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

[AussieBuck]

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.

Excellent work!

[BC_]

[Sigra]

This forum is sooooo out of reality

[BC_]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IQlhoy-LJo[/youtube]

[Sigra]

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.

As always you miss context. If they are 60 bad players in draft then you can't blame GM for drafting bad player. Context is everything. Last 3 drafts were bad drafts with not much talent aviable.

Who would you draft in those 3 drafts? Not in hindsights but at that time. Who you wanted to draft at the time of draft? Please post a list of your picks in 1st and 2nd round in those 3 drafts. Be honest and tell us who you wanted to draft with our picks. We can dig old thread made before each of this drafts but I will trust you and your memory insteed.

I guess in first draft you wanted Lopez and CDR? Hammond got Moute and JA
In 2nd draft you wanted Holiday and something? Hammond got Jennings and Meeks.
In 3rd draft you wanted what?

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.

Again, missing context.
RJ may not be great for us but he was better than Simmons and Yi. Way better.
Ridnour was better than Mo for our team chemistry and team composition. Mo was poison.
Bogans was better than Lue.
Delfino and Thomas were better than RJ.
Salmons was better than Warrick and JA.
Maggette was better than Bell and Gadz.

All of his trades were sucess. Was something better aviable? I don't know. And you don't know eather even though many insiders (desperate for attention) will tell you all kind of stories.

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

You are missing Bogut and Ersan who are both re-signed for cheap. You are also missing Hammond's great decisions to not overpay for worthless "empty stats" players like CV and Sessions. You are also missing Stackhouse, Dooling and Brockman.

And of course you are again missing context. Elson, Lue, Warrick, Boykins, Stackhouse, Dooling, Brockman are all signed for cheap small contracts that are not important at all. Role players on small contracts. Gooden is signed for MLE but that is ok for that kind of PF (see Lee).

But most importantly, again, who was aviable? Who wants to sign for Milwaukee?

Context is everything. Hammond improved this team as much as posible considering everything. This team is in Milwaukee for God's sake. **** hole of USA. Last 3 drafts didn't have talent where we picked. Owner medling and wants to win now. And we had most injuries in NBA. Grow up and accept reality of life.

[lawrybeard]

No.

He's made a few errors which have been blown out of proportion here. The one thing he absolutely has to fix is his biggest mistake in re-signing Skiles. Skiles did his job during the 'culture change' period, but he's not a real coach and is killing it for the young guys on the team.

I'd give Hammond next year, and re-evaluate then.

[worthlessBucks]

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

Based on Joe's work? Hammond fetched him coffee and left post it note reminders around the office for all we know. He was the VPOBO, not the GM. Those were Joe's moves, Hammond 'assisted' Joe in the process.

John's original plan, which really wasn't a plan, was pretty damn amusing -- blame predecessor and bide time until our salary structure improves. He swapped a few chairs around, but in the end, we would have had the flexibility had no moves been made. Every GM has a few year window right after taking over to experiment and blame your predecessor.

"If the right opportunity comes up for us, the right player with a contract that we may not deem to be favorable, that doesn't mean we will necessarily say no to that," Hammond said. "If it's the right player and a player we think we can move forward with and it might have an effect on our flexibility, we may still do a deal for that."

You are missing Bogut and Ersan who are both re-signed for cheap. You are also missing Hammond's great decisions to not overpay for worthless "empty stats" players like CV and Sessions. You are also missing Stackhouse, Dooling and Brockman.

Empty stats, hah. If only CV and Sessions were lucky enough to have been dubbed 'fate'.

[hurtem]

Another topic made with purely the discontent of the seasons final result.

[paulpressey25]

I guess in first draft you wanted Lopez and CDR? Hammond got Moute and JA
In 2nd draft you wanted Holiday and something? Hammond got Jennings and Meeks.
In 3rd draft you wanted what?

You are making the assumption that you have to sit at those picks and would not be able to trade up/down or trade the pick for veteran help. Before that draft, I really wanted him to trade the 2008 pick along with Gadz to the Knicks for David Lee. There was also talk the Knicks would give up their pick #6 (Gallo) for Redd.

A couple other comments. Let's say Hammond just ended up with Brook Lopez and Jrue Holiday in back to back drafts. Those two moves alone would have us in significantly better shape and there likely wouldn't be a thread wanting Hammond fired in 2011.

[Sigra]

You are making the assumption that you have to sit at those picks and would not be able to trade up/down or trade the pick for veteran help .

And you are making assumption that other GMs would do something just because Hammond wants that. Oh I know. It is Hammond's fault because he can't close the deal

Before that draft, I really wanted him to trade the 2008 pick along with Gadz to the Knicks for David Lee.

I am sorryy PP, but sometimes you really look like that little kid who cry because his father didn't buy something to him. Something that he wanted. I wanted to trade all of our picks in last 3 years because I thought that drafts are weak in talent (I was right). But just because I wanted something it doesn't mean that was posible. I am old enough to understand that. You can't always get what you want.

A couple other comments. Let's say Hammond just ended up with Brook Lopez and Jrue Holiday in back to back drafts. Those two moves alonewould have us in significantly better shape and there likely wouldn't be a thread wanting Hammond fired in 2011.

Holiday over Jennings wouldn't change a thing. If anything we wouldn't have last year massive excitment when Jenning went crazy. Jennings is still more talented player and if he get his head streight he will be better player as well.

Lopez is hot garbage. Just last night he had 35 points but Nets lost and it was blow up from Raptors. Raptors played without their entire starting 5 but dominated against Lopez and Nets. It was again 35 points of empty stats. The guy is definition of empty stats. Like Ramon Sessions or CV. I HONESTLY prefer Moute over him. I swear with God.

[LUKE23]

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.

I'm going to have to disagree strongly here. The primary elements of the OKC model are:

1. Having a clear cap
2. Amassing as many picks/young players/trade assets as possible
3. Sticking to a 3-5 year plan of developing a core, without adding non-impact veteran contracts

In Hammond's FIRST YEAR, he had the opportunity (in a year we were going to be lottery regardless, mind you, as Bogut was done for the season before the halfway point) to clear both Redd and RJ from our books, which I believe would have been a combined $31M off our cap, for players that were not all-stars at all. At that point, we could have instituted an OKC model, probably would have been sub 30 wins that year (ended at 34 with RJ playing well down the stretch), with a better pick, a clear cap, and maybe we use the savings to try and buy another first or get a 1st back for Redd/RJ.

Instead, we don't trade RJ to Cleveland because it "churns our stomach" (ignoring that what other teams are doing is irrelevant to our team building, especially if we are going to rebuild), and for God knows what reason don't trade Redd. Then he tears his knee up and the rest is history.

The OKC model takes the following elements:

1. Patience
2. Ability to scout talent very well
3. An understanding of how bad contracts kill your plan

Hammond has failed at all three. Hell, the guy won't even work to somehow land a pick before 37 so we can get a guy like DeJuan Blair. These are the types of things that the shrewd GM's (Presti, Pritchard, Morey) realize they need to do not being in a super big market. The best asset addition we have done is nabbing some extra 2nds. We need better than that. What Milwaukee should be doing is amassing as many assets as possible so that when trades do pop up, we at least have a chance. We have arguably the least desirable roster in the league for trade assets right now.

[LUKE23]

No.

He's made a few errors which have been blown out of proportion here. The one thing he absolutely has to fix is his biggest mistake in re-signing Skiles. Skiles did his job during the 'culture change' period, but he's not a real coach and is killing it for the young guys on the team.

I'd give Hammond next year, and re-evaluate then.

Skiles had us 2nd in D last year and 4th in D this year, and had a competent offense when people were actually making shots (30 games of Salmons). It will never happen, but I wish that the anti-Skiles crowd could see this identical team with a different coach. I absolutely GUARANTEE the fall off in defense would be greater than the gain in offense. So a worse team.

You need dynamic offensive players to win. We don't have them. That isn't on Skiles.

[rrravenred]

Keep 'im. I'd argue this year has been a horrid, horrid anomaly. This isn't to claim he's a genius, or that his moves have all hit, but we're a more talented team than the results indicate, and I give him one more year to let it gel.

A healthy squad, a refocused Jennings and Salmons. Hell, I'm even of the camp that Maggette and Gooden can actually be good contributors on this team. IF we're six or seven under .500 by mid next year? Fire Hammonds, and Skiles for that mattter (I think Skiles avoids a lot of deserved heat on this board).

There is no quick fix, despite the silver bullet hopes of half the damn board. And that people are suggesting we bottom out and reboot? Well that strategy fails as well as succeeds.

[smauss]

Should be but won't be!

[LUKE23]

Keep 'im. I'd argue this year has been a horrid, horrid anomaly. This isn't to claim he's a genius, or that his moves have all hit, but we're a more talented team than the results indicate, and I give him one more year to let it gel.

A healthy squad, a refocused Jennings and Salmons. Hell, I'm even of the camp that Maggette and Gooden can actually be good contributors on this team. IF we're six or seven under .500 by mid next year? Fire Hammonds, and Skiles for that mattter (I think Skiles avoids a lot of deserved heat on this board).

There is no quick fix, despite the silver bullet hopes of half the damn board. And that people are suggesting we bottom out and reboot? Well that strategy fails as well as succeeds.

The problem is that one bad "anomaly" results in contracts that cripple us for multiple seasons.

In reference to your last sentence, I'd say tearing it down doesn't have a sure fire success rate, however, it definitely has better odds of working than trying to either develop or trade to a contending core out of our current roster. Look at our trade assets. There are zero.

Again, if the goal is contention, and not just being first round fodder, it's going to take drastic, tear it down type changes. If the goal is just to make the playoffs, then this core is fine.

[Sigra]

No.

He's made a few errors which have been blown out of proportion here. The one thing he absolutely has to fix is his biggest mistake in re-signing Skiles. Skiles did his job during the 'culture change' period, but he's not a real coach and is killing it for the young guys on the team.

I'd give Hammond next year, and re-evaluate then.

Skiles had us 2nd in D last year and 4th in D this year, and had a competent offense when people were actually making shots (30 games of Salmons). It will never happen, but I wish that the anti-Skiles crowd could see this identical team with a different coach. I absolutely GUARANTEE the fall off in defense would be greater than the gain in offense. So a worse team.

You need dynamic offensive players to win. We don't have them. That isn't on Skiles.

We have players who were able to score before Skiles. What we don't have is anything even close to team offense. All year long we had onle one-on-one and pick and role/pop. That was all.

[LUKE23]

:rofl: We have players who were able to score before Skiles. What we don't have is anything even close to team offense. All year long we had onle one-on-one and pick and role/pop. That was all.

Like who? Maggette is the only above average offensive player on our roster for career. Salmons and Bogut were around league average, and Bogut came in with one arm. The rest were all below average.

And once again, ignore my point on D. Like I said, new coach (outside of the top guys who we wouldn't get) = greater falloff in D than gain in O. I'd wager anything on it.

[Jez2983]

I'd give him another year. I think us Aussies are happier for a little more time as we haven't been supporting Organisation Fail for 20+ years.

And Skiles is the perfect coach for this team. He's able to produce spectacular results intermittently, much like our players.

[rilamann]

No doubt Hamond should be fired,to me it's not even a question.

The team is worse off now in both talent and roster flexibility than when Hammond took over in 2008.

If 3 years ago someone would have told me the Bucks will be worse off in 2011 than they are right now my response would have been...how?

The team was in such a horrible poistion you would think the only way to go would have been up,even with a medicore GM.

Ladies and gentlemen I present to you John Hammond.

[lawrybeard]

No.

He's made a few errors which have been blown out of proportion here. The one thing he absolutely has to fix is his biggest mistake in re-signing Skiles. Skiles did his job during the 'culture change' period, but he's not a real coach and is killing it for the young guys on the team.

I'd give Hammond next year, and re-evaluate then.

Skiles had us 2nd in D last year and 4th in D this year, and had a competent offense when people were actually making shots (30 games of Salmons). It will never happen, but I wish that the anti-Skiles crowd could see this identical team with a different coach. I absolutely GUARANTEE the fall off in defense would be greater than the gain in offense. So a worse team.

You need dynamic offensive players to win. We don't have them. That isn't on Skiles.

I guess it comes down to how much you want to give credit to the coach for defense. I mean, once players get to the NBA they already know how to play D, so all the coach is really doing is holding them accountable. For that reason I think the credit for a solid defensive team should go to the GM just as much (or perhaps more so) as the coach as it's as much about the roster than anything.

Give Skiles the 07-08 Bucks team with Redd, Mo, Sessions, CV, Yi, Bobby Simmons & a 23 year old Bogut and lets so what he get out of that defensively. Hammond got rid of all of the offensively minded players and replaced them for the most part with defensive players. Our D rating went up and last year we won 46 games. It's not as though Skiles suddenly got the guys to start playing D.