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

LUKE23 · Post #301 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:10 pm

Ridnour was fully healthy for an extended period at the end of the season. He had MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME to take his starting position back, yet he didn't. That is the FACTS.

trwi7 · Post #302 » by **trwi7** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:10 pm

BDUB_30 wrote:It would be , the money we could save with increase the rebuilding process that much sooner .

I fail to see how losing young asset + getting rid of a contract one year earlier than it expires without getting cap space makes our rebuilding process go faster.

BDUB_30 · Post #303 » by **BDUB_30** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:12 pm

trwi7 wrote:Ridnour started a lot of his games against scubs and still sucked.

well hes not a good pg , nobody is saying he is ..Claiming Ridnour sucks doesnt really do much to make a case for Ramon not sucking .. they both suck as far as im concerned . I think the bucks like what Ridnour brings to this team more then Ramon ....

I dont think Ramon would of ever been given the opportunity to start had ridnour not been nagged with the thumb injury , back inury and then missing 2 games to his wife being preg . He just had a rough season .. I dont care either way cause i think hes at best a stop gap player , not a piece . maybe a piece of .... but not a piece ....

europa · Post #304 » by **europa** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:12 pm

No spin. Yes Ridnour got injured and that's when Sessions became a starter. It's also a fact that Sessions was more productive than Ridnour ever was as a starter. It's also a fact that Sessions started most of his games without Bogut and Redd, the team's two best players. It's also a fact that the Bucks, with Sessions as the starting PG, stayed in the playoff race until late in the season despite the handicap of not having its two best players.

That is not spin.

Those are the facts.

If Session was not productive as a starter, it's pretty much a certainty Ridnour would have regained the starting job, even if he wasn't at full strength. You have said Skiles didn't like the way Sessions ran the offense and they had to scale things back significantly for him. If Sessions was not playing well, would it not have made sense then to get Ridnour back in the starting lineup given how the Bucks needed to be at their best to make the playoffs?

Of course that makes sense. Of course Skiles would have gone back to Ridnour. But he didn't. Why? Simple. Sessions was playing too well to replace. Even when healthy, Ridnour didn't produce at the level Sessions did. That is also a fact.

There's no need to spin any of this. The facts have always been crystal clear.

Max Green · Post #305 » by **Max Green** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:13 pm

Would you have a problem with moving Ramon if Redd was involved instead of Gadz, Luke and twirl?

trwi7 · Post #306 » by **trwi7** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:15 pm

MVP4Champ wrote:Would you have a problem with moving Ramon if Redd was involved instead of Gadz, Luke and twirl?

Considering Redd makes $10 million more I'd be more open to it.

LUKE23 · Post #307 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:15 pm

MVP4Champ wrote:Would you have a problem with moving Ramon if Redd was involved instead of Gadz, Luke and twirl?

I don't want to move Sessions just to clear one of them, and have said that repeatedly. If I had my choice and had to pick one that I would move Ramon with, it would be Redd, quite easily.

My plan has always been the same. Establish a young core at market value, and purge the bad contracts for expirings (if possible). That means keeping Sessions at MLE or less and moving Redd for expirings if possible, and then letting the chips fall where they may next year.

Max Green · Post #308 » by **Max Green** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:16 pm

What about moving Ramon if it meant we could get rid of both Gadz and C.Bell?

LUKE23 · Post #309 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:17 pm

MVP4Champ wrote:What about moving Ramon if it meant we could get rid of both Gadz and C.Bell?

Same answer, I wouldn't want to move Sessions to clear cap space, but would do it as a "something better than nothing" approach.

BucksRUS · Post #310 » by **BucksRUS** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:18 pm

It would allow you to make a trade and take back salary from some team looking to move talent at the deadline for one of our expiring contracts. The money tied up in Sessions would allow more flexibility to improve the talent on the roster without going over the tax, even if we are over the cap.

europa · Post #311 » by **europa** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:20 pm

If Sessions makes less than the ML I'm not sure the Bucks will be able to find a player with his youth, production, talent and potential who won't cost more. Sessions at less than the ML is a bargain for the Bucks.

raferfenix · Post #312 » by **raferfenix** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:22 pm

europa wrote:No spin. Yes Ridnour got injured and that's when Sessions became a starter. It's also a fact that Sessions was more productive than Ridnour ever was as a starter. It's also a fact that Sessions started most of his games without Bogut and Redd, the team's two best players. It's also a fact that the Bucks, with Sessions as the starting PG, stayed in the playoff race until late in the season despite the handicap of not having its two best players.

That is not spin.

Those are the facts.

If Session was not productive as a starter, it's pretty much a certainty Ridnour would have regained the starting job, even if he wasn't at full strength. You have said Skiles didn't like the way Sessions ran the offense and they had to scale things back significantly for him. If Sessions was not playing well, would it not have made sense then to get Ridnour back in the starting lineup given how the Bucks needed to be at their best to make the playoffs?

Of course that makes sense. Of course Skiles would have gone back to Ridnour. But he didn't. Why? Simple. Sessions was playing too well to replace. Even when healthy, Ridnour didn't produce at the level Sessions did. That is also a fact.

There's no need to spin any of this. The facts have always been crystal clear.

Your facts are correct...but let's not pretend that outplaying Ridnour is anything too impressive.

I also am a big Sessions fan and think he can become a great player. However, I can also see us being offered a deal worth more than him in trade. Hammond has already shown that he values having "options", and dropping Gadz while picking up Camby would dramatically expand them.

It's clear Hammond/Skiles don't highly value Sessions. We might end up keeping him at a price where that value is worth, but we also could be offered a deal that we think is worth more than he is. I am definitely hoping we aren't considering just letting him walk on a cheap deal though---fortunately, that seems like it's becoming less and less of a risk every day now.

stevescheffler06 · Post #313 » by **stevescheffler06** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:23 pm

BDUB_30 wrote:Gad + Ramon for Marcus would be amazing

Whoa, hold it right there. There is no way I package GAD and Ramon. That would DECIMATE this board. GAD's knowledge of the financial side of the NBA is worth at least a 2nd rounder. Well, maybe not in next year's draft but still. Too much to give.

europa · Post #314 » by **europa** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:23 pm

I agree it's not difficult to outplay Ridnour.

That's why I'm surprised anyone would argue so vehemently against that position.

BDUB_30 · Post #315 » by **BDUB_30** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:24 pm

trwi7 wrote:
BDUB_30 wrote:It would be , the money we could save with increase the rebuilding process that much sooner .

I fail to see how losing young asset + getting rid of a contract one year earlier than it expires without getting cap space makes our rebuilding process go faster.

Because the money you save by not resigning ramon and getting gadz off the books can be used to aquire a much bigger "asset " then Ramon/Gadzuric are combined next year .

Real simple .

BDUB_30 · Post #316 » by **BDUB_30** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:26 pm

europa wrote:I agree it's not difficult to outplay Ridnour. That's why I'm surprised anyone would argue so vehemently against that position.

Well Ramon surely didnt do that to open the season , ridnour beat him hands down AND ridnour had knee tendanities all training camp ..

Short memory around here .

raferfenix · Post #317 » by **raferfenix** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:28 pm

europa wrote:I agree it's not difficult to outplay Ridnour. That's why I'm surprised anyone would argue so vehemently against that position.

VERY true. However, if the Bucks think Jennings could start there sooner rather than later that becomes less of an issue. In fact, I can see Skiles valuing Ridnour for his effect on Jennings development, as for all of Ridnour's faults Skiles would always be able to yank Jennings and have Luke do exactly what he wants.

If there are coaching issues with Sessions, Skiles would lose some of his leverage. However, the competition between Sessions and Jennings could help him even more. Yet that doesn't necessarily mean Sessions is worth more to us than in a trade, even with a bargain contract.

europa · Post #318 » by **europa** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:28 pm

Who's denying Ridnour beat out Sessions to open the season? I certainly never have. In fact I've stated numerous times Ridnour deserved to be the starter when the season began and he did help the team in the first half of the season more than he's given credit for in this forum.

You're right. Short memory around here.

LUKE23 · Post #319 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:28 pm

Because the money you save by not resigning ramon and getting gadz off the books can be used to aquire a much bigger "asset " then Ramon/Gadzuric are combined next year .

No. Not without moving Redd for expirings in addition to that. We'd be at $42M for 2009-10 for 8 players (5 under the league minimum) with a cap of around $50M. We'd have the same amount to spend next year as this year, the MLE, because cap holds would not leave us any space under the cap even if we lost Gadzuric's deal.

raferfenix · Post #320 » by **raferfenix** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:30 pm

What kind of players could we get for the ending contracts of Luke Ridnour, Marcus Camby, and Kurt Thomas if we are able to take back salary?

The declining luxury tax and the free agent race for 2010 could put some very good players on the market who otherwise wouldn't be. If we are going to be extremely aggressive a Sessions+Gadz sign and trade for Camby looks a ton better.