Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[Bernman]

Bdub---if Sessions had so little value why was he almost traded with Alexander for Conley? Even if the Grizzlies were high on Joe, that deal still would have been about swapping pg's (and memphis would have been assuredly planning to resign him).

Also, if he had so little value why did the Blazers demand he be included?

He may not have as much value as many on this board are projecting, but suggesting he's in the same department as CV seems off to me. Sessions is young, but it's not like he's had years of little improvement and lockerroom problems. Plus, two coaches going with more experienced players over a rookie isn't the most surprising thing in the world either. You are right if they were enamored with Sessions he would have gotten more minutes and htey wouldn't have said as negative things about him in the press, but for a young PG all things considered he's gotta be considered an asset.

The Conley deal actually included a 2010 first the Grizz received from the Lakers in the Gasol trade.

I think it's a safe assumption that Alexander's value at the trade deadline was equivalent to about a late 1st rounder.

Therefore at the very least the trade implied that Sessions = Conley, to them. And they were willing to risk paying Sessions much more money, so most likely they esteemed him more than Conley. That's saying nothing about my own opinion of Sessions or Conley. I would have taken the deal without the Lakers' 1st rounder and don't want to pay Sessions over 5 million per or for more than 4 years, but that's really besides the point.

[BDUB_30]

So the guy that has shown nothing (JA) is worth something to you and the guy that has shown something (Sessions) is worth nothing to you? Not sure what to say about that.

Ja has shown me nba atheltism and potential touch . thats pretty much it ...But alot of improvment can be made in an offseason and im not just willing to give up one one of the best athelets ive yet to see wear a bucks uniform .


Sessions has shown me an inability to run the half court offense , a tendacy to conistantly over dribble . No defense . No jumper . Slow or missed defensive rotations . Poor transition defense.

On the positive . He has shown me the ability to get to the paint . but even that is vastly overated on this forum due to the fact that ramon spends far to much time proding the lane and dominates the ball far to much for mine or apparently skiles taste .

Then their is context . Given the context, im not giving up Richard Jefferson to make room to sign either of these bums . I wouldnt bring cv back for any cost , you can quote me on that .I want him gone i think his entitlement attitude has run its course here , he feels hes entitled to a certain amount of shots in the half court offense and i dont think hes good enough for that ... but i WOULD like an extended look at ramon for something along the lines of 3m per .. not a dime more . Im not confident we would see Ramon change his habits . I think he is a 1-4 pg . I dont think we have any use for a pg that feels the offense should feature him , i do not want to watch an offense where we play draw and kick basketball with Ramon sessions as the centerpiece . i think that is disgusting , horrible basketball .

I would still take an extended look at him and see if he can " get it " .. not confident though , and not at the cost of Richard Jefferson ...

[steger_3434]

JA-Pros: Can jump high, although that hasn't helped him one bit in the NBA.

JA-Cons: Awful D, suspect shot, bad transition, can't dribble, isn't a hard worker, doesn't listen to coaches, poor rebounder

[InsideOut]

So the guy that has shown nothing (JA) is worth something to you and the guy that has shown something (Sessions) is worth nothing to you? Not sure what to say about that.

Sessions has shown me an inability to run the half court offense , a tendacy to conistantly over dribble . No defense . No jumper . Slow or missed defensive rotations . Poor transition defense.

Do you expect all rookie PGs to come in and have these traits down cold? If not how long should a player get to learn these things? Could you have said these same things about guys like Harris, Nash and Nelson during their first 90 games? Do you feel if a player doesn't have these things down in his first 90 games he should be cut loose? How about a list of guys PGs you feel were better than Sessions during their first 90 games?

Hammond said Sessions got the most interest from other teams. Did you explain that one yet?

[El Duderino]

JA-Pros: Can jump high, although that hasn't helped him one bit in the NBA.

JA-Cons: Awful D, suspect shot, bad transition, can't dribble, isn't a hard worker, doesn't listen to coaches, poor rebounder

You forgot or missed the most important Con, very lacking in natural basketball instincts. It's the biggest reason his athletic ability doesn't translate to better results. You see it all the time in sports though. Great athletes that just don't have the innate feel for the game.

[BDUB_30]

So the guy that has shown nothing (JA) is worth something to you and the guy that has shown something (Sessions) is worth nothing to you? Not sure what to say about that.

Sessions has shown me an inability to run the half court offense , a tendacy to conistantly over dribble . No defense . No jumper . Slow or missed defensive rotations . Poor transition defense.

Do you expect all rookie PGs to come in and have these traits down cold? If not how long should a player get to learn these things? Could you have said these same things about guys like Harris, Nash and Nelson during their first 90 games? Do you feel if a player doesn't have these things down in his first 90 games he should be cut loose? How about a list of guys PGs you feel were better than Sessions during their first 90 games?

Hammond said Sessions got the most interest from other teams. Did you explain that one yet?

I think their may be red flags when dealing with young talent .


An example would be trying to get a guy to understand the motion offense , and yet he doesnt make the proper reads , looks off people running open around curls , poor floor spacing , poor off ball movement .. all things ive seen from Sessions .

Yet , an apparent obsession with going one on 5 and playing draw and kick basketball .

At some point i think a staff might ask themself are they intenionally being ignored ? the premise of what youre saying is that Sessions is young and learning , i think theirs a possibility that Ramon had chosen he was going to run this offense a certain way and that was that . Skiles commenting that he couldnt even run plays when Ramon was running the show is more proof of what i can clearly see with my two eyes .

Its no secret that motion offenses arent great for pg's statisticaly . Ive seen ridnour have a few amazing games for the bucks , yet come up short in the box score department ..The idea is to keep the motion flowing and sometimes that means the pg has to give it up and create that motion himself . Sessions refusal to do that is a red flag for me , and possibly this staff has seen enough of it .

As far as hammonds comments , that is relative . I think their has to be more to the discussion . If the offers were so great , why didnt he take any ? What im getting from the forum basicaly in regards to that question is " Hammond is Stupid and im smart " ... I dont buy it . I dont think the offers were that great . Im sure their were inquiries about Ramon , or maybe their were very few and JH was just trying to bring some attention to the name Ramon Sessions . Whatever the case was or is . I think the offers would of had to been substantial , and they obviously were not ..

I think we will kind of get an idea soon here as to what Ramons value is to the leauge when the offers come in .. I think time will show his value league wide and this forums value of ramon are two entirely diffrent things .

[InsideOut]

Sessions has shown me an inability to run the half court offense , a tendacy to conistantly over dribble . No defense . No jumper . Slow or missed defensive rotations . Poor transition defense.

Do you expect all rookie PGs to come in and have these traits down cold? If not how long should a player get to learn these things? Could you have said these same things about guys like Harris, Nash and Nelson during their first 90 games? Do you feel if a player doesn't have these things down in his first 90 games he should be cut loose? How about a list of guys PGs you feel were better than Sessions during their first 90 games?

Hammond said Sessions got the most interest from other teams. Did you explain that one yet?

As far as hammonds comments , that is relative . I think their has to be more to the discussion . If the offers were so great , why didnt he take any ? What im getting from the forum basicaly in regards to that question is " Hammond is Stupid and im smart " ... I dont buy it . I dont think the offers were that great . Im sure their were inquiries about Ramon , or maybe their were very few and JH was just trying to bring some attention to the name Ramon Sessions . Whatever the case was or is . I think the offers would of had to been substantial , and they obviously were not ..
I think we will kind of get an idea soon here as to what Ramons value is to the leauge when the offers come in .. I think time will show his value league wide and this forums value of ramon are two entirely diffrent things .

If you and Hammond feel that Session is worthless, then why would the offers need to be substantial?

If he didn't like him as a player and was just going to drop him, then why not take anything in return for him. What sense does it make for Hammond to say Sessions was getting the most interest and then get nothing for him if he didn't want to keep him in the first place. It's stuff like this that makes many of us wonder how smart Hammond is.

[Wisedude42]

Hammonds made bad moves that he is now stuck with and the club is floundering. He is saying the next 2 years will be wasted and then after 2 years he has to totally rebuild the team. Who is buying this sales pitch? In fact, who wants this at all? He cares about not helping other teams but instead should be only focused on building the Bucks. This guy doesn't know what he's doing. Does he have a lifetime contract? We'll all be 90 years old according to his plan, which I'm sure will blow up again.

All this guy knows how to do is dress up in expensive suits and show up at the draft lottery.
DISGUSTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the owner believes this garbage and is willing to go along with it. EVEN MORE disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ReasonablySober]

Hammonds

Sorry. Stopped right there.

[trwi7]

Hammonds

Sorry. Stopped right there.

I think he just forgot the apostrophe. If you read his post, I'm pretty sure you'll agree with it.

[paulpressey25]

Bdub is taking what I think are two decent points he's made for the last four months and trying to stretch them into a third.

a) This management team doesn't care for CV and decided at the deadline they want RJ over CV
b) Skiles wants to win now, and it's plausible he'd prefer a Ridnour/#10 PG rotation over a Sessions/#10 PG rotation for next year "win-now" purposes.

But I think B-dub is overplaying those two good points into a "Hammond doesn't want Ramon around" riff that I don't buy. But we'll find out soon enough if he's right.

[InsideOut]

Bdub is taking what I think are two decent points he's made for the last four months and trying to stretch them into a third.

a) This management team doesn't care for CV and decided at the deadline they want RJ over CV
b) Skiles wants to win now, and it's plausible he'd prefer a Ridnour/#10 PG rotation over a Sessions/#10 PG rotation for next year "win-now" purposes.

But I think B-dub is overplaying those two good points into a "Hammond doesn't want Ramon around" riff that I don't buy. But we'll find out soon enough if he's right.

This is his point we have a problem with.

Is that you all keep whining about losing " young assets " .. when in reality , the two guys were going to be losing , are not assets at all .

He said Sessions is not an asset. That just can't be true if Hammond was getting all these calls about him. And if Hammond then let's him go for nothing then that would be beyond words.

[paulpressey25]

This is his point we have a problem with.

I have a problem with that point as well. Sessions is clearly an asset. If we lose him for nothing, it would be pretty ridiculous that we turned down that Conley trade. I still don't think we'll lose him though. But it will be a gut wrenching time period while Ramon "establishes" his value via an offer sheet.

[europa]

The thing is - if Skiles wants to win now, then going with Sessions/#10 is the better move to make since Sessions is a much better player than Ridnour. Even if you have questions about Sessions at PG, he has shown he can play SG if need be and that's rather critical in light of Redd's injury. So he's more talented and more versatile than Ridnour and by a rather large margin. So if the goal is to get to the playoffs, keeping Sessions over Ridnour is the smart move to make.

On top of that, if Sessions' contract is reasonable as could very well be the case, then you've lost nothing in the process. If he proves to be just a decent backup, he'll still have value around the league because plenty of teams appear to like him and he isn't being overpaid. So he'll be easy to move if that times comes.

There is zero downside to re-signing Sessions. If he doesn't get any better, he's already pretty damn good and at the very least is a damn good backup PG. If he continues to improve, he could become the ideal player a young team would love to have at the PG position. Of all the decisions Hammond has had to make so far, re-signing Sessions in my opinion is by far the easiest one. And yes, I'm biased because I like Sessions but it's the reasons why I like him which make this decision such an easy one.

[paulpressey25]

The thing is - if Skiles wants to win now, then going with Sessions/#10 is the better move to make

I'm not sure Skiles would agree 100% with that thought. I think the Bucks management and Skiles view Ridnour as a guy much like Blake has been with Portland the past two years. A guy who when everyone is healthy is a somewhat a scrappy and effective veteran. A guy Skiles can trust to do what he wants out there. I'm not sure he's there yet with Ramon at the starting PG slot.

[europa]

The thing is - if Skiles wants to win now, then going with Sessions/#10 is the better move to make

I'm not sure Skiles would agree 100% with that thought. I think the Bucks management and Skiles view Ridnour as a guy much like Blake has been with Portland the past two years. A guy who when everyone is healthy is a somewhat a scrappy and effective veteran. A guy Skiles can trust to do what he wants out there. I'm not sure he's there yet with Ramon at the starting PG slot.

I don't think he's there yet either. But I would respectfully disagree with Skiles and Hammond if they believe Ridnour/10 gives the Bucks a better chance to win now than Sessions/10. I can appreciate the reasons why Skiles and Hammond value Ridnour, but he simply isn't close to being the talent that Sessions is. And unlike Villanueva, Sessions' talent isn't one that results in the Bucks being worse when they're on the court. As all of the various statistical metrics we've seen have clearly shown, Sessions was a productive player this season. There's simply no strong argument that can be made in favor of Ridnour over Sessions.

But the primary point I'm making is there is no downside to re-signing Sessions if the contract is reasonable as I believe it will be. None. Hammond does this team no harm whatsoever in keeping him and the potential upside is enormous. Like I said, this is the easiest decision he'll have to make as a GM thus far in my opinion.

[InsideOut]

Seeing as how Hammond tried to trade both Ridnour and Sessions I have no clue who he thinks is the better player or if he feels either are a good starting PG.

[BDUB_30]

If you and Hammond feel that Session is worthless, then why would the offers need to be substantial?

If he didn't like him as a player and was just going to drop him, then why not take anything in return for him. What sense does it make for Hammond to say Sessions was getting the most interest and then get nothing for him if he didn't want to keep him in the first place. It's stuff like this that makes many of us wonder how smart Hammond is.

Because you dont need to take on an additional year(s) of salary for players you dont like anyways . You dont need to pay a Mike Conley for 2 more seasons , if ya dont like what he brings to your team.


..substantial meaning relative to what you feel your teams needs are and the kind of team your trying to build .. does an undersized pg fit into those plans ? Probablly not .. (conley)


Youre saying , as is everyone else , that its better to get something then nothing .. i disagree , their is players in this game that have a negative impact on your roster . Guys like CV for example , id rather have him just flat out gone then even retained for next to nothing . I think guys like him are bad for your chemistry ...Why aquire guys ya dont like and dont feel will play the kind of basketball that you demand ...that is a typical problem for the bucks is their STANDARDS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN POOR ITS NICE TO SEE A GM WITH SOME KIND OF STANDARD!


I think alot of people are stuck in this thought prison that a players worth is relative only to their contractual status .. I think thats wrong , i think theirs this other side of the equation and that is , a players worth is relative to his contract AND his performance , how he fits into your teams system AND chemistry .. If a guys just doesnt fit in , do you just pick him up just to pick him up ? I know trade at a later date ? This isnt nba live . If the guys that were offered for sessions didnt fit into their plan , no need on taking them . thats what i meant by substantial ...a player with some kind of substance realative to the teams direction .


We dont need to aquire guys just to aquire guys , nor do we need to resign guys just to resign them so we dont lose them ...if these guys dont fit in , we shop them ..if what comes back doesnt fit ( mike conley ) we dont do the deal .. ...Hammonds game is tight , its disciplined and i honesty think him playing hardball with RJ is gonna pay dividens for us this offseason ..i think someone is gonna up the anty and were gonna get PAIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD ( so to speak ) ...i think hammond understands the basic principle .. the basic principle is STANDARD , and then not settling for anything LESS then what youre standard is ..

Im excited about the future of this team , i totally understand some of the hammond critisims , i think time will prove all of his moves or lack of moves were pretty damn disciplined .

[aboveAverage]

It's nice to have standards, but if you don't want a player on your team, you don't let him go for nothing. Good GM's trade him for something useful. Letting assets go is just plain stupid.

[LUKE23]

Personally, I would find it very odd if Hammond came in and traded Mo for Ridnour, a two-year stop gap that has no future here, and then just let Mo's supposed replacement, Sessions, walk for nothing the next offseason. There is just no rationalization for losing Ramon, even if we lose him because he gets too high an offer, because then you can come right back to the "well why the hell didn't we trade for Conley then"?

It's just a very odd use of resources if we let Ramon walk. Hammond will get burned at the stake if it happens.

I also don't buy the people who say, "let him walk, we can take a PG at 10". Umm, why wouldn't you just keep Ramon and the #10? It's not a bad thing to have a lot of young talent at PG.

Don't mess this up John.