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

[yuedar]

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.

I agree the OKC model would be a good way to go however I don't think the bucks are going to go that route and I don't think a change in GM will change that so I don't see a reason to fire Hammond.

[Kerb Hohl]

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.

Why is that luck? Because Boston had acquired young pieces that had value around the league? Newsflash, there is a star (maybe not KG's caliber) on the trade block every season.

Why is it luck that Boston tanked so that even when they got screwed, their #5 pick was still good enough to nab Ray Allen and that they acquired about 5 other lottery picks/valuable pieces to trade for Garnett?

If a Kevin Garnett was on the market right now, the Bucks wouldn't have 1/5 of what it takes to trade for one. Again, how can you call that luck when Boston was prepared for that?

[ampd]

As much as it pains me to say it, yes he should be fired.

His failure to make any moves at the deadline when he had no intention of tanking was the last straw.

His inability to add even one above average starter to the team and repeated squandering of picks (Meeks was a good pick but then we gave him away for a rental of two awful players that did nothing for us in our playoff run, he gave away a pick to get BROCKMAN, sold another one to the Knicks, etc) is a huge indictment.

If Pritchard would come here I would send Hammond on his way.

[yuedar]

because if that star available that year was anyone but garnett I don't think they would have been winning championships. Or what if that star available was someone that contradicted or didn't work well with pierce. its luck that garnett was the available star that year and its luck that the 3 stars they were able to get are able to be mature enough to build such a strong core of team work together.

As we seen with the bucks its not easy to do and very easy to screw up. I suppose you could make an arguement that's where the GM talent comes into play but I just view it as luck over anything.

[Kerb Hohl]

because if that star available that year was anyone but garnett I don't think they would have been winning championships. Or what if that star available was someone that contradicted or didn't work well with pierce. its luck that garnett was the available star that year.

Of course. That's sports. If Rodgers wasn't in that draft, the Packers don't win the Super Bowl. If Howard Green wasn't cut by the Jets, he couldn't have played a role in that huge play in the Super Bowl. If DeSean Jackson doesn't take a 4th quarter-ending punt return back, the Packers don't even make the playoffs. What if Woodson didn't destroy his leg the year before the Packers signed him with the Raiders? What if Clay Matthews Jr. didn't impregnate Virgin Mary to create Clay Matthews III, who died for our sins?

But what if it was theoretically Amare on the trade block that year? Pierce/Amare/Allen/Rondo may not have a ring, but they'd be a top 2 team in the East those few years and maybe play in a finals. That's still 10x better than the Bucks have done the past 25 years aside from one season of a nice run.

I don't see how you can write this stuff off as luck. The actual champion is going to need some luck. The Lakers needed luck to get Gasol in that garbage trade and they are lucky that he was available and that the Grizzlies' GM was willing to take roofies that night. The Spurs were lucky that Robinson had a season ending injury the year that Duncan was going to be available. The Heat were lucky that Shaq was on the block that season.

But the common denominator here is that all of these teams were prepared for these things and had good management in place. All of these trades/picks involved some long-term vision.

The Thunder lucked into Durant being their guy in that season. That said, they amassed so much other talent that they'd at least be a competing East team if they had gotten, say, Horford instead of Durant.

[humanrefutation]

I think the use of Boston as a viable example is kind of silly, honestly. Yes, they did tank, but they walked into a situation where they had the pieces ready to acquire Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett without giving up Pierce, have those players accept trades to Boston (a major market and a historically prominent franchise), and be able to absorb their contracts. Afterwards, they still had money to go out and augment those three pieces with solid role players, and they had a PG prospect develop in ways not many predicted.

I don't think that is entirely luck, mind you. But it rarely happens to small markets like that. Look at Pritchard in Portland...he kept adding assets over and over hoping to make that major splash...and he never did. You need the right combination of circumstance, opportunity, and intelligence to make the right move.

I definitely agree I'd prefer the OKC model, and I think Hammond was working towards that model until we unexpectedly made a playoff splash last season. Once that happened, he/Kohl got greedy and made some foolish signings. Maybe he'll be able to turn it around next season.

[yuedar]

well I agree that those teams were in a position to take advantage of some lop sided deal as you mentioned however I don't feel any of those things apply to the bucks because I have a feeling that Kohl wanted hammond to go ape shizzle over free agency this year.
I really don't think Kohl will go over on a OKC model because it will take to long to do and thats why I don't think a change in GM is going to improve anything on our end. I feel consistency is our best option.
Since ive been a self titled hardcore fan of the bucks I don't recall us ever having any major cap flexibility and when we did we just went out and spent it right away. We didn't wait. You mean to tell me we always had bad GM's? Maybe. But maybe its just Kohl putting an order out to go spend right away. Simmons, gadz, magloire, maggs,gooden, salmons come to mind. I really just don't feel a change in GM is going to do anything for us in the grand scheme of things. it might change the team up from a hammond model to harris model again but will that really raise us above say 7th place? probably not.. unless we get lucky on the year kohl wants our GM to spend and we happen to get a player worth the money we shell out.

also while I do like how OKC got good. I think they too got lucky. They not only were able to land Durant but then were able to turn around and draft Westbrook a year later. Or was it 2? Anyway its lucky to me. If it were that easy to land 2 stars like that in a row we'd have done it by now.

[Kerb Hohl]

I'm not suggesting we should become Boston, I'm saying if we had a method of building where we tanked for good picks and massed talent, we could do that if we wanted to. Not saying it would mean a championship, but it is another way to be very competitive.

Sure, we'd all prefer the Pritchard model. That said, if we had enough young pieces it isn't as if we couldn't do a Future 1st + 2 young assets for All-Star A and high 1st plus expiring and asset for All-Star B to put along with Bogut. We could do that, if we had something called young talent.

[Kerb Hohl]

well I agree that those teams were in a position to take advantage of some lop sided deal as you mentioned however I don't feel any of those things apply to the bucks because I have a feeling that Kohl wanted hammond to go ape shizzle over free agency this year.
I really don't think Kohl will go over on a OKC model because it will take to long to do and thats why I don't think a change in GM is going to improve anything on our end. I feel consistency is our best option.
Since ive been a self titled hardcore fan of the bucks I don't recall us ever having any major cap flexibility and when we did we just went out and spent it right away. We didn't wait. You mean to tell me we always had bad GM's? Maybe. But maybe its just Kohl putting an order out to go spend right away. Simmons, gadz, magloire, maggs,gooden, salmons come to mind. I really just don't feel a change in GM is going to do anything for us in the grand scheme of things. it might change the team up from a hammond model to harris model again but will that really raise us above say 7th place? probably not.. unless we get lucky on the year kohl wants our GM to spend and we happen to get a player worth the money we shell out.

The Kohl thing may be right, but I would prefer a Larry Harris-esque guy again if that is the case.

Why? Because he had enough variability in his style that we may have actually ended up in the tank realm at some point.

We'd also have enough young talent to acquire another all-star for the team. We had Sessions, CV, Mo, etc. all at points of "young/high" talent.

Maybe we'd have the young pieces in place that one year for a lucky trade for a superstar.

Hammond is just going to put together this consistent, 35-45 win garbage and slowly murder this franchise.

[yuedar]

I agree there I'd like a harris type GM over hammond because looking back at things most of our good players now came from him. I'd just hate to drop hammond now when we could be saying the same thing about him 3-4 years later. Tho I'm not sure we would be saying that I guess I just would like to see what would happen with a fully healthy team. I feel hammond is owed that.

[Kerb Hohl]

I agree there I'd like a harris type GM over hammond because looking back at things most of our good players now came from him. I'd just hate to drop hammond now when we could be saying the same thing about him 3-4 years later. Tho I'm not sure we would be saying that I guess I just would like to see what would happen with a fully healthy team. I feel hammond is owed that.

This fully healthy team isn't going anywhere and doesn't have any young pieces aside from Jennings and Ersan (Harris guy).

Maybe the fully healthy team is Fear the Deer part 2. I just don't know who the John Salmons February-April 2010 would be. And Fear the Deer part 2 probably isn't getting above 6th seed in this deeper East. Maybe 5th, but they're not winning a playoff series.

I just don't feel like wasting my time anymore for a "if everything goes right, we're a slightly above average team" thing.

[yuedar]

quite honestly I agree this team wouldn't go any higher then 5th (pipe-dream as it is) but I think the bucks would be winning if we made it anywhere above 7th until the east weakens out again or if we somehow land a star LUCKILY.
A change in GM won't get the bucks any higher then 5th either. I really feel the future is bleak for the bucks unless they get lucky.

The only thing I feel hammond does poorly is draft. So in that aspect I guess I contradict myself and he hurts our chances at getting lucky for that star player via the draft but considering where were drafting I think our odds of getting lucky aren't very high and consistency out weighs it atleast in the short term of 1 more year to see what he can do.

I hope we can get rid of salmons and if hammond can I feel he earns himself a extra year added to his contract.

[Kerb Hohl]

Well, almost the only way for a team like Milwaukee to be good is to draft well....soooo.....

[JayMKE]

if it were just the disappointing season I'd say give him another year but Gooden, Salmons, and Maggette are unforgivable. He must be fired.

[Shinyhubcaps]

To be fair, Salmons is having an exceptionally bad year. I'd need to see if this held true through the whole year, but here's my post from mid-season:



Basically, his shooting percentages went up every year except for this year and last. (Since this was midseason, I had to use pessimistic averages to estimate whether he was shooting worse in the first half or the season on the whole.)

If Hammond stays on, I'd like to see what he can do to unload Maggette. Something like unloading RJ would be nice, which landed us Kurt Thomas and the pieces to acquire Delfino. The likely lockout would prevent that from happening though.

And Gooden... OK, that one's unforgivable.

[yuedar]

Well, almost the only way for a team like Milwaukee to be good is to draft well....soooo.....

yes, but (and correct me if i'm wrong) ive been reading the draft this year is weak. I am no draft expert I don't watch college and know nothing about the upcoming draft just going off what I read on this forum. So if im off that assumption whats the harm in giving Hammond 1 more year to see what he can do, give this organization a chance at stability, and hopefully correct a mistake or 2 and maybe right the ship a touch?

[AussieBuck]

2 out of 3 years he failed to see that the team was obviously doomed before the trade deadline and made the incredibly stupid and futile decision to chase the 8th **** seed.

The sum total of the valuable guys he bought in probably wouldn't be valuable enough to move the negative value guys he acquired. His contribution to the team is a net negative.

He's made several absolutely indefensibly moronic decisions that were obvious well in advance.

He's wasted 3 years of our only above average player's prime.

By any reasonable measure he's failed us.

John Hammond should be fired literally out of town from a giant circus cannon.

[ampd]

2John Hammond should be fired literally out of town from a giant circus cannon.

Yeah this season has been such a big question mark.

He acquired 3 guys (Maggette, Gooden, CDR) that Skiles seemed like he didn't even want, and the relatively promising but raw rookie Larry Sanders was given wildly inconsistent playing time seemingly regardless of his performance, was sent to the D League for all of a week, and still isn't getting much time despite the team being totally out of it.

He decided to go for the 8th seed but didn't make any moves at the deadline to get the team actually there, or to free up cap space for next season, or to rectify the mistakes he made that were riding the bench getting no playing time, or to get any additional draft picks, or even bother to sign a legitimate backup C who is taller than our shooting guard.

The team has lacked shooters for 2 years now and he hasn't found a consistent one, and hasn't traded for one either.

[AussieBuck]

Technically Hammond found a shooter in Meeks. He's hitting shots at Ray Allen %'s.

[Dale Cooper]

Why not get rid of Skiles instead?

Hammond's not the greatest drafter, but he at least got the team's second best player (sadly) in Moute. His offseason deals may look bad now, but they made sense. He had a 46 win team, and filled all of its needs. Is it his fault the team flamed out, got injured and quit on Skiles?

Based on his work in Detroit and 09-10, Hammond's the guy you want in Milwaukee. Only Pritchard would be an available upgrade.