Why isn't John Hammond fired?

[Wooderson]

I'm comparing Hammond to other GMs and how they've done without top picks. Hammond is the subject of this thread, so I thought that was obvious.

Very few GM's consistently draft in the mid-teens. Usually because they're good enough to get them beyond that point or they're fired. You're unnecessarily limiting the pool to GM vs GM because it doesn't fall in line with your narrative. Philly is a great comparison and have outdrafted the Bucks in similar draft positions over the same period Hammond has been here. Who cares if their GM changed. The draft position and results are what are important.

[Kerb Hohl]

Kerb, you're still not getting it. I'm talking about drafting. I openly admit he's terrible at virtually everything else.

You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm sure you've read Moneyball. Beane has intelligent thought and applies it to player moves and drafting. He specifically states his ideas in his drafting approach.

Tobias Harris was being asked to be freed because he was a really efficient scorer, something John probably should have known if he was smart enough to draft him. But wait, he brought in Gooden, drafted Jennings, and traded for Monta. Oh, he couldn't even convince the coach he supposedly married to play said player.

I realize Herb had a hand there, but that doesn't add up. If I'm really good at investing in the stock market, you probably won't see me taking 80% of my life savings and saying I'm going to invest in the roulette wheel.

I usually just see consistency in drafting, acquisitions, and team mindset.

Beane drafts OBP guys. He trades for them. He tells the manager to play them.

Hammond seems to covet some defensive skill and length in the mid 1st. Harris being a good scorer with basketball IQ. However, nothing else he or his team does agrees with that. That's why I'm a bit puzzled. Like he maybe isn't as smart as he seems in drafting.

[ReasonablySober]

I'm comparing Hammond to other GMs and how they've done without top picks. Hammond is the subject of this thread, so I thought that was obvious.

Very few GM's consistently draft in the mid-teens. Usually because they're good enough to get them beyond that point or they're fired. You're unnecessarily limiting the pool to GM vs GM because it doesn't fall in line with your narrative. Philly is a great comparison and have outdrafted the Bucks in similar draft positions over the same period Hammond has been here. Who cares if their GM changed. The draft position and results are what are important.

Who cares if the GM changed? They're the people responsible for the picks.

[TheWig]

I heard in the off season before we hired Drew that he didn't know what the **** he was doing in Atlanta either. I also heard that we were ready to hire Sampson but Hammond was the only one not on board with that hiring.

This man:



Definitely know what he's doing. Just ask Epi, he'll tell you. Everything in the NBA revolves around talent. Coaches mean absolutely nothing. We could simply have a wet loofah on a chair calling all the shots. Actually, that would probably be an improvement for us.

If you coach a piece of **** it's still going to be a piece of **** no matter how well it performs

[ReasonablySober]

Also, the person responsible for George and Hibbert is currently employed by Milwaukee.

[SkilesTheLimit]

I heard in the off season before we hired Drew that he didn't know what the **** he was doing in Atlanta either. I also heard that we were ready to hire Sampson but Hammond was the only one not on board with that hiring.

This man:



Definitely know what he's doing. Just ask Epi, he'll tell you. Everything in the NBA revolves around talent. Coaches mean absolutely nothing. We could simply have a wet loofah on a chair calling all the shots. Actually, that would probably be an improvement for us.

Would the loofah play Giannis, Nate, and Henson? If so, sign me up:

[worthlessBucks]

I think the real reason Hammond hasn't been fired is that his draft picks seem to be perpetually on the verge of great things. The emergence of Larry and the promise of Henson got him his extension. Yanni is saving his ass right now.

Yeah, this is relevant. That damn extension, a month before his worst move to date (from the long list).

Bone is not smart enough or convincing enough (Kohl) to sell high on players before their value plummets, Bone is not smart enough to buy additional first round picks (if you have a strength, utilize it), and Bone does not leverage market opportunities when teams are desperately pursuing their own agenda. We have no agenda, we have no plan, it's all makeshift garbage and pure reactionary (late).

[th87]

How does this sound?

"I really like Tobias Harris. So much so that I'm going to trade down to get him."

"I think Tobias can be an efficient scorer in this league. I covet him in the draft."

"I like Drew Gooden. I like Monta Ellis. I drafted Brandon Jennings."

If the guy understands basketball that well to know what Tobias would bring to the table, he wouldn't bring in the complete opposite in several other moves/picks.

I realize Billy Beane has more autonomy, but you don't see him bringing in Yuni Betancourt or even Mark Trumbo. He sticks to his guns in coveting OBP, slugging, for a while advanced defensive stats, and split stats. It's clear that he had a mindset and can apply it. I'm not sure that Hammond's mindset can be proven with the swath of moves he's made.

Couldn't all this be a function of too many cooks in the kitchen?

[Baddy Chuck]

His drafting has been good, but I'm still with PP in saying he hasn't hit a signature move. He got his Roy Hibberts (good mid firsts) and his Lance Stephensons (good second rounders) but he hasn't even come close to sniffing his Paul Geroge (a true difference maker). Maybe Giannis becomes that, but I'm hardly going to give him the benefit of the doubt there. I mean seriously, how many Larry Sanders' and LRMAM's would you need without that one shining star to compete with the big guns of the league? 5? 6? 7? More? If he's going to make a stake on his drafting, he's going to basically have to be FLAWLESS with how awful he is at everything else, and he's already blown two top 10 picks in his time here.

So we're making the standard a pick that could go down as one of the best of all time?

What?

My point being if you're going to bank off your drafting you need to draft a difference maker. Shuffling in 3rd/4th tier players is getting us nowhere, I mean I don't even think it's arguable he's even gotten us someone as good as Roy Hibbert in the draft yet. So yeah, if he's going be as atrocious a GM as he's been, I am going to set the standard at him getting top tier player.

[ReasonablySober]

So, again, if you want to tell me that the draft is an organizational thing and that the GM is just working with a large group and it isn't really on him, I can easily buy that.

But again, that makes this thread ****.

[ReasonablySober]

edit

[Kerb Hohl]

How does this sound?

"I really like Tobias Harris. So much so that I'm going to trade down to get him."

"I think Tobias can be an efficient scorer in this league. I covet him in the draft."

"I like Drew Gooden. I like Monta Ellis. I drafted Brandon Jennings."

If the guy understands basketball that well to know what Tobias would bring to the table, he wouldn't bring in the complete opposite in several other moves/picks.

I realize Billy Beane has more autonomy, but you don't see him bringing in Yuni Betancourt or even Mark Trumbo. He sticks to his guns in coveting OBP, slugging, for a while advanced defensive stats, and split stats. It's clear that he had a mindset and can apply it. I'm not sure that Hammond's mindset can be proven with the swath of moves he's made.

Couldn't all this be a function of too many cooks in the kitchen?

Yeah, it probably is.

But if John has gotten to that point, allowed it, or wasn't able to at least make some progress swimming upstream, then he's not going to be good here. Fire him. I totally get that the owner is meddling but the excuses go too far. Like, it's OK that he's crawled up under his blanket in the corner when every move has been made by Herb and co. or he was the one dumb enough to tell the ownership group to make the moves. Either route has sucks.

I also realize that Hammond only has so much latitude to do so but it seems like everything he has power to do or influence aside from a few mid round picks has been a massive failure

[bizarro]

Spoiler:

I heard in the off season before we hired Drew that he didn't know what the **** he was doing in Atlanta either. I also heard that we were ready to hire Sampson but Hammond was the only one not on board with that hiring.

This man:



Definitely know what he's doing. Just ask Epi, he'll tell you. Everything in the NBA revolves around talent. Coaches mean absolutely nothing. We could simply have a wet loofah on a chair calling all the shots. Actually, that would probably be an improvement for us.

If you coach a piece of **** it's still going to be a piece of **** no matter how well it performs

I'm not proposing the Bucks aren't, as you say, a piece of ****. Though, I would propose that's a bit strong considering what their general ineptitude on the court could give us in June...BUT, I am proposing Drew's schemes and Drew's lineups have told me enough. He could get more out of this team - obviously, not significantly more...but enough to be in contention for a playoff seed in our miserable conference - than he has. And, that's my strong opinion. This being said, he is absolutely the perfect fit for this squad. He'll help drive the tank beautifully as he already has.

[ReasonablySober]

His drafting has been good, but I'm still with PP in saying he hasn't hit a signature move. He got his Roy Hibberts (good mid firsts) and his Lance Stephensons (good second rounders) but he hasn't even come close to sniffing his Paul Geroge (a true difference maker). Maybe Giannis becomes that, but I'm hardly going to give him the benefit of the doubt there. I mean seriously, how many Larry Sanders' and LRMAM's would you need without that one shining star to compete with the big guns of the league? 5? 6? 7? More? If he's going to make a stake on his drafting, he's going to basically have to be FLAWLESS with how awful he is at everything else, and he's already blown two top 10 picks in his time here.

So we're making the standard a pick that could go down as one of the best of all time?

What?

My point being if you're going to bank off your drafting you need to draft a difference maker. Shuffling in 3rd/4th tier players is getting us nowhere, I mean I don't even think it's arguable he's even gotten us someone as good as Roy Hibbert in the draft yet. So yeah, if he's going be as atrocious a GM as he's been, I am going to set the standard at him getting top tier player.

So he hasn't gotten someone as good as the presumptive DPOY and a deserving candidate for MVP? Holy ****, you folks have ridiculously high standards.

Perspective is entirely lost in this thread.

[TheWig]

Spoiler:

This man:



Definitely know what he's doing. Just ask Epi, he'll tell you. Everything in the NBA revolves around talent. Coaches mean absolutely nothing. We could simply have a wet loofah on a chair calling all the shots. Actually, that would probably be an improvement for us.

If you coach a piece of **** it's still going to be a piece of **** no matter how well it performs

I'm not proposing the Bucks aren't, as you say, a piece of ****. Though, I would propose that's a bit strong considering what their general ineptitude on the court could give us in June...BUT, I am proposing Drew's schemes and Drew's lineups have told me enough. He could get more out of this team - obviously, not significantly more...but enough to be in contention for a playoff seed in our miserable conference - than he has. And, that's my strong opinion. This being said, he is absolutely the perfect fit for this squad. He'll help drive the tank beautifully as he already has.

I'm just saying that in general, not referring to anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Wooderson]

I'm comparing Hammond to other GMs and how they've done without top picks. Hammond is the subject of this thread, so I thought that was obvious.

Very few GM's consistently draft in the mid-teens. Usually because they're good enough to get them beyond that point or they're fired. You're unnecessarily limiting the pool to GM vs GM because it doesn't fall in line with your narrative. Philly is a great comparison and have outdrafted the Bucks in similar draft positions over the same period Hammond has been here. Who cares if their GM changed. The draft position and results are what are important.

Who cares if the GM changed? They're the people responsible for the picks.

I really don't understand why it matters if a team changes GM in this discussion. It does not change the perception of how well Hammond has drafted relative to the rest of the league.

No one is arguing that it's an organizational thing. But it seems pretty damn obvious that if you want to paint a picture of how Hammond has done, you compare him to the rest of the league over a similar time frame.

[Kerb Hohl]

So we're making the standard a pick that could go down as one of the best of all time?

What?

My point being if you're going to bank off your drafting you need to draft a difference maker. Shuffling in 3rd/4th tier players is getting us nowhere, I mean I don't even think it's arguable he's even gotten us someone as good as Roy Hibbert in the draft yet. So yeah, if he's going be as atrocious a GM as he's been, I am going to set the standard at him getting top tier player.

So he hasn't gotten someone as good as the presumptive DPOY and a deserving candidate for MVP? Holy ****, you folks have ridiculously high standards.

Perspective is entirely lost in this thread. Hammond has been terrible, or he hasn't. He's mailing

So you think he's a good drafter and given the chance to free himself from Kohl and get top 10 picks he could succeed? Well, he's stuck the franchise's collective dick in a vice on those picks he's had.

He's made some decent picks in the mid teens. I'm not going to wait another decade for him to unearth a Hibbert or a George because admittedly, that rarely happens.

I'm sure he wouldn't fail top 10/top 5 if given more chances, but his track record isn't great there. If he was a good GM he'd find a way to get up there, Herb be damned. Even if his bread and butter is 11-19, I'm not going to wait forever until he unearths the twice-a-decade star there. You have to have those expectations.

[Wooderson]

So he hasn't gotten someone as good as the presumptive DPOY and a deserving candidate for MVP? Holy ****, you folks have ridiculously high standards.

Perspective is entirely lost in this thread.

No one is saying Hammond hasn't been good, it's the phrasing "pretty **** awesome" that seems like an exaggeration. If you want to limit it to the last 4 years, then yeah I agree with your assessment. But he screwed up his two highest picks pretty badly.

[ampd]

We have drafted reasonably well, but we have consistent picked in the 10-15 pick range and drafting well there isn't going to make you a contender unless you strike absolute gold. When you factor in free agency where we are among the worst teams, along with trades and coaching it isn't hard to see why we are a fringe playoff team on a good day.

There are a few problems with this analysis as it relates to Hammond's job performance.

Contender? We haven't even been successful by the standards of the low bar we set for ourselves. We will have made the playoffs twice in Hammond's 6 years, and one of those was with a sub .500 record, which we will have had 5 out of 6 years. We even suck at being mediocre.

The end product of 6 years of drafting well and trying to win is very likely to be one of the 3 or 4 worst teams in the NBA, and almost definitely the barest roster in terms of trade assets, and thats only if we improve the rest of the way.

There are plenty of examples of teams that have built good rosters through asset management and not by drafting players in the top 5 and sticking with them. Teams like Memphis and Portland have been cursed by either bad drafts, injuries, or both, and through good management they have assembled good teams anyway. Thats without mentioning the Rockets and Pacers. Even if we excuse Hammond's not drafting a star player (or even a top 5 player at his own position), we can't excuse his inability to even package or accumulate assets, let alone maximize value.

For that matter, he has had the 8th, 10th, 15th, 10th (which we used to get the 7th pick and then traded for Stephen Jackson), 12th, and 15th pick. Depending on what you think of Eric Bledsoe, its entirely possible that even including Larry Sanders, we will have not once picked the best player available.

[ReasonablySober]

You guys, this is easy. Just name me the GMs that have drafted better than, say, 6 and on since 2008. I'll include that first year for Hammond despite having been on the job for two months.

Here are the picks:

1sts
Alexander
Jennings
Sanders
Harris
Henson
Antetokounmpo

2nds:
LRMAM
Meeks
Hobson
Gallon
Leuer
Lamb
Wolters

Just give the GM, the picks and the core of guys you'd take over that. If we get more than...eight?...you'll have convinced me Hammond isn't a great drafter.