RealGM

Because there are dumb GMs and coaches I still think Monta's got the 2nd highest value on this team.

LUKE23, I think Sanders has a much bigger impact of the floor but as of today I think Monta could fetch us more.

GHOSTofSIKMA wrote: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.

Oh Jesus. For one, removing all veteran talent from a team is not a bad thing, if you have a clear plan. This is where you and I have disagreed for years, even though the evidence is pretty much all on my side. They wanted to rebuild. Getting #5 overall for Ray is not a bad deal. Yes, they ended up not doing well on the pick, but in hindsight, there was only one difference maker in that entire first round 5 or after (Noah). Even if they had taken Noah, they in all likelihood still land Westbrook, since they went completely young and had him scouted highly.

Rashard Lewis? The same Rashard that signed a 6/110 deal and did jack after that? How was he a highly desirable piece, given that he was a free agent and wanted huge money (that only Orlando was willing to pay)?

The rest of the pieces are junk or worthless to a rebuilding team. Vlad Rad? Seriously?

Seattle knew they were moving. They cleared the deck. They hired Presti. They tanked. They scouted great (Westbrook/Ibaka). Yet none of this impresses you and the way that the Bucks build does. Fascinating.

jr lucosa wrote:LUKE23, I think Sanders has a much bigger impact of the floor but as of today I think Monta could fetch us more.

Could be.

Perfect example of perception vs reality. From Ford's chat today, regarding the Bucks:

Still have huge concerns about their front line, but they'll have one of the best backcourts in the NBA

DrugBust wrote:

E-Buck wrote: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.

Well explain to me why we picked Henson instead of Lamb?

DrugBust wrote:Because there are dumb GMs and coaches I still think Monta's got the 2nd highest value on this team.

That's probably true.

E-Buck wrote:Well explain to me why we picked Henson instead of Lamb?

Well my guess is they believe he's the better player.

Henson was taken 14th and Lamb was taken 12th...

Just sayin'.

youre missing my point. my point is that you think they did this all intentionally. im not as sure.

btw.... lol at saying lewis signed a 6/110 deal and wasnt a desireable piece. what a ridiculous assertion. if it had been hammond instead of presti you would have flipped the fck out about not getting value for a guy who immediately became the #2 on an eastern conference champion the following year.

bottom line is seattle made a series of toal sht moves. that usually means your team sucks for a long time. they got lucky in the draft.... not just with who they picked but who was even available.

GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:youre missing my point. my point is that you think they did this all intentionally. im not as sure.

btw.... lol at saying lewis signed a 6/110 deal and wasnt a desireable piece. what a ridiculous assertion. if it had been hammond instead of presti you would have flipped the fck out about not getting value for a guy who immediately became the #2 on an eastern conference champion the following year.

bottom line is seattle made a series of toal sht moves. that usually means your team sucks for a long time. they got lucky in the draft.... not just with who they picked but who was even available.

They didn't go young intentionally? They didn't target guys like Westbrook and Ibaka through advanced metrics intentionally? I have no idea what you're trying to argue. If they had immediately signed veteran guys after landing Durant, then those guys got hurt or sucked, thus resulting in high picks again, you'd have a point. That isn't what they did. They stayed young/cheap and they knew losses were coming while they developed their youth. They had a clear plan. None of this is debatable.

They put themselves in position to draft high multiple times AND they had great scouting. Yet its all luck. Just like the Bucks continually going after unwanted vets and ignoring/blowing high picks and sucking is all bad luck. Woe is us.

Newz wrote:Henson was taken 14th and Lamb was taken 12th...

Just sayin'.

We traded the 12th pick for the 14th...

E-Buck wrote:

Newz wrote:Henson was taken 14th and Lamb was taken 12th...

Just sayin'.

We traded the 12th pick for the 14th...

We did.

But I'd say the main reason we took someone that wasn't Lamb at 14 was because... you know... he was drafted at 12.

From everything we've heard Henson was our guy.

There's been no reason to believe that we would have took Lamb at 12.

Newz wrote:

E-Buck wrote:

Newz wrote:Henson was taken 14th and Lamb was taken 12th...

Just sayin'.

We traded the 12th pick for the 14th...

We did.

But I'd say the main reason we took someone that wasn't Lamb at 14 was because... you know... he was drafted at 12.

Also we made that trade before the draft. I actually wonder if we hadn't traded down before the draft, would we have traded down when Henson was on the board at 12? I think we'd have grabbed him. I think they traded down because they thought Henson would be gone and either Lamb or Ross would be there at 14.

I appreciate his honesty and the understanding that there is more which needs to be done in order to improve this team. The one thing I have always liked about Hammond is that he is always trying to find the right answer and is not afraid to fix a problem.

I have the same gripes about him that a lot of people do on this board, but for once in a long while, I feel like we are at least headed in a better direction when you start to see guys like Larry, Toby, and even Brandon show various signs of development.

I never have endorsed the idea of tanking in order to get picks and players. It seems well in theory, but there is a lot of chance which goes into play that can backfire. Likewise Hammond has often had the mentality that he can turn one mans trash into another mans treasure with some of the FA moves he has made. Better decision making on the FA end and actual development of the guys we do have has made a big difference.

For a while I felt like we had sacred cows on this team, guys like Redd and Bogut, getting rid of both of them has improved my outlook on the franchise entirely. This season, for the first time in a while, you are seeing actual progress and a product that is watchable.

LUKE23 wrote:

GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:youre missing my point. my point is that you think they did this all intentionally. im not as sure.

btw.... lol at saying lewis signed a 6/110 deal and wasnt a desireable piece. what a ridiculous assertion. if it had been hammond instead of presti you would have flipped the fck out about not getting value for a guy who immediately became the #2 on an eastern conference champion the following year.

bottom line is seattle made a series of toal sht moves. that usually means your team sucks for a long time. they got lucky in the draft.... not just with who they picked but who was even available.

They didn't go young intentionally? They didn't target guys like Westbrook and Ibaka through advanced metrics intentionally? I have no idea what you're trying to argue. If they had immediately signed veteran guys after landing Durant, then those guys got hurt or sucked, thus resulting in high picks again, you'd have a point. That isn't what they did. They stayed young/cheap and they knew losses were coming while they developed their youth. They had a clear plan. None of this is debatable.

They put themselves in position to draft high multiple times AND they had great scouting. Yet its all luck. Just like the Bucks continually going after unwanted vets and ignoring/blowing high picks and sucking is all bad luck. Woe is us.

they tanked like alot of teams do. they made a series of awful moves like other poorly run teams. then they drafted well in some drafts that it would have been difficult not to. excuse me for not sucking anybodys **** over it.
you like talking about ibaka... how about giving away landry, roddy, bledsoe, and gibson. ibakas solid but give me a break.... hes still just a guy. that team is durant, westbrook, and harden. the other guys are window dressing and theyve missed to many times since the big 3 were drafted to get very excited about the rest of whats going on there.

GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:they tanked like alot of teams do. they made a series of awful moves like other poorly run teams. then they drafted well in some drafts that it would have been difficult not to. excuse me for not sucking anybodys **** over it.
you like talking about ibaka... how about giving away landry, roddy, bledsoe, and gibson. ibakas solid but give me a break.... hes still just a guy. that team is durant, westbrook, and harden. the other guys are window dressing and theyve missed to many times since the big 3 were drafted to get very excited about the rest of whats going on there.

You keep saying they have made awful moves but can't name any of them (that are real). When you name letting Vlad Rad go as a bad move, it's obvious we disagree on team philosophy and player value.

Landry had no place on their team as a vet contract. Ibaka is younger and better. They traded for Perkins who is better. Landry is an undersized efficient 4 who can't defend. He's not a starter on good teams. Who is Roddy? Beaubois? He stinks. Bledsoe is solid but so is Maynor. Gibson isn't better than Ibaka.

You're reaching and reaching badly, and I think you know it. But you've always refused to give OKC credit, while at the same time backing the Bucks modus operandi. It's odd and laughable.

Ibaka is just a guy? He's averaging 15.5/7.3/4.0 @ .598 TS per 36 at age 23.

Gibson?

He's referencing when the Thunder traded Taj Gibson for Sefolosha.