bigkurty wrote:kid idioteque wrote:If Zanik was a shoo-in they'd have announced him already.
Be worried.
I am worried for sure. But I also have some irrational hope they pull something bigger and better off.
Has someone posted, MTC yet?
Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis
bigkurty wrote:kid idioteque wrote:If Zanik was a shoo-in they'd have announced him already.
Be worried.
I am worried for sure. But I also have some irrational hope they pull something bigger and better off.
HKPackFan wrote:Spoiler:
It was absolutely enthralling, but I got a little lost when the penny masturbation started...Turned into some strange porn real quick. Could have been the Mallory factor which would have made sense to me...
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."
I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
stellation wrote:Somewhere Hammy and his wife are kicking back with a glass of riesling, talking excitedly of the warm times ahead and waiting for removalists to start ringing them with offers.
coolhandluke121 wrote:Dan Z wrote:Things sure have changed...I remember reading these boards a few years ago and many people wanted Hammond to go. Now it sounds like you'd like him to stay.
I'll always defend him against "bottom-5" criticisms and I think owners and coaches have meddled, but in no way am I against moving on from him. Just make sure you get someone better. He didn't seem to have mastered the nuances of the CBA, didn't negotiate well, didn't always seem to care about fit, and had a perplexing tendency to overload one or two positions every year, to the detriment of others. That alone will prevent them from taking the next step, but it doesn't make him a terrible gm. Drafting is the most important part of the job, and he nailed it. Wish he could stay as a consultant/scout.
MickeyDavis wrote:The relationship soured when Hammond wasn't allowed to fire Kidd? I would have thought the relationship soured when Kidd was hired without Hammond knowing anything about it.
HKPackFan wrote:
paulpressey25 wrote:MickeyDavis wrote:The relationship soured when Hammond wasn't allowed to fire Kidd? I would have thought the relationship soured when Kidd was hired without Hammond knowing anything about it.
Might be true. That said Hammond's best strength was politics. He knew how to leak out just enough stuff to the right people to keep his power and influence.
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."
I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
freewhitemoon wrote:GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:Baddy Chuck wrote:When you literally waste $12 million in an offseason that could be used to improve your team, whether or not you can get out of it a year later, it's surely a bad contract that hindered your ability to build a competent team.
nah. thats a bad definition. guys that don't work out aren't bad contracts unless theyre immoveable. this board loved the shots we took this offseason. like **** LOVED it loved it besides plumlee who of course we moved. plumlee is a footnote. hes a guy we sniffed and now hes gone. that's all.
again.....the only bad deals are the ones you cant move if the guy takes a dump. you need to get your head around that.
You need to take into account the opportunity cost.... giving the money to Plumlee to suck for 3/4 of the season instead of a guy who could've helped.
GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:no.. you really don't. we are talking about the definition of BAD contracts here. a BAD contract in the nba and 3/4 of a season don't go in the same sentence.
some contracts are great. some are good. some are meh..... but another team wants the contract to try for themselves. and then theres the bad ones. they cant all be great or good. sometimes you sign a guy and decide to trade him because he isn't working out. that isn't a bad contract. a bad contract is a guy like that which you cant trade and hes got a bunch of years left. that's Drew gooden.
kid idioteque wrote:Everyone who's celebrating this like it's automatically a good thing can **** off. You're clueless.
GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:
no.. you really don't. we are talking about the definition of BAD contracts here. a BAD contract in the nba and 3/4 of a season don't go in the same sentence.
some contracts are great. some are good. some are meh..... but another team wants the contract to try for themselves. and then theres the bad ones. they cant all be great or good. sometimes you sign a guy and decide to trade him because he isn't working out. that isn't a bad contract. a bad contract is a guy like that which you cant trade and hes got a bunch of years left. that's Drew gooden.
kid idioteque wrote:Max Green wrote:Dear John,
Says the guy who wouldn't stop posting about how the Bucks should sign Dwight Howard.