RealGM

LUKE23 wrote:I like Moute as a long-term 6th man/defensive stopper.

Harris/Moute
Henson/Ilyasova (that one can be debated in terms of starter vs. sub long-term, but good problem to have)
Sanders/Udoh

The frontcourt is set, IMO. Major backcourt questions at both spots. Still think you can make it work with Jennings at PG if you get a versatile, efficient SG.

Jennings would be a decent 3rd option behind Harris and whoever our awesome SG will be.

Listening to Hammond speak reminds me of Daffy Duck or some other cartoon character. I can just picture him bouncing off the walls.

europa wrote:At the end of the day epi all that matters is wins and losses. I agree there are plenty of variables which enter into that equation but teams are ultimately judged by the level of success they have. That's the deal and I'm willing to wager every head coach and GM knows the score when they sign on for a gig. With regard to Skiles, I'd say the fact every one of his stops has ended in similar fashion (players tuning him out, for example) is a reflection on him more so than than whatever talent he has to work with. He needs to take accountability for the success or lack thereof this team and any team he coaches enjoys. That's the deal. Same with Hammond. If the results are not satisfactory than it's time to move on.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that W/Ls don't matter. I am saying that they are not that good of indicator of coaching as they are dependent upon more significant factors.

I also suggest that with young teams the more important dependent variable is improvement in offensive and defensive efficiencies. Obviously if the spread improves, victories will come; but those variable remove some of the luck which is found in W/Ls alone. But again even the efficiency measures are more influenced by player talent, effort, and health than other variables, especially the small variance in coaching talent.

Coaches are just too easy of target for fans, owners, and the press. Real change depends upon more in the vast number of instances than just coaching changes.

Epicurus wrote:I also suggest that with young teams the more important dependent variable is improvement in offensive and defensive efficiencies.

Agreed. I haven't seen a lot of improvement under Skiles lately. This team still can't beat quality teams. That was a problem post-Ellis trade last season and it remains one today. Also, the Bucks' offense stinks this season just like Skiles' offenses have stunk everywhere he's been. After three separate locations I think we can safely conclude poor offenses are a part of Skiles' coaching DNA.

I don't get the people that blame Skiles for the coaching AND for the players that were brought in. I wonder what those people feel Hammond does all day? Does he also get Sklies his coffee in the morning?

Turd Ferguson wrote:
So you're essentially looking for Hammond to make a (competent) win-now trade in order to validate all the previous garbage grabs and just dismiss those moves as "guys Skiles clamored for"?

The move can be a "future move" or a "win now" move at the trade deadline. I'd much prefer a "future move" than "win now" but either one is fine as long as it is a signature move that most of us on THIS BOARD would say was a very bold and creative deal.

I can't define for you what that is, but we'll know it when we see it. But up until now, Hammond hasn't really made any trades that fit that definition. The closest he was to something like that was the botched negotiations to get David Lee and Gallo in July of 2009. That type of move wouldn't have produced a title but might have cemented a 50-game winner for the past few seasons.

DrugBust wrote:Haven't you guys been telling me that Hammond is actually smart and knows that tanking is the way to go but he simply wasn't able to?

Maybe the Senator's mind has changed after witnessing how futile it is to 'win-now'. Perhaps it's become evident that the Bucks need a rebuild, and the reason Skiles was let-go is it became apparent he wasn't the right guy to coach a young rebuilding squad?

It would make sense.

This is my pipedream scenario. That would be fantastic news. I do believe Hammond would love to rebuild if given full reign. And honestly, given how he drafts, I'd have no problem with giving him the shot to do it. Remember when he was first hired and said moves would be made that might not be popular? Maybe he's wanted to all along and will finally get his shot to tear it down.




edit, this too:

europa wrote:If we're going to look for a silver lining here maybe Hammond was able to convince Kohl that the Bucks could make the playoffs while playing guys like Harris and Henson more. That would accomplish at least some of what many of here want (youthful development) and what Kohl badly wants (playoff berth). I'd like to believe that if Hammond won this power struggle he did so with the belief the players he drafted (players Skiles refused to play consistently or at all in Tobes' case) can be critical components in a good team.

Dare to dream.

If the plan is to rebuild, give him a shot. If the plan is to win now he's made it clear he cannot manage assets in that direction.

europa wrote:

Epicurus wrote:I also suggest that with young teams the more important dependent variable is improvement in offensive and defensive efficiencies.

Agreed. I haven't seen a lot of improvement under Skiles lately. This team still can't beat quality teams. That was a problem post-Ellis trade last season and it remains one today. Also, the Bucks' offense stinks this season just like Skiles' offenses have stunk everywhere he's been. After three separate locations I think we can safely conclude poor offenses are a part of Skiles' coaching DNA.

I never understood Skiles' benign neglect of the offense. Maybe he believed that NBA offensive talk is mostly just talk, and beyond vague exhortations to move the ball or watch your spacing there is little that can be done by those wearing suits on the bench to promote scoring (sort of like one of the Van Gundys' -- I forget which one -- arch explanation of the Phil Jackson triangle offense with the Bulls; when asked to explain it, he went to the whiteboard and wrote this: 23).

Nevertheless, it would have been nice under Skiles to see an effective pick-and-roll once in a while (especially since under current rules it's practically indefensible), or to see the Bucks run a play that got a good shot out of a late game timeout a little more often.

I agree with Epi that a coach is usually a negligible part of the W/L equation. It's probably the realization of that powerlessness that led Skiles to sour on his team and, temporarily, on his profession.

He did what he could and played his bad hand pretty well, I think. Now let's see if Boylan can nurture some of our young bigs by giving them predictable minutes and the freedom to fail.

Damn.. Epicurus and Sid Lanier came out for the party. Good to see both names on the board again.

Baddy Chuck wrote:If the plan is to rebuild, give him a shot. If the plan is to win now he's made it clear he cannot manage assets in that direction.

+1

Interesting.

InsideOut wrote:I don't get the people that blame Skiles for the coaching AND for the players that were brought in. I wonder what those people feel Hammond does all day? Does he also get Sklies his coffee in the morning?

It would be interesting to know just how much influence Skiles had on various trades and signings since he took the job with Hammond?

Did he have influence on just some of the moves or on all of them? If say Skiles only had influence on certain moves, which ones were they? Was he against some of the moves and if so, which ones?

Didn't read the whole thread but if this is a long extension it probably means kohl is not selling the team anytime soon. Team is more attractive to buyers with little invested salary and short term contracts, no?

El Duderino wrote:

InsideOut wrote:I don't get the people that blame Skiles for the coaching AND for the players that were brought in. I wonder what those people feel Hammond does all day? Does he also get Sklies his coffee in the morning?

It would be interesting to know just how much influence Skiles had on various trades and signings since he took the job with Hammond?

Did he have influence on just some of the moves or on all of them? If say Skiles only had influence on certain moves, which ones were they? Was he against some of the moves and if so, which ones?

What we do know is that Skiles was clearly "win now" in his mindset, and he had "his" guys whom he thought best contributed to that. I don't think it's a coincidence that he had guys like Malik Allen and Drew Gooden on his roster multiple times.

Monta Ellis for Rudy Gay?

From a Twolves fan perspective you guys always hate on being a "treadmill team" but thats got to be better than being a top 5 lottery team for a half a decade where your team drafts busts 90 percent of the time..

KG_Wolves wrote:Monta Ellis for Rudy Gay?

From a Twolves fan perspective you guys always hate on being a "treadmill team" but thats got to be better than being a top 5 lottery team for a half a decade where your team drafts busts 90 percent of the time..

Not really. The Wolves have drafted overall terribly under Kahn and still boast a better young core than the Bucks, in addition to being better now.

InsideOut wrote:I don't get the people that blame Skiles for the coaching AND for the players that were brought in. I wonder what those people feel Hammond does all day? Does he also get Sklies his coffee in the morning?

Some people just have to rationalise however they can.

Seems like this extension will mean nothing and just keep us on the path of the journey to the 8th seed. I'd be all for Hammond getting an extension if he was able to rebuild the roster. But after what he said today in the press conference it looks unlikely to happen. Lets just hope the team struggles in the next few weeks and it might force his hand.


I don't think any major changes happen with Kohl still around.

This is about the most depressing news since we dropped to 6th in the Oden/Durant draft.