RealGM

Hammond & sKiles will hold a teleconference with season ticket holders this Thursday at noon to answer questions and address the 2009-10 season and direction of the team.

The post card that I received said "You will not want to miss this." No, they did not use a green font.

oLd sKool

I know PP25 plans to be on the call and I do as well if I can be available. It says they will take "live" questions but I have no doubt everything will be well screened ahead of time.

Yeah, there is no way they answer live questions.

Oh how I'd love to have a Bucks version of that Big East teleconference a few years ago.

NSFW.

http://ballhype.com/audio/prankster_flo ... onference/

Wow, can't wait to hear all the answers to the softball, pre-screened questions.

Example question that will be allowed:

"John, how important has changing the culture of this team been"?

aboveAverage wrote:Example question that will be allowed:

"John, how important has changing the culture of this team been"?

nah, it'll be more like

"John, you've made the difficult task of changing the culture of this team look downright effortless. Now that you've succeeded in that task, do you prefer martinis or margaritas while you contemplate your next brilliant move?"

Questions I would ask:

1. Yes or No, is this a playoff team with reasonable health in 2009-10?

2. Looking at the long-term outlook of this roster, can you explain why you felt that Sessions at $4M per year would hurt your ability to build a roster, when any backup PG worth anything will command at least that salary?

3. What is your plan for backup PG in 2010-11?

4. Do you think the team would be better off long-term if you had cleared Redd and RJ's contracts last year, and saved $31M off the cap for 2009-10?

LUKE23 wrote:Questions I would ask:

1. Yes or No, is this a playoff team with reasonable health in 2009-10?

2. Looking at the long-term outlook of this roster, can you explain why you felt that Sessions at $4M per year would hurt your ability to build a roster, when any backup PG worth anything will command at least that salary?

3. What is your plan for backup PG in 2010-11?

4. Do you think the team would be better off long-term if you had cleared Redd and RJ's contracts last year, and saved $31M off the cap for 2009-10?

I"ll give these a shot.

1. Our goal is always to make the playoffs. I believe we've put ourselves in good position to achieve that goal should everything fall into place.

2. We were very concerned with the Luxury tax, and we are also comfortable with our current backup PG position. We have two starting caliber PG's on this team, and we are excited about Ukic and what he brings.

3. We'll evaluate that at the end of the season, but I'm comfortable we will be able to keep one of our current free agents or upgrade elsewhere if necessary.

4. We are not in a cost cutting mode. We have not received any good offers for Michael that can help this team long term. We fully expect Michael to play and important role on this year's team as well. He's worked tirelessly this offseason, and all signs appear to be 100% health at the start of training camp. We think he'll have an excellent year and will be instrumental in getting this team back to the playoffs.

You guys know we'll have no confrontational RealGm style questions. i.e. questions aimed at telling them that you/we think they screwed up some personnel moves.

I think our best chance for a legit news-making question would deal with the health of Redd and Bogut. I'm trying to figure out whether one or both players suit up for that first exhibition game on October 4th.

I fear that if they don't, we'll be dealing with a lot of backpedaling for the next sixty days about how these guys aren't ready to go. Every story we've seen on Redd and Bogut the past two-weeks talks about how they want to get on a court and play, but still aren't doing it yet.

LUKE23 wrote:
2. Looking at the long-term outlook of this roster, can you explain why you felt that Sessions at $4M per year would hurt your ability to build a roster, when any backup PG worth anything will command at least that salary?

I would give anything to hear the real answer to this question. When he came in here he talked about the Detroit model. Shouldn't that include keeping young talent at reasonable price? I'm so sick of hearing about the tax when:

A. He created the mess (I know he inherited crap but he made strange moves that killed flexibility that he kept saying he was creating [Delfino, Ukic and Warrick, namley])
B. Sessions was singed to such a great price, you can't convince me that we couldn't have gotten under the tax by the time needed.

I'll never, ever understand this move and I will be really bitter if Sessions continues his progression.

I'm more interested to see who our backup PG is next year. I can all but guarantee:

1. He's worse than Ramon

or

2. He makes more than Ramon

or

3. Both

LUKE23 wrote:
2. Looking at the long-term outlook of this roster, can you explain why you felt that Sessions at $4M per year would hurt your ability to build a roster, when any backup PG worth anything will command at least that salary?

I haven't decided if I believe that yet. I think back up PGs typically make less than that, even good ones.

emunney wrote:I haven't decided if I believe that yet. I think back up PGs typically make less than that, even good ones.

I'll give it a go to convince you that Ramon would have made sense under that concept.

The teams with good to great veteran PG's usually are prevented from investing much in the backup. i.e. Chris Paul, Kidd, Bibby, Nash, Baron, etc. I think those teams also know what they have to a far greater extent since these guys are veterans.

I look at this more like the backup QB slot in the NFL. If you don't have a Favre, Rodgers, Peyton Manning, etc, you might be more amenable to having Matt Leinart/Kurt Warner type combo to see what works best for you.

If we knew what the heck we had with Jennings or his salary was a veteran starter salary in the $7 to $15mm range we could probably go "cheap" on the backup.

The question comes back to whether or not you can find a backup that you like more than Ramon, can actually acquire said backup, and does this backup make less than what we'd pay Ramon.

paulpressey25 wrote:

emunney wrote:I haven't decided if I believe that yet. I think back up PGs typically make less than that, even good ones.

I'll give it a go to convince you that Ramon would have made sense under that concept.

The teams with good to great veteran PG's usually are prevented from investing much in the backup. i.e. Chris Paul, Kidd, Bibby, Nash, Baron, etc. I think those teams also know what they have to a far greater extent since these guys are veterans.

I look at this more like the backup QB slot in the NFL. If you don't have a Favre, Rodgers, Peyton Manning, etc, you might be more amenable to having Matt Leinart/Kurt Warner type combo to see what works best for you.

If we knew what the heck we had with Jennings or his salary was a veteran starter salary in the $7 to $15mm range we could probably go "cheap" on the backup.

The question comes back to whether or not you can find a backup that you like more than Ramon, can actually acquire said backup, and does this backup make less than what we'd pay Ramon.

i was hoping you were about to give actual salaries of backups. The Bucks must be darn high on BJ, otherwise it just doesn't make much sense to let Ramon go. So I'm glad the Bucks are so confident in getting a good BJ.

LUKE23 wrote:Questions I would ask:

1. Yes or No, is this a playoff team with reasonable health in 2009-10?

2. Looking at the long-term outlook of this roster, can you explain why you felt that Sessions at $4M per year would hurt your ability to build a roster, when any backup PG worth anything will command at least that salary?

3. What is your plan for backup PG in 2010-11?

4. Do you think the team would be better off long-term if you had cleared Redd and RJ's contracts last year, and saved $31M off the cap for 2009-10?

Questions 2 and 3 are stunning if not plain stupendous and should get you a incredulous glare and stare down from Skiles followed by, "is this guy for real? Get him out of here and keep him away from the booze..."

Sessions sucks. They won't say that but common sense tells you that he is neither better then Luke Ridnour nor Roko Ukic much less Brandon Jennings.

And he is not worth $4.1 million! He lucked into that only because Rubio did not come over! The Bucks said they would not go over $3 million and they did not.

Question #3 he wouldn't tell you that even if he knew! Sessions signed for more then Allen Iverson did.

I would trade Luke Ridnour and or perhaps Kurt Thomas to free up some money quite frankly, and roll the dice on Stephon Marbury, who is another big time asset to move at the deadline if need be who has some name value and juice to his game, but that is just me...Stephon would be a 6th man.

He was in Boston and did not complain like Iverson. If he plays well, we could accomodate him at the deadline with Redd if it does not work out. He is still young and can play...and coming back would help his shoe sales. He is such a great guy...he should go out like this. We drafted him. I would go get him...

That would be radical and Hammond would'nt do that...but I would like him to. But I would sure as hell not have resigned Sessions. I hope they come out and blatantly say why they did not overpay that clown if they did not like him going forward...as a starter.

BobbyLight wrote:

LUKE23 wrote:
2. Looking at the long-term outlook of this roster, can you explain why you felt that Sessions at $4M per year would hurt your ability to build a roster, when any backup PG worth anything will command at least that salary?

I would give anything to hear the real answer to this question. When he came in here he talked about the Detroit model. Shouldn't that include keeping young talent at reasonable price? I'm so sick of hearing about the tax when:

A. He created the mess (I know he inherited crap but he made strange moves that killed flexibility that he kept saying he was creating [Delfino, Ukic and Warrick, namley])

You can't cite the Detroit Model (tm) without noting that a lot of the players they brought in were not considered top-line before there stint in Detroit. It was a buy low, sell high equation for almost all those players.


- Billups was looked at as a disappointing #3 overall pick who never achieved his potential.
- Ben Wallace was a minor consolation prize for Grant Hill.
- Antonio McDyess was thought to be well past his prime and had, in previous years, been considered "done" due to injuries.
- Rip Hamilton was basically a nobody who hadn't ever done anything but some spot up shooting.
- Rasheed Wallace was at a point in his career where he was equally well known for his talent and for being a cancer.
- Prince was a mid-first round pick.

So maybe we should see if Hammond knows what he is doing and Warrick, and Delfino, and all the rest may actually be players who are worth more than the consensus opinion here is.

Hammond said he'd do things that were unpopular at the time, that would result in long term gain. He's fulfilled the first part of that. Now we have to wait and see if he knows what he is doing.

But I still don't get not resigning Sessions at 4/16.4. I would have.

MilBucksBackOnTop06 wrote:
I would trade Luke Ridnour and or perhaps Kurt Thomas to free up some money quite frankly, and roll the dice on Stephon Marbury, who is another big time asset to move at the deadline if need be who has some name value and juice to his game, but that is just me...Stephon would be a 6th man.

He was in Boston and did not complain like Iverson. If he plays well, we could accomodate him at the deadline with Redd if it does not work out. He is still young and can play...and coming back would help his shoe sales. He is such a great guy...he should go out like this. We drafted him. I would go get him...

Just say no to marbury. He is finished in the NBA after his webcam display.

I think that any team is in a tough situation when conducting a press conference or teleconference. We fans would like the team to be brutally honest, but the reality is that the team does not have that luxury. They have to take the high road and wish their former players the best - because they do not know when they will be dealing with one of those players or their agents down the road.

So we should not expect Hammond or sKiles to say that a certain player was bad in the locker room, or was as dumb as a rock, or had trouble learning the offense. We should not expect them to provide any negative explanation as to why that player was not retained. The Bucks need to stay classy - that is their role.

We should also not expect them to field any questions that are really arguments disguised as questions. Such "questions" are not productive. We are not going to see a debate on the issues of free agency like we could have among fans. It unlikely that they will honestly evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of departed players - not in the brutally honest manner that would be required to explain some of their roster moves this year.

Nor are they likely to rehash the past - explaining why they did not trade RJ and Redd for expirings last year. Or even why they did not trade Sessions last year rather than have him leave for "nothing".

It would be nice if we can gain some real insight into their thinking and why they made the moves that they did. I doubt if we will ever really get that in a public forum.

They MIGHT admit a past mistake, but I doubt that we would ever hear them criticize a move made this past summer. If they thought that they were doing the wrong thing, they would not have done it. They HAVE to think that they made moves to improve the roster in the long run. What else can they say before training camp opens?

The best questions will lead to answers that increase our understanding of their thinking. Such questions will not promote the questioner's way of thinking or try prove a point. They will not try to make the Bucks FO look dumb. The best questions will acknowledge that the Bucks have made moves that they think are best and will give Hammond and sKiles the chance to explain why those moves were good.

Personally, I think that we will be able to learn a lot just by listening for answers that talk about this year and this roster, as opposed to answers that talk about future years and future rosters.

oLd sKool

I doubt we learn much of anything. It will basically be like one long Mike Hunt article.