Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[LUKE23]

1. Would a team under the cap be willing to accept Ridnour or Ridnour and a first for a second?

Possibly Ridnour/1st for a 2nd, there are only four teams where we have that option though.

2. Does that give us enough space to bring back Sessions and CV (up to a certain amount)?

Depends how much salary we take back by losing Ridnour. If we take back no salary, that gives us around $6.5M to work with for the first year, which would be enough (most likely).

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

As for players better than RJ and Redd who would Milwaukee be able to attract?

Are you serious? Less than a month after we could have had Amare Stoudamire for cap space and a small asset, you're questioning whether it has any value?

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

1. Would a team under the cap be willing to accept Ridnour or Ridnour and a first for a second?

2. Does that give us enough space to bring back Sessions and CV (up to a certain amount)?

I think if we give up Ridnour and our 1st and take nothing back in return, we could probably keep CV and his qualifying offer.

That would mean that Hammond burned a 1st round draft pick to dump an all-star point guard (Mo Williams) in order to acquire space to re-sign players that he spent months trying to trade away though. What grade should a GM get for that?

[smauss]

I just want to chime in and let everyone know just how good this thread has been. Both sides bring out good points. I'm a bit of hybrid on this topic in that I believe that the "win now" mentaility was worth a shot at the beginning to see what this roster could do. I also think the win-now philosophy was a mandate by Kohl. It was quite obvious that this roster could get us into the playoffs but was far from contending. It was also obvious that we had to much money in Redd & RJ to be able to put the necessary pieces in place to contend. If a change of philosophy wasn't evident before, when the injuries struck it should have caused a change in the "win-now" philosophy to looking at next year's contract situation and making some good solid plans. I can't say that we could have traded Redd before his injury, but we surely could have done the RJ for Wally to insure that we could keep or at least be in a position to keep Sessions, CV, and sign our draft picks. We have done nothing to change that course. Now maybe, as mostly europa, eastside, and old skool have been posting, Hammond has a plan to somehow keep or again to at least be in a position to keep these players. If he does - wonderful! The reason I say my position is a hybrid is that I don't believe that Hammond "is in over his head" or "doesn't know what he's doing"; I think Kohl has refused to change course. I have absolutely no proof except the history since Kohl took over. I just don't see Hammond making the decisions that have been made. But the best thing we can do now is wait and see what happens...........

Again, thanks folks for the debate, it has been very worthwhile reading!

[xTitan]

1. Would a team under the cap be willing to accept Ridnour or Ridnour and a first for a second?

2. Does that give us enough space to bring back Sessions and CV (up to a certain amount)?

I think if we give up Ridnour and our 1st and take nothing back in return, we could probably keep CV and his qualifying offer.

That would mean that Hammond burned a 1st round draft pick to dump an all-star point guard (Mo Williams) in order to acquire space to re-sign players that he spent months trying to trade away though. What grade should a GM get for that?

All Star PG...lol...2nd alternate actualy and he doesn't run the point.....I actually do have a serious question on this topic for you, if Delonte West was healthy all year, do you think Williams would have even been a 2nd alternate? I realize you and many others have a Mo Williams bias, but I think you can give me an honest answer, I have seen Cleveland play several times since West has been back and he seems to be a better all around player than Mo and he would have equally benefitted from James...so I am just curious if they would have cancelled each other out as far as being an all-star alternate or who of the 2 brings the most to the court.

[Ayt]

Mo isn't the PG? Who is then?

I do love the backtracking on Mo. He made the All-Star team but he's not really an All-Star.

[europa]

Mo isn't the PG? Who is then?

LeBron.

[midranger]

lol @ sour grapes xTitan. Get over it.

Mid-round draft picks are regularly bought for 3 million or less. I'm unsure why a team would want to buy one for 6.5 million (Ridnour's contract) from us.

[GrandAdmiralDan]

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.

Not even close to the same thing. Brook Lopez could have been a Buck if we had chose to make him one. He was projected to go right in the range of that 8th pick.

Dirk was not going to be a Buck. He was only interested in coming over to be a Mav after being convinced by Donnie Nelson. We traded up to draft Traylor. The Mavs knew eventually someone would gamble on Dirk with a mid to late 1st round pick and try to force the issue, but they knew they could still get Dirk with the 9th pick because no one was willing to use a pick higher than that on Dirk at that point.

Mid-round draft picks are regularly bought for 3 million or less. I'm unsure why a team would want to buy one for 6.5 million (Ridnour's contract) from us.

They certainly wouldn't want to spend $6.5 mil just to get the draft pick, you are right about that. They would need to value having Ridnour on the roster for a year as worth $3.5+ mil in that case.

It is possible that could end up happening. I don't see any of the teams with 2009 offseason cap space having that much of a desire for Ridnour given the rest of their rosters and their current circumstances, but I would look more at a 3 team deal.

There are some teams trying to keep themselves set up with cap space for the 2010 offseason that will still be looking to tweak their roster for the 09-10 season. They won't be too interested in filling roster needs via FA because those contracts would then be cutting into that 2010 offseason cap space. Ridnour could be that stopgap for that team. That team would in turn send something else to the team with cap space that might be a better fit for them than Ridnour.

The problem is that while this is plausible as a general theory, the odds get longer when you start trying to figure out the specifics. An added obstacle now being that you have to not only come up with something that two parties have to agree to, you have to come up with something that three parties have to agree to.

[europa]

Not even close to the same thing. Brook Lopez could have been a Buck if we had chose to make him one. He was projected to go right in the range of that 8th pick.

The point, though, GAD is you can't list Lopez among the "assets" Hammond might lose. You can't lose something you never had.

[EastSideBucksFan]

Not even close to the same thing. Brook Lopez could have been a Buck if we had chose to make him one. He was projected to go right in the range of that 8th pick.

The point, though, GAD is you can't list Lopez among the "assets" Hammond might lose. You can't lose something you never had.

The Bucks could have also had Chris Paul, but I don't see anyone in here talking about how Larry Harris "gave away" Chris Paul.

[europa]

Not even close to the same thing. Brook Lopez could have been a Buck if we had chose to make him one. He was projected to go right in the range of that 8th pick.

The point, though, GAD is you can't list Lopez among the "assets" Hammond might lose. You can't lose something you never had.

The Bucks could have also had Chris Paul, but I don't see anyone in here talking about how Larry Harris "gave away" Chris Paul.

That's probably because they're going to blame Hammond for that too.

[GrandAdmiralDan]

The point, though, GAD is you can't list Lopez among the "assets" Hammond might lose. You can't lose something you never had.

I don't think that point is at all helpful in any defense of Hammond. We can't criticize Hammond for losing Brook Lopez because he screwed up and draffted Joe Alexander instead of Brook Lopez?

Anyway, I disagree with the actual point. Hammond did lose an asset. He lost the opportunity to draft Brook Lopez. He lost that opportunity by deciding to draft Joe Alexander instead.

The Bucks could have also had Chris Paul, but I don't see anyone in here talking about how Larry Harris "gave away" Chris Paul.

Unfortunately, some people DO say that.
But a SIGNIFICANT difference is that Chris Paul was not considered to be a choice for the #1 pick, except by a very small minority. It was Andrew Bogut or Marvin Williams, one or the other, with more people leaning towards Bogut.

Brook Lopez, on the other hand was absolutely someone talked about being picked in the range of the 8th pick of last draft. That was a legitimate option and we made a different decision.

[jerrod]

the alexander/lopez and bogut/paul situations are reversed. we took the reach with one and the expected with the other. too bad we didn't do it the other way around

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

All Star PG...lol...2nd alternate actualy and he doesn't run the point.....

Easy on the ellipses there...... but you can classify Mo as whatever kind of guard you want, and it doesn't change the fact that Hammond got only Ridnour for him, and now may plausibly have to burn a 1st round pick to dump Ridnour lest he let better players leave.

I actually do have a serious question on this topic for you, if Delonte West was healthy all year, do you think Williams would have even been a 2nd alternate?

Yes, probably. I think David Lee was more deserving of that spot, but I don't think West bringing Mo's minutes down by 3 per game would have changed anyone's mind about Mo vs Lee.

But again, whether Mo's a legit 12-man team all-star or the 13th man or even the 15th man, it shouldn't require a 1st round draft pick to dump him for cap space. Hammond hasn't done an impressive job with the resources he's been given, and it is by no means too early to start judging him. He's already been here for 10% of an NBA player career, and probably 20% of an NBA GM career.

[paul]

Just wanted to say old skool and ESBF were on fire in the middle of this thread.

[jerrod]

Just wanted to say old skool and ESBF were on fire in the middle of this thread.

this brings up something i've been paying attention to recently, the people that take the time out to point out when they think someone has made a good post, never ever, ever, say it about a post they don't agree with

ever

[paul]

Just wanted to say old skool and ESBF were on fire in the middle of this thread.

this brings up something i've been paying attention to recently, the people that take the time out to point out when they think someone has made a good post, never ever, ever, say it about a post they don't agree with

ever

If someone disagrees completely with someone else's point of view it's unlikely they'll compliment them on the eloquance of their writing or something jerrod, this is a basketball forum not a literary forum afterall - though I do appreciate a good alternate point of view that makes me think about things another way and have complimented people in that situation in the past, rarely admittedly.

[Ayt]

Just wanted to say old skool and ESBF were on fire in the middle of this thread.

They didn't really say anything other than "Trust in Hammond! He'll pull a rabbit out of his hat!"

[paul]

Just wanted to say old skool and ESBF were on fire in the middle of this thread.

They didn't really say anything other than "Trust in Hammond! He'll pull a rabbit out of his hat!"

In your opinion....