Sessions / UPDATE p. 20: headed to Mini

nyknicks09 · Post #61 » by **nyknicks09** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:32 am

Alan Hahn can go F himself with all these reports. When the Knicks really convince Sessions to sign on with our Knicks than he can report that info. As far as I'm concerned, the Knicks are interested in every free agent knowing they don't have any intentions of paying anyone until we sign a max deal in the summer of 2010. Why are we interested in signing Sessions who's a restricted free agent instead of trying to get a deal done with D.Lee? I guess is the off-season news.

GuyverADL · Post #62 » by **GuyverADL** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:37 am

GONYK wrote: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.

UFA's and RFA's are two different things.

Walsh is wasting time he could be using to sign an UNRESTRICTED Free Agent.

This fascination with getting a RESTRICTED free agent for cheap is a joke.

This is the epitome of FAKE HUSTLE

stuporman · Post #63 » by **stuporman** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:47 am

GuyverADL wrote:
GONYK wrote: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.

UFA's and RFA's are two different things.

Walsh is wasting time he could be using to sign an UNRESTRICTED Free Agent.

This fascination with getting a RESTRICTED free agent for cheap is a joke.

This is the epitome of FAKE HUSTLE

He tried to get the one UFA he wanted and thought would make an impact, as well as be a valuable asset at the contract he offered and the guy went elsewhere. He also offered a cheap one year to another guy who went elsewhere. Who else do you think he should have thrown precious 2010 cap space at and would have made a real impact at the position needed? Hmm, who?

Making assertions about what he should have done but not elaborating specifically a reasonable and plausible alternative is pretty...um... the true essence of fh.....

Post #64 » by **GONYK** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:49 am

GuyverADL wrote:
UFA's and RFA's are two different things.

Walsh is wasting time he could be using to sign an UNRESTRICTED Free Agent.

This fascination with getting a RESTRICTED free agent for cheap is a joke.

This is the epitome of FAKE HUSTLE

There is a difference between quantity and quality. We aren't just pursuing a PG. There are plenty of PG's out there who can backup Duhon for a season. We are looking at someone who has shown flashes of potential, and could develop into a longterm starter at the position. Hence, it is worth tying up time and resources to pursue him.

Post #65 » by **GONYK** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:52 am

stuporman wrote:
He tried to get the one UFA he wanted and thought would make an impact, as well as be a valuable asset at the contract he offered and the guy went elsewhere. He also offered a cheap one year to another guy who went elsewhere. Who else do you think he should have thrown precious 2010 cap space at and would have made a real impact at the position needed? Hmm, who?

Making assertions about what he should have done but not elaborating specifically a reasonable and plausible alternative is pretty...um... the true essence of fh.....

^^^
This too

HarthorneWingo · Post #66 » by **HarthorneWingo** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:54 am

GuyverADL wrote:
GONYK wrote: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.

UFA's and RFA's are two different things.

Walsh is wasting time he could be using to sign an UNRESTRICTED Free Agent.

This fascination with getting a RESTRICTED free agent for cheap is a joke.

This is the epitome of FAKE HUSTLE

Such as who?

StutterStep · Post #67 » by **StutterStep** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:56 am

GONYK wrote:Hence, it is worth tying up time and resources to pursue him.

All we're saying is that 4mil to start is not going to get it done...and WALSH should know this.

Milwaukee would match, and so far we have seen no inclination that Sessions is signing at that price.

Forget us RealGM posters saying this for the moment...and ask yourself why there has been no deal

StutterStep · Post #68 » by **StutterStep** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:58 am

HawthorneWingo wrote:
Such as who?

Allen Iverson!

GuyverADL · Post #69 » by **GuyverADL** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:01 am

Well Luther Head and Iverson are available.

GuyverADL · Post #70 » by **GuyverADL** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:04 am

GONYK wrote:There is a difference between quantity and quality. We aren't just pursuing a PG. There are plenty of PG's out there who can backup Duhon for a season. We are looking at someone who has shown flashes of potential, and could develop into a longterm starter at the position. Hence, it is worth tying up time and resources to pursue him.

This is the SOURCE of my issue.

We believe he can be a starter yet we want to offer him 4 million per for multiple years.

Walsh must not really want him then which goes back to FAKE HUSTLE.

You cant pinch pennies with UFA's. Walsh knows this.

Post #71 » by **GONYK** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:08 am

GuyverADL wrote:This is the SOURCE of my issue.

We believe he can be a starter yet we want to offer him 4 million per for multiple years.

Walsh must not really want him then which goes back to FAKE HUSTLE.

You cant pinch pennies with UFA's. Walsh knows this.

To just go in with some general blanket way of handling the issue and not taking into account the specifics would be unwise. The specifics of the situation seem to indicate Milwaukee won't match. So Walsh is looking to take advantage and potentially get a steal. I don't see how issue can be taken with this.

Baddy Chuck · Post #72 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:11 am

Hey guys I'm a Bucks fan and I honestly don't think Milwaukee matches a $4 million offer at all considering it puts us $3 million into the tax, meaning we'd be paying him $7 or so million essentially.

Also, for those who haven't seen him play, you are getting a complete stud. IMO if you guys signed him for $4 million it'd be the biggest bargain of the offseason. I wouldn't be suprised to see him put up around 15-17 ppg, 7-9 asp and 4-5 rpg. I think he would be most improved player for sure.

stuporman · Post #73 » by **stuporman** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:14 am

GuyverADL wrote:Well Luther Head and Iverson are available.

Iverson no way......he's not what this team needs. Another dribbler guy who will be fighting for shots in a selfish attempt to secure another, larger contract. Head is a bit intriguing but he's not a true PG. Just another SG trapped in a PG body. All he would be is a back-up and clog up the playing time pushing Douglas further down the depth chart. I know he's a rookie but Douglas is a better fit in the systen and truly a superior defender. Rather give him the minutes.

Thanks for contributing something more than repeated phrases, give it a chance more often, it helps the quality of the discussion.

GuyverADL · Post #74 » by **GuyverADL** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:16 am

GONYK wrote:
GuyverADL wrote:This is the SOURCE of my issue.

We believe he can be a starter yet we want to offer him 4 million per for multiple years.

Walsh must not really want him then which goes back to FAKE HUSTLE.

You cant pinch pennies with UFA's. Walsh knows this.

To just go in with some general blanket way of handling the issue and not taking into account the specifics would be unwise. The specifics of the situation seem to indicate Milwaukee won't match. So Walsh is looking to take advantage and potentially get a steal. I don't see how issue can be taken with this.

Hammond is talking a good game. He says he wont go over the Lux tax yet he signs Warrick to a 3 million dollar deal. :roll:

He is probably saying that to keep bids for Sessions low. If GM's don't think Milwaukee will match they will come with a low offer. Hammond then matches and gets a steal.

Post #75 » by **GONYK** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:21 am

GuyverADL wrote:
Hammond is talking a good game. He says he wont go over the Lux tax yet he signs Warrick to a 3 million dollar deal.

He is probably saying that to keep bids for Sessions low. If GM's don't think Milwaukee will match they will come with a low offer. Hammond then matches and gets a steal.

Well, that is the chance you take. To throw more cash at the situation would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

TheBluest · Post #76 » by **TheBluest** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:29 am

LOL @ the thinking of bidding against yourself on a $4mil offer and the max we can offer him is like $5.6mil yet we were willing to give Kidd $5.6mil for 3yrs consecutively and Hill $10mil over 3yrs. Does WALSHED UP think those fans who aren't casual are stupid? Obviously with the Bucks knowing what the max teams can offer by not putting it on the table only makes it easier for them to balance the books. Any team pussyfooting around with Sessions..... us and the Clippers are an Abomination in regards to negotiating. WALSHED UP trying to go back on being happy Kidd turned down our offer was a save face admission because he knows he already showed how much money he was willing to put on the table for multiple yrs. So Sessions and his agent are basically saying SHOW US THE SAME MONEY. One of the worst negotiating ploys in the past decade possibly even further back.

stuporman · Post #77 » by **stuporman** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:29 am

GuyverADL wrote:
GONYK wrote:There is a difference between quantity and quality. We aren't just pursuing a PG. There are plenty of PG's out there who can backup Duhon for a season. We are looking at someone who has shown flashes of potential, and could develop into a longterm starter at the position. Hence, it is worth tying up time and resources to pursue him.

This is the SOURCE of my issue.

We believe he can be a starter yet we want to offer him 4 million per for multiple years.

Walsh must not really want him then which goes back to FAKE HUSTLE.

You cant pinch pennies with UFA's. Walsh knows this.

Or he's following the plan he said all along, even with regard to the Knicks own RFA. A player could be desirable at one number but not at another number. Just because he doesn't feel the need to rush into paying more than he wants to, for cap reasons, or more than he has to, for the lack of offers. Doesn't mean he isn't trying to make the best deal for the Knicks in the long run. You may not like his method and patience, but it doesn't mean he isn't trying to improve the team while keeping his flexibility and options open.

You and I both agree Sessions isn't a perfect fit even if he is an upgrade over Duhon. So I actually appreciate Walsh trying to get the guy for the best deal he can so the player can still be a valued asset even in trade later this season or in the off season next summer if it doesn't work out fit wise. I'd rather him not sign Sessions or have the Bucks match as long as it means he doesn't overpay and blow 2010. He's not worth blowing too much of the wad but if he can get him for a steal of a deal then why not try, the guy would still be an asset. Just like he tried with Kidd. I'm sure Walsh would rather go to bat with Duhon, Nate and Douglas than waste cap space by overpaying. But he'd gladly welcome the guy at an undervalued contract.

No fake hustle, just a true plan....even if you don't agree with it.

TheBluest · Post #78 » by **TheBluest** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:31 am

StutterStep wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:
Such as who?

Allen Iverson!

Mike Taylor for 1yr $1mil. Could have signed Kleiza or Wafer

stuporman · Post #79 » by **stuporman** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:34 am

An old Kidd at MLE for 3 is a dealable asset plus a huge upgrade, puts the Knicks in the playoffs>>> a young Sessions at the MLE for 5 with no guarantee he'll make the Knicks a playoff team......if you don't see that then I don't know what to tell you. Grant Hill @ just over $3mil a year is a moveable contract if neccesary and better than a full MLE for 5 for Sessions. So what he wants to get Sessions for less? You'll complain about anything............

stuporman · Post #80 » by **stuporman** » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:36 am

TheBluest wrote:
StutterStep wrote:
HawthorneWingo wrote:
Such as who?

Allen Iverson!

Mike Taylor for 1yr $1mil. Could have signed Kleiza or Wafer

Taylor is the only guy who would have interested me. But I think Douglas very well could be better two way player so why cloud the rotation on another back-up. Sure he's a rook but Taylor isn't any sure bet either. He played well enough on crappy team, if he was all that great or desirable he'd get more than the scraps he got.