Ramon Sessions value?

guaves13 · Post #1 » by **guaves13** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:21 pm

What have you guys heard about the teams plan for Sessions. Do they like him?

rjgraca · Post #2 » by **rjgraca** » Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:58 pm

Sure the CAVs like him... he's a serviceable PG who still has some upside and plays decent defense.

Like anyone on the CAVs... he could be traded for the right package. To the CAVs--- draft picks are golden and their interest would perk up over the quality of the draft pick. The CAVs would probably start looking for a 1st round pick and a useful player in return--- not just expiring cap space that doesn't help them rebuild. I know some might say that you have cap space to trade next year, but Charlotte has shown that it isn't a good ideal to trade cap space for bad contracts to get a useful player.

In the absence of an incentive, the CAVs will primarily be looking to relocate Prince Lebron's former cast members like Mo Williams.

guaves13 · Post #3 » by **guaves13** » Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:28 am

What do you think about Vince Carter's expiring and Orlando's 1st (via phx) for Jamison and Sessions?

Post #4 » by **TheOUTLAW** » Thu Feb 3, 2011 2:48 am

I can't think of a single thing that would make me want Vince Carter. Orlandos first isn't enough incentive IMO to even get Jamison.

Triumph36 · Post #5 » by **Triumph36** » Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:00 am

TheOUTLAW wrote:I can't think of a single thing that would make me want Vince Carter. Orlandos first isn't enough incentive IMO to even get Jamison.

Yes it is. The chances of a better offer coming in are small.

And his injury risk is high as well. Not going to let another one of the few assets on this damn team suffer from the injury bug. First AV killed his trade value, then Mo....can't afford another player following suit.

Post #6 » by **B Mac** » Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:07 am

Id take it. Its pretty similar to the package we gave up to get Jamison in the first place. The only reason Id be hesistant is if we thought his expiring would be more valuable next year but that would be a bit of a risk IMO.

rjgraca · Post #7 » by **rjgraca** » Thu Feb 3, 2011 5:22 am

Orlando's 1st round pick is too low to peek interest of moving Sessions with Jamison. I am not saying that they CAVs wouldn't take expiring, but a quality 1st round pick(s) would have to be part of the package returning to the CAVs. A late first round pick just means guaranteed money for a near 2nd round pick talent in a weak NBA draft for 2011.

I am not saying that Sessions is a star, but he will be one of the last players the CAVs move in their rebuilding unless they get a better piece to rebuild which Vince Carter and a late 1st round pick in a weak draft does not provide. Expiring has more value for those teams in luxury tax territory--- NOT a team like the CAVs being 28th in salary in the NBA this season. I am one for patience since the CAVs are not going anywhere fast and waiting until after the new CBA could net you a better pick with Jamison being significant expiring. They have traded retired players (Bird rights) to make trades work which makes waiting until next year when Jamison is expiring not that big of a risk.

Post #8 » by **B Mac** » Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:16 am

Thats my mistake I didnt read that Sessions was in the deal. I thought it was the much talked about VC and Orl's 1st for Jamison swap. I wouldnt include Sessions in that deal either.

tidho · Post #9 » by **tidho** » Fri Feb 4, 2011 1:39 pm

I like Sessions, but I wouldn't let his inclusion stop me from making a deal that helps me. I don't see why Orlando would do VC for Jamison, but if they're willing I free up that money a year early - easy decision.

rjgraca · Post #10 » by **rjgraca** » Fri Feb 4, 2011 6:02 pm

VC plays for the Suns now... not Orlando. Free up money a year early for what since the CAVs are in no way an attractive team for free agents right now unless they grossly over pay like Matt Barnes wanted to be (the CAVs are not near luxury tax territory either). Sessions has shown himself to be more than filler in a deal. Sure Jamison could be moved a year early for the right deal (Sessions too) that helps the CAVs rebuild, but the proposed deal which this thread is based on doesn't really help the CAVs rebuild.

tidho · Post #11 » by **tidho** » Fri Feb 4, 2011 7:10 pm

*Suns....of course.

That deal saves Gilbert $19M next season. That's money that can largely be saved and spent when it needs to be spent. It doesn't have to be free agent signings, it could be poaching guys off other rosters when the new CBA lowers the cap and teams face more luxery. You could buy up some picks too.

I'm not suggesting clearing cap is, or should be, a Cavalier priority but there isn't a great reason to not do it either. We're going to have at least 5 1sts in the next 3 years. That's a lot of roster and rotation space taken up for next to nothing. We don't need to at all, but it can't hurt.

Plus when Howard and Paul both hit the market we don't want the burden of Session on our cap.

rjgraca · Post #12 » by **rjgraca** » Fri Feb 4, 2011 7:21 pm

tidho wrote:*Suns....of course.

That deal saves Gilbert $19M next season. That's money that can largely be saved and spent when it needs to be spent. It doesn't have to be free agent signings, it could be poaching guys off other rosters when the new CBA lowers the cap and teams face more luxery. You could buy up some picks too.

I'm not suggesting clearing cap is, or should be, a Cavalier priority but there isn't a great reason to not do it either. We're going to have at least 5 1sts in the next 3 years. That's a lot of roster and rotation space taken up for next to nothing. We don't need to at all, but it can't hurt.

Plus when Howard and Paul both hit the market we don't want the burden of Session on our cap.

Saving money (when you are 28th in salary already) doesn't sound like much of a plan for the CAVs rebuilding other than to imply that they really don't have a plan to rebuild. Charlotte has a model of flipping cap space for bad contracts to get a useful player which is what teams want of flip your way with that cap space (remember Diop and Carrol). Sacramento and Minnesota have this cap space and it hasn't helped them that much as a destination for bargain free agents. I am not against expiring if it leads to quality draft picks too... otherwise patience is more prudent and waiting until after the new CBA to probably get at least the same return with significant expiring. I just don't see how immediate expiring (cap clearing is what VC is in this proposed trade) helps the CAVs rebuild faster.

Don't count on Howard or Paul looking the CAVs way... they are looking for a friends hook-up like Prince James. Howard is rumored to be looking to follow the Shaq model to LA to be a rap star and movie star :lol:

. Speaking of the CBA, I would think the owners will stand fast to have a franchise player designation to protect their teams market value when you have Prince James type players.

chrbal · Post #13 » by **chrbal** » Tue Feb 8, 2011 1:57 am

guaves13 wrote:What do you think about Vince Carter's expiring and Orlando's 1st (via phx) for Jamison and Sessions?

So let me get this straight. You turn Sessions' AND Jamisons' non expiring contracts into Vinces' expiring and a 1st...and you don't like that? Buyout Carter, let him rot on the bench, trade him for some other expiring....you'd have to be insane not to like that trade from a Cavs viewpoint. Clearing contracts is better then not.

rjgraca · Post #14 » by **rjgraca** » Tue Feb 8, 2011 3:31 am

chrbal wrote:
guaves13 wrote:What do you think about Vince Carter's expiring and Orlando's 1st (via phx) for Jamison and Sessions?

So let me get this straight. You turn Sessions' AND Jamisons' non expiring contracts into Vinces' expiring and a 1st...and you don't like that? Buyout Carter, let him rot on the bench, trade him for some other expiring....you'd have to be insane not to like that trade from a Cavs viewpoint. Clearing contracts is better then not.

Well let me get this straight. The CAVs are 28th in salary and having more cap space helps them rebuild faster how? They are not a mecca for free agents and do not want to over pay and go nowhere in their rebuild by overpaying like Detroit did for those free agents (which was insane) last season that didn't exactly put them back in the playoff picture and hampers their rebuild by clogging the salary cap.

The CAVs would probably consider the trade if there was a quality 1st round pick included which isn't the case here. Picks like Orlando's can be purchased on draft day for 3 million and a lot less assets. Would the CAVs trade Jamison... no doubt if they were actually getting an asset to rebuild. Putting in Sessions is just wasting assets for the CAVs in their rebuild.

guaves13 · Post #15 » by **guaves13** » Wed Feb 9, 2011 1:52 am

I would be fine with moving VC for AJ without Sessions included but you aren't going to get much more than an expiring and a late 1st for him. Like some have said that was his value last year and with the CBA coming the expiring is worth more than ever. Actually the Suns may be the ones who would ask for the pick.

They are playing it cool right now anyway by saying they don't expect to make another trade before the deadline. A ploy to avoid appearing desperate perhaps?

rjgraca · Post #16 » by **rjgraca** » Wed Feb 9, 2011 4:02 pm

Useful expiring and a late 1st round pick is what would be my expectations for Jamison. Sessions has shown himself to be a solid asset by himself for the CAVs rebuild. The CAVs would have to be receiving more assets than expiring, to be sending out a draft pick, which makes a deal with the Suns highly unlikely if they are in that mind set.

Jamison is not going to be bought out unless there is a side deal for real rebuilding asset(s) compensation like Toronto had with Dallas for Peja.

Triumph36 · Post #17 » by **Triumph36** » Wed Feb 9, 2011 8:33 pm

What exactly is a "useful expiring?"

rjgraca · Post #18 » by **rjgraca** » Wed Feb 9, 2011 9:55 pm

Useful expiring is someone who can actually contribute for the rest of the season rather than being only talented enough to sit on the bench.

ChanM · Post #19 » by **ChanM** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:06 pm

Don't want to sound rude but no team is going to give "quality" picks to the Cav's unless they take on bad contracts.

mcfly1204 · Post #20 » by **mcfly1204** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:05 pm

ChanM wrote:Don't want to sound rude but no team is going to give "quality" picks to the Cav's unless they take on bad contracts.

That is not rude, that is exactly what the organization said they were willing to do.