive minded team that possesed great chemistry at the end of last season. Everybody picked their spots, played good defense and worked together on both ends of the floor. Apparently, that wasn't fun. John Hammond decides, since it's the reality TV/Kardashian/trainwrecks are fun era, that we should use solid trade chips to acquire Corey Maggette. Corey "No Defense, All Offense, Bad Locker Room Presence, Coach Killer, Low Basketball IQ, $%#$&" Maggette! Genius. Are we sure Hammond isn't still working for division rival Detroit Pistons? Come on! If there was a list of 10 guys the Bucks should not acquire in the interest of team chemistry/harmony, Maggette would probably get some first place votes. Well I guess he fills a position of need being a wing with scoring ability. Oh damn it! That's right, we resigned John Salmons to be exactly that guy. Yeah, Maggette will be content taking a backseat like he was content in Golden State and Los Angeles. Yeah, and Shawn Bradley didn't get dunked on spectacularly over the course of his career. Well at least he has a reasonable contract. Wait, he's making $9 million next year?! He's a bench player that makes virtually the same as our franchise center?! Hang on, at least he's been successful elsewhere. His last two teams are teams that haven't been successful or relevant since before any current NBA player was born...and he's a bench player. Did the Bucks front office call the Magic, the Clippers or the Warriors (or Duke for that matter) to inquire about this basketball Ben Affleck? Well, at least he's athletic and can score. He's also in his 30s, injury prone and a complete ball stopper on offense. If it doesn't work out, at least he won't be around for long. What? He has three years (increases in salary every season by the way) left on his contract?! Seriously, go to Google and make sure the scrollbox pops up under the area where you type that tries to guess what your search will be and all you have to type is "Corey Ma" and the third most likely option is "Corey Maggette contract." How is he not Richard Jefferson 2.0 (minus the playoff/Finals experience and sweet tattoo that may or may not have been done by a 7 year old girl)? Horrid.
Larry Sanders, Tiny Gallon, Darington Hobson. That's our 2010 draft class. An HBO sitcom talk show host (Garry Shandling, anybody?), a guy that has a completely misleading name ("Tiny" doesn't equal huge and out of shape) and an injured guy whose name makes him sound like either a butler or an 80's B-movie response to James Bond.
Let's start with Hobson; by all accounts it sounds like this guy has the same ceiling as Al Thornton with less talent. He could be Tayshaun Prince without any of the skills that make Prince good. Jonathan Givony of DraftExpress.com:
"[about Hobson] A 6-7 combo forward with long arms and average athleticism by NBA standards,"
Wow! Dime a dozen? Yes.
All the prognosticators believe Tiny Gallon has a lot of "upside." My cousin is addicted to cocaine and can't function in society but can play a mean guitar. He has "upside." The guy showed virtually nothing in college considering his hype, regardless of how bad his college team was sans anything named Griffin. Then there was that wee little scandal that forced the guy to jump to the NBA Draft early and not develop in college like he really needed to. Certain guys out there need college; Gallon is one of them. Scott Nadler of Draftexpress.com:
DOOM AND GLOOM
The Milwaukee Bucks are fu...ahem...bucked up. It takes some kind of optimist to look at this roster, the ascension of the Eastern Conference as a dominant conference and the lingering questions from a promising (misleading) finish to the 2009-2010 season to even dream that these Milwaukee Bucks can make ANY playoff noise, let alone be a contender. It's going to be a cold and snowy winter in Wisconsin, so I can't blame fans for pretending that the Bucks are going to be more than a fringe playoff team at best (we need something to look forward to in this town!). However, the Bucks bandwagon lacks the four wheel drive to get anywhere in the southeastern Wisconsin snow and we'll see people leaping off en masse when the Bucks are in the Central Division cellar come February. Don't get your hopes up Brew City; the winter is long enough so don't heap more misery on yourself by thinking this Bucks team will make you proud to wear red and green. Consider this:
Overexposed/Overvalued aka HypeMachine Victims: Milwaukee finished very respectably last season. Too respectably. Think about Golden State as an 8th seed taking down the 1st seed in Dallas back in 2007. People forget that Golden State was trendy that year, they weren't elite but you had to plan for their style of play, Baron Davis was a homegrown darling, they were fun to watch and they had a perfectly constructed Don Nelson team that was designed to exploit every weakness of an overrated Dallas Mavericks team (that Nelson had constructed as well) and probably no other playoff team. Fun underdogs... it doesn't get more trendy and despite the United States' dominance in everything, true or perceived, we love an underdog! The Warriors flamed out in the next round but were still a huge success story, we've never seen a first round series play out that way. Of course after that, Golden State is highly overrated the next season, Don Nelson dies (although he manages to still move and speak), Baron's ego grows and he takes a step back and all the momentum the Warriors built in the playoffs just makes the target on their backs bigger. Do they sniff the playoffs the next year? No. The years after, up to this one? NO! They regressed every season and have comfortably been returned to turd sandwich status.
The Bucks are a bit different, but also the same. Lots of hype to end their season, trendy underdogs, a few fun young players, a small market and constructed perfectly to take down the Atlanta Hawks but probably no other playoff team. Different styles of play completely, but otherwise a similar makeup to a spunky 2007 Golden State Warriors team. They take the full strength Atlanta Hawks (overrated on a similar level to Dallas in 2007) to seven games! Next season looks as bright as 2008 did for G-State. Bologna sausage. Turd sandwich.
Atlanta was/is a pathetic team. They crapped the bed something fierce against the Magic in the second round, hell they set records with how bad they rolled over. Those Atlanta Hawks that the Bucks COULDN'T beat in seven games, have permanent handprints on their ankles from their Orlando Magic prison shower beating in round 2. In the Conference Finals, Orlando proceeded to get manhandled by a Boston Celtics team that is closer to getting AARP cards than they are to their primes.
In a nutshell, the Bucks weren't that good and they were dismissed by a bad team that was destroyed by a team that rolled over for a team that has dinner at 4pm while looking at Del Boca Vista brochures as their Jitterbug phones vibrate next to them. The Bucks only succeeded in making themselves more of a target in a conference and division that they, frankly, can't handle. Hype doesn't win basketball games. Ball don't lie.
Superstars?: Yeah, yeah, yeah things would've been different in the playoffs had Andrew Bogut been healthy. Even my pessimist side has to admit Bogut looked GREAT before his arm EXPLODED during that fateful fastbreak against the Suns. He should've been an all-star and I can type that with complete conviction. Two things really strike me though; first off why hasn't Bogut played like a beasty top 5 center in any other season outside of last? Secondly, HIS ARM EXPLODED!!! Who knows if he can come back and pick up where he left off right before the injury? The prognosis isn't exactly stellar; the Bucks front office won't give any real details on the big Aussie's recovery or lack thereof (if he was progressing nicely, the front office would mention it, they have to sell tickets but they haven't said squat). Even if he does come back, we've seen centers in this league look dominant (anybody remember Jamaal Magloire? Sigh) and turn into oatmeal the following season. Where is it written that Bogut was actually turning the corner and becoming an elite center before his injury and it wasn't just a really good stretch/season ala Magloire, Erick Dampier, Tyson Chandler, Sam Dalembert? Sigh.
Before you put Brandon Jennings on a throne, maybe you should sit on your La-Z-Boy and really think beyond the hype. Look at how Jennings started his rookie season compared to how he finished it:
November '09: 22.1 PPG (including 55 against Golden State), 42% FG, 49% 3FG, 5.6 APG, 3.8 RPG
April '10: 13.8 PPG, 37% FG, 28% 3FG, 4.5 APG, 2.6 RPG
So, he came in under the radar and nobody expected him to do anything. They let him play and didn't account for him. He scores 55 points against the defensively challenged Warriors, people start talking about him, he gets hooked up to the HypeMachine and teams plan for him. Jennings, after the Golden State game, immediately became average at best. He shot less than 36% from the field for the rest of the season...ahem...HE SHOT LESS THAN 36% FROM THE FIELD FOR THE REST OF THE SEASON!
Jennings is quick and can get to the rim without much of a problem. Great, right? WRONG! For the season he actually shot better from 3 point land than anywhere else on the floor (37.0% overall, 37.4% from 3). While 37.4% is respectable from 3, it's not exactly lights out. Consider that while you're digesting the fact that Jennings shot LESS THAN 37% within the three point arc. So, logically speaking, the closer and more high percentage Jennings' shots were, the more likely he was to miss. Couple that with the ease that he can get to the rim and the stats are quite alarming. Seriously, outside of porn, nobody has ever exceeded Brandon Jennings' ability to get to the hole without finishing.
(Last point: In his first NBA game he lead everyone to believe he was a triple-double threat with the 17-9-9 he laid on a pathetic 76ers squad. His season averages: 15-3-6...not exactly Jason Kidd. Somewhere, Kenny Anderson is feeling a little bit less lonely in this world.)
The top of the East is STRONG: Miami, Boston, Orlando, Chicago. Think they Fear the Deer? I think not.
Offseason Moves: There's no denying Milwaukee was a defensive minded team that possesed great chemistry at the end of last season. Everybody picked their spots, played good defense and worked together on both ends of the floor. Apparently, that wasn't fun. John Hammond decides, since it's the reality TV/Kardashian/trainwrecks are fun era, that we should use solid trade chips to acquire Corey Maggette. Corey "No Defense, All Offense, Bad Locker Room Presence, Coach Killer, Low Basketball IQ, $%#$&" Maggette! Genius. Are we sure Hammond isn't still working for division rival Detroit Pistons? Come on! If there was a list of 10 guys the Bucks should not acquire in the interest of team chemistry/harmony, Maggette would probably get some first place votes. Well I guess he fills a position of need being a wing with scoring ability. Oh damn it! That's right, we resigned John Salmons to be exactly that guy. Yeah, Maggette will be content taking a backseat like he was content in Golden State and Los Angeles. Yeah, and Shawn Bradley didn't get dunked on spectacularly over the course of his career. Well at least he has a reasonable contract. Wait, he's making $9 million next year?! He's a bench player that makes virtually the same as our franchise center?! Hang on, at least he's been successful elsewhere. His last two teams are teams that haven't been successful or relevant since before any current NBA player was born...and he's a bench player. Did the Bucks front office call the Magic, the Clippers or the Warriors (or Duke for that matter) to inquire about this basketball Ben Affleck? Well, at least he's athletic and can score. He's also in his 30s, injury prone and a complete ball stopper on offense. If it doesn't work out, at least he won't be around for long. What? He has three years (increases in salary every season by the way) left on his contract?! Seriously, go to Google and make sure the scrollbox pops up under the area where you type that tries to guess what your search will be and all you have to type is "Corey Ma" and the third most likely option is "Corey Maggette contract." How is he not Richard Jefferson 2.0 (minus the playoff/Finals experience and sweet tattoo that may or may not have been done by a 7 year old girl)? Horrid.
Larry Sanders, Tiny Gallon, Darington Hobson. That's our 2010 draft class. An HBO sitcom talk show host (Garry Shandling, anybody?), a guy that has a completely misleading name ("Tiny" doesn't equal huge and out of shape) and an injured guy whose name makes him sound like either a butler or an 80's B-movie response to James Bond.
Let's start with Hobson; by all accounts it sounds like this guy has the same ceiling as Al Thornton with less talent. He could be Tayshaun Prince without any of the skills that make Prince good. Jonathan Givony of DraftExpress.com:
"[about Hobson] A 6-7 combo forward with long arms and average athleticism by NBA standards,"
Wow! Dime a dozen? Yes.
All the prognosticators believe Tiny Gallon has a lot of "upside." My cousin is addicted to cocaine and can't function in society but can play a mean guitar. He has "upside." The guy showed virtually nothing in college considering his hype, regardless of how bad his college team was sans anything named Griffin. Then there was that wee little scandal that forced the guy to jump to the NBA Draft early and not develop in college like he really needed to. Certain guys out there need college; Gallon is one of them. Scott Nadler of Draftexpress.com:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)