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

MartyConlonOnTheRun · Post #4441 » by **MartyConlonOnTheRun** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:15 pm

aboveAverage wrote:Does the Knicks resigning Lee and Nate have anything to do with Sessions? If the Knicks are out of it, then Sessions has only one potential suitor left.

Not necessarily true. This could really lower his price so a lot more teams may start bidding just because it is so slow. Basically, since day 1 its been if Hammond really wants him back.

emunney · Post #4442 » by **emunney** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 5:05 pm

I think I'd demand a pick to take on the last 4 years of Garcia's deal, and I don't think Sacto's that eager to drop him. I think Ridnour/Elson/JA for Garcia/Greene/pick would be fine with me.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #4443 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:26 pm

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/56964717.html

crkone · Post #4444 » by **crkone** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:28 pm

Wow, Gardner has a lot of time since it is obvious he read this entire thread and gave a recap of it.

EastSideBucksFan · Post #4445 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:32 pm

Sounds like Sessions is seriously considering returning to the Bucks on the QO

Ayt · Post #4446 » by **Ayt** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:37 pm

trwi7 wrote:Hammond gets a swift kick in the nuts from me if he trades expirings for Francisco Garcia.

A rousing and spontaneous swift kick in the nuts?

aboveAverage · Post #4447 » by **aboveAverage** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:03 pm

The longer this goes on, the more confident I am that Sessions will be back.

If he does come back for the QO, who gets left off the roster then? We would have 17 players I think.

emunney · Post #4448 » by **emunney** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:12 pm

How about Ridnour, Sharpe, Elson for Kenny Thomas and a 2nd rounder? We get the pick because Thomas has played ~340 minutes the past two years combined. That would clean up our roster a bit if Sessions comes back. Better chance that Gadz would see the court though... sign John Bryant.

LUKE23 · Post #4449 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:35 pm

If we get Sessions back for $1M while retaining his RFA rights, I will retract every negative thing I have said about Hammond during these negotiations, and I would consider his offseason a pretty good one with:

1. Jennings/Meeks draft (like both picks as of today)
2. Clearing essentially all of RJ's 2010-11 salary
3. Not adding poor salary into 2011-12
4. Sessions retained at $1M bargain and retained to RFA status next year

I'll wait for this to go down first though. If it does, you have to move Ridnour. You can roll with a guard rotation of:

PG: Jennings (28)/Sessions (20)
SG: Redd (34)/Sessions (8)/whoever else (6)

drew881 · Post #4450 » by **drew881** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:58 pm

LUKE23 wrote:If we get Sessions back for $1M while retaining his RFA rights, I will retract every negative thing I have said about Hammond during these negotiations, and I would consider his offseason a pretty good one with:

While I'd like to have Sessions back under any circumstance, I don't know how useful it would be to have him back for one year, even with retaining his RFA rights.

1) Next offseason, chances are we still won't have cap room to do anything with him (resign, S+T for a player)

2) Others will disagree, but I think free agency will open up next season and Ramon can get a pretty good deal that Hammond won't have the balls to match (or simply won't be able to).

3) It is unlikely that we can move him during the season (Do teams acquire his RFA rights, or is there a rule I am missing?)

So while yes, only paying 1 million to retain a good player who will help your team next year is of course a no-brainer, I don't really see much long term value in this type of deal. I'd much rather see the Bucks place their cards on the table and offer him a 3 year deal at 3 per. "Overpaying," maybe. But if we got Sessions into that type of deal, especially when his value is at its lowest, we take a small risk to increase his future value, both as trade asset or as cheap player to have on the roster.

Post #4451 » by **K_ick_God** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:59 pm

Conceding my bias, I still think Knicks get Sessions. Why would he take a $1M QO and be an RFA again next year, on a team that may not be able to get him a lot of PT, rather than taking, say, a 2-year contract with the Knicks at about $3M each season? Plus he gets the starting job in a high-numbers offense and I think the Knicks may go 3, 4 years closer to $4M per than $3M.

In any event, good luck and congrats on 300 pages for Ramon. That alone makes me think you guys deserve him back.

Should be an interesting couple of weeks.

drew881 · Post #4452 » by **drew881** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:06 pm

KnicksGod wrote: 2-year contract with the Knicks at about $3M each season. Plus he gets the starting job in a high-numbers offense and I think the Knicks may go 3, 4 years closer to $4M per than $3M.

Most posters on this board think, or at least hope, that Hammond would match a 2 year deal at 3 each season. I think discounted Sessions Bucks jerseys and Hammond paper bag night is probably in order next season if he doesn't.

3,4 years at 3M each and the subject becomes much more debatable. 4M, the Knicks probably get him.

trwi7 · Post #4453 » by **trwi7** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:11 pm

Ayt wrote:
trwi7 wrote:Hammond gets a swift kick in the nuts from me if he trades expirings for Francisco Garcia.

A rousing and spontaneous swift kick in the nuts?

Definitely. What's up with the tiger avatar?

trwi7 · Post #4454 » by **trwi7** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:13 pm

KnicksGod wrote:Why would he take a $1M QO and be an RFA again next year, on a team that may not be able to get him a lot of PT, rather than taking, say, a 2-year contract with the Knicks at about $3M each season.

Because he really doesn't have any control on whether or not the Bucks match. He's not going to want the QO over that deal on a team where he would start, but he really has no choice in the matter.

Post #4455 » by **K_ick_God** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:18 pm

trwi7 wrote:
KnicksGod wrote:Why would he take a $1M QO and be an RFA again next year, on a team that may not be able to get him a lot of PT, rather than taking, say, a 2-year contract with the Knicks at about $3M each season.

Because he really doesn't have any control on whether or not the Bucks match. He's not going to want the QO over that deal on a team where he would start, but he really has no choice in the matter.

Right, but I'm proposing the QO versus an offer sheet with Knicks in the $3M-$4M range. Even if Bucks match, even just two years at $6M then UFA is significantly better than one year at $1M then RFA.

LUKE23 · Post #4456 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:20 pm

1) Next offseason, chances are we still won't have cap room to do anything with him (resign, S+T for a player)

We're at around $50.9M right now for 10 players, which is roughly $14M or more under the luxury tax threshold for next year. Throw our pick in there, and we're around $11M under for 11 players. We would have the flexibility to match a reasonable offer.

2) Others will disagree, but I think free agency will open up next season and Ramon can get a pretty good deal that Hammond won't have the balls to match (or simply won't be able to).

Possibly, but we'd have more room and leverage to accept a S/T than we do this year, being only $1.6M under the tax. Next year we'd have room to match, which gives us more options.

3) It is unlikely that we can move him during the season (Do teams acquire his RFA rights, or is there a rule I am missing?)

Not sure on that one.

So while yes, only paying 1 million to retain a good player who will help your team next year is of course a no-brainer, I don't really see much long term value in this type of deal. I'd much rather see the Bucks place their cards on the table and offer him a 3 year deal at 3 per. "Overpaying," maybe. But if we got Sessions into that type of deal, especially when his value is at its lowest, we take a small risk to increase his future value, both as trade asset or as cheap player to have on the roster.

I think there is definitely value. You move his RFA status into a year where you have some flexibility, even if it is not much. Lots of teams have money next offseason, so his chances of getting an offer are higher, which increases the chances of a sign and trade.

There is no harm to taking him back one year at $1M with RFA status next year that I can see. Unless you think he makes the team worse over letting him walk and keeping Ridnour.

icat2000 · Post #4457 » by **icat2000** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:22 pm

Well least we know this SEssions Saga will end in a few weeks with the season starting soon.

My prediction: He comes back to the Bucks for QO

Baddy Chuck · Post #4458 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:22 pm

LUKE23 wrote:We're at around $50.9M right now for 10 players, which is roughly $14M or more under the luxury tax threshold for next year. Throw our pick in there, and we're around $11M under for 11 players. We would have the flexibility to match a reasonable offer.

Pretty sure we'd be at 50.9 without Delfino.

LUKE23 · Post #4459 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:25 pm

I was counting it without Delfino, since he is not guaranteed.

BucksRUS · Post #4460 » by **BucksRUS** » Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:01 pm

LUKE23 wrote:

3) It is unlikely that we can move him during the season (Do teams acquire his RFA rights, or is there a rule I am missing?)

Not sure on that one.

Whichever team he is on has the ability to make Sessions a RFA next year by tendering him a QO since he will not have reached 4 years of service yet. If Sessions accepts the QO, the Bucks could not trade him with out Sessions approving the trade. By approving of the trade, he would be waiving his Bird rights, so it could happen, but it is unlikely that Sessions would do that. So if he accepts the QO, he is most likely a Buck until next year. The Bucks also could offer Sessions a multi-year contract at more than the QO if they want. Similar to the Warriors and CJ Watson, who is choosing between a 3 yr/$4.5 mil offer or the $1 mil QO which would make him a RFA again next year.