Ramon Sessions' agent speaks

[Fez Hammersticks]

I think Bayless can be used, effectively, in a Ben Gordon role off the bench.

And maybe even let Rudy create more rather than sitting in the corner like he's James Jones.

 

[illmatic99]

I can't see how Milwaukee would be interested in a sign and trade; if they do not have the financial wherewithal to sign an up and coming point guard , why would they want to take on equivalent salaries?

Again, you have to consider the Gilbert Arenas provision. Pretty much every team in the league can offer him an amount equivalent to the MLE in the first year of the contract. The subsequent raises can be larger for teams with more caproom. And to avoid those raises (which can eventually lead to a higher average salary over the duration of the contract), Milwaukee can simply sign and trade him for player/players whose contracts are shorter (see: Blake, Outlaw).

 

[Mediocre Man]

I disagree. Sessions is a flat out baller. If we sign him we'll never look for another starting PG ever again. Billups would make us a championship team but he's obviously not available. I assume you're referring to someone like Andre Miller, who would also be a good acquisition. I just think we've got to roll the dice on someone with as much potential as Sessions and THEN look for a veteran presence in other areas, such as SF or back-up PF.

Sessions started out behind Ridnour and Redd last season but when he took over as Milwaukee's starting PG he put up some incredible numbers:

-vs LAL: 16 points, 16 assists, 10 rebounds
-vs IND: 15 points, 17 assists, 7 rebounds
-vs DET: 44 points, 12 assists

23 years old!

I am not saying he can't flat out play. Our roster now can flat out play, but as you saw in the playoffs, really lacks experience. Adding a 23 year old PG who has never had anything to play for probably isn't the ideal PG to lead us anywhere.

I certainly wouldn't be upset if they added him though. I would just put a significant run through the playoffs off another year.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

A few interesting tidbits from Brew hoop:

What makes Sessions so valuable, other than the fact that he's arguably the Bucks most talented point guard? He dishes out the ball well. His assists/40 mins mark is up to 8.4, and he averages 5.6 assists per game. His pass rating (a combination of assists normalized by minutes played, and assist/turnover ratio) is up at 6.06, by far the best on the team. This rating puts him near the top of the league, and he even ranks better than the likes of Tony Parker (5.54), but not quite up to the caliber of Steve Nash, Jason Kidd or Rajon Rondo yet (all in the double digits)

His WARP (Wins Above Replacement Level Player) is 6.4, the best on the Milwaukee Bucks. Basically that means if you took a team full of replacement level players, and put Ramon Sessions at the point, they would win about 6.4 games more than expected based on his talent alone.

Brew Hoop

 

[Nikolokolus]

This is silly. Why give up one of our most valued assetts in Bayless when we don't have to? When we can just sign Sessions out right? Bayless will be a 2nd year guy locked into his contract, he has no say about his minutes until he's better than the guys playing in front of him. He was so irrelevant last season, I can't see him being relevant enough next season to disrupt chemistry. This is a non issue. Sergio? They can have him.

The reason you don't need Bayless if you get Sessions is because they are too close to the same age and Bayless being buried as the third guy on the bench is a waste of an asset. Holding on to him is begging for disaster in disrupted chemistry, trade demands, etc. Frankly he deserves a shot somewhere if we're just going to shelve him.

 

[andalusian]

The reason you don't need Bayless if you get Sessions is because they are too close to the same age and Bayless being buried as the third guy on the bench is a waste of an asset. Holding on to him is begging for disaster in disrupted chemistry, trade demands, etc. Frankly he deserves a shot somewhere if we're just going to shelve him.

Heck - there is still time for that. We can keep them both to fight for time behind/in front of Blake - and if they prove themselves worthy - you ship Blake (an expiring) at the trade deadline. If not - you choose one, use the other as a trade chip and re-sign Blake as the long-term backup PG.

 

[Ed O]

The reason you don't need Bayless if you get Sessions is because they are too close to the same age and Bayless being buried as the third guy on the bench is a waste of an asset. Holding on to him is begging for disaster in disrupted chemistry, trade demands, etc. Frankly he deserves a shot somewhere if we're just going to shelve him.

Bayless is 2.5 years younger... I don't think that's "too close to the same age".

If Jerryd keeps improving, he'll earn minutes at both guard spots. If he doesn't, he'll sit on the bench.

Either way... he doesn't "deserve" a shot somewhere else.

Ed O.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Experience is overrated.

Brandon Roy has the experience now, he is our leader. I don't think we should bring in an older player just because hes older.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I can't see how Milwaukee would be interested in a sign and trade; if they do not have the financial wherewithal to sign an up and coming point guard , why would they want to take on equivalent salaries?

Salaries don't have to match since we are under the cap; we'd could ship Sergio's one million dollar deal for instance straight up and eat the difference in salary that Sessions would represent. So from Milwaukee's standpoint there might be a lot to like about a sign and trade if the can get some value vs. just letting him walk if they don't want to match an offer.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Bayless is 2.5 years younger... I don't think that's "too close to the same age".

If Jerryd keeps improving, he'll earn minutes at both guard spots. If he doesn't, he'll sit on the bench.

Either way... he doesn't "deserve" a shot somewhere else.

Ed O.

Agree. One of the better case future scenarios is to have a rotation featuring both Sessions AND Bayless. Bayless hasn't earned a spot in the rotation yet. Sergio did. Bayless will have this upcoming season to prove to Portland that Blake is no longer needed.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Experience is overrated.

Brandon Roy has the experience now, he is our leader. I don't think we should bring in an older player just because hes older.

Older and experienced are different.

SAR for example went a long time before he even made the playoffs. Someone younger who already knew what it took to get through themwould be more valuable for a team like ours.

 

[number 10]

to Sessions' credit, he's gone from an undrafted player to a potential star PG. Maybe he doesn't know what it takes to make the playoffs, but he does know how to work his way up from a nobody to an NBA starter. To me, that's pretty damn impressive.

edit - I'm an idiot, I must have been thinking of the guy with the Warriors instead. Still, it takes some dedication to go from a 2nd rounder to a starter and possible star.

 

[esperanzafleet6969]

first off.. no way portland has enough money to sign either of these guys... at best they could POSSIBLY get sessions... which i think would b sweet in portland.. but i doubt either of them leavin the bucks due to their public statements of wanting to keep both of them very badly.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Again, you have to consider the Gilbert Arenas provision. Pretty much every team in the league can offer him an amount equivalent to the MLE in the first year of the contract. The subsequent raises can be larger for teams with more caproom. And to avoid those raises (which can eventually lead to a higher average salary over the duration of the contract), Milwaukee can simply sign and trade him for player/players whose contracts are shorter (see: Blake, Outlaw).

And those raises are considerable after the 2nd contract year, which is why teams with cap room are going to be a major thorn in the Bucks' side. If indeed we're $9M under the cap, we could potentially offer Sessions a 5-year deal worth approx. $43M. Obviously we wouldn't do that. But a 4-year deal would make sense and could be structured in a way that would still be more than he could get from any other team not under the cap. Something like the below:

1st Year - $5.6M
2nd Year - $6.0M
3rd Year - $7M
4th Year - $7M

This would still leave us under the salary cap by over $3M to focus on other deals as well. My biggest fear is with Atlanta though. Sessions is from South Carolina and may want to stay in the Southeast. Because of this we might need to up either one of both of those 3rd and 4th year amounts.

A sign-and-trade sure would help out the Bucks though and ensure that they wouldn't even entertain the thought of matching. Obviously they'll want our high-value youngsters that will be under contract on the cheap for multiple years (Bayless, Sergio, Rudy, Batum, Koponen, Freeland, or Greg). Obviously a few of their names they're not getting a whiff of, and I wouldn't think Sergio is that intriguing to them because he's only on the cheap for next season.

I hate to say it, but moving Bayless MAY be the best option if in negotiations things look headed south.

 

[Masbee]

This is silly. Why give up one of our most valued assetts in Bayless when we don't have to? When we can just sign Sessions out right? Bayless will be a 2nd year guy locked into his contract, he has no say about his minutes until he's better than the guys playing in front of him. He was so irrelevant last season, I can't see him being relevant enough next season to disrupt chemistry. This is a non issue. Sergio? They can have him.

I completely agree.

We have cap space. We can take Sessions (if he wants to come here) from Milwaukee for nothing.

They will take Sergio and like it.

Otherwise, to hell with them.

Hands off Bayless. That is way too much value to give up for a player we can use our cap space to pick up.

If Sessions in means Bayless needs to go (which I don't think is true this next season), he becomes valuable trade bait - now, at trade deadline, or next summer. There is no rush.

Adding Sessions while keeping Bayless means we would still be in the hunt for poaching a legit 3rd scoring option and/or proven playoff performer, if one were to come available. We could offer the other team a package of players that includes their choice of: Bayless, Travis, Webster, Blake, Joel.

That talent plus money relief (shorter contracts) might be enough to get a solid player. Most likely a small forward that can fill it up. But could be a proven, playoff tested combo guard, or a scoring big in the Okur mold.

Or, a more straigtforward deal of Bayless and Travis for a decent, young backup 4. I think that package gets us a pretty good one.

Sessions/Blake/Grizzled Vet
Roy/Rudy
Batum/Webster
Aldridge/Nice Backup
Oden/Joel

 

[Minstrel]

first off.. no way portland has enough money to sign either of these guys...

Portland can free up to $16 million. Neither of these players will command anything close to that. Secondly, Sessions can't be offered much more than the MLE by anyone, by rules.

but i doubt either of them leavin the bucks due to their public statements of wanting to keep both of them very badly.

Milwaukee has also said in no uncertain terms that they're not going to cross the luxury tax threshold, which they are just under already. There is no way they can sign both and it'll take some effort (trading away players to free up salary) to sign even one of them.

Sessions is the only one of the two who is likely to be of interest to Portland. They definitely have the money for him. The question is which other teams will also be interested in Sessions and who Sessions picks. Milwaukee could retain him, but most likely won't. At most, they'll seek a sign-and-trade with some team...but they won't have a lot of leverage in such a case.

 

[Sinobas]

The reason you don't need Bayless if you get Sessions is because they are too close to the same age and Bayless being buried as the third guy on the bench is a waste of an asset. Holding on to him is begging for disaster in disrupted chemistry, trade demands, etc. Frankly he deserves a shot somewhere if we're just going to shelve him.

Waste of an asset? It's a waste of an asset if you give Bayless to the Bucks in exchange for Sessions, if we could acquire Sessions as a free agent, or with expendable assets like picks or Sergio.

Bayless could be an absolute stud, in the mold of Devin Harris....we don't know how good either of these players will be.

But Sessions would certainly be an upgrade over Sergio, and possibly Blake. Can he actually run a fast break and hit a cutter? Could be good for Oden as well.

 

[Mediocre Man]

first off.. no way portland has enough money to sign either of these guys... at best they could POSSIBLY get sessions... which i think would b sweet in portland.. but i doubt either of them leavin the bucks due to their public statements of wanting to keep both of them very badly.

Without doing a damn thing except letting Frye walk, Portland has 9 million in cap space. If they let Blake and Outlaw walk or trade them for a TPE or pick, they have an aditional 9.5 million. With cap holds and such it would put Portland about 15-16 million in space. So I think with that Portland easily has enough to sign either of them. If nothing else they can offer so much that the Bucks might look for a sign and trade to Portland.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Give Sessions the 9 mil (around that) we have... 45mil/5yr contract, but of course I don't know the NBA contract rules so that may not be possible. Either way we could do a contract that goes up yearly and starts lower. I think he would love to come to PDX though, because everyone is around his age, and PG is a position of need and we are already winning. A problem may be the city choice and the fact that Nate doesn't give the PGs free reign. Hopefully with the money and player's we'd have around him he would choose us.

If we get Sessions, i'd be fine with trading Bayless (I agree w/ others that it doesn't have to be now, and we should see how he improved over the summer and so on). But if we go for a veteran PG than I really want to keep him and mold him into our future PG, because that kid is going to be a stud. What i'd do is get Blair in the draft (use our valuable high 2nd rounders, our TE and our first rounder, on top of future picks and cash to move up to the mid-teens and grab Blair).

After that, you have Outlaw, Webster and Bayless to trade. Preferably for a veteran small-forward in the form of a Prince/Battier (Yes, unrealistic I know because that isn't enough to get them, but just an example of a veteran, role-playing SF). Fill the rest of the roster with minimum vets and Kop/Freeland? Who knows, but that part isn't important at the moment.

I think that would be my #1 realistic plan, and by far the most important part is securing Sessions who is a future star.

Sessions | Blake
Roy | Rudy
? | Batum
Aldridge | Blair
Oden | Joel

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Without doing a damn thing except letting Frye walk, Portland has 9 million in cap space. If they let Blake and Outlaw walk or trade them for a TPE or pick, they have an aditional 9.5 million. With cap holds and such it would put Portland about 15-16 million in space. So I think with that Portland easily has enough to sign either of them. If nothing else they can offer so much that the Bucks might look for a sign and trade to Portland.

Is Sessions a RFA? Because if so and if the Blazers are going after Sessions:

Do the Blazers try to work out a sign and trade deal with the Bucks to guarantee they get their guy or do they offer a big contract in hopes the Bucks won't match?

If the KP thinks that Sessions is their guy, I think the Blazers have enough assets to play with to guarentee they get their guy. Either that or they risk a Trenton Hassell situation . . . which actually didn't turn out badly for the Blazers

 

[MrJayremmie]

If we want to S&T, we have cap space to where we can take on more salary then we give out, and have young players with potential and cheap contracts that i'm sure Milwaukee would want. We also have draft picks (1st round and high 2nd rounders) and future picks, cash, and our TE we can use to get another pick. SO I think we'd be ok and probably one of their best choices and maybe THE best of the interested teams.

 

[Minstrel]

After that, you have Outlaw, Webster and Bayless to trade. Preferably for a veteran small-forward in the form of a Prince/Battier (Yes, unrealistic I know because that isn't enough to get them, but just an example of a veteran, role-playing SF).

I wouldn't trade Bayless for a small forward like Prince or Battier, because Batum is not much worse than either of them. Yes, they have more experience, but I wouldn't trade Bayless just for an upgrade in experience.

 

[MrJayremmie]

I wouldn't trade Bayless for a small forward like Prince or Battier, because Batum is not much worse than either of them. Yes, they have more experience, but I wouldn't trade Bayless just for an upgrade in experience.

You think the only difference between Prince/Battier and Batum is experience?

I think that it will take Batum about 3-4 years to get to their level, and I think they would be a great vet for the team to help us through those years and then Batum takes that role and you continue the process. Personally, I think to be a contender next year we need an upgrade at PG (Sessions) and an upgrade at SF (can be Batum if he continues to improve a significant amount, which is not out of the question)... but I think that a Prince type at SF would be awesome.

 

[Minstrel]

You think the only difference between Prince/Battier and Batum is experience?

Pretty much. Their production isn't actually that remarkable. They're a little more consistent, but in terms of average level of production, Batum is only a bit below them.

In terms of defense, that's harder to say. Prince and Battier are probably a bit ahead of Batum, but not far ahead.

So, overall, Prince and Battier are better but not by leaps and bounds. By next season, the gap will narrow further. I don't think it's worth trading Bayless to close what I feel is a pretty small gap especially when that gap will keep decreasing each season.

 

[STOMP]

If we want to S&T, we have cap space to where we can take on more salary then we give out, and have young players with potential and cheap contracts that i'm sure Milwaukee would want. We also have draft picks (1st round and high 2nd rounders) and future picks, cash, and our TE we can use to get another pick. SO I think we'd be ok and probably one of their best choices and maybe THE best of the interested teams.

I don't have that good a bead on Sessions as the only two times I saw him last season were his terrible performances vs Portland which obviously wasn't the norm. If he is as good as his supporters claim, I'd be excited about a S&T involving Blake or Travis or Martell though with Jefferson and Alexander, Travis probably would hold the least interest for them.

Such a S&T with Sessions 2009-10 salary at a full MLE would take 1.5-2M off Portland's projected 9M of 2009-10 capspace leaving KP & Co with 7-7.5M to play with.

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

Sessions is a UFA, he'd have to agree to any S&T. What's in it for him? Nothing that I see. Milwaukee has no advantage over anyone, particularly, for him to sign such a deal.

 

[hasoos]

Sessions is a UFA, he'd have to agree to any S&T. What's in it for him? Nothing that I see. Milwaukee has no advantage over anyone, particularly, for him to sign such a deal.

It can expand his salary range. Say the hypothetical situation the team only has 6 million available under the cap. You get Milwaukee to signs him for say 9 million, and trade him to you for a player worth like 3 million bucks, and now instead you have the hypothetical 9 million needed to have him, and keep under the cap.

Sessions interest: He gets paid more.
Portland's interest: They stay under the cap.
Milwaukee's interest, they get a player when they normally would lose sessions for nothing.

So that being said, what isn't there to gain?

 

[BalancedMan]

Sessions is a UFA, he'd have to agree to any S&T. What's in it for him? Nothing that I see. Milwaukee has no advantage over anyone, particularly, for him to sign such a deal.

Nope, he's an RFA. He falls under the Gilbert Arenas Provision: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q37

 

[number 10]

Even if it did take Bayless to get Sessions in a S&T, the Bucks might be willing to send Joe Alexander back. Obviously his star has dimmed a bit this season but he's still an athletic player with upside (tm Jay Bilas). Though he'd probably be best as a 3rd string SF for now, he'd still give us depth enough to be able to trade Outlaw/Webster for a backup PF.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Even if it did take Bayless to get Sessions in a S&T, the Bucks might be willing to send Joe Alexander back. Obviously his star has dimmed a bit this season but he's still an athletic player with upside (tm Jay Bilas). Though he'd probably be best as a 3rd string SF for now, he'd still give us depth enough to be able to trade Outlaw/Webster for a backup PF.

If I'm the Blazers, I stop taking on projects and getting players who can produce now. Our window just opened up, let's not waste time on new projects to contribute to the team. I'd rather have Jefferson from them but I doubt they let him go for nothing. I think Sessions/Miller/Conley are at the top of my list right now, if we go young at the PG position I'd love to see a starting vet at the SF position. I think people overstate Batum's abilities on both sides of the court. I think he's going to turn out great for us, but I think we need someone who can produce now and provide some vet leadership if we don't get it at the PG position. I hope Nic can be more aggressive this upcoming season.