Hammond Speaks-Season Ticket holder event

[MilBucksBackOnTop06]

The fact that GAD was able to call Hammond out on thinking the MLE will be at 5 million this year is really scary. Our GM really doesn't have a clue what he's doing. People are lauding him for getting this team to compete this year. HE"S NOT DOING ANYTHING. ALL the credit needs to go to Skiles. Sure, Hammond hired Skiles, but any idiot could have gotten that hire if Kohl allowed it unlike past seasons.

I will say it one more time....YOU DO NOT TRADE JEFRERSON TO CLEVELAND LIKE YOU WOULD NOT TRADE RYAN BRAUN TO THE CUBS OKAY PEOPLE!!!

Wake up! I don't care what it might benefit you on the surface by getting an expiring deal. I know MLB is different but it is just like you wouldn't trade Favre to the Bears or Vikings so why would you want to trade Jefferson or Redd to the Cavs for garbage like an expiring deal I some of you wanted?

I was all for trading the entire team before the season started! EVERYBODY...not bring in a bandaid like Jefferson to give us a false hope with no point guard like Sessions. You got the coach right but missed on everything else.

But we could have done things in another way of another three or four team deal like you did Mo. Where that 3rd team could have moved him to the Cavs, but then it is out of your hands. That is the only deal Hammond got right!

What should have happened was if Hammond had a brain, he would have got both the Cavs and the Blazers together along with another team like say the Knicks or Kings and got a deal done. And done it that way.

He should not have traded Mo Williams to Cleveland or got back what he did, if at all! And he should not have traded for RJ and then drafted Joe Alexander over others he had availible.

And he should have moved Redd with that lottery pick when he had the chance to cut salary! All of those moves this jackass did not do that has us in this state now.

As for the deadline deals you should not have let Ramon Sessions stop you from making that deal with Portland.
He simply id in over his head like I said months go. An incompetant idiot.

[trwi7]

Why do teams in the same conference trade with eachother MBBOT? We play the same amount of games vs conference opponents and division opponents. That's why divisions don't matter. The fact that you still don't recognize this after months of everybody telling you makes this board weep.

[Sigra]

The truth being told :



The big problem in this debate , what you all are failing to understand , the thing that just doesnt add up . 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 .


What kind of an asset is CV ? The kind of asset that 3 gm's have shopped ever since hes been in the leauge and the return has been a 5'10 160 lb handicaped CANCER ! ( TJ FORD ) .. What kind of an asset is cv when you cant even give the guy away .


Then their is Ramon . If only the game was played on paper and in a box score , ramon may be an asset . Throw out your playerprofiles , your advanced metrics and open up your mind to the fact that this guy is simply not the talent you all beleive he is . He couldnt even beat out Royal Ivey for a BACKUP job , on a team that was rebuilding .

Why do you think that is ? Be objective and ask yourself what was the reason that Ramon Sessions couldnt even beat out Royal Ivey ? .. Then bring it to the next season , when Ramon couldnt even beat out Luke frkn Ridnour , and Lue . When we heard Skiles say that he cant even run the offense when ramon is playing the point .. When John Hammond says " Ramon Sessions shouldnt even call himself an nba pg " ...


This doesnt go to even mention the fact that neither of these guys defend , play solid fundemental ball , move in halfcourt sets , rotate properly on defense ... ya know , basicaly ALL the " little " things .


Then theirs the next little " Fact " .. The fact being is Hammond , if impressed by either of these guys .. Would of made it a priority to clear room to resign them .. He didnt . Hmm i wonder why ? Maybe its cause he values the little things , maybe he knows something you dont . ( try to imagine the possibility of simply NOT KNOWING ) ..


The bottom line is , the reason none of you understand this is because you have an inflated sense of what Ramon and Cv are worth . TO you they are worth alot more then they are not only to John Hammond and the Milwaukee bucks . But to the entire NBA . These guys were both shopped extensivly and the offers were pathetic .


Case closed .. Reality checks are a mother , but somebodys got to do them... Cv and Ramon will both be backups in a diffrent city .. backups that dont play any defense and whos contributions to winning basketball games are very limited because their fundementals are so poor .

Post Of The Year

[Sigra]

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 ...

Another great post.

[Sigra]

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.

That's great but you don't trade RJ just so that you can keep your options with Sessions. Hammond should have traded RJ for Wally ONLY if he thought that Ramon is going to be more important for this team in next few years than RJ. I guess Hammond thinks that RJ will be more important in next few years and I agree with him.

[Sigra]

Something doesnt add up here , youre all basicaly saying that Hammond is dumb .. i mean that is the bottom line here .. you all are saying Hammond is a moron that cant count . I dont buy that at all .. Im giving the best explination as to what could be going on in hammonds head .. The idea is , he simply isnt to fond of Sessions nor what was offered for Ramon and would prefer having RJ around .

Exactly. I am very surprised that so many people at this forum can't see this. Majority think "Hammond is dumb" insteed of thinking out of box about what is going on here.

BDUB,
You are golden for this forum. Majority will realize that soon enough

[Sigra]

PP hit the nail on the head. If Skiles really wants Sessions back then Hammond would try everything to keep him. But the reality is that Skiles isn't sold on Sessions.

If that's the case, then you make the Conley trade. If you're not sold on Sessions and there's a PG available you do like, you make the trade. If you're not sold on Sessions and you don't make the Conley trade, then you're an idiot.

No in betweens there in my opinion.

If Hammond did like Conley and didn't like Sessions then he made big mistake to not make that trade. But how we know that he did like Conley more than Sessions? He probably didn't and that's why he didn't make that trade.

I think Hammond will keep Sessions if Sessions' contract is small enough to keep us under luxury tax. But if not then Ramon is history.

[LUKE23]

I think Hammond will keep Sessions if Sessions' contract is small enough to keep us under luxury tax. But if not then Ramon is history.

So with a $71M lux tax

$64.4M committed + whatever Salim is getting + 2nd rounder + 1st rounder = roughly $68M. So you think if Ramon makes $3M or less first year he's kept, otherwise he's gone? Well, he's gone then. And if that is the case, Conley deal should have been made.

Hammond doesn't get a pass here. If he loses Sessions he gets blasted for not making the Conley deal, end of story. Losing Sessions for nothing is an inexcusable move, especially after trading Mo for nothing.

[LUKE23]

Hammond should have traded RJ for Wally ONLY if he thought that Ramon is going to be more important for this team in next few years than RJ.

Wrong. RJ is going to be here two more years, Sessions could be here for ten if he pans out, and at least Sessions is an unknown and not overpaid, RJ isn't getting any better. It's short-term thinking like that that keeps teams in mediocrity for years.

[paulpressey25]

For those of you guys who think letting Sessions go is the right decision, can you offer your thoughts on these two questions:

a) Why do you think Sessions is not a good prospect (or at least not worth paying say a 3-year/$17 million dollar deal?)

b) If Ramon Sessions today were in the 2009 NBA draft, where do you think he would be drafted?

[Badgerlander]

I don't have a problem with not liking Sessions and not wanting to keep him, but don't just walk away from a asset that could be traded. I'm hoping that we either do a sign and trade or just go over the cap and sign him to a reasonable contract and then look for a trade partner.

[smauss]

I may as well throw my 2 cents in here. CV represents a lottery pick. How he got here is not Hammond's responsibility; but none the less he is here. Sessions was a wonderful 2nd round pick that is, at the very least, a good backup that would see significant minutes on most teams in the league. How one values those players is debatable for sure. I can't fault Hammond for these players but I can and will fault the current regime for the current financial "inflexibility" that their decisions have put us in. Arguing about what moves should have been made are pointless because we simply don't know what moves were available and when. But the bottom line is still the bottom line, we have signed guys like Allen, Salim, Elson and others that IMHO will "nickle and dime" us out of resigning Sessions. We have put ourselves in a financial position whereby we CAN'T resign Sessions and/or CV regardless of our opinion of their value to us without some financial gymnastics that may or may not prove to be enough. All this because of the "playoff blinders" that hindered this organization from implementing a longer term approach to building a winning team. This was not the Spurs that needed one good player signing to be a contender; this was a patchwork quilt of a roster that has had many hands (GM's & Coaches) sewing in their particular patch.

I want to go on record (again) stating that I don't think Hammond is not a bright guy who knows how to build a team; on the contrary I think he's a bright guy that should remain in his job. I think when you look at the real culprit in this debacle, one need look no further than the ownership. This owner has a long and glorious history of bad hires, bad moves, and bad records that few could rival in any sport and it's time that ownership changes. Until it does, I don't care who is the coach or GM this team will be a door mat.

Back to the matter at hand. There is a significant difference between having the financial flexibility to resign players and choosing not to versus not having the financial flexibility to resign a player/players even if you desired to.

[raferfenix]

Bdub and Sigra are making some ground convincing me. Bdub's point that Larry Harris DEFINITELY would have found a way to keep both of these guys says a lot in my opinion.

This team for far too long has rewarded and committed to me first players. If Sessions really doesn't care enough to learn the offense (or cares so little that he ignores it to stuff his stats) then it makes a ton more sense why we'd be reticent to pay him big money.

All of this said, if he's offered a $3 mill a year deal on not too many years I'd like to find a way to keep him. Our team has so little young talent that it is a shame to lose a player with potential. However, even more importantly than picking up young talent is setting up a system to develop that talent.

Until we do that we'll keep developing me-first tim thomas/michael redd/mo williams/CV/simmons style losers.

[Sigra]

For those of you guys who think letting Sessions go is the right decision, can you offer your thoughts on these two questions:

a) Why do you think Sessions is not a good prospect (or at least not worth paying say a 3-year/$17 million dollar deal?)

b) If Ramon Sessions today were in the 2009 NBA draft, where do you think he would be drafted?

a) Bdub explained very well all the problems that Sessions has and why some of us (including Hammond apparently) doesn't see him as a long time solutions as starting PG. Personally I would give him 3 year/$17 million contract if we have that money because I think he can be good bench player. But we don't have that money. And no, I would not trade RJ for Wally to get that money. RJ is more important for me and apparently for Hammond as well

b) I have no idea. Most GMs are strange people

[paulpressey25]

Bdub's point that Larry Harris DEFINITELY would have found a way to keep both of these guys says a lot in my opinion.

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.

This is classic Bucks mismanagement. We'll overpay guys for 10-years running and then the one year we have two performers who we can re-sign for peanuts, we'll take a stand.

I think personally Hammond figured he wasn't getting squat from these guys back last August, so he didn't give himself any payroll flexibility. And once these guys started to at least be producers, it put him in a box he doesn't know how to get out of. So the rationalization begins.

[aboveAverage]

Great post PP. We can't let mistakes of the past affect signing young talent to reasonable contracts.

[raferfenix]

Bdub's point that Larry Harris DEFINITELY would have found a way to keep both of these guys says a lot in my opinion.

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.

This is classic Bucks mismanagement. We'll overpay guys for 10-years running and then the one year we have two performers who we can re-sign for peanuts, we'll take a stand.

I think personally Hammond figured he wasn't getting squat from these guys back last August, so he didn't give himself any payroll flexibility. And once these guys started to at least be producers, it put him in a box he doesn't know how to get out of. So the rationalization begins.

touche salesman!

You are right that contractually CV and Ramon are much less risky than the Harris signings. However, if neither really bought into Skiles' system then it could be addition by subtraction. This could be rationalization on our part, but then again, Skiles is the guy who wouldn't even let Tim Thomas or J.R. Smith into the gym.

We were put into a bind this year and had to play those two a lot more than we otherwise would have, but even that is different than committing to them for years longer. Hell, even committing to them on short term and relatively cheap contracts is different than giving up Skiles favorites like RJ/Ridnour to keep them.

Let's remember the Bulls' fans caveats about skiles----they HATED how he developed young talent. He played Malik Allen over Tyrus Thomas and Adrien Griffin over Ben Gordon. You can call it a rationalization, but maybe we're just realizing how the Bucks franchise is going to roll now that Skiles is at the helm....for better or for worse.

[Bernman]

If Hammond did like Conley and didn't like Sessions then he made big mistake to not make that trade. But how we know that he did like Conley more than Sessions? He probably didn't and that's why he didn't make that trade.

I think Hammond will keep Sessions if Sessions' contract is small enough to keep us under luxury tax. But if not then Ramon is history.

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.

[Sigra]

Bdub's point that Larry Harris DEFINITELY would have found a way to keep both of these guys says a lot in my opinion.

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.

This is classic Bucks mismanagement. We'll overpay guys for 10-years running and then the one year we have two performers who we can re-sign for peanuts, we'll take a stand.

I think personally Hammond figured he wasn't getting squat from these guys back last August, so he didn't give himself any payroll flexibility. And once these guys started to at least be producers, it put him in a box he doesn't know how to get out of. So the rationalization begins.

This is not that simple PP. If we have money we would pay 3/17 for Ramon easy. But we don't have that money. And to get that money we would have to trade one of the guys that we love and want to keep (RJ).

So this is not "should we pay 3/17 for Ramon" discussion.

This is "should we lose RJ for nothing just so that we can pay 3/17 for Ramon" discussion.

I am sure Hammond would keep Ramon for 3/17 money if has that money. He just didn't want to lose RJ for nothing in order to get money for Ramon. And I understand and support that decision.

[smauss]

If Hammond did like Conley and didn't like Sessions then he made big mistake to not make that trade. But how we know that he did like Conley more than Sessions? He probably didn't and that's why he didn't make that trade.

I think Hammond will keep Sessions if Sessions' contract is small enough to keep us under luxury tax. But if not then Ramon is history.

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.

Well said Bern. Regardless if you you love him or hate him, Hammond is not the point of contension; Kohl is and until we all come to understanding our arguments are pointless IMHO!

I hope you all kept your bags............