Knicks offering Sessions four years, $26 million...or are they?

by Frank Madden on Jul 21, 2009 9:37 PM CDT in News

Agent Chubby Wells told the JS and Gery Woelfel yesterday that he was expecting to get an MLE deal from either the Knicks or Clippers, and today he tells the New York Post's Marc Berman that he expects a four year, $26 million offer to come from the Knicks today or tomorrow. As I mentioned yesterday, Wells is essentially dictating the way the story is being reported at this point, so it's not clear if an offer has actually been made, if the teams are considering S/T options, etc. Keep in mind that once Sessions signs an offer sheet, he can't be signed and traded. So the only options at that point for the Bucks would be matching or not matching the deal, and they wouldn't be able to deal Sessions until December 15 if they did match.

For a guy who has only one client, Wells (like Sessions a South Carolina guy) seems to be handling the situation pretty well. He has every incentive to make it sound like a deal is near and thus create some urgency for the other teams that might be interested, so his latest posturing is understandable. And he also has every incentive to give other teams the impression that the Bucks won't match an MLE offer. Teams only extend an offer sheet if they think the other team won't match, otherwise they have their cap dollars tied up for a week before the other team has to make a decision on whether to match. So if I'm Chubby Wells then I'd be telling everyone the Bucks aren't going to match a max MLE deal, in the hope that someone believes me and drops a five year, $34 million offer sheet in my lap. If the Bucks match then so be it, but the most important thing is getting Sessions the biggest deal possible.

Unfortunately, my initial reaction is that he's probably right about the Bucks. I've been saying for a while that the recipe for getting Sessions is to offer him a five year MLE deal and dare the Bucks to match, and a four-year deal might also be long enough that the Bucks opt against matching. John Hammond has been very quiet on how interested the Bucks are in bringing Sessions back, and it stands to reason they became less interested after drafting Brandon Jennings. And when Jennings looked really promising in Vegas...well, that probably didn't do much for Sessions' stock either. Still, the Bucks have the cap flexibility to both re-sign Sessions at the MLE and stay under the tax, so that shouldn't be the issue. Hey, Larry Harris can't be blamed for everything.

While re-signing Sessions would give the Bucks a logjam at the point, my first preference is always to retain young, talented players at reasonable salaries. Sessions is most certainly young (23) and talented. But is a long-term MLE deal a reasonable salary? Probably, though less so given the presence of Jennings. Sure, Sessions hasn't proven he can deliver as a full-time starter, though that's largely because he has yet to get the chance. He should have been the starter over Ridnour a year ago, but even then Skiles seemed somewhat hesitant to give Sessions the keys to the car for whatever reason (OK, it was probably defense and veteran bias).

And while a four year deal is longer than I'd prefer, it's a manageable situation. Luke Ridnour can be dealt. More importantly, having two young points with upside is better than just one, especially given Sessions can provide some minutes at SG as well. I know Jennings just had a very promising week in Vegas, but the kid's still got a ways to go. And if the Bucks are serious about stockpiling young, affordably-priced assets, then Sessions would seem to fit the bill. It's not a slam dunk, but at the end of the day I'd probably match.

Gery Woelfel did tweet last night that the Clippers could try to swoop in and use a trade exception (from the Zach Randolph deal) to sign and trade for Sessions, but it seems like the Clips are more of a longshot now. A trade exception would provide little value for the Bucks since the deal would only create a trade exception in the value of Sessions' BYC value (around $3 million). And that's not generally the kind of dollars you can use to pick up a serious player. Sessions would also no doubt prefer New York to L.A.--a starting job and a vastly superior coach shouldn't be underrated.

At New York's Newsday, Alan Hahn suggests the possibility of a sign-and-trade involving Chris Duhon, but I'd just as soon not bother. I realize Skiles previously overplayed Duhon in Chicago, but if the Bucks want a mediocre starter with an expiring contract, they need look no further than Ridnour. Besides, like pretty much every other sign-and-trade deal I've seen suggested, a Duhon/Sessions deal wouldn't work under the cap because of Sessions becoming a BYC player as soon as he signs.

It seems like most people don't see the Bucks matching the proposed deal, but it's not unanimous.

Hahn at Newsday says the Bucks initially planned to keep Sessions even after Jennings was picked, but "things have changed."
Andrew Marchand of ESPN Radio in New York says the Bucks won't match.
Gery Woelfel suggested on WSSP last week that he didn't expect the Bucks to match a big offer.
HoopsWorld suggests the Bucks will match.
Dan Needles from WISN inferred from his recent discussions with Hammond that the Bucks would match a deal for less than $30 million.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I understand your point regarding stocking young talent, however I think that brings up some concerns. Chief among these concerns is Scott Skiles tendency to play the more proven veteran point guard, thus taking away minutes from upside guys like Jennings. We saw this last year with Ridnour playing minutes over Sessions. It would frustrate the hell out of me, especially considering no one will ever remember Ridnour playing for the Bucks ten years from now. I wanted to see Sessions because I knew he could develop into someone.

Mitchell_M’s post regarding Jennings slightly touched on how the Bucks need an identity or flair, of which Jennings could provide. I’m worried by keeping Sessions, Skiles will overplay Sessions and Ridnour (if not traded) thus stunting Jennings growth. Like most hardcore (hate that word) Bucks fans, I’m realistic and realize this team isn’t going to compete for a championship. So why not free up as much cap space as possible, play our young guys and get them some experience, and get a high draft pick next year. Where the Bucks drafted Jennings, he should be starting in at least a year, thus I’m not sure keeping Sessions to be a future backup with such a long deal would be best in the Bucks interest.

With so little parity at the top, why not stack up chips, so when teams that are currently all in this year (Mavs, Spurs, Cleveland, etc) don’t win a championship and bust, the Bucks will have a larger bankroll to buy themselves back into contention.

Shout out to Vin Baker, Shawn Respert, Tractor Traylor, and Anthony Mason; you ruined my childhood.

by smitty7789 on Jul 22, 2009 12:43 AM CDT reply actions

Are we being fleeced?

It’s clear Jennings is the future (http://www.nba.com/bucks/tenspot_intro.html), but if Hammond allows Sessions to sign somewhere else, without getting anything of value in return, this will go down as the Bucks Summer of the Fleece! Sessions is too talented to just let walk without any compensation. Trading RJ was a necessary evil and there was little Hammond could have done to retain CV’s services (and am glad it wasn’t Milwaukee who gave him that contract). But one more starter gone w/ little to show will not go over well with the small, but loyal, fan base!

by BigO1 on Jul 22, 2009 1:45 AM CDT reply actions

“Hey, Larry Harris can’t be blamed for everything.” Not at this point. It worked quite well for a year and while Gadzuric’s contract still stings, this is definitely Hammond’s bed now. As for whether or not it’s a reasonable deal, remember that Sessions is 23, 6’3", has been ranked by some as in the top five points in the league (top ten is easier to defend) and he still would be paid less than Ridnour. We need to keep Ramon Sessions.

by MadTown Hoops on Jul 22, 2009 2:24 AM CDT reply actions

It’s funny, but I have the impression that there are all these free agents/potential trades floating in the air waiting for the first to land, then they will all come crashing down. The Knicks really need a PG and everyone knows it, so if the Bucks match an offer from them, it could get eally interesting.

And isn’t that what the Malik Allen deal is about, clearing cap room to sign Sessions? There is no other reason to do that deal, is there? Shape won’t even play this year and Weems can be cut. I still think Hammond is waiting to see which deals actually go thru before seeing whether Bowen or Kurt Thomas can be moved. This may all go on for a while.

by curak on Jul 22, 2009 3:51 AM CDT reply actions

Need Assets and Cap

I understand the need for the Bucks to create cap flexibility, but they also need players. Having an insurance plan at the point to allow Jennings time to develop is not a bad thing for a couple of years. Jennings can still provide the flair and excitement with 20-25 minutes a game. That is, if Skiles can give Sessions 25-30 minutes and Jennings 20-25 minutes and Ridinour a bucket.

Also, if money is freed up and we have two quality PGs on the roster, that can be attractive to FA scorers. To have two guys willing and able to distribute can be a bonus when trying to lure some people to Milwaukee.
More important than the free agent possibilites are trade possibilities. There will always be some issues with getting guys to come to Milwaukee through FA, but trades are an effective way for the Bucks to build the team down the road. The Pistons built the team that won with a trade to get Rasheed Wallace. If the Bucks are ever serious contenders, they will need to utilize trades as much as anyone and I would not be in favor of losing an asset like Sessions.
For me it comes down to 4years, I hope we match.
5years, let him go.

Another issue for me. If he goes to NY and becomes a star, with as much exposure that team gets, even when crappy, that would get unbearable.

I would just hate to lose a guy the Bucks drafted for nothing, but it is looking like he will be a Buck or be signed elsewhere w/o compensation.
We’re Bucked

by We're Bucked on Jul 22, 2009 6:51 AM CDT reply actions

Agreed, unless something unforeseeable happens Sessions shouldn’t be that hard to move a year or two from now at the MLE. You’re not necessarily going to great a ton for him, but he’s still an asset at that contract IMO.

Four years is really right around the point where I start to become indifferent about matching—what Jennings has shown is a big part of it—but I also think it’s important for them to keep somebody this offseason. I certainly wasn’t broken up about CV or RJ leaving, but it doesn’t look good if they lose everyone.

www.BrewHoop.com

by Frank Madden on Jul 22, 2009 8:12 AM CDT up reply actions

I hope it turns out that he stays. As a stand-alone asset he might not garner a huge trade, but if the Bucks can put together a couple more productive drafts, Sessions along with another player may be able to bring in something of high quality. Getting way too hopeful here, but Wade down the road? More reasonably something lower on the totem pole than Wade, but if we are getting rid of contracts to free up space, isn’t the reason for that to make a big move or several moves?
Who knows who will be available through trade or FA in a couple years, but assets are as important as cap-space IMO.
I agree about not being upset with CV and RJ. RJ is a little overrated at the 3 when compared to the league, he will work well as the 4th option. CV cannot play any D, he scores 20, gives up 30.
We’re Bucked

by We're Bucked on Jul 22, 2009 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions

Hammond and His Pistons Years

If the Bucks resign Sessions it would show more evidence of Hammond trying to recreate the winning model that the PIstons used when he was in Detroit.

That model consisted of two basic features

1. Defense
2. A guard orientated offense

Though BS is not a shooter now (high %) and may never be he can score, play defense and distribute. So with Redd, Meeks, Sessions and BJ the Bucks would have 4 guards that can score. Even without Sessions the Bucks will have 3 guys in the back court that can score. I am leaving Ridour out of the discussion. LOL

Up front Johnson and Prince Luc are defense first type players. Bogut is a pretty decent hybrid.

Alexander may still develop into a decent scoring SF though I doubt that he will ever play defense like Prince.

So there is already in my mind a strong similarity in the type of team that Hammond is creating in Milwaukee vs what the Pistons had while he was in Detroit.

I am not talking here about quality, but one never knows what will happen wins and losses wise in the future. Given the salary and talent mess that Hammond inherited only 15 months ago I would give him a couple more years to judge the results of his efforts. 3 years is about what people are giving Walsh and D’Antoni to turn things around in N.Y, so I would give Hammond’s the same amount of time bearing in mind that the Knicks will always be able to spend more money than the Bucks.

by Buddahfan on Jul 22, 2009 8:20 AM CDT reply actions

Yeah, the purge of the Bucks is almost complete. CV was the last obvious guy who didn’t seem to fit the Bucks’ mold, though you could argue Redd also fits in there given his contract.

One thing that would make sense about Sessions departing is that his best buds on the team were Charlie and Mo…

www.BrewHoop.com

by Frank Madden on Jul 22, 2009 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions

You guys don’t think having 3 average point guards will stunt the growth of an upside guy like Jennings or even Sessions for that matter?

Also, if we keep Sessions for the possibility of trade bait, is there any quality guy we could get for him? He is a 2nd round draft pick and honestly who is to say he hasn’t hit his ceiling. I see him as a fringe starter.

The other thing that supercedes this all is the whole money situation in the Nba. Teams are and most likely will continue seeig their profits drop. You add to that the collective bargaining agreement ending in 2 years and we possibility could be looking at a lockout for the 2010-2011 season. This makes giving long term deals to fringe starters even more risky. What do you all think?

Big thank-you's to Vin Baker, Shawn Respert, Tractor Traylor, and Anthony Mason; you ruined my childhood.

by smitty7789 on Jul 22, 2009 10:48 AM CDT via mobile reply actions

All valid points

I really doubt Ridnour would be around in November if they match Sessions, and I’d much prefer a 2-3 year deal because of the possibility of Jennings developing rapidly.

I’ve always liked Sessions but I agree that matching an offer like the one being mentioned is partly just a saving face/let’s not lose an asset type move. There are pros and cons to that.

www.BrewHoop.com

by Frank Madden on Jul 22, 2009 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions

I just don't get

why the length of the contract matters so much unless you don’t believe Sessions will continue to develop. If Skiles allows Sessions to continue to develop, he’ll be an attractive commodity in the market…maybe more so if he’s signed to an additional 3-4 years at reasonable starting PG money. Also, in the event Jennings does not “develop rapidly” and Sessions’ contract runs out in 2 or 3 years, MIL has to spend more for Sessions in those later years.

There are only 2 questions on whether to sign or match Sessions: (1) do you believe he has the skills to make a jump; and (2) do you believe Skiles will give him the consistent PT necessary for him to make that jump. If the answers to both questions are “yes”, then you match whatever offer he receives. If Jennings develops in a year or two, you’ve got a nice trade commodity. Or, the master plan might be to start Jennings and Sessions once Redd’s contract is done or he’s traded. Or, if Jennings does not develop into a starting-caliber PG, you saved yourself a ton of headache by keeping Sessions.

Sure, there’s some possibility Sessions can’t be moved in a year or two even if (1) and (2) occur, but that’s unlikely.

by hunter11 on Jul 22, 2009 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions

You’ve put it perfectly. The only reasons for the Bucks to not match or make an offer are if Skiles won’t play him or the club honestly believes they will be in good hands with Jennings running the show. I would feel more secure with Sessions and Jennings than with Ridnour as our only insurance if Jennings doesn’t pan out. My fear is that the Bucks are worried about how Jennings will take it if he’s not handed the reins from day one. I know the NBA is about managing egos, but ego is not what the new look Bucks are supposed to be about. Sessions will be under thirty, with no apparent injury concerns no matter how long we sign him. What does it matter if we have him for a few more years. If he really gets big, we’ll be glad we locked him up for so little.

by MadTown Hoops on Jul 22, 2009 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions

Too Many Reasons to Keep Sessions (at least this year)

Since it wouldn’t put them in the tax, there’s no reason for MIL not to keep Sessions (whether by signing him or matching an offer sheet). Jennings is 19 and I don’t recall the last time that summer league performance translated all that well. You keep Sessions because he’s a young PG in a sport where teams need a quality PG. Next offseason, the PG crop is going to be very thin. You might have Rondo if BOS doesn’t lock him up beforehand (and since BOS doesn’t exactly have a plan B at PG, you have to figure they end up with him one way or another). You may have a 34 year old Andre Miller if he is relegated to signing a one year contract this year. Next year’s projected rookie crop includes only one PG who may deserve starting soon. By next year, all of those teams that drafted PGs this year…my guess is that some of them will figure out that they still need a PG. Shoot, MIL might even figure out that Jennings is a project. If Sessions continues to improve his game this year, teams will want him. Because of the CBA, MIL isn’t going to be able to get much in a S&T this year….and its foolish to let him go for nothing. At least next offseason, you wouldn’t have to worry about base year compensation

Of course, if MIL keeps Sessions, Skiles would have to agree to play him so that teams could get interested enough to offer something of value. If, however, Skiles doesn’t really like Sessions, then it would be better to let him sign elsewhere at the risk of having a back-up PG making $6 or $7 mil per 2 years from now.

by hunter11 on Jul 22, 2009 1:05 PM CDT reply actions

It isn’t just the FA class at PG that will be thin. Next year, the Draft class does not have a lot of PGs. If the expected incoming freshman, and current sophomores declare, John Wall could be the only PG in the top 15. There are a lot of PFs projected in the lottery. There could be a lot of interest as early as next year if the Bucks sign Sessions. When there is a lot of competition for a thin position, NBA gms have proven to make some very questionable moves in the past.

We’re Bucked

by We're Bucked on Jul 22, 2009 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Depth????

How are we going to ever be a contender, if we don’t have depth? Sessions is a guy WE drafted, and who has proven his worth…I don’t think that it is legit to describe a 4-5 year MLE contract offer as a “Larry Harris” move. Look no further than Bobby Simmons. If the market wasn’t so weird right now, we wouldn’t blink at matching the MLE deal he is going to get, even with all the faith everyone seems to have in Jennings. I think that throughout his contract we will be pleasantly pleased by what our buck$ are getting us.
I also don’t want to rush Jennings into anything, I’d rather see him groomed along ala Aaron Rogers.

by SamCassellForPrez on Jul 22, 2009 4:00 PM CDT reply actions