Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[El Duderino]

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.

I was quite troubled by Hammond's response and was going to post, but you summed up my thoughts well. Maybe Hammond can pull something out of his asss this offseason to change the grave concerns that i have about him, but as of right now at least, it's hard for me to feel confident that the Bucks have a man running the show that can fix things as i hoped for. His comments about why he wouldn't trade RJ to the Cavs is beyond troubling, it's frightening.

[coolhandluke121]

Can someone with search permissions please bump the "Redd/RJ not what they where - should have rebuilt" thread I started last August. I promise this will be the last time I ask.

Strangely enough, even as most are losing faith in Hammond I'm actually starting to feel a little more optimistic. This season's record is not nearly as good as it could be with everyone healthy. They could have won 45-50 and I wouldn't have been surprised. And next year, they could be even better. I just wish they had kept Mo and traded Redd, but other than that it's cool.

Why the change of heart? CV, Sessions, LRMAM, Bell, and Ridnour are all far better than I expected them to be this year. They're all darn good players for the roles they're in, and the fact that the team is pretty respectable without Redd and Bogut and with RJ being out of shape for most of this season is a tribute to the goodies Larry Harris left in the cupboard. In fact, I think Harris's ability to stock up talent is what convinced Hammond to take the Bucks' job when he could have had a lot of other gm jobs. It was a situation he could do something with, and I'm starting to wonder if he wasn't on the right track until bad luck struck. The issue is that he should have adjusted to that bad luck, but it appears he's sticking to his original plans. We'll see.

And I still say CV could very well be a Buck next year. Kohl will cave in if he thinks the team is headed in the right direction. CV, Sessions, and RJ leading them to the playoffs will definitely make Kohl's decision a tough one regardless of the financial implications. He really, really wants to win. I wouldn't discount the possibility of packaging JA and couple first-rounders to unload some unwanted salary (although most people dismissed that without a second thought when I suggested it in my Gadz TI thread).

[El Sid]

So the way I see it is that there is two factions here. On one side (and it looks like the majority) there are those fans who are sick of losing or watching a team with a ceiling of mediocrity and they don't like hearing that the ultimate plan really does start in two years.

On the other side there are those who are patient enough to watch a average team for the next couple of seasons (and possibly an improving team) in hopes of having a solid young team with more financial flexibility then they'll know what to do with in 2011.

I as well as pretty much everyone here is sick of mediocrity but if chocking on three bad contracts for two more seasons, as long as they can keep some good young talent clearly, means starting from scratch with guys like Sesh, Bogut, and LRMAM still on the team in 2011 then I'm down.

The Bucks are just gonna need to figure out a way to get a superstar because that is basically where it stops and ends. No one on the team right now is a superstar or will be and the likelyhood of them getting a superstar in the mid teens is minute at best. It looks like the best bet is to get a top 3 pick along the way.

[JoeHova]

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.

That plan is so vague and general as to be meaningless. Develop a young core? What team doesn't want good young players? The problem is that his "veteran talent" that you mentioned may be veteran but is basically talentless despite making $38 million, which will inhibit or destroy the chances of building up the young core. Just because a guy is a veteran doesn't necessarily mean he's worth anything, which is a mistake a lot of stupid GM's in every sport make.

The plan is unreasonable because it is not a plan. It is saying "well, maybe everything will work out". Any moron can execute such a "plan"! Anybody! Sometimes, like now, an actual plan, one that requires action, is necessary. A trade needed to be made, whether it was consolidating the young talent, getting draft picks for CV, salary dumping overpaid garbage like RJ or Ridnour or whatever. Nothing this franchise has done points to staying the course being the right move. The fact that Hammond views RJ (and Redd) as a building block is distressing beyond belief. It speaks to not just a lack of a plan but a lack of any kind of knowledge of how a winning team is built. I can't believe we (that is to say, Herb) got fooled into believing that hype about Hammond being the brains behind Detroit's success.

[europa]

If any moron can make the Bucks a consistent winner how come they have only had consecutive playoff appearances twice in the last 18 years?

Twice.

That's it.

It ain't easy and anyone who thinks so is grossly underestimating the challenge Hammond inherited. Like I said, I get that most people here think he's incompetent. That's fine. I'm very happy with the job he's done so far and I like the plan he has put into place so far. He needs to keep improving this team and if he does he'll continue to have my support.

[JoeHova]

If any moron can make the Bucks a consistent winner how come they have only had consecutive playoff appearances twice in the last 18 years?

Twice.

That's it.

It ain't easy and anyone who thinks so is grossly underestimating the challenge Hammond inherited. Like I said, I get that most people here think he's incompetent. That's fine. I'm very happy with the job he's done so far and I like the plan he has put into place so far. He needs to keep improving this team and if he does he'll continue to have my support.

What were the challenges? Figuring out how to dump an all-star PG for a guy whose contract isn't even expiring? Or maybe it was figuring out how to sign the worst player in the NBA to a 2 year deal (Malik Allen)? Or perhaps how to be on the receiving end of a salary dump of a declining, overpaid veteran by a smarter team which has a plan?

[europa]

You're right, the team he inherited was outstanding. Hard to believe there was even a GM opening in Milwaukee to begin with given how great it was. My bad.

[paulpressey25]

Again, I would've made the RJ to Cleveland trade

I think it is fascinating that you are going on record as supporting this, given your belief that the team needs to win first before we can build a contender. This is 180 degrees from everything else you've stood for. IMO RJ is a huge part of winning this season and getting to the playoffs. And I think having a guy like RJ around is helping teach guys like CV and Ramon how to act as a pro and it has helped their development. Skiles likes the guy because he can plug him in with no problems. No growing pains. And if you dump RJ for nothing, you've just admitted that Hammond's single biggest trade was a massive failure.

On the same point, I'd admit I've gone 180 degrees in favor of Hammond on the specific RJ to Cleveland deal. I would have gladly moved RJ in any deal where we got something back, but it would have turned my stomach as well to just hand him over for either Wally or LaFrentz. More importantly, there is that possibility that CV does draw a $9mm a year offer for a multi-year period. If that's the case, I probably let him go. And at that point, I'm very glad I've still got RJ (and to a lesser extent Ridnour) on this roster to give things a go next season. (again maybe I try then to trade Ridnour to Houston for Landry to replace CV)

The only area where I think we get burned badly is if Memphis or a team with cap room decides to offer Charlie V. a one year contract at $8 or $9 million a year. I really think we'd need to match that one.

In any event, I hope like heck we make the playoffs, CV continues on fire and only ends up with the QO which Kohl agrees to go into the luxury tax to pay. Many "ifs" but that would seem to be our best scenario to hope for.

[europa]

Again, I would've made the RJ to Cleveland trade

I think it is fascinating that you are going on record as supporting this, given your belief that the team needs to win first before we can build a contender. This is 180 degrees from everything else you've stood for.

Not really. I like RJ and I think he's gotten a bum rap in this forum and I agree his veteran presence has been huge in this team's improvement this season. That being said, I've always viewed him (and Redd) as a temporary piece to help this team improve. At some point I would expect him to be traded. And of the three top players on this team (Bogut, Redd and RJ), I think he is the most easy to replace given the current roster components. So I consider him the most expendable of the three. I think you could have even made the RJ for Wally trade and still gotten into the playoffs. It would've been tough but this team Hammond has built has been pretty damn resilient and Skiles is a helluva head coach so if they can survive without Redd and Bogut, I think they could've given the playoffs a run with Wally as well. Plus, you get the financial comfort to re-sign Sessions and Villanueva.

It's not the deal I would've preferred. I would've rather gotten something done with the Blazers that brought back Outlaw, but it's clear they were being unrealistic with their trade demands so I think Hammond was smart to turn them down. But with the deadline approaching and the likelihood of Bogut not returning this season, I probably would've cashed in on RJ, taken the salary savings, hoped Skiles could still work his magic and get the team to the playoffs and if nothing else, still have the flexibility to retain Sessions and Villanueva with little worries.

[paul]

If any moron can make the Bucks a consistent winner how come they have only had consecutive playoff appearances twice in the last 18 years?

Twice.

That's it.

It ain't easy and anyone who thinks so is grossly underestimating the challenge Hammond inherited. Like I said, I get that most people here think he's incompetent. That's fine. I'm very happy with the job he's done so far and I like the plan he has put into place so far. He needs to keep improving this team and if he does he'll continue to have my support.

What were the challenges? Figuring out how to dump an all-star PG for a guy whose contract isn't even expiring? Or maybe it was figuring out how to sign the worst player in the NBA to a 2 year deal (Malik Allen)? Or perhaps how to be on the receiving end of a salary dump of a declining, overpaid veteran by a smarter team which has a plan?

That would have been a good post if any of it had been true. Mo wasn't an allstar when he dumped him and he did get some expiring back in the deal, though not all expiring. Malik Allen is not close the worst player in the nba, exaggerate much?
But I particularly love the last bit, Cleveland are a smarter team and have a plan? Ha ha. Your right they do have a plan - give Lebron at least one decent player beside him and spend whatever amount over the threshold you want to do so (I belive $90m this season), something they've failed miserably to do the previous 4 years. Ferry for GM of the decade
I'd love to see the team Hammond could put together if he was allowed to spend $90m.

[El Sid]

But I particularly love the last bit, Cleveland are a smarter team and have a plan? Ha ha. Your right they do have a plan - give Lebron at least one decent player beside him and spend whatever amount over the threshold you want to do so (I belive $90m this season), something they've failed miserably to do the previous 4 years. Ferry for GM of the decade
I'd love to see the team Hammond could put together if he was allowed to spend $90m.

Well and to go along with your Cleveland point, Lebron James is quite possibly the best player in the NBA and they were lucky enough to draft him first. Imagine if the Bucks would have had the first pick in that Draft or Derrick Rose last year.

You can't say Cleveland has this great plan when they got lucky in selecting Lebron. He took them to the ECF last season without one other player who was even all-star caliber.

[JoeHova]

You're right, the team he inherited was outstanding. Hard to believe there was even a GM opening in Milwaukee to begin with given how great it was. My bad.

Nobody's saying that, but it's hard to see what move he made that dramatically improved the team. Signing Skiles was smart, but by all accounts Harris never was given the budget to sign a good coach so I don't know that Hammond should get much credit for that. The rest of his moves were nothing special and he tried to trade CV and Ramon for inferior players. What has he done that was real encouraging to you? Drafting LRMAM is it for me.

[El Duderino]

If any moron can make the Bucks a consistent winner how come they have only had consecutive playoff appearances twice in the last 18 years?

Twice.

That's it.

It ain't easy and anyone who thinks so is grossly underestimating the challenge Hammond inherited. Like I said, I get that most people here think he's incompetent. That's fine. I'm very happy with the job he's done so far and I like the plan he has put into place so far. He needs to keep improving this team and if he does he'll continue to have my support.

We all know Hammond inherited a bad team. If you only win 26 games the year prior, obviously there are problems. So what are we grossly underestimating? It's something you've said numerous times, but i've yet to see what exactly you think we are underestimating? Did anyone post after Hammond's hiring that we thought he should turn the Bucks into a 50 win team in one offseason? I sure don't remember seeing anyone say that, much less it being a popular point of view.

What's troubling for many is that Hammond seemed to have little desire to try hard to trade Redd after taking the Bucks job, that alone is a red (Redd) flag for me. Then after adding another highly paid non-special wing on a long term deal to the roster, Hammond didn't want to part with RJ because the Cavs play in our division. Red flag number two. Then he talks about two more years of a core involving Redd/RJ. That may make you and a few others happy, but for many others here, two more years of possible Redd/RJ duo would be a nightmare come true and if it plays out that way, Hammond deserves a good chunk of the blame for that and it would have zero to do with "underestimating he team Hammond inherited". It would almost entirely be not caring for the direction Hammond seems to have chosen for the team he inherited, nothing more to it than that. Most new GM's in pro sports take over a losing team with a variety of problems, Hammond wasn't inheriting some extreme exception. Not seeming to be troubled though by the idea of building around a non-special duo of veteran wings making 32-35 million the next two years is just about the last plan many here wanted to see after Hammond got hired, so that's why the fear level with Hammond is high right now and will remain so until he does something for us to think that isn't his plan.

[coolhandluke121]

If any moron can make the Bucks a consistent winner how come they have only had consecutive playoff appearances twice in the last 18 years?

Twice.

That's it.

Technically couldn't one say that the Spurs have only had consecutive playoff appearances twice in the last 18 years as well? If not for the year Robinson got hurt they would only have had consecutive playoff appearances once in that span.

I know what you're saying though.

[europa]

I think each of the major moves he's made with the exception of the Alexander pick have made this team better. He's removed poor players or ones who clearly weren't helping this team improve and he's brought in players who have. Even some of his smaller moves like Elson and Bogans are looking like good moves. I wish we could have a do-over with the Alexander pick since that one clearly hasn't looked good to this point. Other than that, I love the moves he's made and the fact he's improved this team as a result. As I've said, he now faces an even greater challenge given his decision not to trade RJ for salary space. Maybe he f's it up. If he does, you guys can all line up and shout "I told you so" at me. I'll be here. But I'm not going to pronounce him a failure or next season a failure until we see what he actually does.

[europa]

We all know Hammond inherited a bad team. If you only win 26 games the year prior, obviously there are problems. So what are we grossly underestimating?

The fact that it's going to take Hammond time to fix this mess. You can't say you understand that and then turn around and rip him when he tells you it's going to take time to fix it. That strikes me as highly contradictory.

Again, I understand that people don't like the moves he's making. I get that. I hated most of the moves the previous regime made the past two seasons that turned this team to rubbish. So I'm not saying people don't have a right to criticize Hammond if they don't agree with what he's doing. But so far the team has gotten better. That tells me he's doing his job. So if the team has gotten better, I'm going to give him time to see if he can continue improving the team before officially announcing he's failed.

That's all I'm saying.

And Dude, I agree that the biggest issue I see here is Hammond seems to value players this forum hates. I don't think there's any question that most of the people ripping Hammond the hardest are ones who hate Redd, in particular, the most. I think they consider Hammond an idiot because he actually had the audacity to believe Michael Redd was something other than the anti-Christ.

[JoeHova]

That would have been a good post if any of it had been true. Mo wasn't an allstar when he dumped him and he did get some expiring back in the deal, though not all expiring. Malik Allen is not close the worst player in the nba, exaggerate much?
But I particularly love the last bit, Cleveland are a smarter team and have a plan? Ha ha. Your right they do have a plan - give Lebron at least one decent player beside him and spend whatever amount over the threshold you want to do so (I belive $90m this season), something they've failed miserably to do the previous 4 years. Ferry for GM of the decade
I'd love to see the team Hammond could put together if he was allowed to spend $90m.

I generally don't read your posts because they are worthless but I see someone else quoted you apparently insulting me. In the future, make sure you can read before attempting to insult someone. NJ is the team with a plan, Milwaukee was on the receiving end of the RJ salary dump, which is what I was referring to.

Malik Allen may not be the literal worst player in the NBA (the Collins brothers are still around) but he is that level of quality.

Mo wasn't an all-star yet, that's true. I'm glad you at least appear to understand how calendars work. He was better than Ridnour though. And while the Bucks received an expiring contract (Jones), they also traded one away (Mason) and turned down getting another one back (Smith) instead of the flotsam they ended up with (Ridnour).

[ReasonablySober]

The fact that it's going to take Hammond time to fix this mess.

Two years longer than it should.

You realize that he just said his plan was to wait until Redd and RJ expire, right? In the meantime we're going to lose young assets.

Had he simply dealt Redd to Portland and RJ to Cleveland he could have expedited this whole process. All he's done is delay what he openly admits will happen in two years. That doesn't make you furious and dumbfounded as a fan?

[europa]

You realize that he just said his plan was to wait until Redd and RJ expire, right?

He also said he was going to try and trade Redd or RJ if this team regressed. Again, that's a rather critical part of what he said that people are glossing over. If this team continues to improve with Redd and RJ on the roster, I'm fine with the approach. And let's see who's lost and how that impacts the team's ability to win games. As I stated earlier, teams lose players in the NBA. It happens. It's how you adjust to those "losses" that determine your success or failure.

[paul]

That would have been a good post if any of it had been true. Mo wasn't an allstar when he dumped him and he did get some expiring back in the deal, though not all expiring. Malik Allen is not close the worst player in the nba, exaggerate much?
But I particularly love the last bit, Cleveland are a smarter team and have a plan? Ha ha. Your right they do have a plan - give Lebron at least one decent player beside him and spend whatever amount over the threshold you want to do so (I belive $90m this season), something they've failed miserably to do the previous 4 years. Ferry for GM of the decade
I'd love to see the team Hammond could put together if he was allowed to spend $90m.

I generally don't read your posts because they are worthless but I see someone else quoted you apparently insulting me. In the future, make sure you can read before attempting to insult someone. NJ is the team with a plan, Milwaukee was on the receiving end of the RJ salary dump, which is what I was referring to.

Malik Allen may not be the literal worst player in the NBA (the Collins brothers are still around) but he is that level of quality.

Mo wasn't an all-star yet, that's true. I'm glad you at least appear to understand how calendars work. He was better than Ridnour though. And while the Bucks received an expiring contract (Jones), they also traded one away (Mason) and turned down getting another one back (Smith) instead of the flotsam they ended up with (Ridnour).

My apologies on misunderstanding the NJ bit - my bad. The calender thing? Really? You said Hammond traded away an allstar not me - he didn't. Not sure how you manage to be smart about a mistake that you made but anyway.
I was insulting you? I disagreed with your post, felt it was untrue (at least two points of it WERE untrue as you admitted) and said so - if that's going to be your standard for being insulted around here I'd imagine you are going to be insulted a great deal.

Finally to this part "I generally don't read your posts because they are worthless" - if that's the way you feel even though we've had several discussions without anger and I've actually backed you up at times then how about you get ******.