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

[europa]

For some reason I get the feeling the final contract he will end up with will be 3/12.

I think the Bucks would pay that and based on the way the market has turned out for Sessions I think that's a fair deal for him.

[Ayt]

More importantly, clipsnation has news regarding Ramon's camp being uncomfortable signing only to compete with Baron, & Telfair for minutes.

http://www.clipsnation.com/2009/7/24/96 ... inks-three

That's just a regurgitation of what europa just posted.

[BucksRUS]

For some reason I get the feeling the final contract he will end up with will be 3/12.

I think the Bucks would pay that and based on the way the market has turned out for Sessions I think that's a fair deal for him.

If no other teams present him with an offer, it will probably be more like 3 years, $9 mil or the QO. I doubt the Bucks will go higher than that with an offer. They may match a higher offer, but I would guess a $4 mil/year would not be matched. Anything more is overpaying a backup PG.

[Ayt]

The thing is, the J/S almost never uses a dollar figure unless it comes from somewhere else (usually the Bucks). So if Hunt is saying that in his opinion the Bucks will match up to $3M, it's very likely he got that number from the Bucks. Other reports have said the Bucks are prepared to match near the ML which is $5.8M. I think Sessions comes in somewhere in the middle with whatever offer he finally gets. I think $3M is too cheap for him and it's not looking like he'll get a ML offer from anybody at this time.

For some reason I get the feeling the final contract he will end up with will be 3/12.

That's very possible. I've thought for a long while now that Sessions would likely sign a 3 year deal, and that was before we even drafted Jennings. 3 years makes a lot of sense for both parties. Sessions will be a FA again when he's 26, and the Bucks won't be on the hook long term.

If we do sign him to a deal like that, I could see Sessions being a piece we throw in to a Redd deal (which is apparently what Portland wanted from us last year when Hammond wouldn't pull the trigger). Adding both Redd and Sessions on a contender would be a pretty nice haul if Redd comes back healthy.

[Wise1]

The thing is, the J/S almost never uses a dollar figure unless it comes from somewhere else (usually the Bucks). So if Hunt is saying that in his opinion the Bucks will match up to $3M, it's very likely he got that number from the Bucks. Other reports have said the Bucks are prepared to match near the ML which is $5.8M. I think Sessions comes in somewhere in the middle with whatever offer he finally gets. I think $3M is too cheap for him and it's not looking like he'll get a ML offer from anybody at this time.

For some reason I get the feeling the final contract he will end up with will be 3/12.

That's about where I had him, but I don't know Piiska. Is there any team out there that is going to offer Ramon 4 mil per? I mean, Allen Iverson isn't even signed yet and he should command more dollars than Sessions on an annual basis.

The Bucks certainly don't have to be charitable here. Ramon would be the backup on this team. Maybe the Bucks are higher on Ilyasova than Sessions. Ilyasova was signed for 3 and 7. If Ramon doesn't secure an offer from some team, I can see the Bucks offering the Ilyasova contract and saying take it or leave it.

[europa]

I've thought for a long while now that Sessions would likely sign a 3 year deal, and that was before we even drafted Jennings. 3 years makes a lot of sense for both parties. Sessions will be a FA again when he's 26, and the Bucks won't be on the hook long term.

I agree with all of that and I also have long believed a three-year deal made the most sense for Sessions and for the Bucks. I also agree with you that if the Bucks did get Sessions at that price and Redd stayed healthy, combining Sessions with Redd's expiring in two years could bring back a very nice player or players. I doubt that's lost on Hammond as he considers all of his options here.

[drew881]

Whoa.

Wait a minute before we grab onto the idea that the Bucks will match if the offer sheet is for less than $3-mil. If you ignore the Wiretap summary of Hunt's article and read the entire piece, Hunt says:

"I'm guessing the Bucks would match anything up to $3 million the New York Knicks or someone else might or might not offer Sessions."

No news here. No rumor here. Just conjecture by a columnist. Just his "guess". The wiretap version makes it sound more like a report and less like one man's opinion.

oLd sKool

I haven't done the math, but could Hunt be coming up with this 3 million number for the Bucks by using the current salary cap with Bowen included? That is, if Hunt is stupid, and just adds up the salaries, then the Bucks could only match up to 3 million, but of course we know they can do 5+ by getting rid of Bowen's NG deal.

[europa]

That's about where I had him, but I don't know Piiska. Is there any team out there that is going to offer Ramon 4 mil per? I mean, Allen Iverson isn't even signed yet and he should command more dollars than Sessions on an annual basis.

Iverson's a 34-year-old cancer who many teams are scared silly to want anywhere near their roster. He certainly has a much stronger resume than Sessions but there's a reason why Iverson remains unsigned and it has nothing to do with talent.

[ReasonablySober]

As much as I'm in favor of letting Sessions walk for the sake of getting worse, 3/$9 would be way too much of a bargain for someone of Ramon's ability. Even I'd match that.

That said, I'd be moving Redd the moment he looks healthy and productive. I'd use anything short of Bogut, Jennings or a pick to do-so.

[Wise1]

For some reason I get the feeling the final contract he will end up with will be 3/12.

I think the Bucks would pay that and based on the way the market has turned out for Sessions I think that's a fair deal for him.

If no other teams present him with an offer, it will probably be more like 3 years, $9 mil or the QO. I doubt the Bucks will go higher than that with an offer. They may match a higher offer, but I would guess a $4 mil/year would not be matched. Anything more is overpaying a backup PG.

Yeah, 3 and 9 (along with 2 and 8) were my low end offers. I may have overshot here. If Ramon doesn't get an offer from another team, the Bucks can play hardball and give him the Ersan contract.

[europa]

Yeah, 3 and 9 (along with 2 and 8) were my low end offers. I may have overshot here. If Ramon doesn't get an offer from another team, the Bucks can play hardball and give him the Ersan contract.

So you want to give Sessions the same contract the team gave to a player whose production was significantly worse? That's a good way to get a bad rep with your own players as well as players around the league. Given how a big part of your long-term plan is adding talent via free agency, the last thing Hammond needs is a rep as a GM who's cheap and doesn't treat his players well.

[emunney]

I don't know why Iverson would get a better contract than Sessions. He produced far less on lesser efficiency than previous years, and was the major acquisition on a team that lost 20 more games than the previous year. And he's 34. He's already played more career minutes than a number of notable hall of famers. Who's going to pay him and why?

[skones]

As much as I'm in favor of letting Sessions walk for the sake of getting worse, 3/$9 would be way too much of a bargain for someone of Ramon's ability. Even I'd match that.

That said, I'd be moving Redd the moment he looks healthy and productive. I'd use anything short of Bogut, Jennings or a pick to do-so.

Agreed

[Wise1]

Yeah, 3 and 9 (along with 2 and 8) were my low end offers. I may have overshot here. If Ramon doesn't get an offer from another team, the Bucks can play hardball and give him the Ersan contract.

So you want to give Sessions the same contract the team gave to a player whose production was significantly worse? That's a good way to get a bad rep with your own players as well as players around the league. Given how a big part of your long-term plan is adding talent via free agency, the last thing Hammond needs is a rep as a GM whose cheap and doesn't treat his players well.

I'm guessing that when the Bucks start spending significant dollars on their longterm fixtures, those players won't give a hoot about what Sessions signed for. Until Sessions secures a better offer from another team, he's worth to the Bucks what he's williing to sign for. If the choice is no money or going overseas with the Bucks retaining your rights or getting the Ersan deal, I'd guess Sessions would take the Ersan deal. It would represent a significant raisse over his prior contract.

[Newz]

Yeah, 3 and 9 (along with 2 and 8) were my low end offers. I may have overshot here. If Ramon doesn't get an offer from another team, the Bucks can play hardball and give him the Ersan contract.

So you want to give Sessions the same contract the team gave to a player whose production was significantly worse? That's a good way to get a bad rep with your own players as well as players around the league. Given how a big part of your long-term plan is adding talent via free agency, the last thing Hammond needs is a rep as a GM who's cheap and doesn't treat his players well.

I'm sure players thought that Larry Harris wasn't cheap and treated his players well...

Where did that get him?

I'd keep Ramon on a 6year, 6 million dollar deal if that was at all possible... I don't care what other players would think of it.

If he doesn't want that deal, then take the QO, play next year and go look for something better if he thinks he can get it.

[europa]

Players talk Kirby. If the Bucks gave Sessions and Ilyasova equal deals when Sessions' production has been significantly better, it will send a very bad message. Ilyasova is getting $2.3M a year. I think the lowest Hammond should offer is $3.5M a year.

[BobbyLight]

The only reason anyone signs Iverson is on some crazy notion that he is going to sell out their building on a regular basis. It sure as hell doesn't look like any good teams want anything to do with him. We are hearing the Clips and Memphis were most interested. Those are the 2 worst run franchise in the league. Even they aren't pursuing him that hard (or in Memphis' case, at all). I'd be thrilled if Iverson wasn't in the NBA next year.

[europa]

I'm sure players thought that Larry Harris wasn't cheap and treated his players well...

Where did that get him?

It got him fired because he had zero concept in my opinion about how to properly construct a team.

I'd also be fine with a $1M deal for Sessions. I'm not saying I wouldn't. I'm saying if someone is advocating long-term FA as a way to add talent, having a GM who players believe is cheap might not be the best way to go.

[EastSideBucksFan]

It's the end of the business day in NY City and there are no reports that Sessions has signed a deal.

Looks like Chubby opened up his pie hole way too early and it's biting him in the ass.

The Bucks gain leverage with each passing day that he doesn't sign a deal.

[Wise1]

I don't know why Iverson would get a better contract than Sessions. He produced far less on lesser efficiency than previous years, and was the major acquisition on a team that lost 20 more games than the previous year. And he's 34. He's already played more career minutes than a number of notable hall of famers. Who's going to pay him and why?

Neither player is likely to get locked up longterm....4 plus years. Short term, Iverson is still a better player than Ramon Sessions and likely will be until the day he retires. As far as the who and why, I guess the questions apply to both players at this point. Allen Iverson cuuld at least be an asset to an owner as a ticket producing marquee act. No one is going to rush out and buy season tickets because Ramon Sessions is coming to town.

Iverson. Better basketball player. Better draw at the ticket window. Despite the extra drama he brings to the table.