Ramon Sessions T-Wolves offer: Do we match? (poll included)

Post #1 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 5:56 pm

Mickey and I decided to lock the monster up now and move to a poll thread. Go on the record. Vote. Discuss all things Sessions here. Remember though to put your comments about matching in the thread and not just the vote. That we we all go on record here for the ages (or at least until RealGM's servers get re-formatted again)

Should the Bucks match the 4-year/$16 million dollar offer-sheet that Ramon Sessions just signed with Minnesota?

The first year salary is $3.7 million and the Bucks have approximately $1.6 million of salary space under the luxury tax at the moment. The deal has a player option after year three.

For those of you looking for updated information, here are some links.

MJS story and blog comments on the deal:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/57271387.html

ESPN link to signing:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4445416

Link to T-Wolves board thread on it:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=941810

skones · Post #2 » by **skones** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 5:58 pm

Peace out Sessions......hopefully.

xTitan · Post #3 » by **xTitan** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:00 pm

Doesn't make any sense to match this offer......you are trying to get out from long term deals, you draft what is supposed to be your franchise PG.....seems very stupid to match a 4 year deal and go right aback against the salary cap.

jakecronus8 · Post #4 » by **jakecronus8** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:01 pm

If anyone can say they have faith in Hammond if he doesn't match, they are truly in denial. If/when he doesn't match, how in the hell could you justify not trading Sessions and Charlie V at the deadline? Even for second round picks?

Post #5 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:03 pm

As I said in the other thread, this is ZaZa all over again. This should be a no-brainer to match. Hammond should be grateful someone did his work for him and the contract is neither full MLE nor five-years.

jerrod · Post #6 » by **jerrod** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:04 pm

jakecronus8 wrote:If anyone can say they have faith in Hammond if he doesn't match, they are truly in denial. If/when he doesn't match, how in the hell could you justify not trading Sessions and Charlie V at the deadline? Even for second round picks?

i can't wait to find out

jerrod · Post #7 » by **jerrod** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:06 pm

match and buy ridnour a bus ticket .

enjoy having 2 fairly talented pgs for now and then see what happens in the future

emunney · Post #8 » by **emunney** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:09 pm

Figured this would be ~ 4-1. So far so good.

LUKE23 · Post #9 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:09 pm

This is as no brainer a match as it gets. You have Jennings and Sessions making $6M-$8M COMBINED for the next four years. That is a great value.

But......we won't.

BucksRUS · Post #10 » by **BucksRUS** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:13 pm

I don't think Sessions is worth this contract. 4 yrs is too long of a contract. Too much risk.

Post #11 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:17 pm

xTitan wrote:Doesn't make any sense to match this offer......you are trying to get out from long term deals

Aren't we trying though to get out from long-term bad deals? Deals that were probably bad when they were signed. And big dollar ones?

I get the idea of fiscal discipline and the shrinking salary cap, but stack Ramon's 4/$16 up against these:

Tim Thomas: 6/$72mm
Bobby: 5/$47mm
Redd: 6/$90mm
Mo: 6/$52mm
Gadz: 6/$36mm
Bell: 5/$18mm
Bogut: 5/$60mm-$72mm
RJ (when acquired): 3/$42mm

I just don't see Sessions deal anywhere near those other ones. Bell's was the lowest of the bunch, but who here thinks a 30-year old combo guard is the same as a 23-year old PG?

tim_ · Post #12 » by **tim_** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:17 pm

Tell me guys, I'm a Wolves fan. Should I be excited for Sessions? What do you guys see from him in the future, whether or not the Bucks match?

LUKE23 · Post #13 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:18 pm

4 years at $4M per is not a risk at all. Even if he doesn't improve at all he still is worth the contract. It's not like this is 27 year old Charlie Bell with no upside that we're talking here.

This is a no brainer match. Anyone that is fine with not matching this deal is fine with the Bucks letting young talent walk at market value.

jerrod · Post #14 » by **jerrod** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:20 pm

the idea that all long term contracts are bad is ludicrous.

LUKE23 · Post #15 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:20 pm

tim_ wrote:Tell me guys, I'm a Wolves fan. Should I be excited for Sessions? What do you guys see from him in the future, whether or not the Bucks match?

This is a good value deal for whoever get him. I'd put him as an Andre Miller type PG for his career.

pifhluk23 · Post #16 » by **pifhluk23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:22 pm

This *should* be a super easy decision for Hammond, match and ship Ridnour. Although I could see Skiles not wanting to.

step3profit · Post #17 » by **step3profit** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:22 pm

I'd like to see Sessions retained at this price, or signed and dealt now that his price point is set. If you think Sessions would be a good 3rd guard, this is a good price.

LUKE23 · Post #18 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:24 pm

For the people that don't want to match, I'd like to see you come up with a list of PG's on non-rookie deals that are a better value than Sessions at $4M per. My guess is the list would be small to non-existent.

InsideOut · Post #19 » by **InsideOut** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:24 pm

Yes we should match but Hammond won't. Sessions has only played 96 games and will get better. Even if he only gets a little better he would make for a good back-up. When you have a bad team you should look to lock up as many young guys with potential as you can get. Especially when you can do if for less total money than what Redd makes in just one season.

LUKE23 · Post #20 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:26 pm

InsideOut wrote:Yes we should match but Hammond won't. Sessions has only play 96 games and will get better. Even if he only gets a little better he would make for a good back-up. When you have a bad team you should look to lock up as many young guys with potential as you can get. Especially when you can do if for less total money than what Redd makes in just one season.

Hakim Warrick or not waiving Oberto and turning that salary into Delfino/Ukic helps the Bucks more long-term.

Should the Bucks match the 4-year/$16 million dollar offer sheet?