The Bratwurst - Milwaukee Bucks Blog

Timing is a funny thing. Larry Harris is fired on the same day that my season ticket renewal package arrives in the mail (printed on the envelope: “Important renewal information: No price increase for 08-09!�). Last season the renewal package arrived a couple of days after Terry Stotts was fired. Coincidence? I think not.

Anyway, it means that now is the time to say goodbye to Larry Harris. History will remember his tenure as a failure, and while that is true when looking at the results on the court, it is unfair as well. I’d prefer that his period as Bucks GM be remembered as one where he consistently did the right things only to see them work out poorly.

2008 is a lousy year to decide to run for President. The country is sliding into a recession caused by a credit implosion, skyrocketing commodity prices threaten a horrible period of stagflation and we are stuck fighting a war that has no easy outcome in sight. I often wonder why Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain would choose now to run, rather than wait until 2012.

The answer is that some jobs must be filled. Sometimes the luck of the draw means that winning a coveted job means you are doomed to failure because of the circumstances around them.

This happened to Larry Harris.

He inherited a Bucks team that had been completely mortgaged by Ernie Grunfeld and George Karl’s shortsighted mismanagement. Grunfeld had already traded away the Bucks’ 2003 and 2004 first round picks (but had added Atlanta’s 2003 pick) and had turned Sam Cassell, Glenn Robinson and Ray Allen into little more than Joe Smith, Desmond Mason and TJ Ford (making the Cassell trade three days before leaving the Bucks job and four days before taking the Washington job). Harris took over a team with no bargaining power and no draft picks. He was set up for failure from the beginning.

NBA GM’s sometimes get a bad rap as sit-on-your-hands types who are afraid to make big moves. That is unfair. For all the great trade proposals you can come up with, the other team has to agree to them in order for them to be consummated. For all the scouting you do to find undervalued players, the days of a Manu Ginobli or Tony Parker slipping through the cracks is gone. The way an NBA GM succeeds has to do with one thing: luck. You can do all the right things, but it can all still go awry. Harris made bold moves throughout his tenure (until the reigns were clearly slapped on him this season) with his signing of Bobby Simmons and trades for Jamaal Magloire and Charlie Villanueva. Good moves at the time, but they turned out to be players who couldn’t live up to their billing.

Harris had one opportunity to change the direction of the franchise and he missed, by selecting Andrew Bogut over Chris Paul. No matter how good Bogut is or will become, he will never be a top-5 player like Paul is now. But can you really knock Harris for taking Bogut? Just by saying “I liked Paul more at the time� (which it’s funny how everyone now says they felt) is different than actually being the GM and making the choice. It’s a lot easier to find decent point guards than it is good big men. What were the odds that Paul would become a superstar so quickly? If Harris had kept Ford would people still be complaining?

Regardless, Harris’ biggest failing as a GM was his undying optimism about his players. He clearly felt that his core of very good players was ready to become a great team, as he said before the 2005-06 season that they were ready to make the second round of the playoffs. But that’s the funny thing about basketball – collecting good players doesn’t automatically mean you have a good team. The parts have to fit together. The group needs chemistry and a collectively well-rounded skill set. They need one leader and plenty of other pieces who are happy with their roles. Harris never learned that.

This team needs major changes. Harris was the person that assembled the group, but now it will take a new person to assess what the team has and how to turn those incompatible pieces into a real team.

Larry Harris tried to build a winner in a lousy situation. But at least he leaves the team in better shape than he got it – no better on the floor, but with more young talent and all their upcoming draft picks. At least they are in a better position to build for the future than they were in 2003.

————–

My five part series “Grading Larry Harris” is available here:
Part One: The Okay Moves
Part Two: The Winners
Part Three: The Losers
Part Four: The Move That Cannot Be Categorized (Bogut over Paul)
The Conclusion