Ramon Sessions

8305 · Post #1 » by **8305** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:41 pm

When this guy has played against us he has been impressive. Good length, speed and ability to get to the basket. Would probably be effective in O'Brien's offense. There is much talk of the Bucks taking a point guard with their pick at 10. If they go that route you have to wonder if they will be serious players for Sessions. What does everyone think it would take to get this guy, is he a meaningful upgrade over Ford and Jack? I'm guessing it would take more $$ to get Sessions than to resign Jack. But could the premium be worth it?

cdash · Post #2 » by **cdash** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:49 pm

Glad you brought this up. I love Sessions, and he was a pain the butt every time the Bucks played the Pacers this season. Honestly though, I have no idea what kind of deal he is expecting to get. Milwaukee is bracing for his departure, but I'm not sure what the market is for Sessions. I personally see him as an upgrade to Ford/Jack, although not a major one---yet. I absolutely agree that he will get more money than Jack too. It'll be interesting to see how his situation plays out in free agency.

xxSnEaKyPxx · Post #3 » by **xxSnEaKyPxx** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:03 pm

We won't have the money to get him, it would have to be a sign and trade - and theres no point for the Bucks to help out a division rival unless they got the better deal, in which case, why would we do it?

Not happening.

8305 · Post #4 » by **8305** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:17 pm

With all the quality point guards in the draft and all the veteran free agent point guards on the market, Sessions market might not be what it normally would be for a young guy who has done what he has done. Maybe Pacers could sneek in and get him for an amount not significantly more than what Jack would cost. Essentially Daniels money.

xxSnEaKyPxx · Post #5 » by **xxSnEaKyPxx** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:22 pm

8305 wrote:With all the quality point guards in the draft and all the veteran free agent point guards on the market, Sessions market might not be what it normally would be for a young guy who has done what he has done. Maybe Pacers could sneek in and get him for an amount not significantly more than what Jack would cost. Essentially Daniels money.

Daniels' money went to Granger's extension. With the 13th picks salary factored in, we can't afford him. Portland has a lot of money and needs a PG, thats just one example, there are a lot of teams that could and would outbid us.

cdash · Post #6 » by **cdash** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:43 pm

DGrangeRx33 wrote:
8305 wrote:With all the quality point guards in the draft and all the veteran free agent point guards on the market, Sessions market might not be what it normally would be for a young guy who has done what he has done. Maybe Pacers could sneek in and get him for an amount not significantly more than what Jack would cost. Essentially Daniels money.

Daniels' money went to Granger's extension. With the 13th picks salary factored in, we can't afford him. Portland has a lot of money and needs a PG, thats just one example, there are a lot of teams that could and would outbid us.

For the most part, I agree. I do think that 8305 has a point though. In past seasons, Sessions would certainly be well out of our price range. This year? I'm really not sure it's completely out of the question. No one has money with the economy, no one with money looks like they are going to spend it (besides maybe Portland, but I'm not sure they have interest), and there are a ton of cheaper options at the point in the draft. All that said, I don't think we have a realistic shot of signing him.

chatard5 · Post #7 » by **chatard5** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:12 pm

cdash, you are about to make your 3,000th post. saweeeeet! make sure it is a good one.

Sorry, now I have to go read about Ramon Sessions.

8305 · Post #8 » by **8305** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:40 pm

I agree the possibility of getting anything done with Sessions is remote. But here is how I've assumed the Pacer's money would work this summer. Rasho's money is going to Granger's new contract. Daniels money or a portion would go to resigning Jack. If at the end of the day Sessions isn't in a position to command a remarkably greater salary than Jack should the Pacers enter the competition for him.

Wizop · Post #9 » by **Wizop** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:07 am

I've gotten a lot of fantasy points from Sessions the last two years. I'd love to have him. I don't think either Sessions or Jack will get over the MLE. CV might also be worth a look.

DWCP2 · Post #10 » by **DWCP2** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:24 am

Statistically speaking Jack has done better.

Post #11 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:36 am

8305 wrote:I agree the possibility of getting anything done with Sessions is remote. But here is how I've assumed the Pacer's money would work this summer. Rasho's money is going to Granger's new contract. Daniels money or a portion would go to resigning Jack. If at the end of the day Sessions isn't in a position to command a remarkably greater salary than Jack should the Pacers enter the competition for him.

Not how the salary cap works. We were over the cap to begin with, and we still are, even with the money from Daniels and Rasho off the books. Means we can only spend the MLE or LLE, or bi-annual exception, or minimum salary exceptions (the highest being the MLE at $5.5 million), but that would put us close to the luxury tax with something like only 9 guys committed to the books, and leave us unable to re-sign Jarrett Jack.

However, all this depends on Sessions getting the MLE or less, which is highly unlikely. If he only gets the MLE, Milwaukee will re-sign him for that or a bit more.

8305 · Post #12 » by **8305** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:43 pm

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?

cdash · Post #13 » by **cdash** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:12 pm

^That my friend is the million dollar question.

Post #14 » by **Gremz** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:15 pm

Philly would be interested, as would Portland and Dallas. They would be the primary targets, and all are closer to a championship run than we are.

8305 · Post #15 » by **8305** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:04 pm

I agree Philly and Dallas if they lose incumbants could be pretty motivated competitors and could make better offers. Don't think either of them is in any better position than the Pacers relative to the Cap though. I seem to recall Portland drafting a point guard last year and would be surprised if they were willing to spend much for another young pg.

Post #16 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:22 pm

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.

8305 · Post #17 » by **8305** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:26 pm

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.

Thanks for the exchange. Certainly if the Bucks are willing to pay luxury tax this probably will not happen for the Pacers. It will be interesting to see if they are willing to do that. For the Pacrers part I think the question is how much of the MLE will be required to resign Jack and if the Bucks don't match how much more would you pay to get Sessions than to retain Jack. If you can get a solid long term piece at pg I wouldn't be that worried about having minimal money left for the final four spots on the roster. Are the final 4 guys on your bench really that important?

Post #18 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:00 pm

Well, those "final 4 pieces on the bench" would be your 9, 10, 11, and 12 guys just to meet league minimums. Unless you're going with an 8 man rotation all year long, they might come into play a bit.

Otherwise, why would Sessions even consider Indy for the MLE if we still have TJ Ford and likely Travis Diener, let alone the fact we want to re-sign JJ.

However, we don't need the MLE to re-sign Jack. We have Bird Rights on him.

8305 · Post #19 » by **8305** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:44 pm

However, we don't need the MLE to re-sign Jack. We have Bird Rights on him.

Understand we don't need to use the MLE to sign Jack. Probably should have been more clear I'm working off the thought that the MLE is about 5-6 mil and I'm thinking that it is about what Pacers have to work with before paying luxury tax.

Well, those "final 4 pieces on the bench" would be your 9, 10, 11, and 12 guys just to meet league minimums. Unless you're going with an 8 man rotation all year long, they might come into play a bit.

Valid point.

But I have seen teams fill those spots with lower end free agents and occasionally find good players. (Miami right after acquiring Shaq and Boston after the Garnett and Allen acquisitions).

Post #20 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:48 pm

8305 wrote:Valid point.

But I have seen teams fill those spots with lower end free agents and occasionally find good players. (Miami right after acquiring Shaq and Boston after the Garnett and Allen acquisitions).

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.

Most of their role players were actually signed for solid portions of the MLE.