What the Casual (Dumb) NBA Fan Doesn't Understand...

In looking at various blog posts, and comments on the Bucks signing of veteran swing-man, Jerry Stackhouse, I'm stunned. I'm stunned so many fans are against this move. Not only against, but whole-heartedly hate it.

They don't get it.

So, explain to me, what the issue is with signing Stackhouse for a minimal contract for the rest of the season.

One writer for example, is woefully off base.

Lets tackle his assertions here, shall we.

1) Waste Herb Kohl's money. Sure, Jerry should come cheap but a cheap player the Bucks don't need is still a waste of money. One would think that Hammond would have learned his lesson after his remarkably useless acquisitions of Francisco Elson, Malik Allen and Salim Stoudamire (last April), and the decision to keep sluggish 37-year-old Kurt Thomas for "veteran leadership" purposes.

Right, beacuse, it's always terrible to sign guys like Malik Allen (when you have no depth in the front court) and Salim Stoudamire (for virtually no money) to one year deals. That always comes back to kill you. And keeping Kurt Thomas, who's also on a one year deal, and hoping he plays well enough to either help you out and provide veteran leadership, or increases trade value when teams are looking for a big man in February, is also a majorly bad idea. John Hammond should have just outright released him and lost a potential asset. Good call.

2) Shoot poorly. Another great shooter would join the fold with the acquisition of Stackhouse, right, just as it did when the freakishly inconsistent Carlos Delfino joined the team? Not a chance. Check Stackhouse' career shooting. 30.6 percent from Downtown and 41 percent overall. With the Bucks all but dead last in the league in shooting and the Skiles offensive system dependent on a few good gunners (Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich), the last thing the Bucks need is another 30 percent three-baller.

I was unaware this move was made, only for sake of adding a three point shooter. I thought it was made because Michael Redd won't be back, and Delfino and Charlie Bell should not be starting in this league. My bad. You're right, they should have gone out there and signed one of the many 50%+ three point shooters there are, sitting unsigned. Oh, wait...

3) Keep rookie sharpshooter Jodie Meeks on the Bucks bench. Being young is what the Bucks should be all about in Brandon Jennings' rookie year. The tough defense and good three-point shooting of Charlie Bell is all the help the Bucks need from an age 30-plus player, and the addition of Stackhouse could well cut into Charlie's playing time, too. The Bucks need to shoot better and the Redd injury is the perfect opportunity to play Meeks, the Bucks deadliest long range shooter. Let the rookie play and learn on the go. And make shots. Play Jerry Stackhouse instead?

And here is the biggest problem with the arguement. For one, I find it humorous that the writer bashes Stackhouse and his shooting, while praising Charlie Bell and his "good three-point shooting" and labels Jodie Meeks a rookie sharpshooter. I hate to break it to you, guy, but Meeks is a 30% shooter from beyond the arc. You know, the same percentage you bashed Jerry Stackhouse for carrying. Oh and Charlie Bell and his 36% career three-point percentage is hardly what I would call "good." Nice try though.

As I said though, I could already see where he was taking this, and this was the biggest issue. Most fans just don't understand the NBA. While it's nice to say we should start Jennings and Meeks and trade all of our older players under contract for draft picks, thats not how it works. For one, you have no real commodities. Luke Ridnour and Dan Gadzuric are not netting you top 10 draft picks. Secondly, this team needs to make the playoffs, this year.

If there's one thing the average fan does not get, it's revenue. In the NBA, the playoff gate is HUGE. That is where you make all your money. Playing for the lottery, year in, year out, really gives you nothing. For one, lottery picks are hit or miss, unless there's a LeBron, D-Wade, Durant or Dwight Howard out there, and secondly, the Bucks are routinely caught in no man's land, where they're looking at the 7-10 pick. That doesn't help. In order for the Bucks to start to crawl out of this decade-long hole they're in, they need to make money. In order to make money, they need to make the playoffs.

4) Jack shots. The man they call Jackhouse was quite the chucker in Detroit, an astounding 24 shots per game 2000-2001 on a lousy team before Joe Dumars was hired as Pistons GM. Then came Dumars and new coach Rick Carlisle and a one-year experiment to see if Stack could work it out. Jerry shot less and the Pistons won 50 in 2002 but Stack was traded to the Wizards for Rip Hamilton, one in a series of shrewd moves by the Pistons that built the 2004 NBA championship team. John Hammond should remember all of this -- he was working for Dumars at the time, and he should remember well how the Piston added player after player around their defensive anchor, Big Ben Wallace. He should remember that Stackhouse was part of the problem, not the solution. And he should keep in mind that Stackhouse's fate in Detroit was the perfect script (minus the 50 wins part) for a certain me-first shooting guard, Michael Redd

OK, first off, the one thing he is correct on is that Michael Redd does not help this team. Not exactly reinventing the wheel there, or making a bold claim, but he is correct. Again though, I don't get comparing 28 year old Jerry Stackhouse, a starter in the NBA, who was putting up 22+ points a night, to the 35 year old, role-playing Jerry Stackhouse. Thats basically like criticizing Ted Thompson for signing Ahman Green to be a backup, and stunting the growth of Brandon Jackson. It's a real stretch.

Yes, John Hammond was the right-hand man in Detroit, when a very overrated Joe Dumars was the GM in Detroit during their Championship run. Yes, Joe Dumars was overrated, I said it (drafting Darko, trading Chauncey Billups for AI, then using the money he freed up to overpay Ben Gordon and Charlie V to long-term deals). What Hammond has done, is what every, for lack of a better term, mid-market NBA team needs to do to succeed:

1. Draft well
I'm not talking about taking guys like Brandon Jennings (although that helps), but rather, doing what they've done in the second round. Draft guys like Mbah a Moute and Meeks, guys who were good college players and played for winning teams in college, thus are accustomed to winning and are good chemistry guys to have around. Thats how you build a nucleus.

2. Poach the European market
You can say it wasn't much work because they already had him earlier in his career, but bringing in guys like Ersan Illyasova, and even, as much as I don't like him, Carlos Delfino (I realize it was a sign and trade, but he was staying in Europe unless Toronto moved him).

Thats how you crawl out of a hole if you're the Bucks, and thats what Hammond has done. Criticizing him over signing past their prime guys to be role players on one year deals (and make no mistake, Delfino is virtually on a one year deal, since the second year is partially guaranteed, and the third carries no guaranteed money) is ridiculous. Is Jerry Stackhouse taking away minutes from Charlie Bell or Delfino really a bad thing? I'd rather he not take minutes away from Meeks, but I dont' think he ends up burrying Meeks on the bench. I think, you'll see Stack play a lot more of the 3 than the 2.

So, again, someone explain to me how this is a bad move, or as it was horribly implied, another of the many bad moves made by Hammond.

The Bucks need to make the playoffs and start making money. The NBA is not the NFL or MLB, you don't just all of a sudden start to win by sacrificing seasons to develop young players. You need to strike a happy medium of developing guys, while treading water, which is what this move does.

It's good to be back, Milwaukee...