The Bratwurst - Milwaukee Bucks Blog

Up to this point I have talked about each player in reverse order of their salaries, but I’m getting away from that because Simmons/Mason and Williams/Redd should really be discussed together.

That leaves only one other $5 million man to talk about.

Dan Gadzuric ($5.7M, 0.625 IPM): My season ticket rep upgraded me to courtside seats for the Feb. 13 game against New Orleans, so I gave my regular seats to a friend who took his father to the game. The game turned out to be a well played, hard-fought 111-107 loss to the Hornets, who had the best record in the West at the time. That game, however, was not Dan Gadzuric’s finest moment. While you should never say that one player cost you a win, on this night Danny G cost the Bucks the win. His 2-8 shooting was highlighted by at least three missed open layups from point-blank range and one missed dunk.

After the game, what was the first thing my friend’s father said to me? Not; “Thanks for giving us the tickets� nor was it; “That was a good game, too bad they couldn’t pull it out.�

No, the first thing out of his mouth was; “Boy, that Gad-zurick really sucks! Can’t even make a layup! Why’s he even on the team? How much are they paying him? What a bunch of bums. No wonder they suck. That Harris is so dumb for giving him that contract.�

I would have preferred; “Thanks for the tickets.�

But he perfectly summed up the problem with Dan Gadzuric. There are some positives that he brings to the court – short bursts of energy, rebounding, shot-blocking, and hard fouls. However, he is so incredibly inept with the ball in his hands that he makes a mockery of the very idea of professional basketball as being something entertaining that is worth paying money to see. If you want to see missed layups, you can go to a 5th grade game for free any time, but to pay money and leave home on a Tuesday night in February to see Gadzuric do it – well, who’s the idiot now? The guy who is doing it and getting paid or the guy who is paying to watch it?

Danny G’s shooting percentage continued plummeting (the last 4 seasons have been 53.9%, 55.3%, 47.4%, 41.6%) and a look at Gadzuric’s 82games.com page for this season and 2004-05 (the season that won him his ridiculous contract) shows that his shooting has fallen apart in every way. He now shoots a higher percentage of jump shots (30% this year vs. 16% in 04-05), makes fewer jump shots (19.6% vs. 27%), and shoots a worse percentage inside (50.9% vs, 59%). Even his propensity to miss dunks has grown (only shooting 84% on slam attempts this season).

At least Gadzuric chipped in by rebounding slightly worse than in past seasons, turning it over more often and getting fewer assists. And he is only under contract for three more seasons.

So what’s the matter here? Well, Gadzuric is older than he looks – he was an older college player, so despite only being a six-year veteran he is already 30. It’s a shame to talk about guys just out of their 20’s as getting “old�, but that is what is happening – he is past his prime, which is what happens to most centers around this age. Danny G was simply never that talented but was supremely athletic for his size. Over the last couple of years he has probably lost a step and a little bit of his springs, and he is simply not good enough at basketball to compensate.

The fact that he is not as explosive off of the floor shows up in the drop in his shooting percentage (and his incredible inability to make the wide-open short ones). Before the season I speculated that perhaps his shooting percentage drop in 2006-07 was due to some sort of hand injury (because he seemed to lose the ball on the way up a lot) but now I realize it is because he has started rushing his shot in order to get it up quickly enough to keep from being blocked.

What’s sad about it all is that I can’t really see where Danny G can improve his game to adjust for his age. He still rebounds and blocks shots pretty well, so he’s pretty useful at that end of the floor but those skills will decline as he continues to age. His turnover rate is up a bit – and I thought it was due to an increase in offensive fouls but according to 82games.com he only committed four of them all season, so it’s not like there is room for improvement there. He’s never going to become a jump shooter, and he fouls at such an immense rate (about 8 per 40 minutes) that he will never be able to stay on the floor long enough to be more than a 10 mpg player.

The only answer is to become a Michael Ruffin clone – get rid of the ball as soon as you get it, never shoot unless you are under the basket or there are less than 3 seconds on the shot clock (Ruffin shot 53% this season without making a single jump shot), and hammer anyone who comes within a few feet of you. I was hoping that Ruffin’s presence would rub off on Gadzuric in this way by showing him how a player could make an impact without doing anything offensively, but why would Gadzuric try to learn anything from him? Ruffin was playing on a 1-year, veterans minimum contract while Danny G is the one with 3 years/$20 million left on his deal!

If I could ask Larry Harris one question it would be: “What in the hell were you thinking when extending Gadzuric’s contract?� It’s as though his logic went like this:

“Okay, I just drafted Andrew Bogut with the #1 overall pick to be my starting center, and he’s getting a 4 year/$18 million contract. Bogut will definitely be a 35 mpg guy by next season (or else I’ve got big problems), so there’s only 13 mpg available for Gadzuric, who is already 27 years old. So if Bogut is averaging $4.5 million per year for 4 years to play about 75% of the minutes at center then to fill in the position for the other 25% of the game it sounds about right to pay …. Lets see, carry the three … um … 6 years at $6 million per. Perfect!�

I have no problem with a player being overpaid for a year or two, especially after playing well for peanuts for a while (like Charlie Bell). But these long term contracts to guys who will never be starters (like Charlie Bell) …. I just don’t get it!

It is a shame to spend several hundred words reaming a player whose greatest sin is having an incredibly effective agent. Gadzuric does still try hard on the court, and for all of his failings the team was outscored by the same amount this season with him on the court or off – so it’s not like his offensive failings killed the team, it just reduced the value of all of the good things he did by being a high-energy pest on the court.

But as time goes on he is not going to get any better, and unless he stops trying to be someone that he isn’t on offense then his usefulness will continue to decline over the next three years. And I can’t imagine any other team wanting to take on his contract, so those three years are going to be in a Bucks uniform.

It’s not really his fault that Krystkowiak is gone, but he certainly didn’t help matters.

Responsibility for Coach K’s dismissal: 5%

Up next: Yin and Yang at Small Forward

How in the world can you blow a 17 point lead with 14 minutes remaining?

First of all, I don’t care that Mo Williams was out. Everybody has to deal with losing starters, and the Knicks were also playing without Nate Robinson (as well as the addition-by-subtraction loss of Stephon Marbury).

Isiah Thomas even threw in the towel in the third quarter — after the Bucks extended their lead to 81-64, Thomas brought in Malik Rose and Renaldo Balkman, to go with David Lee, Jamal Crawford and Fred Jones, and didn’t make a single substitution for the rest of the game! He stopped coaching for 10 minutes (basically just telling his guys; “just do whatever you want and see what happens”), not calling a timeout until the Knicks had made a game of it at 93-86.

The “Wages of Wins” believers will try to say that David Lee was the reason the Knicks came back and won the game, but Lee didn’t really do anything out of the ordinary. His 8-12 shooting and 9 rebounds (4 offensive) looks great, but that’s just typical sneaky David Lee stuff — he shoots 55% anyway, so a 7-12 game would be average for him, and in his normal 32 minute outing he averages 10 boards (3 offensive). So he had a pretty typical game for hin — just your standard, underrated scrappy stuff that has carried the Knicks a 13-36 record against teams other than the Bucks this season.

Jamal Crawford was on fire, making all sorts of crazy stuff on his way to 30 points. That can happen with Crawford — he’s an average player overall but he either looks like a world-beater or the worst player in the league on any given night. The Knicks had good Jamal on Saturday, and their record is pretty respectable when he springs for 28+ points. This is a perfect example of how using a player “because he’s a good defender” is stupid. Crawford was making everything, and there really wasn’t much Ivey could do (within the rules, anyway) to stop him. Guys like Crawford will get hot sometimes and that’s life. So Ivey couldn’t do anything to stop Crawford early, and by shooting 2-9 and scoring 4 points, Ivey didn’t help out offensively as well. So Crawford isn’t really the reason the Knicks won the game — he helped, but even with him putting up big numbers this game was winnable.

No, it comes down to coaching. Larry Krystkowiak, I have a few questions for you. Specifically:

When you have a 17 point lead, why would you wait until the Knicks have run off 15 unanswered points before calling a timeout? I can see the logic that Krystkowiak wanted to let the quarter run out and then things got out of hand, but this is the second time this season that the Bucks have blown a big 3rd quarter lead to the Knicks. After they got two or three consecutive baskets, why would you not call timeout to break the Knicks’ rhythm and remind the guys that the Bucks have been in this situation against New York before?

How does Charlie Villanueva get one shot in the fourth quarter? He shot 10-22 for the game and didn’t see the ball in seven minutes of work in the fourth. He shot 6-12 and grabbed 6 rebounds in the third quarter. Is anyone calling plays here? Did anyone realize that the Knicks went small, were using a 6′7″ and 6′9″ frontcourt, and Isiah wasn’t bothering with substitutes?

How does Bogut get two shots in the fourth quarter? He made one and then got called for his sixth foul on the second. Once again, he was being guarded by 6′7 Malik Rose.

Why would you not go big with Gadzuric in the fourth quarter? Krytkowiak used Gadzuric at power forward a little against Dallas and it worked quite well. The Knicks were charging back into the game with their small lineup so why wouldn’t you try to force the Knicks out of it? Get Ivey out of the game, let Bell play point guard, and move Villanueva to small forward so that Redd will be guarded by Crawford instead of Balkman. Then Gadzuric’s athleticism can at least try to match Lee’s, Villanueva has a big height advantage over Balkman, and Redd gets to pick on the worst defender in the league.

Why in the world was Michael Ruffin in the game on the final posession? Michael Ruffin is the WORST OFFENSIVE PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF THE NBA! In a nine year career he has averaged 4.2 points per 36 minutes. He is a nice enough player, and his strengths in other areas makes up for his lack of scoring. But you cannot have him in the game in a situation where you have to get a basket.

I’m no NBA coach, but I know for certain that if I was in Isiah Thomas’ shoes drawing up my defense for the final play I’m doubling Redd hard with Ruffin’s man (Lee or Rose) and hoping to force the ball into Ruffin or Ivey’s (2-9 shooting) hands. Wouldn’t you know that’s exactly what Isiah did — when the Bucks first ran their inbounds play, Redd was doubled as soon as he caught the inbounds pass and fouled (the Knicks had a foul to give). As Redd was fouled, he passed the ball to Ivey, who would have had an open 20-footer for the win (which would have been option #2 on the list of “likely good outcomes for the Knicks”). Instead, the Knicks denied Redd the ball on the second try, leaving Bell with multiple defenders running at him and no choice but to dump it off to an open Ruffin (#1 on the list of “likely good outcomes for the Knicks”). Incredibly, the Knicks were able to double team two guys on the final play, because the Bucks were using two players (Ivey and Ruffin) that Isiah didn’t mind being open.

You needed a shot from a decent scorer. Why wasn’t Yi in for Ruffin? If it was me, I’d have had Simmons inbounding instead of Ivey, but that’s nitpicking — it’s not like Simmons was any good last night, either. But Michael Ruffin? Michael Ruffin. In a situation where he might take the last shot. Michael Ruffin. He’s 6′8. He’s taken 19 shots this season. When you have a 7-foot shooter on your bench. Really. Michael Ruffin.

Well, anyhow, another day another loss. This was on the list of “games the Bucks need to win if they are going to make the playoffs”, so one more bad loss and they need to start beating good teams to make up ground. The door is closing. If they lose Monday to the Clippers, then it will slam shut.

Now we know where that “Randolph to the Bucks” story came from. In the New York Post, Peter Vecsey is reporting that Knicks GM Glen Grunwald proposed a Randolph trade to Larry Harris, and Harris called the Blazers’ management to guage their opinion of Randolph. Someone in the Blazers front office leaked word that the Bucks were considering adding Randolph to the Portland Oregonian.

The proposed trade was Zach Randolph and Renaldo Balkman for Dan Gadzuric, Bobby Simmons and Charlie Villanueva.

Boy, that really shows how low Randolph’s reputation around the league is if the Bucks would turn that one down — and they are 100% correct to have done so.

It’s funny. The Knicks come calling with an offer of a young power forward who has a history of putting up great numbers and a young small forward who is an upgrade over Simmons or Mason in every way except shooting ability — athleticism, age, price tag, rebounding, defense … you name it. And all it would have cost them was one talent who the Bucks can’t figure out how to use, one backup center who is nailed to the bench, and one small forward who has been extremely underwhelming.

It sounds like a ridiculously unfair trade in favor of the Bucks. Which means there is something seriously wrong with the offer — what could make the Knicks that desperate to get rid of Randolph?

You can hear Larry Harris’ thought process; “You actually want to take Gadzuric and Simmons off of my hands? And you’ll give me a better small forward and a 26-year old who was 20/10 last season? That’s just too good to be true! Of course I’ll do …. Waaaaait a minute … What are you trying to pull here?”

Here’s what’s wrong with the trade: Zach Randolph simply isn’t nearly as good as his numbers indicate. Everybody already knows that Randolph is a horrible defender and a constant PR headache. His personality is already showing through in New York with battles with the press, Isiah Thomas, and the referees. Not to mention Portland has blossomed without him, while the Knicks are an even bigger train wreck than they were before. The only thing Randolph has going for him is his ability to stuff a box score.

And here’s the kicker — Randolph’s numbers aren’t even that good.

Randolph is sporting a 0.8236 IPM this season. That makes him the 28th best forward and while that is the highest ranking on the Knicks, it would place him fourth on the Bucks. Yes, he had a 0.9965 (8th best forward) last season, but that was a mirage, courtesy of something called usage rate.

Usage rate is the average number of team posessions per 40 minutes that end with something a player does — when he takes a shot, gets fouled, gets an assist, or turns it over. Players that shoot a ton have very high usage rates (Kobe Bryant uses about 30 posessions a game) so it is a stat that sort of measures how big of a gunner a player is.

Randolph was much praised for raising his scoring last season, averaging 26.5 pp/40, over a previous career high of 21.7. People also thought that he was a pretty efficient scorer, as he shot 46.7% from the floor and 81% from the line, both much improved over the previous two seasons.

However, his shooting percentage was artificially low the previous two seasons because he had and was recovering from microfracture knee surgery. Before the knee injury he had been a 50% shooter. His shooting percentages in 2006-07 weren’t that good, just good compared to when he was hurt.

So why the increase in scoring? Usage rate. As the only offensive option on Portland, he used 30 posessions/40 min last season, compared to a previous high of 25. He played about 40 mpg, so getting 5 more shots per game and converting them at 47% means an extra 5 more points per game. Bingo, there’s the whole scoring increase explained right there — he wasn’t playing better, he was shooting more.

Not surprisingly, this season his usage rate, shooting percentage, and scoring average is all down. His former team is better without him, his new team is worse with him. He’s a average player who gets his numbers at the expense of his teammates.

It’s a shame that the Bucks couldn’t pull off a deal to get Balkman, but at the cost of obtaining a millstone like Randolph, it’s not even close to worth it. Good thing Larry Harris passed on this deal.

An enjoyable, energetic Bucks-Jazz game was ruined by a true clunker of a 4th quarter. After shooting 57% through three quarters, the Bucks managed to shoot 2 for 18 in the fourth, turning a close game into an 11 point loss.

When Andrew Bogut had shot 8-11 going into the 4th, how does he only get one shot in the final 12 minutes?

Why does Charlie Villanueva play 8 minutes, meaning that Charlie Bell has to guard Matt Harpring for half of the quarter and Andrei Kirilenko for the remainder? The most perplexing thing about this decision is that Villanueva actually played his 8 minutes at small forward, just like I’ve been asking for!

There was no way that the Bucks would win this game with Mo, Redd, Yi and Bell combining to shoot 1-16 in the quarter. They probably wouldn’t have won had they shot closer to 7-16, because Utah is pretty good and was getting to the foul line at will (22 free throws in the 4th). But I just don’t see how the team is going to get anywhere by pinning one of their 5 best players to the bench more and more.

Stories abound about how Villanueva’s practice habits are a major problem, and I’m sure that’s what’s going on here. However, it seems to me that the best way to get him in the flow would be to play him more, not less. I know that Krystkowiak’s whole M.O. is defense, energy, hard practice gets you game time. But you have to treat these guys like men — give them some responsibility and a reason to go out and work harder. Some people simply don’t respond as well to that “practice well and the rewards will follow” stuff. But this isn’t college — you are stuck with the players you have, so you have to reach them all in different ways.

Krystkowiak also used the “all-bench” lineup for a bit in the second quarter, but I’m certainly not going to complain about it at all today. The altitude probably makes it a bit of a necessity (I notice that Jerry Sloan used it as well), and Krystkowiak only used it for 4 minutes while the Bucks also played well during that stretch. But most of all, I was glad to see that Gadzuric was part of that lineup.

While Danny G didn’t really fill the box score — 2 points, a board, two blocks, a steal and 3 turnovers in 10 minutes — he also forced two Jazz turnovers by taking charges. One of his turnover was on the classic Gadzuric offensive foul — he sets a screen and “rolls” to the basket by turning his back to the hoop, holding both of his hands up, (probably screams out to the defense “I’m not looking where I’m going!”) and starts chugging backwards. This sequence ends with him looking surprised at the fact that (a) a defender jumped in and took a charge or (b) he ran over a defender that wasn’t looking. You’d think that after 10 years of NBA and college ball that Dan would have learned that this move doesn’t work, but I guess not. That’s why he should be playing power forward and working on the baseline where he can attack for offensive rebounds, not being a part of the offense as a center.

Yi’s game was kind of hard to figure out. Only 6 points on 2-8 shooting and only 3 rebounds, but 4 blocks and 2 steals made him a helpful piece of the puzzle. He also cross-matched onto Okur and did well against him, harassing him into 3-11 shooting. Between that matchup being a push and Bogut-Boozer being even as well, (23-10-3 vs. 21-10-3), it was nice to see the Bucks get a draw against one of the best frontcourts in the league.

All things considered, an 0-3 road trip against the Lakers, Suns and Jazz isn’t so bad, especially since the Bucks didn’t get blown out in any of them (and with the incredible disappearing Michael Redd being pretty poor in two games). But 8 minutes for Charlie V? That’s no way to win.

A few weeks ago I wrote a post about 14 potential trades the Bucks could do, but that most likely wouldn’t happen. I’m going to try that exercise again.

I figure that everybody is fair game except for Bogut, Williams and Yi. Williams, as a newly resigned free agent, is almost impossible to trade; as a somewhat productive, moderately paid big man Bogut would be impossible to replace; and Yi is too important to the health of the franchise to let go.

It has become much more difficult to figure out semi-reasonable trades, as Simmons and Gadzuric have played so poorly that I can’t imagine anyone taking on their contracts. There is one exception, though – a title contender might be willing to take on Gadzuric as “an energetic big guy to crash the boards and use his fouls� but that’s about it.

Additionally, salary cap rules make it well nigh impossible to trade Charlie Bell this season. As a newly resigned free agent, he (and Mo) falls under base year compensation (BYC) rules. Basically, should he get traded then his outgoing salary would only count for half of his actual salary. This was instituted to prevent teams from overpaying guys simply to fit them into trades. The thing that makes it so prohibitive, though, is that if the Bucks traded away Bell for a player who made between $1.55 mil and $2.03 mil (half of Bell’s $3.1 times 125%+$100,000) then Bell’s return $3.1 million salary would mean the other team is taking back too much money. Therefore Bell can only be traded to a team who is at least $1.07 million under the cap, and nobody is. One other caveat – in the first year of a BYC contract, the player can refuse to be included in any trade.

There are two loopholes in the BYC rules that would make it possible to trade Bell. One would be if a team has a trade exception (generated when they make a trade in which they take back less salary than they gave). However, I’m not sure who has them except for Phoenix, and as a luxury tax payee they did the Kurt Thomas deal in order to obtain the exception so that they can save the money. So I’m not considering exceptions in any proposals, which means that there may be some attractive potential deals out there that I wouldn’t figure out. The other loophole is that I believe that Bell could be traded for another BYC player who makes a similar amount of money as he does.

One other thing that makes this much more difficult – ESPN’s Trade Machine isn’t working correctly. Somehow it thinks the Bucks are under the cap, so it accepts nearly any moronic trade you stick in there. Simmons and Gadzuric for Kevin Garnett and Rajon Rondo? Sure! Want a side order of Paul Pierce with that? So I’m just going by my own math and understanding of the salary cap here – there is a chance that I might propose a trade that couldn’t actually work. Sorry.

And on to the ideas:

Dan Gadzuric to Boston for Brian Scalabrine and Scot Pollard: Scalabrine is one of the only players in the NBA who is significantly worse than Gadzuric. He can’t score, can’t rebound, can’t pass, doesn’t play good defense … and yet he’s got 3 years/$10+ million left on his contract. Apparently he is a good teammate, though, and has a sort of cult “human victory cigar� following in Boston. Pollard has a one year contract and is a shade worse than Gadzuric in every area except for turnovers. The Bucks would save about $10 million and 1 year on this deal, and Gadzuric would be an occasionally useful 12th man for Boston. Is Boston willing to take on the extra salary in 2010 to make this trade happen? You never know when having Gadzuric to foul Duncan 5 times and grab a couple of boards in the finals might make the difference in a championship game. This is a fair trade. But Boston wouldn’t do it – there are a surprising number of “Scalabrine� jerseys walking around Beantown.

Royal Ivey to Cleveland for Shannon Brown: A sort of “why the heck not� proposal for both teams. The Cavs have soured on Brown, thinking they had drafted an eventual starter to run the floor with LeBron, but he’s turned out to be too small and not enough of a ball handler to start at either backcourt spot. Ivey’s defense would help them make a playoff run this season. With the Bucks, Brown might be able to back up both guard spots effectively in a sort of Charlie Bell role. Both contracts expire after this season, so it’s a low risk trade for both parties. Also one which wouldn’t have any effect on the W/L record.

Charlie Bell and Charlie Villanueva to Golden State for Mickael Pietrus, Patrick O’Bryant and a first round pick: The one trade that I can come up with that fits in with Bell – both he and Pietrus are BYC players so this trade would work. I can’t help but think that Villanueva would shine in Don Nelson’s system, and the only power forward he has is Al Harrington. While taking on a long contract like Bell would seem to be detrimental to them, it actually may not be because Monta Ellis is a free agent after this season and Baron Davis can opt-out. They could possibly lose one of those players (likely Ellis), and as Marco Belinelli hasn’t shown much, they might need Bell to come off the bench for the next few years. O’Bryant is a bust who is in the last year of his contract, but Pietrus would be an interesting addition to the Bucks. He’s going to be a free agent, so the Bucks would get Ruben Patterson-style maximum effort from him. He’d be an immediate starter for the next 6 weeks while Mason is out, and still would get almost 30 mpg backing up Mason and Redd the rest of the year. It’s a big improvement on the 19 mpg he’s currently getting and would allow him to showcase himself for his upcoming free agency. That’s an important incentive to get him in Milwaukee since both he and Bell would have to approve this trade. The Bucks would save a lot of money on this deal (or they resign Pietrus and hope that he fills the void at small forward) and clear a logjam at power forward, while the Warriors would get two useful players (provided they are confident that Bell will find his shot eventually).

Michael Redd and Michael Ruffin (or Jake Voskuhl) to Houston for Tracy McGrady: This one looks like the sort of deal that would be good for both teams but that neither one would actually do. Apparently McGrady has been making noise about not being happy in Houston (wow, when has he ever done that?). Rockets management might like the idea of trading him for a player who, while only being 80% the player McGrady is, at least isn’t perpetually questionable due to a trick back, and should be a much better running mate for Yao Ming. One has to worry about McGrady not wanting to be in Milwaukee and suddenly his back “acts up� almost every single night. When he’s on, though, he still can be one of the top 3 players in the game. Financially this would be a push for both teams, but the Bucks would save one year on McGrady’s contract. Neither team would do this because …. trades like this never happen. But it’s an interesting idea.

Charlie Villanueva and Dan Gadzuric to the Lakers for Kwame Brown: An outright salary dump by the Bucks as Brown’s contract expires this year, but Brown hasn’t offered anything to the Lakers in what has otherwise been an excellent season for them. I still think the idea of Odom and Villanueva on the same team is intriguing, and the growth of Andrew Bynum means they don’t lose much without Brown’s size. Much like the Boston proposal, Gadzuric could be a useful (albeit expensive) 12th man for a good team.

Charlie Villanueva to Memphis for Hakim Warrick and Kyle Lowry: As long as Memphis has Pau Gasol they will be searching for someone to play alongside him. A bruising big guy? A finesse power forward? We just don’t know any more! Meanwhile, Lowry doesn’t have a spot any more with the arrival of Mike Conley and Warrick has been squeezed down to 14 mpg. Another deal where the Bucks get two inexpensive players and have a couple of years to figure out exactly what they got, while Memphis tries the same with Charlie V. Lowry could probably be spun off in another deal for salary filler and a draft pick.

Charlie Villanueva and Royal Ivey to New Orleans for Julian Wright and Hilton Armstrong: The Hornets bench has really, really really sucked this year (but not destroyed the rest of the team like it has for a certain other city) and recent stories in the New Orleans Times-Picayune say that they are desperately seeking backup help for Chris Paul and David West. Armstrong is awful but inexpensive and Wright has a lot of potential but hasn’t seen the floor behind Peja Stojakovic and Morris Peterson. If the Hornets are serious about making noise in the playoffs this season this is a good deal for them, while Wright will likely be the best player involved in this trade 3 years down the road.

Charlie Villanueva and Desmond Mason to New York for Quentin Richardson and David Lee: Even Isiah Thomas can’t be so stupid as to not realize what he has in Lee … right? Lee is a rebounding, energy machine that is the sort of guy that keeps plays alive and doesn’t need the ball to succeed. He’s a winner on a team of losers. Should Yi be able to eventually move to small forward, Lee would be the perfect complement to Yi and Bogut. There are those who say he’s been the most underrated player in the game for a couple of years, but I don’t know how underrated you can be when you start for, are the leading scorer for, and MVP of the Rookie-Sophomore game at All-Star Weekend last season. Anyway, I include this proposal because … well … only Isiah Thomas might do it. Realistically, there’s no way it happens.

And there we go. Eight proposals, most of which are fairly realistic. It’s interesting how few decent bargaining chips the Bucks actually have, but it’s also interesting how difficult it is to figure out just who would help the Bucks. The Bucks need a small forward, that is clear. But all of their best bargaining chips have spent this season killing their trade value.

The chance that any of these trades will actually be consummated is approximately zero, but it’s an interesting exercise because it kind of highlights what the Bucks’ biggest problem is: it’s not the starters, it’s the bench. Specifically, the expensive members of the bench. Those guys simply don’t have much value.

I’ve been looking at recent IPM data (the latest updates of which have been posted), and the analysis shows some ways that the rotations can be changed to help get the Bucks out of this ridiculous slide. There are some things that Coach K can still try.

Here are my thoughts about the Bucks’ players with their IPM’s since December 8th (after the Seattle loss). Remember that an IPM above 1.0 indicates superstar level, above .9 would be about all-star level, .75 indicates a solid starter, .65 is a questionable starter/good reserve and below about .5 is where the player is no longer helping you by being on the floor.

Mo Williams, 0.9536: There isn’t anything bad that can be said about Mo’s play, as he has distributed the ball well along with shooting at a pretty high percentage. The true pessimist might wonder why Mo’s best numbers seem to coincide with him being on a bad team, but from watching him play it doesn’t seem like he’s firing for his own stats at the expense of the team – in the recent spate of blowouts he’s only started gunning away after the games were long lost (you know, mid-first quarter). Mo has been the best player on the team, and according to Charles Gardner, with Redd sidelined, Krystkowiak might be about to move him to shooting guard to give Ivey more time over Bell. I don’t know, this might cause as many defensive problems as it solves, but I guess it’s worth a shot. I’m not going to criticize Krystkowiak for trying something different.

Michael Redd, 0.8020: Redd has been playing at a very poor level (for him) ever since Mason got hurt. His shot selection became awful and the all-around play that highlighted the first 15 games of the season disappeared. I’m convinced that the move to small forward has caused this. He has been forced to play more physical players on defense, tiring him out for his offensive responsibilities. The result has been some awful shots (bizarre, flat-footed attempts that would get a high-schooler benched) and a marked decline in his free throw percentage – both signs that he must be too tired to play correctly. Of course, he can’t guard small forwards, anyway, so the position change has ruined all facets of his game. The whole reason the Bucks got Redd late in the second round was because GM’s felt he wasn’t athletic enough to play small forward. He’s proved them all right. Please, Coach K, when he comes back from the thigh bruise, find someone else to play the 3!

Dan Gadzuric, 0.7474: Danny G has only played 5 games in the last 13 and only gotten 8 minutes per, but the numbers suggest that maybe it’s time to start playing him a little more. The trick isn’t when to play him but where – I think he should play alongside Bogut. 10 minutes a game of Danny G at power forward could help everyone. For one thing, it would get the Bucks’ two best rebounders in the game together. It would give Bogut a reprieve from being hammered all night long by the oppositions’ most physical player (since the Bucks’ other power forwards all hang out on the perimeter). Gadzuric wouldn’t have the responsibility of touching the ball on offense (both reducing his turnovers and opening up more shots for everyone else) and he could just crash the boards and – since 10 minutes is the goal for him – hack away at will whenever he gets beat.

Yi Jianlian, 0.7352: The brightest spot from the last month has definitely been the play of Yi. He is adjusting to the physicality of the NBA, as his percentage of his inside-shots that get blocked has slowly started to come down (to a still-way-too-high 32% for the season, vs. 41% a month ago). The question is can he play the 3 – I don’t really think that’s going to work. He still gets the ball slapped out of his hands way too often (23 “ball handling� turnovers this season) and should he be guarded by smaller, more athletic players that will happen even more often. Also, moving him to the 3 takes away his shot-blocking ability. Maybe he can play there in bursts, but long-term, I don’t think his future is anywhere but power forward. Better improve on that rebounding, bud.

Charlie Villanueva, 0.7179: Time for today’s “Brett wants Charlie V to play the 3� moment. There are two big differences between moving Yi to the 3 vs. V. Villanueva is a much more accomplished ball handler and has the ability to dribble past smaller defenders and get into the lane. Villanueva is also not nearly the shot blocker that Yi is (8 this season? How is that possible? ) and so doesn’t have the value that Yi does being stationed inside. Villanueva at the 3 weakens the teams defense, no question, but brings plenty to the team by allowing Redd to stay in the backcourt and Simmons on the bench.

Andrew Bogut, 0.6944: I was very surprised to see Bogut’s IPM slide so much as I feel he’s actually played fairly well. I’m sure that the problem is he just has too much responsibility to handle every single bit of inside work for his team. It’s got to be exhausting after a while to guard the oppositions best big man, battle the oppositions two biggest players for boards, initiate the offense from the high post, shoot more now that Redd is hurt, and – oh yeah – how about making 55% from the floor while you are at it? No wonder he always looks so pissed on the court. Of course, some blame for his sagging numbers falls squarely on his own shoulders – whatever happed to his free throw form? He was a 70% free throw shooter in college and at one point had a 15-18 foot jump shot, but that is completely gone now. His form has slid to depths of a Shaq-style shotput toss from the free throw line, with the same on-the-way-up release he uses on a jump hook. It’s really ugly. Time to hire a shooting coach.

Desmond Mason, 0.6701: Mason played pretty well in the final 7 games before getting hurt, and with Simmons playing so poorly the Bucks miss him more than they ever thought they would.

Jake Voskuhl, 0.6485: One nice thing about the Gadzuric benching is that it’s pretty clear that Voskuhl can pretty much handle the 11 minute a night job as Bogut’s backup, freeing up Danny G for my master plan of moving him to power forward.

Royal Ivey, 0.5275: I’m not sure that starting him over Bell is much of an improvement, but what else can you do with this screwed up roster that only has four guards? Ivey started for most of the season in Atlanta in 05-06 but only played 13 mpg, compared to 15 now. Oh, by the way, Atlanta went 26-56 in 05-06.

Charlie Bell, 0.5068: You know, take away the putrid shooting (enough said about that) and Bell isn’t really playing all that bad. He gets some steals, has a solid A/TO ratio and rebounds pretty well for his size. However, no matter how well he plays, if he’s starting and playing 20+ minutes for you then you aren’t winning. His defensive effort is great, but that only takes you so far when you are routinely giving up 3-5 inches and 20-40 pounds. He just isn’t big enough to play more than a couple of minutes away from the point guard spot.

Bobby Simmons, 0.3743: He’s putting up Brian Scalabrine-type numbers but playing 20 minutes a game. It’s really getting ugly with Simmons. His shooting and turnover rates have been so poor that he’s hurting the team at both ends of the floor — the Bucks have basically been playing 4-on-6 with him on the court. It’s no coincidence that his only good game in the last month (vs. Miami) was the Bucks’ most recent win – it’s been too much for his teammates to have to overcome his play. I’ve said it so many times but I’ll say it again – something is wrong with him, and he shouldn’t be out there for more than 5-8 minutes a game until he gets it sorted out.

I remember seeing Dallas come into the BC about 4 years ago (when Don Nelson was still their coach). Nowitzki wasn’t at full strength, playing with some nagging injury (ankle, knee, back … something like that). But he was still their best player. Nelson had to get the ball in his hands while still minimizing his effort and keeping him away from contact. So ….

He ran the same damn play about 100 consecutive times. A pick & pop between Jason Terry and Nowitzki. On every single posession. For the entire game. If the Bucks defended it poorly it freed Nowitzki for an open jumper, and when the Bucks defended it well it got Terry into the lane where he could create for everyone else. It was ugly, boring, and quite effective.

Without Redd, the Bucks’ shorthanded offense should do the exact same thing with Williams and Yi. Simplify the offense, get the ball in the hands of their most talented players, and keeps the ball out of the hands of Simmons and Bell.

So there you have it — the rotations and the gameplan that I’d like to see.

I guess any NBA team would completely fall apart if they lose one key player (except San Antonio, apparently), and you would expect that to happen to the Bucks if they lost Redd or Bogut or Williams. But who would have guessed that Desmond Mason was the key to the whole house of cards?

I don’t blame Coach Krystkowiak for getting himself kicked out of the game against Chicago. The season is going down the tubes and it’s time for him to pull the “coach freak out” motivational ploy. He may have felt that the officiating had been bad in the 4th quarter, but I’m not so sure — in addition to the Ivey/Hinrich loose ball call (which the officials probably did blow), he was unhappy about a screen that Aaron Gray set on Ivey (which was hard but legal) and a call that went against Charlie Villanueva even though it appeared he was tripped by Nocioni (replays showed that Charlie V grabbed Nocioni’s jersey first). If Krystkowiak was going to flip out at the officials it should have come a couple of weeks ago in the 2OT loss to Cleveland, when the officials missed LeBron James stepping out of bounds twice at the end of the first overtime. But as a motivational ploy, it was necessary against Chicago.

However, this game was lost because of the rotations, not the officials. While I applaud Krystkowiak for getting away from the “two platoon” rotation strategy, he has not handled the loss of Mason properly.

I grant that he is pretty much being screwed over by Bobby Simmons, who has been absolutely useless. Obviously he can’t play more than 15 minutes, and even that leads you to hold your breath. Something is wrong with him, and it may have to do with the 3 game “personal leave” he took earlier in the month. He hasn’t been the same since, and one hopes it’s not because of a major or tragic personal issue.

I’ve written plenty that I can’t stand using Michael Redd at small forward, but in this situation it’s unavoidable at least a little. But his offense has fallen apart in the last 3 games, coinciding with the injury to Mason. Redd can’t handle the physicality of playing small forward, and doesn’t put enough defensive effort into it. So while 10 minutes a game at the “3″ is probably necessary right now, why not try to limit his time there?

Speaking of Redd, considering that Krystkowiak preaches that defensive effort determines playing time, at what point does spotlight start to shine on Redd? His defense may have cost the Bucks the game on Friday. After the controversial call that got Krystkowiak sent to the showers, the Bucks were only down two and forced a missed shot. But Luol Deng — Redd’s man — came in untouched and slammed home the rebound. How could Redd botch that play so badly? When the shot went up, Redd was standing 3 feet from the basket while Deng was 10 feet away on the baseline. Redd did not put any effort into boxing out, never turned toward Deng, and never even raised his hands above his waist to go after the rebound. He stood there like a spectator, watching his man flush the rebound home. All he had to do was look over his shoulder and box out 10 feet from the hoop and the result of that game might have been different.

Moving on about the rotations, how could Krystkowiak put a lineup on the floor of Williams/Ivey/Bell/Villanueva/Bogut and stick with it for 6 minutes in the 4th quarter? I know he clings to the idea that Bell can play defense, but how can you possibly compete with two total offensive non-factors on the floor? Are you trying to shut the Bulls out? Because that’s how good the D would have to be.

Bell cannot guard small forwards any better than Redd can. Bell gives up 6 inches and 25 pounds to Deng. What is he supposed to do? Meanwhile, Bell continues to seemingly go out of his way to shoot the Bucks out of games. He’s shot 4-28 (14%) in the last 6 games and yet has somehow played 132 minutes. And it’s not like he’s on a 6 game cold streak — he’s down to 28% shooting on the year. At least he hasn’t guarded anyone effectively either. What does this guy have to do to get benched? Check into a game without his shoes on? He should be spelling Williams for 8-10 minutes a night and that is it.

So what should the rotations be? Given that Simmons is only good for 15 a night and we want Redd at small forward for no more than 10, that leaves 23 minutes to be filled. You simply have to start putting Charlie Villanueva there and playing him alongside Yi.

Villanueva isn’t going to do any more damage defensively than Bell or Redd already have, and at least he’s got the length and strength to make opposing small forwards work to get the ball. That would have the added bonus of giving more court time to Yi, and also make room for a few minutes per game from Michael Ruffin (who is back and in uniform). Additionally, it would keep bigger, physical forwards off of Redd and allow him to get his offensive game back, which has really suffered from the pounding at the “3″. When was the last time he went 6-11 from the free throw line? It’s got to be partially attributed to him getting hit more often.

The Bucks can’t win without their best players on the floor and their five best players are Redd, Bogut, Williams, Yi and Villanueva. It’s that simple.

My suggested rotations:

Point guard: Williams (38 mpg), Bell (10)
Shooting guard: Redd (30), Ivey (18)
Small Forward: Simmons (15), Redd (10), Villanueva (23)
Power Forward: Yi (33), Villanueva (12), Ruffin/Gadzuric (3)
Center: Bogut (33), Voskuhl (12), Ruffin/Gadzuric (3)

I don’t see any other way. They can’t win with Bell playing a significant part of the backcourt or Redd being a big part of the frontcourt.

In some ways, it’s a little harsh to give it to a GM who has made some mistakes because that does come with the territory — if you take a risk there is a pretty good chance it will come back to bite you.

There is a consistent theme to Harris’ mistakes, and they point to his major failing that I will mention again and again: he has been way too optimistic about how good his team was. That’s the sort of thinking that leads a GM to discard second round picks in favor of projects and that’s what leads GM’s to mortgage the future on long term “win now, pay later” contracts.

Just because he’s made a couple of colossal errors doesn’t mean that he’s a bad GM or that he wont learn from his past errors, but these moves are the reasons why this team has not been able to improve beyond a .500 team under his watch, and it’s going to take a major leap from the personnel in place for this team to get much better.

Bad Moves

2005: Traded Desmond Mason and a 2006 first round pick to New Orleans for Jamaal Magloire. This trade looked great at the time but would have been a complete disaster had New Orleans not used the pick to select Cedric Simmons. Simmons projected as the sort of tough, rebounding, shot blocking power forward the Bucks would need (and would probably have taken had they kept the pick) but instead has turned out to be an unqualified bust. Other than that, this trade is a perfect example of Harris’ overarching optimism clouding his view of the reality of his team – he felt that the Ford/Redd/Simmons nucleus was ready to make a deep playoff run immediately, and didn’t want a slow rookie season from Andrew Bogut gumming that up. Unfortunately, he failed to realize two things: (1) the team wasn’t that good in the first place and (2) neither was Magloire. It turns out that a slow recovery from a broken finger wasn’t what has dragged Magloire’s play down from “All-Star� level two seasons previously; it was that he had had a fluke good season in a horrible conference with no good centers in it. So all the Bucks got out of the deal was 2 years without Desmond Mason screwing up the offense, 1 season of Bogut’s development being screwed up by playing out of position, and one 8th seed playoff trip. I originally had this trade listed as good because it seemed so benign, but I’ve moved it to bad simply because they may not have taken Cedric Simmons with the pick, or may have pulled off some ridiculous, convoluted trade involving TJ Ford and the pick that would have netted them LaMarcus Aldridge or something like that. But we’ll never know, because despite having Bogut and Gadzuric and the chance to sign Pachulia for $4 million, Larry Harris had to have another center.

2006: Drafted David Noel (2 years/$1 million). I normally wouldn’t crack on a second round pick, but this one deserves it because it was such a wasted opportunity. Harris’ optimism about the team’s prospects got in the way as instead of trying to find a player who could help them immediately he went for a guy who might be good in 3-4 years (which sucks since he’s only signed for two). Noel busted onto the scene at the NBA Draft combine when he graded out as the best athlete there, which if you think about it is really meaningless. He may have played on big-time college teams at North Carolina, but was only good enough to start for one year. Now, before the draft I remember hearing rumors that the Bucks had promised the pick to Craig Smith, which would have been great had he not gotten taken before they got the chance. However, considering Smith shows that Harris wasn’t scared of taking an undersized power forward, and there was another one out there whose college numbers had all the math guys screaming “steal of the draft�: Paul Millsap. A stud at Louisiana Tech who led the NCAA in rebounding for 3 years, Millsap has become a 20 minute per game energy machine for Utah. He’s a dirty work player who shoots a high percentage, rebounds like a maniac and plays solid defense. He’s the sort of difference maker that would mean an extra 3-4 wins a year for the Bucks, and there’s no doubt that he’s the sort of player the Bucks needed to add at the time. But Harris took the guy who did a really good shuttle run.

Very Bad Moves

2005: Bucks do not match Hawks offer sheet for Zaza Pachulia (4 years/$16 million). Harris couldn’t match this offer because it came after he had already wasted his backup center cash on Dan Gazduric (see “Horrendous Move�). The problem isn’t so much that the Bucks kept Gadzuric and let Pachulia go (at the time, Gadzuric looked like the better player), but that the botched negotiations with Gadzuric cost the Bucks a ton of money and two extra years on the contract (to say nothing of losing the better player) and it was all to sign a career backup, considering that Andrew Bogut had just been selected. Meanwhile, Pachulia has played pretty well for Atlanta.

2006: Traded a 2007 second round pick to San Antonio for Damir Markota. I don’t have quite as much a problem with the fact that the Bucks did this trade as I do with the way it was handled. Harris had done well scouring Europe to that point (Bell, Ilyasova) so if he felt Markota had potential, why not take the shot. First of all, the Bucks never even had to bring Markota to the NBA in the first place. They could have let him stay in Europe, get a little older, and develop his game. Once they did bring him in, why let him stagnate on the bench? Why not use him? Why not send him to the D-League? It worked pretty well for Ilyasova the year before. It was just unreal – last season got worse and worse, the pick the Bucks owed to San Antonio got better and better, and Markota still sat on the bench, even in March and April when the season was completely lost. Since he was released this year, it appears to me that Harris figured out early on that he had really screwed this one up — Markota wasn’t that good in the first place and sending him to the NBDL wouldn’t fix that. Adding to the problem, Markota was supposedly 19 years old last year, but was apparently regularly seen in Water Street bars after games. Seems that he used the same birth certificate-fixer as Yi and Ilyasova. Meanwhile, San Antonio wasted the 2007 pick on Marcus Williams, who they cut in training camp. But the Bucks still are looking for that backup power forward who can rebound, and two of the three picks after the Bucks should have picked this year were Glen “Big Babyâ€? Davis (currently seeing important minutes on Boston) and Jemareo Davidson (Charlotte’s 4th best player this year).

Very Very Bad Moves

2005: Traded a 2006 second round pick to Cleveland for Jiri Welsch. This one just didn’t make any sense at all. I mean, everybody already knew that Welsch sucked. He was 25 and on his third team already. Cleveland was being laughed at to no end for blowing a first round pick to bring him in as a designated shooter, only to find that he couldn’t shoot – he was white and slow, so everyone must have just assumed he could shoot. Why would Harris let the Cavs out of their gaffe? I don’t understand the logic of; “if Cleveland gave up a first rounder for him, then we are getting a bargain by only giving up a second rounder for him.� If he’s bad, he’s bad, right? It’s the same sort of logic as; “Hey, the 49ers were going to take Aaron Rodgers #1 overall, but now he’s available at #20, so he must be a great pick here!� If he’s a bust then it doesn’t matter where he was picked – he’s still a bust! Well, once again it must be an indication of Harris’ overwhelming optimism about his team – assuming that they were ready for a deep playoff run, and thus needed a veteran “designated shooter�. Or another Eastern European for Toni Kukoc to talk to. Meanwhile, Cleveland was able to spin that second round pick into another second rounder (actually getting their own pick back that they had traded in another deal) and used it on Daniel Gibson. Nice job, Harris – you took a problem off the hands of a division rival and gave them their starting point guard two years later to boot. Meanwhile, that Bucks second rounder was used by Orlando on Lior Eliyahu, while the next three picks were Alexander Johnson (serviceable backup power forward), Dee Brown (a favorite of mine who wound up getting a tryout with the Bucks this year) and – look! There’s that name again! – Paul Millsap.

2007: Matched Miami offer to Charlie Bell (5 years/$18 million). For a long time, I’ve been meaning to write a post about why matching this contract was really, really, really dumb, but with Bell’s shooting percentage getting closer and closer to 20%, that just seemed like piling on. Here’s the thing – Bell is supposed to back up your best player (Redd) and point guard who just signed a 6 year contract (Mo). He’s never going to start unless something goes seriously wrong. So why would you ever sign a backup – not a 6th man of the year type, a generic backup – to a 5 year deal? Especially one that will pay him until he’s 33, and well past his prime? Don’t get me wrong – Bell played so hard and so much the last two years that there is nothing wrong with him getting paid – even overpaid – for a year or two. But why for five? If Harris found him for the minimum, why wouldn’t he be able to do a little work and find someone else cheap and short-term who would give 85% of Bell’s production? Who knows when the Bucks might actually keep a second rounder and use it on a big guard who can play a little … Ramon Sessions, for example. Never mind that Bell didn’t want to be in Milwaukee anyway – let him go! It’s a FIVE year commitment to him! Until he’s 33 years old! It is guaranteed that you will be able to find another adequate backup guard one way or another! Matching this deal was so incredibly dumb that I wonder if Harris matched the offer out of spite for Bell’s trying to talk his way out of town. And my old posts prove that I felt that way long before Bell came out shooting a scorching 25% this year. Hopefully they can trade him once the restrictions on his contract end (in a couple of weeks).

Horrendous, Colossally Bad Move

2005: Signed Dan Gadzuric (6 years/$36 million). Resigning Danny G wasn’t the worst idea in the world, but the way Harris handled it was. Gadzuric had improved in each of his first three years in the league (and actually played pretty well in the first season of the new contract) but he was already 27 years old in 2005, so he wouldn’t continue improving that much. The thing about the whole negotiations is that Gadzuric – like Pachulia at the same time – was a restricted free agent and the Bucks had Bird rights on both of them. Harris could have waited, let Gadzuric and Pachulia’s agents troll for offers from other teams, and then chosen whether to match whatever came in. Instead, he ran out and offered Gadzuric a 6 year deal. Why do that? Why not wait and see if another team felt he was worth the full midlevel? Harris had already drafted Bogut, so just like the Bell signing, Gadzuric was never, ever going to be a starter under this contract. But he’s getting paid like one – he actually will be making more than Bogut until after next season. Now they are going to be paying him until he is 33, and since his game has completely fallen apart they are stuck with him. It just absolutely blows my mind that Harris would offer Gadzuric that sort of money and a contract of that duration to be a backup without even seeing what the rest of the market would bear for him. Would anyone else really have offererd Gadzuric a full-midlevel deal? Even if they had another team could have only offered him 5 years! It just doesn’t make any sense, and it wound up costing them Pachulia – a player with a cheaper, shorter term contract who wound up being a significantly better player. And by saving a few million on Gadzuric they could have matched Pachulia, not bothered with Magloire, and kept their 2006 first round pick.

Next: The Move That Cannot Be Categorized

Well, another day, another loss to one of the 5 worst teams in the league. Yet again, the Bucks couldn’t handle a Sacramento team that is missing 2 of its 3 best players.

And according to the Journal-Sentinel, after the game, Coach Krystkowiak was talking lineup changes;

“It’s frustrating,” Krystkowiak said. “All of a sudden, we go the last 17 possessions of the second quarter and they score one field goal. So they were 1 of 17 to finish the half. Maybe we need to get the defenders on the floor to start with. Maybe that’s what it boils down to. Obviously, we haven’t done a great job defensively to start games and it’s probably going to warrant a lineup change.”

Wait … the defenders? Who are the defenders? Do you even know who’s on your roster?

Oh no … don’t tell me you are thinking about starting Royal Ivey over Mo. Atlanta tried that in 2004-05 and while he might be okay defensively he’s such a non-factor offensively that they were outscored by 2 ppg more with him on the floor than off. Playing offense 4-on-5 almost never works, unless you’ve got Ben Wallace (circa 2002).

So who are the rest of the defenders? Not Gadzuric, considering he’s played 12 minutes in 8 games. Not Simmons, considering he only played 15 minutes last night in a game that Mason sat out the second half. Oh, I get it … Charlie Bell must be The Defender — he’s played 87 minutes in the last 4 games and shot 3-21 with no free throws. So it must be his stifling defense that’s keeping him on the floor.

You know the Bucks are second worst in the leage in opposing 3-point shooting percent? A big part of that is probably Bell’s defense, since at 6′3″ he’s not really big enough to close out on most opposing shooting guards.

The thing that seems to have Krystkowiak so steamed is that Sacramento opened the game making 11 of their first 12 shots. However, the Kings are still an NBA team and NBA teams will have hot streaks. It’s not like one defender was getting torched in the first 8 minutes, every King player scored and all of them except Mikki Moore had at least one assist. They played well for 8 minutes, good for them. Through all of that only opened a 10 point lead, and the Bucks got it down to one by the end of the quarter.

The problem wasn’t the Bucks’ defense — they only allowed 102 points, and but for the game ending 17-4 run by Sacramento, they were on pace to allow closer to 95. The problem was the substitution pattern.

Okay, so Mason isn’t available in the second half and Krystowiak hates Simmons (although it’s very possible that Simmons isn’t 100% and can’t go much more than 15 mpg). Krystowiak never uses Storey and Villanueva was not available. Against just about any other team I’d say, okay, now you have no choice but to finish the game with Bell or Ivey at shooting guard and, as much as I hate it, move Redd to small forward.

But this is Sacramento you are playing, and Redd at small forward means that you force Ron Artest to guard him — something you want to try and avoid (or at least, make Sacramento do goofy stuff to get the Redd-Artest matchup).

This was a time for some original thinking, not a time to throw out the usual sub-par lineup and pray that they could shut down the Kings the rest of the way. This was a night where you had one choice — try to outscore them.

The thing to do, with 5 minutes to go and the game tied, was to move Yi to small forward and play Gadzuric at power forward.

Then you force Theus to react. He had already gone small (Urdih-Garcia-Salmons-Artest-Miller) but if the Bucks roll out Williams-Redd-Yi-Gadzuric-Bogut then the Kings wouldn’t be able to get a rebound and Artest would have to leave his power forward spot to guard Redd. Theus would probably have to pull Garcia and bring back Moore or Hawes, clearing more perimeter space for Redd to work.

This lineup probably wouldn’t have worked, since Urdih was unconscious from deep late in the game, but it would have given the Bucks a better chance, instead of sending Krystkowiak to the film wondering why his invisible “defenders” couldn’t stop an inferior team yet again.

It’s a common complaint about NBA GM’s that they don’t have the balls to pull off any big trades and that they would rather do nothing rather than take a risk. There may be something to that attitude, but the truth is that NBA trades are very difficult to consummate with all of the trade restrictions and salary cap considerations. The fact is that a big trade now will often completely hamstring you for the future, and if GM wants to trade a guy the chances are that they want to trade him because something is wrong with him.

But that didn’t stop me from trying to put together some trade scenarios for the Bucks. I came up with 14 possibilities, 3 or 4 of which might be considered by both teams. But, honestly, it’s tough to come up with realistic trades that wouldn’t be rejected immediately by one of the parties. But here we go:

First of all, there are so many restrictions on members of the Bucks roster that there aren’t too many trade pieces available. As newly-signed free agents the following players cannot be traded at least until Mid-December: Bell, Ivey, Mason, Ruffin, Storey, Voskuhl and Williams. The Bucks aren’t going to look to trade Bogut, Yi, or Redd. That leaves only Gadzuric, Noel, Sessions, Simmons and Villanueva as potential trade bait.

The other problem is that except for Villanueva the other players would have almost zero trade value around the league based on their talent. Any GM would probably immediately reject any deal for Bobby Simmons until he has proven he is healthy. Gadzuric’s contract is so long that he would be rejected unless the other team is really desperate for a big man or is sending back an even worse contract.

I ran all of the trade ideas through ESPN’s Trade Machine, and they all would work under the cap. Except for a couple of the trades, I didn’t assume draft picks would be included.

So, with all that in mind, here go the trade proposals:

Charlie Villanueva and Bobby Simmons to Utah for Andrei Kirilenko. The main reason for Utah to do this deal is money — they would save almost $30 million over the next 4 seasons and would have Simmons and (probably) Villanueva off the books by 2010, which is when extensions for Boozer and Deron Williams kick in. Kirilenko had a bad season last year and didn’t fit well in their system, plus he demanded a trade in the offseason. For the Bucks, this would be a sort of “all-in” big money move that would give them a very expensive, inflexible lineup fpr 4 years. Kirilenko would bring Milwaukee exactly what they need — defense — and his shooting shortcomings wouldn’t be a problem. Ultimately, though, Utah would decline this deal — Kirilenko is too important to their team defense to give up.

Dan Gadzuric to Charlotte for Adam Morrison and Jared Dudley. With Sean May out for the year and Primoz Brezec’s game declining to … well … something worse than Gadzuric, it would depend on how close Michael Jordan feels the Bobcats are to prime time. Would Gadzuric be a good player alongside Emeka Okafor? I doubt it, but you never know with MJ’s eye for talent. Morrison’s contract is only guaranteed through this season (so he would probably never play for the Bucks) and Dudley is a rookie making only $1.1 million this year, so the Bucks would save $20 million over the next 4 years. Dudley is an intriguing player, a combo forward who has already shown a solid nose for the ball and could be a good backup at both forward positions. However, I’m sure even Michael Jordan would turn down this trade, as Dudley is already better than Gadzuric and it’s a lot to ask for him to give up on Morrison so soon (although he probably should).

Simmons to Denver for Nene. This would be a dumb bad-contract swap for both teams. The Bucks would be getting the more expensive, more injury prone player who would be a career backup, while Denver would weaken their frontcourt. I only included this deal because it has been rumored in the past.

Villanueva to Golden State for Brandan Wright. This is an intriguing deal. Wright is getting no court time in Golden State, with Don Nelson preferring to play veterans. Villanueva would fit in perfectly in Nelson’s run-and-gun scheme. While Wright would take at least a season to blossom, at the very least he would provide an inexpensive backup to Bogut and Yi for 5 years. I think this would be a fair trade, and would be a huge boost to Villanueva’s career.

Gadzuric and David Noel to Houston for Steve Novak, Rafer Alston, and Luther Head. A good team with an eye on the championship can never have too many big, active bodies and Houston would probably be interested in getting rid of Alston, who was arrested twice in the offseason. Alston insists that neither incident was his fault, but his reputation around the league has dropped to somewhere between “bad guy” and “guy who bad stuff always seems to find” and Houston has Steve Francis available to take Alston’s minutes. Alston has 3 years left on his deal, so the Bucks would save 1 year and about $12 million in this trade. Head is a solid combo guard who can play some point, play good defense, and hit open shots. He would allow the Bucks to pursue trade opportunities for Charlie Bell, as Head does the same things for 1/3 the salary. Novak would sell some tickets. My guess is that the Rockets would jump at this trade if Head was not included and might take it if he was, but the Bucks would probably be very leery at the trail of problems that have followed Alston wherever he has been.

Gadzuric to Houston for Kirk Snyder, Luther Head, Steve Novak, and Carl Landry. Another version of the same trade that the Bucks would most likely jump at. Snyder is in the last year of his deal and is not getting any playing time, while Landry would throw another Milwaukee native into the mix. Would Houston gut the end of their bench and take on an extra $20+ million in long term salary to add a big man who can’t stay on the floor? I’d like to say so, but I doubt it.

Villanueva to Minnesota for Mark Madsen and Craig Smith. Smith was a steal in last season’s draft who is already the T-Wolves’ second best player while Madsen is one of the worst players in the NBA and has 3 years left on his contract. Smith would fit well on the Bucks, though, as he would bring tenacious rebounding and “bruiser” ability to a team that sorely needs it. Smith has a similar skill set as Al Jefferson, so the T-Wolves might be willing to include him if the reward is talent like Villanueva and getting rid of dead weight like Madsen. More likely, though, they would turn down the deal as they probably think they are set at forward for years with Jefferson and Brewer.

Gadzuric and Villanueva to New Jersey for Antoine Wright and Jason Collins. Once again, this is more of a salary dump than a talent upgrade for the Bucks. Wright is a bust who has shown some signs of life early in this season while Collins is a defensive-minded center who is owed $12 million over the next two seasons. This would save the Bucks $13 million in the long run, but the addition of Villanueva would be a big upgrade for New Jersey. This is a trade that I could see New Jersey doing (except that they need Wright with Vince Carter out right now) but the Bucks declining.

Gadzuric to New Orleans for Bobby Jackson. A dumb deal for both teams, except that Jackson only has two years left on his contract instead of 4. Kind of a pointless trade for both teams.

Gadzuric to Orlando for Pat Garrity and JJ Redick. A blatant salary dump by the Bucks, but one which Orlado might consider in their leave-no-stone-unturned efforts to find a power forward. Garrity is awful and Redick has yet to show himself to be remotely close to being an NBA athlete, but this could save the Bucks as much as $20 million. However, with 3 more years of Tony Battie and Howard’s extension starting next year, Orlando would probably rather sign a scrap-heap free agent instead of taking on a long contract.

Simmons and Gadzuric to Washington for Caron Butler and Darius Songalia. I only put this deal in the list because … well … it’s hard to come up with deals. Is Washington serious about blowing up their roster before Arenas opts out? Are the Wizards that anxious to add a big men with Etan Thomas’ season over and career in some doubt? Are they trading an All-Star for two bad contracts? No. Michael Jordan isn’t running the show there anymore.

Simmons to Phoenix for Boris Diaw and Marcus Banks. The Bucks would be adding a lot of salary in this deal and wouldn’t even begin to consider it unless Phoenix threw in lots of cash and multiple draft picks. I think we can write off Diaw’s 2005-06 season that got him his $45 million contract as a huge fluke and Banks has been horrendous for his whole career. The ever-cost sensitive Suns would love this offer, but it would be a bad idea for the Bucks that would send them careening off into luxury tax payment.

Simmons and Villanueva to the Lakers for Kwame Brown, Brian Cook and a #1 pick. Would this satisfy Kobe? Probably not, but it would upgrade the Lakers’ talent level without removing much. Odom and Villanueva in the same lineup would be very intriguing, and Simmons’ shooting would help them as well. Imagine a Lakers “big” lineup (Phil Jackson’s favorite) of Bryant-Simmons-Odom-Villanueva-Bynum that would be able to push around and run past most defenses. The Bucks would only have to suffer through one season of Kwame Brown’s act, and while Cook isn’t the same player as Villanueva he would fit in better as a 15-minute backup to Yi than Villanueva does. I think the Lakers do this deal in a hurry, and the $20 million in savings that it gets the Bucks makes them look long and hard at it too.

But if that deal makes the Bucks too thin at small forward then there is Villanueva to the Lakers for Cook, Sasha Vujacic and a #1 pick. There aren’t any major cap ramifications in this trade, as Vujacic’s deal expires and Villanueva and Cook’s contracts are similar. But it gets Villanueva into a much better position to succeed and adds a future draft pick to the Bucks stable. As a favor to Charlie V, I think both teams would do this trade.

So there you have it — 29 teams to trade with, 14 trade scenarios and maybe two deals that would satisfy both teams. No wonder teams don’t make many trades and fans always complain about teams’ inactivity. Between the salary cap restrictions and the fact that an NBA roster is so small compared to other sports, it’s nearly impossible to come up with good trades. But I kind of like the Golden State and Lakers proposals. At the very least it’s fun to come up with these combos, but the moral of the story is … don’t sign lousy backup centers to $40 million deals.