Doesn't matter which team, or how bad they were the previous year. Every preseason I get overly optimistic about my team's chances. This season's Milwaukee Bucks are no different. National media has written them off already - and why not? They've lost a former All-Star in Richard Jefferson, as well as two young, "rising star" types in Charlie Villanueva and Ramon Sessions. And they were not good last season. Let's be honest, missing the playoffs in the NBA is not easy.

So, why am I optimistic? Let's start with the easy ones. Michael Redd and Andrew Bogut are back from injuries. Both players were having career-type years before their injuries last season. Both players look to be fully recovered so far this preseason. According to the excellent resource 82games.com, the Bucks were a winning team when Redd or Bogut were on the floor, and those are the only two significant contributors who can make that claim. No wonder things went bad when those two were out. If these two stay healthy, Milwaukee is easily a playoff team...that's not saying much, but it's a good place to start.

And now to address the departures. First of all, Charlie Villanueva. He's a volume scorer, and not a very good one at that. He wastes too many possessions, doesn't defend well at all, and doesn't rebound as much as a power forward should. He can be very good when he's on a hot streak, but overall, I consider Villanueva to be below average. John Hammond has replaced him with Ersan Ilyasova, Kurt Thomas and the mysteriously-under-the-radar Hakim Warrick. I caught a few of Ilyasova's games last season in Spain, and liked what I saw - a physical, defense-first power forward who can also shoot some threes. I love PFs who can shoot threes*. Its like a secret weapon. +1. Thomas has been around forever, and while he doesn't score much, has always been a player who does more good than bad. +2. And Warrick...normally, I'm not a big fan of "instant offense" type role players, but this guy actually looks good. He's the player Charlie Villanueva should be. He has the same "no defense" reputation, but he looked very capable in the preseason game I attended against Chicago, despite spending a good chunk of minutes matched up against the opposing center (granted it was mostly just Chris Richard, but still, its a good test).

* As long as they can do other things well. Sorry, CV.

When the Bucks traded Richard Jefferson at the start of the offseason, the general reaction from the national media was some combination of "great trade for San Antonio" and "same old Bucks". In reality, the Bucks might not have been able to fill out a full roster with Jefferson on the books. It was necessary, but it also makes sense from a basketball perspective. Jefferson's value shot up after he primary scorer in the second half of the season. He wasn't really that good...there are plenty of players in the NBA (and even the D-League, for that matter) who are perfectly capable of scoring lots of points with good defense. The difference between those players and Richard Jefferson is opportunity. Jefferson is a good player, but not 25% of our payroll good. Like Warrick, I suspect that Carlos Delfino might be better than advertised on the defensive side. And we know he can shoot. So, what can Jefferson do that Delfino can't?

The toughest loss to take is Ramon Sessions. I predicted that he would end up taking the Bucks qualifying offer, but Minnesota came out of nowhere and snapped him up. He's a very good player, and we'll miss him. But, hope is not lost. Since I'm such a huge nerd, I watched online streams of all of the Bucks' summer league games. The standout player was Brandon Jennings, without a doubt. Against guys who are now bagging groceries, he was a perfect combination of Steve Nash mixed with Allen Iverson. The real NBA preseason hasn't been quite as easy for him, but there's no doubt that the ability is there. This guy could be huge. Luke Ridnour is uninspiring, but he's been on fire in the preseason. He's 28 years old, so just about the right age for a career year. Then we have Andrew Bogut's buddy, Roko Ukic. He's huge for a point guard, so you would imagine he's going to be the defensive stopper at that position. Good role player to have around for matchups with bigger, physical point guards like Chauncey Billups. If our rotation was Sessions/Jennings/Ridnour, these opponents could cause all kinds of trouble all night.

So there we go, you have my positive spin. Seriously though, I actually do like what Hammond is doing. In the past, our roster has been full of old stiffs who make me cringe every time they come into a game. Now, we have more younger players who I actually want to watch. Something else occurred to me too. In baseball, we're familiar with the concept of a platoon player - a player who excels in specific situations, and only plays in those situations. This is somewhat of a foreign concept in the basketball world, but might there be a way to make it happen? Ideally, you would like to have players who are good offensively and defensively at every position. Those players are very valuable, and typically very expensive. Andrew Bogut is one of them, and last season, Michael Redd looked like another before his injury. But what if you can't get one of those? You have a choice between players who are mediocre at everything, or one-dimensional role players. Mediocre stiffs (I love that term, it makes me think of tall white guys whose only job is to take up space and foul people) don't help you win games, but role players can when used wisely. Scott Skiles has showed us that he's not opposed to changing his lineup based on matchups. This plays well into our hands, because we have a ton of players who are very good in certain situations. Consider this:

2008/09
C: Bogut (everything), Gadzuric (stiff), Elson (stiff)
PF: Villanueva (offense...sort of), Allen (stiff), Croshere (stiff)
SF: Jefferson (everything), Mbah a Moute (defense), Alexander (stiff)
SG: Redd (everything), Bell (stiff), Bogans (stiff), Jones (stiff)
PG: Sessions (offense), Ridnour (stiff), Lue (stiff), Gill (stiff)

Totals: 3 everything players, 3 role players, 11 stiffs

2009/10
C: Bogut (everything), Thomas (defense), Elson (stiff), Gadzuric (stiff)
PF: Ilyasova (defense, maybe more), Warrick (offense)
SF: Delfino (offense), Mbah a Moute (defense), Alexander (stiff)
SG: Redd (everything), Meeks (offense), Bell (stiff)
PG: Jennings (potentially everything), Ukic (defense), Ridnour (stiff)

Totals: 3 everything, 7 role players, 5 stiffs

And I feel like that's a conservative outlook...of those stiffs left over from last year, all of them can improve. Elson and Gadzuric (this combo needs a nickname...Ajax Milwaukee?) have been productive in the past. Alexander was a rookie, and should improve. Bell was slowed significantly by knee trouble. Ridnour can be a very good player if he shoots a little better...like, as well as he has in the preseason.

Are the Bucks going all the way? Probably not, but they're going to be tough to beat. Simply put, we now have more good players than bad. That's a statement that hasn't been true in a long time.