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

Post #121 » by **paulpressey25** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:54 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I have no interest in Lee at what he'd be paid. He can't defend and he has no jumper. Yes, he can rebound like a madman, but rebounding will not be a problem for this team next year.

Bogut can't play all 48 minutes. Rebounding will be an issue.

Nor are Bosh or Amare available for their jumpers.

At some point we need to cease arguing about who is the best PF fit next to Bogut and simply acquire a high quality player and see what happens. Lee is a high quality player.

LUKE23 · Post #122 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:57 pm

Bogut can't play all 48 minutes. Rebounding will be an issue.

Nor are Bosh or Amare available for their jumpers.

At some point we need to cease arguing about who is the best PF fit next to Bogut and simply acquire a high quality player and see what happens. Lee is a high quality player.

I expect LRMAM to destroy RJ in rebounding at the SF position, and based on how Euro numbers translate, Ersan projects to be at least as good as CV there, if not better. Sessions if kept is a good rebounding PG, Amir has always had a good rebounding rate, etc. Rebounding won't be an issue for this team, we were top 5 for basically the entire season last year even with Bogut missing over 45 games.

I also will warn against putting a lot of stock in Lee's Knick numbers. That is a stat-stuffing system.

europa · Post #123 » by **europa** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:05 pm

I put the same amount of stock in Villanueva's brother as I did Jennings when he predicted the Bucks would re-sign Villanueva.

Post #124 » by **blkout** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:47 pm

I also will warn against putting a lot of stock in Lee's Knick numbers. That is a stat-stuffing system.

Which system? Lee's been putting up numbers for a few years.

Newz · Post #125 » by **Newz** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:51 pm

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:
I also will warn against putting a lot of stock in Lee's Knick numbers. That is a stat-stuffing system.

Which system? Lee's been putting up numbers for a few years.

I think if Lee plays on the Bucks next to Bogut he is a 10/8 or 8/8 type of guy who shoots around 55%.

He's a useful player, but not at 8+ million a year. He is worth the MLE, IMO. If we can get him at that, I would be fine with it.

LUKE23 · Post #126 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:52 pm

Which system? Lee's been putting up numbers for a few years.

Two years before D'Antoni:

10.7 points/10.4 boards/3.0 FTA/60% FG
10.8 points/8.9 boards/2.9 FTA/55% FG

With D'Antoni:

16.0 points/11.7 boards/4.1 FTA/55% FG

And that was in only five more minutes per game. D'Antoni's system is a high possession, ole defense type system. If Lee played in a slower system where he was actually counted on to defend hard in the halfcourt, his numbers would dip, without question.

He's a perfect fit in New York. Guards run and chuck it up there, he cleans up. Doesn't have to waste much energy on D, so he can go full bore on offense.

Post #127 » by **blkout** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:59 pm

They were also his second and third years in the L, player improvement is natural and common it's not always a direct relation of the system. If you look at his per36 minutes there's not as much of a leap. Aren't the Bucks aiming for a high tempo high possession style of play?

LUKE23 · Post #128 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:03 pm

Citizen.Eras3d wrote:They were also his second and third years in the L, player improvement is natural and common it's not always a direct relation of the system. Aren't the Bucks aiming for a high tempo high possession style of play?

It was also how they played, not just the system. The Knicks took 27 3's per game last year, the Bucks took 17 (and that might even go down this year, look at the lack of shooters we have on this roster). Lots of junk misses. And like I said, it was also the D. It's easier to put in that kind of rebounding effort when you're not putting a ton of energy in on defense. That wouldn't be the case here under Skiles.

Sessions is more valuable to this roster than Lee would be, IMO. Lee brings rebounding, which we already have. Sessions brings the ability to create for others and score 20 any given night while giving a big time FTA threat, that is something we are lacking big time on this roster (now that RJ has departed, Redd is the only consistent person at getting to the line outside of Sessions).

Post #129 » by **blkout** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:07 pm

Lots of junk misses. And like I said, it was also the D. It's easier to put in that kind of rebounding effort when you're not putting a ton of energy in on defense. That wouldn't be the case here under Skiles.

Charlie V played no D under Skiles. Lee's a dominant defensive rebounder, it may not be blocking shots or stealing the ball but it is a defensive aspect of the game nonetheless. His rebounding alone on the defensive end is preventing the opposing team from gaining another possession and a possible scoring opportunity.

Sessions is more valuable to this roster than Lee would be, IMO

That may be true, I wouldn't dispute that. But you make David Lee sound like he's Zach Randolph. I've tried to find his defensive splits but I can't so I won't argue about his D, I will say of the four factors he is excellent in all of them, the team could do alot worse than Lee.

europa · Post #130 » by **europa** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:09 pm

MouteKicksBoute wrote:He knows for a fact that he is no longer the future floor general for the Bucks, and will be a backup for at least the last 2 years of his 3 year deal if he comes back.

It's safe to say he knows the Bucks want Jennings to be their guy long term. It's hardly a fact that it will turn out that way. Sessions may believe he has the talent to keep the starting job in Milwaukee and never relinquish it. It's not a fact that Jennings will be better than Sessions by any means. Nor is it a fact that Sessions will continue to be the superior PG. That's why I think the Bucks should keep both. Two talented young PGs. Keep them and let's see which one emerges as a big-time player - assuming either one can.

LUKE23 · Post #131 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:10 pm

Charlie V played no D under Skiles

Which is why he only got 27 minutes a game.

europa · Post #132 » by **europa** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:13 pm

I'd be fine with a 3/$21M deal for Lee in a S&T for Sessions if for some reason Hammond felt like he simply had to trade Sessions. I think Sessions is the superior player but I do like Lee and I think he'd be a great frontcourt partner with Bogut. The two of them would own the glass. However, I don't like Lee enough to pay $8M a year (or more) or give him four years.

Post #133 » by **blkout** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:13 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
Charlie V played no D under Skiles

Which is why he only got 27 minutes a game.

It might also be his hideous inefficiency offensively, and the fact that he didn't do much else. If you've got a guy grabbing a tonne of rebounds and scoring points at a good % you play him regardless of his perceived D. Defense is a team thing anyway, it has little to do with the individual outside of their ability to play within the teams defensive structure. Plus like they say, defense starts with the little guys.

LUKE23 · Post #134 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:14 pm

Defense is a team thing anyway, it has little to do with the individual outside of their ability to play within the teams defensive structure. Plus like they say, defense starts with the little guys.

I disagree with that. I think a defensive frontcourt is more important. People that can protect the rim and help and recover on penetration. Not Lee's strongsuit at all. I like his effort and rebounding, just no desire to see him as our starting PF at the expense of Sessions (nor pay Lee $8M per year).

Post #135 » by **blkout** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:18 pm

I disagree with that. I think a defensive frontcourt is more important. People that can protect the rim and help and recover on penetration. Not Lee's strongsuit at all. I like his effort and rebounding, just no desire to see him as our starting PF at the expense of Sessions (nor pay Lee $8M per year).

I think it can go either way. Obviously if you have poor defenders at the guard position you need stronger guys in the frontcourt to clean up their mess, but if you have decent guys guarding at the 1-2 then it isn't such an issue. He did play C all season last year, maybe he picked up a few things when it comes to defending at the hoop.

Newz · Post #136 » by **Newz** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:24 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
Defense is a team thing anyway, it has little to do with the individual outside of their ability to play within the teams defensive structure. Plus like they say, defense starts with the little guys.

I disagree with that. I think a defensive frontcourt is more important. People that can protect the rim and help and recover on penetration. Not Lee's strongsuit at all. I like his effort and rebounding, just no desire to see him as our starting PF at the expense of Sessions (nor pay Lee $8M per year).

I agree completely that defense is more about your bigs than it is your guards. (Though obviously perimeter defense is important as well.)

Protecting the rim is the most important thing in basketball, which is something the Bucks should do well with Bogut/Amir (if that is who is starting) next season. A majority of the point guards/perimeter players in general in the NBA are so good that they are going to get to the paint. Not to mention the rules allow players to easily get into the paint due to the lack of being able to hand check. It is what you do when they get into the lane that matters most and how you close out on shooters.

Another underrated defensive attribute is also rebounding, which is HUGE to limit second chance points.

europa · Post #137 » by **europa** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:40 pm

Nate Robinson's agent said he's working on a deal to keep Robinson with the Knicks for at least one more season. I don't see them signing both Sessions and Robinson so if this is true, it would mean Aldridge's report carries more validity than Wells' ... errr ... I mean Woelfel's tweet last night.

LUKE23 · Post #138 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:42 pm

If the Knicks sign Nate, I expect a Clippers full MLE offer soon.

Newz · Post #139 » by **Newz** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:43 pm

I still do not understand why the Clippers want Sessions.

crkone · Post #140 » by **crkone** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:48 pm

http://www.82games.com/0809/08NYK16.HTM#bypos

66% of available minutes went to Lee at center. His opponent PER was 19.7, while his PER was 22.0. He only played 4% of available minutes at PF and gave up a PER of 21.8 and had one of 11.5. Not good at all if you trust these stats.