The dust is ready to settle on the hardwood floors now that the NBA season is officially over, though someone ought to clean up that red stuff on the court in Boston because Tuesday's Laker bloodbath was downright unpleasant. Dwyer neatly provides perspective on the season's final game.

Speaking of final games, remember how the Buck bid 2007-08 farewell? Considering it was two months and two days ago, and only memorable for Ramon-reasons, we'll forgive you if you can't recall.

KG's old buddies (okay, old team) went out with a win just like The Big Ticket's current team, admittedly with a tidbit less fanfare, as the Bucks dropped a 110-101 decision to the Timberwolves.

That game merely served as a sour cap on a final ten weeks of the season that were spent with the draft already on our minds. Now we (and hundreds of our friends... vote, pronto) are positively draft crazy.

With no more NBA action, it's all we have. For a month and change anyway.

In early August,  the Olympics start, so mark your calendars and set your clocks and then make your time zone conversions, because Team USA opens against China on August 10 at 10:15 p.m. Beijing time.

Yi Jianlian is expected to play for the hosts and Andrew Bogut for the Aussies while Michael Redd is considered by some a Team USA roster lock (Ed: it's now official). That means at least three players on the 26-win Bucks should suit up for the game's ultimate international tournament.

And correct me (or virtual slap, take your pick) if I'm wrong, but that's three more Olympians than the Celtics, looking at the new NBA champs' roster. You'll also notice that the Celtics all call the same country home, but none of them are going to have the opportunity to bring Gold back to the USA. In a sport gone global, it's almost shocking that the world's best club team is, well, All-American. 

This sparks an intriguing question: Who would win if Team USA faced off against the Boston Celtics in a seven-game series?

We don't know Team USA's final roster, but it'll surely feature the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, and Chris Paul. Game, set, match, right?

Consider however that the Celtics are something of a machine, one that has been wrecking teams for more than a half dozen months straight. And do you think if Team USA had to worry about facing KG that 'Melo would still be the chic starting power forward pick? We'll put off our hypothetical series until August, but that doesn't give Dream Team 2008 much time to create chemistry or define roles, if you're into that kind of thing.

By the way, Celtics fans, please think this through before voting. Yes, your team beat Billups, (update: Billups won't be there, but you get the idea) James, and Bryant, but not all at once. Just sayin'.

Three weeks ago, you told us Kevin Love was the guy. Among possible Bucks' lottery selections, Love gathered 23% of your votes, edging Eric Gordon (18%), Danilo Gallinari (13%) and Anthony Randolph (12%).  Read the full post for a summary of what's happened since then.

Continue reading this post »

After the Friday workouts, both John Hammond and Scott Skiles indicated the Bucks plan on drafting the best player available.

Okay, this isn't necessarily groundbreaking stuff, right? Conventional wisdom supports this drafting philosophy, especially in the lottery, where most of the time teams need help anywhere they can get it.

But what about need? You know, the reason why the Bucks might be more inclined to draft a small forward than a center. Draft Express, probably the most credible, NBA draft-specific site on the web, has a bold caveat that their mock draft has not taken into account team needs.

The implication is that things will change after taking into account team needs, and thus, some teams will not choose the "best player available."

Who really wants to be that team? When the Bulls are deciding, presumably, between Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley, are they at the same time helping base their decision while they gauge whether Kirk Hinrich or Tyrus Thomas is more important to the future of the team? In the event they consider Rose and Beasley exact equals, the positional considerations could serve well as a sort of tiebreaker. But otherwise, should thinking about anything other than which player is a true franchise talent be a part of the equation?

For the Bucks in this draft, the best player available versus need quandary is relevant. Sometimes, the best player and most pressing need comes in one convenient package. Perhaps the Bucks need help at the small forward position, and perhaps Anthony Randolph is the best player still waiting around at the eighth pick.

However, what if you're a big-time believer in Yi Jianlian, but also Kevin Love? And what if the UCLA power forward slips to the Bucks' pick? Does that change your mind about who you want; are you no longer so much in Love?

When we polled you a few weeks back, Love was the most popular pick, followed by Eric Gordon. Love plays the same position as last year's lottery pick, Yi, while Gordon is a shooting guard, like the team's best player, Michael Redd. That seems to indicate that most of you are gong the best player available route, or in Gordon's case, maybe would like to see Redd dealt out of town.

Seemingly there aren't many intriguing centers for the Bucks in this draft. For those who take "need" very seriously, that makes things much easier, because Andrew Bogut is the team's young, highly promising building block. But what if, say, Andrew Bynum was a prospect in the draft, and was their for the taking at number eight, like he was in 2005? And what if you liked him the most, just ahead of Yasoslav Korolev, Joey Graham, and Gerald Green, who more conveniently play small forward? You might just decide ahead of time to exclude Bynum from serious consideration. But a few years later, you'd rue that decision, and wish dearly to have the good kind of dilemma in which you have two of the game's finest young low-post players at your disposal.

Now, sometimes you might get the better player because you picked for need instead of your "best player available." But that takes us away from the point. We have trust (right?) in our general managers, so shouldn't we hope to avoid a scenario like the Bynum one outlined above? Shouldn't the Bulls forget worrying about Hinrich or Thomas if they are, and just pick the better kid?

I'm inclined to think the Bucks should pick the best player available at eight, and figure out how to reshuffle the roster if necessary from there. This team has some nice pieces, but most will agree that aside from Bogut, there isn't any sure thing that's absolutely worth clinging to. Such is the state of a 26-win team. Certainly, Yi has shown glimpses and could become a very good player for a very good team. But he's definitely not at the point where you should avoid drafting a power forward you feel is a star in the making. Remember, it's tough to have too much of a good thing. You can't worry that both Love and Yi turn out well.

Based on their most recent interviews after the workouts that featured small forward possibilities Randolph, Alexander, and Greene, both Hammond and Skiles were clear that they planned on going with the best player available, regardless of position. Hopefully that's true, but we'll probably never know if that's really how are approaching the pick, especially since that's a safer line to offer publicly. That way, no one can accuse them of reaching for a specific player based on position after the fact.

So here's the question: how should the Bucks approach their eight overall pick in the draft. Do you think they should take the best player available regardless of position, and consider need only in the event that there is an absolute tie? Or do you think the Bucks should consider needs and positions as an important part of the process from the start?

Mystery Man: Anthony Randolph really does exist.

Up until now, LSU freshman Anthony Randolph has been the sasquatch of the 2008 lottery: rumored to be many things, but mostly mysterious and unseen.  Playing for a non-tournament team and without a lot of fanfare coming into his freshman season, Randolph toiled in relative anonymity for much of the season before his impressive numbers (15.6 ppg/8.5 rpg/2.3 bpg) and unique combination of length and athleticism started earning the lottery cred that has most experts projecting him as a top ten pick. Still, many of us are still somewhat in the dark (myself included) as we try to get a handle on Randolph's abilities before the draft.

Of course, while he didn't get the same hype as names like Rose, Beasley and Mayo, it's not like Randolph was playing against scrubs either. He had some of his best performances against SEC foes Florida, Kentucky and Alabama, all of whom feature quality big men. Which also raises perhaps the biggest question about Randolph: is he actually going to be a big man in the NBA? At 6'10" and just 197 pounds with a surprisingly good handle, Randolph certainly looks more like a small forward right now.

Still, coming up with a good comparison for Randolph is difficult. While his Orlando measurements are similar to Brandan Wright's last year, their styles seem somewhat divergent. Randolph is reputed to be a better ball-handler with some semblance of a mid-range game, while Wright makes up for his lack of PF size with superior touch around the hoop and a better awareness of his limitations--as evidenced by his stunning .646 fg% as a freshman at UNC, compared to Randolph's poor .464 mark last year. Similarly, the Chris Bosh/Randolph comparison also has plenty of holes, since Bosh was both notably bigger (225 pounds at the pre-draft camp in 2003) and showed far better touch as a freshman at Georgia Tech.

So what's to prevent Randolph from being a long small forward in the mold of Tayshaun Prince or Lamar Odom?  For one, his outside shot (just 2/19 from the college three point line last year) will need to improve drastically to provide the type of spacing you'd like from a 3.  While Prince isn't a great ballhandler, his shooting ability allows him to be effective spotting up from three and his defensive chops are almost without peer (something that John Hammond probably has quite an appreciation for). Odom meanwhile played most of this year as a smallish PF, and at 230 pounds isn't a small guy to begin with.  He's also a fantastic passer for his size, while Randolph clearly needs work in the decision-making department (1.2 apg vs. 3.0 to). It's also still open for debate if Randolph has the lateral quickness to defend small forwards, though his athleticism and exceptional length (7'3" wingspan) should be a big help as both a man/help defender. Still, the downside of Randolph is that he could turn out to be a classic tweener: without adding 20-30 pounds he won't be strong enough to defend PFs, and if he doesn't improve his perimeter game he'll struggle to keep defenses honest as an SF. Fortunately, Randolph is the youngest player in the draft and won't turn 19 until July, so he still has time to smooth our his numerous rough edges.

While I find his potential as a hybrid forward intriguing to say the least, I'll also freely admit to lacking conviction when it comes to predicting whether Randolph will live up to his potential. The extensive video package above provides glimpses of Randolph's explosive athleticism, ball-handling and passing skills, all of  which would be crucial to making it as a 3 in the NBA. Still, it's impossible to know a player from highlights alone, and questions about his motor, decision-making and physical potential won't be answered before the draft anyway. My guess is that If he's a smart player then he should have the physical tools to be a very good player at one of the forward spots. But he's so young that his mental development is also not an easy thing to project.

When he was asked on Friday where he sees himself playing in the NBA, Randolph was not surprisingly vague, saying he was prepared to play wherever needed--the sort of pandering non-answer that every prospect seems to give in order to appear as versatile as possible. It might be more telling that the Bucks brought Randolph in on Friday with Joe Alexander and Donte Greene, two guys who are pretty clearly slotted for the small forward position. UAB big man Walter Sharpe (6'9" / 245) and UCLA's defensive-minded SF Luc Richard Mbah a Moute were also there, so the Bucks had an opportunity to test Randolph against both stronger and smaller opponents.

Especially given the Bucks' needs at the small forward spot , it stands to reason their interest would be heightened if they saw Randolph as a potential long-term SF complement to Andrew Bogut and Yi Jianlian. Needless to say, Randolph doesn't have nearly the same appeal as a skinny PF project who would be stuck battling Yi for minutes. So if he is the Bucks' pick, you can bet that Hammond and company think he can play the small forward spot.

All told, I'm still wary of rolling the dice on Randolph ahead of a more proven commodity like Kevin Love or a brainy two-way player like Russell Westbrook. But that's also a byproduct of risk averseness and not having seen Randolph play more first-hand. Fortunately the Bucks' front office has a lot more information to go on. And if Randolph is the pick, at least we now have some nice YouTube clips to stoke our optimism for the rest of the summer.

Now that we've recapped what everyone else thinks the Bucks will do, let's take a moment to step back, review the candidates, and let you vote for your pick.  We'll have more detailed looks at all the prospects in the coming weeks, but we've put together  quick summaries of the key names to whet your appetite. Based on the projections so far, we'll assume that Rose, Beasley, Mayo, Bayless, and Lopez won't be available and skip those guys altogether.

Player links take you to their DraftExpress profiles, and the stats are meant to give you some feel for what they've actually, you know, done on the court.  The final number is their true shooting percentage, which provides a good feel for a player's overall scoring efficiency--it accounts for the increased value of three pointers while also rewarding players who get to the line and make their throws. For now we've included every player that's been projected by someone at the Bucks' pick, as well as a few others who will probably be in the mix as we lead up to the draft.  Given the talent that will likely be available in the mid- to late-first round it might make the most sense for the Bucks to trade down, but for now we'll assume they stand pat. READ PLAYER SUMMARIES HERE.

Continue reading this post »

Now that we've laid out your summer NBA plans , what's a Bucks fan to do in the meantime? Well, aside from the whole "watching good teams play basketball" option and dreaming of Derrick Rose, there's plenty of time to speculate about trade possibilities. Honestly, I'm not usually big on manufacturing trade ideas--it's easy to get caught up in grass-is-greener speculation and 99% of the time there's nothing to it.  And especially during the season there's almost always something "real" going on which deserves more attention.  Plus, I'm lazy.

But while Alex will be talking a bit more about the Bucks' small forward options in the next day, excuse my offseason boredom for a second and humor me as I discuss my favorite fan-inspired trade of the moment: Josh Howard/Jerry Stackhouse for Mike Redd. The prevailing wisdom is that Redd's contract ($51 million over the next three years) mostly precludes the possibility of getting anything aside from draft picks, middling talent, and expiring contracts back, but the Mavericks could represent the perfect trade partner.  They've been thrown into chaos by their stumbling finish and first round playoff exit, they have an owner who doesn't care about the luxury tax, and Howard has taken a flying leap onto the trade block with his playoff no-show and dubious off-the-court antics.  In other words, we just might have the perfect storm needed to trade Redd for something of value.

Continue reading this post »

Michael Redd and Yi Jianlian are likely to face off in the opening game of the Beijing Olympics this summer. We don't know team rosters yet, but we do know Team USA will play China. If Team USA play anything like they did last summer, the host team is in serious trouble.

Team USA was drawn into Group B on Saturday, along with China, Spain, and Angola. A qualifying tournament will determine the other two teams that will join the group. Chris Sheridan thinks it's a favorable draw. Four teams advance from each group, so the worst possible draw in the world probably wouldn't have prevented that anyway.

Yi is a lock to make China's team, and while Team USA has some very difficult roster decisions to make, Redd's performance at the FIBA's last summer probably secured him a spot.

Charles Gardner has more on the showdown.

In the 2006 World Championships, Team USA beat China 121-90, and Yi chipped in 13 points on 5-10 shooting off the bench.

With the Bucks' 2007-08 season officially over, we (as Bucks fans) are left with the dilemma of wondering what to do, other than scrutinize potential draft picks that are no longer playing and make a list of top coaches for the coaching vacancy. We could pick a team that had the audacity to actually make the playoffs, since there is a lot of good basketball scheduled in the next couple months. The Hornets are a logical choice, given they overcame Hurricane Katrina in style, have Chris Paul, are the least respected number two seed ever, and the fact that over the winter there were rumblings of Bucks fans considering adopting them anyway. Or perhaps we should pull for the Cavaliers, who could attract attention to the breadbasket and the Central Division, provide us more ridiculous LeBron playoff heroics, and after they win the title, we can all explain in detail how the Bucks dominated the season series 3-1.

None of that really feels right though, so in the end it comes down to Team USA-- or Australia or China-- in the upcoming Olympics in Beijing. Michael Redd, Andrew Bogut, and Yi Jianlian are expected to play major roles in the sport's premier international tournament this summer, meaning it won't really be very long before we watch who some would say are the team's three cornerstones play.

And while each national team features compelling storylines, the focus here is on Team USA, which has particularly difficult roster choices to make. The most challenging cuts could be at the point guard position, where Kirk Hinrich's decision to take the summer off (via TrueHoop) doesn't exactly narrow the field , considering his mediocre season probably left him roughly the same chance of wearing red, white, and blue in Beijing as Mo Williams Ramon Sessions anyway.

While it's impossible to conclusively rank the Dream Teams, the 2008 version figures to be one of the greatest ever. And while LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Amare Stoudemire, and Dwight Howard only solidified their locked-up roster spots this season, not a single other player is an absolute. Carmelo Anthony is probably the next closest thing, but his very strong but perhaps not overwhelming regular season combined with recent legal troubles could throw his seemingly secured spot at least somewhat into question.

The most interesting debate though is who to cut out of Jason Kidd, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, and Chris Paul (as well as Gilbert Arenas, Joe Johnson, and Luke Ridnour). We can probably all agree that not all four elite point guards will make the 12-man roster.

And really, we already have a few Bucks tie-ins, but what is more relevant right now than the subject of point guards? News of Derrick Rose's draft declaration is hot around these parts. We have a starter in Mo Williams who followed up a big payday by stroking jumpers like no one else (except Kyle Korver) in the NBA, but also concluded the season as the subject of trade rumors. Then we have a second round rookie backup who recently put up 20 points and 24 assists in a standard, regulation NBA game. To top things off, our good "clubhouse guy" got suspended for three games after a punch to Aaron Gray's groin. Nice.

But uh, back to the lecture at hand. Is it possible that last year's USA Basketball Male Athlete of the Year, Jason Kidd, could be left at home as Team USA flies to China in hopes of regaining gold? Unlikely perhaps, in light of leading them to a perfect 10-0 record last summer in the FIBA Americas while playing brilliantly unselfish offensive basketball and strong team defense. One must consider however, the mightily attractive alternatives.

Chris Paul progressed into a legitimate MVP candidate this season, and is almost universally considered the world's top point guard right now. Paul didn't even play in the FIBA Americas, but was part of the 8-1 World Championships team in 2006. He had a good but not great showing, rattling off 44 assists and only nine turnovers, but shot just 43.1 % from the field as Team USA stumbled to a disappointing bronze medal. Nonetheless, he's still a part of the 2006-08 team roster, and it would be almost impossible to omit him if the aim is to build an unbeatable national team. Plus, he's established himself as the game's top point man by passing, creating turnovers, and making his teammates better, exactly the attributes Team USA needs and exactly what used to separate Kidd from the rest.

If Paul is a sure thing, that leaves two other point guard roster spots. Deron Williams could be the odd man out, but his regular season rivaled Paul's, and in the FIBA's he shot 61.3 % from the field and had as many assists as Kidd. Williams has only gotten better since then, and his youth will serve him well in the intense, one-and-done nature of Olympic basketball.

Chauncey Billups struggled about as much as anyone for Team USA in the FIBA's, but it's tough to turn down his pull-up jumper, defensive intensity, leadership qualities, and big-game credentials. If you had to pick one point guard for to be on the floor with under two minutes left in a gold medal game against Argentina, wouldn't you have a tough time convincing yourself Billups isn't the choice?

Of course, the 35 year-old Kidd still makes a pretty strong case too: before leading Team USA last summer, he won gold in Sydney in 2000, and is 44-0 in meaningful games with national team. It's not all about the past either, as evidenced by his 27-10-10 game in the Mavs' regular season finale. Teammates still love playing with him. And it seems Mike Krzyzewski wants Kidd on the team.

Jason Kidd said last month that if the Dallas Mavericks make an extended playoff run, he might not play in this summer's Beijing Olympics.

On Tuesday, USA basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski didn't wish ill will on Dallas' postseason, but he did make it clear he wants Kidd on his squad.

So while we're lucky enough to watch all four in the playoffs starting Saturday, even if Kidd heroically propels the Mavericks to glory, he might not do the same for Team USA. But does the future Hall of Fame court general still have a (fresh enough) leg up on Paul, Williams, and Billups anyway?

In any event, assuming all four want in, which of the four would you cut from the national team?

***Please read the poll wording carefully. You are voting for the Team USA point guard that you feel SHOULD NOT make the team.

Continue reading this post »

Preferably, "Vote Smartly." (photo from www.okstatechamber.com)

After declaring its independence from Great Britain 84,600 days ago, the United States today turns its eyes and ears to Wisconsin, where millions (?) of citizens will cast their votes to help determine the country's new direction.

Obama or Hillary? McCain or Huckabee?

Try Yi or Villanueva? And Mason or Simmons?

Yesterday we outlined some dispiriting data that contradicted claims of the Bucks having bad luck this season. The story focused on the team's exceedingly poor point differential and their consistently unsuccessful different on-court units.

The lineup most frequently used so far is the one that started the first 25 games of the season together: Mo Williams/Michael Redd/Desmond Mason/Yi Jianlian/Andrew Bogut. After Mason went down with an injury the Bucks were forced to experiment with other starting lineups. Bobby Simmons and Charlie Bell filled the small forward gap with varying results. Injuries to Redd and Yi necessitated further tinkering, with Charlie Villanueva most notably taking advantage of his increased role, before he too was bitten by the injury bug. Interestingly, the lineup came full circle, with the Bucks starting the familiar group of Williams/Redd/Mason/Yi/Bogut against the Hornets (Brew Hoop recap) to conclude pre-All-Star play.

Nevertheless, there remains plenty of room for debate regarding who is best suited to start. Despite the imperfections of Williams, Redd, and Bogut, they are unquestionable starters given the current personnel. The real questions come at the forward positions.

Different philosophies will beget different lineups. Those who are still dreaming of a playoff spot might favor giving Yi/Mason a chance to open the second half of the season in hopes they can replicate the way the started the first. The raw numbers show Yi/Simmons and Yi/Bell have performed relatively well in substantial minutes. Then again, Villanueva is averaging 13.8 points and 10.3 rebounds on 47.9 % shooting from the field as a starter, and could potentially make the Bucks better while showcasing his trade value. And while the coaching staff apparently isn't, many of the rest of us are intrigued by the idea of seeing what Yi/Villanueva can do on the court together.

What say you?

Don't forget to vote... Seriously though, vote.

The first batch of games brought a few things to light:  

• If all the talk about guaranteed minutes wasn't already moot, it is now because Yi Jianlian is plenty good enough to play, and play a lot.
• The Bucks haven’t solved their road woes, although they may have figured out how to play against division opponents.
• Protecting the glass isn’t likely among the biggest problems.

There is one question however that the first three games made more confusing rather than clarified: who is the number two option after Michael Redd?

Coming into the season, many projected breakout years for Andrew Bogut, Mo Williams, and Charlie Villanueva.  Williams improved drastically last year and at 24 only figured to improve.  Many players make a big leap in their third season, which Bogut and Villanueva were entering.  

Yet none of them are averaging even half as many points per game as Redd.  Instead of providing consistency, all three have been thoroughly up-and-down.  Worse, they’ve been more down than up.  Each of them played pretty well against the Bobcats, but even in that game Bogut fouled out and Williams made the costly error of going for two when three was needed.  They sandwiched that game with a pair of nondescript performances against the Magic and Bulls.  

• Williams, destined to improve as a distributor, is tied for 65th in the NBA with 3.0 assists per game.  
• Bogut, the team’s hope for a low-post scoring threat, is tied for 162nd in the NBA with 7.0 points per game.  
• Villanueva, hoping to find consistency, is shooting .300 from the field, .286 on three’s, and .571 from the line.

Yi Jianlian and Charlie Bell have been pleasant surprises, but before getting too excited it is worth pointing out that neither are shooting .430 from the field or averaging double figures in points.  They are what they are: Yi, a promising rookie, and Bell, a capable backup combo guard.  Neither should be relied upon to step up as the number two option after Redd.  It’s nice that they have performed well while Villanueva and Williams start slowly, but they can’t be counted on for big-time offensive production throughout the season.

Meanwhile, Desmond Mason and Bobby Simmons have taken turns offering solid but unspectacular moments.  

Luckily, we’re only three games in, which is less than 4 % of the season.  So there is plenty of time for Bogut or Williams or someone else to assert their status as the second offensive option after Redd. Let's hope it doesn't take too long though.

Who's the best hope for a number two?