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

steger_3434 · Post #4581 » by **steger_3434** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 11:10 am

I believe Hammond has a serious case of tunnel vision and with this Wolves offer being thrown out there he's going to be caught off gaurd and stare blindly into a light and do nothing. Kind of like the tunnel vision he had on Joe Alexander when other prospects fell into his lap.

BDUB_30 · Post #4582 » by **BDUB_30** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 11:38 am

John wont match , hed be a fool to . The coach of his team doesnt like Ramon. Their is no role for him here , why match ? Hopefully this is true and we can be done with this .

I was starting to worry that Ramon may be back on the QO , not the end of the world but its nice to see a team stepped up and offered him something so we dont have to deal with him. Im sick of seeing one dimensional scorers who dont defend in bucks uniforms . Its nice to know our gm feels the same way . bye Ramon . Enjoy the Twovles bench , u might learn a thing or 20 from Flynn ya scrub . Ill make sure to boo ya when ya come to town .

yoyomayoma · Post #4583 » by **yoyomayoma** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 12:37 pm

"John wont match , hed be a fool to . The coach of his team doesnt like Ramon. Their is no role for him here , why match ? Hopefully this is true and we can be done with this .

I was starting to worry that Ramon may be back on the QO , not the end of the world but its nice to see a team stepped up and offered him something so we dont have to deal with him. Im sick of seeing one dimensional scorers who dont defend in bucks uniforms . Its nice to know our gm feels the same way . bye Ramon . Enjoy the Twovles bench , u might learn a thing or 20 from Flynn ya scrub . Ill make sure to boo ya when ya come to town ."

Just wow. That is all.

Wise1 · Post #4584 » by **Wise1** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:12 pm

midranger wrote:It's hard for Wise to justify 3.7 million dollars for Sessions's role?

This was the guy who was desperately trying to justify Gadzuric's 6+ million dollars to be a third string/emergency center for about 3 years.

Wrong partner. If you were there in the beginning at JSOnline, you would have known that my position was always keep Gadz for the first few years of the contract (4.7, 5.2, 5.7) and then trade him before we hit 6 mil. Also, at the time he was the second string center behind likely starter Andrew Bogut.

I never expected the Bucks to realize the backend of his contract. Apparently they had opportunities to move him but elected not to. Besides, we can't draw parallels between today's market reality and the market of 2004-05. 3.7 is the new 8 mil.

Badgerlander · Post #4585 » by **Badgerlander** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:13 pm

I wonder if Minny is thinking about trading Rubio to NY if they sign Sessions? For the life of me I can't think of what NY could give them in return that the TWolves would want though.

jakecronus8 · Post #4586 » by **jakecronus8** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:15 pm

It's become abundantly clear that Ramon nailed Bdub's girlfriend or something. Dude, you sound worse than one of those whiny Brett favre haters who need to just let it go. What the F has Sessions done to justify being booed?

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #4587 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:19 pm

im ok with us matching but i think sessions numbers will regress from last year with the team that is place now. they'll regress because hes gonna be on a VERY short leash whenever hes on the court, not to mention hes very likely not to be our starting pg.

this is a tough situation to be in. hes worth that money, but not necessarily to us. damn i wish we could somehow move gads or bell in this deal. thats is main value here to us i think. a straight up offer sheet sorta stinks.

InsideOut · Post #4588 » by **InsideOut** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:19 pm

Hammond won't match and I can't blame him. With the moves Hammond has made we are clearly stacked and have no room for young talent on fair contracts.

BucksRUS · Post #4589 » by **BucksRUS** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:22 pm

DocHoliday wrote:I wonder if Minny is thinking about trading Rubio to NY if they sign Sessions? For the life of me I can't think of what NY could give them in return that the TWolves would want though.

It is unlikely that Rubio comes to the NBA before 2012, 3 years away. So if Min gives Sessions a 4 year deal, he would have one year left and Flynn would have one year left. So at that time Min could easily move one of them to make room for Rubio.

GHOSTofSIKMA · Post #4590 » by **GHOSTofSIKMA** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:22 pm

InsideOut wrote:Hammond won't match and I can't blame him. With the moves Hammond has made we are clearly stacked and have no room for young talent on fair contracts.

thats not true. if we can have 3 young sf's, and three sg's, then we can have 3 young pgs too(ridnour doesnt count). this team is DEEP in young cheap talent. i have no problem matching at 3.7mil, and i know hammond/ kohl will consider that strongly.

Badgerlander · Post #4591 » by **Badgerlander** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:29 pm

BucksRUS wrote:
DocHoliday wrote:I wonder if Minny is thinking about trading Rubio to NY if they sign Sessions? For the life of me I can't think of what NY could give them in return that the TWolves would want though.

It is unlikely that Rubio comes to the NBA before 2012, 3 years away. So if Min gives Sessions a 4 year deal, he would have one year left and Flynn would have one year left. So at that time Min could easily move one of them to make room for Rubio.

Well I was thinking that if Rubio were a Knick he could buy himself out after signing a lucrative endorsement deal, something that isn't as likely to happen in Minny. I've read the reports on Rubio staying overseas, but I think NY has much more pull etc.
It would be interesting if we could get a 3-way deal going, but the chances of it actually occurring are in the one millionth range.
Edit: I just read the wiretap on Kahn stating that the Knicks have nothing of interest worth trading Rubio for, so I guess he agrees with me lol.

EastSideBucksFan · Post #4592 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:41 pm

It's kind of funny that we've been speculating Knicks/Clips for 250 pages and then the T-Wolves come out of nowhere.

I really don't think MN is the best situation for him, but if they are offering the most money, then I can understand why he would take the deal.

I don't see Hammond matching the deal and I definitely don't agree with it. But if Jennings is as good as advertised then I guess I can begrudgingly live with it.

It's really a kick in the pants to check out the MN board and see that half of them don't even want Sessions cause they want to see Flynn get 30-35MPG.

BucksRUS · Post #4593 » by **BucksRUS** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:41 pm

DocHoliday wrote:
Well I was thinking that if Rubio were a Knick he could buy himself out after signing a lucrative endorsement deal, something that isn't as likely to happen in Minny. I've read the reports on Rubio staying overseas, but I think NY has much more pull etc.
It would be interesting if we could get a 3-way deal going, but the chances of it actually occurring are in the one millionth range.

Rubio made his choice to stay in Spain. He has buyout clauses in 2011 and 2012 for the NBA. His original buyout was for something like $8 or $9 mil euros, his new buyout would be $1 mil euros. Min had negotiated with his spanish club and had a deal in place, but Rubio decided to stay in Spain. If he goes to the NBA in 2011 he would be subject to the rookie wage scale, in 2012 he would not and could make significantly more money when he signs in the NBA. T-wolves would still hold his rights.

In one of the wiretaps, it mentions that the T-wolves are not interested in trading Rubio to the Knicks, mainly because the Knicks don't have anything that the T-wolves would like in return.

Newz · Post #4594 » by **Newz** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:48 pm

It seems like no matter where he goes Ramon is going to be a combo guard coming off of the bench. I don't see any way he starts over Flynn in Minnesota.

midranger · Post #4595 » by **midranger** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:49 pm

Wise1 wrote:
Wrong partner. If you were there in the beginning at JSOnline, you would have known that my position was always keep Gadz for the first few years of the contract (4.7, 5.2, 5.7) and then trade him before we hit 6 mil. Also, at the time he was the second string center behind likely starter Andrew Bogut.

I never expected the Bucks to realize the backend of his contract. Apparently they had opportunities to move him but elected not to. Besides, we can't draw parallels between today's market reality and the market of 2004-05. 3.7 is the new 8 mil.

Couple things.

1. I was not there in the beginning at JSOnline. I was here in the beginning, i.e the board with knowledgeable people that has survived because of it.

2. 4.7, 5.2, 5.7 > 3.7

3. Gadz was never the second string center after signing his contract. Even when you promised that he'd beat out Jake Voskuhl. He still failed.

4. I realized the cap dipped a bit, but more than 50%? I think I'd have heard of that. Anyone remember what the cap was in 2005 when Gadz signed his albatross that Wise full-heartedly endorsed?

5. Zaza >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gadz

midranger · Post #4596 » by **midranger** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:56 pm

LukePliska wrote:It seems like no matter where he goes Ramon is going to be a combo guard coming off of the bench. I don't see any way he starts over Flynn in Minnesota.

Agreed.

I never understood the currently Top-15, likely Top-10 in the future talk. Ramon isn't that good.

That said, he could be a legitimate (won't hurt you nightly) starter, or one of the best bench guards in the NBA. Think Jason Terry. And, with the versatility to swing to either guard position, you don't need to invest too heavily at both back-up SG & PG.

If you could lock that up for 3.7 million, you have to do it.

Newz · Post #4597 » by **Newz** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:59 pm

midranger wrote:
LukePliska wrote:It seems like no matter where he goes Ramon is going to be a combo guard coming off of the bench. I don't see any way he starts over Flynn in Minnesota.

Agreed.

I never understood the currently Top-15, likely Top-10 in the future talk. Ramon isn't that good.

That said, he could be a legitimate (won't hurt you nightly) starter, or one of the best bench guards in the NBA. Think Jason Terry. And, with the versatility to swing to either guard position, you don't need to invest too heavily at both back-up SG & PG.

If you could lock that up for 3.7 million, you have to do it.

A lot of people have gone off the deep end during the summer. Apparently you can only have it two ways, he is either already top 15 and very good or he totally sucks. I think he's somewhere in the middle... I like him as a player and would have no problems with giving him 3.7 million. I do not think he's a future top 10 PG though.

Sessions and Bogut are both good NBA players that are getting overrated big time on this forum.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #4598 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 2:08 pm

Sessions is already one of the best bench PGs in the NBA. I agree with mid and LukeP that he's no top-10 pg, but you only have to be top-30 to be a great bench player. He's certainly a clear cut above Ridnour/Bell/Boykins and all the other bench guards we've had here in recent years.

Plus, until proven otherwise, he's a lot better than Jennings, who is getting talk as our starter.

midranger · Post #4599 » by **midranger** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 2:13 pm

Again, to break down the economics of this.

The MLE is the average player salary in the NBA. The average NBA roster has 14 guys. This means, on average, the 7th man on an NBA roster should get approxmiately the MLE.

The MLE is what? 5.8 million? We're talking about a number significantly lower (42%) than that.

So where do the people who think this is overpaying Sessions see his role? As a 9th man? A 10th man? Non-rotation player?

Fight the Tank · Post #4600 » by **Fight the Tank** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 2:18 pm

I support Hammond for what he is doing and believe he will turn out to be a good GM, but letting Sessions go at this number would be a mistake IMO. Especially if it is a 2 or 3 year deal. I can see being slightly hesitant on any long term deal, but I would guess Sessions would want to keep the deal around 2 or 3 years as well.

I am not going to be charging the castle with pitchforks right now, but if Sessions leaves/plays well and the Bucks are awful next year count me in on 2010 bag night.