Hammond & Skiles Conference Call - Today - Page 5

smooth 'lil balla · Post #121 » by **smooth 'lil balla** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:28 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
but they don't want to put an absolutely horrendous product on the floor to rebuild.

That could very well happen this year though, so I don't know where you're going with this.

But they don't think so. That's the point.

Ayt · Post #122 » by **Ayt** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:29 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:
Bernman wrote:employ a starting lineup that can space the floor

Skiles tone was somewhat dismissive when he talked about a "big bruising PF". i.e. that those guys just aren't much use in today's game. Maybe this means these guys want to build an Orlando model.

Skiles has always preferred guys that can space the floor, but its not necessarily because he wants to play inside out basketball with a stud post scorer. His motion offense leads to a ton of open looks.

LUKE23 · Post #123 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:29 pm

But they don't think so. That's the point.

That is also the problem.

Wise1 · Post #124 » by **Wise1** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:30 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:Andrew: CV and Ramon left and we got nothing back. No players, picks, etc. Questioning decision since enormous cap space in two-years. Why allowed to just walk? What is strategy in two years?

Hammond: Let me talk CV first. We knew CV was going to get opportunities and get offer in his range. Almost $40mm offer. Happy for CV. But with our salary structure, we couldn't retain him. WE KNEW THAT (Hammond's tone was clear that he knew that Bucks couldn't afford CV back in February).

With Ramon we thought we could bring him back. Not the case of losing Ramon for nothing here. Remember, Ramon was a FA. He's free to make his own decision (on where he wants to play) His option was to wait...wait...wait and see what was out there. We weren't going to wait all summer. We did get something back for him...Hakim Warrick. Used that money. Happy it worked out for Ramon. But if they would have come to us and talked about a fair offer......they didn't. Waited all summer. We moved forward and did our job.

Skiles: Hope no one thinks because we lose a CV that John or Jeff (Weltman) are doing nothing. Teams said why give the Bucks anything at the last trading deadline when we can sign CV for free in the summer. Intelligent people on the other end saying we can sign the guy for free.

Hammond: We want to make sure Jennings and LRMAM aren't our next CV and Sessions. That's why we need to get our financial house in order. So we can keep guys like that in the future.

Excellent answer. Sessions did not walk for "nothing". We can find value in multiple places for the Sessions decision. I'll continue to say that Hakim Warrick is a better complement to this team than Ramon Sessions. He's even better than Ramon at getting to the free throw line.

old skool · Post #125 » by **old skool** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:30 pm

RamonSessions wrote:Scott likes Ersan a lot, as opposed to the feedback on him we got back from the "ersalasova" uttering one... expects Bogut to step up. Sounds like he's definitely confident in Jennings as our starter... so are we looking at a hinted starting lineup of

Jennings - Redd - ? - Ilyasova - Bogut.

sKiles said that he is looking forward to seeing Ilyasova. He said nothing to imply that any decisions are in place. To the contrary, he repeatedly said that he will have to see how things work out.

oLd sKool

raferfenix · Post #126 » by **raferfenix** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:32 pm

I'm surprised that he emphasized Delfino and Warrick's trade value. Maybe it's to take the sting out of losing Sessions' asset value, but I've been presuming those two would hold much more value to us than other teams.

Any ideas what Hammond has in mind when he chalks up their value?

old skool · Post #127 » by **old skool** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:32 pm

Ayt wrote:Skiles has always preferred guys that can space the floor, but its not necessarily because he wants to play inside out basketball with a stud post scorer. His motion offense leads to a ton of open looks.

sKiles talked exclusively about how the PF defends. He did not mention the offensive side of a PF. His "PF preferences" seem to all be about defense.

oLd sKool

old skool · Post #128 » by **old skool** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:36 pm

raferfenix wrote:I'm surprised that he emphasized Delfino and Warrick's trade value. Maybe it's to take the sting out of losing Sessions' asset value, but I've been presuming those two would hold much more value to us than other teams.

Any ideas what Hammond has in mind when he chalks up their value?

Hammond said that Delfino was a wing that could stretch the floor with his 3-point shooting. He said that Amir Johnson became expendable after the Bucks signed Ilyasova and Warrick.

Hammond said that Delfino has value to other teams within the context of his contract. I don't recall any specific mention of Warrick having trade value.

oLd sKool

crkone · Post #129 » by **crkone** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:37 pm

old skool wrote:
Ayt wrote:Skiles has always preferred guys that can space the floor, but its not necessarily because he wants to play inside out basketball with a stud post scorer. His motion offense leads to a ton of open looks.

sKiles talked exclusively about how the PF defends. He did not mention the offensive side of a PF. His "PF preferences" seem to all be about defense.

oLd sKool

"Guy I'm a fan of is Ersan. He's improved so much. He can spread the floor and make 3's at the PF position."

Straight from Skiles mouth.

Post #130 » by **paulpressey25** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:38 pm

old skool wrote:[I don't recall any specific mention of Warrick having trade value.

oLd sKool

He said that Warrick was another example of a player having value to other teams because of his contract. i.e. we want players that can help us but also are attractive to other teams. He did not say he'd trade Warrick....just that they want players like that.

andonewheel · Post #131 » by **andonewheel** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:39 pm

Hammond is driving me crazy. Talking about how he doesn't want another "CV or Ramon" when he could've easily kept Ramon. Talking about how DELFINO and WARRICK are great assets when Ramon would've been 5x the asset of either guy. Talking about how he knew they wouldn't retain CV, and couldn't get ANYTHING for him, but now Warrick and Delfino are assets? I'm sure teams are knocking down the door to get a shot at DELFINO as their 9th man. Talking about building through the draft yet having a goal of a depressing 40 wins.

Luckily Skiles handled himself well. Hopefully he really can build Jennings into a great PG.

Wise1 · Post #132 » by **Wise1** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:41 pm

jerrod wrote:
Wise1 wrote:

This is EXACTLY what I called for as well. No doubt about that coach Skiles.

yes, "our underacheiving number 1 pick center should score more" is quite a limb to go out on[/quote]

I said "exactly" as in both of us calling for at least 15ppg....not 13, 14, or at least 16, or 17. Exactly 15ppg at minimum.

LUKE23 · Post #133 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:41 pm

That's a good point. If CV at his deal wasn't an asset, when you had QO or RFA rights on him and he was on a rookie scale, why would Warrick and Delfino have value? It's also odd that he would say that, but then he wouldn't trade a guy he's not going to re-sign in Sessions for Conley and a 1st rounder (with JA). Contradictions abound.

Wise1 · Post #134 » by **Wise1** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:47 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I really wish someone would have asked why he passed on Redd and RJ for expirings, since it basically would have sped up our rebuilding process by two full seasons. Especially if the throw-in with Redd was Sessions, a guy they let walk for nothing...oh wait...Warrick.

Well in the case of dumping Redd for expirings, the question probably wasn't answered because it is utterly ridiculous considering how the organization feels about Redd. He's the kind of asset that they want both on and off the court. Perhaps they deal him for a greater asset when his value reaches it's peak (expiring), or maybe they'll retain him until he expires since he obviously helps with the stated goal of winning.

LUKE23 · Post #135 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:48 pm

Since Redd is drastically overpaid, it's not ridiculous at all.

step3profit · Post #136 » by **step3profit** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:48 pm

LukePliska wrote:
paulpressey25 wrote:b) Bogut has to step up and be a scorer this year. Otherwise he may not really be a core piece.

I like this point of view, if it is the one they really have. If Bogut can step up and be a 15/11 type of guy, then he is someone who should be here for a long period of time...

If Jennings really steps up his game and shows flashes of being a franchise player while Bogut averages 11/10 or something along those lines, I would look to move Bogut in a package to get a legit 'star' player, much like the Celtics did using Al Jefferson to go after KG.

I continue to wonder why 15/11 or 16/10 and such, as people mention when saying they want Bogut to step up, is reeeally such a big stretch from where he was 2 seasons ago when he was.. what.. I think 14.9 and 9.8. I mean, it's basically adding 1 point or 1 rebound to what he's already done previously.

I think he can and should do so, but I don't see doing so as some huge leap in respectability other than that then you can literally say he is a double double guy instead of a 98 rebound guy.

Still willing to trade him (or anyone) if it brings in a "KG 2 years ago" type player, as you mention, though.

InsideOut · Post #137 » by **InsideOut** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:49 pm

smooth 'lil balla wrote:
InsideOut wrote:
paulpressey25 wrote: Dan: I'm not a big fan of FA since teams overpay. We need to draft our players and retain them.

Hammond: Dan, you are right that if you can do it, no better way to do it.....CBA set up for it....build through the draft. You need to get that special guy. Guys like Jennings and Bogut....are those the pieces you can build around? You need building blocks.....for the most part you get those through the draft.

Well Hammond and I finally agree on something. There is no better way to build than the draft. That is where we can get "that special guy" and the "building blocks" we need. Now if he can only explain to me how we are going to be drafting those guys while winning 40 games and picking around 14.

Let's see. Danny Granger. Manu Ginobli. Dirk Nowitzki. Tony Parker. Shawn Marion. Michael Redd. Need I go on? It can be done.

Yes, you do need to go on. What has a Granger team ever done? What has a Redd team ever done? Has Marion ever seen the finals? Dirk was taken higher so he shouldn't be on your list. What do Parker and Gino win without Duncan?

So when you say "it can be done" do you mean get a good player that won't win anything without that special player? If the plan to build a winner is to get guys like this at 15 then I'd say we'll be waiting a long time.

step3profit · Post #138 » by **step3profit** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:49 pm

Wise1 wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:I really wish someone would have asked why he passed on Redd and RJ for expirings, since it basically would have sped up our rebuilding process by two full seasons. Especially if the throw-in with Redd was Sessions, a guy they let walk for nothing...oh wait...Warrick.

Well in the case of dumping Redd for expirings, the question probably wasn't answered because it is utterly ridiculous considering how the organization feels about Redd. He's the kind of asset that they want both on and off the court. Perhaps they deal him for a greater asset when his value reaches it's peak (expiring), or maybe they'll retain him until he expires since he obviously helps with the stated goal of winning.

Actually, from what PP typed up, when they were talking about the core of the team, the name "Redd" seemed conspicuously absent... unless PP just skipped his name on accident.

Wise1 · Post #139 » by **Wise1** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:51 pm

LukePliska wrote:
paulpressey25 wrote:b) Bogut has to step up and be a scorer this year. Otherwise he may not really be a core piece.

I like this point of view, if it is the one they really have. If Bogut can step up and be a 15/11 type of guy, then he is someone who should be here for a long period of time...

If Jennings really steps up his game and shows flashes of being a franchise player while Bogut averages 11/10 or something along those lines, I would look to move Bogut in a package to get a legit 'star' player, much like the Celtics did using Al Jefferson to go after KG.

Agreed. 15 and 11 is right where I want him and the team needs him to be. With Jennings and an even modest improvement in free throw shooting, he should get there. It's up to him though. He has to commit to being excellent every night on the court.

LUKE23 · Post #140 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:52 pm

Raw numbers are irrelevant without talking about minutes and scoring efficiency. If Bogut is only scoring 13 ppg but is doing so at 55%+ rate, then I'm fine. That is better than him scoring 15 ppg at 50%, for example. Rebounding will depend on how many minutes he plays, but I expect him to be very good there as always.