Sessions / UPDATE p. 20: headed to Mini

Post #41 » by **GONYK** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:23 am

Smoke24 wrote:
This is a question that should be asked to his agent.

But he's probably waiting til the last minute to see if another team gives him that lucrative contract. This is his first one. Wants to maximize any profit he can get.

Notice I said nothing about the actual basketball aspect of it. Sports is a business first and a game second in some players mind.

I understand what you are saying, my issue is that when people say FAKE HUSTLE it implies that Donnie is doing something wrong. Given what the reality of Sessions' situation is so far and what his options are, I would like to know what else Walsh should be doing? Throwing more money at the situation for no reason?

StutterStep · Post #42 » by **StutterStep** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:25 am

Jarrett Jack
Steve Blake
Kirk Hinrich
Mo Williams
...and the list goes on...

So, if we are looking to pay Sessions less than those guys, then we should have just paid backup money for CJ Watson. That's why Sessions does not want to sign for too low.

Post #43 » by **GONYK** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:30 am

StutterStep wrote:Jarrett Jack
Steve Blake
Kirk Hinrich
Mo Williams
...and the list goes on...

So, if we are looking to pay Sessions less than those guys, then we should have just paid backup money for CJ Watson. That's why Sessions does not want to sign for too low.

Whose problem is that? It sounds like it is Ramon's not ours. Our offer is what it is. The only way to make us raise it is to prove that his value is higher than that. He has been unable to do so up to this point, and the team that holds his QO has moved on.

I ask again, what should Donnie be doing different? Because at this point, it sounds like your complaint is that Donnie is trying to get a starting PG for backup money, AKA a steal. Isn't that what he is supposed to be doing as GM?

cmaff051 · Post #44 » by **cmaff051** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:30 am

Smoke24 wrote:
GONYK wrote:What is Sessions' alternative? If the Clips are really not pursuing him then where else is he going to go. What leverage does he have against us to make Donnie give him a better offer?

Staying in Green Bay and going for unrestricted status next season when teams will be throwing money around like the world is going to end.

Ramon Sessions will not be a unrestricted free agent next year if he stays with the Bucks. He will be a restricted free agent.

Post #45 » by **j4remi** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:31 am

StutterStep wrote:Jarrett Jack
Steve Blake
Kirk Hinrich
Mo Williams
...and the list goes on...

So, if we are looking to pay Sessions less than those guys, then we should have just paid backup money for CJ Watson. That's why Sessions does not want to sign for too low.

Sessions isn't gonna get offered more, he more then likely won't get ANY pt if he takes the QO (lowering his value) and the cap is likely to drop next offseason while he competes with a much nicer FA class...If Walsh misses on this, he's got next offseason to try again and it's all about next offseason so why sign a back-up when we want a starter and why pay him more than the value the market is setting for him?

StutterStep · Post #46 » by **StutterStep** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:37 am

GONYK wrote:
StutterStep wrote:So, if we are looking to pay Sessions less than those guys, then we should have just paid backup money for CJ Watson. That's why Sessions does not want to sign for too low.

Whose problem is that? It sounds like it is Ramon's not ours. Our offer is what it is. The only way to make us raise it is to prove that his value is higher than that. He has been unable to do so up to this point, and the team that holds his QO has moved on.

I ask again, what should Donnie be doing different? Because at this point, it sounds like your complaint is that Donnie is trying to get a starting PG for backup money, AKA a steal. Isn't that what he is supposed to be doing as GM?

When did the Bucks rescind the QO? EXACTLY! They're waiting for Sessions to be dumb enough to sign a deal less than or around 4mil, so they can match. From there they can trade him next year for value.

The point of terming it FAKE HUSTLE is that Donnie (should) know what it takes to get Sessions. All this dancing around with him while scared to touch 2010 is just a waste of time. Personally I don't think Sessions is worth hindering 2010. We should want him to take the QO and get him next year when we've cleared the money, etc...

StutterStep · Post #47 » by **StutterStep** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:41 am

j4remi wrote:Sessions isn't gonna get offered more, he more then likely won't get ANY pt if he takes the QO (lowering his value) and the cap is likely to drop next offseason while he competes with a much nicer FA class...If Walsh misses on this, he's got next offseason to try again and it's all about next offseason so why sign a back-up when we want a starter and why pay him more than the value the market is setting for him?

That's exactly what I've been saying, including in the post above that we basically entered at the same time.

Post #48 » by **j4remi** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:46 am

StutterStep wrote:
j4remi wrote:Sessions isn't gonna get offered more, he more then likely won't get ANY pt if he takes the QO (lowering his value) and the cap is likely to drop next offseason while he competes with a much nicer FA class...If Walsh misses on this, he's got next offseason to try again and it's all about next offseason so why sign a back-up when we want a starter and why pay him more than the value the market is setting for him?

That's exactly what I've been saying, including in the post above that we basically entered at the same time.

We said basically the same thing, but you'd prefer next year and I wouldn't mind this year since I have faith Jeffries will be moved...blind faith? Yes...but faith.

SpReEfOrAlL · Post #49 » by **SpReEfOrAlL** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:49 am

waya wrote:The "fake-hustle" phrase is definitely the low-light of the Knicks board off-season.

I never thought i would find a word/statement that is more annoying than "Swag". But alas, the Knicks board has proven me wrong.

Post #50 » by **GONYK** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:49 am

StutterStep wrote:
When did the Bucks rescind the QO? EXACTLY! They're waiting for Sessions to be dumb enough to sign a deal less than or around 4mil, so they can match. From there they can trade him next year for value.

The point of terming it FAKE HUSTLE is that Donnie (should) know what it takes to get Sessions. All this dancing around with him while scared to touch 2010 is just a waste of time. Personally I don't think Sessions is worth hindering 2010. We should want him to take the QO and get him next year when we've cleared the money, etc...

They didn't, but the recent moves they have made will absolutely limit his time on the floor, making taking the QO a stupid move on his part.

I know you aren't speaking to that though, you are speaking towards their right to match. Whenever you are dealing with a RFA, it is a matter of hedging your bets and taking calculated risks. Donnie is looking what is happening over there in Mil, and if I am him, it looks to me that they have constructed their roster in a way that signals they are ready to go into the season without Sessions. If that is the case, I pay him something reasonable, and dare them to match. A price that is not impossible, but one that is inconvenient for a player they no longer need. If they match, fine. What you want Donnie to do is shadowbox. There is no need for that in this situation.

StutterStep · Post #51 » by **StutterStep** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:01 am

GONYK wrote:I know you aren't speaking to that though, you are speaking towards their right to match. Whenever you are dealing with a RFA, it is a matter of hedging your bets and taking calculated risks. Donnie is looking what is happening over there in Mil, and if I am him, it looks to me that they have constructed their roster in a way that signals they are ready to go into the season without Sessions. If that is the case, I pay him something reasonable, and dare them to match. A price that is not impossible, but one that is inconvenient for a player they no longer need. If they match, fine. What you want Donnie to do is shadowbox. There is no need for that in this situation.

Even if that price is 4mil, Sessions (to date) has shown that he is unwilling to take that as the starting point, esp. if our hope is to decrease the salary in the second year.

Post #52 » by **GONYK** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:04 am

StutterStep wrote:
GONYK wrote:I know you aren't speaking to that though, you are speaking towards their right to match. Whenever you are dealing with a RFA, it is a matter of hedging your bets and taking calculated risks. Donnie is looking what is happening over there in Mil, and if I am him, it looks to me that they have constructed their roster in a way that signals they are ready to go into the season without Sessions. If that is the case, I pay him something reasonable, and dare them to match. A price that is not impossible, but one that is inconvenient for a player they no longer need. If they match, fine. What you want Donnie to do is shadowbox. There is no need for that in this situation.

Even if that price is 4mil, Sessions (to date) has shown that he is unwilling to take that as the starting point, esp. if our hope is to decrease the salary in the second year.

Once again, sounds like his problem, not ours. Players with options get preferences.

SpReEfOrAlL · Post #53 » by **SpReEfOrAlL** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:10 am

StutterStep wrote:
GONYK wrote:I know you aren't speaking to that though, you are speaking towards their right to match. Whenever you are dealing with a RFA, it is a matter of hedging your bets and taking calculated risks. Donnie is looking what is happening over there in Mil, and if I am him, it looks to me that they have constructed their roster in a way that signals they are ready to go into the season without Sessions. If that is the case, I pay him something reasonable, and dare them to match. A price that is not impossible, but one that is inconvenient for a player they no longer need. If they match, fine. What you want Donnie to do is shadowbox. There is no need for that in this situation.

Even if that price is 4mil, Sessions (to date) has shown that he is unwilling to take that as the starting point, esp. if our hope is to decrease the salary in the second year.

Well then we dont take him. Cap room is more important than Sessions. I dont get where the term "fake hustle" applies here. .. Walsh is offering a reasonable contract to him, and not budging. How is that a fake hustle. Are you assuming he knows Sessions wont take it? Well. . .who cares? Who cares if Sessions thinks he is worth more than 4mil a year? lets him make a mil in milwaukee next year instead.

stuporman · Post #54 » by **stuporman** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:18 am

This is totally 'fake hustle'.....by Hahn.

He suckered you gullible posters into believing he has any 'source'.

The reason Session would take a low offer like $4mil and second year declining is........drum roll please......there's no other offer. lol....too easy.

GuyverADL · Post #55 » by **GuyverADL** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:19 am

If he signs a reasonable deal like 4 million per Milwaukee will match.

- Ridnour is an expiring and likely a goner
- Ukic wanted to go back to Europe before the trade. You think he wants to be in Milwaukee?
- Jennings is going to take some time. Plus him an Skiles maybe oil and water.

Milwaukee is almost certain to match a deal for Sessions.

Oh and from what I've read Milwaukee plans to play Delfino at SF.

Post #56 » by **GONYK** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:20 am

GuyverADL wrote:If he signs a reasonable deal like 4 million per Milwaukee will match.

- Ridnour is an expiring and likely a goner
- Ukic wanted to go back to Europe before the trade. You think he wants to be in Milwaukee?
- Jennings is going to take some time. Plus him an Skiles maybe oil and water.

Milwaukee is almost certain to match a deal for Sessions.

Oh and from what I've read Milwaukee plans to play Delfino at SF.

Then let them. That's no reason for us to shadowbox.

Post #57 » by **NoLayupRule** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:24 am

Boy I sure do hope that Walsh hurries up so that posters dont get impatient.

Lord forbid we take our time and get the player we want at a price thats good for the franchise's future.

Sheesh, its like we have a board full of mini-Isiah's. The key point of this article is that Walsh refuses to bid against himself.

Grow up people. Training camp is eons away

GuyverADL · Post #58 » by **GuyverADL** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:27 am

GONYK wrote:
GuyverADL wrote:If he signs a reasonable deal like 4 million per Milwaukee will match.

- Ridnour is an expiring and likely a goner
- Ukic wanted to go back to Europe before the trade. You think he wants to be in Milwaukee?
- Jennings is going to take some time. Plus him an Skiles maybe oil and water.

Milwaukee is almost certain to match a deal for Sessions.

Oh and from what I've read Milwaukee plans to play Delfino at SF.

Then let them. That's no reason for us to shadowbox.

The reason I say Fake Hustle is because you cant UNDER Bid for a RFA.

If Milwaukee DIDNT want Sessions they could renounce him like Memphis did Warrick if he agrees to it.

Milwaukee likes Sessions they just don't want to overpay. Worse case Sessions become Jennings 4 million dollar backup.

GuyverADL · Post #59 » by **GuyverADL** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:29 am

NoLayupRule wrote:Boy I sure do hope that Walsh hurries up so that posters dont get impatient.

Lord forbid we take our time and get the player we want at a price thats good for the franchise's future.

Sheesh, its like we have a board full of mini-Isiah's. The key point of this article is that Walsh refuses to bid against himself.

Grow up people. Training camp is eons away

Sessions is a RFA.

It was reported Milwaukee would NOT match a deal for the Full MLE.

Walsh is apparently offering 4 million. You think they wont match?

Milwaukee should send NY a thank you card for negotiating the contract for them.

Post #60 » by **GONYK** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:30 am

GuyverADL wrote:
The reason I say Fake Hustle is because you cant UNDER Bid for a RFA.

If Milwaukee DIDNT want Sessions they could renounce him like Memphis did Warrick if he agrees to it.

Milwaukee likes Sessions they just don't want to overpay. Worse case Sessions become Jennings 4 million dollar backup.

Regardless of who it is, you don't bid against yourself. If they want to match, that is their right. The way they have set their team up though, they truly may not need him. It is our right to pursue a deal that is beneficial to us longterm. You don't just throw a number out there for no reason. That is how you end up with Allan Houston's deal.