Should John Hammond be fired? (WAUK- Homer update page 56)

LUKE23 · Post #21 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:56 am

I originally said he gets five years, but he botched this year so badly that I'm moving it down to four. If we are not showing realistic signs pointing to contention (that doesn't just mean making the playoffs, but signs that a contending core is emerging or has the potential to emerge) next season, given all the money we have allocated to veterans and Hammond using his third lottery pick, he should be fired.

My faith is pretty much gone but I'm giving him one more year.

That said, if Pritchard was out there, I'd probably pull the trigger.

jerrod · Post #22 » by **jerrod** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:10 am

i agree that you have to give people a chance,but i also believe that progress is easily visible and i just don't how he's made much much better beyond hiring skiles and the previous gm just simply was not allowed to spend that money.

yuedar · Post #23 » by **yuedar** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:16 am

give him 1 more year atleast. this organization needs stability and lets face it no matter what kinda GM we get the bucks won't be contending for a title for years to come regardless.

Kerb Hohl · Post #24 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:22 am

yuedar wrote:give him 1 more year atleast. this organization needs stability and lets face it no matter what kinda GM we get the bucks won't be contending for a title for years to come regardless.

Actually this franchise needs the exact opposite. I don't want a GM to come in and install some roster and mentality where we are consistently between 6 and 10th in the East.

We need someone with a big pair of balls to make some serious moves/tanking/trades to get us to the point of even having a thought of winning a title.

yuedar · Post #25 » by **yuedar** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:26 am

sounds like our last GM...

honest opinion from you guys?
do you think if our last GM had stayed for another 4 years that this team would be better then it is now?

Post #26 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:29 am

yuedar wrote:give him 1 more year atleast. this organization needs stability and lets face it no matter what kinda GM we get the bucks won't be contending for a title for years to come regardless.

The only chance this team has of surviving in this market is to hire a great GM.

Do we think Hammond is a great GM? If the answer to that question is no, then why not get started with a different guy and see what happens. Why waste another year?

Post #27 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:33 am

While I think he should get the boot I also think it's really a moot point since the odds of Kohl hiring someone better are slim to none. The more things change the more they stay the same.

InsideOut · Post #28 » by **InsideOut** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:39 am

paulpressey25 wrote:
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.

Season after season I was the first to say that these were deck chair moves. I coined the phrase "hasn't added an above average player at any position". I think he is as close to clueless as you can get. This is why I moved my normal 5 years up to 4. I have no doubt he will fail unless he can pull a rabbit out ofa hat at this draft. I also feel it would look bad if he wasn't given one more year.

I tell you what, if we start slow next season we'll split the difference and fire him after 3.5 years.

InsideOut · Post #29 » by **InsideOut** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:41 am

yuedar wrote:sounds like our last GM...

honest opinion from you guys?
do you think if our last GM had stayed for another 4 years that this team would be better then it is now?

No because Kohl stopped letting him be the GM.

yuedar · Post #30 » by **yuedar** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:58 am

I think the job of GM is purely luck and circumstantial in 95% of the cases.

Post #31 » by **paulpressey25** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:04 am

InsideOut wrote: I have no doubt he will fail unless he can pull a rabbit out of a hat at this draft.

That really is all we have left at this point. The hope that we get a top three lotto pick and the guy Hammond takes actually is an all-star player.

But when you are positioning yourself from the 10 hole rather than the 7 hole, the odds are tougher to get that top three pick.

old skool · Post #32 » by **old skool** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:04 am

I think that every NBA GM knows more than fans about building a franchise.

That said, no GM can do his job if he doesn't grasp the differences between restricted and unrestricted free agency. Evaluating that competency should not be too difficult - and I would not do it by dissecting a radio interview.

I think that GM's should be replaced in concert with coaches. Otherwise, the GM is getting a free pass for however long it takes to replace the coach.

I think that no team should replace a GM with a lockout and new cba looming. It is counter-productive to hire a new GM and have him twiddle his thumbs while the NBA and players association negotiate a new deal. It would be dumb to hire a new GM with a skill set that is favored by the current cba, but is not so valuable under the new cba. The new cba might point a team in a new direction. It would be good to understand that new direction before taking the first major step on that journey.

I would keep Hammond until I see how the new cba works out. I would not replace him just for the sake of change. I think that a GM in his 4th or 5th season is more motivated to improve the team than someone on a new contract.

oLd sKool

Post #33 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:09 am

Keep him and give him another season to work on this team.

InsideOut · Post #34 » by **InsideOut** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:11 am

yuedar wrote:I think the job of GM is purely luck and circumstantial in 95% of the cases.

I disagree. Some teams draft way better than others and it isn't luck. Utah has been good for ages and it isn't luck. They made their own luck. I would agree the lotto is luck. However, some teams are way better at putting the odds in their favor as much as possible. I'd put luck under 50%.

yuedar · Post #35 » by **yuedar** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:19 am

InsideOut wrote:
yuedar wrote:I think the job of GM is purely luck and circumstantial in 95% of the cases.

I disagree. Some teams draft way better than others and it isn't luck. Utah has been good for ages and it isn't luck. They made their own luck. I would agree the lotto is luck. However, some teams are way better at putting the odds in their favor as much as possible. I'd put luck under 50%.

or they could be part of my 5% I mentioned

face it stars want to play in certain cities and all gm's in the NBA have to do is make sure they got cap room for them. its no fluke teams like LA/boston for example are almost always good. you mean to tell me boston and LA are just great at finding GM's? ... don't really think so. It's luck and circumstantial.

Kerb Hohl · Post #36 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:33 am

Boston wasn't very good until they had a long term vision to trade for those guys. Their GM specifically stated that they had long-term plans to get 3 star-caliber players in to win.

They had Pierce fromm the draft a while back but traded for Allen and Garnett. It isn't like those guys consciously chose to come to Boston because it is Boston.

yuedar · Post #37 » by **yuedar** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:39 am

ok and don't you think every team in the league would like to get 3 all stars on their teams?

InsideOut · Post #38 » by **InsideOut** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:43 am

yuedar wrote:
InsideOut wrote:
yuedar wrote:I think the job of GM is purely luck and circumstantial in 95% of the cases.

I disagree. Some teams draft way better than others and it isn't luck. Utah has been good for ages and it isn't luck. They made their own luck. I would agree the lotto is luck. However, some teams are way better at putting the odds in their favor as much as possible. I'd put luck under 50%.

or they could be part of my 5% I mentioned

face it stars want to play in certain cities and all gm's in the NBA have to do is make sure they got cap room for them. its no fluke teams like LA/boston for example are almost always good. you mean to tell me boston and LA are just great at finding GM's? ... don't really think so. It's luck and circumstantial.

Show me where Utah got lucky? Were the Spurs lucky to get Gino and Parker? Were the Spurs lucky to get Duncan if they tanked to try and get him?

I agree LA has a circumstantial advantage.

Boston wasn't luck or circumstance. I don't think Boston is even close to being a draw for players like an LA or Miami. They were just smart enough to draft Pierce. They were smart enough to tank to try and get KD and when that didn't work by tanking they still ended up with #5 to trade for Allen. Those two smart things got them into a position to get KG. They were also smart enough to draft Al Jefferson who was seen as a good young big that they could trade to get KG. They also were smart to get Rondo. Seems to me Boston made their own luck.

My guess is if pushed you'd agree 95% luck and circumstance is a little bit of an exaggeration.

Kerb Hohl · Post #39 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:48 am

yuedar wrote:ok and don't you think every team in the league would like to get 3 all stars on their teams?

Yes. The point is, there was no "luck" involved.

They actually got **** over in that tank-a-thon with the Bucks and both got bumped from the top 3. They missed out on Durant and Horford, though they dodged the Oden bullet.

Point being, they still were smart and used a plan to build a championship team.

I would prefer that the Bucks go with the OKC model, which if it works out a bit less ideally becomes the Utah or Portland model. Still way better than anything we have.

Your "95% luck" thing doesn't make sense. I wouldn't call it 95% luck, because 95% of an internet message board said it was stupid to sign Gooden and Salmons to those deals. And we did them. The Mags trade could be debated a bit but also was bad.

Also, this entire board is asking for the Bucks to increase their chances at that "luck" in the lottery. To no avail.

There is luck involved, but you need to make your own. If my life depended on some sort of lottery, you can bet damn well that I'd be trying to acquire as many of those tickets as I could. I wouldn't say, "eh, a guy with only 1 ticket one once, so there's a chance I could." Or, "the one time I won, I didn't get the prize I wanted."

Make your own luck.

yuedar · Post #40 » by **yuedar** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:50 am

san antonio and utah I agree have talented GM's.

your arguement on boston I don't agree with. I think it was luck that Garnett was leaving MN and that MN wanted AJ.
AJ and pierce combo-ed up for the worst record in the league when they were together. Or close to it I don't remember exactly. But the point is they were terrible.

Should John Hammond be fired next week?