Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[REDDzone]

what i find most humorous about all the hammond bashing is that 95% of this board would have given CV away for a pack of peanuts at the beginning of the season, yet now the world will come to an end if we lose him.

You must have missed the thousands of post making fun of the poster who said we should trade CV fo cash then?

And do you really consider Carl Landry a pack of peanuts?

[EastSideBucksFan]

This thread is soooooooooo out of hand its not even funny.

Couple things.

Stop talking about being positive about future events. Unless you are Doc Brown, you don't know jack.

Brook Lopez was never on the Bucks. This is worse than perpetuating the Dirk myth.

7 years to rebuild is a ridiculous statement as well.

This team will be in a good financial position with 3 years under Hammonds tenure which will give him the opportunity to add pieces to this team with a solid young core in place. Bogut, MM, Sessions and hopefully CV.

We aren't the first nor the last team to have to give away first round picks and assets to keep talent. Stop acting like Hammond is doing something nobody else has ever done.

And yes, Hammond can still trade Redd or RJ next year, like he plainly said and like Europa keeps beating on like a drum, but nobody will listen.

Hammond's initial plan never included both Redd and RJ. Once RJ was acquired, Redd was to be moved, but no offers were made in the parameters set forth by ownership (Kohl) that were acceptable. So he had to hang onto him to start the season, its not his fault Redd blew out his ACL and MCL rendering him untradeable.

[smooth 'lil balla]

It was reported that Hammond also was trying to get rid of CV all season so does that mean he is as dumb as us?

And if we are now looking at losing CV for nothing then wouldn't it have been better to at least get the pack of peanuts?

Do you think it is wise to wait 3 years before we rebuild?

Well if he has in fact been shopping him hard, it's consistent that he didn't trade RJ just so he can resign CV.

I don't think Hammond is waiting for 3 years before rebuilding. He's rebuilding to get us to be a playoff team. Once we are identified as an up and coming team (hopefully Bogut, Luc, JA, Sessions are a good, good core) and a team that can consistently make the playoffs, at that point hammond will have the financial flexibility to sign a free agren or make some deals to bring in better pieces.

If we were to throw all our assets away this year, all we are doing to rebuild is hoping to add a cornerstone in the draft and be a doormat for the next two years. Then, with that kind of culture, what kind of free agent can we sign. Additionally, after losing every season they've ever played in, do you think Sessions, Bogut, Luc, etc will ever be capable of winning on this team? I just don't see it.

The team's culture needs to change. I like what Hammond is doing.

[old skool]

I don't think that it is accurate to separate the posters on this forum into "realists" or "Hammond supporters". Unless you believe that Chicken Little was a "realist".

I think that it is silly to call for Hammond's firing so early in his tenure. We don't know what he has been trying to do. We don't know what he is on the verge of doing. We don't know how good he is at talent evaluation. We really don't know much.

Nor can we prepare Hammond's place in the Hall of Fame. We don't know how his tenure will work out.

Here's what we know about evaluating GMs in the short term. Danny Ainge is a horrible GM for banking on getting a top lottery pick and failing. Fire him! Jerry West is a horrible GM for failing to develop a decent roster in Memphis. Fire him! Jerry Krause is a horrible GM for banking on signing "full boat free agents" and ending up with Ron Mercer. Fire him! Joe Dumars is a horrible GM for drafting a bust like Darko Milic and for signing Chauncy Billups to an excessive contract that had to be traded for an expiring contract before two years passed. Fire him! Danny Ferry is a horrible GM for signing Larry Hughes to a max free agent contract. Fire him! Mitch Kupchick is a horrible GM for wasting a transcendent talent like Kobe Bryant. Fire him!

The only problem with that approach is that all of those GMs have steered their teams to the top of the NBA. They have all reached the NBA Finals. Throw in the GM of the Spurs and Rockets and they have won virtually all of the NBA Championships for the last 20 years. They have produced the best records in the NBA for the last couple of years. Fire them?

My point is that you can frequently make a case that any NBA GM is doing a horrible job. Often times, success only comes after the plan looks to be an utter failure. We fans don't know which franchises are about to blossom. A year ago, Brian Coangelo was a consensus genius. Oops. Just over a year ago, Kobe Bryant was insisting on being traded because the Lakers had no chance of competing. Oops.

We all get smarter in retrospect. Realists, or Hammond supporters, or just fans, or even NBA superstars.

We can all offer our take on what a GM should or should not do. But we have very limited insight into what options a GM has in front of him. We like to think that we see the whole picture, but we are incredibly ignorant of all that is involved. If it was that easy to manage an NBA team to the upper tier of the standings, everyone would do it. The Knicks would not be a laughingstock. The Clippers would not be perennial losers. The Hawks would not have gone eight years without making the playoffs. The Cavs would not have spent the better part of a decade in the lottery. Memphis, Minnesota and Chicago would not be on their nth rebuilding. To listen to some here, all of those teams would succeed, if only they hired someone from our forum to oversee their team. (Reality check: Do you recall how silly and clueless the fans in other forums sound talking about their teams? Do you think that those franchises would be better off if they were run by fans from their respective RealGM forums?)

I am not a Hammond supporter. But I root for him to succeed. Just like I rooted for Yi Jianlian and and Marcus Hailsip and Bobby Simmons and Jamaal Magloire. Heck, I even rooted for Gary Payton for a couple of months. I hope that Hammond is more successful than those guys. I just know that I need to wait and see how Hammond does over time.

Fact: No NBA franchise has ever been successful firing GMs and coaches year after year.

Fact: Every NBA franchise that has EVER been successful has stuck with a GM even after a rough period where the path to success was not clear or the strategy was questionable.

Heck, we don't even know what the Bucks have in Joe Alexander. At this point he is about as promising as Jermaine O'Neal and Tracy McGrady were during their rookie seasons. Or Marcus Haislip. We don't know.

That doesn't mean that we can't have some great exchanges. We have some great knowledge of NBA rosters and the CBA and what we would like to see happen or not happen. But we can have those exchanges without denigrating individuals or pigeon-holing the board into one camp or another. We don't need to condemn a GM for whom 2009-10 will be the first season that he will manage with a full management team in place from the start. We don't need to characterize a strategy that we don't like as settling for mediocrity. We don't need to call each other alarmists, or realists or Redd-haters or lovers. There is value to learning from each other and sharing our opinions. Much of the rest of the stuff just clouds the air so that we can neither see straight or think straight. That is silly, in my opinion.

oLd sKool

[InsideOut]

I still find it odd that so many people continue to gloss over Hammond's statement that Redd or RJ might not be on the team a year from now. That's a pretty important statement that shouldn't be ignored in my opinion.

Because talk is cheap. He could have moved them this year and didn't. With the cap going down and teams wanting space for next season the odds of us getting a better offer than this past season are slim to none. And so what if he moves them next season...that won't solve the cap problems we are having now. Let’s say we lose CV and our #1 pick for nothing but then next year we move RJ for cap space. The damage will already have been done. So I ask again...what did we gain by Hammond waiting 3years (or two in your example) to start rebuilding. We are looking at losing picks and players...what are we gaining by waiting that offsets that and helps the rebuilding plan?

[InsideOut]

I don't think that it is accurate to separate the posters on this forum into "realists" or "Hammond supporters". Unless you believe that Chicken Little was a "realist".

I think that it is silly to call for Hammond's firing so early in his tenure. We don't know what he has been trying to do. We don't know what he is on the verge of doing. We don't know how good he is at talent evaluation. We really don't know much.
oLd sKool

I don't think anyone said he should be fired. At this point some are unhappy with the lack of direction he has shown. This is the kind of stuff we talk about here. If we all agreed not to comment on a player or GM for several seasons after they arrived this place would be dead. Nobody knows if he will be good or bad. We are waiting to see how he plays out. Right now the GM said he plans to win 40 games for two seasons then blow things up. Why should anyone be happy about that?

[EastSideBucksFan]

I missed the quotes where he said 2010 draft picks would be gone. Can you show that to me? Thanks.

CV, the 2009 first, and possibly Sessions is more than enough already lost, on top of them not getting production (yet) from this years #8 pick.

You CANNOT have zero production two straight years out of top 15 picks, while also letting a top 7 pick who is producing at a hard position to find talent walk. That is a bad, bad two years as far as young talent on the roster.

The Bucks DID IN FACT sacrifice young talent to keep Redd and RJ. That is plain as day and not debatable.

Where have CV, Sessions and our first gone?

I must have missed when Hammond traded them.

When did the Bucks sacrifice young talent?

Where did they go?


I know we're up against a brick wall to keep them, but it is not impossible.

[InsideOut]

It was reported that Hammond also was trying to get rid of CV all season so does that mean he is as dumb as us?

And if we are now looking at losing CV for nothing then wouldn't it have been better to at least get the pack of peanuts?

Do you think it is wise to wait 3 years before we rebuild?

The team's culture needs to change. I like what Hammond is doing.

Culture is meaningless. Great players win games and not culture (see Boston). What exactly has Hammond done that you like? How are we set up better today to be a contender than we were a year ago? Especially if we end up losing CV and our #1 pick?

[EastSideBucksFan]

I don't think that it is accurate to separate the posters on this forum into "realists" or "Hammond supporters". Unless you believe that Chicken Little was a "realist".

I think that it is silly to call for Hammond's firing so early in his tenure. We don't know what he has been trying to do. We don't know what he is on the verge of doing. We don't know how good he is at talent evaluation. We really don't know much.
oLd sKool

I don't think anyone said he should be fired. At this point some are unhappy with the lack of direction he has shown. This is the kind of stuff we talk about here. If we all agreed not to comment on a player or GM for several seasons after they arrived this place would be dead. Nobody knows if he will be good or bad. We are waiting to see how he plays out. Right now the GM said he plans to win 40 games for two seasons then blow things up. Why should anyone be happy about that?

Because we're not blowing anything up after two seasons. We will have cap space to bring in new players. So, we lose a couple assets. If we can keep Sessions/Bogut/LRMAM and CV together then have money to sign an impact SG or a 6th man, then we could make some noise.

Everyone thinks the bottom is going to fall out and we're starting from scratch when RJ and Redd expire, I don't think this will be the case.

Losing breeds losing. Winning breeds winning.

I wish I had the clip of the Mike Bibby interview from last night during the Hawks vs Cavs game. They asked him how much it meant to their franchise getting into the playoffs and taking the Celtics to 7 games. He said it gave the young guys a glimpse into what postseason basketball was all about. And how it was a much different game, but that experience, gave every player the confidence to know they could compete with anybody in the league and when they came into camp this season, it was a completely different attitude.

I'm not saying we could take Boston to 7 games (although with no Garnett, you never know), but I think everyone dismisses making the playoffs as meaning nothing and I happen to strongly disagree.

[old skool]

InsideOut,

I don't know what the Bucks gain by waiting two years. Nor do I know that Hammond wants to wait two years. I suspect that if good trades were available last month, Hammond would have made those trades. But he and his staff evaluated the potential trades as being bad. So he did not make them. Clearly, he feels that there might be other trades out there. And absent other trades, he prefers to hang on until the long term contracts expire.

He is not saying that is his preferred plan, but he is admitting that it might turn out to be the best that he can do, given the upheaval in the market. I don't see that as such a damning approach.

Hammond cannot make a determination on Villanueva's future on the Bucks today. That will, in large part, depend on what offers CV receives this summer. CV is not a Lebron James level susperstar who will warrant a max contract. Thus we can't say that Hammond will sign CV or let him go. It will depend on the market. Obviously Hammond has to have a value placed on CV. An amount that he will match and an amount that he will pass on. We don't know what that is. We don't know how much sKiles and Hammond and their staffs value CV. We just don't know. And we can't figure it out by putting a few words under a collective microscope.

We will have to wait and see. It should be interesting.

oLd sKool

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

We made the playoffs in 2004 and then won 30 games the next year. Then after not being in the playoffs in 2005, we won 40 games in 2006 and made the playoffs. Then we won 28 games in 2007.

Can you share the winning that those two playoff appearences bred?

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Hammond cannot make a determination on Villanueva's future on the Bucks today. That will, in large part, depend on what offers CV receives this summer. CV is not a Lebron James level susperstar who will warrant a max contract. Thus we can't say that Hammond will sign CV or let him go. It will depend on the market.

But we do know the minimum that CV could sign for, and we also know that that minimum amount doesn't work with our other salary obligations and the luxury tax threshold.

[europa]

I'll continue to say that you can't say you're willing to give Hammond time to fix the mess he inherited and then blast him to kingdom come before he's even gotten a real chance. If you do that, it tells me you greatly underestimated the challenge he inherited. Just because he didn't make the moves this forum wanted doesn't mean he has no clue what he wants to do. It simply means he intends or hopes to do things differently than what this forum wants. I don't think it's asking too much to at least see if his plan can work before automatically concluding it can't and that he's some village idiot who can't tie his own shoes without assistance.

ETA - another good post from East Side.

[old skool]

InsideOut,

Hammond did not say that he intends to win 40 games for the next two years before heading in a new direction. That is not what I read.

He said that he will continue to pursue making trades and other roster moves. He said that the moves that he makes will depend on other teams, and how the Bucks do with the players they have. He said that he could trade Redd and/or Jefferson, or he could keep them and let their contracts expire. He laid out various options. He did not say that he was committed to any single strategy. He previously said that the existing contracts limits what moves he can make, and that it will take a while to rid the team of those contract limitations.

I read that if the Bucks are unable to make any trades sooner, that Hammond would get his roster flexibility in two years after Redd and Jefferson expire. In the mean time, Bucks fans would have a competitive team capable of 40 wins and the playoff spot that typically follows.

But I did not read that he was not open to making a deal sooner if it would help the team progress faster. I did not read that he was ruling out Bogut developing into an elite center. I did not read that he was ruling out Sessions becoming a top point guard. Or Mbah a Moute developing a jump shot. I read Hammond saying that if the Bucks don't trade one or both of their big contracts for worthwhile assets, they will stick with the roster they have (what choice do they have?) and keep the expiring contracts for their own use.

I think that it is unfair to twist Hammond's words and say that he wants to embrace the mediocrity of 40-wins for the next two years and not take advantage of helpful trades that would improve the team's future sooner rather than later.

oLd sKool

[Rockmaninoff]

We made the playoffs in 2004 and then won 30 games the next year. Then after not being in the playoffs in 2005, we won 40 games in 2006 and made the playoffs. Then we won 28 games in 2007.

Can you share the winning that those two playoff appearences bred?

Yes, there is a big difference between a team that took the eventual champions to 7 games (Atlanta Hawks) and a team(s) that just made the playoffs (2004 and 2006 Milwaukee Bucks). The biggest difference is that the Hawks were a team of young blue chippers who finally came of age with the help of a veteran sage (Bibby). Those Bucks teams were hodge podge affairs, where-in half of the team didn't return the following year. I'd credit both of those years to coaching, health, and a weak East.

The Hawks are sustainable. Those Bucks teams weren't. Is this current incarnation? Maybe, sans Redd. But we won't see that until 2011-2012.

[LUKE23]

Where have CV, Sessions and our first gone?

I must have missed when Hammond traded them.

When did the Bucks sacrifice young talent?

Where did they go?


I know we're up against a brick wall to keep them, but it is not impossible.

We're right, we haven't lost them yet. If we lose any of the three, can I come back and find you?

[old skool]

Two weeks ago Sacramento was a luxury tax payer. Now they are not.

I think that Hammond would sign CV to a one year QO. I think that Hammond would sign CV to a three year $15-million contract. I don't think that Hammond would match a max offer. CV should get an offer somewhere in between the extremes. Maybe. Ben Gordon received no offers. Luol Deng received no offers. Charlie Bell and Mo Williams only received offers from the Heat. And Mo's offer was really not competitive. Anderson Varejâo did not get any offers until after the summer was over. Drew Gooden had to settle for a much smaller deal than expected. The economic situation is so topsy turvey that no one can predict what will happen. And with established stars like Iverson rumored to be facing no more than an MLE contract, who knows what an UFA like CV can expect.

oLd sKool

[LUKE23]

I think that Hammond would sign CV to a one year QO. I think that Hammond would sign CV to a three year $15-million contract

That means you think Kohl would go over the luxury tax?

And CV is not getting a max offer.

[EastSideBucksFan]

Where have CV, Sessions and our first gone?

I must have missed when Hammond traded them.

When did the Bucks sacrifice young talent?

Where did they go?


I know we're up against a brick wall to keep them, but it is not impossible.

We're right, we haven't lost them yet. If we lose any of the three, can I come back and find you?

Sure, because then you will be talking about facts. And not what you call facts, actual events that actually happened in reality are facts. Not projections of a possible future event.

[old skool]

I think that Hammond would sign CV to a one year QO. I think that Hammond would sign CV to a three year $15-million contract

That means you think Kohl would go over the luxury tax?

And CV is not getting a max offer.

Come on, Luke. Be reasonable.

1. I began my post commenting that Sacramento just made some in-season moves that got them under the luxury tax. My point is that if they can do it, so can Hammond (though I agree it will be tougher next year). You must admit that signing CV this summer does not guarantee that the Bucks will be a luxury tax player. I think the Bucks will (and should) avoid the tax. How they do that remains to be seen.

2. You omitted my comment that I expect that CV will get something between the extremes of the QO and a max deal.

3. You ignored the reality that if CV wants the security of a multi-year contract that he will likely have to sign a bargain contract with the Bucks. This is predicated on the talk around the league of how low free agent offers might be this summer.

oLd sKool