Bucks criticized for having "no plan"

Have the Bucks become the new Clippers -- the uber example of a team that's poorly managed?

This morning on the ESPN radio show "Mike and Mike in the Morning" the hosts, Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic, were discussing NBA franchises who were without "plans". Your Milwaukee Bucks were singled out as a prime example of what happens to a team without a plan.

"You look at teams that win consistently," Greenberg said, "they are teams that have a plan... organizations that have a plan. Look at the NBA -- look at the Milwaukee Bucks. Do they have a plan? How many different coaches have they hired and fired in the last five years. They are now hiring their fifth coach in the last five years..."

The pair went on to conclude that in sports, as in any business, you need a model or plan for success, and you need people in ownership with the patience to see the plan through.

My thoughts about their general thesis: Its not absolutely correct. There are certainly instances where a measure of short term pain is a necessary down payment on long term gain. But I see no absolute virtue in merely in "sticking with a plan" simply to stick with a plan. At some point "sticking with the plan" morphs into "accepting mediocrity".

My thoughts specifically related to the Bucks: Until a month ago, their opinion was spot on. Larry Harris had no plan. He had desire, ambition, and everything else you need to succeed... but I really don't think he had any concrete notion of what components equal a championship team. Now, I think the Bucks may finally be on the right track with the hiring of John Hammond and Scott Skiles. But I'm crossing my fingers.