Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[GrandAdmiralDan]

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?

It wasn't just him using the number of about $5 mil, it was Hammond saying that the average salary amount would be DOWN.

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.

It's not $5.5 mil.
I added up every salary in the NBA (I believe I did that the week before the trade deadline, so there have been a few 10 day contracts, Marbury, and perhaps a trade kicker that need to get added in, but as I said, that INCREASES the number) and then I did it a SECOND time to make sure I got the same total. For the number to be $5.5 mil I would have had to mistakenly add in an extra $136 million in salary. Both times. That didn't happen.

[europa]

So what's the highest salary Sessions can receive next season from another team who signs him to an offer sheet, GAD?

[MU fan 22]

oh no the sky is falling!!! calm down if you guys honestly think that they had a one year fix or even a two year fix you guys and flat out dumb. We really cant do anything major until redd danny g and RJs contracts are up so sit back and enjoy a competitive team but not a great team. and plz stop crying

[KingCammo]

Bucks fans panacing? I'm stun.

[GrandAdmiralDan]

So what's the highest salary Sessions can receive next season from another team who signs him to an offer sheet, GAD?

Even using the smaller numbers (there are slight variances in the salary data available) the 09-10 average salary amount is already going to be at least $5.848 mil, a number that will continue to rise slightly.

[europa]

So what's the highest salary Sessions can receive next season from another team who signs him to an offer sheet, GAD?

Even using the smaller numbers (there are slight variances in the salary data available) the 09-10 salary amount is already going to be at least $5.848 mil, a number that will continue to rise slightly.

So the highest salary Sessions will receive next season from another team will be about $5.9M? Is that correct?

[GrandAdmiralDan]

So the highest salary Sessions will receive next season from another team will be about $5.9M? Is that correct?

Yes.

[europa]

So the highest salary Sessions will receive next season from another team will be about $5.9M? Is that correct?

Yes.

Got it. Thanks.

[LUKE23]

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

I think most would take that roster next year. I will wager anyone anything it does not happen though. My guess is they lose the pick, let CV walk, and bring back Sessions. They have no other salary to add FA's.

Roster on day 1 next year:

PG: Sessions
SG: Bell
SF: Jefferson
PF: LRMAM
C: Bogut

Even if Redd is healthy, you have LRMAM playing out of position and a HORRENDOUS bench. But I will wager with anyone that we don't bring back both Sessions and CV. Why? Because Hammond was going all-in for the 8th seed this year. Awesome.

And I know the next thing will be "Hammond saw RJ as more valuable than CV". Even if that was the case (I disagree straight up), it's not accurate. It's CV + our first + other money to spend. It's not a RJ for CV straight swap, and that also ignores that CV is younger and plays a much harder position to find talent.

We'll see on Hammond. I'm not optimistic. Everything I've seen so far screams "our goal is only to make the playoffs, there is no big plan in mind".

[europa]

I'm not talking about adding players via free agency. I don't expect that to happen other than possibly end-of-the-bench filler types.

You guys aren't optimistic about Hammond. That's fine. I am. Everything I've seen so far this season has me feeling very confident he has a plan in place and can execute it. I don't agree with the RJ/Wally decision but I don't expect to agree with every decision he makes and I don't expect every move Hammond makes to turn out like gold. He's going to make mistakes. Every GM does. But as long as the team continues to improve he'll have my support.

[LUKE23]

So all the team has to do is win more games in 2009-10 than 2008-09 and Hammond is doing a good job? And he's doing a good job because they won more games in 2008-09 than 2007-08?

Does projection for contention count? Or just if you won more games than the previous season? Thinking like that is what gets you two decades straight years of being mediocre.

[europa]

Luke, I'm not going to continue debating a point that we've debated numerous times already. I've stated my position several times about the criteria I will use to judge team improvement. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but that's my position. You guys aren't happy with Hammond. I get that. I am happy. Again, I would've made the RJ to Cleveland trade and I'm not in favor of letting Villanueva walk for nothing so I don't worship blindly at his feet and think everything he does is the right decision. But so far I think he has been successful in implementing his plan and improving his team. That carries a lot of weight with me. Because of that, I'm not going to bury him and an upcoming season before he's even had a chance to address the team's roster. That's all I'm saying.

[ReddManBogieMan]

So all the team has to do is win more games in 2009-10 than 2008-09 and Hammond is doing a good job? And he's doing a good job because they won more games in 2008-09 than 2007-08?

Does projection for contention count? Or just if you won more games than the previous season? Thinking like that is what gets you two decades straight years of being mediocre.

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.

[LUKE23]

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.

[EastSideBucksFan]

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.

I am going to guess based off his comments and actions that he wants to develop a young core (Sessions, LRMAM, Bogut, hopefully CV and JA) while also having the roster balanced with veteran talent (Redd, RJ and Ridnour) so that we can be competitive over the next two seasons and when we are able to move the veterans for more attractive, long term pieces, or they expire, then we are in a position with a well experienced and seasoned young core (Sessions, LRMAM, Bogut, hopefully CV and JA) that we will then be a position to add significant pieces to that team to turn us into a contender.

[LUKE23]

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.

You can't rebuild and win at the same time. Well, you can rebuild and win 41-43 games at the same time. But not contend. I've been saying that for YEARS.

[europa]

I think his overall plan is to keep retooling the roster while the team becomes a consistent winning team and playoff team. I don't have a problem with either one and both would represent significant upgrades over recent seasons. He appears to be pointing toward the summer of 2011 when he can take the next big step. I can appreciate the fact that's not going to blow the wind up anybody's skirt but teams around the league are pointing toward the summer of 2010 and are viewed as geniuses for doing it. One year later shouldn't make Hammond an imbecile.

But again, I'll point out a key part of what he said last night that hasn't gotten a sniff of discussion other than my first post - he WILL trade Redd or RJ if this team regresses next season. He's put that out there. So it's clear if this team isn't improving the way he projects, he'll take action. He won't buy into Redd and RJ long-term if the team's results aren't justifying that decision.

I think what Hammond wants to do is turn this team into a consistent winner first. A team that will post a winning record consistently and be a regular visitor in the playoffs. I think he wants to establish that as the foundation while continuing to re-shape and mold the roster the way he and Skiles want. Then when that foundation is established he'll make bigger moves that will (hopefully) result in the team becoming a contender. That's what I take away from his comments.

All I see him doing is asking for patience. Given this team's lack of success the past two decades, that's a big request but given how utterly awful the team he inherited was, I don't believe that's an unreasonable request. Rome wasn't built in a day and there was no way he was going to turn this horrible team into a contender overnight. It's going to take some time and I think he needs to be allowed some time to continue implementing his plan before tossing him out in the garbage as a failure - especially when the team's improved record and play this season does not support such a conclusion.

Just my take.

[ReddManBogieMan]

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.

[europa]

I am going to guess based off his comments and actions that he wants to develop a young core (Sessions, LRMAM, Bogut, hopefully CV and JA) while also having the roster balanced with veteran talent (Redd, RJ and Ridnour) so that we can be competitive over the next two seasons and when we are able to move the veterans for more attractive, long term pieces, or they expire, then we are in a position with a well experienced and seasoned young core (Sessions, LRMAM, Bogut, hopefully CV and JA) that we will then be a position to add significant pieces to that team to turn us into a contender.

Yup. Nothing unreasonable about this plan at all in my opinion.

Again, it's going to be a challenge to re-sign Villanueva. We all know that. But let's see if Hammond can pull a rabbit out of his hat. He's made it clear he wants to keep Villanueva if the price is right. Maybe the bad economy and Villanueva's past issues (which Chad Ford said last week still has teams skittish about him) will work in the Bucks' favor and they'll either keep Villanueva for the QO or re-sign him for a reasonable price.

[jokeboy86]

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.