Hammond Comments: Boston Model?

[emunney]

$19,948,799 $21,679,893 $23,410,988

[LUKE23]

Lol you wouldn't trade Ersan for STAT? Even at his age and knee condition, he's better than Ersan.

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages ... knicks.jsp

http://www.quora.com/NBA/What-does-it-m ... uninsured#

[SkilesTheLimit]

Hammond: "A top-five pick has a 42 percent chance of being an All-Star," added Hammond, referring to a 20-year study of NBA drafts. "In the last few years, we haven't been drafting in the top five. We've been in the 10-through-15 range the last four years, and it's difficult to do it that way."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... z2CDpNhxXp

And yet, that's where the Bucks have been all throughout his tenure...10 thru 15 range (except FTD year).

Kohl is just so basketball-dumb and short-sighted that he can't "risk" losing the few fans he has left that come to the BC to take the chance of landing a star, franchise-player. The most frustrating thing as a fan -- to know your team strives to be just good enough to stay mediocre (and irrelevant in the NBA).

[LUKE23]

If we're counting rookie Rondo and Perkins at that time as clear cut assets I think it's only fair to say we at least have two with our back court combo and another emerging one in Sanders.

What did the wolves pick end up as again?

Agreed, but how would you rank them?

That pick ended up being #6 overall in 2009. They used it on Flynn.

[averageposter]

I don't really think he's advocating a model at all, he's saying the model has the potential to change based on player development and outright lotto luck and they need to be ready to do so.

I think he's giving the example of a pretty quick change in plans in Boston. I never really examined Boston as abandoning the tank, rinse, repeat formula after getting hosed by the lotto balls. But I guess that's exactly what they did. Now its definitely true Boston had a more widely recognized young talent in Jefferson when they changed plans, but who knows the Bucks could find themselves there if any one of the Larry/Udoh/Henson becomes a strong double double guy and Jennings becomes a steady allstar. There are definitely other attractive smaller pieces on the Current team for trade purposes.

I guess the broader point is if you aren't going to really commit to a long tank repeat process then your plan is defined by your current situation and only as good as the development of your players.

[JayMKE]

modeling ourselves after Boston is unrealistic

what superstar players will conceivably be available and which those players would even be open to playing in Milwaukee?

If we cash in our young players we'd probably go after turds like Carlos Boozer, Amare Stoudemire, or Al Jefferson. Hammond has shown some ability in drafting but he has been terrible at evaluating vets.

[Licensed to Il]

David Kahn is the monkey who wrote Shakespeare.

That is the best line I have read on here in years. And the entire post was quite true. It all comes down to nabbing that star (in this case Love). Hell, Kahn even tried to draft Love's replacement and shortchanged him contract wise. But they are still way ahead of us in relevance and roster and contender status.

Some really good GMs never even get within sniffing range of landing a star. Some really bad ones have them drop in their lap. Our GM is probably pretty average in the grand scheme of things, as well as unlucky. As well as operating with less of a margin for error than most of his peers.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

OKC got soaked in that deal though. Allen and Big Baby for West, Sczerbiak and Jeff Green plus a 2nd whose name I can't remember. That's almost a worse fleecing than the Bucks got when trading Allen.

Maybe, although Ray was over 30 at the time. They just messed up the pick badly. It more just shows the value top 5 picks have though.

it also shows that for the okc model to work, you have to intentionally get fleeced on most of your moves outside of the draft for the building process to work. in other words, be bad, and stay bad for awhile. if okc hadnt given away allen and lost lewis for nothing then they probably would have never had a shot at the young guys.

[CanadaBucks]

OKC got soaked in that deal though. Allen and Big Baby for West, Sczerbiak and Jeff Green plus a 2nd whose name I can't remember. That's almost a worse fleecing than the Bucks got when trading Allen.

Maybe, although Ray was over 30 at the time. They just messed up the pick badly. It more just shows the value top 5 picks have though.

It was a win-now trade that worked, not that I agree in principle with doing that and I do realize that was an exception, was just pointing it out.

[LUKE23]

it also shows that for the okc model to work, you have to intentionally get fleeced on most of your moves outside of the draft for the building process to work. in other words, be bad, and stay bad for awhile. if okc hadnt given away allen then they probably would have never had a shot at harden.

It doesn't really show that. Even if they hit on the Green pick in addition to landing Durant, they were still committed to building young and not going after vets, and that usually (always) means losses. They also had Westbrook scouted well above other teams draft boards due to their advanced metrics research (their analytics guy urged them to look at Westbrook more closely), they would have landed him anyway. Ibaka was a late 1st pick (#24) based on analytics. Harden is the only one in question of whether or not they would have landed after the other moves, had they taken say Noah instead of Green. Really, Noah was the only difference maker drafted after 5 in 07.

Basically OKC had two things: patience and great scouting (Westbrook and Ibaka specifically). Yes, they got one huge draft pick in Durant, but they did intentionally go for the tank that year.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

i disagree. its very difficult to draft 3 top 10 players in back to back to back drafts. thats especially difficult when the first one coming in is a top 3 talent. usually guys like that can raise the level of the team all by themselves out of the leagues bottom 5.

for it to work you have to get lucky, and basically wipe the rest of the talent completely off the team. okc did that nicely with a series of moves... bad trades and hanging onto impending free agents in order to make sure they left for nothing. perhaps it was calculated and perhaps it wasnt. perhaps it was just bad management and a series of great luck.

[bigkurty]

Furthers my belief that Hammond can be a good GM and has the basketball smarts to do it, hes just been Kohl'ed throughout his time here.

This is where I am at nowadays too. However I hate that we keep spending money on absolute crap at the end of the bench that we don't need like Brockman and now Pryzbilla. I almost wonder if they want these small contracts just to help even out the money with future potential trades cause they had to know both those players would be pointless. Joel has made about $100k so far this year for 12 minutes of work. And for the life of me, how did management ever think the Gooden signing was a good idea? My only thought on that is maybe Kohl wanted him. I would love to hear the real story some day.

[LUKE23]

i disagree. its very difficult to draft 3 top 10 players in back to back to back drafts. thats especially difficult when the first one coming in is a top 3 talent. usually guys like that can raise the level of the team all by themselves out of the leagues bottom 5.

for it to work you have to get lucky, and basically wipe the rest of the talent completely off the team. okc did that nicely with a series of moves... bad trades and hanging onto impending free agents in order to make sure they left for nothing. perhaps it was calculated and perhaps it wasnt. perhaps it was just bad management and a series of great luck.

Disagree with what? They would have landed Westbrook and Ibaka regardless of who they took at #5 in 2007. If you want to say they don't get Harden, I'll probably agree, but to act like it's all luck is such a slap in the face to a really well run organization. That organization can scout and they have a long-term plan. They had some luck, but that doesn't negate the process or the vision.

[JayMKE]

What evidence of Hammond's 'basketball smarts' are there other than his decent drafting?

[E-Buck]

Let's imagine that we had the 2nd, 4th, and 3rd picks in 3 consecutive drafts. Let's use the last three for example.

2010
2nd pick: Evan Turner

Who we have: Larry Sanders

2011
4th pick: Tristan Thompson

Who we have: Tobias Harris

2012
3rd pick: Bradley Beal

Who we have: John Henson

Would Turner, Thompson, and Beal make us contenders? No.

Hammond is an idiot if he doesn't realize that he just lacks an eye for talent. A prime example was taking Henson instead of J.Lamb. Like why?

[ReasonablySober]

Let's imagine that we had the 2nd, 4th, and 3rd picks in 3 consecutive drafts. Let's use the last three for example.

2010
2nd pick: Evan Turner

Who we have: Larry Sanders

2011
4th pick: Tristan Thompson

Who we have: Tobias Harris

2012
3rd pick: Bradley Beal

Who we have: John Henson

Would Turner, Thompson, and Beal make us contenders? No.

Hammond is an idiot if he doesn't realize that he just lacks an eye for talent. A prime example was taking Henson instead of J.Lamb. Like why?

You're going to be a fun one around here.

[jr lucosa]

If we're counting rookie Rondo and Perkins at that time as clear cut assets I think it's only fair to say we at least have two with our back court combo and another emerging one in Sanders.

What did the wolves pick end up as again?

Agreed, but how would you rank them?

That pick ended up being #6 overall in 2009. They used it on Flynn.

If I had to rank our top assets based on production & value league wide, I would guess...

1. Jennings
2. Monta
3. Sanders
4-6. Ersan, Henson, Dunleavy

I'm not sure what order I would rank the last three, Ersan will obviously fade to nothing if he keeps up his current play but as it stands today we should be able to at least get a mid first for those three individually, then figure out what we would want to do with those firsts.

Tobias could be in that 4-6 group too, it depends on what teams are looking for. I wouldn't want to move him or Henson yet though unless a borderline star is coming back.

[jr lucosa]

What evidence of Hammond's 'basketball smarts' are there other than his decent drafting?

Any time you read a Hammond quote he drops both solid information and takes small shots at the huge elephant in the room. I'm not sure if he could give us as fans any more information on his true intentions here the last year or so.

[LUKE23]

If I had to rank our top assets based on production & value league wide, I would guess...

1. Jennings
2. Monta
3. Sanders
4-6. Ersan, Henson, Dunleavy

I'm not sure what order I would rank the last three, Ersan will obviously fade to nothing if he keeps up his current play but as it stands today we should be able to at least get a mid first for those three individually, then figure out what we would want to do with those firsts.

Tobias could be in that 4-6 group too, it depends on what teams are looking for. I wouldn't want to move him or Henson yet though unless a borderline star is coming back.

As of today, I'd go Jennings 1, Sanders 2, and then tough to rank after that.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

i disagree. its very difficult to draft 3 top 10 players in back to back to back drafts. thats especially difficult when the first one coming in is a top 3 talent. usually guys like that can raise the level of the team all by themselves out of the leagues bottom 5.

for it to work you have to get lucky, and basically wipe the rest of the talent completely off the team. okc did that nicely with a series of moves... bad trades and hanging onto impending free agents in order to make sure they left for nothing. perhaps it was calculated and perhaps it wasnt. perhaps it was just bad management and a series of great luck.

Disagree with what? They would have landed Westbrook and Ibaka regardless of who they took at #5 in 2007. If you want to say they don't get Harden, I'll probably agree, but to act like it's all luck is such a slap in the face to a really well run organization. That organization can scout and they have a long-term plan. They had some luck, but that doesn't negate the process or the vision.

its not all luck. they made a series of awful moves. you can debate whether it was intentional or not..

they gave away for virtually NOTHING.....
rashard lewis
ray allen
delonte west
vlad radmonovic(when he had value)
kurt thomas
luke ridnour
carl landry

then immediately following their ascension they gave away beubois, and dealt the pick that became taj gibson for thabo.

they systematically removed any and all veteran talent from the team, then drafted well up top. their secondary moves since then have been a mixed bag. im not in awe.