Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[europa]

If Flynn or Holiday are drafted and Ridnour is traded on draft night I think we can safely assume the plan will be to re-sign Sessions.

I know we are all keying for draft night here, but I'm not sure any deals that involve us dumping salary will go down. For some reason I see it being hard to get those done until after the smoke clears a bit during the first couple weeks of FA. I think we'll pick some guy at #10 and then go into a frenzy on here for the next two weeks debating the same crap regarding Ramon.

Plus I can't see Hammond dumping Ridnour on draft night and losing his leverage (and safety valve) as it relates to Ramon. Maybe dumping Ridnour later, after he has a contract with Ramon. But not before. That again is why I see Potsie as the likely guy to move on draft night assuming we pick Hill at #10. Hammond already has that position covered with RJ and Moute.

I think it's possible Ridnour isn't traded until later in the offseason. I'm simply saying that I don't believe Hammond will deal a future first to be rid of Ridnour. I don't believe he'll need to do that. And two, I don't think the mere additions of Holiday or Flynn on draft night means Sessions is a goner and Ridnour is staying.

Though I'm sure that's what 90% of this forum will believe if that is what happens on draft night.

[LUKE23]

I can say with certainty that Skiles would like Conley. So if he had any input into the deal not going down, then yes he likes Sessions.

Don't blow off the importance of that Conley deal not getting done. It's indicative of what the Bucks think of Sessions, IMO.

[europa]

Let me ask you guys, do you think Skiles wants Sessions?

My belief is Hammond and Skiles both like Sessions but they're not sure yet if he's the long-term starter at PG and they're not sure what his true value is from a contract perspective. I think they would like one more year to evaluate him but unfortunately they don't have that luxury. So that makes the analysis more difficult.

And Conley has two more years at $9M until he becomes a restricted free agent. He's not pricey by any means.

[europa]

Don't blow off the importance of that Conley deal not getting done. It's indicative of what the Bucks think of Sessions, IMO.

I agree. There's simply no way Hammond and Skiles don't get that deal done if they don't like Sessions. No way. The fact they didn't push harder to close it tells me they do value him and do want to keep him as long as the price tag is reasonable.

[randy84]

I can say with certainty that Skiles would like Conley. So if he had any input into the deal not going down, then yes he likes Sessions.

Don't blow off the importance of that Conley deal not getting done. It's indicative of what the Bucks think of Sessions, IMO.

I don't disregard the Conley trade. I think Hammond and Skiles really wanted to do the trade. I just think Kohl stepped in and said no. Both sides said that they were waiting for Kohl's approval and it never came.

Does that mean that Kohl will step up and demand that the Bucks keep Sessions. I don't know. I think it is going to depend on who is available at #10. If there is a PF there I think they keep Sessions, if a PG is taken I think they keep CV.

[InsideOut]

Kohl shot down the Conley. There isn't much you can do if the boss says no.

I disagree. You figure out another way to get the deal done. If Hammond and Skiles were that determined to get rid of Sessions, they would've found a way to get the Conley deal done.

And this another in a long list of posts that has me convinced you work for Kohl. This line is just so old. Report after report comes out how Kohl stops deals and yet you always gloss over that fact and blame the GM. Kohl could say you can't trade Sessions yet only you see it as the GMs fault for not trading him.

[aboveAverage]

Ugghh, how many days until the draft? I just want it to be over with so we know more about how next year's lineup will look like.

[europa]

I think Villanueva's gone no matter what happens on draft night - barring a totally unforeseen series of events which enables the Bucks to clear out around $10M in room under the tax.

[europa]

Ugghh, how many days until the draft?

Two weeks from this Thursday.

[LUKE23]

Ugghh, how many days until the draft? I just want it to be over with so we know more about how next year's lineup will look like.

17. It will be a long 17 too.

[BDUB_30]

Let me ask you guys, do you think Skiles wants Sessions?

My belief is Hammond and Skiles both like Sessions but they're not sure yet if he's the long-term starter at PG and they're not sure what his true value is from a contract perspective. I think they would like one more year to evaluate him but unfortunately they don't have that luxury. So that makes the analysis more difficult.

And Conley has two more years at $9M until he becomes a restricted free agent. He's not pricey by any means.

Nba payroll may be decreasing by 10% every year .

Im of the belief that this isnt the first time nba execs have heard this , im sure this was and has been speculated for some time now .


youre talking about spending possibly 10% of your payroll for a guy you dont even like ..


thats the whole point .. why would u spend 4.5 mil on a guy you dont even like for 2 years ? thats Larry Harris thinking .. now you might be able to do that if your john hammond with a CLEAN roster ..but not while you got guys like Dan Gadzuric , and Charlie Bell lurking ....you cant just say " ohh well heres another 9 mil for a guy we dont even like " ...when you guys toxic assets on your roster ...you cant just keep throwing darts at the dartboard blindfolded .

[europa]

And this another in a long list of posts that has me convinced you work for Kohl.

Do you watch the Brewers? You know how bad Bill Hall often looks when he strikes out at the plate?

You just made Hall's strikeouts look great by comparison.

[paulpressey25]

I think our one big hope would be that the T-Wolves take Ridnour for either Mark Madsen or Telfair.

Either move saves us almost $4 million this season. In Telfair's case, he has two-years left on his deal. Madsen one.

But with a new sheriff in Minnesota, who knows what he'll do.

Per the wiretap:

David Kahn, new general manager of the Timberwolves, has a long to-do list. "I don't think we'll have everything put together the way I see fit for another 17 months," he said. "What I mean by that is, I'm talking about the team and everything. We have a lot of opportunities, starting with this draft, through this summer with free agency, trade deadline, next summer's draft, next summer's free agency. We have several windows of opportunity to really transform the team and add some significant pieces."

[europa]

The T'Wolves have five picks in the draft. I think there's a very good chance they trade one or more of them and they may be willing to sell one of their seconds off. Or they might bite on Ridnour/cash for one of them. If they're chasing after Hinrich, they clearly want a veteran PG. If they don't get Hinrich but land a PG at 18 or 28, bringing in Ridnour as a stopgap PG would make a lot of sense for them. It might even make sense if they take a PG at six and want to have a veteran behind him.

[smauss]

Wow, just checked in. Seems we picked up on June 8th just about where we left off on March 3rd...

[Wise1]

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 .

I don't have time to read anything beyond this post tonight, but there is a lot here to contemplate. I'm far from a Hammond apologist (the JA pick has him on my suspect list), but at this point I'm on the same road as B-Dub here. It is possible that the best tactical manuever for Hammond and the Bucks at this point is to let both CV and Sessions walk for nothing. Getting "something" in return could turn out to be counterproductive, lest the asset coming back is earmarked as a future fixture and or building block. Getting "something" in return may mean taking on a player that you don't necessary see as a part of the team's future which essentially would amount to dead salary.

For the record, I'd ideally like to see Sessions re-signed at about 3 million per which would be a substantial raise over what he's currently making. If my financial planning led me to believe that I would not compromise the signing of future draft picks or any potential player procurement prior to 2011, then I'd go as high as 6 mil per for only 3 years. If I feel that I can draft a point guard just as good or better than Sessions at 10 this year, then paying Sessions a dime over 3 mil per makes no sense.

I think Hammond's plan is to best position himself after 2011 to go out and buy proven assets. Allstars or bonafied impact players. The team, by Hammond's estimation, will be radically altered at that point. What sense does it make to over invest in either Sessions or CV is we don't know if either will be a good fit for the team that Hammond plans to build after 2011? Investing in either Sessions or CV only makes sense if it's for marginal dollars "short term" (3 years).

[El Duderino]

I think Hammond's plan is to best position himself after 2011 to go out and buy proven assets. Allstars or bonafied impact players.

I don't because i don't believe he even has any clear plan for that far down the road beyond finally being rid of lots of ball and chain contracts. Not only that, it's near impossible to know the mix of both the state of the team in two years along with who will be available then. Hopefully he can manage to dump some of that baggage before then by not passing on offers if available over nonsense like fretting over helping a division team.

[worthlessBucks]

If I'm Kahn, I'm thinking that a cheap rookie (Lawson, Maynor, Tegaue, or Mills) @ 18 is a far better alternative than taking Luke Ridnour and his 6.5 million. The Wolves don't have that much excess, pricey junk on their roster, just Cardinal and he makes 250k more than Luke. No way they take Ridnour without giving us Cardinal and that accomplishes nothing in our save money plan.

I'd like to switch rosters with the Twolves, yet stay in the same conference.

[Wise1]

I think Hammond's plan is to best position himself after 2011 to go out and buy proven assets. Allstars or bonafied impact players.

I don't because i don't believe he even has any clear plan for that far down the road beyond finally being rid of lots of ball and chain contracts. Not only that, it's near impossible to know the mix of both the state of the team in two years along with who will be available then. Hopefully he can manage to dump some of that baggage before then by not passing on offers if available over nonsense like fretting over helping a division team.

Perhaps, but I don't think it's impossible to project that I want to surround Andrew Bogut with a player at this position that can do this...and so on and so on. Until he gets those specific player types, he would have the luxary of sitting on his wallet and waiting for that specific asset to become available.

Sure this is speculative and we can't garauntee that Bogut's back will allow him to be a building block two years out, but its a plan and right now that's all he's got.

I'm not against dumping assests before 2011, but I wouldn't support assuming salary beyond 2011 unless I'm pretty comfortable that this new player(s) would be a fundamental piece to my long term plan (absent a dump for an expiring).

[BDUB_30]

. Getting "something" in return could turn out to be counterproductive, lest the asset coming back is earmarked as a future fixture and or building block. Getting "something" in return may mean taking on a player that you don't necessary see as a part of the team's future which essentially would amount to dead salary.

.

Precisley .


We take back conley at 9 mil over 2 years just to take him ? Regardless if we like him or not , regardless if we feel he plays the kind of ball our coach demands .


I dont think you win this way .. I dont think you build programs this way . I dont think you look at things in a vacum and say " well we have to get SOMETHING for our talent we cant just let them walk " ..


Something may NOT be better then nothing ..Its not JUST about paying conley 9 millon dollars .Its also about Conely taking up a roster spot , its also conley taking up a ROSTER SPOT AND HAVING TO PLAY HIM ! .. If ya dont like how he plays , why trade for him ? its that simple .


You have a direction for your team .. and that direction is were gonna work hard on defense , were going to try to get out in transition and get buckets , and were going to have alot of motion in our half court and move the basketball fluidly . That is our basketball phillosiphy .. Now the point ? You dont just bring people into that mixture if you dont feel they are capable of fitting into the culture ( ) ...just to bring them in ..and you without a doubt dont trade people that DO fit into that culture ( RJ ) to resign people that do NOT ( Ramon / Cv ) ...its that simple .


This is called sticking to your guns .. in the past weve heard Larry Harris and the Bucks year after year talk about playing defense ...and defense defense defense .. then they go and make a trade for CV . ..resign mo williams .. resign mike redd .. Even back then i would think to myself , what is this ? What about this defense were suppose to be playing ? Where is it ? How do you talk out of both sides of your mouth ..


Now we have a GM who has the standard and fans dont like it ... they want the past .. I guarentee you , without a doubt ... Larry Harris signs both Ramon , and CV .. I mean hell people should be thankful were not doing what we usually do and resiging our guys .. Isnt it kind of refreshing to give our players the middle finger for once ? Concidering that weve always resigned our young , no defense playing talent ... one would think doing the opposite would incite some kind of optimism . I guess some of yall have a little more Larry in ya then youd like to admit .. See Harris was about quick fixes and baindage solutions , Hammond appears to be disciplined and willing to do what is right to make this work here .... im sold , can ya tell ?