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

emunney · Post #4421 » by **emunney** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 3:36 am

A Knicks fan and a Clippers fan are telling us that their teams don't want Sessions.

unklchuk · Post #4422 » by **unklchuk** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 3:48 am

InsideOut, I wasn't ducking your question. I read it twice and for whatever reason didn't find it meaningful in the situation.

If it makes the Knicks offer less, thinking the Bucks find any offer difficult, that's great for the Bucks if they want to match. If like I think they have plans.

If somehow it should persuade them to offer more, making it even harder for the Bucks to create the space, then they'll probably be offering more than our team thinks he's worth. Maybe if you think Sessions is worth a lot, you don't like seeing the Knicks looking at the cap situation and offering more than the Bucks plans can handle. But I don't think Hammond thinks Sessions is worth anything like the MLE so that contingency doesn't resonate with me.

If I missed your question, again, and if you think it worth it, please rephrase... I'll be checking in tomorrow.

MilBucksBackOnTop06 · Post #4423 » by **MilBucksBackOnTop06** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 8:48 am

KnicksChamps wrote:
BucksRUS wrote:
KnicksChamps wrote:

And you think your team wants to pay Sessions?

Sure seems like no team does. Including the Bucks.

I really feel bad for the guy. He's young, he's got a high ceiling, but nobody is willing to pay for him. The knicks are better off without him. We already have Duhon, Robinson, and our rookie Douglas. If he was a free agent a couple of years ago, a bunch of teams would be all over him.

He is a second round scrub regardless to what delusional comments you read in here! He is a losing former D-League PG on a losing team who is not assertive and vocal enough to be the natural leader the NBA is going to, as an an elite level starting PG! He is not a DIFFERENCE MAKER!

It is just that simple! And of all men to know this is former Piston assistant GM Hammond, and head scout McKinney and all time single game assist King Scott Skiles who should know more then you or even I!

If he had a jumper, a killer crossover or hops and was a lockdown guy who was above average then that is fine because he has something to hang his hat on....BUT HE DOESNT! Name me one thing he does that makes you say...WOW!? Just one thing and I will shut up and leave this alone....? I am still waiting :thinking:

......Yeah, that is what I thought. That's right. Your silence speaks volumes.

Your team is going to be only as relevant, viable, appealing and competitive then your PG in this league and coming wave of players! A team lead by passive Sessions and Redd will not get it done people!

Ignore anyne in here who thinks he is great. He is a good 'on any given night' type player only with the right players around him. Brandon, and hell even Meeks are two guys who are dynamic on every single possession not just on any given night! Jennings :crowded:

Meeks...

Paying guys with "ceiling" who are borderline guys like Sessions has been the mistakes we got into now!

He is not worth it! There are better PG's right now in this year's draft better then he is or will ever be right now! I am more shocked Raymond Felton is not signed then I am Sessions...

Rockmaninoff · Post #4424 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 11:29 am

Raymond Felton is about the same as Sessions, if we were to use your description MBBOWT.

Someone said it above, but CJ Watson took his Qualifying Offer. Very similar situations. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Sessions takes his QO and tries again next year. Or he takes the QO and a trade is worked out that he approves of. It makes sense to me, but of course maybe not to people who have been wrong about the situation from the beginning.

Good thing Hammond left just enough room.

BucksRUS · Post #4425 » by **BucksRUS** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 1:32 pm

Rockmaninoff wrote:Raymond Felton is about the same as Sessions, if we were to use your description MBBOWT.

Someone said it above, but CJ Watson took his Qualifying Offer. Very similar situations. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Sessions takes his QO and tries again next year. Or he takes the QO and a trade is worked out that he approves of. It makes sense to me, but of course maybe not to people who have been wrong about the situation from the beginning.

Good thing Hammond left just enough room.

I think it is unlikely that Sessions takes the QO and agrees to a trade. He would give up his early Bird rights if he did that. If he takes the QO he is on the team this year for the whole year.

BucksRUS · Post #4426 » by **BucksRUS** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 1:51 pm

So if Sessions comes back, does that make Ridnour the odd man out. Would the T-wolves want him to back up Flynn? Something like Ridnour and Elson for Blount. I know Blount is no great shakes, but neither is what we are giving up. He is also expiring.

LUKE23 · Post #4427 » by **LUKE23** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 1:55 pm

Yep, Ridnour is gone if Sessions is back. I'd like to look at Ridnour/Elson for another scorer at that point, but I've looked and there isn't much out there.

InsideOut · Post #4428 » by **InsideOut** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 2:27 pm

unklchuk wrote:InsideOut, I wasn't ducking your question. I read it twice and for whatever reason didn't find it meaningful in the situation. If it makes the Knicks offer less, thinking the Bucks find any offer difficult, that's great for the Bucks if they want to match. If like I think they have plans.

If somehow it should persuade them to offer more, making it even harder for the Bucks to create the space, then they'll probably be offering more than our team thinks he's worth. Maybe if you think Sessions is worth a lot, you don't like seeing the Knicks looking at the cap situation and offering more than the Bucks plans can handle. But I don't think Hammond thinks Sessions is worth anything like the MLE so that contingency doesn't resonate with me.

If I missed your question, again, and if you think it worth it, please rephrase... I'll be checking in tomorrow.

I guess I don't know what your standards are for a meaningful question. You decided to duck the question and instead decided to spew your usual condescending pompous drivel. So no, at this point it isn't worth rephrasing and giving you a third shot at answering it. I know your a fan of catchy phrases and all so I'll just leave you with three strikes and you're out.

unklchuk · Post #4429 » by **unklchuk** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 4:11 pm

Pompous drivel?

You must be confusing me with some teacher you hated in grade school.

"For whatever reason" was intended to say that it could have been a perfectly fine question that just didn't work for me. Then I went on to guess at 3 versions of what you might have been getting at. Too bad if none of them were good guesses.

So... I tried to communicate. If that was strike one, strike two, strike three - well, I can certainly live with that.

I don't think we'll find common ground on Sessions. Maybe on the next topic.

ETA: Since this is a hoop forum, I really think the unklchuk critics should call it "pompous dribble." Not only is it a bad pun, but it conjures saliva dripping down my chin. Much more graphic than "drivel."

ETA2: Drivel apparently means drool, in addition to meaning talk stupidly - so my suggestion is pretty much reduced to only being a bad pun. Writer's choice.

Rockmaninoff · Post #4430 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 6:31 pm

BucksRUS wrote:
I think it is unlikely that Sessions takes the QO and agrees to a trade. He would give up his early Bird rights if he did that. If he takes the QO he is on the team this year for the whole year.

I don't know if that is absolutely correct. As a third year Non-Bird Restricted Free Agent, there would be no restriction on the amount of first year salary in offers from other teams. That might be worth the gamble.

LUKE23 wrote:Yep, Ridnour is gone if Sessions is back. I'd like to look at Ridnour/Elson for another scorer at that point, but I've looked and there isn't much out there.

Ridnour/Elson for Francisco Garcia.

Variations of this have been mentioned often, but it bears repeating. The contract is quasi-bad, but it's about in line with what I think is fair value for a good role playing starter or a 6th man. Hopefully, that's what Garcia would eventually be.

BucksRUS · Post #4431 » by **BucksRUS** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 6:55 pm

Rockmaninoff wrote:
BucksRUS wrote:
I think it is unlikely that Sessions takes the QO and agrees to a trade. He would give up his early Bird rights if he did that. If he takes the QO he is on the team this year for the whole year.

I don't know if that is absolutely correct. As a third year Non-Bird Restricted Free Agent, there would be no restriction on the amount of first year salary in offers from other teams. That might be worth the gamble.

Ridnour/Elson for Francisco Garcia.

Variations of this have been mentioned often, but it bears repeating. The contract is quasi-bad, but it's about in line with what I think is fair value for a good role playing starter or a 6th man. Hopefully, that's what Garcia would eventually be.

If Sessions takes the QO, the Bucks could only trade him if he approved of the trade. By agreeing to the trade Sessions would be waiving his Bird rights. So the only way he wouldn't be on the Bucks next year is if he approved of the trade. Next year Sessions would still be a restricted free agent, but he would not be subject to the Arenas Provision so he would have no restriction on the amount of first year salary he could get from other teams.

Garcia would be the better player with the worse contract. Blount would be the expiring contract, but the worse player.

Rockmaninoff · Post #4432 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 7:27 pm

BucksRUS wrote:
If Sessions takes the QO, the Bucks could only trade him if he approved of the trade. By agreeing to the trade Sessions would be waiving his Bird rights. So the only way he wouldn't be on the Bucks next year is if he approved of the trade. Next year Sessions would still be a restricted free agent, but he would not be subject to the Arenas Provision so he would have no restriction on the amount of first year salary he could get from other teams.

Right. But I guess what I'm saying, is that Sessions might approve a trade to a team that would give him more minutes, which would theoretically increase his earning potential, regardless of Bird rights.

Post #4433 » by **paulpressey25** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 11:08 pm

Rockmaninoff is seeing my new sig. I'd be ok with Hammond if he got Ramon back on a two year deal and pulled Garcia for Ridnour-Elson.

Under any team, a 3 point threat like Garcia who can also do other things is worth 5 million a year.

Plus now you can trade Redd and not fall off a cliff at the swingman position.

raferfenix · Post #4434 » by **raferfenix** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 11:17 pm

I'm not too high on Francisco Garcia, as for where our team is at I don't like giving role players long term deals. However, I would probably do a Ridnour/Bell for Garcia and change trade.

I'd probably prefer a Ridnour/Elson for Blount deal though. I'm not sure if Garcia is that much better than Bell (especially given contract disparities), and I'd like to give Jody Meeks and Joe Alexander more clock if we dump Redd.

Chapter29 · Post #4435 » by **Chapter29** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 11:18 pm

I would do that trade in a blink of an eye Press. I could almost see the Kings doing that trade as they could use some PG help. I mean if we can hype up the fact that Ridnour knows how to run a team and hope that they don't figure out that he cant get it or anything else done we are set.

trwi7 · Post #4436 » by **trwi7** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 11:21 pm

Hammond gets a swift kick in the nuts from me if he trades expirings for Francisco Garcia.

Chapter29 · Post #4437 » by **Chapter29** » Wed Sep 2, 2009 11:26 pm

Good players on reasonable contracts are not a bad thing. 5M or whatever he makes is not a make or break situation. Its deals like RJ and Redd that hurt and deals like Gadz and Simmons that kill you.

I know I know.....lets reduce our salary to nothing....lose badly and hope for the #1 pick.

drew881 · Post #4438 » by **drew881** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:43 am

Chapter29 wrote:Good players on reasonable contracts are not a bad thing. 5M or whatever he makes is not a make or break situation. Its deals like RJ and Redd that hurt and deals like Gadz and Simmons that kill you.

I know I know.....lets reduce our salary to nothing....lose badly and hope for the #1 pick.

No one says you have to have a low salary to tank. Look at the Knicks. Don't worry. We can tank with Garcia. He isn't that good.

aboveAverage · Post #4439 » by **aboveAverage** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:47 am

Does the Knicks resigning Lee and Nate have anything to do with Sessions? If the Knicks are out of it, then Sessions has only one potential suitor left.

paul · Post #4440 » by **paul** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:11 am

aboveAverage wrote:Does the Knicks resigning Lee and Nate have anything to do with Sessions? If the Knicks are out of it, then Sessions has only one potential suitor left.

Probably not much. If the Knicks sign Nate they still aren't exactly overloaded with PG's, particularly given Nate is more of a 2 to me anyway. At the moment their PG rotation is Duhon/Douglas, add Nate to that and it's still seriously uninspiring. Man there are some holes in that roster big enough to drive a truck through, if they don't bring back Nate and Lee or sign a couple of decent players (like Sessions) they'll be lucky to win 20 games imo. Jazz fans must be getting excited.