Its all over but the shoutin ... good fight but just not enough horsepower.

It was a valiant effort but it's just another lost season for this sad sack franchise. What this team needs is a shot in the arm, a bonafide NBA superstar to draw in fans. Either that or a new arena.

Thankfully, there are a whole host of franchises struggling financially right now or we might be hearing more talk of the Bucks' eventual departure from Milwaukee.

I agree. You have to like the effort, but would you really want to make it as the 8 seed and get blown out in a sweep by the Cavs?

The Bucks have all the complimentary pieces to be a strong playoff team, they just don't have the top guy. Of course, there's only about 10 of those in the league so it is easier said than done to find one. Look at the teams that are legitimate title contenders (or at least are on pace to win about 50 games).

Lakers (Bryant)
Cavaliers (James)
Celtics (Pierce, Garnett)
Spurs (Duncan, Parker)
Magic (Howard)
Jazz (Deron Williams)
Hornets (Chris Paul)
Nuggets (Anthony)
Blazers (Roy)
Rockets (Yao)

Even though the Heat won't win 50, I think you can put D. Wade on this list.

If you take the best player off each of these teams and take Michael Redd off the Bucks, there isn't much difference in the rest of the talent on the teams. Look at Mo Williams. He's the same guy he was last year when he "injured" when he was playing for the Bucks. This year he makes an All-Star team playing with James, even though his FG%, assists, rebounds, and steals are all down. He just looks better than he actually is.

It all comes down to whether you are fortunate enought to get one of the future Hall of Famers when you draft. The Bucks did this once and were a powerhouse until they traded Kareem in 1974. Even though what they got back for him set them up for the next decade to be good, they never got over the hump again.

They've had two major chances since then to get a superstar. In 1993, they chose Big Dog over Jason Kidd and Grant Hill. In retrospect, either of the other guys would have been better. Then, four years ago they took Bogut over Chris Paul and DeRon Williams. In neither of those cases was it a stupid pick at the time, but Hill looked like a Hall of Famer until he was injured and Kidd is a likely HOFer and lead teams to two finals appearances. Big Dog could shoot 20 foot jumpers as good as anyone, but that was his only talent.

The other screwup was the Ray Allen trade. While I don't consider Ray Allen an elite superstar, he is a borderline Hall of Famer and they gave him away for 2 months of Gary Payton and Desmond Mason.

In the NBA, it's almost always about the star players. The star players win championships. You could make a case for Detroit being the exception, but even they have had some very good players roll through there.

It's too bad the Bucks have not been able to take advantage of the opportunities to get top talent. They almost need to get a 'can't miss' type of player to fall to them in the draft.

The real shame here is that Skiles has got them playing at a high level even without Redd and Bogut. We've got the coach. Can Hammonds get the players, especially with the tough decisions he's going to have to make in the off-season?

Getting the 8th spot and being blown out by Cleveland is fine with me. They just need to get to the playoffs to experience what it is really like instead of going home every year.

That extra effort/force of will/whatever is important, but of course would have been better with our "star" players.

quote:

1993, they chose Big Dog over Jason Kidd and Grant Hill. In retrospect, either of the other guys would have been better.

The Bucks chose Chris Weber in 1993? The Bucks had the #1 pick in 94. No argument can be made that Grant Hill was better. Kidd, yes, but Mr no wins in the postseason Hill? All Grant Hill could do was throw in dunks.

Mo Williams looks better because he is playing a SG while James plays point forward. I think I could knock down wide open looks when James can bring 5 defenders.

Funk can only carry ya so far.

Unless you are a Renegade of Funk, then you can't be stopped.

Who knows what Grant Hill would have done had he not had the injuries. Prior to that point, Hill was better than Big Dog.

Playing the Celtics. Boy, has this team changed.

Pleasant to see some effort/Defense at this level ...

quote:

Originally posted by The Artist fka TD:

quote:

1993, they chose Big Dog over Jason Kidd and Grant Hill. In retrospect, either of the other guys would have been better.

The Bucks chose Chris Weber in 1993? The Bucks had the #1 pick in 94. No argument can be made that Grant Hill was better. Kidd, yes, but Mr no wins in the postseason Hill? All Grant Hill could do was throw in dunks.

Mo Williams looks better because he is playing a SG while James plays point forward. I think I could knock down wide open looks when James can bring 5 defenders.

I completely agree Artist. Even if we traded Redd to Cleveland, he'd be going nuts...probably moreso (assuming no injury).


The Mo contract was just as bad as the Redd contract for us. Redd's hampers us until 2010 - while Mo would have been a cancer until 2012. Pick your poison.

But I agree with artist's earlier notions that they should have tried harder to trade Redd too. I just dont think there was a market for his max contract.

I love watching this team play under Skiles though. He's really getting the most out of CV. He does force things some nights but these guys are enjoyable to watch.

Charlie Bell looks like a new player this year.