clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Monday Bucks Notes

If you buy something from an SB Nation link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

  • The Bradley Center board will be exploring the possibility of selling naming rights to the facility in an effort to give the aging building a much-needed cash infusion. Selling naming rights would normally be a no-brainer, but given that the building was donated by Jane Pettit in honor of her father, the board faces the need to balance economic reality and the desire to continue honoring the Pettit/Bradley name.  Michael Hunt writes that the latest move is a necessary measure in keeping the Bradley Center usable for the short term:

    You wish that these things weren't necessary, but they are. Necessary to keep the building up to the Pettit standard, necessary to keep it viable for as long as possible and, let's be honest, necessary to give the Milwaukee Bucks a chance to make it before the arena becomes completely obsolete.

    But let's say the naming rights are sold for $20 million. That's just a start, the first step. There's still so much to be done, because it's a stretch to believe that the Bradley Center has 10 good years left.

    No one in Milwaukee seems interested in acknowledging that the BC's days are decidedly numbered, and that the Bucks' long-term future hinges on what the city does about it. While Hunt doesn't exactly put a stake in the ground on the new arena issue, at this point talking about the possibility of talking about a new arena is probably a frustrating but required first step. The Bucks would have an easier time making their case if they were winning games, but let's be fair: their situation on the court is no worse than the Brewers' was at the time Miller Park was built.

  • With the Cavs coming into town tomorrow, Tom Enlund writes that the Bucks have had some time to reflect on their encouraging comeback win against the Nuggets.

    "We just hung in there," Bell said. "Usually in the third quarter is when teams usually turn it up on us but we really came out in that third quarter. In the first half, it was just kind of Mike. But then Mo got it going. We really came together in that third quarter and made a run. We've got a deep team. We came out in the second half and it showed with our energy."

    You had to love Bell's work on both ends Saturday night, but it's hard to argue the Bucks' depth had much to do with the comeback, as Krystkowiak rode his starters much more than usual. Simmons, Yi and Ivey all played less than 10 minutes while Bogut, Mo and Redd each played over 43 minutes.

  • The Bratwurst praises Larry Krystkowiak's work on Saturday night.

    Even as the Bucks were charging back into the game I was telling everyone around me that Krystkowiak had to get Bell out because he wouldn’t be able to stop Carmelo Anthony one-on-one. On this night, I couldn’t have been more wrong. Not only did Bell do a great job on Anthony (holding him to two shots and 3 turnovers in the final 6:30, despite touching the ball on every posession), he also hit the 3-pointer that gave the Bucks their first 4th quarter lead. I still don’t think that using a 6′3″ player to defend small forwards is much of a percentage play, but it worked great on Saturday.

    I also wasn't expecting the Bell/'Melo matchup to work for the Bucks, as it seemed inevitable that Anthony would use his five inch height advantage in the post. But Bell held his ground, and even Villanueva had a big defensive play when he caught Antony by surprise and snatched the ball from him with a minute left.