Bucks Diary

Friday, June 30, 2006

Its Done: Bucks deal Ford to Toronto

Tonight your Milwaukee Bucks took a significant step toward becoming legitimate contenders for the NBA championship. They dealt mediocre point guard TJ Ford to the Toronto Raptors for the young and talented F Charlie Villanueva. Unless I'm missing something, the Bucks have somehow pulled off one of the most lopsided trades in NBA history. Larry Harris, you magnificent bastard!

I like TJ Ford. I admire him for the guts he showed coming back from his spinal injury. But anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows what I think of him. He is a very limited player, both offensively and defensively. The Bucks had no chance of winning a championship with him as a starting point guard. Ultimately he had to go.

I just never dreamed the Bucks could get so much for his departure. They have essentially jettisoned a huge liability and gotten back a major asset. You can't do any better.

Villanueva is a young, productive, up-and-coming basketball player who brings size and athleticism to a Bucks team in desperate need of both. This is too good to be true, Bucks Nation.

Stay tuned to Milwaukee Bucks Diary for further analysis of this trade. Right now I just want to celebrate with a cold Milwaukee beer -- or five.

WSSP AM: Bucks trade rumor involves TJ Ford

I just heard on 1250 WSSP AM Milwaukee that TJ Ford might get dealt to Toronto for Charlie Villenueva. If so, I will drive TJ to Mitchell Airport and pick Charlie up when he arrives. That would be a steal for the Bucks.

The radio station (fast becoming must hear radio for Bucks Nation) put it directly to Bucks GM Larry Harris. He denied it, but was very coy with his denial. Thus I think it might happen. Let us hope.

Rethinking the Bucks with Radmanovic

It appears the marriage of the Milwaukee Bucks and 6'10'' free agent forward Vladimir Radmanovic is moving toward consummation. Earlier I panned the whole idea saying Radmanovic -- an unathletic, soft, big man shooter -- was exactly what the Bucks did not need. My position has not changed drastically, but a second look at Rad's stats has caused it to evolve somewhat.

What I overlooked in my earlier evaluation was Rad's incredible eFG% of 54.6%. That is better than Michael Redd's. Rad is, apparently, one of those rare players who are dead-on from behind the arc but can't hit squat from any closer (his overall FG% is a dismal 40.1%). I tend to dislike those players, but they do have, I will concede, some value.

Still, my other concerns about Rad remain. He doesn't rebound. He doesn't defend. And he will not bang down low. Thus, a starting line-up with him included essentially leaves all the Bucks' dirty work to young Mr. Bogut. Can he handle it? That is my central concern.

You see, I still think Bogut, who is essentially a finesse center, needs a bruiser next to him at the 4 spot in order to be effective. Remember Blazermania? Bill Walton blossomed into a superstar when the Blazers acquired PF and banger extraordinaire Maurice Lucas to play next to him. I think Bogut needs the same.

The Bucks with Radmanovic

If the Bucks do acquire Radmanovic, they effectively become an international-style, pass-and-shoot team. They will be very weak defensively, especially in the paint, and their rebounding numbers may suffer. On the other hand they will be quite potent and difficult to match-up with on offense. Thus, there are trade-offs.

It might work. I'm not totally convinced yet. Give me the summer to mull it over.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Bucks fans jump ugly on the new Bucks logo

I guess I assumed the Bucks old logo was so depressing and such a visual mismatch (Celtic Green and Laker Purple? -- thanks for the inspired combo, Dunleavy), that Bucks fans would naturally and immediately embrace just about anything else. Not so, I guess. Reading the various 'What do you think of the new logo?' internet forums, it seems Bucks Nation is not impressed. I'll summarize the criticisms.

1. Weak Effort, Herb

A lot of people are very disappointed that the new logo is essentially the old logo with new colors. To those who take this position, the new logo represents a failure of imagination. I don't think this is a very fair criticism, though. The Bucks said all along that they were "updating" the logo, which does fairly imply a tweaking rather than an overhaul. I think the point of the whole exercise was just to get rid of the purple and introduce red, not to remake the entire design. Nonetheless, some fans called for Larry Harris and the entire design team to be fired (Don't logo designs originate in the NBA front office? For some reason I think that's how it works. Correct me if I'm wrong.) Personally I like the sense of continuity. I hate how the Brewers just throw out logos every four or five years. I'm glad the Bucks aren't following suit.

2. Milwaukee is not a suburb of Chicago

A second criticism that arose in the forums is one that I myself expressed in my earlier postings. The red primary, when combined with the preexisting and obviously Chicago Bulls' influenced deer head logo, comes dangerously close to being a pale imitation of our brothers to the south. This is a fair criticism. The Bucks have to be very careful to distinguish their uniforms in such a way that they don't appear to be 'Michael Jordan Wannabes'. I think they can and I hope they will. This criticism is quite valid.

3. Christmas is an ugly time, apparently

The overwhelming criticism, and I must say I raised it earlier as well, is that the colors are too "Christmasy". Now, I will grant you, one of the greatest faux pas you can make in your personal attire is combining red and green anytime outside of the day before Christmas. However, most sports team color combinations are that way. If you went to work in orange and black, I guarantee someone will yell "Pumpkin power!" at you. But when employed properly in a team's color scheme, black and orange can look very cool. The same with Green and Yellow. If you tried it as a personal combination, you'd look like a Sprite can, but when combined in a football uniform, its a classic. So, I guess it depends how they go about combining the colors that will determine whether the combination will lead to garishness or coolness. I'm willing to wait on that one too.

My Take

I guess I am neither overjoyed nor underwhelmed by the new logo. It is what it is in my mind. And what it is, is a departure from the Dunleavy scheme so I like it just for that. As I said above, I respect the use of continuity, but that said, I will concede the overly familiar design does breed a bit of a "ho, hum" reaction when you first see it. But I think the whole point of the change was to change the uniforms. And I think the uniforms are going to look very cool. I still believe they will closely resemble the prototypes I hamhandedly put together in my earlier post. All the signs point to designs of that sort, and if so, having at least gotten a visual idea from my renderings, I think were in for a bold new look that Bucks fans will enjoy.

Anyway, I always secretly hated the purple-green combo, so almost anything short of lime green-hunter green (that god awful mess they wore in the early 90s) would have been okay by me.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Bucks Draft Night Examined

The Bucks decided, I think rather prudently, not to attempt entry into the first round of last night's NBA amateur draft. The draft was widely considered thin on talent. Thus there was no sense trading proven NBA talent like Mo Williams in exchange for the opportunity of selecting one of the unproven and uncertain prospects that populated the middle of the first round (that was the rumored deal). Here's an analysis of what the Bucks did do last night:

Bucks take Michael Curry type with 39th pick

The Bucks took something of a shot in the dark in Round Two by selecting North Carolina forward David Noel with the 39th overall pick. Many considered Noel a borderline second rounder at best, so it was a bit of a surprise to see him selected this high. But given the Buck's recent success uncovering hidden gems, I'm willing to reserve judgment on this one.

Noel has some intriguing qualities. He is an exceptional athlete (he ranked no. 1 overall in the NBA's predraft athleticism testing). He shot a high percentage in college (always above 55%) and tallied several 20+ point nights against quality opposition. He seemed to improve every year, and by all accounts he's a quality kid who plays an aggressive style of basketball.

All-in-all, he could be one of those smart, high-energy defensive grinders who can put the ball in the basket if a clear opportunity presents itself, and can really pick up the team's intensity level when he's on the floor. Maybe a Michael Curry type. Let's wait and see.

What others are saying about David Noel

nbadraft.net: This site refers to Noel as a "borderline second round pick"... they ranked him among the bottom 20 players at the Orlando predraft camp and filed this report: "Noel gets rave reviews from the coaches at UNC. He's a specimen type of athlete but lacks a great feel for the game and has an extremely raw skill level. He's worked hard on his 3 point shot, attacks the rim hard, and gives excellent defensive intensity. He should be an excellent role player overseas or in minor leagues." Yikes.

nba.com: The official league site purposefully accentuates the positives... that said, here's what they say about the Bucks pick: "Exceptional athlete with a chiseled physique. Nice package of all-around skills. Has improved his range, will make the correct pass and rebounds in traffic. Plays within himself."

espn.com: "Defensive specialist ... Sees minutes as a role player ... Can defend off guards, small forwards, power forwards and even some centers ... Understands his role and plays within his limitations ... Will only take high percentage shots, garbage baskets and such ... Excellent rebounder ... Limits turnovers ... Durham native averaged 17 points, eight rebounds, four assists and three steals as a high school senior ... Considered football scholarship offers to play wide receiver, (including by UNC), but decided to walk on the UNC basketball team ... Scored 19 touchdowns as a senior."

cbs.sportsline.com: "Noel is a strong athlete who still hasn't peaked, so his upside is there. But I seriously doubt that he's going to progress enough to make any impact in the league."

Bucks select Croatian Party Animal at 59

No draft would be complete without the Bucks selecting some unheard-of foreigner with one of their second round picks. This year the lucky green card candidate is a fellow by the name of Damir Markota, or Damir Omerhodzic, the name he went by two years ago (I don't get that at all... is he a spy or something?).

Here are the particulars. He is 7'0'' and he possesses, get this, a 36 inch vertical leap! So what's he doing still around at the 59th pick? Apparently on-the-court he has shown himself to be somewhat athletically immature, and off-the-court he has forged a reputation as 'one swinging Croat' in the Euro tradition of the Festrunk brothers.

Foxsports.com describes him as "an extremely raw project" who has earned a reputation as a "big partier." ("Where are your American women?")

Still, with that kind of size, and that kind of leaping ability, coupled with his obvious "Frank the Tank" skills, he could end up being a European version of the legendary ABA star Marvin "Bad News" Barnes. Hey, its worth a throw at 59, don't you think? nbadraft.net calls his potential "huge". Another astute pick for the Bucks.

By the by, he looks about 12 years old.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

NBA Draft Preview: Lottery prospects lack strength

After reading the results of the NBA's predraft athleticism testing on nbadraft.net, I decided to try my hand at one of their tests: the bench press. I did so because I thought the numbers being produced by some of the more coveted prospects in this year's draft were astonishingly low.

The NBA testing method on the bench requires the prospect to do as many repetitions as he can with 185 lbs on the bar. (I think the NFL uses 235 lbs.). It seemed much easier than the prospects results would indicate. So I had a go next time I was at the gym. I was right. I was able to do 14 repetitions, slightly above average among this year's prospects, and I am nothing special when it comes to upper body strength let me assure you.

My personal results as a non-athlete highlight the astonishing lack of strength exhibited by some of the top prospects in this year's draft. By rights, they ought to be blowing me away. They presumably have round-the-clock access to strength coaches and the very best training equipment. Yet they obviously did not. The numbers are so bad that in some instances they raise questions about the NBA readiness of the player.

For example, LaMarcus Alridge, a center who presumably must be equipped to battle the Shaqs of the world, could only do 8 repetitions. Very weak. How will he hold his ground in the paint? Tyrus Thomas, a player who has been labeled an 'athletic freak', apparently lacks top athletic strength, as he too did only 8 repetitions. How can Thomas play power forward in the association with those sorry numbers? A couple of top guard prospects fared even worse. Brandon Roy, expected to go in the top 10, was only able to do 6 reps. Marcus Williams, a player whose stock has been hot of late, not only was decisively outjumped by Adam Morrison (huh?) in the vertical leap measurements, he could only press an embarrasing 4 reps on the bench test. Some other lowly totals: Gerry Mcnamara did a measly 2; JJ Redick did 6; Rudy Gay only got 9 (but it should be mentioned he turned in an amazing vertical leap of 40.5''. Coupled with a standing reach of 8'11 1/2 means Gay can effectively play nearly 2 1/2 feet above the rim!).

On the other end of the scale was Redick's teammate, Sheldon Williams. He did an amazing 25 repetitions. I calculated that on the "One Rep Bench Press Calculator", and it came out to a bench max of 556 pounds. Incredible. He could be the next Maurice Lucas. Could you imagine doing battle in the trenches with him?

Physical strength is a necessary attribute in modern pro basketball, especially among front line players. It seems some prospects like Williams understand that, and others just do not.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Len Bias, Patron Saint of Coke Fiends

I hesitate to besmirch the dead, but the hypocrisy surrounding the 20 year deification of Len Bias, and the complete misinformation surrounding his death and his abilities as a player, demand balance. This was the hardest piece I ever had to write. Indeed, I didn't want to write this, but after seeing the piece of video sap on ESPN Sportscenter (and the phony hushed tones of that Stuart Scott wannabe who introduced it), and then reading this misguided, poorly argued, hyperbolic, piece of absolute manure from ESPN's resident sychophant and alleged journalist "Scoop" Jackson, I had to rebut. Or at least someone had to rebut, and why not me? (SIDEBAR: By the way, how much of a brown nose is Jackson? Here's the interchange prefacing his question to Dwayne Wade at a recent NBA Finals postgame press conference. Wade: "What up, Scoop?" Jackson: "Oh, yo, what up, D." Yeah, I could just imagine the same thing happening to Skip Bayless, couldn't you? I almost puked when I heard it.)

Back to the issue at hand. What specifically irks me about the 20 years of misleading Bias coverage? Two things.

(1) The way Bias is constantly memorialized in language befitting an assassinated head of state, not a man who recklessly abused and died from ingesting an insane amount of cocaine.

Upon every significant anniversary of Bias' death you can count on articles stating the most ridiculous things like "He did not die in vain" or "he's done so much in death", as though he purposely ingested 3 to 5 grams of cocaine in one sitting just so he could keel over and thus make himself a sterling example for young people. Hey Kids: Don't do 20 lines of coke in one night! It could be dangerous!

My God, Jay Bilas even said he marks time by the death of Len Bias in the same way people of another generation marked time by the death of JFK. Are you shitting me? The guy took, by the examiner's account, 3 to 5 times the lethal dose of cocaine! He wasn't shot by some guy with three names or the same first and last name!

Why do we treat Bias in such reverent terms when other cokers and reckless jocks get no mercy? To answer that you have to remember the news coming out of Maryland after his death. The attitude toward Bias was shaped not only by the Bias worshipers in the Boston and Washington media, but also from two lies irresponsibly disseminated by the press in the days and weeks following his death.

The first was that Bias was not a drug user, that somehow this was his first time using cocaine. This was a steaming pantload. Besides the fact that the US Justice Department has called deaths such as Bias' "exceedingly rare" among first time users, the evidence established in a Maryland courtroom totally destroys the myth of 'First Time' Lenny ("Oh, gee, is that white pile over there cocaine? Think I could try a gram or five?").

The first piece of debunking evidence, established in the trial of the man who supplied the cocaine (a subsequently convicted major coke dealer named Brian Lee Tribble), was that, as mentioned above, Bias ingested a very large amount (3 to 5 grams) of cocaine. I spoke with some medical professionals I know and they unflinchingly confirmed what any fool should suspect: a guy simply cannot inhale a mountain of cocaine unless he has built up a tolerance over time and through chronic use. There is no question, then, based on the amount ingested on that night by Bias, that he was a world class blowmeister. (Indeed, when Tribble told Bias to slow down because he was snorting too much Bias laughingly replied "I'm a bad motherfucker! I can handle anything!" The words of a one time user?) Another debunking fact established in the Tribble trial was that Tribble was a "longtime friend" of Bias (indeed, it was he and Bias together who brought the coke over and woke up the others involved and invited them to partake). How many people do you know that are simultaneously (a) friends with a major coke dealer and (b) not riding the train? I'll answer that for you: Zero!

The second major lie surrounding Bias' death was told by the emergency room doctors who treated him on the night he passed. They reported that Bias died from ingesting crack cocaine. That bit of misinformation had an enormous influence on public opinion (and on public policy, which I won't get into). Indeed, that put a whole different spin on things, because at that that time crack was new on the scene. As such it was misunderstood and much feared. The impression thus given by those who blamed crack for Bias' death was that he died from a lethal substance whose deadly effects he, like the rest of the public, had not yet fully comprehended. In other words, "it was the crack's fault, not Lenny's". In this way he was made to look like the victim of an evil force rather than an unconscionably reckless drug abuser. (Of course, when it was later established that he in fact died from the powdered variety of the drug, government documents say this fact was conveniently "overlooked".)

I can't stand the hypocrisy of it all. We treat Len Bias as some kind of sacred victim and then we jump ugly on guys like Chris Washburn, or Roy Tarpley, or Steve Howe, or Dwight Gooden, or any number of other guys who have had their careers wash out as a result of drug indulgence. Where is the difference between those villified characters and Saint Lenny? Are those guys worse because none of them ever saw fit to administer themselves a lethal dose? I don't get it. On to my second beef.

(2) The gross exagerration of Bias' collegiate accomplishments and his professional potential

If you were to read the press accounts concerning Bias' basketball skills you would have to conclude he must have been Michael Jordan's clone. HE WAS NOT! I cannot emphasize that enough. He was not even close to being in Jordan's class. I actually remember watching him play. He was not Michael Jordan! (He did not 'dominate' the ACC, either, as some assert. Maryland finished below .500 in conference play his final year).

You don't even need to rely on my memory as proof either. A close reading of the descriptions of the fools who compare him to MJ gives away the ghost. They say he was a taller Jordan, but then the only thing they mention about him that was similar to Jordan was his leaping ability. All of the descriptions are some variation of this: Bias had a better jump shot (though he was only accurate from mid-range) but could not get to the basket like Jordan, could not handle the ball like Jordan, and was limited on his drives to the basket because he could only jump off two feet. Do you see what they are all unwittingly describing? A player similar to Kenny "Sky" Walker, the fifth pick in that same fateful 1986 draft.

In fact, Bias and Walker were quite similar in many ways. They were nearly identical size, they were both incredible leapers, neither could handle or pass at all (Bias was a turnover machine at Maryland), and both finished school with eerily similar career numbers. What I'm trying to say is, it was far more likely that Bias, rather than being the next Jordan, was slated for a middling career similar to Walker's.

Another piece of evidence pointing in the direction of a less than great career for Bias is provided by basketball guru, Dean Oliver. He says that "players that do not perform well as freshman in college can turn out to be good NBA players, but rarely do they become great. (see here)".

I cannot explain why that would be so, but the historical record overwhelmingly backs his assertion up. And Bias, by any fair account or by simple statistical evaluation, had a poor freshman season. Again, not conclusive of how he would have fared as a pro, but surely another bit of evidence calling into serious question the validity of these counterfactual suck pieces that have Bias cast as a would-have-been Hall of Famer. (Michael Wilbon has even asserted that Bias would have prevented the Pistons from capturing their two titles in the late Eighties. What a crock of shit. I cannot believe Piston Nation has not risen up and bitchslapped him for this bit of anti-history. Where are you Matt? Ian?)

Even Larry Bird, who initially had such high hopes for Bias, later (in 1987) admitted Bias most likely would have done more harm to the Celtics than good had he lived. "I would hate for him to come into this situation if he were on {cocaine} because then, that might have been the biggest blow that we couldn't overcome. . . . A guy like that could have come here and destroyed our team if he was on cocaine."

This post is not written against Len Bias. It is written against the sports media and its arbitrary, often counterfactual, always hypocritical, myth machine. In fact, I say God bless Len Bias. But don't we pay him greater homage by remembering him for the flawed man that he was, rather than the misfortunate saint that some wished he had been?

Monday, June 19, 2006

The Coronation of Dwayne Wade

Five years ago I remember staying up late to catch Marquette's appearance in the Alaska Shootout. One player jumped out at me. A skinny guy with long arms, Dwayne Wade didn't really dominate the game but he showed a sort of electric quality that made me think he was a player to be watched. In fact I remember telling my brother he looked like the new Sidney Moncrief.

To be honest, I thought I was out on a limb when I said that. It turned out I was on the safest branch on the tree. Little did I know that night was my first look at the man who would soon inherit the crown that once belonged to Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player on Earth.

In boxing they have the mythical "pound-for-pound" title bestowed by Ring Magazine on the fighter considered the best in the world regardless of weight class. If the same existed in basketball, last night Dwayne Wade ascended to the throne. His domination of these finals has been almost surreal. He is willing his team to a championship when it once seemed almost a mortal certainty they would be swept.

The Mavericks, who by all accounts have a good defense, are utterly powerless to stop this great player. Its almost as if, like that Hearst guy on HBO's Deadwood, Wade has said to the Mavericks, "This is my will, and you will bend to it."

If they put a quicker man on him, he simply shoots over the poor schmuck. If they put a bigger man on him, he blows by him and gets to the rim before the defensive help can react. And even when the help is on time, he has an uncanny ability to split through and either get the hoop, get some harm, or get the hoop and some harm. At this point in his career, he cannot be stopped. His will be done.

And so he is now King. But how long live the King? Not long I'm afraid. Dwayne Wade plays the game with an all-out attacking style that is great to watch and admire, but does not make for a long career. The punishment he willingly subjects himself to in his fervish quest to win cannot be endured long without the body breaking down. Look at him now. Just to play each game he has to wrap himself up like a mummy.

Thus what I think we are seeing in Wade is not a star but a white hot comet. Like his nick-namesake, 'The Flash', Wade seems destined to be remembered as a spectacular sight that disappeared way too soon. He is to basketball, in other words, what Koufax was to baseball or Jim Brown to football. He will burn brightly but too quickly flame out; there is no chance he will fade away.

Appreciate what you are seeing while it is still in sight. The land once again has a king.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Magliore and Mo Williams Trade Rumors Heating Up

I can tell you secondhand that the Magliore trade rumors are at a near boil. It seems, according to Gary Woefel, aka "the only living Bucks insider", that several possible deals are in the works. The dream deal, as far as I'm concerned, is the 'Magliore and Mo Williams for Charlie Villenueva and Mo Peterson' trade. To my mind, that would be the steal of the millennium for the Bucks. Two young players for a useless aging center and an admittedly effective, but somewhat unreliable, young point guard.

One other rumor has them trading the tandem to Toronto for the No. 1 pick. That one doesn't really float my boat. I don't see much value at No. 1. Woefel says the Bucks like this foreign guy from Italy. The reports I've read say he's another tall European softie who bombs from the outside but won't roll up his sleeves and get in the toaster. No thanks.

For his part, Magliore said he would be happy to stay in Milwaukee. He said he likes the Senator and he likes GM Harris. He did say that if he ends up in Milwaukee next season he wants to be a bigger part of the offense... You read that right. He wants to be a bigger part of the offense. Stop laughing, damn it!

In other unrelated news, Mark McGwire announced that he is interested in participating in more congressional hearings, Rosanne Barr stated that she would like to sing more National Anthems, John Daly said he would like to try a few more marriages, Geraldo Rivera expressed strong interest in staging a couple more live vault openings...

Friday, June 09, 2006

Bucks New 2006-07 Uniforms: Red Speculation

In my previous post, I took the best clues available to Bucks fans and tried to work out what the new Bucks uniforms might look like. Since the talk was that the Bucks were going to go back to "an early 80s" look, I thought that green would dominate the road jerseys, and indeed be the primary color. The latest buzz, however, suggests that red will be the Bucks primary color.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is reporting this rumor, and, the leaked Adidas hat is also predominantly red, suggesting red might indeed be the way they are going to go.

With that in mind, I crafted another batch of potential Bucks uniforms that I call "The Red Option".

As I said in the last post, the strong resemblance the new logo (shown above) has with the old logo leads me to believe the basic uniform set-up will likewise be quite similar to the old, with purple and silver simply being replaced by red and white (plus some minor tinkering with the letter font).

So, the first two uniforms constructed above are basically last year's home and road uniforms with red in the place of purple and white in the place of silver. Plus I adjusted the sides to look more like piping than the solid siding of last year's uniforms.

The third uniform uses green in the place of silver. I call that the 'Christmas tree option'.

If these speculations actually resemble the new uniforms, I'm a little leery. The red look will take getting used to. Its not only visually shocking, it has an unseemly hint of 'Chicago Bulls'.

Thus, I hope they go with the predominantly green look. I think that's a more stylish look and it harkens back to the Bucks championship seasons. But it sounds as though red is the way they're going. Well, the Bucks have donned some of the ugliest uniforms in the history of sports (I'm thinking particularly of those hideous dark green on lime green late 80s things) I guess I'll just adjust myself to this new look if need be.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Possible look for new Bucks uniforms

If you can get past the crude, crude renditions on the right (I ain't no stinkin' artist), you will see my educated guess at the look the new Bucks home and away uniforms will have.

How did I arrive at the three looks? I studied the leaked Adidas hat with the new Bucks logo to see what I could glean from that. (When asked whether that was the new logo, the Bucks gave a non-denial denial, which, if you follow politics, is the equivalent of a confirmation. So I am operating under the assumption that is indeed the new logo).

What can be deduced from the look and philosophy of the new logo? Well, the first thing you notice is its extremely close to the old logo. All they did was change the purple and silver to red and white, and they changed the lettering to a boxier font. Thus, I concluded that the Bucks were not looking to reinvent the wheel. They simply wanted to go back to the old "Christmas tree" red, green, and white scheme.

Given that, what I did was I simply took the 2005-06 jerseys and substituted red for purple and white for silver. Then I tried my damndest to imitate the boxier font. Finally, I added piping on the sides (that was a bit more of a reach, but the piping on the hat's lettering suggests something like that). And thus I arrived at my jersey drawings to the right.

Please forgive the almost kindergarten crayon look, I did them in a hurry. I was after a visual notion of what the jerseys might look like, not a perfect looking sketch. That said, and putting my amateur artistry aside, I think my renditions look pretty cool. The home jersey looks straight out of the seventies, and I always liked the hunter green road look. The third jersey is my alternate possibility for the road. I arrived at that because, if you notice on the Adidas hat, the "Bucks" wording on the logo is white with red piping. On the old logo, the "Bucks" wording was silver, just as it was on the road jerseys. So there is some logic to believing the road jerseys will be white lettering.

Of course there is every chance that the actual Bucks unis will look nothing like any of my drawings. For instance, they could use the word "Milwaukee" on the away jersey rather than "Bucks" (I would actually love that). So take my drawings for what they are -- one Bucks fan's educated guess.