Big Mokeski wrote:power4wardjinx wrote:It's a very passive approach. The instigator is the aggressor, and that's relevant. The report out of NY now is that Portland is aggressively seeking David Lee. Who is going to end up with David Lee? The Trailblazers or the Bucks?
I'm drawing two inferences from your use of the term "aggressive": first, you think that it's a good thing; and second, you think that it's defined by GMs who are constantly working the phones and proposing deals.
I think the second inference undercuts the first. .....
Appearing aggressive is often the wrong way to attempt to negotiate with others. So if you're trying to make the case that Hammond isn't being a good GM because he isn't being aggressive, you're not persuading me.
We use analogies, like poker, in talking about business: John Hammond plays his cards "close to the vest." One could say he likes safe bets. I'm not a gambler, so I'm short on examples. He's not what one would call "an old horse trader." He lays back, waits for deals to come to him. I agree that can be a good thing; but when you've got horrible chemistry in your hand as the Bucks did at the end of last season, you're not fooling anybody. Why let others dictate your course?
Was Hammond actively trying to swap the # 8 pick? Has he been consistently trying, as is said here regularly, to trade Charlie V? Was Redd ever on the block? Was a course ever plotted on these matters? If it was, he was not active (substituting active for aggressive) in pursuing those things. Instead, the Bucks got stuck with the pick and fans were told Joe Alexander could play PF (red flag). Fans were also told Jefferson and Redd would complement each other (sure, if you forget that RJ was a 2nd/3rd option player all his career and that Redd doesn't pass the ball) - another red flag.
Had Hammond been actively (aggressively) trying to make a move with the pick and trying to trade Charlie V, it would be done. Instead, we've reduced the value the lottery pick had by taking Joe, and we've still got Charlie and Redd. No I don't want to write Joe off but he's hardly the resource T.J. Ford #8 or Yi Jianlian #6 or even Charlie V #7 turned out to be. He was not decisive about a direction or aggressive in pursuing it r.e. the pick he wasn't very excited about in the first place.
In the NBA you have to be active, imo. Aggressive? Yes. In my mind this means seeking out available options based on the direction you've set and acting on them -- not necessarily being aggressive in the conduct of negotiations, as you suggest. If Hammond was not a passive gm, Charlie V wouldn't be a Buck.
It's possible moving Charlie is not a priority. However, if the Houston rumors were true and I believe they were, it is a priority, and Hammond was in that instance being active -- he brought the Lakers into it and put it together. This is a good sign -- but it's also something he had NOT been doing all fall-plus -- three or four months. Nor was he active enough in regards to Charlie and the pick in May and June.
), so the only things I have to go on are transactions that occur, newspaper reports, on-line rumors, and League Pass. Based on the information to which I have access, it's hard for me to come to any conclusion regarding Hammond's relative activity/ agressiveness in comparison to the median GM. I'm not sure if you have inside sources, but unless you're in the chain of command or extremely close to someone within it, it's hard for me to believe that one can say with authority that Hammond spends the day at his office playing Minesweeper and waiting for the phone to ring.
