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

Post #21 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:26 pm

bplus wrote: If you think Sessions would be a good 3rd guard, this is a good price.

I think this is a good angle. Two years ago we talked a lot about Mo being that "bench combo guard" who can do it all.

Ramon can fill that role. Many times sixth-men need to make things happen. Ramon can enter games and try driving to the hole to create some offense. And he's obviously a good ball-handler. We saw last year that many times in the fourth quarter he did a respectable job at SG.

Considering that we were even contemplating Mo in that role at 6/$52, I think Sessions can do just as good a job of filling it but at the 4/$16mm pricetag.

jakecronus8 · Post #22 » by **jakecronus8** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:27 pm

xTitan wrote: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.

Because Sessions is an above average starter in the league right now, and has a great upside, and he is now locked into a below average salary. If he's in your plans or not, you hold onto an asset and trade him when the time is right. Hammond should have already learned his lesson on this by not trading Charlie V knowing he wasn't a part of the team going forward.

LUKE23 · Post #23 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:29 pm

Because Sessions is an above average starter in the league right now, and has a great upside, and he is now locked into a below average salary. If he's in your plans or not, you hold onto an asset and trade him when the time is right. Hammond should have already learned his lesson on this by not trading Charlie V knowing he wasn't a part of the team going forward.

I'd say he's right around an average starter. But he's an elite backup for sure, and is definitely worth $4M per year.

It's unfortunate we decided to tie up funds in non long-term pieces that don't have any improvement upside instead. Very frustrating how Hammond handled this part of the offseason.

aboveAverage · Post #24 » by **aboveAverage** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:31 pm

This is easy. Match. 4/16 is EXCELLENT value for Sessions. You get him locked up for at least 3 years at a cheap price.

LUKE23 · Post #25 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:37 pm

So is the first year $3.6M? We'd only have to clear $2M to make that happen. Buying out KT is some, then one more deal and you can probably do it. We shouldn't be in this situation, but you can still make it work.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #26 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:38 pm

I don't think we should match

Post #27 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:39 pm

He can't buy out KT and "win-now" IMO because I think he values KT as his backup center and possibly PF.

I'd first look to dump Ridnour and Elson. People always said Ridnour was hanging around until Ramon was resolved. Well, now Ramon is resolved.

aboveAverage · Post #28 » by **aboveAverage** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:43 pm

And btw PP, I think this is way worse than the Zaza situation. Zaza was solid, but we all knew he would never be a star. This is a 23 year old PG who has the potential to be an all star, who has shown way more than Zaza ever did, and he did this in only 96 games. And we might let him go for a 3.6 million dollar offer this year? That's absolutely ridiculous.

I'm all down for Bag Night 2 if Hammond messes this up.

worthlessBucks · Post #29 » by **worthlessBucks** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:44 pm

Should be a no brainer, but I don't expect us to for the numerous reasons we've all stated before. In February if you would have said that we could have retained Sessions for a 4 year 16 million deal, we'd all have been elated. If we don't retain Sessions, Hammond shouldn't be allowed to talk about our tax issues as he had the opportunity to dump long term salary by including Sessions in deals last February.

MajorDad · Post #30 » by **MajorDad** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:44 pm

I say don't match .

for three reasons:

in order to match, the bucks have to clear a bunch of players off their team in some type of trade to some other team to stay under the cap. the way hammond works, i doubt he'll be able to pull off a deal within the next 7 days to clear enough room. I doubt he'll be able to pull it off in 7 months. NOBODY wants gadz or these other fools Hammond has signed in the off season. hammond is not a fast trader, and it would have to get approved by kohl. no way would he be able to come up with a deal in 7 days. I just don't see any more deals being made , although i keep hearing bucks posters say they must be coming. face it - they aren't coming. but they must be! no they're not. this is it. this is bucks reality. live with it.

second reason. I have always been opposed to giving bench players multiyear contracts - no matter how small the amount of the contract. We never should have given bell or gadz multi-year contracts. i could see possibly giving Sessions a 2 year deal, but not a 3 year deal with an option for a 4th year.

third. there will be plenty of free agents and also draft picks just as good or better than Sessions in 2010 and 2011. Why tie our team to sessions, when we can draft Wall? and yes , i believe the bucks will have at least a top 3 lottery pick next year.

and dagnabbit, what's so bad about ridnour? i think he'll be a great back-up guard. Stats aren't everything. if they were, Quinn buckner would not have been thought of so highly. I know...... who's Quinn buckner ?? Well he was a great Bucks PG, that's who he was.

if the bucks want to sell some tickets, sign iverson. he'll at least attract a crowd. the twolves should have signed iverson.

Say good bye Sessions. give Heinrich a call.

LUKE23 · Post #31 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:45 pm

I'd rather dump Elson/Ridnour as well, but if the choice is Sessions or KT, that is an easy choice. Sessions wins us more games next year and long-term.

worthlessBucks · Post #32 » by **worthlessBucks** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:46 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:He can't buy out KT and "win-now" IMO because I think he values KT as his backup center and possibly PF.

I'd first look to dump Ridnour and Elson. People always said Ridnour was hanging around until Ramon was resolved. Well, now Ramon is resolved.

Here we are in September and I still say that a Ridnour trade is fantasy. He's an expiring, but nobody is going to take Luke's 6.5 without extra incentive, dumping someone on us or the Bucks including a pick.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #33 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:47 pm

No we should not match. Like I said in the other thread, I wish Ramon well with his new team.

midranger · Post #34 » by **midranger** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:48 pm

310 pages of pre-contract, 3 pages post-contract.

What a sad way to die.

LUKE23 · Post #35 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:48 pm

MFScho wrote:Should be a no brainer, but I don't expect us to for the numerous reasons we've all stated before. In February if you would have said that we could have retained Sessions for a 4 year 16 million deal, we'd all have been elated. If we don't retain Sessions, Hammond shouldn't be allowed to talk about our tax issues as he had the opportunity to dump long term salary by including Sessions in deals last February.

He also didn't have to sign Hakim Warrick.

He didn't have to keep Oberto and trade him for Amir, then trade Amir for Delfino/Ukic.

He also could have cleared all RJ's deal last year.

If he even trys to sell the "well, we were just too close to the lux tax" garbage, I'm going to laugh, because that is his fault and nobody elses.

carmelbrownqueen · Post #36 » by **carmelbrownqueen** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:48 pm

xTitan wrote: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.

Well put.

LUKE23 · Post #37 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:49 pm

carmelbrownqueen wrote:No we should not match. Like I said in the other thread, I wish Ramon well with his new team.

Care to back up your claim as to why?

BucksRUS · Post #38 » by **BucksRUS** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:50 pm

MFScho wrote:
paulpressey25 wrote:He can't buy out KT and "win-now" IMO because I think he values KT as his backup center and possibly PF.

I'd first look to dump Ridnour and Elson. People always said Ridnour was hanging around until Ramon was resolved. Well, now Ramon is resolved.

Here we are in September and I still say that a Ridnour trade is fantasy. He's an expiring, but nobody is going to take Luke's 6.5 without extra incentive, dumping someone on us or the Bucks including a pick.

The only trade partner I could see for Ridnour was the T-wolves. So that option seems unlikely. Sacramento seems far fetched too, since they have 3 PGs on the roster already even if one is horrible and one is a rookie.

LUKE23 · Post #39 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:51 pm

I love it that some people's rationale is "it goes against the cap". You need to remember that:

1. We have to fill in our roster somehow
2. Sessions at $4M is not a Bell/Gadzuric type contract

You keep young players at market value, especially when you are a small market team.

crkone · Post #40 » by **crkone** » Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:51 pm

If he is committed to the past, present, and future, then he should lock up Ramon for the next 4 years.

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