Comments on: Bucks In Early Decade Form or Welcome Back Stack

By: duke

duke — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:40:06 +0000

Think another explanation might be that the Bucks intend to trade Ridnour and they needed another shooting guard for the rest of the year because that’ll move Bell to back-up PG? Without Redd, all the Bucks would have left is Meeks at the two position.

…but unless they get rid of one of their guards by the trade deadline, I don’t see the logic behind this.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:40:00 +0000

Scott – I’d toss Warrick into the trade bait category. He doesn’t seem like a logical long term answer at the four, especially with a very power forward heavy draft coming up. Considering how much Hammond talked about “assets” and “flexibility” this summer, you’d think he’d try and be especially active before the deadline passes.

By: Scott McKenzie

Scott McKenzie — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:43:32 +0000

Very interesting analysis Jeremy. I hope your right about the trade bait idea, as chucking a vet into a team which desperately needs to be re-built is simply idiotic (as you rightly suggested.)

Lets just hope that the Bucks make a serious push at the deadline and trade some of our older players for some with good potential. We are nearly at the stage where 1/2 of our roster isn’t part of our 2-3 year plan.

Arguably not part of our future: Elson, Danny-G, Delfino, Rids, Stackhouse, maybe Charlie Bell, Thomas and Alexander.

But the flip side of this is, i guess, we have 6 players who are actually very promising.
Bogut, Meeks, Jennings, Ersan, Warrick (maybe), LRMAM

If I was the GM right now, I would try and get rid of those 8 players for expirings/let them expire and not re-sign. From that pick up good FA’s or trade for some more young talent. What do you think Jeremy? Surely we cant continue to pick up vets and resign players which aren’t helping our cause!?!