Sessions for the no 10

teven_1 · Post #1 » by **teven_1** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:43 pm

We don't need Ramon Sessions. Partly I want another Lottery pick partly I want Sessions to flourish elsewhere. (we have like 16 point guards last time I checked)

Esohny · Post #2 » by **Esohny** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:45 pm

teven_1 wrote:We don't need Ramon Sessions. Partly I want another Lottery pick partly I want Sessions to flourish elsewhere. (we have like 16 point guards last time I checked)

We actually have 2.

prefuse73 · Post #3 » by **prefuse73** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:54 pm

I have feeling we will be holding on to both this year to see how things develop with Rubio and in order to see which one will be the better backup for Rubio when he comes.

I fairly certain that sessions will be the one traded eventually. That said, if this is offered, I think Minnesota would take it as is great value for sessions. Indian would want flynn and gomes for Ford and #10.

shrink · Post #4 » by **shrink** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:57 pm

teven_1 wrote:SESSIONS FOR THE NUMBER 10! forgive the caps.

Pacers are giving it away

to be honest, I wouldn't be completely shocked to see

TJ Ford + #10 for Sessions + Gomes + #23

WHY FOR IND: Sessions is a young PG that can develop with the team. He showed a lot as a PG in MIL< and IND can lock him into an under-value contract for several years. Using TJ Ford creates the minutes. The #23 pick is down in a section that is interest. Also, when they waive Gomes, they'll save about $3.5 mil in cap space. That's got to give them the wiggle room to stay under the lux, and save them about $8 mil in cash.

WHY FOR MIN: I imagine they'd love the trade flexibility the #10 pick would give them, and there are also interesting players at that level if they choose to draft. TJ Ford is expiring, so he's gone once Rubio gets here. It costs them $3.5 mil of their cap space, but it also makes for a very effective use of last year's remaining TPE money, turning it into the #10.

Now, Sessions is a decent, young, startable PG, but I don't think he'd be the Pacers first choice. I think they start by asking about Collison (probably shot down, since IND won't take back additional salary) or Ty Lawson (who knows?), or maybe even request about Flynn. However, if those doors close, its a waste of a year's PG minutes to keep TJ Ford around, when they can use the pick and minutes to add the young piece to the remaining hole in their youth movement. They might slide down in the draft a ways if it addresses multiple issues.

EDIT: I just saw tevin took his idea out of the LAC-MIN thread, and started a new thread while I was writing my own. Maybe it makes sense to combine the two.

Stephen S · Post #5 » by **Stephen S** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:02 pm

I like it, can't think of anything else to say.... :-?

PeeDee · Post #6 » by **PeeDee** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:06 pm

I'd do it. Going by DX we could end up with Johnson/Cousins @ 4, Aldrich @ 10, and George @ 16!

Saltine · Post #7 » by **Saltine** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:17 pm

Looks good

prefuse73 · Post #8 » by **prefuse73** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:23 pm

Thats a good trade.

now, is there a way for us to get NJ's pick with 10 and 16.

Esohny · Post #9 » by **Esohny** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:36 pm

I'd do it. Ford is a knucklehead, but I want George or Henry, and we should get one of them at 10.

eToasT · Post #10 » by **eToasT** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:08 pm

PeeDee wrote:I'd do it. Going by DX we could end up with Johnson/Cousins @ 4, Aldrich @ 10, and George @ 16!

I think we'd have to use the 10 on George, I think he'll be gone by the 16

Good trade for both teams.

flexbuffchest · Post #11 » by **flexbuffchest** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:31 pm

Why does Indiana do this? :lol:

Krapinsky · Post #12 » by **Krapinsky** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:50 pm

Prefuse73 and flexbuffchest have very similar avatars. Almost looks like it could be the same guy.

Love's new nick name might have to be 'Chunk'

minnisisky · Post #13 » by **minnisisky** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:45 am

i would do it. but no way would someone give up the 10 for him.

blueandgold · Post #14 » by **blueandgold** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:38 am

Pacers want Flynn in the DEAL someway. Obviously cannot swap for #16, but # 23 is in reason.

Breakdown777 · Post #15 » by **Breakdown777** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:22 am

I think NO's available PG board goes

1. Collison
2. Lawson
3. Sessions

I think that makes a trade like this unlikely. Something where NO gets some exp. deals and a big man for Collison and a contract sounds more likely.

Flynn would be number one, but I don't think he's available. It doesn't make tons of sense to trade the 6 pick after his rookie season for the 10 pick. What I'm saying is, I believe that Flynn still has more value than the 10 pick in this draft, so I'd hope we wouldn't take TJ Ford unless we can turn his exp. (is he exp?) into something good.

Foye · Post #16 » by **Foye** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:45 am

#10 for #16 + Sessions is fair value.

Don't know about Indy's cap situation if they can absorb Sessions but if not they would throw in Ford's expiring. Maybe we can get rid of Hollins in that deal then if we have to take back Ford's huge $ contract.

#10 + Ford for #16, Sessions and Hollins.

shrink · Post #17 » by **shrink** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:54 pm

flexbuffchest wrote:Why does Indiana do this? :lol:

That's why there is a "WHY FOR IND" part to trades here FBC. So that way, you can debate whether you think the actual reasons behind trades make sense or not for both teams.

Foye wrote:#10 for #16 + Sessions is fair value.

I'd say that's fair too, but we can't make it work financially before the draft

Foye wrote: Don't know about Indy's cap situation if they can absorb Sessions but if not they would throw in Ford's expiring. Maybe we can get rid of Hollins in that deal then if we have to take back Ford's huge $ contract.

#10 + Ford for #16, Sessions and Hollins.

And that's the key. IND can't afford to do Sessions for nothing because they don't have a TPE or cap space at the time of the draft, and because they will probably need to cut some salary to be under the lux (the pick takes them over). Sessions + Hollins (+2.3 mil of our cap space) won't work financially under the CBA either. We could ask IND to draft someone for us, and trade later when we have actual cap space, but those types of deals are less likely.

TJ Ford + #10 for Gomes + Sessions + #23 works now, and next year gives the Pacers $3.5 mil in cap space. They get extra value in the #23 and don't get stuck with Hollins.

Foye · Post #18 » by **Foye** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:18 pm

shrink wrote:
flexbuffchest wrote:Why does Indiana do this?

That's why there is a "WHY FOR IND" part to trades here FBC. So that way, you can debate whether you think the actual reasons behind trades make sense or not for both teams.

Foye wrote:#10 for #16 + Sessions is fair value.

I'd say that's fair too, but we can't make it work financially before the draft

Foye wrote: Don't know about Indy's cap situation if they can absorb Sessions but if not they would throw in Ford's expiring. Maybe we can get rid of Hollins in that deal then if we have to take back Ford's huge $ contract.

#10 + Ford for #16, Sessions and Hollins.

And that's the key. IND can't afford to do Sessions for nothing because they don't have a TPE or cap space at the time of the draft, and because they will probably need to cut some salary to be under the lux (the pick takes them over). Sessions + Hollins (+2.3 mil of our cap space) won't work financially under the CBA either. We could ask IND to draft someone for us, and trade later when we have actual cap space, but those types of deals are less likely.

TJ Ford + #10 for Gomes + Sessions + #23 works now, and next year gives the Pacers $3.5 mil in cap space. They get extra value in the #23 and don't get stuck with Hollins.

Thank you for explaining master of finanical issues.

I still doubt that IND will trade down from #10 to #23 for cap space and Sessions, though. :dontknow:

Actually, with the #10 pick you have a high chance of getting a very productive player...with #23 not so much.

Lopez, Jennings, Bynum, Hawes, Sene were the last 5 players drafted at #10. That's 3 impact players, 1 solid roleplayer and a bust.

shrink · Post #19 » by **shrink** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:30 pm

You're right - the #10 has been magic. Way better than probably 6-9.

I can certainly understand IND saying no, or at least looking at other options first. However, whatever they do, I suspect that they will need to acquire some cap space and get under the lux, considering all the money they lost last year. The #10 is definitely the best asset in the deal, and I'm wondering if perhaps whether you can stack enough smaller positives together to get it:

1. Sessions
2. Move TJ Ford's deal because its over-priced.
3. Don't waste this season's minutes (TJ isn't the future), and try new PG with other youth
4. Gomes gives them cap space they need to be under the lux
5. Don't have to pay another $2 mil to the #10
6. Pick up the #23

But you're right - I don't have a problem with people thinking IND could say, "No, we'd rather keep the #10."

post0115 · Post #20 » by **post0115** » Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:48 pm

Maybe this would work

MN gets J.Foster, #10
Ind gets #16, R.Sessions, R.Gomes

-I think Ind would demand the 16 instead of #23
-By taking Foster instead of TJ Ford we only use $1.5mm of next year's cap room (assuming Gomes cut) instead of $3.5mm
-We probably wouldn't keep Foster, but as we saw last year, Kahn isn't afraid to deal a player multiple times.
-I really like the idea of taking Henry or George at #10 since I no longer believe either will be there at 16.
-We could sign S.Rodriguez to a cheap contract in FA to replace Sessions.