That's possibly their thinking, but I think it would be too risky. I like Bayless' talent a lot, but he's far from a sure thing. If you acquire Sessions, you lock in some certainty at the position long-term. Having two good/very good players at point guard isn't a bad problem to have...you can always trade one. I don't think it will be hard to find teams interested in a good, young point guard. However, having no good players at a position is a bad problem and if you pass on Sessions because you have Bayless and then Bayless doesn't pan out...that's what you're looking at. So, I really hope the Blazers aren't putting all their eggs in the Bayless basket. I can easily see Bayless becoming a star...I can also see him becoming a bust.
I like that, but it scares me at the same time. Sessions, and Bayless as our PG's I would want a vet 3rd stringer though I hope. too bad Lindsey Hunter was just re-signed.
But if you sign Sessions, and he doesn't pan out.... You're left going into the season relying on two very young players to run the PG position for a team expected to get past the first round of the playoffs. At least going into it with Miller, you basically know what you are getting. Same with sticking with Blake, or going to Hinrich, as well. Going in with Sessions, we know he can run a team that has absolutely nothing to play for. Milwaukee's team was basically on extended summer league after Redd went down. Do we know whether he can 'run an offense"? That he can play alongside a high usage guard and play 4th fiddle? We don't. I am not saying he can't, but he is stilla question mark as an above average starter in the league. Not as much as Bayless, but again, with Miller, Bayless has 2 years of backup time to learn, develop, etc. Signing Sessions makes him PG #1, which leaves much bigger question marks than signing Miller, and basically pushing the PG issue out 2 years, which is perfectly acceptable.
To me, he's already panned out. He's posted above average PERs in both his first two seasons, his second season improved on his first and he started a significant number of games in his second season. I agree that Miller provides some veteran experience that Sessions can't match, but I'd prefer the long-term talent of Sessions over the short-term leadership of Miller. The Blazers have Blake on a one-year commitment...they can always use him as the primary backup to Sessions, let Bayless again prove he belongs in 5-10 minutes per game for one more season and aim for giving Bayless a bigger role in his third season. By then, more will be known...Sessions will have a season as Blazers starter under his belt, Bayless will or will not have pushed Blake out of his way. Blake can then walk as a free agent and the team can decide what it has in Sessions and Bayless and whether they need to address the position further.
Stop fucking around and get this team Ramon Sessions. Andre Miller is the 2nd best alternative, would much rather have him than Hinrich.
agree, Sessions basically is a 23 yr old version of Miller IMO with room to improve. And I think that's a good thing
I certainly don't think he is, would we rather have a 23 or 34 yr old version of very similarly skilled players?
Why don't you post more often? You make more sense than nearly anyone on this board. This is probably what PA was referring to when he said, " go for it" or something to that affect.
I hope this isn't a John Nash moment where Pritchard passes up on a up and coming point guard because he has a "point" guard who has shown flashes. Telfair > Paul Bayless > Sessions? Please no. Even if it were true, you could always trade one of them in a couple years and get a nice asset or two for them.
