Bucks, Hammond have a tough off-season ahead

With the NBA Playoffs underway and the Milwaukee Bucks watching from home, that can only mean one thing to Bucks fans and general manager John Hammond – time to make the team better.

When the 2009-10 season kicks off in just over six months, the Bucks will already have two top-notch players on the floor who had no part in the team’s Playoff push this season; Michael Redd and Andrew Bogut. Redd missed the team’s last 36 games, while Bogut missed the final 32 games. Both are recovering from injuries, and are expected to make full recoveries in time for next season.

But while the Bucks may add two starters, they also face the reality of potentially losing two other starters this off-season in free agency. Ramon Sessions, who took over the starting point guard position in early February after Luke Ridnour broke his thumb, is a restricted free agent, and is certainly due a large raise from the two-year rookie contract he signed as a late-second round pick in 2007.

Additionally, Charlie Villanueva, who started 47 games at power forward and was third on the team in scoring (16.2 points per game), is also a restricted free agent.

With Redd and Richard Jefferson set to make a combined $31 million next season (which takes up over half of the team’s salary cap space), Bogut’s contract extension kicking in for $10 million, and bench players Dan Gadzuric and Charlie Bell on the books for a combined $10 million, the Bucks have very little financial flexibility to re-sign Sessions or Villanueva, much less be able to add other players through free agency.

Add in the fact that the NBA’s salary cap is expected to be lowered next season due to the poor economy, and it’s safe to say that Hammond finds himself in a tough situation.

Perhaps the answer to improving is through the NBA Draft. Fortunately, the Bucks won a tie-breaker over the New Jersey Nets (both teams finished 34-48) and now have the 10th best chance to win the number one overall pick, rather than the 11th. Unfortunately, that still means only having a one-percent chance of winning the Draft lottery, and ultimately, having the opportunity to draft Oklahoma sophomore sensation Blake Griffin. For comparison purposes, the Sacramento Kings (who had the worst record in the league) have a 25-percent chance of landing the number one pick.

If the Bucks don’t miraculously land one of the top three picks, they will draft somewhere between pick 10 and 13. The question is; could they find a difference-maker that late?

With the Bucks’ salary cap being maxed out, the answer then has to be to improve through trades. Of the Bucks top three paid players (Redd, Jefferson, Bogut), who is the most expendable? Of those three, who would other teams want to trade for? And would those teams be willing to give up anyone good to get them?

I believe that the answer lies in trading Michael Redd.

Redd has spent his entire career (nine seasons) in Milwaukee, and sometimes, change is good for everyone. Moving Redd could certainly rejuvenate him as a player, simply by the change of scenery. And for the Bucks, it would allow younger players such as Bogut (and perhaps Sessions if re-signed) to become the face of the franchise, and no longer rely on Redd to carry the team.

Since signing his max-contract with the Bucks in the summer of 2005, Redd has been expected to be the guy that takes Milwaukee to the next level. But as is usually the case in the NBA, pure outside shooters like Redd cannot be the best player on top-tier Playoff teams (ala Ray Allen’s lack of Playoff success in four-and-a-half seasons in Seattle as their best player, compared to his two highly-successful seasons in Boston as their third best player).

And if you believe that Redd is no longer the Bucks’ best player, then unless you envision this team making a deep Playoff run next season, why use nearly one-third of your salary cap space on him?

So should the Bucks trade Redd for nothing more than salary cap flexibility? What if trading Redd for little in return means having the money to be able to re-sign Sessions? If that option is presented to Hammond, I think that any non-Playoff team would prefer having a 23-year old point guard rather than a soon-to-be 30-year old shooting guard.