Bernman wrote:
Two other evaluations I'll dispute.
- don't think he had much influence over the Alexander pick. He was only in the job a couple months, so behind on scouting for the team, and Alexander was very much a workout wonder type.
- I think you have to give him some blame for Larry Sanders, both as a player and a person. One thing you're evaluating when you draft a guy is character. Larry had poor character. In addition, he only had one good year as a player. There was some revisionist history about him because some fans only remembered the later, full season sample. That's against 4 negative samples. That makes him a bad draft pick. The only caveat for me is the depth of that draft. Although they could have had guys like Bledsoe and Bradley. I'd give that one about a C-.
But still more or less come to the same conclusion.
Kidd/Lasry are effing a lot more s**t up, and before that Kohl and the cronies were. I think a lot of people deep down know this, but some still enjoy deriding Hammond relentlessly and blaming him for all problems with the franchise because he's been a face and stuttering one for so long. It appears he's a bad negotiator on average, for the deals he's actually allowed to be involved in. For that, he can be gone for as much as I care. But if he were scapegoated instead of Kidd, which thankfully doesn't sound like it would happen, it would just be a hollow win to satisfy some in the interim, allowing them to keep the status quo. If Hammond stays, I think we'd be more than fine if he were complemented by an assistant g.m. who is in on negotiations. I think that's why we killed it for the year or so while ownership was in transition. Morway complemented Hammond, and we got a lot of good stuff done. Built a core with additional assets in the bank. Then Tornado Kidd/Lasry came through and blew much of that away.
Yep. The risk of scapegoating Hammond is that the true scoundrels get a free pass. Kidd, Kohl, Kohl's cronies, and probably Lasry are bona fide asshats of the highest order, with hardly a single redeeming talent evaluation notch on their belt, so to speak. Even if Hammond's
only good picks were Brogdon and Thon, his 3% success rate would literally be infinite times greater than Kidd's, for example. Throw in the pre-FTD moves, trading for Dudley, some of the successful 2nd-round picks, and signing guys like MDJ and Zaza. Then you've got his prizes, Khris and Giannis. I mean, how can anyone not see that Kidd, Skiles, and the ownership factions are the cancer? Hammond's failures in restricted free agency alone should be enough to get him fired, but don't act like that solves anything. If anything, it makes it worse, because you might be losing the only guy who at least
occasionally nails it.
Fascinating point about roster management after Kohl but before Kidd started having a say. They really positioned themselves well with Giannis, Khris, the LAC pick, and Knight, as well as some valuable vets on very reasonable deals like Dudley, Zaza, Ersan, and Bayless. Then the botched the Knight trade, traded the LAC pick, traded all the vets for nothing, replaced them with players twice as expensive and half as good, and extended Henson.
Wut we've got here is... faaailure... to communakate.
,i just expect if they can to react somehow ,the American type of reaction.
