Post#60 » by MajorDad » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:34 pm
east side - I disagree.
we are in the mess we are in because the past GMs have made some really stupid draft day decisions, and some really stupid trades. not because we overpaid a free agent more than market value.
I never thought gadz was worth retianing much less would have offered him a contract. i wouldn't have offered bell a contract either. let them walk.
i wouldn't have given the mavs two first round draft picks just so they could draft Dirk and we could draft traylor. brad miller went totally undrafted , and still owned traylor in college play every time they met.
i would never have wasted two firs t round picks to move up and draft Respert. i also wouldn't have wasted two firs t round picks to draft przzy a guy who quit on his college team in midseason just so he could prepare himself for the NBA draft. wha t other college player quit their college team in february before the dance - just to improve their own physical self? it's too bad bucks posters have really bad memories about what transpired 5-10 years ago.
i wouldn't have drafted Yi, haislip, or potsie either.
and i wouldn't have traded Allen for payton.
i wouldn't have signed Simmons. i thought he was bogus to begin with. I wouldn't have touched jefferson with a ten foot pole. no other NBA gm wanted him, so why should the Bucks > just so we can trade him in less than a year for more garbage?
if the Bucks had followed just 1/3rd of my proposals they'd be a perenial play-off team and well under the cap. the starters would be well paid and the bench would all be on one year deals. if a player performs, his next deal is increased. if he doesn't, he's cut. I would never draft projects in the first round and would make total use of the developmental leagues. .
we would have tanked 2-3 consecutive years from day 1- not the all star break - five years ago and ended up with three top 2 picks - one of them being lebron and the other being Dwight howard. Lebron, howard and ray allen and paul pierce would have been a nice core.
forget about not being able to draft dirk. if the bucks hadn't made that trade, they could have had paul Pierce with their pick. they could have landed the PF they coveted via free agency or trade rather than drafting traylor.
just because hammond is doing what every other gm is doing, doesn't mean he's making the right decision. before today, milwaukee was viewed by the vast majority of free agents as the last team they'd want to play for. has hammond done anything to improve that perception? Did harris? did grunfeld ? Ask lil Sammy what he thinks of Milwaukee or big dog or allen.
rather than calling me a quack for my wld ideas, maybe you should look at my history of crazy posts and realize , reed's posts seemed really stupid 5-10 years ago, but if we had only followed his really stupid advice, we'd be a dynasty right now.
offering gadz the 6 year deal wasn't the stupid decision. thinking he could play and giving him any deal was the stupid decision.
making your players happy and giving them more than market value produces results. if you want a business example take a look at McDonalds verses hardies. Who would you rather work for? how many out of business hardies do you see? if you're a university and you have a great professor who just developed a great new popcorn, do you pay him more than market value to stay at your university and continue his research, or do you tell him, sorry, i' m going to allow the market to determine your value. Orville Reddinbacker was once a great Purdue professor. The University could have kept him, but they allowed the market to determine his salary. As a professor, the university would have received the copyrights to his popcorn. unfortunately, for the university, he left.
eastside , all you are talking about is wanting hammond to save 2-3 million by ripping off sessions and giving him the lowest possible contract. Sure you save some money. but you also lose a lot of respect and reputation among other agents and players. Sometimes, it's a smart thing to give out more than the market. Sometimes that might end up resulting in attracting other players represented by the same agent who might even be better.
is it a smart thing to allow the market to determine Fielder's contract? or would it be smarter to keep fielder and his agent happy by paying him a little more than market value ? perhaps Fielder's agent represents some other clients. if fielder's agent is happy, he might recomend the brewers as a possible team for somebody else - liek maybe a starting pitcher he represents ? maybe he could get that pitcher to waive his no trade clause. all because the brewers paid over market to fielder.
but no, all you want hammond to do is the status quo and be like every other gm, and try to get sessions for nothing. and save $2-3 million this year. i say if Sessions is worth keeping, he's worth $4 million . end it - sign it get it done. if he's not worth keeping, tell him so and end the relationaship. Playing the waiting game has never worked other tha n saving a team a few bucks. and if thats' all you want a Gm to accomplish is saving a few bucks, then just field a team of 12 players.
i thought the position of a Gm is to try and win games , not save a few bucks. and yes, I don't like the way green bay's Thompson operates either by continuing to save money. the only reason the packers are better than the bucks is because thompson has made smarter draft day decisions.
and these ideas are not arch chair qb ideas because of things that didn't pan out. i've said these exact same ideas before the bucks made their poor decisions. this isn't the first time i've said how stupid their draft day decisions have been.
hammond is following the status quo of other Gm's? what's their track record? hes' not following the path the mavs or Spurs or lakers are taking. is he followig the path dumar's is taking ? Copying somebody else's success never is a great idea. being inventive and different is what produces success.