Clippers In Lead For Sessions?

This from David Aldrige: "Several league sources said Wednesday that they believed the New York Knicks had abandoned their pursuit of Bucks restricted free agent guard Ramon Sessions, leaving the Clippers as the prime candidate for the 23-year-old. The Oklahoma City Thunder has a tangential interest, according to sources, but is not believed to be seriously pursuing Sessions... Despite already having Baron Davis and newly acquired Sebastian Telfair at the point, the Clippers still want Sessions, who emerged as a solid backup and occasional starter over the last year and a half in Milwaukee, where he averaged 12.4 points and 5.7 assists in 79 games last season."

7 months ago Clipster Hipster 35 comments 3 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

hmmm interesting.

wounder why the Knicks are backing out…?

Well this is bad new for Taylor unless we plan on trading Telfair…or Baron lol

by dulciusEXasperis on Jul 23, 2009 7:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Aldridge's whole article is interesting...

Rec’d. Is the prevalent wisdom that Sessions can’t shoot the three? So he can’t back up Gordon?

by swamigusto on Jul 23, 2009 7:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well he shot 17% from 3 point land last year

so I’m going to go with no, he can’t shoot the three.

I mean, that’s really where this whole Sessions thing confuses me. Unless dulciusEXasperis is right and the Clippers are planning on trading Baron or Telfair, I don’t see the logic of signing Sessions. After the signing, the Clippers will have 4 guards (assuming Taylor is cut and not including Mardy) and 3 of them are poor shooters. Gordon is the only competent shooter in the group, so adding another “pass first” point guard seems like overkill. Why not just see where you are at with Telfair? If the Clippers suck again this year and ending up picking in the lottery again, try to target a combo 2/3 in the draft or use the significant amount of cap space they’ll have next season and address that need.

If its me, I just resign Fred Jones to back up EJ—- it’s not ideal but its not the worst thing that can happen either and have BD, Telfair and Taylor as the point guards.

by Michael White on Jul 23, 2009 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"If the Clippers suck again..."

That’s the disparity in your thinking and management’s (and many other fans). While you seem to not be bothered by the potential of the team sucking again this year, the team isn’t and neither are fans like me. The team needs a competent young backup PG with starter potential. That’s exactly what Sessions is.

Sessions HAS in fact played the 2 a bi for Milwaukee and has done so competently. You guys make it sound like shooting the 3 is the be all of an SG. Jordan didn’t even have a 3 pt shot until later in his career. Neither did other greats like Drexler. We’re talking about someone would would backup the 2. Not start there. The guy coming off the bench to spell EJ doesn’t absolutely need to be a 3 pt threat. That’s just myopic thinking. He needs to be able to defend the 2 and score competently. Sessions can do those things.

Plus, Sessions doesn’t always have to backup the 2 either. They can just bring him in at the 1 and shift Baron to the 2.

by madglove on Jul 23, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry Madglove

But this just isn’t correct. This team desperately needs another wing who can shoot the three and defend sgs / sfs. If they sign Sessions, who I agree is a good player in the abstract, and if the plan is for him to start, they will have to start an SF who can shoot the three. Sessions cannot shoot the three ball, which is a negative in a pg.

That is, they need to do that if they want to win.

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Sessions is going to come off the bench to back up Gordon

What bench players will be shooting the three for the Clips? Novak? Bassy? Sessions is a pg and should be used as such. If Bassy can’t shoot the three ball, they will have to get someone else who can.

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why not Novak if the matchup is right?

And couldn’t the guard rotation be worked so that Baron is at PG when Sessions is in for Gordon?

by ClipCat on Jul 23, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Novak is one - we need two

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We’d have 2 as long as either Baron or Gordon was playing. It’s not like this is hockey where the whole team subs out at once.

by ClipCat on Jul 23, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The plan isn't for him to start now

I agree that if/when he starts, it’s good to have a 3 who can shoot. I don’t agree it’s as imperative as you and others are trying to make it sound though (it’s like you guys don’t even remember that Sam couldn’t shoot the 3 and neither could QRoss or Maggs who we started at SF).

But RIGHT NOW, we need a backup PG who can play big minutes if Baron goes down. Telfair cannot play big minutes and Taylor can’t even play big minutes in summer league. Those who are trying to act like trading for Telfair solved our gaping hole are fooling themselves.

And it’s not like I’m saying they shouldn’t get a swingman. I’m saying that for the full MLE, no swingman out there is worth it. Sessions is and he fills another big need.

The reality is that we have other means to find a swingman (trade exception, trading Camby) and quality young PGs are hard to come by. It’s foolish to pass up on that b/c you guys are trying to convince yourselves that Telfair is suddenly a quality backup.

by madglove on Jul 23, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd have to check, but

As I recall, both Sam and Maggs shot the three ball.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Sessions. How about this – sign him and trade Bassy and Smith for a defensive – oriented SF who can shoot the three.

Why can’t Bassy play big minutes?

Here’s my point – every year quality guys come up. We should sign them when they do. We should get Sessions because he’s quality and he’s available. If there was a quality SF available for similar money, given that we have Bassy, I would sign that guy first.

Last year we should have offered more to Buike and we’d have him today. He’d solve alot of our issues.

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Repeating the lie doesn't make it true

It wasn’t possible to offer more to Buike.

by John R on Jul 23, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What lie?

And why wasn’t it possible? Feel free to explain yourself so we can better understand what you’re saying. It was my understanding that we could have offered him more than we did.

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we disagree on the main point

If that’s your main point, what’s the problem? Are you saying there IS a quality SF available for similar money? I don’t see him.

I totally agree on Buike. But we didn’t have more money to offer. We threw the last of our remaining cap space at Buike and the Warriors matched. That one hurt.

by madglove on Jul 23, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You and John R are saying that we offered Buike all we could

Where is that documented?

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

of course you didn't throw out the gratuitous liar claim

he needs to go back down to the basement

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And why can't Telfair play big minutes?

Uh…seriously? B/c he hasn’t once shown the ability to produce playing big minutes for an extended period.

The guy is an ok option playing 10-15 minutes a night as a backup. Not having to play 25-30 if/when Baron is injured or struggling.

by madglove on Jul 23, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't he do pretty well towards the end of last year?

Maybe the sample size is too small.

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yea that's what I'm saying

He played well for the month of April but that’s a very small sample size.

Again, he’s not a bad backup but he’s no starter.

by madglove on Jul 23, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My problem with that thinking

is that MDSr signed BD to a huge $65 million contract to be the starter for this team for five years. Are you now telling me that we have to waste money on backups who really should be starting because BD has turned out to be injury prone (even though we’ve always known he’s injury prone)?

That kills me, but if that’s the reality . . .

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The comment I made about “the Clippers sucking again” was glib and meant to be humorous. I understand your hostile response, but (FWIW) to accuse me of not caring about the Clippers is off-base. I simply wouldn’t spend so much time reading and commenting about the Clippers if I didn’t care about their success.

by Michael White on Jul 23, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You obviously care

that’s not what I was saying. But you seemed to be ok with yet another lottery pick next summer. You wouldn’t be the only one, I’ve already read absurd “let’s get John Wall” type comments around here. I thought from that comment you were one of those too. My mistake.

My point being that the “let’s see what we have in Telfair” kind of stance makes no sense for a team that really wants to make the playoffs this coming season. PG is the most important position on any team. That doesn’t mean you need your best player to be a PG, but you can’t have PG be a weakness. With Baron’s health and Telfair and Taylor behind him, it’s a potentially big weakness. It certainly was last year.

The fact that there’s a quality young PG who can start in a few years as he grows with Griffin and Gordon, and people want to make it sound like they should pass on him for no good reason is just silly to me.

by madglove on Jul 23, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We went through a ton of point guards last year due to injuries, and how many of them were of the caliber of Sessions?

Certainly we had our share of other problems, but ineffectiveness at the point was a huge problem last year.

I don’t have a POV as to whether Sessions is worth whatever cap space or players we might trade to get him, but getting Sessions would put the depth chart at BD, RS, ST and MT (if he sticks). In this scenario:

Is this year’s backup PG (Session) better than last year’s backup (Taylor)? I think so.

Is this year’s third string PG (Telfair) better than last year’s third stringer (Jason Hart)? I think so.

So we get much needed upgrade in the second and third PG in a year after we went way down the depth chart in that position. For me, that rationale makes sense.

The risk is that if you choose incorrectly, you’ve got a healthy chunk of cash tied up in a backup PG. So I’m hoping Sessions is the real deal.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein

by Another son of Mike Smith on Jul 23, 2009 9:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm worried here.

Whilst I really like Sessions as a player and think his game would fit in really nicely as a potential starting PG, I’m worried that we are addressing the wrong position here also.

We desperately need a SF. Whether it would be a starter or backup to AT, there is a need for a perimeter defender who can also help spread the floor on offence.

Telfair would seem an adequate backup PG at this stage.

However, if we were going for Sessions and also at a later point in the off season addressing the SF issue with either the trade exception or a trade of some kind then I’d be happy.

With this (now) pro-active front office you can’t tell what’s going to happen. Has FElton changed our franchise forever because since he left, they seem to have woken up and started to push this ball club forwards.

Bingo! Oh me oh my!

by ClippersUK on Jul 23, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure that's the best way to look at it

We now have a competent backup PG. Adding another PG would make the Clippers 3 deep at that position, which is great. But none of them are good shooters, so none of them can effectively backup Gordon. So you’ve now allocated at least 3 roster spots (and cap space) to guys who are point guards only and have no depth at SG. Not to mention, many here would agree the Clippers are weak at SF. Both positions are more pressing than adding a backup PG, especially when the Clippers already have a back up PG in Telfair.

by Michael White on Jul 23, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with both points...

… so please don’t think I’m blind to the team’s other priorities. I’m still pushing hard for a Kaman for Battier-Prince deal to make AT sixth man in addition to picking up Sessions at the right price. In other words, I don’t view these moves as mutually exclusive.

As for backing up Gordon, I think that’s the least difficult of the three needs to fill (I’m not saying it’s easy – just the easiest of the three needs). Also, I want help at SG but not too much because I want Gordon to play a lot this year. But that’s just me.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein

by Another son of Mike Smith on Jul 23, 2009 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but...

I don’t think Detroit will ever let go of Prince. We have a better chance of getting battier – since Houston now has Ariza. As far as SG is concerned, I think Jones is adequate for now, so we should resign him. Also it’s possible that the reason for the Clippers going after all these quality PG’s is that a trade involving Baron for a good defensive stopper at the 3 is in the works (Battier any one?).

"Excellence...is not an act, but a habit" Aristotle

by Cliptomaniac on Jul 23, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wings don't grow on trees ya know

We aren’t debating which FA wing the Clips should sign because there aren’t any good choices left. Marvin Williams and Linas Kleiza are the best remaining SF’s. Williams isn’t really available, and while Kleiza can shoot the 3, he’s pretty unremarkable beyond that – definitely not the defensive minded 3 that could start in front of Thornton.

And there’s a very good chance that the Clips haven’t traded for Prince, Battier or any other top small forward because they aren’t available right now. Whatever your opinion of Dunleavy as GM, the Clipper FO has been extremely active the last couple years, and it’s very likely that we’ve inquired about the availability of quite a few wings.

So while a do-it-all small forward may be the Clippers’ biggest need, give the FO credit for not forcing a bad deal for someone that doesn’t really fit that need. They’ve done the next best thing by stockpiling expiring contracts and the TPE to fill that hole later.

And give the FO some more credit for continuing to look for good value and thinking creatively. Now that the Clips acquired Bassy, signing Ramon Sessions may not be a critical need, but it would add a young, talented player at a reasonable cost. Besides insuring the team against Baron injuries, it also opens up future trade possibilities should we find a team with a wing to spare but thin at PG (Bassy for Buike anyone?). Fielding a team that seems overloaded at PG and C and features great, young talent at PF and SG seems like a dream compared to the recent past.

by ClipCat on Jul 23, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

awesome post

makes perfect sense to me.

by swamigusto on Jul 23, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

AI continues to be an option as a bench scorer

Of course, he’s not a good defensive wing, so not sure where that leaves them.

by Jax on Jul 23, 2009 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Question

If the Clips do sign on Sessions does that mean they might trade Baron for a SF?

by baronycamby on Jul 23, 2009 11:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Trade Exception

That’s the chip they’ll try to use to fill that need. If not, I’m guessing contenders will want a crack at Camby.

All indications are that Baron has been busting his butt this summer and the team wants to see how he rebounds. Obviously if he flops again, they’ll look into trading him (though nobody will take him).

by madglove on Jul 23, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just A Thought

In another recent Hoopsworld article on Sessions, there was this:

“The biggest problem for Milwaukee is they have stated they are not going to be a luxury tax payer. With the 2009-10 luxury tax number set at a tad over $69 million, the Bucks are currently committed to $65.8 million (once Ersan Ilyasova signs), plus the unannounced value of the contracts to Jodie Meeks (likely not much, considering his status as a second-round pick). They can cut $2 million off that number by waiving swingman Bruce Bowen, whose contract is only guaranteed for $2 million if he is waived in August.”

Don’t know anything about Bowen’s contract, but might it be possible to include Bowen with Sessions in a Sign & Trade and solve both back up defensive wingman/glue guy and PG back up in one trade?

by Clipster Hipster on Jul 23, 2009 1:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs