Who wants to help promote Stephen Jackson's club appearance?

[paul]

So we're going to abuse Hammond based on a hypothetical assessment of a situation rather than the reality, and that's OK?

Even in a "weak draft", the value board for moving back from 7 to 19 is very high. I just see no other GM's around the league who could justify dropping that far and only obtaining Sean Livingston in return.

If that trade in a vacuum runs across the desk on ESPN on draft night, Ric Bucher, Jay Bilas and Andy Katz all spit out their soda. It instantly makes Chad Ford's column the next morning on "What was Milwaukee thinking?!?"

I think the better way to defend that trade is to simply say that if Jackson played to his career norm, he would have been a positive asset for this team and given them a shot at FTD II. As much as I don't like Hammond, even the original detractors of that deal from last June would never have forecast the guy would be this bad.

Yeah, or we could just take an unbiased look at the actual result of the trade rather than continuing to talk in extreme hypotheticals? Just a thought though.

[Newz]

You know it's bad when you think moving back 12 spots in the first round of the draft was even close to okay just because you got back a decent bench player.

Why are we forgetting about Tobias Harris all of a sudden?

When did I forget about Tobias Harris?

If he ends up being a legit starter (a top 15 player in the NBA at his position), then I think the trade will have been worth it. Because that's what you should be getting when you pick 7.

[worthlessBucks]

He's a good back up swing man who can play some emergency PG. We signed that in Mike Dunleavy on a cheap contract this offseason... those guys are easy to find, dime a dozen time of players.

He was effectively salary filler for this trade. I'm sure they liked him and wanted him, but the whole deal was truthfully to get win now pieces in Jackson and Udrih (dumping Mags/Salmons) while still drafting 1 of the players they like in the draft. Jackson has been win now fail.

[paulpressey25]

Yeah, or we could just take an unbiased look at the actual result of the trade rather than continuing to talk in extreme hypotheticals? Just a thought though.

It goes to the heart of the competency thing.

I could give the clerk at the store a $100 bill and only ask for $25 dollars in scratch off lottery tickets back. Just because perhaps one of those $25 worth of tickets turns out to be a winner doesn't mean it was real smart for me to part with that $100 and only get $25 back.

[Fight the Tank]

Every analyst out there said that was a great trade for the Bucks at the time. It probably still is since it was a one man draft with some depth to it and Harris looks as good as anyone taken in between.

[europa]

You know it's bad when you think moving back 12 spots in the first round of the draft was even close to okay just because you got back a decent bench player.

Why are we forgetting about Tobias Harris all of a sudden?

When did I forget about Tobias Harris?

If he ends up being a legit starter (a top 15 player in the NBA at his position), then I think the trade will have been worth it. Because that's what you should be getting when you pick 7.

Agreed. It's interesting that everyone seems to agree that we need some time to decide if this was a good trade and yet some people are blasting it to hell simultaneously. The only reason that's being done in my opinion is because most people here think Hammond's an idiot so everything he does must suck.

As I said to Press, you'll get no argument from me that as we sit here today in Hammond's fourth season he's failed to build a strong playoff team. But that doesn't mean every move he made has sucked and is the worst move ever and other words to that effect.

[paul]

Yeah, or we could just take an unbiased look at the actual result of the trade rather than continuing to talk in extreme hypotheticals? Just a thought though.

It goes to the heart of the competency thing.

I could give the clerk at the store a $100 bill and only ask for $25 dollars in scratch off lottery tickets back. Just because perhaps one of those $25 worth of tickets turns out to be a winner doesn't mean it was real smart for me to part with that $100 and only get $25 back.

Gees, now they're getting more extreme Press!

Ok if we're going to go for hypotheticals let's try this one. Say I'm the GM of a small market NBA team with a win now mandate and not a lot of money. I out smarted myself last season by bringing in two career losers, one of him completely killed my previously great team chemistry and I'm desperate to offload him. I'm trading up to pick at 7 in the upcoming draft but don't love any of the prospects in that range, in fact the kid I really like looks like he'll be available until pick 20.
A team approaches me with a trade offer to unload the cancer for an equally risky guy who if he plays well will help my team and earns slightly less money and while a bit of a lose cannon is seen as a good teammate, plus a guard who I really like and think can be a real positive for my team. All I have to do is drop from 7 to 19 in the draft where the kid I want will still be available anyway and will be on a much friendlier salary.

Do I take the deal?

[James1980]

What does DaStrillJak mean anyways, the real jack?

[LUKE23]

Every analyst out there said that was a great trade for the Bucks at the time. It probably still is since it was a one man draft with some depth to it and Harris looks as good as anyone taken in between.

Every analyst said that? Even if they did, so what?

Also, it's far too early to say he looks as good as anyone taken in between. To act like 2 and 19 in this draft are comparable is kind of iffy too, since that is never the case.

[paulpressey25]

For me the trade can salvage if Tobias Harris >> Biyombo. Simply because that's the guy I would have taken there.

Brandon Knight is a tougher story. He wouldn't fit here with Jennings, but he was one of those guys who fell on draft night from where he was projected. Many times those guys who are in the mocks at 2-3 range and then on draft night that drop to 8-10 pan out IMO.

Jimmer, Burks, etc I didn't have a huge interest in.

Paul-I don't disagree with the arguments for the trade as it relates to Jackson. On the surface, that had logical support for it on a win-now basis. I'm just discussing above the idea that if viewed without Jackson, the trade could still be justified.

[europa]

Paul-I don't disagree with the arguments for the trade as it relates to Jackson. On the surface, that had logical support for it on a win-now basis. I'm just discussing above the idea that if viewed without Jackson, the trade could still be justified.

Not Paul but depending on how good Harris becomes Harris/Livingston for 7 could absolutely end up being justified.

[paulpressey25]

Not Paul but depending on how good Harris becomes Harris/Livingston for 7 could absolutely end up being justified.

I guess I wouldn't use the term justified. The result could be better If the guy you would have taken at #7 ends up being worse than Tobias. But if you are getting results on luck versus skill, in the long-run that won't do much good. Although I suppose in the NBA if you luck into all star it doesn't matter since all-stars are so critical.

I also don't think you can say "every guy" taken between 7-19 counts in that analysis. You have to stake out the guy you would have taken at #7 and then compare.

[LUKE23]

If you believe BuckPack, we take Burks at 7.

[paul]

Every analyst out there said that was a great trade for the Bucks at the time. It probably still is since it was a one man draft with some depth to it and Harris looks as good as anyone taken in between.

Every analyst said that? Even if they did, so what?

Also, it's far too early to say he looks as good as anyone taken in between. To act like 2 and 19 in this draft are comparable is kind of iffy too, since that is never the case.

Right, so you're saying it's far too early to make any judgements long term on the picks, right?

So what are you doing judging the result of the trade then?

[europa]

I also don't think you can say "every guy" taken between 7-19 counts in that analysis. You have to stake out the guy you would have taken at #7 and then compare.

That probably would've been Burks since Tristan Thompson was off the board.

[paul]

If you believe BuckPack, we take Burks at 7.

Burks AND Harris were the two guys we liked was my understanding. Was that wrong?

[LUKE23]

Every analyst out there said that was a great trade for the Bucks at the time. It probably still is since it was a one man draft with some depth to it and Harris looks as good as anyone taken in between.

Every analyst said that? Even if they did, so what?

Also, it's far too early to say he looks as good as anyone taken in between. To act like 2 and 19 in this draft are comparable is kind of iffy too, since that is never the case.

Right, so you're saying it's far too early to make any judgements long term on the picks, right?

So what are you doing judging the result of the trade then?

The fact that Jax has not only played awful for us, but is probably untradeable for anything at this point, and the odds that Harris is better than guys taken 7-18, which I'd say is slim, even seeing early returns.

[paul]

So it's too early to judge it positively but not too early to judge it negatively?

[europa]

If you believe BuckPack, we take Burks at 7.

Burks AND Harris were the two guys we liked was my understanding. Was that wrong?

Tristan Thompson, Burks and Harris were the top guys on the board.

[LUKE23]

So it's too early to judge it positively but not too early to judge it negatively?

I'm judging it negatively based on how bad Jax has been, which is out of this world bad, paired with the fact that the chances of moving down that far in the draft ending up being a good move being slim. Yes, if Harris hits it's a good move, although I somewhat agree with PP that I certainly don't want this to become a commonplace form of building for the Bucks (moving down in the draft to swap identical contracts). It's clear we don't value draft picks highly or put a lot of assets into our scouting department. That needs to change.