Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[europa]

That would assume the goal is just to into every season looking only at win totals. It isn't. It's thinking big picture. Losing young talent to keep veteran talent is not thinking big picture.

The Hawks lost a young talent last summer in Childress. They may lose another one this summer in Marvin. Their team did not regress this season and it may not regress next season. The Jazz could lose Boozer or Milsap. The Knicks could lose David Lee. Teams lose players, Luke. It happens. It's how you respond to those developments which determines your fate.

[Sigra]

That Hammond may not view re-signing Charlie Villanueva as SOMETHING HE MUST DO does not mean he's incompetent. It means his approach to improving this team isn't the same as what many here want.

He appears to believe that RJ is more valuable than Villanueva. That doesn't mean he's in over his head. It simply means (assuming this is his belief) his belief differs from people here. Given how often the majority (or at least the vocal majority) in this forum has been wrong the past two years in particular, I'm certainly not going to lose any faith in Hammond if he doesn't side with what this forum wants or believes.

+1

[trwi7]

That would assume the goal is just to into every season looking only at win totals. It isn't. It's thinking big picture. Losing young talent to keep veteran talent is not thinking big picture.

The Hawks lost a young talent last summer in Childress. They may lose another one this summer in Marvin. Their team did not regress this season and it may not regress next season. The Jazz could lose Boozer or Milsap. The Knicks could lose David Lee. Teams lose players, Luke. It happens. It's how you respond to those developments which determines your fate.

The Hawks didn't lose Childress, they still retain his rights.

And once again, those teams are in the position to sign those players if they want to since they have the money. The Bucks are not in that position.

[LUKE23]

The Jazz are also already a 50 win team, and Hawks are close. Bucks have been perennially .500 or worse, and will be again this year, and most likely next. Sitting around with overpaid veterans when you're not even a threat to win a playoff series (much less a contender) is moronic. You keep young talent and get rid of the high contracts. That is how you build.

[europa]

That would assume the goal is just to into every season looking only at win totals. It isn't. It's thinking big picture. Losing young talent to keep veteran talent is not thinking big picture.

The Hawks lost a young talent last summer in Childress. They may lose another one this summer in Marvin. Their team did not regress this season and it may not regress next season. The Jazz could lose Boozer or Milsap. The Knicks could lose David Lee. Teams lose players, Luke. It happens. It's how you respond to those developments which determines your fate.

The Hawks didn't lose Childress, they still retain his rights.

True, but given the bad blood between the two sides the belief presently is Childress will never play for the Hawks again. My main point, though, is the team lost a top young talent for this season and didn't get any worse as a result.

And once again, those teams are in the position to sign those players if they want to since they have the money. The Bucks are not in that position.

I'm aware of that. And again, I do not want to see Villanueva walk for nothing. I would like to see him re-signed. But I don't think losing Charlie Villanueva means next season is over and the team has no future. Sorry but you can't sell me on that belief no matter how good he's been playing the past two months (and he's been playing pretty damn good).

[europa]

The Jazz are also already a 50 win team, and Hawks are close.

Seems to me those teams would need to keep their best players even more. But Boozer or Milsap could be gone. I guess Kevin O'Connor needs to be fired. Same with Donnie Walsh if the Knicks lose David Lee. Off with their heads. The lot of 'em.

[trwi7]

I'm aware of that. And again, I do not want to see Villanueva walk for nothing. I would like to see him re-signed. But I don't think losing Charlie Villanueva means next season is over and the team has no future. Sorry but you can't sell me on that belief no matter how good he's been playing the past two months (and he's been playing pretty damn good).

Okay, so let's say we lose Villanueva for nothing.

What we now know.

1. We may have to give up one or two assets for nothing to re-sign Sessions.
2. After we sign Sessions, we have no money.
3. No money for a pick.
4. No money for players.
5. Roster next year.

Ridnour/Sessions
Redd/Bell
RJ/LRMAM
LRMAM/Allen
Bogut/Elson

Seriously. That team is pitiful. No depth, who knows when Redd will be back, horrible PF rotation.

The situations between us and the Hawks and Jazz are completely different. If the Jazz lose Millsap or Boozer, they can spend their MLE or use a draft pick to get someone. If the Hawks lose Marvin, they can use their draft pick or cap space. If we lose Villanueva we can use Malik Allen.

[europa]

twirl, I don't expect Hammond to re-sign Sessions and call it an offseason. And there's no evidence to suggest that's his plan either.

[worthlessBucks]

I'm aware of that. And again, I do not want to see Villanueva walk for nothing. I would like to see him re-signed. But I don't think losing Charlie Villanueva means next season is over and the team has no future. Sorry but you can't sell me on that belief no matter how good he's been playing the past two months (and he's been playing pretty damn good).

Okay, so let's say we lose Villanueva for nothing.

What we now know.

1. We may have to give up one or two assets for nothing to re-sign Sessions.
2. After we sign Sessions, we have no money.
3. No money for a pick.
4. No money for players.
5. Roster next year.

Ridnour/Sessions
Redd/Bell
RJ/LRMAM
LRMAM/Allen
Bogut/Elson

Seriously. That team is pitiful. No depth, who knows when Redd will be back, horrible PF rotation.

The situations between us and the Hawks and Jazz are completely different. If the Jazz lose Millsap or Boozer, they can spend their MLE or use a draft pick to get someone. If the Hawks lose Marvin, they can use their draft pick or cap space. If we lose Villanueva we can use Malik Allen.

I'm pretty sure everybody overlooks exactly what you just pointed out when they go against 'the realists'. It's pretty black and white and now Hammond is even saying we're going to lose assets to simply keep Sessions. .

[worthlessBucks]

twirl, I don't expect Hammond to re-sign Sessions and call it an offseason. And there's no evidence to suggest that's his plan either.

There's no flexibility though europa, it would have to be a magic trick to add quality players to the team. He's going to have to get real lucky with a couple of second rounders as it stands right now.

[trwi7]

twirl, I don't expect Hammond to re-sign Sessions and call it an offseason. And there's no evidence to suggest that's his plan either.

Really? So explain to me how he's going to clear salary to do anything else.

[europa]

twirl, I don't expect Hammond to re-sign Sessions and call it an offseason. And there's no evidence to suggest that's his plan either.

There's no flexibility though europa, it would have to be a magic trick to add quality players to the team. He's going to have to get real lucky with a couple of second rounders as it stands right now.

You and twirl and Luke appear to be saying that there is a 0% chance players currently on the roster will not be traded next summer. I disagree with that belief.

[Sigra]

Well, if you disagree, you're wrong. All that matters for the Bucks is the Bucks, not what other teams are doing, until they are a contender. The Cavs are irrelevant to the Bucks plans, because they are a contender right now and Milwaukee is not.

Well then, I guess, I am just not that kind of pussy to allow someone to use me like that. The Cavs are irrelevant to the Bucks plans but RJ is not. You all act like we wouldn't lose anything in that RJ-Wally trade. That's not true at all because we would lose RJ. IF we don't lose anything then YES I agree we should not care about what good that do to Cavs. But we do lose a lot so it is natural to ask for at least something.

Here is one example. Lets say that you are poor man who has 2 roosters. They can't coexist because they always fights. Are you going to give one of them for nothing? Well you shouldn't have to because if there is a man who wants to buy one rooster then he has to be ready to pay for that. What if that man knows that you have to sell one of them and therefore doesn't want to give you anything? Well then you keep the better one and the other will make fine soup

[trwi7]

twirl, I don't expect Hammond to re-sign Sessions and call it an offseason. And there's no evidence to suggest that's his plan either.

There's no flexibility though europa, it would have to be a magic trick to add quality players to the team. He's going to have to get real lucky with a couple of second rounders as it stands right now.

You and twirl and Luke appear to be saying that there is a 0% chance players currently on the roster will not be traded next summer. I disagree with that belief.

And you and others continue to miss the point that we have to take salary back in any such trades.

As it is we're probably going to have to trade our 1st for a couple 2nds to even field a full roster.

[europa]

And you and others continue to miss the point that we have to take salary back in any such trades..

How have I missed that point? I completely understand it. I simply disagree with the belief that Hammond won't alter the roster next summer. I expect him to do that. I would anticipate RJ being made available. I would think Ridnour will be available as well. I'm not ignoring the realities of bringing back salary. I'm simply disagreeing with your belief that the only thing Hammond will do next summer is re-sign Ramon Sessions.

[trwi7]

Well, if you disagree, you're wrong. All that matters for the Bucks is the Bucks, not what other teams are doing, until they are a contender. The Cavs are irrelevant to the Bucks plans, because they are a contender right now and Milwaukee is not.

Well then, I guess, I am just not that kind of pussy to allow someone to use me like that. The Cavs are irrelevant to the Bucks plans but RJ is not. You all act like we wouldn't lose anything in that RJ-Wally trade. That's not true at all because we would lose RJ. IF we don't lose anything then YES I agree we should not care about what good that do to Cavs. But we do lose a lot so it is natural to ask for at least something.

Here is one example. Lets say that you are poor man who has 2 roosters. They can't coexist because they always fights. Are you going to give one of them for nothing? Well you shouldn't have to because if there is a man who wants to buy one rooster then he has to be ready to pay for that. What if that man knows that you have to sell one of them and therefore doesn't want to give you anything? Well then you keep the better one and the other will make fine soup

Well first I would try to trade one of the roosters for a hen. However, if I couldn't do that, then I would give one away because two dead roosters isn't going to do you any good. I'd rather have one rooster and then the flexibility to add a hen than two dead roosters.

[trwi7]

And you and others continue to miss the point that we have to take salary back in any such trades..

How have I missed that point? I completely understand it. I simply disagree with the belief that Hammond won't alter the roster next summer. I expect him to do that. I would anticipate RJ being made available. I would think Ridnour will be available as well. I'm not ignoring the realities of bringing back salary. I'm simply disagreeing with your belief that the only thing Hammond will do next summer is re-sign Ramon Sessions.

So we trade the players that Hammond didnt want to trade just a few months earlier for salary relief when that is exactly what we needed? That would be an epic fail if he did that.

[Sigra]

Well first I would try to trade one of the roosters for a hen. However, if I couldn't do that, then I would give one away because two dead roosters isn't going to do you any good. I'd rather have one rooster and then the flexibility to add a hen than two dead roosters.

Well, Cavs didn't want to give hen so that option was out. Two dead roosters is not option because when one become soup other will live happy with all that hens just for him. And I would rather have older (but better) rooster + fine soup (playoffs this year) than younger (but big "contract year" risk) rooster and no soup at all

[trwi7]

I would disagree. I say the hen was Wally.

True about only one dead rooster.

I would rather have the younger rooster. That gives you more time to find a hen before you're completely broke.

[europa]

I'm saying that I believe Hammond will make moves to continue trying to improve the roster. I do not expect Sessions being re-signed to be the only move made. Perhaps he gets a better deal in terms of talent for RJ than what he could have gotten now. Yes he brings back equal salary but perhaps the talent involved makes the Bucks a better team as a result. That's hardly unrealistic. That's one of the reasons why I'm not in a panic like so many here are. There was certainly nothing in the comments Hammond made last night which would make me feel concerned about him or the job he's doing.

Or maybe he sells off the first using Rindour's expiring and he can get Allen tossed into the mix as well. That puts him at $56M in salary. He re-signs Sessions and Villanueva for $10M and he still has $3M to work with under the luxury tax. Bring over future Hall of Famer Ersan Ilyasova, sign a scub to back up Sessions and now you're looking at:

PG: Sessions/Scub
PG: Redd/Bell
SF: RJ/M&M/Alexander
PF: Villanueva/Ilysasova
C: Bogut/Elson/Gadz

That doesn't look so bad to me.