The Official Let's Talk 10th Pick (and 41st)

smalls · Post #461 » by **smalls** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:43 am

I am really liking the idea of a Sessions Jennings Backcourt combo the more and more I picture it. I think both flynn and Hill will be gone by ten and Jennings is next on my list, from what i have read and the limited clips i have seen this kid just oozes potential!! At 10 tough to pass that up.

Garbs_7 · Post #462 » by **Garbs_7** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:39 am

I still think Hill/Flynn/Holliday are our guys in that order. Just because they made the trade to free up some time at SF, I don't think they will go off now and draft a wing player and I agree. This draft is stacked with good PG's and it can't hurt to have more than one good young PG. Especialy with Sessions able to play a bit off the ball. We haven't got enough at PF still to pass on Hill, I like Amir but he hasn't shown he can be a starter yet and Thomas if he even plays for us is way past it.

I like the idea of Flynn and Sessions together and after all we have heard about the dinners with them and saying how much they like them I doubt we switch and just draft a wing guy. They would have known about this trade for at least a few days and haven't really had a hard look at Derozan or Clark. I agree too, grab Hill or Flynn and move forward, we have LRMAM and JA as potential good wing players and hopefully we can grab Green in the 2nd round

El Duderino · Post #463 » by **El Duderino** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:41 am

Ayt wrote:Just say no to DeRozan.

I only watched USC and DeRozan play once and he looked great. Plus, the idea of getting both more athletic and longer at SG is very appealing. His assist/turnover ratio bothers me, his lack of shooting range, and as does reports i read about his supposedly shaky basketball IQ. He looked really good the one time i watched USC though and that's mainly watched etched in my thoughts.

If he slipped to 10, i'd be pleased depending on who else was there, but also apprehensive based on things i've read. Hammond seems focused on PG/PF, it'll be interesting to me if DeRozan and a PG he likes with a little lesser potential upside are both there at 10.

AussieBuck · Post #464 » by **AussieBuck** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:51 am

Now that RJ is out the door and with Redd possibly not back until next year who is going to hit threes for us? Is there a guy in the draft that can help us out?

paul · Post #465 » by **paul** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:56 am

AussieBuck wrote:Now that RJ is out the door and with Redd possibly not back until next year who is going to hit threes for us? Is there a guy in the draft that can help us out?

Salim

emunney · Post #466 » by **emunney** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:57 am

Most recent mock has Carroll vaulting to 25th overall, so I imagine DX has some info there. Too bad, as I really wanted him. They've got us taking another guy I like in Brockman, though, while projecting Pendergraph, Green and McNeal to be available. It's the draft junkie in me that wants another first and another 2nd so that we can get two of those 2nd round guys and one of Daye/Teague/Blair.

AussieBuck · Post #467 » by **AussieBuck** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:58 am

paul wrote:
AussieBuck wrote:Now that RJ is out the door and with Redd possibly not back until next year who is going to hit threes for us? Is there a guy in the draft that can help us out?

Salim

OK so we're set then!

emunney · Post #468 » by **emunney** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:24 am

If the Nets get DeRozan, Bern is going to lose his mind.

Garbs_7 · Post #469 » by **Garbs_7** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:35 am

I posted the below in the TI thread, what do people think about trading #10 to the Wolves or Bulls for their firsts?

"I'd like us to wait until the deadline to deal Redd. On this current team if he came back healthy he could easily average 20-25ppg and look really nice to teams looking to contend. Not only would we be able to get expirings but we could also get a young prospect or future pick considering he would be expiring the next year. If we trade him now, we will get less back than what we got for RJ and that is if any team is willing to deal for him. Be patient with him and wait till he gets some value.

I would love to deal

Allen/10 to the Bulls for 16 and 26
Allen/10 to the T-Wolves for 18 and 28
Allen/10 to the Blazers for 24, 33 and 38 (future first instead maybe)

I'd rather deal Allen than Elson as Cisco is actually a decent basketballer and good 3rd string Center. In this we save a bit of cash (i think) by ditching Allen who is worthless and downgrading picks and also get to draft a few young prospects to add to our now younger core : )

Some people might not do the Blazers deal but I would do above three if Flynn, Harden and Hill are off the board (which is looking like it could happen)

With the first two trades we could draft Hansborough/Blair and Mills and Green in 2nd rnd
With the Blazers trade we still have a a chance at Blair or Hansborough or maybe James Johnson if he falls. Then look at guys like Meeks, Derrick Brown and Danny Green in the 2nd.

Sessions/Ridnour/Mills
Redd/Bell/Salim
LRMAM/JA/Green
Blair/Amir/Thomas
Bogut/Elson/Gadz

Look to move Ridnour and even Redd at the deadline if we want to full rebuild, but if we have that much youth, I don't have too much problem waiting for Redd to expire. But that above team is absolutely dreamy and have a LOT of youth and prospects that could explode. A definate change from the normal team we are dealt and I believe could generate some fan interest."

LUKE23 · Post #470 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:24 pm

The Bucks are showing some consideration to Gerald Henderson, via Woelfel. Between that and the Ford blurb on CV over Sessions, I'm teetering dangerously close to a massive seizure. Somebody get the paddles ready.

http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/20 ... 057961.txt

europa · Post #471 » by **europa** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:33 pm

Henderson is not a PG or PF so he clearly can't be someone Hammond is looking at.

LUKE23 · Post #472 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:34 pm

europa wrote:Henderson is not a PG or PF so he clearly can't be someone Hammond is looking at.

He would be an absolutely horrendous pick. Horrendous. He was never even dominant for any period in college.

Badgerlander · Post #473 » by **Badgerlander** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:41 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
europa wrote:Henderson is not a PG or PF so he clearly can't be someone Hammond is looking at.

He would be an absolutely horrendous pick. Horrendous. He was never even dominant for any period in college.

Yeah but Woeful is out of the loop these days. If they did pick him and didn't resign Sessions and signed to CV to a long term deal, you better share those paddles, lol.

Nebula1 · Post #474 » by **Nebula1** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:48 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
europa wrote:Henderson is not a PG or PF so he clearly can't be someone Hammond is looking at.

He would be an absolutely horrendous pick. Horrendous. He was never even dominant for any period in college.

Nah, you're wrong about him. He's going to be a player in the League. And he's a solid defender.

LUKE23 · Post #475 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:49 pm

Nah, I'm not. He's a role player at the deepest position in the NBA. He was never great even in college. I would be irate if we drafted him at 10.

paul · Post #476 » by **paul** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:50 pm

Nebula1 wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:
europa wrote:Henderson is not a PG or PF so he clearly can't be someone Hammond is looking at.

He would be an absolutely horrendous pick. Horrendous. He was never even dominant for any period in college.

Nah, you're wrong about him. He's going to be a player in the League. And he's a solid defender.

Rightly or wrongly there's been a fair bit of buzz around Henderson the last few days, though this is the first I've heard of the Bucks being interested.

Debit One · Post #477 » by **Debit One** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:51 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Nah, I'm not. He's a role player at the deepest position in the NBA. He was never great even in college. I would be irate if we drafted him at 10.

My friend, we need to get you to have at least one irate-free day. Just enjoy the fact that the Bucks have the flexibility to sign Sessions, relax, and tomorrow you can start fretting about the Bucks blowing it on draft night.

smauss · Post #478 » by **smauss** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:54 pm

Henderson @ 10 = PUKE

smauss · Post #479 » by **smauss** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:55 pm

Debit One wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:Nah, I'm not. He's a role player at the deepest position in the NBA. He was never great even in college. I would be irate if we drafted him at 10.

My friend, we need to get you to have at least one irate-free day. Just enjoy the fact that the Bucks have the flexibility to sign Sessions, relax, and tomorrow you can start fretting about the Bucks blowing it on draft night.

Nebula1 · Post #480 » by **Nebula1** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:59 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Nah, I'm not. He's a role player at the deepest position in the NBA. He was never great even in college. I would be irate if we drafted him at 10.

I think 10 is a little high for him, but he's not going to hurt your team. He's already better than Bell and isn't a bad stop-gap if Redd is traded. I think he's better than you're giving him credit for.