Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

Where is taking a bottom 5 team one year to the playoffs the next a bad thing?
You act like we have to rebuild and win at the same time.

Its not a bad thing but when you keep going back in forth like the Bucks do year after year it gets a little tiresome. Lets say the Bucks have a bad year next year that is the result of injuries, bad luck, lack of talent or whatever and they win about 30 games. Then the very next year after that they win 40 games and management and media asks us how can we be mad if the team finished with a better record than last year.

It just seems like the Bucks have some losing seasons just so every once in a while they can make a big deal to us when they win about 40 games every once or twice. I'm not saying they do this intentionally but I'm tired of this dance.

Lets change the beat.

Jokeboy exactly...and all the apologist and media love it so they can sucker you into thinking that one year it will turn around!
Our faithfulness and patience is taken for granted while other teams turn their teams around while the Bucks make excuses.,
My problem is there is no vision, no plan, and no creativity in getting things done! Which to me in this sports industry is summed up in one word: Incompetancy.

That is unprofitable and unacceptable. There have ben many times you could have overhauled this team and they did not. There has even been times when making a trade for the sake of making one would have been the best solution and they di not do it.
The last time they made a jackass trade for the sake of making one they traded Ray Allen and things have not gone right since that very day!!!
Not one single soloitary move has worked since that day. Not one trade or one draft pick has panned out.....NOT ONE!

[InsideOut]

The Hammond supporters will always be able to fall back on the wait for rabbit out of the hat move. Sure, he hasn't done it yet but he will someday. Until that day comes or he is gone without the rabbit showing up we'll just have to listen to it.

I just don't see why a GM would wait 3 seasons to rebuild...especially when it is costing you youth and or draft picks while you wait. Can any Hammond supporter explain the benefit of waiting to rebuild? Or how about giving an example where this type of plan has worked in the past? The realists need something to hold onto while we wait for two years for the rebuild to start and then another 2-3 years for the rebuild to pay dividends.

[LUKE23]

I just don't see why a GM would wait 3 seasons to rebuild...especially when it is costing you youth and or draft picks while you wait

That is the biggest thing. I have zero interest in winning 41 games three straight seasons while not adding any new young talent to the roster. I'd MUCH rather have won 25 games this season and next, while having more young assets and more space, and then having a chance at a major jump up in the seasons following.

We are stuck in mediocre land for the next two years after this one, and THEN we start rebuilding. So we really have at least a 5 year wait before we can dream of contending, and that is probably optimistic.

[BuckFan25226]

Great post, old skool, +1.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

But so far I think he has been successful in implementing his plan and improving his team.

Ok, that is fine, I respect your opinion. I just want you to answer one question that I feel has been left unanswered: what, in general, do you think is his overall plan? You just said he had one, I'd like to know what you think it is, specifically. Doesn't have to include player names, just overall what the plan is short-term and long-term.

My take on Hammonds plan is to cut players that Harris brought in that don't fit well with the new style and are way overpaid (Mo, Bobby) and keep the ones that do fit his style (Bogut, Ramon) and try and clear the junk out of the team without having to take 4 years to slowly rebuild and suck. I think JH will shop Redd, Gadz, and to a way less degree RJ, to get a jump start on clearing cap, but he will not sacrifice not getting talent in return. That's my take, and I really like it.

YOU DONT WANT TO READ MY TAKE ON IT...

As far as I concerned...he does not know what the hell he is doing. Every move GM Hammond has made was wrong in the Big Picture, when he did not move Redd when he should have.

Unless Kohl told him no, (which in and of itself is the real issue) you don't come in here thinking the solution is to tweak it. You needed a personality shift. Immediately!

I have shared this before and disagree with everyone on this board in this matter it seems. If you were not going to move Redd you should not have made one single move at all until the deadline!

He should not have traded anyone if he was not going to move Michael Redd. I wanted him to move every single player on this team if he could after the effort they gave the year before.

But no cosmetic band-aids and tweaks. YOU ONLY TWEAK WHEN YOU CAN WIN A TITLE you don't tweak to get an 8th seed!

That has been the half ass Milwaukee Bucks for the last 5 years that pisses me off! Think of title contention not backing in the playoffs in the weak East and the 8th seed! No one here talks title! No one wants to break it down and build a title contender!

Of course no one of renowed (Doug Collins, Flip Saunders, Amare Stoudemire, etc) will come here if there is no committment to CONTEND! The focus and mindset here in this town is too small.

Three coaching hires and three GM's in the last 6 years. No stability and no continuity and no vision.
Only the Brewers with a new owner have turned it around and changed that culture with a 5 year plan that has worked!

You could have moved Simmons, Mason, and Mo anytime until you saw what you had them until the deadline.

All anyone cares about and leans on is this crutch of the weak East and the 8th seed and thinking if you mention playoffs the fans will always buy it and that should shut them up. You don't even have to be a good team to make the playoffs in the East!

If you wanted to trim money you should have moved Redd and package him with Gadzuric, Simmons if you must and or Villanueva to move down in that draft to get another pick and take a Stud young gun like Mayo or Westbrook or even Love.

That is what they needed! If he did not like Mo who should have drafted a point guard like Bayless, Mayo or Westbrook to match and rival Rose down in Chicago! Even those Pistons teams were built around guards and playmakers with Star appeal who can put fannies in the seats!

That is the bottom line people! You should know this. That is why we are not relevant and on TV we don't have any appeal. Get with the NBA program Milwaukee and change! I couldn't work for Kohl, I would completely revamp this entire organization if I was the Bucks RealGM! I would have this team in the finals in the East in 3 years from my hire! And I am just a fan...you make it work!

WE NEEDED....A SUPERSTAR TO SELL THIS FRANCHISE! We did not get one so he failed!!!

Plain and simple. Get out of the 1970's!

[midranger]

The Hammond supporters will always be able to fall back on the wait for rabbit out of the hat move. Sure, he hasn't done it yet but he will someday. Until that day comes or he is gone without the rabbit showing up we'll just have to listen to it.

I just don't see why a GM would wait 3 seasons to rebuild...especially when it is costing you youth and or draft picks while you wait. Can any Hammond supporter explain the benefit it waiting to rebuild? Or how about giving an example where this type of plan has worked in the past? The realists need something to hold onto while we wait for two years for the rebuild to start and then another 2-3 years for the rebuild to pay dividends.

Spot on. The Hammond supporters are like Gery Woerful circa 1998-2002 who'd post article after article about how Glenn Robinson was on the trading block and would be moved just so then when he was eventually moved 5 years later he could say "I told you so."

There are a lot of bad GMs in the NBA (including Hammond) some of whom may actually be worse than Chauncey, so no one here is guaranteeing that he won't pull some magic out of his ass. It's the likelihood of it happening. It's like the Hammond Group is saying, "In these uncertain times, it's best to invest all your money on lottery tickets." Of course you look smart if you win, but what are the odds of that happening? Not good. That's how folks view our situation now. They also see Hammond as the guy who had his finger on the Reset button several times, but completely refused to push it. The truly frustrating part is that he's prepared to push it in 2.5 years after losing all the assets that he should be planning to build with. What the hell is that?

[BuckFan25226]

yOU DONT WANT TO READ MY TAKE ON IT...

Probably the most accurate post you've ever made here.

[midranger]

I just don't see why a GM would wait 3 seasons to rebuild...especially when it is costing you youth and or draft picks while you wait

That is the biggest thing. I have zero interest in winning 41 games three straight seasons while not adding any new young talent to the roster. I'd MUCH rather have won 25 games this season and next, while having more young assets and more space, and then having a chance at a major jump up in the seasons following.

We are stuck in mediocre land for the next two years after this one, and THEN we start rebuilding. So we really have at least a 5 year wait before we can dream of contending, and that is probably optimistic.

I asked this in the other thread, "how long is the bare minimum expected turn around from a complete rebuild like Hammond is advocating in 2011?" My guess is 3 years if everything goes perfectly and more likely 4 year especially given how bare our cupboard will be after losing young talent and draft picks this summer.

So when Hammond took over last summer, he figured on a 7 year plan to contention. That is ridiculous, and quite honestly unacceptable.

[europa]

I am convinced you are a Bucks apologist or a media guy who works for them. Always rationalizing and making excuses for them.

Slept right through the past two years in this forum, didn't ya?

[paulpressey25]

That is the biggest thing. I have zero interest in winning 41 games three straight seasons while not adding any new young talent to the roster. .

Yep. This is it. We basically are being told by Hammond that we need to forfeit all our draft assets from 2007-2010 (and Ersan) in order for Hammond to simply re-sign two promising young guys (CV and Ramon) that were already on the roster when he got here. I throw the 2007 year in there because we had to throw Yi into the fire at a time when his value was still very high to get RJ.

And I'm fine with RJ, but for the fact the RJ move completely destroyed all payroll flexibility for three full seasons. Unless of course if you were going to get rid of Redd simultaneously.

[europa]

We basically are being told by Hammond that we need to forfeit all our draft assets from 2007-2010

I missed the quotes where he said 2010 draft picks would be gone. Can you show that to me? Thanks.

[LUKE23]

I missed the quotes where he said 2010 draft picks would be gone. Can you show that to me? Thanks.

CV, the 2009 first, and possibly Sessions is more than enough already lost, on top of them not getting production (yet) from this years #8 pick.

You CANNOT have zero production two straight years out of top 15 picks, while also letting a top 7 pick who is producing at a hard position to find talent walk. That is a bad, bad two years as far as young talent on the roster.

The Bucks DID IN FACT sacrifice young talent to keep Redd and RJ. That is plain as day and not debatable.

[paulpressey25]

Europa, he can pull a rabbit out of the hat. I agree.

But it is ugly to think that in effect he'll likely toss away Yi, Brook Lopez, Ersan, Ridnour, CV and this summer's #1 for the right to have Richard Jefferson and re-sign Ramon Sessions, who was here already. You can't build a team doing things like that.

[GrandAdmiralDan]

I asked this in the other thread, "how long is the bare minimum expected turn around from a complete rebuild like Hammond is advocating in 2011?" My guess is 3 years if everything goes perfectly and more likely 4 year especially given how bare our cupboard will be after losing young talent and draft picks this summer.

So when Hammond took over last summer, he figured on a 7 year plan to contention. That is ridiculous, and quite honestly unacceptable.

I don't think a turn around HAS to take that long necessarily, but even just waiting until the 2011-2012 season just doesn't seem like a good plan to me. That will be Bogut's 7th season already. Not saying he won't have many seasons after that, I am confident he will, but I just don't like the though of us having a quality center like that and pissing away the first six seasons we had him.

[LUKE23]

This is what it comes down to, assuming we lose CV and the 2009 first.

In two years for Hammond in regards to young talent:

Lost: Yi, CV, 2009 first, rights to Ersan if someone gives him ANY offer
Added: Alexander, LRMAM

That isn't a good first two years in terms of adding for the future.

[europa]

Europa, he can pull a rabbit out of the hat. I agree.

But it is ugly to think that in effect he'll likely toss away Yi, Brook Lopez, Ersan, Ridnour, CV and this summer's #1 for the right to have Richard Jefferson and re-sign Ramon Sessions, who was here already.

I'm sorry but you'll forgive me if I'm not losing any sleep over Yi being gone. RJ is a massive upgrade over Yi and Simmons. And he didn't toss away Brook Lopez. He never drafted him. Yes it was a mistake. Well guess what - every NBA GM is going to make some mistakes. You better get used to it. As far as Ilyasova, I'm not losing any sleep over that either. And Ridnour has become expendable with Sessions' emerging again. Besides, was anyone viewing Ridnour as a long-term piece of the puzzle? Honestly?

What this boils down to is Hammond appears to prefer RJ over Villanueva and possibly Villanueva and the 2009 first. That's really the deal here. That's certainly a debatable strategy but it's hardly one that makes Hammond a fool - not when you factor in Villanueva's issues and the belief that the upcoming draft isn't expected to be very good. Again, I do not want to see Villanueva walk for nothing, but I also do not believe such a move dooms this team in any way. The Bucks will win without Charlie Villanueva. I'm confident of that.

[InsideOut]

This is what it comes down to, assuming we lose CV and the 2009 first.

In two years for Hammond in regards to young talent:

Lost: Yi, CV, 2009 first, rights to Ersan if someone gives him ANY offer
Added: Alexander, LRMAM

That isn't a good first two years in terms of adding for the future.

I just can't see how any of this helps us rebuild in 2 years. What in the world did we gain by waiting 3 years that offset the loss of youth and picks? Someone, anyone...what are we gaining by Hammond waiting 3 years to rebuild? If we're losing youth and picks isn't the waiting hurting us and not helping us?

[smooth 'lil balla]

hammond may not even prefer rj over cv, it's just he knows he can keep rj, whereas even if he traded rj he could still lose cv.

what i find most humorous about all the hammond bashing is that 95% of this board would have given CV away for a pack of peanuts at the beginning of the season, yet now the world will come to an end if we lose him. It's easy to change your mind as a fan, but not so easy as a GM. Good think Hammond didn't give away CV for a pack of peanuts, like most were advocating.

[europa]

I still find it odd that so many people continue to gloss over Hammond's statement that Redd or RJ might not be on the team a year from now. That's a pretty important statement that shouldn't be ignored in my opinion.

[InsideOut]

hammond may not even prefer rj over cv, it's just he knows he can keep rj, whereas even if he traded rj he could still lose cv.

what i find most humorous about all the hammond bashing is that 95% of this board would have given CV away for a pack of peanuts at the beginning of the season, yet now the world will come to an end if we lose him. It's easy to change your mind as a fan, but not so easy as a GM. Good think Hammond didn't give away CV for a pack of peanuts, like most were advocating.

It was reported that Hammond also was trying to get rid of CV all season so does that mean he is as dumb as us?

And if we are now looking at losing CV for nothing then wouldn't it have been better to at least get the pack of peanuts?

Do you think it is wise to wait 3 years before we rebuild?