The Chad Ford "Trading Sessions" Challenge

shrink · Post #1 » by **shrink** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:57 pm

When Chad Ford was asked yesterday in his chat who would be the first player moved, he said:

Chad Ford wrote: I think it's going to be Ramon Sessions. Has value, reasonable contract, isn't getting much run in Minnesota. If David Kahn can pick up more cap relief for this summer or another draft pick, I think he's going to move him.As far as interested teams go: Bobcats, Warriors, Pacers, Rockets, Lakers, Heat and Sixers could all use some help at the point

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/29935

Sessions is actually eligible tomorrow, because it will be 90 days after his signing.

I'm not a huge fan of trading Sessions myself, but I thought it would be interesting to see who could come up with the best Sessions trade using one of these seven teams. "Best" means most value in a realistic trade. Where would you send him, and what would you ask for?

Vega06 · Post #2 » by **Vega06** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:13 pm

Brandon Rush makes sense, especially with Gomes out. I understand he's having a sophomore slump type of season, but I really like the kids potential on both ends of the court. We would definitely need a backup PG if we trade Sessions though.

Post #3 » by **revprodeji** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:16 pm

Unless we attach him with an expiring for a big fish I do not want to deal him.

cpfsf · Post #4 » by **cpfsf** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:35 pm

What a coincidence, I'm interested in Crash, Morrow (kind of), and Ariza

Esohny · Post #5 » by **Esohny** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:54 pm

Ariza and Morrow are not big fish.

GopherIt! · Post #6 » by **GopherIt!** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:13 am

I'm not that interested in seeing us move him either.

deeney0 · Post #7 » by **deeney0** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:13 am

+1 for Brandon Rush. Bobcats, how about Gerald Henderson, who played on the Wolves summer league team. Warriors? Azubuike.

mandurugo · Post #8 » by **mandurugo** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:36 am

Who would play his minutes if they traded him? Seems like a terrible idea to me.

sledgeross · Post #9 » by **sledgeross** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:52 am

Remember the Triangle though. You dont need a pure pg, just some who can advance the ball and make good passes in a rotation, and also stick an outside j. The triangle loves a good combo guard!

Slum_Dillinger · Post #10 » by **Slum_Dillinger** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:56 am

deeney0 wrote:+1 for Brandon Rush. Bobcats, how about Gerald Henderson, who played on the Wolves summer league team. Warriors? Azubuike.

Yes and yes. I love young athletic two way players.

My gut tells me we pick up a small expiring, a late pick and/or cash for our troubles

john2jer · Post #11 » by **john2jer** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:08 am

Wolves give: Sessions, Gomes, and Pavlovic
Warriors give: Morrow, Randolph, and Radmanovich

Why Wolves? Gives them a great young, outside threat at SG, and a young, versatile combo forward. They have to take on Radman's 2010 salary, but it's only one extra year and he makes less than Sessions and Gomes combined. The also dump Sasha.

Why Warriors? Saves them money in 2010 with being able to cut Gomes. In 2009 Gomes plays a veteran role and a stretch PF in their offense. They get a big PG who can play next to either Curry or Ellis, forming a three man backcourt rotation.

Really the Warriors don't likely do this, but it's the closest we can probably get without moving a big fish or having to take on Corey Maggs.

southern wolf · Post #12 » by **southern wolf** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:48 am

Kahn won't move him. He's pleaded over and over with fans to be patient with the team, and said he won't be rushed into any deals. I can't see him going back on his word to trade a player he just signed to a 4 year deal.

Esohny · Post #13 » by **Esohny** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:52 am

He's also said over and over that the team will listen to any and all deals offered. I feel like Kahn would move anyone if he felt it was a good enough deal.

"that's not to say, as I've always said, that if something comes our way, in season, that we wouldn't respond"

southern wolf · Post #14 » by **southern wolf** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:00 am

I think Kahn would drive a hard bargain with Sessions though.

Narf · Post #15 » by **Narf** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:33 pm

southern wolf wrote:I think Kahn would drive a hard bargain with Sessions though.

But I think he'll drive a bargain. Sessions should be traded, much for the same reason Gomes should. They are good players that don't really do us any good this year. Would you really be unhappy with a Sessions for Randolph trade? Or Sessions for an expiring + a 1st round pick that looks to be in the 18-22 range? I don't know, I think he's a perfect trade bait.

Narf · Post #16 » by **Narf** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:35 pm

southern wolf wrote:I think Kahn would drive a hard bargain with Sessions though.

But I think he'll drive a bargain. Sessions should be traded, much for the same reason Gomes should. They are good players that don't really do us any good this year. Would you really be unhappy with a Sessions for Randolph trade? Or Sessions for an expiring + a 1st round pick that's not from a top 8 team? I don't know, I think he's a perfect trade bait. He's just like getting a mid-first round pick with NBA experience to that team, but a little more expensive.

Post #17 » by **Worm Guts** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:27 pm

Sessions is 23 and probably has more upside than Gomes. I don't think they're comparable. I don't think Kahn would have signed Sessions if he thought they were.
If we can Randolph or a lottery pick, we should do it but I don't think Sessions has that type of value. I'll take a 23 year old, established rotation player over a mid/late 1st round pick any day of the week, especially when we could already have 3 first round picks.

Foye · Post #18 » by **Foye** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:45 pm

Narf wrote:
southern wolf wrote:I think Kahn would drive a hard bargain with Sessions though.

But I think he'll drive a bargain. Sessions should be traded, much for the same reason Gomes should. They are good players that don't really do us any good this year. Would you really be unhappy with a Sessions for Randolph trade? Or Sessions for an expiring + a 1st round pick that's not from a top 8 team? I don't know, I think he's a perfect trade bait. He's just like getting a mid-first round pick with NBA experience to that team, but a little more expensive.

Not to disappoint you but looking at the Warriors roster you should know that they have no use for Sessions. They have Ellis, Curry and Watson who can play PG.

post0115 · Post #19 » by **post0115** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:52 pm

Indiana:
Indiana gets R. Sessions, Utah 1st rounder
MN gets E. Watson, L. Head (both exp.), and unprotected Ind 1st

Mem:
Mem gets R. Sessions, R. Gomes, Utah 1st rounder
MN gets R. Gay, S. Hunter (exp), M. Williams (exp)

Mia:
Mia gets R. Sessions
MN gets D. Wright, C. Arroyo, Mia 1st

NYK:

NYK get R. Sessions
MN gets J. Hill, W. Chandler

john2jer · Post #20 » by **john2jer** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:18 pm

I think Sessions to Golden State makes a lot of sense. Sessions is better, bigger, and younger than Watson. He could be put into a three man backcourt rotation with Ellis and Curry in GS's system.

Wolves give: Sessions and Wilkins
Warriors give: Claxton, Randolph, and Watson

Saves the Warriors a couple bucks this year and improves their backcourt.
Saves the Wolves money next year, and brings in a good prospect that should fit with our system.