RealGM

John Hammond was hired three years ago this week.

Should Kohl let him go after the end of the season?

Here is my case for moving on with someone, anyone else.

Draft:
He's had the 8th, 10th and 15th picks in the first round. I'm not sure what we've gotten from it.
He's had five second round picks. The only one left on the roster is Mbah a Moute.

Trades:
Here are his main trade acquisitions. RJ, Ridnour, Salmons, Maggette, Delfino.
I'm not sure what the hell we have there, other than the fact he acquired RJ with $45 million left on his deal, Maggette with $31 million left and immediately signed Salmons to a guaranteed $34 million.

Free Agency:
Elson, Lue, Warrick, Gooden, Boykins.
Who am I missing here?

Bottom line, he fails all these key GM tests:

-Is the teams talent base better than three years ago? No.

-Was the team a contender in the past three years? No.

-Is our salary cap in good shape? No.

-Has he added an above average starter at any of the five positions on the court? No.

-If you did an expansion draft, selecting players from the bottom ten teams in the league this year, and limited it to players acquired by those ten teams over the last three years (i.e. cutting out Bogut) would you select ANY of the guys Hammond has brought in to be a starter on your team?

Herb--spare us another year of this. Please move on. Debate and/or vote otherwise as you see fit.

He hasn't done one move that warrants keeping him. Yes, he should be fired.

Absolutely should be fired. I don't think Hammond is cut out to be a GM, and if he is, it certainly isn't working for him here.

I'm going to say yes purely because I think he'll **** up this draft and he completely butchered this off-season in the worst way possible.

I am not on the pro Pritchard bandwagon however.

If Pritchard has agreed to take the job, absolutely.

BLKOUT wrote:I am not on the pro Pritchard bandwagon however.

I would bring him in for 2-4 years and kick his ass out fast before he fails to move assets and take that next step.

The nerve to start this thread following the triple double. (note, it's nonsense like that which aids in the lack of accountability for the franchise.)

John Hammond - "We still like our team." The few, the proud, the ignorant. Should be fired, but won't be since they just extended him.

I wish there was video of John receiving his EOY award. I'd play it backwards to brighten my spirits regarding the team. 'Give it back, give it back!'.

Doubt it will matter as long as we still have Kohl here, but I could be wrong.

You make some good points, I would probably give him one more year. I think 4 years is a good period and the team really was hammered with injuries this year, which is a lame excuse but is a fact. I saw an article where the Bucks lost the most amount of minutes, games, and players that average 25+ mpg in the entire NBA. Its hard to win with that amount of injuries. So I would be willing to give him one more year, but the leash is short.

Also, what would the replacement be? Considering Hammond, Larry Harris, Grunfeld, and Dunleavy have been the last 15+ years and outside of Grunfeld none of had success. And even Grunfeld made some horrendous moves to kill the franchise in the 2002-2003 period. So whoever is hiring the GMs (Kohl and company) need to step their game up.

It seems to me a consistent part of any bad team is an inability to even attempt to keep the management of a team around for more than a few years. It's no surprise as fans (fanatics) are often all about what have you done for me lately, but I would give him probably another two years with Skiles to build something.

Consistency is good for teams like the Bucks -- good seasons are few and far between, and you're in one of the smaller markets -- but Hammond refuses to acknowledge that his deals didn't work out. If we had something to say that he recognizes the faults on this team and he is working to improve them, then OK. I don't see that being the case though.

This is the injury article I was referencing: http://www.basketballprospectus.com/art ... cleid=1631

I've been saying he sucks for 3 years. I think 30 games from Salmons is all that is keeping him from being hated by EVERYONE here. I think the only reason we aren't winning 29 games a season is because of Skiles not letting the team quit and getting them to play D.

That being said, I give any GM 5 years unless it is obvious he has no clue. Hammond is close to that but as much as I think he stinks I give him one more year. Based on where we should draft and the assets he's acquired my guess is we'll be right back here asking this same question again next year.

The combination triple whammy of the contracts for Gooden, Fish, and Maggette is unforgiveable on their own. Before the season started, I think logic would have said one of the three was a high risk/medium reward situation. Putting three high load contracts on three guys who's best years are behind them was too much chance for failure. Unless Hammond pulls a rabbit out of his posterior orifice this off season, those three contracts will serve as a considerable drag on the ability of this organization to operate. Even IF the new CBA gives new powers that did not exist before, the Buck's will still be starting in a deeper contract hole than most of the other teams.

Even the most optimistic of us would say Hammond/Babcock draft record is mediocre at best. Jennings is riding the cusp of being pretty good or becoming a journeyman. Moute was a very good choice. Sanders looks to be an OK choice. Potsie, of course, was a thorough-going dud. Hobson's choice is a very peculiar situation.

Three years in, and we're headed in the wrong direction. Milwaukee situation is such that the Buck's can't afford to continually whiff. The Buck's can't afford more years of mediocrity.

FrieAaron wrote: It's no surprise as fans (fanatics) are often all about what have you done for me lately

How about ONE season past the first round of playoffs in the last 25? Is that lately enough?

Three years, no increase in talent, no playoff success, no cap relief. Plenty of time.

FrieAaron wrote:It seems to me a consistent part of any bad team is an inability to even attempt to keep the management of a team around for more than a few years. It's no surprise as fans (fanatics) are often all about what have you done for me lately, but I would give him probably another two years with Skiles to build something.

The problem is that it is probably going to take him 2 years to cleanup the mess he created.

The only way it probably doesn't is if we:

A. Luck into a top 3 pick this year
B. Bogut gets hurt again and we finish bottom 5, getting a top pick the following year.

Otherwise, I'm not sure how he cleans it up. I enjoyed Fear the Deer, and I could see him being crafty enough to move some of these contracts and get the product SOMEWHAT close to what it was last year, but I'm not even going to bother getting excited. If we do Fear the Deer again, there is no way we'll be a top 4 seed in the East given its current state and there is no way that there will be a future beyond it.

The fact that we are talking about how/if/when he can undo the mistakes he made a year ago speaks volumes.

MickeyDavis wrote:

FrieAaron wrote: It's no surprise as fans (fanatics) are often all about what have you done for me lately

How about ONE season past the first round of playoffs in the last 25? Is that lately enough?

Three years, no increase in talent, no playoff success, no cap relief. Plenty of time.

But you can't blame Hammond for the last 25 years. My point is that often with losing franchises you see this pattern of them changing management every two or three years. I feel like at some point you have to consider that maybe that isn't the actual problem.

InsideOut wrote:
That being said, I give any GM 5 years unless it is obvious he has no clue. Hammond is close to that but as much as I think he stinks I give him one more year.

Isn't it obvious he has no clue?

If we had told everyone on this board three years ago that our only hope or plan for the 2011-12 season would be to depend on Bogut having an all star season, we'd all wonder how could Hammond have not added anything of note to the team in three seasons.

FrieAaron wrote:

MickeyDavis wrote:

FrieAaron wrote: It's no surprise as fans (fanatics) are often all about what have you done for me lately

How about ONE season past the first round of playoffs in the last 25? Is that lately enough?

Three years, no increase in talent, no playoff success, no cap relief. Plenty of time.

But you can't blame Hammond for the last 25 years. My point is that often with losing franchises you see this pattern of them changing management every two or three years. I feel like at some point you have to consider that maybe that isn't the actual problem.

There is a chance it is Kohl's fault, but if the GM is really "in charge" of the personnel moves, I can already tell that Hammond isn't going to get us to any sort of chance at winning a title.

Next.