Hammond to be on tirico and van pelt today

jerrod · Post #1 » by **jerrod** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:06 pm

don't know which hour

eric kasillias sucks

DanoMac · Post #2 » by **DanoMac** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:11 pm

Sweet. Thanks for the update. I'll try to make it to my radio in time, but if I don't could someone recap?

jerrod · Post #3 » by **jerrod** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:27 pm

coming up next

LUKE23 · Post #4 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:36 pm

Hammond recap:

Asked who he was looking at at 8. Said in our grouping, "we have Randolph and Alexander", then also said, "maybe one of the smalls could slip", specifically mentioned Westbrook. Said he's confident they will get a good player at 8.

Van Pelt was talking about Alexander and how much he likes him. Hammond said that his work ethic is great, and given the jumps he's made given his small amount of experience has really impressed people and the reason he's risen, along with his elite athletic ability. Said Alexander is more like a freshman than a junior in college, given his experience.

Asked about trades, if more likely to move up or down. Hammond said there have been discussions to do either, but the most likely is staying at 8.

Asked about what was appealing about the Bucks job. Hammond said, "right time right place", said he thought this roster does have assets that can change the team over if needed. Thinks the team underachieved last year and thinks Skiles will be able to get whoever we have playing hard.

Asked about top 2 guys and then big dropoff after that. Asked who he would take if he had #1. Hammond said he didn't know, said that picking #2 might be a better scenario in this draft and the, "we take the other one" philosolphy. Then mentioned how important PG play is, and thinks it would be hard to pass on Rose, thinks Rose could be special, but also called Beasley an "impossible matchup". Can't go wrong in top 2.

jerrod · Post #5 » by **jerrod** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:37 pm

edit: just read luke's, it's better

interested in randolph & alexander

says a small could drop and maybe be available (didn't want to throw out a name but eventually said westbrook)

says they've had discussions to move up and down but will most likely stay put

if he had the top pick it'd be hard to pass on rose

not too interesting

another espn note: colin cowherd called bogut a stiff earlier, i thought there'd be outrage

jokeboy86 · Post #6 » by **jokeboy86** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:38 pm

pointless interview. If not for Yi the national media wouldn't know our team exists, cause they clearly didn't know anything about the Bucks.

Kerb Hohl · Post #7 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:40 pm

jerrod wrote:another espn note: colin cowherd called bogut a stiff earlier, i thought there'd be outrage

If Cowherd wasn't one of the worst and most annoying personalities on the radio I might actually think about caring.

Post #8 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:41 pm

jerrod wrote:don't know which hour

eric kasillias sucks

Die. He's easily my favorite radio host. It's not even close. I used to love my hour and half long drive home simply because of the Sports Bash.

I never liked it that Harris couldn't wait to tell the world of his intentions. Where's the benefit? Hammond, unless he's doing the smokescreen thing (my hope) I don't know why he would come out and make it so obvious who he likes and where the Bucks would go with their pick.

LUKE23 · Post #9 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:43 pm

DrugBust wrote:
jerrod wrote:don't know which hour

eric kasillias sucks

Die. He's easily my favorite radio host. It's not even close. I used to love my hour and half long drive home simply because of the Sports Bash.

I never liked it that Harris couldn't wait to tell the world of his intentions. Where's the benefit? Hammond, unless he's doing the smokescreen thing (my hope) I don't know why he would come out and make it so obvious who he likes and where the Bucks would go with their pick.

What is he really saying though? Everyone is speculating on everything, and the Bucks have worked out both the guys he mentioned. It's not like teams don't know we're interested in those 2. I don't think a three second statement on ESPN radio is going to shift anything.

It's not like the Knicks are saying, "well, we weren't going to draft Alexander orginally, but now that Hammond likes him, we're going to take him even though we like Gallinari better".

jerrod · Post #10 » by **jerrod** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:43 pm

DrugBust wrote:
jerrod wrote:don't know which hour

eric kasillias sucks

Die.

he's lucky to even be allowed in the same studio as scott van pelt

Post #11 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:47 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
DrugBust wrote:
jerrod wrote:don't know which hour

eric kasillias sucks

Die. He's easily my favorite radio host. It's not even close. I used to love my hour and half long drive home simply because of the Sports Bash.

I never liked it that Harris couldn't wait to tell the world of his intentions. Where's the benefit? Hammond, unless he's doing the smokescreen thing (my hope) I don't know why he would come out and make it so obvious who he likes and where the Bucks would go with their pick.

What is he really saying though? Everyone is speculating on everything, and the Bucks have worked out both the guys he mentioned. It's not like teams don't know we're interested in those 2. I don't think a three second statement on ESPN radio is going to shift anything.

It's not like the Knicks are saying, "well, we weren't going to draft Alexander orginally, but now that Hammond likes him, we're going to take him even though we like Gallinari better".

It's more the entire process with me. He's doing everything short of waving a huge sign saying, "WE LOVE RANDOLPH AND ALEXANDER AND WILL TAKE EITHER!!!"

Either he's being totally honest and those are the two he's targeting or he's locked in on someone else (Gordon maybe? Love?) and he's going to take that guy. IMO it just makes zero sense to tip your hand unless you're playing everyone.

LUKE23 · Post #12 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:51 pm

How is he doing that? Because he worked them out? If he is interested in them is he not supposed to work them out just to try and throw teams off?

He really hasn't said anything. He's dodged pretty much everything. He hasn't been outlandish with anything at all and I don't know where you're getting that take from. Milwaukee has consistently been one of the hardest teams to read according to most of the mocks/media we are seeing.

Post #13 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:55 pm

He's singled out SF as the area that the Bucks need to get an upgrade at. He's worked out SFs exclusively. Now he's singling out Alexander and Randolph.

All I'm saying is that if I'm a team I know that if I want to secure one of those two guys, I have to get to #7 to do it.

Again, maybe this is all a smokescreen and in that case it's worked to perfection. But if either of those two is Hammond's guy then he could be made to look a fool if someone jumps the Bucks to take him.

randy84 · Post #14 » by **randy84** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:56 pm

When asked which guys would be available when he picked, he mentioned Randolph and Alexander.

When asked about Joe Alexander specifically, Hammond stated that he was raw and hadn't played a lot of basketball. Also stated that Alexander is willing to do whatever it takes and teams like to hear that.

He did mention that guys might slip and then brought up Westbrook's name. (He must think that he will go higher than the Bucks position). Would the Bucks take Westbrook if he slips???

Said that he is trying to trade up and down.

Otherwise, not a lot of clues as to the draft.

pilprin · Post #15 » by **pilprin** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:09 pm

Has Wichmae stated if anything has changed? Are we still moving somebody?

I am still hoping for a draft day trade....even if the only trade is a move of a player for another #1

LUKE23 · Post #16 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:10 pm

DrugBust wrote:He's singled out SF as the area that the Bucks need to get an upgrade at. He's worked out SFs exclusively. Now he's singling out Alexander and Randolph.

All I'm saying is that if I'm a team I know that if I want to secure one of those two guys, I have to get to #7 to do it.

Again, maybe this is all a smokescreen and in that case it's worked to perfection. But if either of those two is Hammond's guy then he could be made to look a fool if someone jumps the Bucks to take him.

Those are the only guys he could get to workout for the Bucks. It's not like he said, "I want these three guys and then that's it". The workout system in the NBA right now is an absolute joke, and needs to be refined.

I'm willing to bet if you went across the country and listened to every other GM on radio talk shows, etc, that Hammond wouldn't be any more outgoing than any of them, and is probably more reserved than many. Hammond has pretty much dodged every question he's gotten regarding specific personnel, I've listened to every interview he's done since becoming GM.

jerrod · Post #17 » by **jerrod** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:10 pm

t-wolves gm coming up next

DanoMac · Post #18 » by **DanoMac** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:15 pm

Excellent. I'm excited to hear what McFail has to say.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #19 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:23 pm

OMG, McHale just said he is going to pick Alexander and Randolph at #3 to spite Hammond!

LUKE23 · Post #20 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:26 pm

adamcz wrote:OMG, McHale just said he is going to pick Alexander and Randolph at #3 to spite Hammond!

Both? Did Stern hand him a huge #3 card, and McHale responded with, "Split em".