Milwaukee Bucks Thread 2008–2009 (part 2)

[Diskono]

I think it's absolutely inexcusable to get nothing for him.

I thought you were against adding salary/players? You can't have it both ways.

[trwi7]

I thought you were against adding salary/players? You can't have it both ways.

I'm against signing known mediocre talent (Warrick and Delfino, I would include Ukic, but he has a while to go before he could be considered mediocre.)

 

My plan the whole time has been clear out as many big contracts as you can and play young players. If you suck, great. Add another high pick and young player to your core. If you win, even better. That means you already have a good, young team with room for future growth beyond that.

[Diskono]

Do you think we could have gotten better talent than those players mentioned in a sign & trade involving Sessions? I doubt it, personally.

[trwi7]

So why not just keep Sessions then since he's the best player out of Delfino and Ukic and will be making less than those two combined next year?

[JJHardy7]

I get what you're saying trwi7. You've been against the Bucks moves for awhile and I respect your opinion. I would like to hear an explanation from the Bucks. I honestly don't know if it was really money related...it's not like the Bucks didn't know this was possible (ie him signing a deal for the money he did). They CHOSE to spend that money...so I guess what I'm saying is that they're either not sold on Sessions or worried about him on the same team with Jennings for the next few years. I don't know if those are legit reasons or not, but it was still not played very well. I think the biggest 'miss' may have not been trading Ridnour.

[Diskono]

So why not just keep Sessions then since he's the best player out of Delfino and Ukic and will be making less than those two combined next year?

Just to be clear, I was very much in favor of keeping Sessions, so this would have been my preference. But I don't think its that simple, and without knowing details of what negotiations took place, its hard for me to pass too much judgment...even though he was an RFA, he could still turn down our contract offers. All I'm saying is that a sign & trade might not have been better than nothing. Looking at Minnesota's roster, the only player (with matching salaries) that I would have taken back is Kevin Love, and I'm sure the Twolves would have laughed at us for asking about him.

 

If re-signing Sessions was a realistic possibility, the only other explanation I can think of is that Hammond preferred to spend that money on depth. And to be fair to him, he didn't really have time to wait around forever and potentially start the season without a full roster.

[homer]

So why not just keep Sessions then since he's the best player out of Delfino and Ukic and will be making less than those two combined next year?

Are Delfino and Ukic signed beyond 2009 - 2010?

[yoshii8]

Delfino has a 3 year deal, where the 2nd year is partially guaranteed and the 3rd year is a team option. Ukic has a player option for the 10'-11' season.

[trwi7]

Are Delfino and Ukic signed beyond 2009 - 2010?

Yes.

[homer]

So essentially the Bucks are locked in to those two players for two years max. Matching the Sessions offer was locking them in for four years min, right? I'm guessing the roster flexibility factored into their decision.

[trwi7]

It wouldn't have been four years max with Sessions. There's always the possibility of trading him and I believe he has an opt out clause after the third year (although I'm not completely sure on that.) There was no reason to think that he couldn't be traded and it would be pretty easy to get under the luxury tax.

[homer]

Well yeah anyone can be traded prior to their contract expiring.

[greeg35]

except Gadzuric apparently. I don't like the no-match because giving away assets for nothing is a bad idea if you don't have many assets. I didn't want Sessions on the roster; but something in return would have been nice. Same for Villanueva.

[ILuvDaBush]

I have no problem with the "No Match." Charlie Bell was the epitome of a lung cancer that first year, and it seems that the current regime treasures the coronary muscles over the talent level of someone lacking. Scott Skiles learned his lesson in Chicago, and I'm seriously excited. Next year, we'll probably blow chunks, but I guarantee you we won't see Tank Job, Part Deux. This team is unquestionably Mike and Andrew's. Two Olympians. Both gifted, and yet incomplete. But the foundation, nevertheless, they are.

[trwi7]

This team is unquestionably Mike and Andrew's.

If that's the case, this team is in worse shape than I thought.

[patrickgpe]

those are the 2 stars, its what we got. Maybe Jennings does turn into an AI type player and he can take the team, there is no way the bucks are going to put that much pressure in a 19 year old rookie though.

[yoshii8]

I don't think that the Bucks consider Michael Redd a long term piece of this roster. If he stays healthy, I could see him traded before the deadline this season. I think they are building around Bogut and Jennings right now.

[endaround]

To me this has more to do with length of the contract. The NBA looks to be cutting the cap down again and in 2 years that Sessions contract could be unmovable. If they could have kept him for one year I think they do it.

 

---------------

Continued in Milwaukee Bucks Thread 2009–2010.