Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[Fort Minor]

pull the rabbit out of the hat this summer.

We're going to leave the rabbit in that hat until 2011. It's probably going to be really gross when we pull out a decomposing dead rabbit from that hat in 2 years

Spot on.

[coolhandluke121]

BTW, how optimistic would you guys be if right now the Bucks' roster was as follows?

Mo
Sessions
Bell
Wally
Simmons
Dez Mason
CV
Hickson
Yi
Bogut
Gadz

I personally think that would be awesome. Basically just unload Redd for Wally and Hickson and keep the young guys. Of course Yi would have been traded by now, but not for RJ or anyone else who makes a lot of money. He would have been moved with either Gadz or Simmons for an expiring contract and a decent draft pick. I'm pretty sure that's realistic. That's a pretty talented young roster with a ton of flexibility the next two summers.

[paul]

There is just no way Mo was ever going to be a Buck under Hammond and/or Skiles reign imo - so that doesn't make your suggestion 'realistic' for me. They made no secret that he was a goner and moved him for the best deal available which most feel was horrible, no matter what happend he was gone. When did we get offered Wally and Hickson for Redd?
Simmons and Yi aren't close to being missed and though I liked Dez neither is he.

The salary situation is more appealling, the team certainly isn't.

[ReasonablySober]

Is anyone else blown away that he would come out and admit where he was coming from with the decisions he made, the moves he didn't make as well as his strategy over the next two years? I almost find that to be the most disturbing thing about all of this. It's akin to a college student coming home for Thanksgiving during his freshman year and telling his folks, "I plan on going to class sporadically, switching majors at least twice, maintaining a C- average and in three years marrying into a family that will give me an upper management position in their family business".

Hey, that's great to have a plan and all, but if it's that crummy do you really want to disclose it?

Honestly, I'd rather he just lie. Tell me that Cleveland wanted three 1st rounders. Tell me that he have a firm plan in place to re-sign CV and that he isn't going to watch him leave for nothing. Tell me that 55 wins is the ceiling next season, not 40.

The sad thing is the average Bucks fan that pays to go to these games won't hear about this unbelievable Q and A. Most probably think that resigning CV is inevitable after his performance the last two months. That losing a 1st isn't even on the radar ("How can we not afford to keep our own cheap draft pick?").

Maybe the average fan doesn't even care. Maybe they only go to Bucks games because they have disposable income and need something to do with the family or their dates.

[paul]

One thing Hammond can't be accused of is being a liar DB, he's told it straight since the day he got here. If that doesn't work for you then that's ok, personally I'd rather he be honest - to the point of not giving away any trade secrets obviously.

[jokeboy86]

I'll still give Hammond time even though I'm pissed with some of the decisions he's made because he's only had one year and I can't judge a guy completely after one year.

The one thing I will say is if Hammond fails, in my opinion he will be the last one to do so in this city. I honestly feel that Hammond and Skiles are Kohl's last hurrah.

[ReasonablySober]

One thing Hammond can't be accused of is being a liar DB, he's told it straight since the day he got here. If that doesn't work for you then that's ok, personally I'd rather he be honest - to the point of not giving away any trade secrets obviously.

Are you really going to give him credit for having a C- plan?

[GrandAdmiralDan]

I agree with the trading of Redd, but we all know that things have not changed that much within the organization, Hammond does not have complete power....

Well, I'm not sure if we know with such certainty that things haven't changed significantly in that regard.

Most information I have would tend to indicate things DID change significantly. I have heard quite to support that. What gives me pause on that is the talk about Kohl possibly involving himself in that Sessions/Alexander for Conley/2010 Lakers 1st rounder trade.

Speaking of that trade, if Sessions 09-10 salary ends up being the full ~$5.8 mil, that trade would have saved the Bucks ~$4.35 mil on 09-10 payroll, which would have been helpful to the cause of retaining Villanueva (although more still would have had to have been done as far as clearing salary, but that would have helped). As much as I like Sessions, I still wonder if that trade is a trade we should have made.

Hey, that's great to have a plan and all, but if it's that crummy do you really want to disclose it?

Honestly, I'd rather he just lie.

Not me.
My favorite thing about Hammond is probably how blunt and honest he has been. I'm very appreciative of how straight forward he has been (maybe not TOTALLY, but certainly at a level quite remarkable relative to most GMs)

[paul]

One thing Hammond can't be accused of is being a liar DB, he's told it straight since the day he got here. If that doesn't work for you then that's ok, personally I'd rather he be honest - to the point of not giving away any trade secrets obviously.

Are you really going to give him credit for having a C- plan?

I was just commenting on your point of wishing he'd lie instead of telling the truth DB, wasn't commenting or giving him credit on his plan.

[old skool]

I think that it is very easy to sit on line and spout off about what trades should be made.

Some posters are upset that the Bucks are about to lose assets for nothing. Their solution: give up assets for nothing. A curious position to take.

Most NBA teams have been surprised by the sudden shift in the economy and in the resulting impact on the NBA. Most teams are decrying their large salaries. There are few teams interested in adding payroll. So the Bucks stood pat. So did almost every other team in the league.

We know this much: the Bucks are going to lose some assets. Picks or players, they can't afford to keep everyone. Let's see how that plays out.

And let's stop pretending that we fans are so omnipotent. We have some knowledge, but not as much as the Bucks front office. We are not hearing from sKiles and his staff. We are not hearing from scouts. We are not talking to other GMs and hearing what they might consider this summer. When it comes to trade evaluation, we are long on opinion and short on facts.

We might not like it if Hammond likes RJ better than Villanueva. But if I was in Hammond's shoes and sKiles was telling me that he would rather have Jefferson than CV, I would have to take that into consideration. If sKiles is telling me that Alexander is going to turn into a starting PF who will be able to defend and rebound, I would have to listen.

sKiles has expressed his opinion that defense is more important than offense. He reinforced that recently, mentioning that a good defensive team can withstand key injuries more easily than an offensive team. CV is a good scorer, but he stinks on the defensive end. Let's not ignore that very important fact.

We fans might be underestimating the value of having Redd's and Jefferson's contracts expire together. Maybe there is some value there. Value in starting fresh with a couple of young players who can grow together. Grow with Sessions and Mbah a Moute and Bogut. Maybe Hammond and sKiles want the current young core of Bogut, Sessions and Mbah a Moute to learn from veterans like Malik Allen and Richard Jefferson. Maybe they want to build a team culture - and not just amass raw talent that would make the Bucks the Clippers of the North.

It will take a few years to rebuild the Bucks. There are contract problems to address and some of those problems will require the passage of time to play out. Larry Harris was adept at stirring the pot and making trades. But he never built anything. He never developed stability. He never put a working team together. Most fans here recognized that he was getting nowhere and criticized Harris for those failures. But for some reason, there is a reluctance to let Hammond build a team. The majority here seem more concerned with doing something quickly than with doing it right.

As fans, we are fickle. We did not applaud Memphis when they sent Gasol to the Lakers. We did not applaud Denver when they sent Camby to the Clippers. We did not applaud Minnesota when they sent Garnett to Boston. Most fans view those as lopsided trades that hurt Memphis, Denver and Minnesota. But that is exactly the type of trade so many here impatiently espouse.

As fans, we are often shortsighted. Who among us praised the trade that sent Grant Hill to Orlando for Ben Wallace and filler? Who among us touted the signing of Billups to a free agent contract? Or the drafting of Darko Milic? So do those moves make Joe Dumars a good GM or a "moron"?

As fans, we foolishly dissect the response to a single question, parsing every phrase to extract massive significance. From that response we confirm our worst fears - ignoring the possibility that Hammond might not have been quoted precisely or that he might have mangled his response or that he might have been trying to posture for an upcoming deal or negotiation. Maybe he is a dolt. Maybe he is a genius. Either way, we probably can't tell by his response to one question.

I heard Hammond say that he will consider several possibilities in coming months. If the team struggles and he can move a large contract, he will. If nothing else, the Bucks should be competitive for a couple of years and be able to take advantage of large expiring contracts in two summers.

I am willing to give sKiles and Hammond and their staffs time to do this right. No one can evaluate an NBA GM in just a single season. Not even NBA experts like us.

oLd sKool

[trwi7]

the team was on pace to win 45 games

The last time the Bucks were on pace to win 45 games was when they were 3-2.

[EastSideBucksFan]

Is anyone else blown away that he would come out and admit where he was coming from with the decisions he made, the moves he didn't make as well as his strategy over the next two years? I almost find that to be the most disturbing thing about all of this. It's akin to a college student coming home for Thanksgiving during his freshman year and telling his folks, "I plan on going to class sporadically, switching majors at least twice, maintaining a C- average and in three years marrying into a family that will give me an upper management position in their family business".

Hey, that's great to have a plan and all, but if it's that crummy do you really want to disclose it?

Honestly, I'd rather he just lie. Tell me that Cleveland wanted three 1st rounders. Tell me that he have a firm plan in place to re-sign CV and that he isn't going to watch him leave for nothing. Tell me that 55 wins is the ceiling next season, not 40.

The sad thing is the average Bucks fan that pays to go to these games won't hear about this unbelievable Q and A. Most probably think that resigning CV is inevitable after his performance the last two months. That losing a 1st isn't even on the radar ("How can we not afford to keep our own cheap draft pick?").

Maybe the average fan doesn't even care. Maybe they only go to Bucks games because they have disposable income and need something to do with the family or their dates.

Oh, so you'd rather he blows smoke up your a$$ like Harris and promise that we have three all-stars on our team and we plan on being in the conference finals within 2 years and then when that doesn't happen you can crucify him cause what he said didn't even remotely come true?


I'd rather he give it to us straight "When I inherited this team, I knew I had a mess on my hands. I had no idea how hard it would be to unload Mo and Redd. I'm having a really tough time implementing my plan because there are too many bloated contracts on this team that are too tough to move and to put it bluntly it might be 2-3 years before this whole mess is sorted out and we really start moving forward"

[TheMachine]

[quote="old skool"]I think that it is very easy to sit on line and spout off about what trades should be made.

Some posters are upset that the Bucks are about to lose assets for nothing. Their solution: give up assets for nothing. A curious position to take.

Most NBA teams have been surprised by the sudden shift in the economy and in the resulting impact on the NBA. Most teams are decrying their large salaries. There are few teams interested in adding payroll. So the Bucks stood pat. So did almost every other team in the league.

We know this much: the Bucks are going to lose some assets. Picks or players, they can't afford to keep everyone. Let's see how that plays out.

And let's stop pretending that we fans are so omnipotent. We have some knowledge, but not as much as the Bucks front office. We are not hearing from sKiles and his staff. We are not hearing from scouts. We are not talking to other GMs and hearing what they might consider this summer. When it comes to trade evaluation, we are long on opinion and short on facts.

We might not like it if Hammond likes RJ better than Villanueva. But if I was in Hammond's shoes and sKiles was telling me that he would rather have Jefferson than CV, I would have to take that into consideration. If sKiles is telling me that Alexander is going to turn into a starting PF who will be able to defend and rebound, I would have to listen.

sKiles has expressed his opinion that defense is more important than offense. He reinforced that recently, mentioning that a good defensive team can withstand key injuries more easily than an offensive team. CV is a good scorer, but he stinks on the defensive end. Let's not ignore that very important fact.

We fans might be underestimating the value of having Redd's and Jefferson's contracts expire together. Maybe there is some value there. Value in starting fresh with a couple of young players who can grow together. Grow with Sessions and Mbah a Moute and Bogut. Maybe Hammond and sKiles want the current young core of Bogut, Sessions and Mbah a Moute to learn from veterans like Malik Allen and Richard Jefferson. Maybe they want to build a team culture - and not just amass raw talent that would make the Bucks the Clippers of the North.

It will take a few years to rebuild the Bucks. There are contract problems to address and some of those problems will require the passage of time to play out. Larry Harris was adept at stirring the pot and making trades. But he never built anything. He never developed stability. He never put a working team together. Most fans here recognized that he was getting nowhere and criticized Harris for those failures. But for some reason, there is a reluctance to let Hammond build a team. The majority here seem more concerned with doing something quickly than with doing it right.

As fans, we are fickle. We did not applaud Memphis when they sent Gasol to the Lakers. We did not applaud Denver when they sent Camby to the Clippers. We did not applaud Minnesota when they sent Garnett to Boston. Most fans view those as lopsided trades that hurt Memphis, Denver and Minnesota. But that is exactly the type of trade so many here impatiently espouse.

As fans, we are often shortsighted. Who among us praised the trade that sent Grant Hill to Orlando for Ben Wallace and filler? Who among us touted the signing of Billups to a free agent contract? Or the drafting of Darko Milic? So do those moves make Joe Dumars a good GM or a "moron"?

As fans, we foolishly dissect the response to a single question, parsing every phrase to extract massive significance. From that response we confirm our worst fears - ignoring the possibility that Hammond might not have been quoted precisely or that he might have mangled his response or that he might have been trying to posture for an upcoming deal or negotiation. Maybe he is a dolt. Maybe he is a genius. Either way, we probably can't tell by his response to one question.

I heard Hammond say that he will consider several possibilities in coming months. If the team struggles and he can move a large contract, he will. If nothing else, the Bucks should be competitive for a couple of years and be able to take advantage of large expiring contracts in two summers.

I am willing to give sKiles and Hammond and their staffs time to do this right. No one can evaluate an NBA GM in just a single season. Not even NBA experts like us.

oLd sKool[/quote


+1 Excellent post. Sums up my feelings exactly. Hammond/Skiles has inherited quite a mess from Kohl/Harris. It will not be cleared up in 6 months. Takes time. If it costs a prospect or a pick, well unfortunately so be it. Hopefully not. There is only so much you can do.

For all the fans that have wanted Redd traded, I personally have wanted Redd traded for 3 years now. I said the day he signed his contract, that this would be the most damaging thing to ever happen to the Bucks, and they will not be contenders as long as that contract has been on the books. But I can not believe for one minute that Hammond has had the opportunity to trade Redd yet. With Isaih gone, there is not one GM in the league that would take on that contract, just won't happen.

I for one believe that Redd is not in Hammonds plans. He has never said that. In fact he has hinted between the lines since the day he was hired that Redd will have to go. Think about it, Redd is the anti-Skiles (soft, no d, low iq, selfish). The minute he gets real offer, he will unload him (I don't feel that something like 2 Gadzurichs and a Brian Cardinal is a real offer).

It just takes time. In the meantime, I will enjoy the current Redd-less Bucks and know that Redd will be gone, and better things are ahead (albeit, maybe not for 2 more years).

[ReasonablySober]

I'd rather he give it to us straight "When I inherited this team, I knew I had a mess on my hands. I had no idea how hard it would be to unload Mo and Redd. I'm having a really tough time implementing my plan because there are too many bloated contracts on this team that are too tough to move and to put it bluntly it might be 2-3 years before this whole mess is sorted out and we really start moving forward"

HE COULD HAVE MOVED THEM. That's the point! His problem is he apparently values the players holding those bloated longterm contracts.

And yes, for his sake I would have hoped he would lie.

Last week at the NFL combine offensive tackle prospect Andre Smith showed up a little out of shape and said he wouldn't be working out. He then tells everyone that he didn't begin to prepare for the combine until a couple weeks ago and it was because he was trying to find a good agent. After this the story wasn't that he was out of shape or that he didn't want to work out down in Indy. Many players skip combine events every year. No, the real story was that this kid was so stupid that he actually came out and admitted why he wouldn't be working out. Brian Billick and Steve Mariuchi are sitting at the host's table and saying, "Jesus, I'm more worried about him not lying than the actual workouts". That idiotic explanation, though truthful, could end up costing smith $30 million dollars.

It all goes back to what I said on the 2nd or 3rd page about being perceived to be an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. If you're talking to the fans, don't you want to at least appear like you know what you're doing?

[europa]

Outstanding post, old skool.

[paul]

+1 Great post old skool.

[EastSideBucksFan]

I'd rather he give it to us straight "When I inherited this team, I knew I had a mess on my hands. I had no idea how hard it would be to unload Mo and Redd. I'm having a really tough time implementing my plan because there are too many bloated contracts on this team that are too tough to move and to put it bluntly it might be 2-3 years before this whole mess is sorted out and we really start moving forward"

HE COULD HAVE MOVED THEM. That's the point! His problem is he apparently values the players holding those bloated longterm contracts.

And yes, for his sake I would have hoped he would lie.

Last week at the NFL combine offensive tackle prospect Andre Smith showed up a little out of shape and said he wouldn't be working out. He then tells everyone that he didn't begin to prepare for the combine until a couple weeks ago and it was because he was trying to find a good agent. After this the story wasn't that he was out of shape or that he didn't want to work out down in Indy. Many players skip combine events every year. No, the real story was that this kid was so stupid that he actually came out and admitted why he wouldn't be working out. Brian Billick and Steve Mariuchi are sitting at the host's table and saying, "Jesus, I'm more worried about him not lying than the actual workouts". That idiotic explanation, though truthful, could end up costing smith $30 million dollars.

It all goes back to what I said on the 2nd or 3rd page about being perceived to be an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. If you're talking to the fans, don't you want to at least appear like you know what you're doing?

I don't know how you can be so sure that he could have moved them. Plus, I would add that Kohl probably would not let him dump either of them (if a straight dump was available) so you should really complain about Kohl as much as you complain about Hammond.

[InsideOut]

So the Hammond plan is what the realists feared the most. First off we try and play .500 ball and get an 8th seed along with a first round beating. Then during these 3 years we lose some of our youth and or draft picks at the expense of keeping the overpaid wings. At the end of the 3 years we then go into rebuild mode minus the youth we lost along the way and the who cares players we drafted mid 1st round...assuming we didn't lose those picks along the way.

Can someone think of another teams that used this plan successfully? I've heard of the dump all vets and get picks plan like Portland and Oklahoma used. I've heard of the trade all the youth and picks win now plan that Boston used. I've even heard of the one hit wonder plan (Detroit) where you sign 4 all-stars for below market value. I've just never heard of this try and win 40 games for 3 seasons and then rebuild with a mostly empty cupboard plan.

I think the realists have been spot on so far. We predicted a team with a ceiling of 41ish wins. We kept saying how we needed to clear cap space. We kept saying how we are in danger of losing players this offseason. We feared the worst move Hammond could make was to take no direction and stay the course. Well it looks like we may get our wish and then we'll truly see just how bad the stay the course plan works out.

And while I'm unhappy I plan to give Hammond a few years to see what he can get done. But right now I see nothing that shows me he knows what he is doing. My standards are a little higher than he must be doing a good job because we won more than the 26 games we won last season. Hammond needed to start work on bringing in young talent for the future and or solving the cap problem. I don't see where he's done a great at either of these tasks. I just see no logic in waiting years to rebuild just so you can win 40 games while losing picks and youth you need to rebuild. I know his supporters will keep holding onto the rabbit out of the hat plan but in a couple years we'll see if that rabbit ever shows up.

[LUKE23]

So the Hammond plan is what the realists feared the most. First off we try and play .500 ball and get an 8th seed along with a first round beating. Then during these 3 years we lose some of our youth and or draft picks at the expense of keeping the overpaid wings. At the end of the 3 years we then go into rebuild mode minus the youth we lost along the way and the who cares players we drafted mid 1st round...assuming we didn't lose those picks along the way.

Yep. We are currently locked into a .500 team (or worse) for 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. Nobody can give me a REALISTIC scenario where we can be better than that in the next few years.

The "think big" crowd would have had moved Redd for Raef, RJ for Wally, and been sitting on Sessions/LRMAM/CV/Bogut, a top 10 2009 pick, and a boatload of space for 2009 and 2010. That is a better future than waiting it out until Redd/RJ expire, and that is EXACTLY WHAT THE PLAN APPEARS TO BE UNDER HAMMOND. Show me some evidence otherwise if you disagree. At least with the other plan you have a CLEAR DIRECTION, and you have assets (high picks and space) to improve your team and try to hit on a superstar.

But this is barely a playoff team next year with a maxed out payroll, regardless of Redd being healthy or not, and if it is, it's first round fodder guaranteed. That might excite some, but not I.

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

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.

europa

I am convinced you are a Bucks apologist or a media guy who works for them. Always rationalizing and making excuses for them.
Those who are objective are no less fans then those who do not see things as dire as we do. We hurt no less.
I take no great pleasure from our teams struggles. In fact no one in here rocks the Bucks in various team forums more then I do...
I did not say I do it better but surely as much and as devoted as anyone. So I have an investment in this team too and I do not like the state of this franchise at all.
And with the economy it is going to get worse if we do not start to make some smart descisions. That is not being negative or pessismisstic.

That is being realistic. As real as it gets!