Comments on: The Brandon Jennings Story: One great month and a whole bunch of bad ones

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:01:02 +0000

If you wanted, your sentence could have simply read, “He will very likely improve in the coming years, but will he improve to the point of becoming a superstar? “ That is a valid question for any young and upcoming player. However, by including the phrase, “not many players fail to get even a little better as the calendar continues to turn over year after year,” you seem to be suggesting that Jennings has not improved at all from last year, and that there is good reason to believe that he will never improve year-over-year going forward. If you were not suggesting that sentiment – which I personally think is preposterous – then you need not have included your qualifying phrase that I took issue with. But if that is how you feel about Jennings, that he may never improve, that is your opinion; my point is just that under the guise of being objective your blog post was very much biased against Jennings. As you have apparently given up on Jennings (by your tone if not by your words), I have given up on this blog. Good luck on your future endeavors.

By: LeMay

LeMay — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:50:45 +0000

Eric, he is simply pointing out that as it stands right now Jennins has many more poor nights on the floor compared to good ones. You really think the re-signing of Gooden (which by the way was not a great contract in terms of total dollars and length for an aging player), or Salmons (who you can argue got the same type of deal for a guy who only plays well half a season). The author is also stating that he “expects” Jennings to at least get a little better as “not many players fail to get better”. Jennings development is key to the Bucks, because personally, I believe they entered into a few contracts that are going to haunt them for the next 4 years…

By: Jeremy Schmidt

Jeremy Schmidt — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:57:59 +0000

Try putting that last sentence in the correct context, then it won’t appear as much of a jab as it does in your comment.

I understand the Salmons situation, but if it was decided Jennings maybe wasn’t so great, Milwaukee could have sat on Salmons’ money and hoped CD-R/Maggette could contribute something equivalent to what he did during the playoff run and then see what happened when Redd’s contract expired.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:16:34 +0000

“Milwaukee’s bet quite a bit that the small sample size is the one that will win out as Jennings continues on his NBA journey. They bet Drew Gooden’s contract on it. They bet the resigning of John Salmons on it. Those guys were seen as complements to Jennings and Bogut then and are still seen as that now.” The Bucks were over the cap and would have been unable to sign any other good sooting guard besides Salmons. His Bird rights, and stellar play down the stretch last year, earned him a spot on the team. Gooden was the best free agent PF available that was not going to demand top dollar, and Hammond got him for a good contract. We obvioulsy were going to be building around Jennings and Bogut in the offseason, what other choice did we have? What else would you have suggested? “not many players fail to get even a little better as the calendar continues to turn over year after year” Why are you taking jabs at Jennings?