Sessions finalizing deal with Bobcats

DEEP3CL · Post #81 » by **DEEP3CL** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:44 am

I get what you're saying Big Game...not every man is cut out for the Lakers. Him getting a modest raise is kinda moot. He cost himself player value in the long run. Yeah he got 10 mil, but he could've gotten 3 yrs & 15 if we getting technical. Bottom line not many players have left LA and enjoyed success.

Post #82 » by **dockingsched** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:45 am

Anklebreaker702 wrote:
dockingsched wrote:none of this makes any sense. you're implying that the lakers would have never gone after nash if sessions didn't opt out.

i think the more logical explanation is that they were always going to go after nash, and that meant that mitch wasn't going to be able to commit to sessions and wanted to just ride him for one yr. he wanted to have his cake and eat it too by keeping sessions without committing to him.

How doesn't it make sense? Did or did not the Lakers sign Nash AFTER Sessions opted out? Thank-you! Now I'm not saying the Lakers would have never gone after Nash. I would have loved to see Sessions back up Nash. I think it would have helped his career tremendously.

u can't be serious with this. u realize that teams can't even talk to free agents til july 1st. u realize sessions' opt out decision contractually had to be decided before that date.

Post #83 » by **dockingsched** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:46 am

DEEP3CL wrote:I get what you're saying Big Game...not every man is cut out for the Lakers. Regardy off him getting a modest raise is kinda moot. He cost himself player value in the long run. Yeah he got 10 mil, but he could've gotten 3 yrs & 15 if we getting technical. Bottom line not many players have left LA and enjoyed success.

what u talkin' aboot? if we're getting technical about what?

Anklebreaker702 · Post #84 » by **Anklebreaker702** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:49 am

dockingsched wrote:
Anklebreaker702 wrote:
dockingsched wrote:none of this makes any sense. you're implying that the lakers would have never gone after nash if sessions didn't opt out.

i think the more logical explanation is that they were always going to go after nash, and that meant that mitch wasn't going to be able to commit to sessions and wanted to just ride him for one yr. he wanted to have his cake and eat it too by keeping sessions without committing to him.

How doesn't it make sense? Did or did not the Lakers sign Nash AFTER Sessions opted out? Thank-you! Now I'm not saying the Lakers would have never gone after Nash. I would have loved to see Sessions back up Nash. I think it would have helped his career tremendously.

u can't be serious with this. u realize that teams can't even talk to free agents til july 1st. u realize sessions' opt out decision contractually had to be decided before that date.

Ok I will give you that. That's true

iamworthy · Post #85 » by **iamworthy** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:50 am

DEEP3CL wrote:I get what you're saying Big Game...not every man is cut out for the Lakers. Regardy off him getting a modest raise is kinda moot. He cost himself player value in the long run. Yeah he got 10 mil, but he could've gotten 3 yrs & 15 if we getting technical. Bottom line not many players have left LA and enjoyed success.

We are not going on this but its cool. But alot of players that stayed with the lakers didnt enjoy success. Everyone who plays for the lakers dont get fat checks. Hell Fish won Chips with us and the lakers sent him packing the first time.

iamworthy · Post #86 » by **iamworthy** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:55 am

Anklebreaker702 wrote:Done with this, now you're trying to be a spin master. You're the one who started the what if stuff. Anyway you have your opinion & i have mine. So we'll agree to disagree.

Spin master? How can I spend something I started? Of course I said If he blows out his knee then he's done. Is that not a possibility? You said you dont deal in IFs when in reality you are basing your argument on IF he stays healthy which is also a possibility. You just didnt want to point out your IF. Is this not true?

Anklebreaker702 · Post #87 » by **Anklebreaker702** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:58 am

iamworthy wrote:
Anklebreaker702 wrote:Done with this, now you're trying to be a spin master. You're the one who started the what if stuff. Anyway you have your opinion & i have mine. So we'll agree to disagree.

Spin master? How can I spend something I started? Of course I said If he blows out his knee then he's done. Is that not a possibility? You said you dont deal in IFs when in reality you are basing your argument on IF he stays healthy which is also a possibility. You just didnt want to point out your IF. Is this not true?

No, we're kind of getting off task. I respect how you feel I just see it differently

DEEP3CL · Post #88 » by **DEEP3CL** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:32 pm

dockingsched wrote:
DEEP3CL wrote:I get what you're saying Big Game...not every man is cut out for the Lakers. Regardy off him getting a modest raise is kinda moot. He cost himself player value in the long run. Yeah he got 10 mil, but he could've gotten 3 yrs & 15 if we getting technical. Bottom line not many players have left LA and enjoyed success.

what u talkin' aboot? if we're getting technical about what?

C'mon doc....you don't think the Lakers would've given him at least 3 years and 5 mil ?

3 years was about the most he was gonna get from us period.

Post #89 » by **dockingsched** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:42 pm

why would u be under that impression?

microfib4thewin · Post #90 » by **microfib4thewin** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:39 pm

I don't think Mitch ever told us how much he's going to offer Sessions. The thing is even before Nash came into the equation there is a chance Mitch would have let him walk. People really need to stop getting pissy whenever a player leaves this team. They're not obligated to stay and it is not wrong to think they should explore other opportunities.

DEEP3CL · Post #91 » by **DEEP3CL** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:23 pm

dockingsched wrote:why would u be under that impression?

Look it's this simple really, either Mitch and the Lakers misread their cards and had hoped he hadn't opted out....which is something Mitch even said in an interview. Or once he opted out they knew they weren't going to sign him back.

Post #92 » by **dockingsched** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:29 pm

i honestly don't understand your point with the 3/15 (other than u pulling it out of thin air)

if you're arguing that the lakers were willing to offer sessions 3/15, why are u criticizing him for opting out?

Anklebreaker702 · Post #93 » by **Anklebreaker702** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:18 pm

dockingsched wrote:
bolded part was an impossibility

2nd part is just the lame arrogance this fanbase is showing in this situation.

Wait wait wait, so are you saying that this fan base is ignorant due to the Sessions didn't show any heart in the playoffs?

DEEP3CL · Post #94 » by **DEEP3CL** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:08 am

dockingsched wrote:i honestly don't understand your point with the 3/15 (other than u pulling it out of thin air)

if you're arguing that the lakers were willing to offer sessions 3/15, why are u criticizing him for opting out?

First off I never said said they were willing or would even do it, I merely suggested that he could possibly earn that.... strictly hypothetical theory. And secondly since when did it become wrong for saying someone made a dumb business/ career move ?

Look I get the whole not everybody has to love playing for the Lakers or even wants to play here. But at the same time it's my opinion, he got his money but now he's in NBA purgatory as far as I'm concerned.

You tell me how many times were gonna see Sessions on TNT, ESPN or ABC ?

Waiting for your answer or even how you'll explain it.

Post #95 » by **dockingsched** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:15 am

Anklebreaker702 wrote:
dockingsched wrote:
bolded part was an impossibility

2nd part is just the lame arrogance this fanbase is showing in this situation.

Wait wait wait, so are you saying that this fan base is ignorant due to the Sessions didn't show any heart in the playoffs?

i said arrogance cause of this attitude about players that leave LA, talking all high and mighty about why anyone would ever consider going to charlotte.

i never said anything about ignorance, so i can't really address that comment.

Post #96 » by **dockingsched** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:16 am

DEEP3CL wrote:
dockingsched wrote:i honestly don't understand your point with the 3/15 (other than u pulling it out of thin air)

if you're arguing that the lakers were willing to offer sessions 3/15, why are u criticizing him for opting out?
First off I never said said they were willing or would even do it, I merely suggested that he could possibly earn that.... strictly hypothetical theory.

Bottom line is guys here have missed the point entirely on what Ankle and myself have tried to point out. Career wise Sessions while he may have gotten 10 million in extra money he didn't have, in the process he's hurt himself in other ways that have more to do as how he be looked upon as a player in this league. Like Anklebreaker stated he was a career backup prior to joining us, was thrust into a starting role and had a chance to expand that. Fact is he had an awful playoffs by Laker fans standards and he and his agent used jaded judgement on weather he should opt out for a more long term deal as they put it.

Cutting through all the riff raff why can't some here just realize it was a mistake on his agent business wise. OK he's not with us so what, point is his whole thing was about securing a "long term" deal....well he FAILED in that sense. Trying to tied the fact he got 10 million he didn't have is irrelevant to me. And I get that every man isn't cut out to play in LA or even likes playing in LA, the way I see it it's their lost.

The fact of the matter is this....I don't care what Charlotte does in the next 20 years, they still won't equal what we've done here.

DEEP, i'll just move on cause i have no idea what your point is. first it was something about 3/15 deal, now its something about u not caring what charlotte does. very confused.

DEEP3CL · Post #97 » by **DEEP3CL** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:24 am

It's because you never understood where I was coming from in the first place. Did you see my very first post in this thread ? And my point was NEVER about the 3/15...you strung that into your own thinking.

My whole point is this....he had every right to do what he did. Was it the smartest move ? That's debatable but I say it wasn't. My opinion as I stated was based on what I thought a player wanted to do in making a name for himself. Worthy brought up a great point, one that I totally agree with...everyone isn't cut out to play here. But it wasn't like I never understood that either.

There is no right or wrong here, I'm just saying he and his agent was dumb, just like how Trevor F'd himself. Look at him now.......simply trade bait and hasn't done much of nothing since leaving here.

You guys turned this into a money thing, while I was looking at his career path.

Anklebreaker702 · Post #98 » by **Anklebreaker702** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:21 am

dockingsched wrote:
Anklebreaker702 wrote:
dockingsched wrote:
bolded part was an impossibility

2nd part is just the lame arrogance this fanbase is showing in this situation.

Wait wait wait, so are you saying that this fan base is ignorant due to the Sessions didn't show any heart in the playoffs?

i said arrogance cause of this attitude about players that leave LA, talking all high and mighty about why anyone would ever consider going to charlotte.

i never said anything about ignorance, so i can't really address that comment.

Ok I get that but why is it talking high & mighty because of Charlotte & L.A? I'm sure even non Laker fans would agree with that as well

Anklebreaker702 · Post #99 » by **Anklebreaker702** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:30 am

DEEP3CL wrote:It's because you never understood where I was coming from in the first place. Did you see my very first post in this thread ? And my point was NEVER about the 3/15...you strung that into your own thinking.

My whole point is this....he had every right to do what he did. Was it the smartest move ? That's debatable but I say it wasn't. My opinion as I stated was based on what I thought a player wanted to do in making a name for himself. Worthy brought up a great point, one that I totally agree with...everyone isn't cut out to play here. But it wasn't like I never understood that either.

There is no right or wrong here, I'm just saying he and his agent was dumb, just like how Trevor F'd himself. Look at him now.......simply trade bait and hasn't done much of nothing since leaving here.

You guys turned this into a money thing, while I was looking at his career path.

Yes sir Deep. I still have yet to have anyone answer the question who left the Lakers & their career flourished after that? If any, it hasn't been many.

microfib4thewin · Post #100 » by **microfib4thewin** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:21 am

It's very rare for a young player to opt in. They want assurance that they will be paid long term, so unless what they're getting paid on their option year is going to be MUCH higher than their next contract, or in the case of Yao, may never get another contract, it is always the smartest thing to opt out so you get more years secured.

And why on earth would Sessions care if he is on ESPN or not? He's not a star player so it's not like he will get more sponsorship opportunities. His value as a player is not going to go up just because he plays for the Lakers. Even if he wasn't traded and stayed with the Cavs he would still be looking for 4-5 mil/year. The argument that role players become more relevant because they get more exposure by playing on the Lakers is a load of crap. No one gives a damn about what the role players do, and no team will hand out ridiculous contract just because a guy is the 5th best player on the Lakers.