Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[Sigra]

Why are some people being so bloody thick on this issue? Hammond did esteem Conley more than Sessions and wanted the deal to be completed, but it was nixed by the Senator. That fact has been relayed to you like 100 times, how long is it going to take to sink in?

And it's not a debate that it was a f*** up, but that's not the fault of Hammond. Because after all, he doesn't have the final say. If he was the GM on 95 percent of teams, we'd be sitting here with Conley today. But because he's the GM of one of the most dysfunctional organizations in American professional sports, we're going to lose Sessions for nothing. If you don't like a return of Conley specifically, pick a trade equivalent and I'm sure Kohl would have shot it down also. Do you like Carl Landry? Brandan Wright? Chalmers? Felton? I'm sure you can find someone on the same trade equivalency line as Conley you would have liked. Some trade should have been executed for the benefit of the franchise. But when has that been the Bucks' primary objective. It wouldn't have mattered which trades were proposed, because they all would have been shot down by the senator. And some more may have been, we certainly didn't hear about the Yi/Bobby trade before it occurred.

So now Hammond is in the position of having to overpay a player he doesn't believe in, thus getting locked into him or his flawed trade equivalent starting for the Bucks for years to come. Because that's not a favorable situation in the long run, at this point, it is defensible on his part that
Sessions walks for nothing. It can be defensible for Hammond, but indefensible for the Bucks' organization. But point the blame in the right direction. The indefensible part is Kohl's meddling. Yet people are justifying it because of their bias toward Sessions. Who the hell should care about his assessment of Conley's talent? Keep your nose out of everyone else's business you little troll.

a) I don't think Kohl stoped that trade. I don't believe in "inside sources" and couldn't care less who has what kind of information.

b) Who ever decided against that trade made great decision IMO. Conley is never going to be anything special and we better find real solution at PG.

c) Did you just called me "little troll"??

[smauss]

c) Did you just called me "little troll"??

Ilhan, just so you know, I assumed Bern meant Kohl! On that I would agree......
btw, I would not call you either (little or a troll)

[Sigra]

c) Did you just called me "little troll"??

Ilhan, just so you know, I assumed Bern meant Kohl! On that I would agree......
btw, I would not call you either (little or a troll)

Oh ok. Now that makes sense

[BDUB_30]

I Dont buy the Kohl arguement either , these conspiracy theories are wildly inconsitant .


You cant say on one hand that Hammond is signing Salim Stauadmire and making moves to basicaly prevent kohl from forcing hammond to retain sessions / cv . and then on the other hand claim a conspiracy theory saying that Kohl is a meddler who blocks deals like conley from getting done .


Simply put , if Kohl is meddling and has control of this team .. why didnt he meddle and stop Salim from being signed? .. Or if Kohl was so in love with Ramon and didnt want to do the conley trade ? Why didnt Kohl force hammond to trade RJ to clevland so they could make sure they had the dough to sign Ramon ?

This is wildly inconsitant logic . People are claiming Kohl is a meddler when it supports their theory , but hes not a meddler any other time .. Yeah he dictated to hammond not to trade Ramon sessions , yet he didnt dictate when Hammond signed Staudamire , yet he didnt dictate to hammond when hammond decided NOT to trade RJ ... I dont buy that at all ..


So if kohl is so involved in this team that hes willing to block very meaningless trades like ramon for conley under the guise of how much he like Ramon .. Why didnt kohl get involved when hammond signed salim , or when hammond didnt want to deal RJ ...Or any of the other scenerios .. The conistant variable , the common denominator is that the bucks simply dont like ramon or cv nor the players that were offered for them otherwise they would of pulled the trigger . Its really not that new of an idea ..

[Bernman]

a) I don't think Kohl stoped that trade. I don't believe in "inside sources" and couldn't care less who has what kind of information.

b) Who ever decided against that trade made great decision IMO. Conley is never going to be anything special and we better find real solution at PG.

c) Did you just called me "little troll"??

a) because originally you were being a homer and blindly defending every move Hammond/the Bucks made and now don't want to admit you were wrong. You are essentially implying that CBQ is a liar. Make the adjustment on that report. I did once I discovered it. I have no reason not to believe her given her history and Kohl's history.

b) Even if you do believe that, which I think is probably more cognitive dissonance (I doubt you caught many Grizzlies or OSU games from your cave in Bosnia), his contract would have been unguaranteed his last couple of years with the Bucks. He could have been waived at any time. So the Bucks would have gotten a risk free trial with him and the very least he would have been a backup for the team. If you don't like him, pick a bevy of other options. Sessions had value if he could net the #4 pick in the draft a year in a half earlier, who had shown at least a pulse regardless of what you think of him. He's not Potsie, Darko, or Markota. And it's never a good decision when Kohl kiebashes a trade due to talent.

c) obviously I was referring to Kohl the troll

[BDUB_30]

So Kohl meddles and vetoes a trade involving ramon because Kohl is high on Ramon ..


Yet kohl DOESNT meddle when the bucks sign Salim , and Kohl DOESNT meddle when we can clear 14 millon in salary and not only resign Sessions , but resign his other favorite ( cv ) .


Your logic is contradictory ...If kohl was a meddler who vetoed the conley trade , he would of dictated to hammond to also make sure we were in finacial shape to retain sessions , which we are not .


As for inside sources . You must not know the history of this forum and how wrong inside sources have been .. its not a knock on them posters , they happen to be some of our most passionate , most well informed opionons . But their inside source bull has been consitantly wrong if you know the history of this forum .. so no , claiming someone has inside sources is almost imo , an indication of poor information .

[LUKE23]

Actually, I'd take Sessions at the MLE for 3 years or so over RJ at 2 years at $14M any day. I think any Bucks fan that wants the team to improve would. You would have an extra $8M to work with in addition to Ramon's contract for what you're paying RJ. Considering Sessions produced more wins last year than RJ ANYWAY, it's a no brainer.

The overrating of RJ by some is mindblowing on this forum.

Here is a simple breakdown:

1. If Sessions is kept, Hammond is absolved from passing on the Conley deal
2. If Sessions walks, Hammond gets bashed for passing on the Conley deal

There is no #3. If losing him was deemed a possibility, then the Conley deal should have been done, Conley was a PG of equal value to Sessions that was locked up cheaper than MLE for three more seasons, AND we get another first rounder.

You can't defend letting Sessions walk. Nobody can unless you're a blatant Hammond homer.

[paulpressey25]

I'm obviously engaging in cognative dissonance, but why are we so sure that the Conley trade turndown was all Kohl's fault?

If I were Hammond, I'd know my owner has a reputation for meddling. So I'd play a classic good-cop/bad-cop in any trades. I'd negotiate the trade to a certain point. Then I'd say it needs owner approval. Then I'd say my owner hasn't approved, I need a bit more.

In this case, if you recall, GAD said that the Bucks were asking for a bit more and they used as an excuse the idea that Potsie might make the dunk contest. There never was a formal deal on the table for the Lakers 2010 pick. That bit about the Lakers 2010 pick was pure speculation that GAD made up and sounded very plausible. I'd swear if you went back to that Conley 100 page trade thread that the Lakers pick part was simply made up by us and Memphis posters as what we might consider fair.

I think that whole Conley thing fell apart over what the second aspect of compensation would be coming back to Milwaukee. But if you guys want to blame Kohl for blocking a brilliant Hammond trade, that's fine. Nothing I've heard though leads me to believe that Kohl has been a huge impediment to Hammond fulfilling his plan. Actually what I have heard is to the contrary. The committee gives (maybe now going forward "gave") Hammond tremendous deference.

[BDUB_30]

Actually, I'd take Sessions at the MLE for 3 years or so over RJ at 2 years at $14M any day. I think any Bucks fan that wants the team to improve would. You would have an extra $8M to work with in addition to Ramon's contract for what you're paying RJ. Considering Sessions produced more wins last year than RJ ANYWAY, it's a no brainer.

The overrating of RJ by some is mindblowing on this forum.

Here is a simple breakdown:

1. If Sessions is kept, Hammond is absolved from passing on the Conley deal
2. If Sessions walks, Hammond gets bashed for passing on the Conley deal

There is no #3. If losing him was deemed a possibility, then the Conley deal should have been done, Conley was a PG of equal value to Sessions that was locked up cheaper than MLE for three more seasons, AND we get another first rounder.

You can't defend letting Sessions walk. Nobody can unless you're a blatant Hammond homer.

He gets bashed by you , but not all of us ...im not going to bash him , as a matter of fact im gonna praise him for having some kind of standards around here ..

He doesnt like Ramon , and he doesnt like Conley ...He doesnt think they are worth playing for this city and team ...TO me , i think we need some fkn standards around here . Youre willingness to give up a roster spot to just anyone is the same kind thinking that has kept us sucking for this damn long .

At some point we need to have a plan , a vision and a standard and stick to it .. You dont just bring in mike conley for 9 millon if you dont like him .. Its BETTER to just lose Ramon then to have a guy on your roster you dont like ...


I also think you guys underate the vet min market , and i think that market is and will be expanding ...so you can get guys on your team that eat a roster spot that ya know , do play defense ..and do move the balll .. and do run the floor ....Yet you just want to throw 9 millon dollars at Mike Conley just so we dont lose ramon .. no thank you ...

[BDUB_30]

e.

In this case, if you recall, GAD said that the Bucks were asking for a bit more and they used as an excuse the idea that Potsie might make the dunk contest. There never was a formal deal on the table for the Lakers 2010 pick. That bit about the Lakers 2010 pick was pure speculation that GAD made up and sounded very plausible. I'd swear if you went back to that Conley 100 page trade thread that the Lakers pick part was simply made up by us and Memphis posters as what we might consider fair. .

Wow ..when speculation becomes fact .. right before our eyes .

[LUKE23]

B DUB, I stopped reading your replies a while ago, just a heads up, might save you some time responding to my posts.

[BDUB_30]

SO wait wait wait .. just so im clear ..


Im suppose to beleive , that Herb Kohl brought John Hammond to milwaukee , and is paying him all of this money ..just so Kohl can be the one to make all the decisions ?



I beleive Kohl has tried to run this team , and has realized he is incapable and thats why he hired Hammond .

[BDUB_30]

B DUB, I stopped reading your replies a while ago, just a heads up, might save you some time responding to my posts.

sorry but you dont have to tell me that youre not reading my replies and youre not going to respond to my posts ..just actually stop responding to my posts then if youre not reading them .. i wont take it personal ....but something tells me youre reading every letter i type and you will continue to respond to my posts .


we will see shortly.

[Bernman]

I Dont buy the Kohl arguement either , these conspiracy theories are wildly inconsitant .


You cant say on one hand that Hammond is signing Salim Stauadmire and making moves to basicaly prevent kohl from forcing hammond to retain sessions / cv . and then on the other hand claim a conspiracy theory saying that Kohl is a meddler who blocks deals like conley from getting done .


Simply put , if Kohl is meddling and has control of this team .. why didnt he meddle and stop Salim from being signed? .. Or if Kohl was so in love with Ramon and didnt want to do the conley trade ? Why didnt Kohl force hammond to trade RJ to clevland so they could make sure they had the dough to sign Ramon ?

This is wildly inconsitant logic . People are claiming Kohl is a meddler when it supports their theory , but hes not a meddler any other time .. Yeah he dictated to hammond not to trade Ramon sessions , yet he didnt dictate when Hammond signed Staudamire , yet he didnt dictate to hammond when hammond decided NOT to trade RJ ... I dont buy that at all ..


So if kohl is so involved in this team that hes willing to block very meaningless trades like ramon for conley under the guise of how much he like Ramon .. Why didnt kohl get involved when hammond signed salim , or when hammond didnt want to deal RJ ...Or any of the other scenerios .. The conistant variable , the common denominator is that the bucks simply dont like ramon or cv nor the players that were offered for them otherwise they would of pulled the trigger . Its really not that new of an idea ..

Kohl nixing a trade has nothing to do with a conspiracy. It's a decision made by a single actor that wasn't made public. Most of what the Bucks do behind the scenes is not made public because they don't want to display their hand to the whole league. We just have to deduce based on facts and reports from sources who have proven credible over time.

No theories I've laid out have been conspiracies. It's always one single actor. Hammond straddling the luxury tax so isn't forced to overpay Sessions is an ulterior motive, not a conspiracy. Conspiracy is just one of those buzz words like "socialist" used to tidily dismiss an opponent's perspective.

And it's not a conflicting ideology that Kohl would approve a Salim Stoudamire signing, and not force an RJ trade, but block Sessions from being moved. The senator has shown a tendency to get emotionally attached to players who were already on the team, so he could have developed the same affinity for RJ. Stoudamire could have been sold as a low cost signing, who has nothing to do with Sessions. I never said Kohl had a single mind the whole year to keep Sessions and it was his first line of thinking in every move that's made. The Bucks could still hypothetically re-sign Sessions after they signed Stoudamire. Couldn't if they traded Sessions though.

Stop bolding a sentence in every one of your posts. It reeks of insecurity.

[smooth 'lil balla]

i've enjoyed reading this thread. it was very entertaining and civil (until the recent luke comment). Everyone is making great points.

Based on what I'm reading, I'd be very surprised if Kohl was the one who nixed the Conley deal. It just doesn't make sense. My personal feeling is that Hammond still has some confidence in Alexander which was the deal breaker in his mind.

Thus I'm willing to give Hammond a pass, even if we lose Sessions, until I see how both Conley and Alexander turn out.

[Bernman]

e.

In this case, if you recall, GAD said that the Bucks were asking for a bit more and they used as an excuse the idea that Potsie might make the dunk contest. There never was a formal deal on the table for the Lakers 2010 pick. That bit about the Lakers 2010 pick was pure speculation that GAD made up and sounded very plausible. I'd swear if you went back to that Conley 100 page trade thread that the Lakers pick part was simply made up by us and Memphis posters as what we might consider fair. .

Wow ..when speculation becomes fact .. right before our eyes .

That wouldn't really support your point even if true, but God bless ya, you just need the slightest opening!

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

I thought of that as well. Then I corrected myself and realized there is a massive difference between Ramon and maybe even CV versus all the crap we overpaid for the last ten-years.

a) Unlike our problems with Redd, Gadz, Mo, Bell, etc, these guys will not get big dollars. People are claiming that 6/$36 million mistakes with Gadz or 5/$18 million mistakes with Bell are equivalent to a 1/$4.6 million dollar scenario with CV. Nonsense.

Was Gadz or Bell able to drop 25/10 on teams in games the Bucks actually won? No. CV could do that. And for that we don't want to pay him 1/5 to 1/10 of what we committed to those other two guys? For only one season? On a roster where we don't have a clear PF to take his place?

b) Let's run the same analysis with Mo. He got 6/$52 million. If Ramon ends up garnering a 3/$17mm deal, is there any comparison with Mo's deal? Not at all. Has Ramon shown a lot more his first 90 games in the league than Mo did? Definitely.

See you are using low numbers for these guys that I would match. I'm the one comparing Sessions to a possible mistake like mo or a semi-gadz type deal, because I don't want to compound mistakes and over pay them. If we can have them that cheap, then yes I want them but I would rather walk then see an unmotivated CV get a big contract.

The Buck's turning 180 on Sessions was after there were reports that his demands were "excessive."
I don't consider $17 mil over 3 excessive. But if you are talking about Sessions at 5/$35 Mil with player options, then have to look to see if its worth it.

Let's blame Hammond when he let's them walk for 3/17 and 1/4.6. I just don't see those as realistic options, and I think Hammond would find a way to hold onto them if they were an option.

[smooth 'lil balla]

Another thing, IF (big if) Kohl nixed the trade to keep Sessions, the likely outcome is that Kohl will go over the tax to resign him.

[LUKE23]

Thus I'm willing to give Hammond a pass, even if we lose Sessions, until I see how both Conley and Alexander turn out.

It would actually be Conley and the 2010 Lakers first (2010's draft projects pretty strong) vs. Alexander. I'd say the chances of Alexander being worth more than that package is pretty much slim to none, even though I am hoping Alexander has a bounce back year.

I just don't see how people can absolve Hammond if we go from Mo/Sessions to Ridnour and maybe a rookie in one year at PG. That's bad.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

PP- Where i think Sessions would be drafted.
I would say right in the mix Flynn at 10. Sessions right now is better, but his flaws have shown. Flynn is more unknown but just as much upside. It's hard to compare since Sessions will be on a larger contract, whereas the rookie PG would be on the rookie scale.
I wouldn't be happy if we let him go for Flynn and nothing else. Hammond would have to find a way to use that spare money on a borderline starter that could contribute.

Where would you have Sessions?