Official Tobias Harris watch thread (The End)

[El Duderino]

Not if Tobias and Henson end up having careers which are better than typically happens with the 19th and 14th picks in the draft. I'm very confident that will end up being the case.

It's ridiculous to use a player he gave up on as a judgment of his ability. He drafted, great. He traded him because he obviously saw something wasn't there. If that something shows, which it has been the past couple games, it is a notch against Hammond by a wide margin rather then for.

No it's not if you had actually read what i posted.

[Wooderson]

Not if Tobias and Henson end up having careers which are better than typically happens with the 19th and 14th picks in the draft. I'm very confident that will end up being the case.

I already said that if you look at just from the spot they were drafted, Hammond has done a pretty good job. However, ignoring the path to the pick as well as what the player produced on the floor is a pretty fruitless exercise. What good is having a GM that picks talent if he puts them in a terrible setting and then gets minimal value for them.

We also differ on Henson. I see him at best being an above average big man off the bench. So I'm guessing that pick also creates a gap in our evaluation.

I think Jennings was the swing player here, had he turned into a top 10 PG, Hammond looks really good right now and the Bucks are in a much better position (even with the poor win now moves). Instead, he's continued to be an inconsistent guy that the team should be really hesitant to give long term money to.

[fansinceforever]

if the last 2 games has proved anything its that the core of this team is committed, hungry, and still has alot of fight. im glad jj will get to play with that before he decides to resign. and i think if he were posting today hed probably tell the fans that arent behind this team making it to the playoffs that they should go **** themselves.... dont you think he would say that assuming he uses words like that in casual conversation? i dont personally know if he does im just imagining.

FYI, you can hate the trade, the overall state of the organization, and still "get behind" JJ and the Bucks.

Thank you. I think everybody here is "behind the Bucks". If the Packers were ran this way there would be riots in the streets.

[Baddy Chuck]

Not if Tobias and Henson end up having careers which are better than typically happens with the 19th and 14th picks in the draft. I'm very confident that will end up being the case.

It's ridiculous to use a player he gave up on as a judgment of his ability. He drafted, great. He traded him because he obviously saw something wasn't there. If that something shows, which it has been the past couple games, it is a notch against Hammond by a wide margin rather then for.

No it's not if you had actually read what i posted.

You said if Tobes puts up better numbers then the average pick 19 it is a notch for Hammond, which is ridiculous. It's much like Meeks. He drafted Meeks, and thought he was worth another shot at a second pick. He was wrong, and Meeks was better then the average second round pick. That is not a notch on Hammond's resume, it is a notch against it. If Tobes flourishes in Orlando, it isn't something Hammond will be able to put on his resume that he did well, he though he was worth 30 games of JJ Redick. It's like saying if Joe Alexander came back to the league and put up respectable numbers that John Hammond was the one that plucked him out of the mud, it's a ridiculous, false statement. If Tobes succeeds, John Hammond gets absolutely no credit at all.

[El Duderino]

You said if Tobes puts up better numbers then the average pick 19 it is a notch for Hammond, which is ridiculous. It's much like Meeks. He drafted Meeks, and thought he was worth another shot at a second pick. He was wrong, and Meeks was better then the average second round pick. That is not a notch on Hammond's resume, it is a notch against it. If Tobes flourishes in Orlando, it isn't something Hammond will be able to put on his resume that he did well, he though he was worth 30 games of JJ Redick. It's like saying if Joe Alexander came back to the league and put up respectable numbers that John Hammond was the one that plucked him out of the mud, it's a ridiculous, false statement. If Tobes succeeds, John Hammond gets absolutely no credit at all.

This is what i said. It's you choosing to ignore the key last sentence.

Sadly IMO, if Hammond was only on the payroll as say a designated drafter to just handle picking the players at whatever draft spot the Bucks are at, i think he'd be an asset. It's everywhere else as a GM that he sucks.

[whatthe_buck!?]

Thank you. I think everybody here is "behind the Bucks". If the Packers were ran this way there would be riots in the streets.

This is an awesome point. It's so true, if the Packers started being managed the way the Bucks are managed with all of the expectations packer fans now have after a couple decades of being managed the right way their really would be huge amounts of depression, pessimism, insanity and figurative fan rioting.

Maybe that's a big part of the reason why the packers are not in much danger of ever being taken over by incompetents, that is to say because of the extreme love and the vigilance of fans who maybe care just a little too much about the team. From there u might actually be able to make the case that if all Bucks fans were as passionate and as pessimistic and outraged as the majority of the posters on this board seem to be about how the Bucks are managed and as pissed off and intolerant of mistakes as packers fans would be if the Packers were being run incompetently that would be the catalyst for effecting the real change that Bucks organization needs so badly.

Inotherwords I'm saying pessimism FTW baby!!!!!

[whatthe_buck!?]

You said if Tobes puts up better numbers then the average pick 19 it is a notch for Hammond, which is ridiculous. It's much like Meeks. He drafted Meeks, and thought he was worth another shot at a second pick. He was wrong, and Meeks was better then the average second round pick. That is not a notch on Hammond's resume, it is a notch against it. If Tobes flourishes in Orlando, it isn't something Hammond will be able to put on his resume that he did well, he though he was worth 30 games of JJ Redick. It's like saying if Joe Alexander came back to the league and put up respectable numbers that John Hammond was the one that plucked him out of the mud, it's a ridiculous, false statement. If Tobes succeeds, John Hammond gets absolutely no credit at all.

This is what i said. It's you choosing to ignore the key last sentence.

Sadly IMO, if Hammond was only on the payroll as say a designated drafter to just handle picking the players at whatever draft spot the Bucks are at, i think he'd be an asset. It's everywhere else as a GM that he sucks.

I think u might be missing baddy's point a little bit though. You're saying Hammond deserves a certain amount of credit for his above average drafting even if he sucks at everything else to do with his job. But what baddy is saying is that for drafting well to be attributable to something other than luck, that means the guy doing the drafting has to be good at player evaluation, a skill that also directly translates to making a good trade because to be able to make a good trade u have to be able to properly evaluate your own players.

Therefore, if you're giving Hambone credit for his pick of Harris, if he goes on trade Harris and Harris becomes a way better player than he was expecting him to become then Hambones player evaluation skills rightfully come into question and it leads one to believe that either the ratio of luck-to-skill in the Harris pick was tilted more heavily in favor of the luck side of the scale than previously thought, or that the guy(s) who deserve the lions share of the credit for the Harris pick reside not behind Hammonds desk, but instead in the Bucks amateur scouting department. Either way it revokes some of the credit u want to give to Hammond for the Harris pick and for he drafting skill in general, don't u agree?

[Nebula1]

I blame Kohl. Call it Hammond or whatever, but it always goes back to Kohl.

Kohl could bring in any GM you'd like and the team would still operate like this.

[Baddy Chuck]

I blame Kohl. Call it Hammond or whatever, but it always goes back to Kohl.

Kohl could bring in any GM you'd like and the team would still operate like this.

Kohl's always been a guy to not need convincing to bring in an idiot like Stephen Jackson.

[Nebula1]

I blame Kohl. Call it Hammond or whatever, but it always goes back to Kohl.

Kohl could bring in any GM you'd like and the team would still operate like this.

Kohl's always been a guy to not need convincing to bring in an idiot like Stephen Jackson.

You can debate single transactions and I'm fine with that, but it always goes back to the top. Until that piece changes, nothing will. Kohl and his core cronies have nearly destroyed this franchise.

The BC used to get loud regardless and always had a fairly resilient fanbase, but now it's gone the way of Sacramento. Just dead or dying in every corner of the organization.

Our best shot at anything productive is a new owner and a complete franchise reboot.

[emunney]

I wonder why it is that Tobias shoots 61% when the point differential in a game is greater than 10 points, and 42% when the margin is less than 10 points. What I'm asking is, does Garbage Time Theory have competition?

I think you can be secure in the belief that Tobias is a good prospect and it didn't make sense for us to trade him while at the same time acknowledging that he played his way out of the rotation and is not the victim of a conspiracy.

[El Duderino]

You said if Tobes puts up better numbers then the average pick 19 it is a notch for Hammond, which is ridiculous. It's much like Meeks. He drafted Meeks, and thought he was worth another shot at a second pick. He was wrong, and Meeks was better then the average second round pick. That is not a notch on Hammond's resume, it is a notch against it. If Tobes flourishes in Orlando, it isn't something Hammond will be able to put on his resume that he did well, he though he was worth 30 games of JJ Redick. It's like saying if Joe Alexander came back to the league and put up respectable numbers that John Hammond was the one that plucked him out of the mud, it's a ridiculous, false statement. If Tobes succeeds, John Hammond gets absolutely no credit at all.

This is what i said. It's you choosing to ignore the key last sentence.

Sadly IMO, if Hammond was only on the payroll as say a designated drafter to just handle picking the players at whatever draft spot the Bucks are at, i think he'd be an asset. It's everywhere else as a GM that he sucks.

I think u might be missing baddy's point a little bit though.

No i'm not. Baddy Chuck simply went on ranting multiple times without reading what i actually posted.

All i said was that i think where Hammond has drafted each year, he's shown an overall better than average eye for talent. That's it. At no time was i absolving Hammond of his myriad of mistakes outside of putting names on the draft card. His struggles besides draft night have been well documented and rehashed ad nauseam in countless threads.

[Scoops]

But I'm willing to concede, at least in theory, that Hammond knows Harris' game better and wouldn't willing give up that kind of production for a rental of a poor man's Jeff Hornacek.

This is kind of why I'm so reluctant to agree on his potential.

Obviously the FO is incompetent. But if his skillset right now is as good as most say then he would have clearly been an upgrade to who the coaching staff decided to play. Yet still they chose not to give him any time. Why? Skiles being Skiles maybe. But then what is Boylan's reasoning?

If they didn't deliberately sacrifice wins in favor of playing vets then they're somehow oblivious to his ability. I find it near impossible to believe that it was so obvious to this message board yet the people that work with him everyday that get paid to evaluate talent couldn't see it.

That would be beyond incompetence.

[El Duderino]

I wonder why it is that Tobias shoots 61% when the point differential in a game is greater than 10 points, and 42% when the margin is less than 10 points. What I'm asking is, does Garbage Time Theory have competition?

Given how few overall minutes he's played since entering the NBA, i don't think a whole lot can be derived from his stats, especially given how erratic his playing time was here.

[whatthe_buck!?]

I think u might be missing baddy's point a little bit though.

No i'm not. Baddy Chuck simply went on ranting multiple times without reading what i actually posted.

All i said was that i think where Hammond has drafted each year, he's shown an overall better than average eye for talent. That's it. At no time was i absolving Hammond of his myriad of mistakes outside of putting names on the draft card. His struggles besides draft night have been well documented and rehashed ad nauseam in countless threads.

Why did u only quote and respond to the first line of my post? I just layed out the overall point baddy was trying to make as concisely as I could and you're not going to even attempt to dispute what I was saying? If you can't or dont want to attempt to dispute the point I summed up for baddy essentially you're conceding that the point he was attempting to make is a pretty strong one. Here's the rest of my post:

You're saying Hammond deserves a certain amount of credit for his above average drafting even if he sucks at everything else to do with his job. But what baddy is saying is that for drafting well to be attributable to something other than luck, that means the guy doing the drafting has to be good at player evaluation, a skill that also directly translates to making a good trade because to be able to make a good trade u have to be able to properly evaluate your own players.

Therefore, if you're giving Hambone credit for his pick of Harris, if he goes on trade Harris and Harris becomes a way better player than he was expecting him to become then Hambones player evaluation skills rightfully come into question and it leads one to believe that either the ratio of luck-to-skill in the Harris pick was tilted more heavily in favor of the luck side of the scale than previously thought, or that the guy(s) who deserve the lions share of the credit for the Harris pick reside not behind Hammonds desk, but instead in the Bucks amateur scouting department. Either way it revokes some of the credit u want to give to Hammond for the Harris pick and for he drafting skill in general, don't u agree?

Do u agree with that logic or not?

[whatthe_buck!?]

But I'm willing to concede, at least in theory, that Hammond knows Harris' game better and wouldn't willing give up that kind of production for a rental of a poor man's Jeff Hornacek.

If trusting in Hammond's good judgement wasnt such shaky ground to stand on I would love to be standing right there next to you buddy because at least holding that opinion would allow me a little more peace of mind about trading for, as u so eloquently stated, "a rental of a poor mans Jeff Hornacek" lol...

[Wooderson]

But I'm willing to concede, at least in theory, that Hammond knows Harris' game better and wouldn't willing give up that kind of production for a rental of a poor man's Jeff Hornacek.

This is kind of why I'm so reluctant to agree on his potential.

Obviously the FO is incompetent. But if his skillset right now is as good as most say then he would have clearly been an upgrade to who the coaching staff decided to play. Yet still they chose not to give him any time. Why? Skiles being Skiles maybe. But then what is Boylan's reasoning?

If they didn't deliberately sacrifice wins in favor of playing vets then they're somehow oblivious to his ability. I find it near impossible to believe that it was so obvious to this message board yet the people that work with him everyday that get paid to evaluate talent couldn't see it.

That would be beyond incompetence.

I think people here would be more willing to accept a narrative like this if we didn't have to watch Sanders rot on the bench last year behind Drew Gooden. Many thought that Sanders showed enough to at least get 20+ minutes, and he was clearly the best defender on the team. Sure his foul rate was high, but he deserved a lot more than 12 minutes per game. It's clear Sanders worked hard and improved a ton of the summer, but a lot of his current play was there last year and he could still barely find the court. Finally by the end of last year Sanders got decent minutes the last month of the season and it was painfully obvious by then that he was the best option at C.

It's really hard to trust the decision making going on in MIL when you take that into account (along with the skillset and production we saw from Tobias pre-trade).

[El Duderino]

Do u agree with that logic or not?

No i don't agree

Hammond trading a 20 year old kid with ability and on a cheap rookie contract for a guy who very well could end up walking after this season ends goes right into the category of where i said Hammond has mainly sucked as a GM outside of draft night.

[whatthe_buck!?]

This is kind of why I'm so reluctant to agree on his potential.

Obviously the FO is incompetent. But if his skillset right now is as good as most say then he would have clearly been an upgrade to who the coaching staff decided to play. Yet still they chose not to give him any time. Why? Skiles being Skiles maybe. But then what is Boylan's reasoning?

If they didn't deliberately sacrifice wins in favor of playing vets then they're somehow oblivious to his ability. I find it near impossible to believe that it was so obvious to this message board yet the people that work with him everyday that get paid to evaluate talent couldn't see it.

That would be beyond incompetence.

That's a good place to draw the line between those who have peace of mind about the trade and those of us who don't. Essentially u agree that the FO is incompetent but u believe that there is a limit to the incompetence even the most incompetent front office could have. On the other hand, there are those on this board who think it IS possible the bucks FO completely misevaluated Harris.

And that's fine if that's the hope u want to cling to to feel more at peace with the trade, but what does surprise me is the level of confidence u have in what you're holding on to so as to not be upset about the trade because it basically comes down to confidence that Hammond and the rest of the Bucks FO are incapable of such a large miscalculation. This is the same GM and FO who just last year thought that the added value of unloading one extra year of Sjax's salary in the Bogut trade was worth as much or more than the added value of acquiring Stephon Curry instead of Monta f*cking Ellis mind u...

[whatthe_buck!?]

Do u agree with that logic or not?

No i don't agree

Hammond trading a 20 year old kid with ability and on a cheap rookie contract for a guy who very well could end up walking after this season ends goes right into the category of where i said Hammond has mainly sucked as a GM outside of draft night.

Ok, but what do you believe makes a skilled drafter? Good player evaluation ability correct?