06/19 ESPN & DX.com Speculation

Post #321 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:33 pm

europa wrote:Mardy Collins averaged 13 assists per game as a starter last season? I must've missed that.

Check out his month of April as a rookie.

LUKE23 · Post #322 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:38 pm

Collins was 14.8/6.7/5.8 on 39.2% in 44 min in April as a rookie
Sessions was 11.5/4.9/11.3 on 46% in 39 min in April as a rookie

Sessions translated to Collins minutes was 13.0/5.5/12.7, with a significantly better FG%.

I agree with what you're saying somewhat, but I'd like to see how many rookies had that kind of month, especially distributing the basketball.

bigkurty · Post #323 » by **bigkurty** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:39 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:I can't see Lowry coming back this way in a Grizzlies deal where we also get #5. These deals generally are smaller and have less pieces involved than the monsters we create on here.

Yeah thats why I am starting to think its just not feasible to get miller and the #5 form them.
Like Miller, #5 for CV, Mason, Sessions, #8 works but then they have 4 PG's (Conley, Sessions, Javaris, lowry) and that wouldn't make any sense. I also doubt it would just be Miller and #5 for CV, Mase, #8 since that seems so unfair. Maybe it could be Miller, lowry for CV, Mase, and #8 I suppose but that just doesn't improve the D so maybe Memphis is just a suck trade partner. If that deal did go down though, we have another PG with some experience which would make the later trade of Mo for Haslem more likely.

europa · Post #324 » by **europa** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:40 pm

DrugBust wrote:
europa wrote:Mardy Collins averaged 13 assists per game as a starter last season? I must've missed that.

Check out his month of April as a rookie.

Nice numbers. Sessions' were more impressive in my opinion. So I stand by my question as to how many rookie PGs have averaged 13 assists per game as a starter and turned out to be a bum?

But I'm done steering this thread off topic. I think Ghost Dog's post in the Sessions' thread was superb and said all that needed to be said about what Sessions did and putting it in perspective.

xTitan · Post #325 » by **xTitan** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:50 pm

When it comes to Sessions people are losing perspective, DB says its garbage tima and in garbage games but Conley, a top draft pick, played in a ton of garbage games and he showed no where near the flashes that Sessions showed. Law did not play in many garbage games but in watching him, he has nowhere near the PG instincts of Sessions.............I am incredibly excited about Sessions, he just has a natural QB sense about him and I feel a great ceiling..........plus he is a very intelligent kid, I am just baffled at what anyone wouldn't like.

As far as Mo goes, I agree with DB, Mo won't be moved draft night...I think Mo will be moved after July 1 in a seperate deal, perhaps one that has already been made.

Post #326 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:58 pm

With regards to Sessions, I guess we'll just wait and see. But I wouldn't have any problem using him to move up in this draft.

fam3381 · Post #327 » by **fam3381** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:59 pm

The most impressive thing about Collins' April is that he played so much. Otherwise the only above average thing about his April was his rebounding.

In 44 mpg he averaged 5.8 apg...which is below average for an NBA PG in per minute terms. He also averaged 4.0 turnovers and shot under 40%. If you are impressed by a PG who averages 5.8 apg and 4.0 turnovers in 44 minutes while shooting sub-40%, please refrain from ever posting your opinion about PGs again

Aside from that, Collins had never been any good before that month, which made it easier to predict as an aberration (he's been sub-10 PER each of his two seasons). Sessions only played one month and it was pretty impressive. Can he repeat it? Who knows. But while he's only been good for one month, he's also never been bad.

Post #328 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:01 pm

fam3381 wrote:The most impressive thing about Collins' April is that he played so much. Otherwise the only above average thing about his April was his rebounding.

In 44 mpg he averaged 5.8 apg...which is below average for an NBA PG in per minute terms. He also averaged 4.0 turnovers and shot under 40%. If you are impressed by a PG who averages 5.8 apg and 4.0 turnovers in 44 minutes while shooting sub-40%, please refrain from ever posting your opinion about PGs again

Aside from that, Collins had never been any good before that month, which made it easier to predict as an aberration (he's been sub-10 PER each of his two seasons). Sessions only played one month and it was pretty impressive. Can he repeat it? Who knows. But while he's only been good for one month, he's also never been bad.

Mardy Collins isn't a PG. That's what makes the assist totals impressive, especially for a rookie.

fam3381 · Post #329 » by **fam3381** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:09 pm

DrugBust wrote:Mardy Collins isn't a PG. That's what makes the assist totals impressive, especially for a rookie.

Ah, you're right about his position.

But generally though, you look at his stat line and say "that's impressive"? I don't see any way his numbers were close to as impressive as Sessions'. Collins just played a lot, he didn't play well.

SupremeHustle · Post #330 » by **SupremeHustle** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:11 pm

I've very intrigued by Ramon Sessions. There's no way you can marginalize what he did any more than people can marginalize what Yi did last season.

I saw a couple of D-League games and the Bucks games Sessions played in. I believe he's the real deal and will be the best PG the Bucks have had since your momma wore Jordache.

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #331 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:21 pm

What I don't understand is how someone can marginalize games against NBA and D-League players, but at the same time, accept games against NCAA players. How can you possibly accept what Rose or Beasley did against college players as predictive of NBA success, but not accept what Sessions did agaisnt actual NBA players?

Bernman · Post #332 » by **Bernman** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:22 pm

I haven't weighed in with my guess yet. Wichmae hinted that it was a win now move that's occurring on draft day. Also, in interviews previously Hammond has shown a pretty evident aversion to building through the draft. Therefore, I'm guessing he won't be trying to elevate his position in the draft. Although he could like one player specifically, like Kevin Love, and believe he's NBA ready. Love was one of the more mature freshman physically and mentally in college b-ball. But I think it's more likely for a veteran like this:

#8 + Desmond Mason (expiring) + Charlie Villanueva (sort of prospect + expiring) + Maurice Williams (they need a point) + Bobby Simmons for Jermaine O'Neal + Ike Diogu + maybe #11. Does anybody think it's fair the Bucks get their lower 1st rounder also?

LUKE23 · Post #333 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:27 pm

What is Mo's trade value if he's traded before July 1?

I really don't have much interest in JO. The guy has missed 122 games in the last four seasons (97 due to injury, 25 due to suspension).

worthlessBucks · Post #334 » by **worthlessBucks** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:27 pm

Bernman wrote:I haven't weighed in with my guess yet. Wichmae hinted that it was a win now move that's occurring on draft day. Also, in interviews previously Hammond has shown a pretty evident aversion to building through the draft. Therefore, I'm guessing he won't be trying to elevate his position in the draft. Although he could like one player specifically, like Kevin Love, and believe he's NBA ready. Love was one of the more mature freshman physically and mentally in college b-ball. But I think it's more likely for a veteran like this:

#8 + Desmond Mason (expiring) + Charlie Villanueva (sort of prospect + expiring) + Maurice Williams (they need a point) + Bobby Simmons for Jermaine O'Neal + Ike Diogu

Despite Simmons having negative value due to his contract, we give up way too much in that deal. I don't like Mo Williams as a player on this team, but we're giving him away for free when he has some value.

Bernman · Post #335 » by **Bernman** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:30 pm

MFScho wrote:
Bernman wrote:I haven't weighed in with my guess yet. Wichmae hinted that it was a win now move that's occurring on draft day. Also, in interviews previously Hammond has shown a pretty evident aversion to building through the draft. Therefore, I'm guessing he won't be trying to elevate his position in the draft. Although he could like one player specifically, like Kevin Love, and believe he's NBA ready. Love was one of the more mature freshman physically and mentally in college b-ball. But I think it's more likely for a veteran like this:

#8 + Desmond Mason (expiring) + Charlie Villanueva (sort of prospect + expiring) + Maurice Williams (they need a point) + Bobby Simmons for Jermaine O'Neal + Ike Diogu

Despite Simmons having negative value due to his contract, we give up way too much in that deal. I don't like Mo Williams as a player on this team, but we're giving him away for free when he has some value.

I edited in the #11 pick before I saw your response. You'd accept the deal then, right? I just don't know if they would. I'm thinking the trade in question involves O'Neal, Brand, Billups, or Sheed. Those would be win now type trades for a package.

Post #336 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:32 pm

adamcz wrote:What I don't understand is how someone can marginalize games against NBA and D-League players, but at the same time, accept games against NCAA players. How can you possibly accept what Rose or Beasley did against college players as predictive of NBA success, but not accept what Sessions did agaisnt actual NBA players?

People actually tried in college? They played this little thing called defense?

Honestly, what's so hard to understand about this? How can anyone watch the NBA, two teams having nothing to play for, and not take it with a dump-truck's worth of salt?

Does anyone here think he's 36 MPG player that will average double digit assists next season? If not then you inherently must believe that what we saw from Sessions isn't necessarily what is to be expected in the future for one reason or another. What are those reasons? Is it because the competition he faces was crap (it was)? Is it because he was playing during a period of the season in which historically we've seen scrubs look like stars (it was)? Is it because he was one of the few motivated players on the court (he was)? Is it because he simply got hot?

There has to be some reason for you to think it's unrealistic for him to keep up that pace.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he'll go on to be the next Magic Johnson. Is that what some of you think?

europa · Post #337 » by **europa** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:38 pm

I don't think anyone believes he'll be a superstar. I like him but I'm not even sure if he'll be a starter just yet. I simply think some of us find it odd why anyone would be so quick to outright dismiss that level of production at the NBA level. It's one thing to put it into perspective and not get carried away by it. That's fine. It's another thing entirely, in my opinion, to dismiss it completely even though he was playing at the highest level of basketball competition and putting up numbers as a starter few rookie PGs have ever put up before. If it was so easy to put up numbers during that period, how come no other rookie PG or first-year starting PG has ever done that in Bucks' history? Lord knows they've had plenty of Aprils where there was nothing to play for.

Post #338 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:45 pm

I'm not dismissing it, at all. I'm putting it in perspective.

Chuck Diesel · Post #339 » by **Chuck Diesel** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:49 pm

It might not always be pretty, but teams in the D-league do generally play very hard. Those guys are trying to get paid.

midranger · Post #340 » by **midranger** » Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:56 pm

Chuck Diesel wrote:It might not always be pretty, but teams in the D-league do generally play very hard ON OFFENSE. Those guys are trying to get paid.

Edited.