Who wants to help promote Stephen Jackson's club appearance?

[paul]

And Livingston. Might make that my sig.

[Newz]

And Livingston. Might make that my sig.

You should make your signature:

"Milwaukee Bucks: Where adding a mediocre role player to a team of mediocre role players means we did a good job."

[LUKE23]

If you believe BuckPack, we take Burks at 7.

Burks AND Harris were the two guys we liked was my understanding. Was that wrong?

I think BuckPack said our board was:

1. T. Thompson
2. Burks
3. Harris

But I could be wrong.

[paul]

And Livingston. Might make that my sig.

You should make your signature:

"Milwaukee Bucks: Where adding a mediocre role player to a team of mediocre role players means we did a good job."

Didn't I answer this exact thing a page ago? Weird.

[paul]

If you believe BuckPack, we take Burks at 7.

Burks AND Harris were the two guys we liked was my understanding. Was that wrong?

I think BuckPack said our board was:

1. T. Thompson
2. Burks
3. Harris

But I could be wrong.

Sounds familiar, I wasn't sure on the order.

[europa]

If you believe BuckPack, we take Burks at 7.

Burks AND Harris were the two guys we liked was my understanding. Was that wrong?

I think BuckPack said our board was:

1. T. Thompson
2. Burks
3. Harris

But I could be wrong.

That's the info I was given as well.

[Newz]

And Livingston. Might make that my sig.

You should make your signature:

"Milwaukee Bucks: Where adding a mediocre role player to a team of mediocre role players means we did a good job."

Didn't I answer this exact thing a page ago? Weird.

You keep harping on us acquiring him as if it means something.

Didn't I say this on the last page? In the grand scheme of things, Livingston means nothing. You say you know that, yet you continuously bring him up.

Yeah dude, we acquiring Livingston in a trade where we got an immovable piece on a terrible contract and moved back twelve spots in the first round. Whoopty freakin' doo. I wonder why no one mentions him.

[paul]

So do I

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

He may have been number three on the Bucks private board, but no one knew the Bucks wanted him until after the draft. The last few years our picks were leaked with Alexander, Yi, Jennings, etc. Kind of weird there wasn't one article on the guy before the draft if we liked him so much. I remember this board bombarding DraftExpress to figure out stuff about him.

[REDDzone]

So do I

lol

[raferfenix]

Question: what would it have taken for us to acquire a pick in the 19 range so we could have taken Tobias Harris AND someone at 7?

Maybe we loved Harris and wanted him no matter what. Cool. We probably could have gotten him without taking on Jackson is my thinking.

That said, I could see the trade still being justified if we can get Jackson the hell out of here----but if and only if Jennings doesn't end up taking lessons from him about how to appreciate playing for the Bucks.

[smooth 'lil balla]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we traded Salmons for the 7th pick and Udrih. And then we traded that pick with Maggette to get Livingston and Jackson.

So in other words, if we loved Harris, we could have had him and whoever we liked at 7 (Klay Thompson, Kemba Walker, Burks).

Hindsight is 20-20. I'm sure if Hammond could do it over he would...That said he still may be able to flip Jackson for something (although unlikely it's as valuable as a lottery pick, even in a bad year).

[LUKE23]

So in other words, if we loved Harris, we could have had him and whoever we liked at 7 (Klay Thompson, Kemba Walker, Burks).

Salmons/10 for Udrih/7. Maggette/7 for Jax/Livingston/19.

[emunney]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we traded Salmons for the 7th pick and Udrih. And then we traded that pick with Maggette to get Livingston and Jackson.

We also got the #19 in that second trade.

First trade was Salmons and 10 for Udrih and 7.

Second trade was Maggette and 7 for Jackson, Livingston, 19.

[smooth 'lil balla]

ahh....thanks luke. I was hoping i was wrong. Kept forgetting we moved the 10 pick.

Yea, i'm still ok with the trade. It was a fail, but Harris looks good. Won't know for sure for a few years I guess.

[smooth 'lil balla]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we traded Salmons for the 7th pick and Udrih. And then we traded that pick with Maggette to get Livingston and Jackson.

We also got the #19 in that second trade.

First trade was Salmons and 10 for Udrih and 7.

Second trade was Maggette and 7 for Jackson, Livingston, 19.

Right...i'm on it now. Thanks.

[emunney]

I view the Jackson acquisition as an intelligence failure. We should have known that he hadn't picked up a basketball in 8 months due to these back problems. We should have known that basketball is becoming his side hustle. If we did know those things and went through with it anyway, reckless. If we didn't know, bad information gathering. IMO, supporting that part of the trade is a lost cause.

The pick drop is defensible to me under the terms europa described, but only if you're willing to believe that there isn't much of a talent drop off from 7 to 19 in any year. Just having the thought that there's not much of a talent drop off between those two spots should make you pause and reexamine. I think that would be historically unsupportable, and will prove to be the case in this draft as well. Making the best pick at 19 doesn't redeem the decision, but it does mitigate the damages. (Tangentially related follow-up: if Harris is gone at 19, do we just keep Biyombo? Or do we have them take Brooks?)

If this was all about Livingston all along, that's probably the most interesting angle. But I have to think we'd have been able to get him without dropping from 7 to 19 if we take Maggette out of the discussion. If this started with wanting Livingston, iow, this was a really risky way to go about it.

[paulpressey25]

Does anyone really think we couldn't have gotten Livingston last summer if we had offered up Ersan?

I think they take that deal all day long.

What is frustrating is that we could have simply focused on the future and ended up "Winning now" by taking Biyombo at 7 and using amnesty on Maggette. We'd have an exciting prospect and back up big body.

Biyombo is ridiculously smart and coachable. Skiles would be getting 10/10/3 nights out of him with Bogut out IMO.

Hammond could have checked off the boxes of backup center and youth and then addressed wing scoring with a guy like Dunleavy as he did.

[europa]

Press, you can't predict the Amnesty, though. There was no way to know for sure that was going to be part of the next CBA. Hell, at the time of the draft the owners were still talking big about making a lot of radical changes which they quickly caved on. The Bucks wanted Maggette gone. That's part of this. They also liked Harris a lot and liked Livingston too and hoped Jackson would succeed where Maggette and Salmons failed. That's pretty much the deal in a nutshell. I said on draft night it all hinged on how good Harris becomes and I still believe that. So far, I like what I've seen from him.

I said once before that it would be ironic to a degree if Hammond ended up getting fired after appearing to finally nailing his first- and second-round picks in the same draft.

[paulpressey25]

By the way, to put in perspective how screwed up things are (and that ultimately resides with Kohl), we do have Michael Redd coming to town tonight to face the Bucks. And no game thread yet.

I'm not asking for someone to rush out and do one. Just pointing out that we'd all much rather talk about real basketball things but the soap opera of our mess just keeps coming with stuff like Jackson's many nightclub appearances.

With a functional franchise, we'd have a 10 page GT by now talking up/down Redd with the other team's fanbase.