Woelfel: 4 teams talking to Sessions (also Greece)

Rockmaninoff · Post #21 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:39 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
But Childress is worth more than the MLE? C'mon.

And possibly a first rounder.

I really hope that was just Hollinger talking out of his ass though.

Yeah. That was ridiculous.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #22 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:41 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:I'm sure it was Sessions agent feeding Woelfel, trying to make it look like there is a lot of interest. That happens a lot this time of year and Woelfel is glad to print whatever he's told.

Agents are pretty much the only sources he has now, because he is completely out of the loop with the Bucks.. so of coarse with Sessions name barily being mentioned in most cases they have to make it seem like there is still a BIG market for him. If his agent doesn't say X, Y, and Z teams are interested in him there is a strong chance the Bucks will lowball his client

aboveAverage · Post #23 » by **aboveAverage** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:44 pm

It is a big sign that 12 teams went down to 4. If you count the Bucks, that's only 3 other teams. I'm guessing Portland and New York are two of those. If Portland gets Millsap, that gets rid of them. New York is going after Andre Miller. I don't who the other teams could be? Memphis? OKC?

unklchuk · Post #24 » by **unklchuk** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:46 pm

"They obviously want to pay him as little as possible."

You believe that's literally true? As little as possible?

If they think of Sessions as a core player, I'd think they want to pay him enough that he won't be permanently resentful, while still getting a good bargain. To me that's less than market value but a little more than a take-it-or-leave-it figure that would embarrass Sessions in this league.

If our proud New Culture asks more of players than the Mo-in-Milwaukee mentality, it ought to give a little bit too. IMHO

fam3381 · Post #25 » by **fam3381** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:47 pm

Hey CBQ drop me an email at brewhoop@gmail.com if you get a chance

carmelbrownqueen · Post #26 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:54 pm

aboveAverage wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:I actually disagree with your take. I always think it's the right thing to say you will match your RFA's, and I know others agree. How does it help you to not commit to them, all that does is have other teams thinking you're not interested, so they offer.

I agree. It doesn't hurt to say you want to keep your RFA's.

That message is out there when it comes to teams, it's fans who don't feel as if they have heard this directly.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #27 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:59 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
But Childress is worth more than the MLE? C'mon.

And possibly a first rounder.

I really hope that was just Hollinger talking out of his ass though.

Please provide the link where the Bucks said they would give up a first rounder for Childress? Thanks.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #28 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:00 pm

fam3381 wrote:Hey CBQ drop me an email at brewhoop@gmail.com if you get a chance

Done

LUKE23 · Post #29 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:02 pm

Please provide the link where the Bucks said they would give up a first rounder for Childress? Thanks.

It was in a Hollinger blurb on what would be done in a Childress S/T. I never said it was confirmed by the Bucks. Hopefully we both agree that would be a moronic move.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #30 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:08 pm

I knew where that came from, and there is no indication that the Bucks have an interest at this time in giving up a first round pick to get anyone.

LUKE23 · Post #31 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:11 pm

carmelbrownqueen wrote:I knew where that came from, and there is no indication that the Bucks have an interest at this time in giving up a first round pick to get anyone.

We don't know for sure whether they would or wouldn't. I would guess no, but you never know.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #32 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:17 pm

Since we don't know if the Bucks would do that, then that criticism is better directed toward Hollinger at this point.

Rockmaninoff · Post #33 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:37 pm

unklchuk wrote:"They obviously want to pay him as little as possible."

You believe that's literally true? As little as possible?

If they think of Sessions as a core player, I'd think they want to pay him enough that he won't be permanently resentful, while still getting a good bargain. To me that's less than market value but a little more than a take-it-or-leave-it figure that would embarrass Sessions in this league.

If our proud New Culture asks more of players than the Mo-in-Milwaukee mentality, it ought to give a little bit too. IMHO

Yes. That's why they haven't made an offer to Sessions. That's why they have tried to appear aloof. They want another team to think they can make 'that' offer that you are describing, so then the Bucks can match.

It would have been insulting if the Bucks would have opened with 'that' offer. Now they are letting someone else do the dirty work.

This is different from the Charlie Bell situation. Sessions will want a short deal, and a lengthy contract is the only way another team will win his services. The Bucks are in control.

If Sessions wants an 'embarrassing' monetary amount, that would be the QO, and that will be up to him.

Nebula1 · Post #34 » by **Nebula1** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:30 pm

Let's get him back. He's our mojo and if, down the line, Jennings has a negative blow up, then we'll have lost both prospects at point guard. We can't lose what is soon to be our most valuable asset.

MajorDad · Post #35 » by **MajorDad** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:02 pm

i would think if the Bucks really wanted Sessions back, they would have signed him by now. letting this entire thing just play it's course appears like the bucks just want a real cheap back-up guard. this whole episode looks almost exactly like melvin offering Sheets and Cc arbitration. he knew neither player would accept his offer. but he knew the fans wanted him to make an offer. and so he goes back to the fans looking good because he says he tried.

the knicks are trying to get portland to give them a PG, and they are looking at resigning Nate robinson. I can't believe they have any interest in Sessions. the Knicks gave nate a $2.9 offer. they gave Hill a $3 mil offer and said that was as high as they could go and they actually wanted Hill and weren't trying to play hardball. I think you can scratch off the knicks as a team seriously interested in Sessions.

Poertland has a young pg project bayliss. Why would they want Sessions? maybe we could do a trade and give portland potsie for bayliss. almost worthless is still better than less than worthless.

there are several other FA Pgs available. i have to believe each of the 4 team's expressing an interest in sessiosn is also looking at the other available FA pgs. I can just see the Pistons, mavs, suns, nets, jazz and hornets all telling Sessions we have an interest in you just so he can go back to the bucks and say a team has interest in him.

would it be unreasonable to believe that 3 of the 4 teams that claim to have interest in Sessions might be euro teams rather than NBA teams ?

i thought Sessiosn was a nice PG last year. but clearly if you want somebody, you don't pussy foot around. you give him what he's deserving, rather than waiting him out and giving him the lowest possible salary. hammond playing hardball with sessions is stupid.

Can anybody here believe the lakers would tell kobe as a restircted free agent to go out and get the best offer and we'll match it? No, they'd give him an extention as soon as possible and make him happy. playing the "we' wait him out" game is a stupid management strategy. either sign him or cut him loose and tell him we're going in a different direction. leaving him hanging is something mbbott would do.

Rockmaninoff · Post #36 » by **Rockmaninoff** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:08 pm

Sessions and Kobe are not comparable.

Great players are catered to; good, unproven players have more to learn and to earn. Throwing money at good players (but not great) has gotten this franchise into trouble more often than not.

smooth 'lil balla · Post #37 » by **smooth 'lil balla** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:53 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I actually disagree with your take. I always think it's the right thing to say you will match your RFA's, and I know others agree. How does it help you to not commit to them, all that does is have other teams thinking you're not interested, so they offer.

or it makes another team offer even more than they intiially planned becasue they think they have to make a really great offer to land him. The best thing is to be silent.

paul · Post #38 » by **paul** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:59 pm

Nebula1 wrote:Let's get him back. He's our mojo and if, down the line, Jennings has a negative blow up, then we'll have lost both prospects at point guard. We can't lose what is soon to be our most valuable asset.

Sessions is not, nor close to, our best asset at this point. I know you love him, but he certainly doesn't hold more value than Bogut.

EastSideBucksFan · Post #39 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:59 pm

I really don't think you guys need to freak out about Sessions being inked yet.

He's doing what a good GM should do with an RFA. Let the market determine value.

I know it's hard for everyone to understand since we are so used to Larry Harris and the bumbling crew of idiots that Kohl employs to always outbid yourself, but this is a new regime and we aren't giving out deals that will hamstring sooner than later.

I don't have any problem or real concern at how this will play out.

IF Sessions is able to solicit an offer well above market value for him, then he will walk. Plain and simple. If he comes in with a reasonable offer, we will match it. If he doesn't get any offers, well the Bucks are in even more control as to what we will offer him.

Perhaps he will want to play out the QO for one year if he is really concerned about Jennings, we'll see.

JoeHova · Post #40 » by **JoeHova** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:11 pm

paul wrote:Sessions is not, nor close to, our best asset at this point. I know you love him, but he certainly doesn't hold more value than Bogut.

2nd best asset is quite close to being the best asset, at least imo. We'll see how they both play next year but it's hardly inconceivable that Sessions could improve, having just turned 23. Bogut could improve too, of course. Either way, those 2 are clearly the team's best and most valuable players.

Also, to everybody who is saying "why would the Bucks offer Ramon a contract?", well, why wouldn't they? There are benefits to having made him an offer, including the chance that he may have quickly accepted a reasonable offer and the Bucks could have got on with their off-season. Tricking Ramon into signing a Bell-esque contract was never going to happen, Hammond wasting time on hoping it does is counterproductive.