Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[trwi7]

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.

His point is perfectly valid. They threw the farm at Sabathia, but didn't have the money and they made a trade for Sabathia where Melvin said "We're going for it."

[EastSideBucksFan]

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.

You don't know this at all. There was a market for RJ this year, everybody knows his deal runs past 2010. Before Redd went down, there was a market for him. Everybody knows his deal runs past 2010. Gadz, there is really no market for. Unless he continues to show some serviceable-ness and then at next years deadline he only has one and a half years left, if you tie something else to him, then maaaaaaaaaaaybe. But I don't think you can at all say with certainty there are no teams willing to take them on next year.

Houston and Dallas are two teams that come to mind that could be interested in Redd and/or RJ next year.

[LUKE23]

I've given up any kind of hope that Hammond has a firm plan in mind. If anyone can give me some evidence that points out a plan, I'd love to hear it. And don't f'ing tell me "aim for .500 for three years until RJ/Redd/Gadz expire". That is not a damn plan.

I'm very worried that we didn't move RJ because it makes the Cavs, who are already a title contender, even better. That is 100% IRRELEVANT. Hammond's job is to build the Bucks for the future, by any means possible.

I cannot believe what I'm reading here. I just can't. This franchise is going nowhere.

[MickeyDavis]

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.

Sigra, I understand your skepticism. But let me say that more than one person on this board was also there and has confirmed everything that was said.

[paulpressey25]

Zizek was apparently there last night. He posted this in the other thread.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=886109&start=75#p18789871

When asked about Jefferson trades at the season ticket holder event before the Washington game Hammonds said he turned down a trade of Jefferson "plus an asset" and a trade of Jefferson to a rival they did not want to trade him to.

Hammonds expressed some doubt about retaining Sessions and more doubt about retaining CV. He said Redd and RJ would still be in their primes for the lives of their contracts but looked forward to the year he would have their contracts and DG's off the books.

Sounds like the same thing to me.

[Sigra]

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.

Sigra, I understand your skepticism. But let me say that more than one person on this board was also there and has confirmed everything that was said.

Ok then. One more question though. Did those people also confirmed exact numbers that Hammond used (those that GAD found wrong) or did they just confirmed general storry?

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

I can't believe this moron. I really can't. He had a chance to completely rebuild this team THIS year. IN A SINGLE YEAR. He could have dumped Redd. He didn't. He could have dumped RJ. He didn't. Rather he blew the lotto pick, tried to trade our young players, will give away our draft pick and CV (and Ersan). Yeah John, this team will look great in two years with the cupboard bare and out own FAs over the hill.

This idiot is implementing a 5 year plan with 30 year olds rather than 24 year olds. I want to strangle him.

Agreed. He should be fired.

He would have been better off leaving the team completely alone and not moving anyone and see what Skiles could have done with it until the deadline then to be where we are at right now if he was not going to trade Redd.

The trade for RJ now is a mistake if you will lose Charlie V for nothing and keep Sessions. If you had kept Mo Williams there would be no need to worry about Sessions. You would just find a taker for Bell, Simmons and Mason instead down the road.

Just a horrible job. You should have kept GM Larry Harris and let him fix this mess...He atleast knew talent and had a vision if Kohl would have left him alone!

What I wouldn't have given now to move down and get OJ Mayo or Michael Westbrook or even Kevin Love or Brooke Lopez in this draft...to go with Charlie Villanueva now. But we stayed put and picked Joe Alexander!

What in the world...is that!? A project with an 8th picks in the lottery? That is simply asinine...I'm sorry. That is a firable offense right there!

The Pistons where Hammond came from are already kicking themselves on taking Milicic over Melo.
If they had Melo they would have a dynasty now...and perhaps 3 rings atleast. Now Hammond comes over here and screws us up with this pick.

Yi Jianlian a #6 pick and Joe Alexander a #8 pick in back to back lotteries is horriffic! Two busts picks and wonder why no one wants to put our team on TV!? Look at OKC drafts in those years!

Durant, Green, and Westbrook!

Bingo!

Future stud team....that is getting it done and doing your homework!

What's our problem!!!?

[europa]

I've been less interested to post here lately because the unrelenting negativity in the face of team improvement has been too much to take but what the hell. Here's my take on what Hammond is saying (be warned, it's lengthy):

1. Sessions will be re-signed. If that means parting with next year's No. 1 pick to do so then that's what it will take. I'm fine with that.

2. According to fam, the highest salary Sessions can receive next season is $5.5M. Or "about $5M." I understand GAD's concerns but it seems Hammond was simply trying to explain how much Sessions could be offered by another team as a free agent. If fam's info is correct, then Hammond is saying the same thing only using different language. Again, I'm fine with that.

3. He didn't want to trade Sessions to the Blazers with RJ. I'm more than fine with that.

4. He didn't want to trade RJ to the Cavs because the Cavs are a contender. I'm not thrilled with this reasoning and I'm on record as saying I would've made the RJ for Wally trade. I think Hammond may have made a mistake not making that deal.

5. He's asking the season ticket holders to be patient which I think is perfectly reasonable given the horrible team he inherited. While they're being patient, they can expect to see a team that can be a winning team and make the playoffs, both good things. I don't see anything to suggest he's saying this team will never progress beyond 40+ wins. He's saying that in the short term this team can be a winning team as he continues making improvements for future growth. I don't see a problem with any of that.

6. He may be able to re-sign Villanueva but admits it won't be easy. Point No. 1 that I'm surprised isn't being discussed - He sure seemed to come right out and say what the team's value of Villanueva is and it's less than $8M per year. So it seems the line has been drawn. If the Bucks can re-sign Villanueva for under $8M a year they'll try to do it. If somebody comes in an offers him more than that, they're letting him walk. I don't like the idea of letting Villanueva walk with no compensation but I agree completely with the idea of not overpaying to keep him (and I think anything more than $8M a year is overpaying). The previous regime made that mistake with Mo and I don't want to see it made with Villanueva.

7. He's saying that if Villanueva does leave, this team will still have the talent to be good and maybe even very good as was proven this season when Bogut, Redd and RJ were healthy. The facts support his belief so I'm fine with that.

8. Other teams are planning on having expirings for 2010 and their GMs are geniuses. Hammond is pointing toward the following year (due in large part to two contracts he inherited) and he's an idiot. That makes zero sense to me.

9. Point No. 2 that I'm surprised isn't being discussed - If this team stinks next year, he's going to try and trade Redd or RJ. This is rather significant in my opinion. He's basically telling people he's prepared to deal these guys if this team isn't doing well in a year's time. So if this team regresses he's going to give people here what they want. He simply isn't giving it to them when they want it. He believes RJ and a healthy Redd will have trade value next year due to their 2011 expirings. I agree with that and have made that point as well. Of course, Redd needs to return to full health or close to it for that to occur.

My final thoughts: Again, I'm not thrilled with the RJ/Cavs element and I don't want to see Villanueva walk for nothing but other teams are in a similar spot. The Jazz, for example, could lose Carlos Boozer for nothing. He's a much better player than Villanueva. Is their GM incompetent if Boozer opts out? What if they keep Boozer but lose Milsap? Is their GM now in over his head? The Hawks lost Josh Childress last summer. Has their team fallen apart? Other teams have FA issues too. That's part of the business. 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.

I'd still like to know if any team even made a trade offer for Villanueva. If no team did, that doesn't make Hammond incompetent. This is what happens in free agency. You have to make tough choices. 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.

I don't have a problem with most of the points he made. Again, I don't like the idea of losing Villanueva for nothing but that's a risk other teams have to take with free agents as well. That's how the system works. Given the major improvements this team has made this season in my opinion and given how this team is fighting for a playoff spot despite major injuries to its two best players, I'm very happy with the job Hammond has done so far. I'm not going to bury him on the future when it hasn't even been written yet.

[LUKE23]

If we lose either of Sessons OR CV (I will expect both to be back given that Hammond had a trade available for RJ) this offseason, I'm done with Hammond.

[LUKE23]

7. He's saying that if Villanueva does leave, this team will still have the talent to be good and maybe even very good as was proven this season when Bogut, Redd and RJ were healthy. The facts support his belief so I'm fine with that.

Sessions/Redd/RJ/Bogut, no PF and no bench has what as a ceiling next year? And that is assuming Redd is even goddam healthy. NO ONE is going to be excited about that team.

[europa]

I am very much in favor of re-signing Villanueva. That said, I do not think this team's fortunes for next season rest entirely on whether he's on the team or not. This team can win without Charlie Villanueva. of that, I'm 100% certain.

[jokeboy86]

Where does Hammond think he is at? The Knicks are telling people in New York to wait til 2010 and they are already antsy about waiting that long. But you're going to tell a city that already is showing they could care less about NBA basketball to wait till 2011?

I'll be amazed at how long Skiles sticks around here because compared to PHX, and CHI this could get even uglier. I still can't believe after all these years that Kohl is still delusional and now it is spreading.

The problem is as long as the Bucks are never the worst team in the league for like 3 years or more or never have the worst attendance in the league, management will never see things as bad as we see them. Also is the fact that we have an owner who will never threaten the city over financial reasons. Management will always compare themselves to other bad franchises and say, "at least we aren't the (insert team)" or they'll tell us we should be grateful not to be owned by your typical greedy sports owner.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

I've given up any kind of hope that Hammond has a firm plan in mind. If anyone can give me some evidence that points out a plan, I'd love to hear it. And don't f'ing tell me "aim for .500 for three years until RJ/Redd/Gadz expire". That is not a damn plan.

I'm very worried that we didn't move RJ because it makes the Cavs, who are already a title contender, even better. That is 100% IRRELEVANT. Hammond's job is to build the Bucks for the future, by any means possible.

I cannot believe what I'm reading here. I just can't. This franchise is going nowhere.

LUKE...I disagree with you there.

You do not do that deal with the Cavs. That would be stupid. I am getting tired of bringing this up. None of you can give a good reason why they Bucks should have done this other then to say they would clear room.

I don't know why that is so hard for you and GAD to understand?

He should not have rushed and done the Mo Williams trade either. Or in a smaller degree the RJ deal even though it looked good on paper.

But doing the Cav deal just to clear room to help a divisional rival would be like you making a deal with your company's rival to help yourself. You do not endear yourself by doing deals like that.

That is the only thing Hammond has done right!

[Sigra]

I'm very worried that we didn't move RJ because it makes the Cavs, who are already a title contender, even better. That is 100% IRRELEVANT.

I disagree. If they want to secure wining championship (and with RJ they are 100% sure IMO) then they have to pay for that. It was not "life or death" situation for Bucks. We still have options to keep CV or we could just have RJ over CV and be happy with that. RJ is better player anyway. No reason for us to get raped like that.

[WEFFPIM]

I'll give Hammond this, he's not shrouding his plan and the current situation of this team at all like most GMs do. When a question is asked, he answers it very bluntly. Maybe we take the "sugar-coated GM" approach for granted sometimes. He's saying "here's the deal, it sucks, but here it is."

We may not like it, but I'd much rather have honesty like that than the vague answers most sports authority figures do.

[WEFFPIM]

You do not do that deal with the Cavs. That would be stupid. I am getting tired of bringing this up. None of you can give a good reason why they Bucks should have done this other then to say they would clear room.

Considering the financial situation of this team, the league, and the country as a whole, that's pretty damn good reason to do that deal.

[LUKE23]

I disagree. If they want to secure wining championship (and with RJ they are 100% sure IMO) then they have to pay for that. It was not "life or death" situation for Bucks. We still have options to keep CV or we could just have RJ over CV and be happy with that. RJ is better player anyway. No reason for us to get raped like that.

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.

I am very much in favor of re-signing Villanueva. That said, I do not think this team's fortunes for next season rest entirely on whether he's on the team or not. This team can win without Charlie Villanueva. of that, I'm 100% certain.

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.

[europa]

I'll give Hammond this, he's not shrouding his plan and the current situation of this team at all like most GMs do. When a question is asked, he answers it very bluntly. Maybe we take the "sugar-coated GM" approach for granted sometimes. He's saying "here's the deal, it sucks, but here it is."

We may not like it, but I'd much rather have honesty like that than the vague answers most sports authority figures do.

He's also not overselling his product the way Harris did the last two seasons.

[trwi7]

I'm very worried that we didn't move RJ because it makes the Cavs, who are already a title contender, even better. That is 100% IRRELEVANT.

I disagree. If they want to secure wining championship (and with RJ they are 100% sure IMO) then they have to pay for that. It was not "life or death" situation for Bucks. We still have options to keep CV or we could just have RJ over CV and be happy with that. RJ is better player anyway. No reason for us to get raped like that.

No, you have it wrong. They are already championship contenders without RJ. RJ helps, but they're still not guaranteed a championship. The Bucks on the other hand are backed into the corner here. They and every other team in the league knew they had no money and two restricted free agents. Teams aren't going to bail the Bucks out by giving them an expiring contract and then add other asset(s) to that.

[DH34Phan]

I'll give Hammond this, he's not shrouding his plan and the current situation of this team at all like most GMs do. When a question is asked, he answers it very bluntly. Maybe we take the "sugar-coated GM" approach for granted sometimes. He's saying "here's the deal, it sucks, but here it is."

We may not like it, but I'd much rather have honesty like that than the vague answers most sports authority figures do.

He's also not overselling his product the way Harris did the last two seasons.

If Harris was allowed to get a good coach, his product probably would have been a lot better.