[note from Frank: I deleted the text copied from the article since this is an Insider piece, but the link is below]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=FuturePowerRankings-6-091110

Further proof Ford and Hollinger are assclowns:

29. Milwaukee Bucks

Aside from the entire bleak forecast, a few points from this article really grind my gears.  First off, it seems as if every article on ESPN that alludes the Bucks mentions the their decision to not resign Sessions and Villanueva. And to compound this they make it seem like it was because the Bucks were being cheap, rather than being financially prudent.  Let's overpay Jenning's eventual backup and a power forward who has no desire to play defense before he hit a payday.  What's funny is had the Bucks chosen to resign Sessions or Villanueva, they would probably get hammered for overpaying for them, but instead they chose to let them walk and let two other GM's handle what will surely turn into "Detroit and Minnesota are looking to trade Charlie Villanueva's Expiring Contract and Ramon Session's Expiring Contract."  In this article they mention Bogut as being overpaid (which is arguable, read: wrong), but they don't bring up the Ilyslova's bargain contract or getting Warrick on the cheap.  Building a sustainable winning team takes time and one of the biggest roadblocks to this is signing the wrong free agent to a huge deal that handicaps the franchise for years (see: 80% of all NBA contracts and/or New York Knicks).  It seems that only the flaws of the franchise (and believe me I know there are plenty, thanks Larry Harris!) are being written about, but if you're going to point out some questionable flaws, at least bring up some good points. 

The lines "The remaining roster is a mess" and "The rest of the roster is littered with role players."  I'm not sure which of the two lines is more egregious, but I'll start with the role player one.  When a team is "good", role players are hailed as a crucial ingredient of their success.  Let's take the last year's Lakers for example.  Kobe was the obvious star, but did they really have any other stars?  You could maybe make an argument for Pau, but that's it in my book.  Ariza played the role of scrappy, hustle guy.  Odom played the role of rebounder and glue guy.  Bynum played the role of post presence.  See the trend?  Each player on the team had a role.  But when guys on the Bucks have a role it makes the roster a mess.  By my count, only a few teams have more than 2 stars.  Orlando?  Boston? San Antonio?  Granted, I'm not saying that the Bucks have more than 2 stars, or that they compare to these teams yet, but you certainly can't condemn their roster for having role players. 

I understand that the Bucks need to earn some respect before they start turning around the national media, but the constant media criticism of every move is tiring.  It seems like every move the front office does is destined to a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t fate.  Trade for Richard Jefferson?  He’s an overpaid scorer who won’t help the team.  Traded Richard Jefferson?  He’s a team-first player who singlehandedly put the Spurs from a top 6 team to the title favorite.  And yes, I realize that Jefferson is a much better fit for the Spurs than he was for the Bucks, but he is still the same player.  

And finally, are we really worse off than the Grizzlies?  I can’t take an article seriously that rates the future of the Grizzlies better than 3 other teams.  But I will get off my soapbox for now and hope that the Bucks can at least exceed national expectations and silence the talking heads.