Draft News From Around the State

by MadTown Hoops on Jun 19, 2009 2:02 AM CDT

These guys both cover the Bucks. Can you tell the true fan?

Check out Mike Hunt's latest masterpiece of an article. He yet again shows how little he cares for the Bucks:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/bucks/48566272.html

Nice piece of revisionist history. Since '96, when Kobe demanded to be traded to L.A., draft rules have changed considerably. The Bucks could not acquire a talented high schooler, it isn't even allowed anymore. And does anyone see a top prospect ever demanding to be traded to the Bucks? Terrible example with no relevancy.

Also, though vastly overpaid, I wouldn't say that Redd & Jefferson have no value.

His plan for salvation is for the Bucks to trade up in one of the weakest drafts in recent memory, somehow acquiring expiring contracts in an era in which such assets will be hoarded. All so that we can have cap space during the "Summer of Lebron", an offseason with a lot of Big Names that will most likely ignore the Bucks (especially if they scrap 09-10). Between the lines of every article he writes about the Bucks you can tell he's just slogging through this until he has enough material for another Packers/Brewers love fest.

In other news, Gery Woelfel (a man who clearly cares about the Bucks), writes draft:

http://my.journaltimes.com/woelfel-world-of-sports

Wow, this draft sure is variable (possibly due to the lack of clear talent involved). Lawson has been all over the board by now. I certainly hope that anything concerning B.J. Mullens or Earl Clark dies quick and hard. I wish the Journal Sentinel would employ writers half as knowledgeable and passionate as Woelfel. Maybe there'd be a few more Bucks fans if the JS writers didn't thinly veil their disdain for the team and NBA basketball in every article they wrote.

FanPosts are user-generated blogs-within-the-blog. We ask that members abide by our community guidelines and keep things respectable. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

yes sir

“No Value”….wow. I couldn’t believe that when I read it. And then his idea that we should get to a place where have pieces to trade for someone like Amare? I believe that we need to move towards assembling a cohesive unit that meshes well together, and i’m not sure drafting the the best player is the solution to our issues right now. I don’t think that the Cav’s would have had as great a run without the commoradory that they have, and I dream of a Bucks team geling like that. I have hope, given what the Pistons were able to accomplish without the star power of someone like Kobe or Lebron, and I think that Hammond is leading us in that direction. I really hope we re-sign Ramon, even if we draft a PG.

by SamCassellForPrez on Jun 19, 2009 1:28 PM CDT reply actions

Of course, the Cavs can focus on picking up glue guys and going for camaraderie because they have already have a superstar.

I don’t have a problem moving RJ, I think I mentioned a couple weeks back that if dealing RJ gets your another first, some expiring deals and a spare million or two to work with this offseason I’d probably do it.

The thing with Villanueva is that giving him the QO doesn’t somehow lock you in to signing him to a long-term deal. Without tax constraints, signing him for the QO absolutely makes sense IMO—one year at $4.6 million isn’t a big risk for a guy who can at least by a dynamic bench scorer. I don’t think it will happen, but in principle it’s not inconsistent with what Hunt is saying.

www.BrewHoop.com

by Frank Madden on Jun 19, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions

I just read that the Bulls are trying to trade their 16 and 26 for New Jersey’s 11. Seems like the Bucks could do them one better, take Blair at 16 and maybe a backup like Hansbrough at 26, then take a point like De Colo at 41. Hansbrough would have a Skiles motor and be insurance for if Blair’s knees don’t hold up. Or, at sixteen the Bucks could nab one of the points that falls due to teams drafting for need. I like the idea of pulling a Ted Thompson here.

by MadTown Hoops on Jun 19, 2009 7:22 PM CDT reply actions

I’d be fine with that, but that’s largely because I’m having a hard time figuring out where the big talent dropoffs will be. I wouldn’t go crazy if we took Clark or Blair at 10, and it’s not like one or both won’t be available at 16, too. Throw in guys like Lawson and Daye, and there are a lot of good talents who will be going in the mid-first. I know there’s been some talk the Bucks could be looking at getting another late first round pick, so that would do it as well.

I’m not as sure about the guys who will be around at 26—I’d guess Hansbrough’s gone by then—but there will always e somebody available then who ends up being an impact player.

www.BrewHoop.com

by Frank Madden on Jun 21, 2009 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions

There’s always the possibility of reaching for someone like Pendergraph. He seemed real solid, and all the Bucks’ staff liked him. He’ll be gone by 41 for sure, so why not take him at 26? A guaranteed contract, that’s why.

by MadTown Hoops on Jun 21, 2009 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions