I agree that Bayless would get angry if we get Sessions. What realistically would we do with Bayless then? I wouldn't be opposed to packaging him up with Outlaw to get a decent backup PF. Maybe Antawn Jamison? Would he play behind LMA? I could see Washington wanting Bayless, but I am not sure they would want Outlaw and then who would they start at PF? They could get a free agent with the money they will save by giving us Jamison. A dreamer dreaming... but how does this look? Sessions\Blake Roy\Rudy Batum\Webster LMA\Jamison Joel\Oden I like it!
I like how the agent said he's been in the league for 2 years, and "hasn't tasted the playoffs yet", as if that's an eternity or something.
I'm fully on the Sessions bandwagon. He's one of the best up-and-coming guards in the League. Some of the numbers he put up last season were insane. He can really get into the lane, attack the hoop, drive-n-dish. BUT, his outside shooting is a big concern. Does anyone realize he shot .176 from three last season? Regardless, adding Sessions would be a steal.
One thing to consider with Sessions: the Gilbert Arenas provision (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q37). Having caproom might not be so necessary if we intend to sign him.
Merge alert! I dont know squat about sessions. But looking at his #'s this past season he does like a player that could help us and fits our plan. http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ramon_sessions/game_by_game_stats.html
I think he likes Portland OK; I went back to a Mike Barret interview with him after he worked out for Portland (Yes, Portland drafted Taureen Green over Ramon Sessions), and he says it was great to work out for a great NBA franchise like the Portland Trailblazers. Can't find it, but as I remember KP spoke highly of him, expected him to be an NBA player, so maybe he still has good feelings about PTB.
I am on the Jerryd Bayless bandwagon. No bringing in young pg's..bring in a good vet who has been there before so in 1-2 years, Bayless takes over starting.
I agree that Portland probably can't roll with Sessions and Bayless long-term, as neither will be happy with a backup role in the long-term. However, I wouldn't give Bayless to Milwaukee if I didn't have to. If there was no way to get Sessions without trading Bayless, I'd probably bite the bullet and do it. But if Sessions can be had basically just by signing him, I wouldn't work a sign-and-trade just to offload Bayless. Since he's only played one year, he's contractually bound, so nothing needs to happen immediately. I'd rather use Bayless as a trade chip for another valuable asset than essentially throw him away because we now have another young point guard. Alternatively, I'd gauge his mindset (were I GM and had this kind of access) and see whether he's capable of competing with Sessions and Blake for playing time and coming off the bench until then without becoming a problem. It would be nice to see who's better between Bayless and Sessions in a couple of years and trade the other one.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
