Sessions Update:Ramon signs T-Wolves OS (page 310 update)

LUKE23 · Post #4281 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:24 pm

Hammond added more tradeable assets in Warrick and Delfino, they will also improve the product you see on the floor until they are traded.

Do they make us a playoff team?

midranger · Post #4282 » by **midranger** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:29 pm

BucksRUS wrote:
Hammond added more tradeable assets in Warrick and Delfino, they will also improve the product you see on the floor until they are traded. They are more valuable than some of our other expirings such as Ridnour and Elson on the trade market.

Just to be clear. Delfino and Warrick are actually untradeable assets, and will remain so until Dec 15th.

At that point, a team will have to decide how much value they want to give for a guy they could just sign out right next year for zero assets. My guess in Delfino's case is none, because no one else wanted him last year nor this year. In Warrick's case, you may have something as several teams were interested. But again, how much do you give for 1/2 a season of a guy you could sign outright?

Wise1 · Post #4283 » by **Wise1** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:29 pm

Dub, there's no way in hell that Ridnour is going to start over Jennings (just my opinion of course). The ONLY way I see that happening is if Jennings fails to grasp the offense during preseason. Other than that, #3 will be a starter from day one. Not only from a basketball perspective, but for business reasons it makes so much more sense to promote and market your hot #1 pick. The luster of the pick would be greatly diminished by sitting him behind a guy like Ridnour. I'm predicting that Jennings will be the show in Milwaukee right away. As the monkey put it, he'll put the butts in the seats.

I will grant that Skiles may choose to sit Jennings and make him "earn" the starting spot if Jennings' attitude in camp is too cocky for Skiles' liking. Doubt that though.

unklchuk · Post #4284 » by **unklchuk** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:33 pm

"I REALLY agree with the monkey here."

Me too.

Luke23: From the viewpoint of 69, it's hard to see a huge difference between 24 and 27, but for discussion's sake, I'll do my best... <gr>

If Hammond plans to be seriously good in (conservative figure) 3 years, those guys will be 30. That's hardly past the point of usefulness. The physical skills have started to diminish, but not precipitously. The mental skills are at their peak. They can easily be part of Skiles' Gang of Ten. And their contracts are not fixed high. They can be set at whatever figures match their contribution.

Or they (sorry players) can have been replaced by better players. To repeat, I think Trader John with cap flexibility will do a LOT of incremental upgrades.

I suspect we continue to differ on this point. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

Wise1 · Post #4285 » by **Wise1** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:36 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Warrick is signed one year and Delfino is only guaranteed one year. I don't see what age has to do with anything, Warrick and Delfino are players that are not improving their games, they are what they are. This is a win now roster. You think Hammond is adding salary with veterans to try and win 35 games? What sense does that make?

I don't think the Bucks expect Warrick and Delfino to improve appreciably from where they are right now. That wasn't the motivation for signing them. What they are are servicable vets that fit the team's scheme both offensively and defensively (length/athleticism). Their short term contracts also fall in line with Hammond's apparent plan to not add an abundance of salary beyond 2011. This is far from a "win now or bust" roster. Hammond's longterm roster won't materialize until after 2011. Right now, he's trying to win as many games as possible until he gets there.

midranger · Post #4286 » by **midranger** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:36 pm

If Hammond saw these guys as long term fixtures, he wouldn't be signing them to 1 year deals. If you want to bet that Warrick and Delfino will be here in 3 years, I'd be happy to oblige. They are Band-Aids.

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #4287 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:38 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
Hammond added more tradeable assets in Warrick and Delfino, they will also improve the product you see on the floor until they are traded.

Do they make us a playoff team?

if warrick and delfino are producing a little this year at the trade deadline, then they will be more marketable assets than sessions on a 3yr/ 10-12mil contract...... and it isnt even close.

i dont see how anybody can continue to rip hammonds offseason becuase he signed dudes like this to the contracts he did. we can now absorb contracts, with picks, and talent.... AND offer decent guys back in trades with favorable contracts to deepen the bench oif teams making a legit playoff run.

overpaying sessions goes completely against the philosophy of what this team is trying to do moving forward. were in a very similar situation to the knicks in that regard.

BucksRUS · Post #4288 » by **BucksRUS** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:42 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
Hammond added more tradeable assets in Warrick and Delfino, they will also improve the product you see on the floor until they are traded.

Do they make us a playoff team?

No, but they add flexiblity on the roster when other players get traded. If Redd gets traded and we get back a PF or a SF, who would you rather see playing at SG Bell or Delfino. I would be very surprised if this is the roster we enter the season with. We will have to see if Hammond can make any more moves.

LUKE23 · Post #4289 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:42 pm

This is far from a "win now or bust" roster

So does Hammond still receive praise for the job he's doing if we're in the lottery this year (without major injuries)?

if warrick and delfino are producing a little this year at the trade deadline, then they will be more marketable assets than sessions on a 3yr/ 10-12mil contract...... and it isnt even close.

Absolutely, positively not. Sessions is better than both players and is younger at a position of more value. If anyone gets Sessions at 3/10 it's a massive steal.

overpaying sessions goes completely against the philosophy of what this team is trying to do moving forward. were in a very similar situation to the knicks in that regard.

$4M per year is overpaying Sessions, but $3.5M for Delfino and $3M for Warrick are great signings? What the hell are people drinking around here lately?

LUKE23 · Post #4290 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:43 pm

I would be very surprised if this is the roster we enter the season with

I wouldn't be surprised if this was our roster, minus Sharpe. I wouldn't be surprised if we made another minor move either, but there won't be anything major.

smooth 'lil balla · Post #4291 » by **smooth 'lil balla** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:43 pm

Completely agree with the Ghost of Sikma (great name by the way). I don't get how people bitch and moan when we sign players to one year contracts, AND those players fill the need of our team. So many people act like we are just supposed to roll over and die until we are handed a franchise savior. Hammond is playing this beautifully.

Wise1 · Post #4292 » by **Wise1** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:48 pm

Fire Chubby and get yourself some longterm security by signing a shortened verson of the Ersan contract. 2 years and 4-6 million dollars. Hammond would love the 2 years and YOU should love having 4 mil in the bank after making 700k last year. Don't be stupid Ramon. There are a LOT of young point guards in the league and on the horizon that are just as good or better than you.

You remind me of that Geico commercial Ramon. The Ersan contract is watching you. Hmmf, the money you could have had........[song] Tell me who's watching [/song].

BucksRUS · Post #4293 » by **BucksRUS** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:49 pm

midranger wrote:If Hammond saw these guys as long term fixtures, he wouldn't be signing them to 1 year deals. If you want to bet that Warrick and Delfino will be here in 3 years, I'd be happy to oblige. They are Band-Aids.

Who said they were longterm fixtures? If we get a good offer for Warrick at the trade deadline, you take it. Delfino adds flexibility because he can play two positions and his contract next year is only partially guaranteed. They add options for make the team better long term.

Wise1 · Post #4294 » by **Wise1** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:53 pm

BucksRUS wrote:
midranger wrote:If Hammond saw these guys as long term fixtures, he wouldn't be signing them to 1 year deals. If you want to bet that Warrick and Delfino will be here in 3 years, I'd be happy to oblige. They are Band-Aids.

Who said they were longterm fixtures? If we get a good offer for Warrick at the trade deadline, you take it. Delfino adds flexibility because he can play two positions and his contract next year is only partially guaranteed. They add options for make the team better long term.

He's probably referring to Luke's comments about Delfino and Warrick being here until they're 30. At least Luke was implying such in one of his comments above.

LUKE23 · Post #4295 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:55 pm

Where did I imply that?

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #4296 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:56 pm

warrick was pursued by 6-7 teams, mostly playoff contenders. sessions has been pursued by no playoff teams. now we have warrick on an affordable, moveable contract, and we dont have money locked up in sessions either.

i find it hilarious that by signing warrick, and ignoring sessions that we are somehow drinking "the juice".

the reality is we scored a guy that other teams actually want, and we have ignored a player that other teams have ignored as well. of course sessions salary demands have played into that, but the entire package is what makes our plan and moves this summer palatable.

Wise1 · Post #4297 » by **Wise1** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:56 pm

Ramon?

LUKE23 · Post #4298 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:58 pm

warrick was pursued by 6-7 teams, mostly playoff contenders. sessions has been pursued by no playoff teams.

One is UFA who was willing to sign a one-year deal, one is RFA. Why do people keep comparing UFA's to RFA's in this market? It's a completely different situation.

now we have warrick on an affordable, moveable contract, and we dont have money locked up in sessions either.

Sessions at what he is going to get is a steal, and is a long-term piece. Maybe you are fine with not keeping young talent cheap, but I'm not.

i find it hilarious that by signing warrick, and ignoring sessions that we are somehow drinking "the juice".

No, saying signing Warrick is a good move and ignoring Sessions at a great contract is also a good move is drinking the juice.

the reality is we scored a guy that other teams actually want, and we have ignored a player that other teams have ignored as well.

Not accurate.

Wise1 · Post #4299 » by **Wise1** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:00 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Where did I imply that?

My bad, Chuk's quoting can be bad on the eyes sometimes. It was HIS comment about those guys being 30 in three years, not yours.

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #4300 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:03 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
the reality is we scored a guy that other teams actually want, and we have ignored a player that other teams have ignored as well.

Not accurate.

how is that not accurate? its exactly accurate.

youre assessments are in accurate. you seem to be the only one who actually thinks the deals being discussed are a "great contract" for sessions. the market has dictated EXACTLY what sessions is worth, and dont give me that RFA bs either. other than the clippers and friggin knicks we havent even heard of any other teams interested in inquiring.