Bucksketball Podcast

Started at the middle, now we (still) here: A look back at the Bucks pre and post Monta trade

| March 27, 2013

Category: Sad and Unpopular

Share

 

It’s been a little over one year since the trade for Monta was made. But has anything changed? (Photo: NBA.com)

A college advisor of mine once told me that, when making a big change in life, there were always two things to consider.  The first was to think of where this decision would leave me one year from that current moment.  What would be different and how would that affect me?  The other angle I was to consider was would I have more questions or more answers to my problem a year down the road? In other words, would the decision I made the year prior be the solution to my problem or just be another vexing layer to it?

A little over one year ago, the Milwaukee Bucks made a big change when they sent the oft-injured Andrew Bogut to Golden State in exchange for Monta Ellis.  The move was meant to serve as a fresh start for both Ellis and Bogut, as both players had reached an impasse of sorts with their respective teams.

The move was a logical one for the Warriors.  They had lacked any real interior defensive presence for quite some time, and the addition of Bogut made many begin to speculate how deep the team could go in the playoffs for years to come.  The Bucks, who were heading the wrong direction in the playoff hunt, made the swap in hopes that an electric offensive player like Ellis could propel them back in the race in similar fashion to the acquisition of John Salmons in 2010.  As we know, the Bucks finished that season 13-9 and fell short of the playoffs, finishing in that all too comfortable ninth seed.  Good job, good effort though, right?

Everyone expected this year to be different. With the backcourt getting a little in-game seasoning and the acquisition of a “true” center in Samuel Dalembert, Milwaukee seemed poised to regain its 2010 form.  Yet here we are with 13 games left in the season, and the Bucks are 34-35 and seem destined to serve as whipping boy for the Miami Heat in the first round of the playoffs.

So, what have we arrived at one year later?

The Bucks aren’t making it out of the first round of the playoffs.  They don’t appear capable of moving up and out of the eighth seed, either.  With the Philadelphia 76ers falling out of the playoff landscape after the loss of Andrew Bynum all year due to injury, we can’t say definitively that the Bucks have improved significantly upon last year’s standing.

There have been a few welcome surprises in the emergence of LARRY SANDERS! and the recent acquisition of JJ Redick.  There has even been a flicker of hope when John Henson has performed well.

This is all fine and good, but can we consider the past year progress?  Was it a success?

“Success” is a pretty subjective term when it comes to any given basketball season.  Since the trade last March, success was defined as making the playoffs for the Bucks.  This August, making the playoffs was still at the top of everyone’s wish list.  In this article by Charles F. Gardner, Brandon Jennings stated multiple times that the goal was to just get in to the playoffs and he and his teammates would do anything to achieve that.  Now, as they are comfortably in the playoff picture, does it feel like mission accomplished?

Here lies the much bigger issue.  At what point does simply snagging a playoff spot not become satisfactory?  When does finishing slightly above the middle of the pack become not good enough?  If the act of getting to the postseason is what your franchise considers a success, then how will you ever take it the next level?

Perhaps most importantly, does simply making the playoffs do anything to answer questions that plague a roster full of soon to be free agents? This season was an important one. Coming into it, everyone was operating without a net, from General Manager John Hammond down to sixth man Mike Dunleavy. We’ve seen some casualties, namely ex-Head Coach Scott Skiles. But we haven’t really seen any player definitively answer the questions that surrounded him before the season. We’re still unsure about Brandon Jennings. We don’t know if the first half or second half Ellis is the real one.

These are all questions that need to be answered for the Bucks going forward. On some of these issues, the ones relating to players who will be free agents namely, Milwaukee is running out of time. After what is likely to be a quick exit in this year’s postseason, it will be back to the drawing board for another off-season of uncertainty.  There are a lot of crucial moves to be made and things could be looking a lot different at the BMO Harris Bradley Center next season.

Let’s just hope that next year brings a lot more solutions than problems.

Tags: , , , ,

About the Author ()

Eric Buenning is a perpetual couch potato with an abnormally high amount of optimism for the Bucks. He enjoys tweeting more than most human interaction and is highly susceptible to moments of swog. He seeks patience from the readers, as this is his first job in this field. He’s also 6-4, 230, and is an almost decent free-throw shooter.

Comments (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Banjo says:

    The 8th seed isn’t above average. There are 15 teams in each conference. 15/2 = 7.5. Being the 8 seed means you are a slightly below average team in your conference.

  2. Sfisch says:

    I think the trade for Monta was a good one.
    I was sad to see Andrew Bogut go, but it was
    a good time for him to get a fresh start with
    another team. I’m not sure how to evaluate
    Monta now, but he was at least worth a try for
    his talents and excitement. I don’t know what
    kind of a teammate he is, or if he has any
    intention of staying with the Bucks.

    If the Bucks were in their current position with
    a promising group of young talent that seemed
    to be growing together as a team, I would be
    happy. For those old enough to remember, think
    of the early days of Quinn Buckner, Brian Winters,
    Junior Bridgeman, Marques Johnson and others –
    with Sidney Moncrief (my favorite) coming a little
    later.

    In the here-and-now, I think a team like the
    Cavaliers and maybe even the Wizards has more
    upside than the Bucks. Sad to say, the Bucks
    seem like a puzzle with pieces that don’t fit
    together very well, and thus a bleak picture.

    It’s painful to start over, but I think the Bucks
    have little choice but to do just that. Keep Larry
    Sanders and John Henson, maybe salvage a couple of
    other current players who have good attitudes, try
    to draft a Kyrie Irving or Damian Lillard at point
    guard, acquire some veterans with character, and
    try to get the absolute best coach out there even
    at a high salary.

    With a lot of savvy and some good fortune, maybe
    the transition period won’t be so long, while
    the long-term could be much brighter. Otherwise,
    I think we’re looking at mediocrity ad nauseam
    and gut-wrenching let-downs.

  3. DukeH says:

    Jennings is holding Ellis back, and to be honest I think Jennings wants us to lose so he can say “I told you so.” With a cancer like Jennings in the locker room, it’s no wonder this team has done no where these past 4 years.

    • Patti #1 says:

      That’s a pretty strong statement to blame Jennings for all things wrong with the Bucks for the past 4 years. You might be correct in all of your assertions. But to be honest, I don’t see enough evidence to back all of them up.