don1481

An interesting press conference: Q: "Did you ever consider pinch hitting Jenkins with Mench? Or did your gut tell you otherwise?" Ned Yost: "I'm the manager. I'm very smart."

Hawped twice in a row... gotta love that! Surprised he went with Jenks, but hey - it worked.

Rillo, if you're reading this... you can go back into the chat now http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif That was a HUGE DP.

"Only" 1.8? That's still a couple of ill-advised shots/game. Mo took 15.4 shots/game. Deron took 13.5 (1.9 fewer), Davis took 16.3 (but also averaged 3 PPG more than Mo), and Parker took 14.2. I don't consider 15.4 to be all that similar to 13.5 or 14.2. You could make a case for 16.3, but that's pushing it. The Bucks also had three big-time scoring weapons (Cassell, Allen/Payton (after the Allen trade), Robinson) plus Redd as the 6th man back then. It could also be argued that the Bucks did well in spite of Cassell's shoot-first mentality. In 2000-2001, Cassell took 14.9 shots/game. In 2001-2002, he took over 16. In 2002-2003, he took 14.9 once again. So yeah, he took a lot of shots, but he had a lot more assists.

Yes, and you can imagine how many times I wanted to go over and wring his neck. Because the worst thing you can do is pick fights in the media with your teammates. Bogut's not that stupid. Yes, but the issue here is solely with the *number* of shots/game Mo takes. For a point guard, it's rather high.

West played in about the same number of games as Redd, so those two basically cancel each other out in terms of being "available options." Peja didn't even play in 15 games, so he doesn't count as an option at all. Of those remaining options, none scored over 10.5 PPG last year. And none are exactly "options" any more than Patterson/Bell/Boykins were. Villanueva's coming off of an injury-filled season. He's not tradeable in the sense that he'll return very much until he proves he's healthy. Bogut's really not that tradeable; he wouldn't exactly get all that much in return. Yi... I think enough has been said about the drama there. I hope so, but I also hope that Larry K has the wherewithal to sit Mo if he refuses to distribute the ball. This will be the third coach that Mo's been the PG under (Porter, Stotts, Larry K - I'm not really counting the 15 game audition as "under Larry K" just yet), and if Mo's not distributing the ball (improving that assist:turnover ratio) by the end of the year (assuming that the team remains somewhat healthy), then it's not the system that's at fault - it's Mo. Of course, I will hope that Mo proves me wrong, but after watching him last season all the time at the BC (the beauty of having season tickets), I can't help but note that he'd have a wide-open Andrew Bogut all the time down low and instead of passing, he'd just... dribble. And dribble. And heave up a last second shot. And Bogut would just glare at him. Same thing would also happen with Villanueva. These are things that can't be viewed on TV, since the camera doesn't focus on that. Mo's stats, on paper, are good (minus the assist:turnover rate) but as we've all argued here countless times regarding baseball and the Brewers, the stat line doesn't always paint the entire picture.

I've already addressed the perception that Mo was "our offense." If you compare the offensive load Mo had to shoulder versus, say, Chris Paul, you'll find out that Paul had even fewer offensive weapons to work with... namely pretty much Desmond Mason... because of injury. Yet Paul took fewer shots and got to the FT line far more and had a significantly better assist/turnover ratio and more assists. While Ruben Patterson/Earl Boykins/Charlie Bell aren't exactly what I'd consider "good" options, they're still better options (namely because there are more of them for him to... what's that word? Pass to) than what Chris Paul had to work with. Given Livingston's inability to stay healthy, I'm seriously wondering if he's going to be a Clipper for much longer. That said, I'll agree that FA isn't an option... but what about the draft? I'd say "what about a trade?" but the only option that we'd have would be Redd. As much of a one-dimensional player as Redd is... the few remaining Bucks fans might revolt if he's traded. Actually this is now a moot point. Mo's signed. I will be off sobbing in a corner as we see 6 more years of poor ball distribution and ill-advised shots taken when the shot clock's down to 2. I guess this season'll be the big test for Mo. IF he grows like qrk's thinking he will, then the signing will be justifiable. However, if Mo cannot improve significantly his assist:turnover ration (which would probably result in improved assist totals) and cut down on his shots, then the Bucks will be in trouble again and stuck for 5 more seasons.

I have one hyphenated word in response: sign-and-trade. And now according to JSOnline: 6 years, $51 Million. Gross.

Which shows just how lousy the FA market is this year. Why waste money just to spend money? I'd say top 20. See my list elsewhere in either this thread or the draft thread.

I've expressed my opinion of Mo Williams on this thread and others and have provided more than sufficient backing data to support my position. My opinion of Mo (in a nutshell: 2-guard/6th man posing as a PG) isn't going to change. If he's the "best" option out there this offseason, the Bucks are best off putting their money towards someone for a one year deal (which is why Francis is rated above on my list for *solely* next year) and then go after a better option the following offseason, either through FA or the draft. If Mo Williams is running the offense come the start of the season, the Bucks are going to be in big, big trouble. We may want to "win now," but what would Mo Williams get us versus Francis this season? An 8-seed... maybe? Align our talent under contract for the future and acquire as needed to supplement it. I don't blame Mo at all for it. If Larry's dumb enough to offer Mo mo' money, then Mo's agent has pulled off a move of brilliance. Ah, but we're not asking Francis to "lead" a team, are we? We're just wanting him to keep the PG seat warm for a year. Either way, the PG options out there this season are atrocious and Harris would be ill-served offering any of them serious cash.

Yes, which should tell you exactly what I think of Mo Williams as a player. At least Francis has done somewhat worthwhile stuff in the past. Plus (in theory) we could get him for a 1 year (which was the point I was trying to make) and make a run for a FA in 08. Or, draft a PG that's competent.

I'll rank-order those in terms of who I'd want (caveat: for next year and only next year): Francis Williams Blake Bell In descending order of gag-reflex. However, after next year, that order becomes: Williams Francis Bell Blake But... that makes me wonder: Who are the 2008 FAs at PG? Can draft picks (as in Miami's future 1st rounder) be included in a sign and trade for Mo?

Well it's not his fault Maybe he didn't get it Some people just don't

If, by "above average," you mean "at best, 13th or 14th out of 30," then yes, I might agree with you. But by no means has he done anything from the PG spot that's considered worthy enough to be entrusted with running the team from the point... especially at the 8-10M/year level that's being thrown around. I'm hoping Larry's holding Yi's rights hostage to leverage, oh, a good point guard and PF from some team. "Oh, hey Chicago! What? You want Yi? We'll take Hinrich and a first for next year off your hands." "Hey, Miami! You want Yi? We'll do a sign-and-trade with Mo plus Yi for, oh... Dwyane Wade. He'll be our new PG now. Thanks!" I seriously think that Larry has to play hardball like the above examples in this case.

Kidd Nash Billups Deron Williams Chris Paul Hinrich Baron Davis Tony Parker Marbury Andre Miller and... TJ Ford I'd even throw Alston, Jameer Nelson, and Mike Bibby above Williams as well. Drop off a few of those and basically you've eliminated about 1/3 of the PGs in the league - you'd hope that Mo would be near the top 10 of the remaining, right? Mo may have had 6 APG, but his A/TO ratio was downright pedestrian. And your points about Mo being a good scorer are true in the sense that you'd expect anyone that hurls up about 15.4 shots/game to be able to get closer to 20 PPG than Mo did. And, as I discussed earlier here, Mo's SPG is significantly higher than other PGs of value. I'd pass at 10 M. Heck, I'd pass at 8. IMO Mo's really worth about 6, maybe 7 tops.

"Very Nice Player?" Yes - as a 2-guard or 6th man. As a PG? Absolutely not. He lacks the court management skills of a true ballhandler. Here's to Larry flipping Yi into a PG AND a PF.

Ah, 3+ turnovers/game plus jacking up close to 17 shots/game (as mentioned earlier in this thread) pretty much negates his 17 PPG. Mo is a 6th man/2-guard posing as a PG. If any team has watched tape of him this year instead of looking at the assists and points, they'd see just how inept he is at running an offense. Even if the system according to Stotts and Larry K dictated that the attack be divided between Redd and Williams, there's still something called "ball distribution" that Mo failed miserably at. Watch how many times Mo stood there, and watch how, over the course of the season, his teammates worked less and less at getting open because - big surprise - Mo wasn't going to pass them the ball anyways.

IF the Bucks could pull that one off, I'd be one of the happiest fans out therehttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Who knows, maybe we could get our PG at 11 then...

No, but it does address the complete ineptitude at the PG position that Mo Williams brought to the table. Who's available at PF in FA?

As I've mentioned elsewhere, Mo Williams is a huge problem at PG for the Bucks. His overall inability to run an offense is appalling. He's an undersized 2-guard impersonating a 1. Compare his stats to, say, Jason Kidd or Steve Nash... or, if you want to compare him to other "young" PGs, Deron Williams or Chris Paul. Look also at how many more shots/game he took than any of those guys: Mo, for example, had to hoist up 15.4 shots/game to get his 17.3 PPG, with a wonderful shooting percentage of 44.6% and an assist:turnover ratio of just over 2:1. Nash, to get his 18.6 PPG, took just 12.8 shots/game with a shooting percentage of 53.2% and an assist: turnover ratio of just over 3:1. Kidd, to get his 13 PPG, took 11.3 shots/game with a shooting percentage of 40.6% and an assist:turnover ratio of 3.4:1. Paul, to get his 17.3 PPG, took 13.6 shots/game with a shooting percentage of 43.7% (but DID get to the free throw line over twice as often per game - 2.7 versus 5.6) and an assist:turnover ratio of over 3.5:1. Deron Williams, to get his 16.2 PPG, took 13.5 shots/game with a shooting percentage of 45.6% and an assist:turnover ratio of 3:1. Theme #1: 3 of the 4 point guards compared to Mo had very similar PPG lines... but on several fewer shots per game. Theme #2: All 4 of those point guards had at least an assist more per turnover than Mo. Theme #1 is often countered by Mo supporters with statements such as "Mo had no one to pass to all season long. He had to carry the offense." False. Chris Paul, for example, lost Peja Stojakovic and his 17+ PPG after just 13 games and didn't have David West around for 30 games. Which leaves Desmond Mason and his 13.7 PPG as the only "consistently available" offensive threat for Paul to pass to. At least the Bucks still had Charlie Bell and Ruben Patterson; granted, neither is a great offensive option but... Mo DID have options, especially compared to what Paul had to work with. And yet, Paul was more efficient - especially with getting to the FT line. Theme #2 is responded to in much the same way by Mo supporters; however, once again, note that Chris Paul, who had the worst ensemble to work with among the four, had the highest assist:turnover ratio. Mo's putrid assist:turnover ratio ranked 36th of 42 PGs in the NBA last season. Unacceptable from the PG spot.

I'll pat Colby on the back. And even though it's a little off topic, I'll pat Mass on the back as well. The aggregation of links and info that those two have given us at BF.Net is astounding - we should all be so fortunate as to have them around.

In honor of this series, I have decided to change my avatar for all to enjoy! That said, it's gonna be a slug-fest tonight most likely. Especially if the roof and panels are closed. And, seeing as I can see MP out of my window here at work... the roof's closedhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

Sadly, there's only one basketball... and those three together would probably result in Furious George returning to, well, Furiousness. I like George too much to subject him to that sort of cruelty.

Yes, but his me-first attitude makes him about as desirable for most teams as Ron Artest. I still think Kobe's hands are pretty much tied as far as where he goes. He can whine all day long, but at the end of the day, he's still under contract.

If I'm Jerry Buss, I'm telling my GM to trade Kobe only to a team that is going to be a non-contender. Like Atlanta (if they would send their two first rounders from this year plus, oh, Marvin Williams). Or somewhere in the relative middle of nowhere. Kobe for Garnett? Hmm... And if Kobe complains, tell him tough. He can demand to be traded til he turns blue in the face but if he's not traded, he's still obligated to play for the Lakers. And if he refuses, other teams won't touch him. Lakers have the huge upper hand here... if they play it correctly.