Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

Bernman · Post #41 » by **Bernman** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 5:29 pm

Maybe he is indeed as much of a bumbling boob as he appeared in his introduction press conference with the media.

I don't know which aggravated most about his responses in the Q&A session. I'm going to go with this gem:

"The other team was willing to trade RJ for an expiring but we were too uncomfortable trading RJ to that team. It turned our stomaches to think about it."

My worst fear realized that he wouldn't make a move for the betterment of the team because he'd empower a divisional rival and maybe get razzed by the public for the short term. Who gives a flying f***. We aren't going to contend the next couple years anyways and success would have gotten us the last laugh.

This was up there as well though:

-"We will have to give up an asset or maybe two to re-sign Ramon. But since he is an Arenas designated free agent, the first two years of his contract have to be at the mid-level. We think the mid-level will be down or about $5 million. So we should be able to resign Ramon."

So we are going to throw away more than one first rounder and Charlie Villanueva just so Richard Jefferson stays on board and we have the privilege of winning 40-45 games for 3 years. That was a fine goal for this year (I wouldn't have mortgaged the future for it though) as it was a major improvement over last season, but what kind of goal is it beyond that? Stagnancy and mediocrity FTW. Then beyond that we won't be developing prospects beyond our established guys and we'll just be getting older, so if we can even maintain our 40-win level it would be a triumph.

I'm becoming convinced Hammond is incompetent.

steger_3434 · Post #42 » by **steger_3434** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 5:33 pm

The fact that GAD was able to call Hammond out on thinking the MLE will be at 5 million this year is really scary. Our GM really doesn't have a clue what he's doing. People are lauding him for getting this team to compete this year. HE"S NOT DOING ANYTHING. ALL the credit needs to go to Skiles. Sure, Hammond hired Skiles, but any idiot could have gotten that hire if Kohl allowed it unlike past seasons.

GrandAdmiralDan · Post #43 » by **GrandAdmiralDan** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 5:38 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:This guy is in way over his head. He really is.

I am REALLY, REALLY concerned about Hammond's comment about the average salary amount coming down, as if that is something affected (more than nominally) by the current economic situation.

I am flabbergasted.

That is just so not how it works that I really don't know what to say.

Where the hell is Jeff Weltman? He is supposed to make sure Hammond has some understanding of a concept like that and how it factors into our plans. I don't think I've overestimated Weltman's understanding of these matters, but if HE doesn't understand this either, then we are even more screwed and the Bucks front office is sorely lacking in CBA expertise.

Say what you will about Larry Harris, but he understood how to massage the CBA quite effectively.

Post #44 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 5:38 pm

I'm honestly in shock. None of this is new. We all knew what Hammond could have done and why he didn't do it, but to actually come out and admit it? In front of season ticket holders?

"'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

Seriously, I'm floored.

worthlessBucks · Post #45 » by **worthlessBucks** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 5:54 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:This guy is in way over his head. He really is.

Especially true when you consider that the team's recent success is due in large part to two players that Hammond tried to dump 2 months ago. So now our next course of action is to trade 2 future assets to keep a guy that you thought was expendable with Joe Alexander, your lottery pick. Really John? Hammond has the right to change his opinion on guys, but I'm still concerned.

Anybody want to guess how good OKC will be in 2011?

jerrod · Post #46 » by **jerrod** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 5:55 pm

this is kind of a bummer to wake up to

i can't take this horrendous management anymore. i'm gonna go watch Major League

Movieman · Post #47 » by **Movieman** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:00 pm

I don’t know. I wish I was as confident as most of you are that Hammond is wrong on this.

I can’t blame him for not giving away Jefferson this year. It’s obvious the team desperately needs the revenue of a playoff appearance. Giving away a asset like Jefferson or CV most likely would end any hope of that this year. Playoffs may not be a sure thing, but it certainly isn’t a lost cause.

Regarding CV, he is playing well now, but obviously he wasn’t in the long term plans of the team when Hammond put this initial team together. To be fair, his play over the past two years didn’t warrant long term planning. I seem to remember him getting a lot of criticsm for the past two years and I don’t think there would have been a lot of complaints if he was traded for a box of tape - now we seem to want to build the team around him as the number one option.

This team right now with CV as the number one option is still a sub .500 team.

Do you as a gm throw out his long term plan and ignore the previous two years, when a player in his contract year finally starts to show his promise?

With Redd injured, I just don't think there are any real good short term options.

steger_3434 · Post #48 » by **steger_3434** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:03 pm

Movieman wrote:I don’t know. I wish I was as confident as most of you are that Hammond is wrong on this.

I can’t blame him for not giving away Jefferson this year. It’s obvious the team desperately needs the revenue of a playoff appearance. Giving away a asset like Jefferson or CV most likely would end any hope of that this year. Playoffs may not be a sure thing, but it certainly isn’t a lost cause.

Regarding CV, he is playing well now, but obviously he wasn’t in the long term plans of the team when Hammond put this initial team together. To be fair, his play over the past two years didn’t warrant long term planning. I seem to remember him getting a lot of criticsm for the past two years and I don’t think there would have been a lot of complaints if he was traded for a box of tape - now we seem to want to build the team around him as the number one option.

This team right now with CV as the number one option is still a sub .500 team.

Do you as a gm throw out his long term plan and ignore the previous two years, when a player in his contract year finally starts to show his promise?

With Redd injured, I just don't think there are any real good short term options.

Bogut?

GrandAdmiralDan · Post #49 » by **GrandAdmiralDan** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:06 pm

Hammond has been doing a number of these events this season and will be doing more of them still. They've been splitting up the season ticket holders into small groups that each go to one of these things.

I hope they do another one before the Golden State game next Saturday and a season ticket holder brings Larry Harris as their guest.

GrandAdmiralDan · Post #50 » by **GrandAdmiralDan** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:11 pm

Movieman wrote:I can’t blame him for not giving away Jefferson this year. It’s obvious the team desperately needs the revenue of a playoff appearance.

I do think we need a playoff appearance, but if we were just concerned about money, that doesn't make sense.

The amount of money we would have saved by trading RJ for Wally is much larger than revenue from one round of playoffs.

THE DINJ · Post #51 » by **THE DINJ** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:35 pm

I think it's more about building a winning culture around here more than anything. We can't just keep tanking the end of every season that isn't going to have 50+ wins.

I'm happy knowing that Redd, Bogut, and Ridnour will be movable next season (or before). We'll be able to re-sign Sessions. I'm even content seeing what the market will be for CV this offseason. If other teams think he's a flash in the pan (which he very might well be), we may even get him back for a fair price. Before the last 20 games, he'd been one of the most maddeningly inconsistent talented young players in the league. We don't need to make him into another Tim Thomas.

MilBucksBackOnTop06 · Post #52 » by **MilBucksBackOnTop06** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:39 pm

-"We had no real option to trade RJ at the deadline. One team that would have taken RJ also wanted us to give them an asset in addition. We weren't doing that. The other team was willing to trade RJ for an expiring but we were too uncomfortable trading RJ to that team. It turned our stomaches to think about it. "

This right here infuriates me...If Portlant wanted Sessions who I assume was that 'asset' that John Hammond speaks of HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN SESSIONS TO THEM!

Charlie Villanueva is the player who you cannot let go not Sessions! Sessions comes a dime a dozen and he is not a first round talent or pick!

You can a Sessions in the D-League. Hell, Luther Head who is availible is better then Sessions is now!
He is a good player but not a playmaker and he can be exposed.

The part where he says a team wanted an expiring I assumed that he meant Wally Szcerzbiak...I am completely elated they did not do that deal. That would turn my stomach as well.

But you have to pay Charlie and get rid of Redd. But they are going to keep that clown and let CV go...this team is a joke.

If you are going to let Charlie go for nothing then what is the difference and why did you keep him? It is harder keeping a PF then it is a G like Sessions and you are already weak at PF.

You should have let Sessions go at the deadline!

GrandAdmiralDan · Post #53 » by **GrandAdmiralDan** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:43 pm

MilBucksBackOnTop06 wrote:Hell, Luther Head who is availible is better then Sessions is now!

Reece Gaines > Luther Head > Ramon Sessions

cam2win · Post #54 » by **cam2win** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:46 pm

The biggest problem I have is that there is absolutly no chance we move Redd, RJ or Gadz next year...none. There is no team that is going to take on any salary getting ready for the summer of 2010. So basically the team we start with next year is the team we end with.

I guess there is a chance we move someone in 2011 for some assets, but isn't that the same as rebuilding which so many of us wanted this year?

Yay for mediocrity!

MilBucksBackOnTop06 · Post #55 » by **MilBucksBackOnTop06** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:49 pm

THE DINJ wrote:I think it's more about building a winning culture around here more than anything. We can't just keep tanking the end of every season that isn't going to have 50+ wins.

I'm happy knowing that Redd, Bogut, and Ridnour will be movable next season (or before). We'll be able to re-sign Sessions. I'm even content seeing what the market will be for CV this offseason. If other teams think he's a flash in the pan (which he very might well be), we may even get him back for a fair price. Before the last 20 games, he'd been one of the most maddeningly inconsistent talented young players in the league. We don't need to make him into another Tim Thomas.

What are you talking about....?

Did you read what he said? He said Redd and Bogut is staying to build around! He didn't say anything about them being movable!

I would move Bogut and Redd if it was me and keep Charlie and let Sessions walk and then somehow move down and get a guard like Jodie Meeks in the draft.

Charlie is no 'flash in the pan.' You need to revamp this team with him as a building block. I feared this too that he was simply on a contract push. But his is a talented young man. But I can tell that he is not a flash in the pan.

I think Bogut is...due to his soft injury prone bad back body. That is who they should dump now while they can...

I took one look at Westbrook and how Chris Paul abused Sessions and I am convinced he is nothing more then a backup with no jumper who the league will figure out.

Duncanfan · Post #56 » by **Duncanfan** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 6:52 pm

CV: Hey Hammond, what do I have to do to get the Bucks' FO value me for a change??

MilBucksBackOnTop06 · Post #57 » by **MilBucksBackOnTop06** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 7:03 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
-(Even if we can't re-sign Charlie) We still will be very competitive next year. Can we win with a core of Redd/RJ/Bogut? Yes, this year when all three were healthy for 22 games our record was 12-10. Those three players can get us to 40-wins and the playoffs next year. So yes, we can be competitive. There is no reason why we can't get 40-wins and that means the playoffs (yes, he really said "40-wins" twice)

Well, every move they have made backs this up. They kept RJ at the deadline even though an expiring was available, to try and get the 8th seed. They did this knowing that they likely had a 8th seed ceiling team next year (anyone that honestly thinks this same team on the floor plus Bogut minus CV is going to contend is drunk as sin).

This has always been a small picture frame of mind team with Kohl, and it doesn't appear much has changed. We will lose CV and not use our pick, and bring back a team that if it's lucky will win 40 next year. And nobody will care again.

Luke you are so right... I might be a fan of a pitiful, tired, vision-less and sorry franchise. I'm sorry to sound so negative but this team is a joke when it comes to knowing when and how to build a winner.

I could not agree with your comments more. A team of mediocrity and excuses. Kohl should have sold this team when he had the chance, even at the risk of them moving which is what they will do anyhow unless he does a drastic overhaul in the way he does business.

In this economic climate this team cannot be more daring and creative then this to invigorate their fan base!? You need stars to win. It is that simple. you either draft them, of which we have had more then our fair share to do or you clear room to bring them in here and keep the ones you have.

Look at the Brewers...THEY GO FOR IT. They don't set their sights low and think wild-card. They go all in and swing for the fences when they realize what their window is for making a run at the World Series!

The bucks do just the opposite and use this '40 win playoffs con job in the weak East' to draw fans and think they are being successful by saying the 'P word.'

I want to hear the Bucks give us the version of the 'CC word' again for the first time in many years... CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENTION!~ Forget the dumb stuff!

You need to clean house....NOW to begin work get that done! Not wallow in this mess.

Sigra · Post #58 » by **Sigra** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 7:12 pm

steger_3434 wrote: HE"S NOT DOING ANYTHING. ALL the credit needs to go to Skiles. Sure, Hammond hired Skiles, but any idiot could have gotten that hire if Kohl allowed it unlike past seasons.

You guys are so funny. Hammond and Skiles are on the same page. No doubt about that. Skiles would not accept this job if Hammond didn't promise to respect his desires. Hammond traded for RJ because Skiles loves RJ. Hammond traded Mo because Skiles didn't like Mo. Hammond didn't trade RJ because Skiles loves RJ etc etc. They are on the same page so if you love Skiles then you better love those moves that Hammond made/didn't made because that all came in the same package.

WEFFPIM · Post #59 » by **WEFFPIM** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 7:14 pm

MilBucksBackOnTop06 wrote:Look at the Brewers...THEY GO FOR IT. They don't set their sights low and think wild-card.

Umm, you might wanna take a look at the Brewers riveting offseason and mull your point over again.

Sigra · Post #60 » by **Sigra** » Sun Mar 1, 2009 7:20 pm

BTW, I respect MD and all but this is really just "A buddy of mine took some notes" kind of information. Nobody here really heard Hammond say those things. If we assume that MD's friend is nice and honest man (I have no reason to doubt but I don't know him really) then we still have that "did he heard it right" problem and also "did it wrote it right" problem.

Same people who were fast to atack insiders before, now take this information and use it like it is 100% true. Maybe it is but I smell double standards and agendas.