Woelfel on WSSP: Bucks to keep Sessions

Post #1 » by **paulpressey25** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:17 pm

For what it is worth, Woelfel was just on the radio this morning. Said he's talked to people with the Bucks in the last two days. They say Sessions will be kept. Said that the organization now sees the upside with him they didn't see six-weeks ago. Feels strongly he'll be here next year. Said these last five games have gotten the attention of management.

Also said that Redd hasn't picked out a surgeon yet, so until he actually has the surgery and they find out how his knee is, they won't know a recovery timetable.

LUKE23 · Post #2 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:20 pm

Very good to hear. Anything about CV? I think letting CV go is just as big of a mistake as letting Sessions walk.

EastSideBucksFan · Post #3 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:20 pm

So, does this mean that management has made a choice and the choice is Sessions, not Villanueva?

I'll take it at face value though, its great to hear that management sees the upside NOW that we all saw last year with 20pts/24ast......

paul · Post #4 » by **paul** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:22 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:For what it is worth, Woelfel was just on the radio this morning. Said he's talked to people with the Bucks in the last two days. They say Sessions will be kept. Said that the organization now sees the upside with him they didn't see six-weeks ago. Feels strongly he'll be here next year. Said these last five games have gotten the attention of management.

Also said that Redd hasn't picked out a surgeon yet, so until he actually has the surgery and they find out how his knee is, they won't know a recovery timetable.

I just posted these numbers in the Sessions thread on the general board -

Last 5 games

21.4 ppg / 3.0 rpg / 6.8 apg

Last 2 games (first games started since Ridnour went down)

35 ppg / 4.5 rpg / 9.5 apg

Those aren't a misprint. He's going to cost us a hell of a lot more than he would have two games ago, seriously.

Rockmaninoff · Post #5 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:23 pm

Great news. Thanks for the update, PP.

Now hopefully they'll feel they same way about Villanueva. Six foot eleven guys that can handle the ball and shoot don't grow on trees. Why not keep together an effective young duo, especially when they are good friends?

LUKE23 · Post #6 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:25 pm

Rockmaninoff wrote:Great news. Thanks for the update, PP.

Now hopefully they'll feel they same way about Villanueva. Six foot eleven guys that can handle the ball and shoot don't grow on trees. Why not keep together an effective young duo, especially when they are good friends?

Yep. It will be an absolute crime if they let CV go just because of his D. Offensively he's one of the most talented PF's in the NBA. Just get a SG defender in the draft and you are fine even with CV playing big minutes.

smauss · Post #7 » by **smauss** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:26 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:For what it is worth, Woelfel was just on the radio this morning. Said he's talked to people with the Bucks in the last two days. They say Sessions will be kept. Said that the organization now sees the upside with him they didn't see six-weeks ago. Feels strongly he'll be here next year. Said these last five games have gotten the attention of management.

Also said that Redd hasn't picked out a surgeon yet, so until he actually has the surgery and they find out how his knee is, they won't know a recovery timetable.

Thanks for the info Press!
I agree, I'm glad to here it but now the big question is "How are we going to pay for his services?" This question is not a new one to most of us but your post Press begs the question. I can't wait for the answer to be made clear.

Post #8 » by **ReasonablySober** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:28 pm

I always assumed they were going to keep Sessions, but like smauss said, paying for him is the issue.

paul · Post #9 » by **paul** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:30 pm

DrugBust wrote:I always assumed they were going to keep Sessions, but like smauss said, paying for him is the issue.

You weren't worried when he was part of the proposed Conley trade that he might be, you know, traded?

carmelbrownqueen · Post #10 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:32 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:For what it is worth, Woelfel was just on the radio this morning. Said he's talked to people with the Bucks in the last two days. They say Sessions will be kept. Said that the organization now sees the upside with him they didn't see six-weeks ago. Feels strongly he'll be here next year. Said these last five games have gotten the attention of management.

Also said that Redd hasn't picked out a surgeon yet, so until he actually has the surgery and they find out how his knee is, they won't know a recovery timetable.

Not surprising that we want to keep him, but for those hoping that we find a way to keep both Sessions and CV, I just don't see that happening. Sounds like we have made our decision, which I am not at all surprised about.

LUKE23 · Post #11 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm

Not surprising that we want to keep him, but for those hoping that we find a way to keep both Sessions and CV, I just don't see that happening. Sounds like we have made our decision, which I am not at all surprised about.

It would be a moronic move to let CV go. People who can do what he can do are not easy to find. People whine and cry that he can't defend. It's easier to find defenders than it is a player with CV's offensive skills. Hell, we got a stud defender with the 37th pick this year.

You can mark it down in stone: if we let CV go we will regret the decision.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #12 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:35 pm

I understand the desire to keep CV, but I just don't believe it will happen....

LUKE23 · Post #13 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:37 pm

carmelbrownqueen wrote:I understand the desire to keep CV, but I just don't believe it will happen....

Well, that is why they need to move RJ for cap flexibility. But that is beating a dead horse.

It's quite simple: it's MUCH harder to find players like CV than it is to find players like LRMAM (good defensive players with limited offensive upside). There are only a handful of PF's in the league that can score like CV at PF.

BobbyLight · Post #14 » by **BobbyLight** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:39 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
Not surprising that we want to keep him, but for those hoping that we find a way to keep both Sessions and CV, I just don't see that happening. Sounds like we have made our decision, which I am not at all surprised about.

It would be a moronic move to let CV go. People who can do what he can do are not easy to find. People whine and cry that he can't defend. It's easier to find defenders than it is a player with CV's offensive skills. Hell, we got a stud defender with the 37th pick this year.

You can mark it down in stone: if we let CV go we will regret the decision.

Hit the nail on the head. Get a 2 who can guard and then you could have 3 excellent defenders in the starting line-up (Bogut, LRMAM and new 2g) so CV's poor and Sessions average defense will not look so bad.

CV is one of the most talent offensive players in the leauge. There are almost no players his size who can do alot of what he can do. Trade RJ, keep CV and Sessions.

msiris · Post #15 » by **msiris** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:39 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
Not surprising that we want to keep him, but for those hoping that we find a way to keep both Sessions and CV, I just don't see that happening. Sounds like we have made our decision, which I am not at all surprised about.

It would be a moronic move to let CV go. People who can do what he can do are not easy to find. People whine and cry that he can't defend. It's easier to find defenders than it is a player with CV's offensive skills. Hell, we got a stud defender with the 37th pick this year.

You can mark it down in stone: if we let CV go we will regret the decision.

Thats what I have been saying all this time. Find a PF defender in the draft and keep CV for the right price.

LUKE23 · Post #16 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:44 pm

Hit the nail on the head. Get a 2 who can guard and then you could have 3 excellent defenders in the starting line-up (Bogut, LRMAM and new 2g) so CV's poor and Sessions average defense will not look so bad.

CV is one of the most talent offensive players in the leauge. There are almost no players his size who can do alot of what he can do. Trade RJ, keep CV and Sessions.

I agree. You just need a SG defender and you're looking NICE in the starting five, especially if you can bring guys like Bell and maybe a re-signed Bogans in off the bench.

PaBuck · Post #17 » by **PaBuck** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:51 pm

I'm all for keeping Sessions and CV. The NBA will set the price. Managements will have to decide if price equals value. Bucks have to be willing to pay for a quality team. On the other hand, we can't do another overpay as we did with Redd. It is all in the hands of management to make the right decision. My question is at what amount do we say NO to either Sessions or CV? I would put a limit on CV at $6 mill per year max. Not sure about Sessions!

paul · Post #18 » by **paul** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:52 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
carmelbrownqueen wrote:I understand the desire to keep CV, but I just don't believe it will happen....

Well, that is why they need to move RJ for cap flexibility. But that is beating a dead horse.

It's quite simple: it's MUCH harder to find players like CV than it is to find players like LRMAM (good defensive players with limited offensive upside). There are only a handful of PF's in the league that can score like CV at PF.

Luke this is further to our brief discussion yesterday, but does getting Gadz off the books free up enough space for us? I believe that would leave us with around $53m committed to 8 players, not counting CV/Ramon.

If that would be enough space who's got some ideas? Would Minny consider him a stop gap for big Al who's now going to be out for a year with an ACL? They aren't remotely close to contending even for a playoff spot anyway and have very little committed for next season, do they consider something like a Gadz/2nd swap for Howard?

Sigra · Post #19 » by **Sigra** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:54 pm

SG defender? isn't Bogans SG defender?

Sessions, Bogans, LRMAM, CV, Bogut

msiris · Post #20 » by **msiris** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:54 pm

paul wrote:Luke this is further to our brief discussion yesterday, but does getting Gadz off the books free up enough space for us? I believe that would leave us with around $53m committed to 8 players, not counting CV/Ramon.

If that would be enough space who's got some ideas? Would Minny consider him a stop gap for big Al who's now going to be out for a year with an ACL? They aren't remotely close to contending even for a playoff spot anyway and have very little committed for next season, do they consider something like a Gadz/2nd swap for Howard?

No, because Minny is not going anywhere and everybody knows what Gadz brings to the table.