Hammond to ORL: Confirmed by ownership

[Nowak008]

I've never really bought into this idea of the Bucks going all-in. They were a 38 win team, moved some contributing vets for young guys and signed *drum roll* OJ Mayo and Zaza Pachulia. What killed the Bucks that season was Sanders being injured and losing his mind. Take away by far the Bucks best player and they weren't gonna be good. I don't blame Hammond for that.

Yea pinning your hopes to Larry Sanders, yea that was a great idea. And Hammond should get blamed for it... Woelfel knew Sanders was toxic waste...the board bashed him mercilessly, but if Woelfel knew...Hammond shouldn't have given Sanders that awful extension.

Face it - Hammond was given the easiest task in all of professional sports - make the playoffs in the pitiful Eastern Conference - he ended up with the worst team in the league... that is a special kind of suck

[ReasonablySober]

Let's not forget an unprotected 2018 Lakers 1st which could have easily completed our roster.

No doubt, that's his worst move, and as far as I'm concerned the only potentially devastating one. Every other move is somewhere on the 4/10 scale of bad. In the end a move like Gooden just doesn't matter a whole lot.

But it's important to note that pick still hasn't been conveyed. It could be anywhere from #1 to #20, depending on what LA does this summer. The Bucks also ended up with Snell, a guy I think most would agree is an important piece going forward.

[crkone]

You're acting like Zanik doesn't have options. It's not like he needs the Milwaukee job.

OK wait years to get one of the 30 openings while wasting years of earning potential because you passed open a job on weak principles. Sounds like a great life plan.

I mean, if you'd take a job to be known as a toothless figurehead I guess that's your thing.

Or you realize that every owner has final say even though they say they'll back away. To the extent that they interfere is different but I'd wager that at least 80% of owners have poopoo'd at least one transaction based on fandom.

[Wooderson]

I wonder if people realize how stupid it looks to non-Bucks fans when the discussion of Hammond's good vs bad moves come up. Firing him for a MLE or late round pick vs drafting Giannis or trading for Middleton or getting the ROY in the 2nd round.

Eh just because he hit a couple home runs doesn't mean he's the right man moving forward. The multitude of terrible moves are a better predictor of his decision making abilities than the few times he struck gold imo. I think Hammond had some bad luck in regards to injuries and meddling, but there are too many red flags to think he can take this organization to the next level.

I just don't see any rhyme or reason to most of his moves. Always seems like he's throwing darts blind, which is why we end up overloading on positions while being completely bare with others.

[ReasonablySober]

OK wait years to get one of the 30 openings while wasting years of earning potential because you passed open a job on weak principles. Sounds like a great life plan.

I mean, if you'd take a job to be known as a toothless figurehead I guess that's your thing.

Or you realize that every owner has final say even though they say they'll back away. To the extent that they interfere is different but I'd wager that at least 80% of owners have poopoo'd at least one transaction based on fandom.

Yea, of course. Everyone knows the ownership has the final say. The issue arrises when that same ownership decides to undercut the GM by hiring a POBO the second things go sideways. If the responsibilities are the same (complete control of personnel) then just give Zanik the title and eliminate that problem before it begins.

[Treebeard]

Let's not forget an unprotected 2018 Lakers 1st which could have easily completed our roster.

No doubt, that's his worst move, and as far as I'm concerned the only potentially devastating one. Every other move is somewhere on the 4/10 scale of bad. In the end a move like Gooden just doesn't matter a whole lot.

You can make that case for the individual events, but the sum of those type of events has hindered the development of the team significantly.

[ReasonablySober]

I wonder if people realize how stupid it looks to non-Bucks fans when the discussion of Hammond's good vs bad moves come up. Firing him for a MLE or late round pick vs drafting Giannis or trading for Middleton or getting the ROY in the 2nd round.

Eh just because he hit a couple home runs doesn't mean he's the right man moving forward. The multitude of terrible moves are a better predictor of his decision making abilities than the few times he struck gold imo. I think Hammond had some bad luck in regards to injuries and meddling, but there are too many red flags to think he can take this organization to the next level.

I just don't see any rhyme or reason to most of his moves. Always seems like he's throwing darts blind, which is why we end up overloading on positions while being completely bare with others.

I'm 100% fine moving on and have been for years. I want someone with POBO power in that front office. But I've never thought Hammond absolutely needed to go either. The positives were just too overwhelmingly in his favor for me to care about minor moves that didn't work out.

[ReasonablySober]

Let's not forget an unprotected 2018 Lakers 1st which could have easily completed our roster.

No doubt, that's his worst move, and as far as I'm concerned the only potentially devastating one. Every other move is somewhere on the 4/10 scale of bad. In the end a move like Gooden just doesn't matter a whole lot.

You can make that case for the individual events, but the sum of those type of events has hindered the development of the team significantly.

I mean, did they? I don't see a case for that. What exactly did Drew Gooden or Maggette or Salmons do that hurt the team so irreparably?

[crkone]

I mean, if you'd take a job to be known as a toothless figurehead I guess that's your thing.

Or you realize that every owner has final say even though they say they'll back away. To the extent that they interfere is different but I'd wager that at least 80% of owners have poopoo'd at least one transaction based on fandom.

Yea, of course. Everyone knows the ownership has the final say. The issue arrises when that same ownership decides to undercut the GM by hiring a POBO the second things go sideways. If the responsibilities are the same (complete control of personnel) then just give Zanik the title and eliminate that problem before it begins.

So basically, you'd rather them announce that Zanik is going to have complete control and hide that they'll still control him than them not telling the world and still controlling him. If I am going to work for a person who I know is a control freak but the money is ridiculous and the job itself is a one in a million dream job, I'd just suck it up. After 9 year who knows? Maybe I'll get to leave for the same job but work with a buddy as my boss this time.

[ReasonablySober]

Or you realize that every owner has final say even though they say they'll back away. To the extent that they interfere is different but I'd wager that at least 80% of owners have poopoo'd at least one transaction based on fandom.

Yea, of course. Everyone knows the ownership has the final say. The issue arrises when that same ownership decides to undercut the GM by hiring a POBO the second things go sideways. If the responsibilities are the same (complete control of personnel) then just give Zanik the title and eliminate that problem before it begins.

So basically, you'd rather them announce that Zanik is going to have complete control and hide that they'll still control him than them not telling the world and still controlling him. If I am going to work for a person who I know is a control freak but the money is ridiculous and the job itself is a one in a million dream job, I'd just suck it up. After 9 year who knows? Maybe I'll get to leave for the same job but work with a buddy as my boss this time.

No, what I'd would want is assurance that they're not going to hire Kidd or Griffin or anyone in a position above me. Ownership can have as much control as they want; it's their team. It's the prospect of adding another cook in the kitchen to render my voice meaningless that I'd have a problem with.

[BJ Sandered]

Not sure how to feel honestly. He obviously was involved in some bad decisions but he deserves some credit for some of the good ones such as the Knight/Middleton trade and the drafting of Giannis and seemingly Thon as well. And how he managed to pull off the Plumlee trade I'll never know.

All in all it'll always be hard to fairly judge how much **** he deserves for all the **** moves done under "his watch" with the meddling Kohl and a power hungry Kidd around for his entire tenure.

[Gianstoppable]

No doubt, that's his worst move, and as far as I'm concerned the only potentially devastating one. Every other move is somewhere on the 4/10 scale of bad. In the end a move like Gooden just doesn't matter a whole lot.

You can make that case for the individual events, but the sum of those type of events has hindered the development of the team significantly.

I mean, did they? I don't see a case for that. What exactly did Drew Gooden or Maggette or Salmons do that hurt the team so irreparably?

They sucked as soon as they got paid and they were bad deals to begin with

[SupremeHustle]

I wonder if people realize how stupid it looks to non-Bucks fans when the discussion of Hammond's good vs bad moves come up. Firing him for a MLE or late round pick vs drafting Giannis or trading for Middleton or getting the ROY in the 2nd round.

That's a good way to put it. Doubtful it works though.

Yea, it won't. But the stark difference in perception of Hammond around the league vs the VooDoos of this board is remarkable. One faction sees the big picture and successes despite the limitations of market and circumstance, the other wants him fired for trading away a late 1st round pick or signing a MLE free agent.

I would argue that the way he handled the late 1sts, MLE's, et al demonstrate that he's not the guy to manage a team with "limitation of market and circumstance". Maybe he'd be fine in a bigger market, but alas, he was in Milwaukee, and the stench of mediocrity during his reign emanated from his arm pits.

Over Hammond's tenure, the only way the Bucks could have been worse is if they tried, which ironically would have been preferable. And I know you agree with that.

[buckboy]

I mean Maggette/Jackson cost us Klay Thompson. Seems like a big deal.

[Ron Swanson]

So the myth that Hammond actually thought the 2013-14 roster he put together was going to compete for anything besides a lottery pick continues to persist huh? Nah, more likely that a bunch of you guys continue to project your own expectations of that team in hindsight, while a lot of us were predicting 28-wins even before the season started.

I mean, drafting a complete project at #15, and signing a few journeymen (Neal, Zaza, Mayo, Delfino) to 2-3 year deals doesn't tell me that a front office, in the midst of Kohl removing himself from team activities and beginning the process of selling the franchise, was "going all in" to be a playoff team. But that's just me connecting the dots and using common sense...

[Treebeard]

No doubt, that's his worst move, and as far as I'm concerned the only potentially devastating one. Every other move is somewhere on the 4/10 scale of bad. In the end a move like Gooden just doesn't matter a whole lot.

You can make that case for the individual events, but the sum of those type of events has hindered the development of the team significantly.

I mean, did they? I don't see a case for that. What exactly did Drew Gooden or Maggette or Salmons do that hurt the team so irreparably?

Lost opportunity cost? You should be making trades and FA signings with an intention of improvement on some level. Too many of those transactions had to be un-done, either at no gain (Plumlee), or future loss (Steven Jackson ). At best, many of those mis-fires just created more churn.

[ReasonablySober]

I mean Maggette/Jackson cost us Klay Thompson. Seems like a big deal.

It costs the Bucks the chance to draft Thompson. Big difference.

[Ron Swanson]

I mean Maggette/Jackson cost us Klay Thompson. Seems like a big deal.

This is probably the biggest screw-up I blame Hammond for. Yes, trading back in the 2011 draft cost us an All-Star caliber SG and likely doesn't impact our selection of Giannis two years later. The Tobes trade has proven to be completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, so selecting him at #19 doesn't "make up for that" even if we had kept him.

[Rockmaninoff]

The worst moves were trading picks owed to the Bucks. Rebuilding team 101 is to accumulate other team's picks and use them in the draft. It's also playing to his strengths.

The cap stuff has been pretty inconsequential, until now.

[SupremeHustle]

So the myth that Hammond actually thought the 2013-14 roster he put together was going to compete for anything besides a lottery pick continues to persist huh? Nah, more likely that a bunch of you guys continue to project your own expectations of that team in hindsight, while a lot of us were predicting 28-wins even before the season started.

I mean, drafting a complete project at #15, and signing a few journeymen (Neal, Zaza, Mayo, Delfino) to 2-3 year deals doesn't tell me that a front office, in the midst of Kohl removing himself from team activities and beginning the process of selling the franchise, was "going all in" to be a playoff team. But that's just me connecting the dots and using common sense...

Disagree. The Bucks are absolutely known for chasing the 8th seed, especially during that time. If that team was truly trying to develop players (aka "tank) you don't sign those guys. You go straight D-League.

I believe they were trying to "win" and they truly thought they would.