Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[paulpressey25]

I agree with what Rockmaninoff noted and would take it further. There are many teams that are forced to lose an asset because of the salary cap/luxury tax. The Pacers for example couldn't afford Brad Miller a number of years ago and told Brad they couldn't re-sign him for $10mm a year.

The Pistons lost Mehmet Okur at the end of their 2004 championship season because they just didn't have the money.

The problem is that both of those teams were ones that were division winners and teams that were Finals contenders. Here, we are talking about a team that won 28, 26 and maybe 37 games needing to pitch talent and draft picks over the side. Big difference.

Old Skool---what concerns many gravely on Hammond is that he has had to reverse himself on a couple of his biggest decisions. He traded for RJ and then was forced to look at trading RJ for salary reasons. He drafted Alexander and then two-months into the season was reportedly considering trading him. He was fine shopping Ramon and CV for modest assets but apparently mis-judged their talent, so now he's scrambling to keep them. Those are massive reversals that indicate just how badly his initial moves were.

Even the best GM's make big mistakes as you noted. But those GM's also have a big success move as well. We haven't had that home-run. Go to your guy Krause in Chicago. He made numerous mistakes. But out of the gate he drafted Oakley (home-run) in his first year I believe. We want our "Oakley" to help bring some confidence this guy knows what he is doing.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

I'll continue to say that you can't say you're willing to give Hammond time to fix the mess he inherited and then blast him to kingdom come before he's even gotten a real chance.

Sure he has; he's probably been here for 20% of the time that an average GM gets with an NBA team. You have to start evaluating after that amount of time. And then when new information becomes available during the 2009 draft and offseason, we'll add it to what we already know and evaluate again.

So far it looks like no progress has been made. After that we'll see.

[europa]

Press, Hammond hasn't even been on the job for a full season yet. Has he hit that "home run?" Probably not. But can we give him at least a little more time? The teams you mentioned are all better. That's true. How many of them bailed on their GM after less than a year the way this forum wants?

Patience isn't easy to extend - especially to a team that has been so bad for two decades like this one. But it baffles me as to why people won't give Hammond time to see if he can continuing fixing the mess he inherited before automatically concluding he won't.

[paulpressey25]

Has he hit that "home run?"

Agreed. I'll tone it down as he could do something big-time this summer. I just get caught up in the frustration because we were close this year to really positioning this team well for the future. Now it seems like we have to wait another two-years. Even your guy Augustin would look outstanding in a Bucks uniform right now and make a salary dump trade of Ridnour a no-brainer.

[europa]

Has he hit that "home run?"

Agreed. I'll tone it down as he could do something big-time this summer. I just get caught up in the frustration because we were close this year to really positioning this team well for the future. Now it seems like we have to wait another two-years. Even your guy Augustin would look outstanding in a Bucks uniform right now and make a salary dump trade of Ridnour a no-brainer.

It's hard to find anyone taken in the lottery who isn't looking better than Alexander right now.

Other than Bayless.

[LUKE23]

To me the frustration comes with the fact that Hammond would have VERY EASILY come in and said, "you know what, we are blowing this up, the past regime of have a bloated payroll with sub-par talent is over. We're picking a direction, and while it may take 3-4 years to fully implement, the direction will be clear from day 1". Fans would NOT have had a problem with that with a year 1 GM, especially when the "newness" factor was still there.

Just as many fans would have come out for a young team with some cap space and room to grow talent-wise over a maxed out veteran roster that has a ceiling of 45 wins. I firmly believe that.

We cannot win a title with the payroll as is now, and we also are not starting the rebuilding process. We are in middle ground right now, that is plain as day. People say "he will improve the team", but they NEVER say how given lack of young assets and lack of financial flexibility. I am sick of reading people say he can improve the team when he has no means to do so other than waiting until f'ing Redd/RJ/Gadzuric expire. And he's letting young assets go in the process!!!!!

Frustrating.

[europa]

And some of us are sick of constantly being told Hammond is going to fail before he's even had a chance to put anything into motion.

Cuts both ways, Luke.

[randy84]

I disagree with people who say Hammond doesn't have a plan. The plan is to make the playoffs. That seems pretty simple. So I guess his choices were to get rid of RJ and not make the playoffs or keep RJ and make the playoffs.

I also find it funny that everyone is blaming Hammond for not wanting to keep CV. Don't you think Skiles has a say in what is going on? I think JA was a Skiles pick or at the very least Skiles agreed to pick him. Maybe Skiles feels CV doesn't fit the team in the long term.

I give Hammond props for drafting Luc. When you go into the draft if you can get at least one player you are doing well.

My question is even if the team had blown it up this year, how long would it have taken the Bucks to get back to the playoffs? Three or four years and even that is no guarantee.

It's baffling to me that fans of this team are calling for the GM's head when he has the team heading to the playoffs without two of its best players.

[LUKE23]

And some of us are sick of constantly being told Hammond is going to fail before he's even had a chance to put anything into motion.

Cuts both ways, Luke.

I'm stating the reasons WHY we cannot contend under the current path, nobody has yet told me how we CAN contend under the current path. Letting young assets go when you have max a 45 win team, what does that exactly accomplish long-term? Why should RJ and Redd be valued over long-term assets, when both could have been moved for expirings? It makes no sense europa. None.

[europa]

If my options are:

1. Watching a team win 25 games for the next two years and then hopefully taking a big step in 2011

OR

2. Watching a team win 45 games and make the playoffs for the next two years and then hopefully take a big step in 2011

I'm taking Door No. 2, Monty.

[LUKE23]

My question is even if the team had blown it up this year, how long would it have taken the Bucks to get back to the playoffs? Three or four years and even that is no guarantee.

If you trade Redd for Raef/filler and RJ for Wally by the deadline, you're sitting with:

Sessions
LRMAM
CV
Bogut
2009 top 10 pick
2010 top 10 pick
Max cap space

That could easily be a playoff team within two years, with a higher ceiling, because you have three possible shots at a player better than Redd/RJ (both picks and cap space). It's more financially flexible in trades too.

[randy84]

Agree europa. People assume that if Hammond would have blown it up now we would be a contender in 4 yrs. If it was that easy every team would be doing it.

There are no guarantees that Bogut, CV, JA, Bell and Sessions would get the team any farther than Bogut, LRMAM, RJ, Redd, and Sessions would.

[europa]

Why should RJ and Redd be valued over long-term assets, when both could have been moved for expirings? It makes no sense europa. None.

First off, we don't know what long-term assets will be gone. Maybe Villanueva will be gone. Maybe he won't be. I think it's a pretty safe bet the 2009 first is gone. What if the only "assets" of consequence that are lost are Ridnour and the 2009 first and Villanueva is re-signed? If that's the case, I'll take Redd and RJ with the idea of moving them at a later date - which for the third or fourth time Hammond has now come right out and said he is prepared to do.

Let's see who is lost first before we toss Hammond into the shark-infested waters. That's all I'm saying.

[LUKE23]

If my options are:

1. Watching a team win 25 games for the next two years and then hopefully taking a big step in 2011

OR

2. Watching a team win 45 games and make the playoffs for the next two years and then hopefully take a big step in 2011

I'm taking Door No. 2, Monty.

I'll easily take whatever option realistically gets us to contention quicker. That is easily #1 (assuming Redd/RJ are moved for expirings). Being a first round playoff out is no better than getting a top 5 pick, in fact, getting a top 5 pick is most likely better for your future.

At the current path, we are STARTING the rebuilding process when Andrew Bogut is 27 years old. Sounds awesome!!

[LUKE23]

First off, we don't know what long-term assets will be gone. Maybe Villanueva will be gone. Maybe he won't be. I think it's a pretty safe bet the 2009 first is gone. What if the only "assets" of consequence that are lost are Ridnour and the 2009 first and Villanueva is re-signed? If that's the case, I'll take Redd and RJ with the idea of moving them at a later date - which for the third or fourth time Hammond has now come right out and said he is prepared to do.

That would be great. I'm willing to wager whatever you'd like that we lose CV though. And that was Hammond's CHOICE, since RJ for Wally was available.

[randy84]

My question is even if the team had blown it up this year, how long would it have taken the Bucks to get back to the playoffs? Three or four years and even that is no guarantee.

If you trade Redd for Raef/filler and RJ for Wally by the deadline, you're sitting with:

Sessions
LRMAM
CV
Bogut
2009 top 10 pick
2010 top 10 pick
Max cap space

That could easily be a playoff team within two years, with a higher ceiling, because you have three possible shots at a player better than Redd/RJ (both picks and cap space). It's more financially flexible in trades too.

I would disagree. Unless you are getting a top three pick in those years, you are going to be waiting for the rookies to adjust to the NBA which is going to take another 2 or 3 years.

In the meantime, the team will be hovering around 25 wins.

As for players better than RJ and Redd who would Milwaukee be able to attract?

[europa]

First off, we don't know what long-term assets will be gone. Maybe Villanueva will be gone. Maybe he won't be. I think it's a pretty safe bet the 2009 first is gone. What if the only "assets" of consequence that are lost are Ridnour and the 2009 first and Villanueva is re-signed? If that's the case, I'll take Redd and RJ with the idea of moving them at a later date - which for the third or fourth time Hammond has now come right out and said he is prepared to do.

That would be great. I'm willing to wager whatever you'd like that we lose CV though. And that was Hammond's CHOICE, since RJ for Wally was available.

That appears to be the case. And as I've stated, letting Villanueva walk is not a plan I endorse.

[LUKE23]

I would disagree. Unless you are getting a top three pick in those years, you are going to be waiting for the rookies to adjust to the NBA which is going to take another 2 or 3 years.

In the meantime, the team will be hovering around 25 wins.

As for players better than RJ and Redd who would Milwaukee be able to attract?

It's not only who you can sign in FA, you can also take on more salary in trades than you trade when you're under the cap. All being capped out does is ensure non-flexibility. That is why it's going to be funny when the Hammond supporters expecting improvements to this team in the offseason are sitting wide-eyed when they realize we have no opportunity to do so. Why? Our young assets are limited and we have no money to do jack squat.

[ninja416]

Relax cool cats. CV is a goner, thats for sure. We'll just use him to help us get to the Playoffs this year and then show him the door. Which will be the most sensible move IMO since dealing him earlier would have had come at the expense of adding salary of the playing coming in return. Moreover, no one would have been interested in giving anything in return for a player who may be too expensive to re-sign.

CV doesn't really make this better IMO. Sure he is probably the most talented and versatile offensive PF in the league besides Odom. He has a great handle for a big, has probably the best shooting arsenal in his bag (what other PF's can glide through the lane and pull up for that sweet floater or cut through screens and nail a 3 pointer on a quick catch and release or get in the lane between defenders and use a reverse layup) when it comes to PF's but he isn't someone who can be made a 1st or 2nd option unless the coach really trusts him, which Skiles most definitely doesn't. Sure CV is arguably our most talented player, but talent doesn't always equal to indespensibility. IMO, he is just like a Ben Gordon or JR Smith, amazingly talented players, but not the kinda players you can build around. I know Gordon and JR are headcases at times and CV is usually on his best behavior, but speakingly strictly from a basketball point of view, CV is the Ben Gordon of PF's.

This team can cope without him and perhaps be equally effective. I think the long term plan is to use LRMBM as the PF with a Allen backing him up. That would suffice if Redd and Bogut are back to their best.

The only thing I am pissed about here is that Hammond doesn't seem to have a direction and good roster evaluation skills either. He is just like Colangelo, reactionary GM who just keeps changing his plans on the fly looking for a homerun instead of settling for a long-term solution and actually swallowing some bitter pills for long-run prosperity. Also, I am not too sure if its a good idea to publicly imply that CV ain't coming back right when CV is doing everything he can to help us get to the playoffs. That just might turn CV off and he may start playing solely for his numbers without giving jack about the team's playoff chances knowing full well that he ain't comin back to 'waukee and that he might as well play for a big pay day instead of the Bucks.

[James1980]

1. Would a team under the cap be willing to accept Ridnour or Ridnour and a first for a second?

2. Does that give us enough space to bring back Sessions and CV (up to a certain amount)?