MIN/SAC

[Krapinsky]

I don't think calling someone a good point guard necessary means "better than an average starting point guard." Good can mean merely capable, or merely not bad for example. Why can't more than half of the starting point guards be considered good? I feel like i'm entering the spin zone here.

[shrink]

Sessions is better than Beno.

I'd personally take Beno, but that wasn't the point about the PGs. The point was simply that the Kings already have a backup PG (Udrih) who's signed longterm for a good deal of money. Taking on Sessions doesn't make any sense there.

Beno's 13 games this season don't make him nearly worth Sessions.

I understand your point that the Kings are locked into overpaying Beno, so they should try to get back as much value as they can. However, by doing so it hurts your team because you're playing an inferior player for more minutes. Eventually you need to have players on your team that are worth their contracts.

Perhaps a better word would be that Sessions is a "capable" starting PG on both ends of the floor. I don't know if he has any more games with 42 points in him like last year, especially in the triangle. However, a team could roll out Sessions as a starting PG, and the other team wouldn't just say "there's the weak spot."

[Narf]

Sessions is better than Beno.

I'd personally take Beno, but that wasn't the point about the PGs. The point was simply that the Kings already have a backup PG (Udrih) who's signed longterm for a good deal of money. Taking on Sessions doesn't make any sense there.

Beno's 13 games this season don't make him nearly worth Sessions.

I understand your point that the Kings are locked into overpaying Beno, so they should try to get back as much value as they can. However, by doing so it hurts your team because you're playing an inferior player for more minutes. Eventually you need to have players on your team that are worth their contracts.

Perhaps a better word would be that Sessions is a "capable" starting PG on both ends of the floor. I don't know if he has any more games with 42 points in him like last year, especially in the triangle. However, a team could roll out Sessions as a starting PG, and the other team wouldn't just say "there's the weak spot."

Unless it's the Lakers.










What?

[rpa]

I don't think calling someone a good point guard necessary means "better than an average starting point guard." Good can mean merely capable, or merely not bad for example. Why can't more than half of the starting point guards be considered good? I feel like i'm entering the spin zone here.

I feel like "good" is subjective--specifically in reference to the sample set. I think of it this way: is it "good" to have a PG who's not average at his position? My answer would be no because there are so many other options that would yield better results. If there are lots of better options out there how can he be "good"?

[Narf]

For what it's worth, Sessions might be the 20th best PG in the league right now. Or around there. That's not bad for 4 mil a year man.

[rpa]

Beno's 13 games this season don't make him nearly worth Sessions.

From a Kings perspective I'd much rather have Beno because of his scoring ability against Sessions distribution abilities. I feel like Beno can play a role if need be (distributing the ball) but doesn't need to with Evans playing alongside him. The main plus about Beno is his ability to spread the floor since he's a good shooter. I feel like Sessions wouldn't do that and because he's a poor outside shooter wouldn't play well alongside a ball dominant guard like Evans. Thus, I feel like Beno is a better player.

As I said a few times on the trade board, I think that 1 of the key attributes that a guard playing next to Evans must have is the ability to shoot from the outside (something Sessions can't do).

I understand your point that the Kings are locked into overpaying Beno, so they should try to get back as much value as they can. However, by doing so it hurts your team because you're playing an inferior player for more minutes. Eventually you need to have players on your team that are worth their contracts.

Again, I think Sessions is the inferior player here. But let's cut it down the middle and say they're roughly equal. What's the point of trading for a backup player who's "just as good" as a player that you already have? If Beno made half his contract would the Wolves be interested in him? Of course not, because they already have Sessions and Beno isn't an appreciable upgrade over him (and vice versa).

Perhaps a better word would be that Sessions is a "capable" starting PG on both ends of the floor. I don't know if he has any more games with 42 points in him like last year, especially in the triangle. However, a team could roll out Sessions as a starting PG, and the other team wouldn't just say "there's the weak spot."

I think he's just as "capable" as Beno is. That is, throw him out there in a starting role when injuries hit and it's not so bad. Throw him out there as your full time starter and you're probably destined to fail miserably (like the Bucks/Kings did last year).


Again, the issue isn't that Sessions is some horrible player. The issue is that the Kings are locked into Udrih's deal and Sessions is not an appreciable upgrade over him (especially when Sessions would be starting next to Evans under this hypothetical scenario). The other issue is that the other player the Kings get back (not counting Blount) isn't an appreciable upgrade over who he'd be going up against either (Garcia).

It just comes down to Martin & a prospect for mediocre players who are redundant to the mediocre players the Kings already have at those same positions.

[rpa]

For what it's worth, Sessions might be the 20th best PG in the league right now. Or around there. That's not bad for 4 mil a year man.

When everyone's healthy the only starters I definitely wouldn't take over Sessions right now are Duhon & Fisher. I think Sessions would fall into the list of bottom barrel starters along with guys like Felton, Conley (who's been horrible this year but could get better), Blake, & Curry. I'd also take a couple backups over him as well (particularly Hinrich & Andre Miller--note that I'm leaving Udrih out so we don't go back to that argument).

I personally think Sessions is definitely a good backup PG (easily one of the better ones in the league) and is early fair money.

[Krapinsky]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the Kings turning down this deal. That seemed fairly obvious to me. Another Sessions deal only returned the Lakers first rounder and some even wanted to do that!

I think Beno is a better fit next to Evans, while Martin would be better off playing next to Sessions than Beno. The latte is unecessary though if Evans can also play next to Martin. One isn't necessarily that much better than the other, I'll have to agree, but I think Sessions has shown more upside.

[Narf]

For what it's worth, Sessions might be the 20th best PG in the league right now. Or around there. That's not bad for 4 mil a year man.

When everyone's healthy the only starters I definitely wouldn't take over Sessions right now are Duhon & Fisher. I think Sessions would fall into the list of bottom barrel starters along with guys like Felton, Conley (who's been horrible this year but could get better), Blake, & Curry. I'd also take a couple backups over him as well (particularly Hinrich & Andre Miller--note that I'm leaving Udrih out so we don't go back to that argument).

I personally think Sessions is definitely a good backup PG (easily one of the better ones in the league) and is early fair money.

Well, we disagree then. I think Sessions is a cut above guys like Felton and Conley.
Do you really like Aaron Brooks and Lou Williams more than Sessions? I sure don't. Put Sessions in Aaron Brooks place and he'd be a more efficient scorer, a better distributor, and at least an equal defensive player.

[Narf]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the Kings turning down this deal. That seemed fairly obvious to me. Another Sessions deal only returned the Lakers first rounder and some even wanted to do that!

In my defense...that wasn't for player value though, that was for a late 1st, 3 million in cash, and cap space next year. No way we do that deal unless we are rebuilding, which we are. And that's because I have a love affair with the massive amount of 7 foot shot blockers that will be in the draft at the end of the 1st round.

[Krapinsky]

For what it's worth, Sessions might be the 20th best PG in the league right now. Or around there. That's not bad for 4 mil a year man.

When everyone's healthy the only starters I definitely wouldn't take over Sessions right now are Duhon & Fisher. I think Sessions would fall into the list of bottom barrel starters along with guys like Felton, Conley (who's been horrible this year but could get better), Blake, & Curry. I'd also take a couple backups over him as well (particularly Hinrich & Andre Miller--note that I'm leaving Udrih out so we don't go back to that argument).

I personally think Sessions is definitely a good backup PG (easily one of the better ones in the league) and is early fair money.

Well, we disagree then. I think Sessions is a cut above guys like Felton and Conley.
Do you really like Aaron Brooks and Lou Williams more than Sessions? I sure don't. Put Sessions in Aaron Brooks place and he'd be a more efficient scorer, a better distributor, and at least an equal defensive player.

Felton and Conley is one thing, but Louis Williams is turning into a stud. I'm not willing to go that far. I think on par with Brooks is about right.

[shrink]

It may only take SAC homers 13 games to decide that Udrih is a decent player, but for the other 29 teams who watched him the last two years, its going to take much longer.

Wasn't he voted one of the worst ten contracts in the league just last month?

But hey - SAC isn't alone, and people have short memories of the players they like. Deng was on talked about too, and after a good start to the season, sudeenly some people think he's worth Al Jefferson.

[Krapinsky]

It may only take SAC homers 13 games to decide that Udrih is a decent player, but for the other 29 teams who watched him the last two years, its going to take much longer.

Wasn't he voted one of the worst ten contracts in the league just last month?

But hey - SAC isn't alone, and people have short memories of the players they like. Deng was on talked about too, and after a good start to the season, sudeenly some people think he's worth Al Jefferson.

Deng + Noah

[Krapinsky]

It may only take SAC homers 13 games to decide that Udrih is a decent player, but for the other 29 teams who watched him the last two years, its going to take much longer.

Wasn't he voted one of the worst ten contracts in the league just last month?

But hey - SAC isn't alone, and people have short memories of the players they like. Deng was on talked about too, and after a good start to the season, sudeenly some people think he's worth Al Jefferson.

Him being a decent player and his contract status are two different things. He is a decent player, he's merely not worth the $6+ million or whatever he gets. At $4 million he would be considered an asset. The length of his deal is also a problem.

He's shot over 46% from the field the last three years in Sacremento. When's the last time the Wolves had a point do that?

One thing Wolves and Kings fans have in common is other teams fans undervaluing our players and we seem to be doing the same thing to each other. That's just what happens when you're a small market team that's been adept to losing for a few years.

[shrink]

It may only take SAC homers 13 games to decide that Udrih is a decent player, but for the other 29 teams who watched him the last two years, its going to take much longer.

Wasn't he voted one of the worst ten contracts in the league just last month?

But hey - SAC isn't alone, and people have short memories of the players they like. Deng was on talked about too, and after a good start to the season, sudeenly some people think he's worth Al Jefferson.

Him being a decent player and his contract status are two different things. He is a decent player, he's merely not worth the $6+ million or whatever he gets. At $4 million he would be considered an asset. The length of his deal is also a problem.

He's shot over 46% from the field the last three years in Sacremento. When's the last time the Wolves had a point do that?

One thing Wolves and Kings fans have in common is other teams fans undervaluing our players and we seem to be doing the same thing to each other. That's just what happens when you're a small market team that's been adept to losing for a few years.

I agree with all this, but in my odd mind, I can't seperate production and contract size/length. They, and all the other strengths and weaknesses of each player, produce a single commodity, which has a different value to its 30 different consumers. Each team asks itself, "Is this the best fit of production/price/contract length/upside/etc/etc that I can get, or are there cheaper/better alternative available in the NBA marketplace? I believe, with my personal valuation and weighting, that with the Udrih-commodity, teams can do better.

[rpa]

Do you really like Aaron Brooks and Lou Williams more than Sessions? I sure don't. Put Sessions in Aaron Brooks place and he'd be a more efficient scorer, a better distributor, and at least an equal defensive player.

I like Brooks for 2 big reasons: 1) He's a good outside shooter whereas Sessions is a very bad one (for a PG especially) & 2) I feel like Brooks can/does wreak havoc with his speed.

Williams is getting his first chance to get major minutes after playing behind Miller for so long. It's really similar to the situation Sessions was in last year with Milwaukee--he finally got time as the starter for a length of time. The difference to me is that Williams is playing much better as a starter through 1/7 of the season (granted, small sample size) than Sessions did last year.

Williams was a close one in my mind but so far this year it's really hard for me to choose Sessions over him--he's really playing well.

It may only take SAC homers 13 games to decide that Udrih is a decent player, but for the other 29 teams who watched him the last two years, its going to take much longer.

As was said: he's always been a decent player (I do say he sucks sometimes when I'm angry--but that's usually because he's starting and playing lots of minutes) but he's overpaid. If anything the fact that he's overpaid should drive home the Kings lack of a need for Sessions. You've made numerous trade board posts about how unmovable Udrih is. So if the Kings are stuck with him the whole "how much does he make" variable is really taken out of the equation since it's not like they could get out of it even if they wanted to. Take that away and what do you have? A 27-year old PG who can give you 12/2/4 in 20-25mpg on good percentages. Not great but not bad either; just decent.

[Krapinsky]

It may only take SAC homers 13 games to decide that Udrih is a decent player, but for the other 29 teams who watched him the last two years, its going to take much longer.

Wasn't he voted one of the worst ten contracts in the league just last month?

But hey - SAC isn't alone, and people have short memories of the players they like. Deng was on talked about too, and after a good start to the season, sudeenly some people think he's worth Al Jefferson.

Him being a decent player and his contract status are two different things. He is a decent player, he's merely not worth the $6+ million or whatever he gets. At $4 million he would be considered an asset. The length of his deal is also a problem.

He's shot over 46% from the field the last three years in Sacremento. When's the last time the Wolves had a point do that?

One thing Wolves and Kings fans have in common is other teams fans undervaluing our players and we seem to be doing the same thing to each other. That's just what happens when you're a small market team that's been adept to losing for a few years.

I agree with all this, but in my odd mind, I can't seperate production and contract size/length. They, and all the other strengths and weaknesses of each player, produce a single commodity, which has a different value to its 30 different consumers. Each team asks itself, "Is this the best fit of production/price/contract length/upside/etc/etc that I can get, or are there cheaper/better alternative available in the NBA marketplace? I believe, with my personal valuation and weighting, that with the Udrih-commodity, teams can do better.

It's official, Shrink is the T-1000.

[shrink]

So if the Kings are stuck with him the whole "how much does he make" variable is really taken out of the equation since it's not like they could get out of it even if they wanted to. Take that away and what do you have? A 27-year old PG who can give you 12/2/4 in 20-25mpg on good percentages. Not great but not bad either; just decent.

Even if you don't trade him, you still have to pay him, and he still uses up your payroll.

You can't just "take away" the money part of a guy on a guaranteed NBA contract. Heck, you can't take any part away. Take away the fact that OPec isn't Dwight Howard, and you have a pretty good salary too.