Ramon Sessions

8305 · Post #21 » by **8305** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:53 am

Yeah, but Ramon Sessions isn't exactly a KG, Ray Allen, or Shaq that is going to draw Hall of Famers that are chasing a ring to sign with Indy for the minimum. Really, it was pretty much just Gary Payton, and 2nd round picks and undrafted guys. Maybe if you consider the Mikki Moore's of the world, but those teams filled out a lot of their minimum salaried spots with undrafted or 2nd rounders.

Agree that Sessions isn't KG but neither was Chaucy Billips before signing his first contract with Detroit. Understand the problem of not having money under the tax sufficient to pay the rest of the roster. Do you think that means Jack can't be resigned for the same reason or do you just think he will cost that much less than Sessions?

Post #22 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:22 am

I think Jack will cost about half as much as Sessions will. And I think Jack will cost us around $3.5-4.5 million in the first year of his deal.

Sessions is going to be a decent target on the free agency market, and is going to be offered the full MLE by a lot of teams, and will end up signing for more than the MLE from one of the under the cap teams, or in a sign and trade where Milwaukee gets to dump Gadzuric's contract as well.

And I don't get the Billups reference. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we're talking about here. He signed a deal larger than the MLE when Detroit had cap room to sign him. He went to whomever offered him the most money. He's NEVER played under a veteran's minimum salary or the MLE.

chatard5 · Post #23 » by **chatard5** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:
8305 wrote:I wasn't thinking of the Pacers spending any more than the exception for him. It looks to me like the Bucks cap situation for next year is worse than ours. Resigning Session at 5 to 6 mil annually creates luxury tax for them? Makes me wonder if they draft a pg if they are even attempting to resign Sessioins.

For the Pacers I assume if they signed Sessions they would not resign Jack. How many other teams after this draft and given their financial constraints are really players for this guy?

Here's the position we're in.

Even if we were able to sign Sessions for JUST the MLE, and then chose not to re-sign Jarret Jack, we're still likely going to be RIGHT AT the luxury tax, and that's pretty much if we sign only veterans minimum guys for the last 4 spots on the roster or so.

However, that's on the assumption that we're going to be able to get Sessions to agree to the MLE, when Milwaukee's probably going to be willing to go over the luxury tax a little to re-sign Sessions. They'll then likely still be in the market for a PG as they'll be going into next season with just Sessions and an expiring Luke Ridnour that they likely won't be in the market to re-sign, meaning they still need a 3rd PG for next year, and a backup for the following years after.

For a while it sounded like the Bucks weren't willing to spend the extra money on Sessions. Is that not the case anymore?

8305 · Post #24 » by **8305** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:37 pm

When making the Billips reference I wasn't thinking so much about the contractual specifics or the team cap circumstances. I was thinking more that Billips was under the radar prior to the acquisition by Detriot. At the time Detroit got him I don't think anyone was thinking he would be as good as he turned out to be. I think Sessions is the closest thing to a Billips type potential acquisition since.

Based on what I read about current NBA economics and the desire of so many teams to have cap space for 2010 I will be surprised if Sessions commands money significantly in excess of the MLE. In fact I'm wondering what Bibby, Kidd and Miller are in a position to command this off-season.

Long term anticipated on court performance who would you rather have among Holiday, Flynn, Sessions, Teague and Jack if you had to pick one.

8305 · Post #25 » by **8305** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:45 pm

When making the Billips reference I wasn't thinking so much about the contractual specifics or the team cap circumstances. I was thinking more that Billips was under the radar prior to the acquisition by Detriot. At the time Detroit got him I don't think anyone was thinking he would be as good as he turned out to be. I think Sessions is the closest thing to a Billips type potential acquisition since.

Based on what I read about current NBA economics and the desire of so many teams to have cap space for 2010 I will be surprised if Sessions commands money significantly in excess of the MLE. In fact I'm wondering what Bibby, Kidd and Miller are in a position to command this off-season.

Long term anticipated on court performance who would you rather have among Holiday, Flynn, Sessions, Teague and Jack if you had to pick one.

Post #26 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:55 pm

8305 wrote:
Long term anticipated on court performance who would you rather have among Holiday, Flynn, Sessions, Teague and Jack if you had to pick one.

Probably Sessions. He's had a monster of two seasons in the league, and he's still young as well. He's proven something in the league, as has Jack.

Sessions is likely the top PG on the market in earning power, as he's on his way up in his career, and Kidd and Bibby are finishing up their career's.

Just because this draft has a ton of PG's doesn't mean that these PG's are better than what's in the league currently.

8305 · Post #27 » by **8305** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:29 pm

Scoot, it sounds like you are higher on Sessions than I am. I like all of Flynn, Evans, Teague and Holiday group.

As to players for Session beyond Mil I think Dallas will be the interesting one to watch. If they don't get Kidd resigned one would think Sessions would be a logical target and I wouldn't think they would be as averse to the luxury tax as others around the league.

Post #28 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:03 pm

I think Sessions is going to still be in the league contributing in 10 years. I'm sure at least half of Flynn, Evans, Teague, and Holiday are going to be long gone from the league by then.

8305 · Post #29 » by **8305** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:33 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:I think Sessions is going to still be in the league contributing in 10 years. I'm sure at least half of Flynn, Evans, Teague, and Holiday are going to be long gone from the league by then.

Can't disagree with that assessment but, I'm surprised you aren't in favor of persuing this guy aggressively. Maybe for a season fill most of the bench with low level free agents and 2nd round types. Hope to find a diamond or two in the rough. Heck if TJ knew he was odd man out maybe he opts out next summer and you only have one season dancing around the luxury tax?

Post #30 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:30 am

8305 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:I think Sessions is going to still be in the league contributing in 10 years. I'm sure at least half of Flynn, Evans, Teague, and Holiday are going to be long gone from the league by then.

Can't disagree with that assessment but, I'm surprised you aren't in favor of persuing this guy aggressively. Maybe for a season fill most of the bench with low level free agents and 2nd round types. Hope to find a diamond or two in the rough. Heck if TJ knew he was odd man out maybe he opts out next summer and you only have one season dancing around the luxury tax?

The most aggressive we can pursue him is the MLE. I'm all for that, but it would mean JJ would go.

Now, if we could get him to agree to a sign and trade, and move Ford in the deal for him, work it with what would be BYC issues for Sessions' new deal, and make it work, I'd do it. In a heartbeat.

But realistically, it just ain't going to happen.

8305 · Post #31 » by **8305** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:20 am

Bucks took a pg at 10 then took a 2 in the second round. Anybody think they are going to anti up big dollars for Sessions. I'm just not seeing a cash strapped team doing that. I'd guess CV is the more likely investment at this point. So what teams are really players for this guy? Still think he could be an interesting option for the Pacers if he's on sale. As I think he might be.

Post #32 » by **Gremz** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:31 pm

Eh, I'd rather stick with Jack who in all likelihood will be cheaper to retain.

8305 · Post #33 » by **8305** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:31 am

What can we offer Session now?

I've always thought he is a more realistic long term solution at pg than Jack anyway.

Looking at the Bucks roster it seems they really have greater needs than a young pg if they are going to spend 5 or 6 mil this summer.

DWCP2 · Post #34 » by **DWCP2** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:44 am

8305 wrote:What can we offer Session now?

I've always thought he is a more realistic long term solution at pg than Jack anyway.

Looking at the Bucks roster it seems they really have greater needs than a young pg if they are going to spend 5 or 6 mil this summer.

If the Pacers go after Sessions or Nate Robinson with what's left of the MLE, they can sign either to a four year deal worth more then 15.2 million or a five year deal worth 19.7 million.

Post #35 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:32 am

We're just so unlikely to get either of those guys (and not that I'd really want Nate Robinson here either, just doesn't fit what we need to do at PG here) for that little amount of money.

If we get Sessions to sign an offer sheet for what we have left of the MLE (something like $3 million or so to begin), there's no doubt that Milwaukee would match it since he's a restricted free agent, and that's a great contract that they would be able to get him to agree to.

Milwaukee let Charlie V walk and traded Richard Jefferson for nothing to hold onto Ramon Sessions.

8305 · Post #36 » by **8305** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:03 pm

Is there any way to convert the Jones signing into a sign and trade and re-establish some or all of our MLE?

Post #37 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 7:29 pm

8305 wrote:Is there any way to convert the Jones signing into a sign and trade and re-establish some or all of our MLE?

It's irrelevent. We aren't constrained by the MLE with Jack since we have his bird rights. We're constrained by total salary against the luxury tax, which wouldn't change in a S&T, unless you can convince Denver to take on Tinsley, which just ain't happening.

8305 · Post #38 » by **8305** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:11 pm

When its all said and done the Wolves get this guy at a pretty reasonable price. Anyone think Larry would like a do over on this? We would have had to tie money up for a longer term but, for 2010 the money spent on Watson and S. Jones would have been just about enough to get this guy.

Comments I've read over the summer make me wonder if he was really a viable long term answer for us at the point anyway. It sounds like a lot of people question his defensive ability and I have to wonder if that was an automatic disqualifier?

MillerTime101 · Post #39 » by **MillerTime101** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:58 pm

Personally I wold have liked to see us at least in the bidding for Sessions but im fairly confident Larry has something in the works as far as our future at that position goes.

Post #40 » by **Miller4ever** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:22 pm

Ramon wouldn't fit well with this lineup in terms of the role he plays. We'll have something with Rush, Granger, and Hibbert. They all supply enough scoring. I like his penetration ability, but we'd need a distributor, unless Hansbrough is a good passer out of the paint and Hibbert passes well, too, but that probably won't be true.