Guarding against no Rubio
by Stop-n-Pop on Sep 5, 2009 10:47 AM CDT
78 comments
Before I get around to talking about the guy who could very well be the newest Timberwolf, let me take a moment to stroll down memory lane, circa December 2008:
What are the reasons for the current state of disarray? I think you can point to two main factors: awful offense and terrible back court play. Let's focus on the guards. Not only were Wolves fans treated to a historically brilliant player in King James, but they were also witness to one of the most inept back court rotations in recent NBA memory.
Plugging in starting point guard Randy Foye's numbers into Basketball Reference's full court machine, he is having a season comparable to the 93/94 campaign of Greg Graham, 99/00 Larry Hughes, 08/09 Acie Law, 69/70 Wayne Chapman, and 98/99 Kendall Gill. These are the top 5 seasons of guards who shot less than 40% from the field, <25% from 3, <5.5 apg, and < 15 ppg.
Moving over to Rashad McCants, Shaddy is currently the only guard in NBA history (with the minimum number of minutes required to qualify for the scoring title) to average less than 35% from the floor, 25.5% from 3, 1 apg, and 10 ppg. He is epically bad. If you extend these numbers to forwards and centers, only a 36 year old Jerome Kersey (98/99), Manute Bol (89/90), and Chuck Hayes (current season) can compete with Shaddy's ineptitude. Each and every single Wolves fan should quickly end any fantasy of Shaddy being traded for anything other than a toaster. He may be the single most ineffective regular in the NBA.
Current starting off-guard Mike Miller is complete disinterested in playing anything remotely approaching defense and he is averaging career or 5-year lows in FGA, 3P%, 3PA, and ppg. He doesn't have a good enough handle to get his own and he requires a labyrinth of screens to get his shot off on a team with zero threat of guard penetration.
Backup point Sebastian Telfair is in McHale's dog house after signing a contract extension in the off season. He is shooting .313% from the field. He boasts a current OE of 86 and a DE of 112. Contract extension or not, there's a reason why he's not playing this year.
Kevin Ollie is...well, I like Ollie. He's a 35 year old vet who is earning his paycheck. He is what he is and he's probably the best guard on the squad. This fact alone should condemn each and every single front office basketball operations employee to immediate termination. Yes, this includes the Triangle of Non-Accountability: Freddie Iowa, Toronto Ron, and Jesus Jim. Fire now, fire yesterday, fire tomorrow.
While the season's quality of guard play didn't quite end up where the late-December trajectory suggested it might, the Wolves still ended the season with the following positional splits:
Net Production by Position
| -0.5 | -.061 | -1.5 | 0% | -1.9 | -0.7 | -0.2 | -0.0 | -1.1 | -3.8 | -7.0 | |
| 0.1 | -.034 | -0.1 | 4% | 0.1 | -0.3 | -0.2 | -0.0 | -0.3 | -1.1 | -2.4 | |
| -3.5 | +.001 | -2.5 | -1% | 0.9 | 0.5 | -0.5 | 0.1 | -0.8 | -5.5 | -4.2 | |
| 0.3 | -.016 | -0.3 | 8% | -0.2 | 0.3 | -0.6 | -0.9 | -0.3 | -0.5 | -2.3 | |
| 6.1 | -.057 | 2.1 | 4% | 1.8 | -0.9 | 0.2 | -1.1 | 0.8 | 6.0 | +2.4 |
Outside of Randy Foye tearing it up against sub-par (and depleted) competition in January, the Wolves featured the worst backcourt in the league and it really wasn't even close.
As it stands right now, and before the Ramon Sessions matter plays itself out, the Wolves are staring at a backcourt rotation of Chucky Atkins, Bobby Brown, Wayne Ellington, and Jonny Flynn, with Damien Wilkins and Corey Brewer possibly providing relief at the 2. While Flynn and Ellington are unproven rookies, the rest of that rotation can easily be described as nothing but awful. Brewer and Wilkins are not the type of players who can spend long minutes at the two because of issues with handle and outside shooting. Atkins and Brown are D-League starters at best. All of this brings us to Sessions.
No matter what he may bring to the table in terms of chemistry or his effect on the long-term prospects of Ricky Rubio, I think it's fairly clear that Sessions would be the best guard on this team the second he puts his foot through the door. Not only that, but a fairly solid case could be made that he would be the best Minny guard since Sam Cassell.
The basic argument for his signing goes like this: He immediately becomes the best guard on the team while providing a two-PG proving ground for the next 2-3 years that Ricky Rubio remains in Europe.
The basic argument against his signing looks something like this: He is a ball-dominant player who can't shoot from the outside (at all) with a player option in the year that Rubio may come over to the NBA. He's also not above 6'4".
My question to all of you is this: Is Sessions and his 4th year player option a good philosophical fit for the Wolves? Is his acquisition a good thing simply by way of increasing the backcourt talent pool? We'll take a look at his numbers in a future post. In the meantime, what say you?
0 recs |
78 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Yes
This is a good move by Kahn. When you are the Timberwolves and you get the chance to sign a young talent like Sessions on the cheap, you do it. We can decide in the next couple of years if he fits into the core or not. If not, his deal is not outlandish and is probably quite movable.
When Rubio decided that he needed his Mommy and stayed in Spain, Kahn jumped right to the next best option. Go team.
The goal is gathering up young talent and develop it. Sessions at 23 fits that nicely and at a position of need. In essence, we just pushed the plan forward a bit.
by Grover M on Sep 5, 2009 11:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Great Move
The interesting part as you state SNP is the 4th year player option. Really I see this playing out two ways.
Sessions outperforms his contract: He declines his player option as he would likely be worth more than $4.5 Million. Rubio has ample time to see how a player with a similar skillset fits into the offense and has more information about whether he would want to join the Wolves.
Sessions underperforms his contract: He enacts his player option, we have an expensive backup pointguard his 4th year with possible overlap if Rubio comes over.
I think the biggest benefit is that it allows us to set up a fast break team and style immediately without Rubio. Love, Jefferson and our future wings need to start playing this style if that is the long term goal and this signing allows us to start evaluating the current roster and determining who is going to fit with this vision.
The worst case scenario to me is that in 2012 we regret giving an average player a 4.5 million player option, but that to me is a risk worth taking in that it allows us to play the style the coaching staff envisions, puts a better product on the floor, and Sessions age allows him to grow with the team if he does bud into a player worth keeping after this contract.
by Ebomb on Sep 5, 2009 11:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Style of play
Exactly. You are going to need competent guards to develop the running style Rambis and Kahn want. The season can’t be about playing for next year’s lotto pick. Forget about year 4 or Rubio, this team needs to develop how they will play together. And I don’t know how you can make what is at least as big a decision as Rubio coming or not – whether Al and K-Love can play together at a high level – without playing the intended style.
Added to that, my one hope this year was not have to see extended minutes from Bobby Brown (and I don’t think that’s asking much).
by Punisher#8 on Sep 5, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Establishing an identity...
… is well worth the relatively minor risk of regretting a $4.5 million dollar backup veteran point guard. What I really, really like about what Kahn is doing is this: one way or another, we are going to get the solid, pass-first point guard necessary to be the electric running team Kahn wants. If it’s Flynn, great. If it’s Sessions, great. If neither show the goods, in two or three years we try like hell to give Rubio a shot at it. But the point here is that Kahn has a clear identity for the team he is constructing, recognizes that one position (PG) is going to make a disproportionate impact on his success in executing that vision, and loading us with recognized talent that should sort itself out in the next three years. No young team in the league has better odds of emerging with a talented court general in the next few years. This also allows us to concentrate exclusively on two positions next: SG and SF.
by TheH on Sep 5, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good note
In a weak draft featuring PG depth, the Wolves have almost assured themselves a top-10 PG. Sessions is another option to get there, and came at a decent price due to current market conditions.
A team doesn’t need a Great PG to be a title contender, but most have a competent PG or two. Sessions will also help Flynn’s development by taking pressure off and taking minutes early in the season, allowing Flynn to enter the league similar to Love last season
by Rumblebee on Sep 5, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would go a little farther.
In most cases, you’re right: a team does not need a great PG to compete. A think a RUNNING TEAM, however, needs a great PG to be a title contender.
by TheH on Sep 6, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know the CBA could change, but would we have bird rights on Sessions if he did blow up for us in 3 years? Could we re-sign him at a market rate if he is the stud?
I love the deal simply because we add young talent at less than cost and right now we need to just add as much talent as possible. We will make trades/draft/sign more in the future, but right now it is all about bringing in assets.
by revprodeji on Sep 5, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something interesting to note
In regards to how historically inept the backcourt was last year.
Telfair, Foye and Miller all performed nearly identical last season in PER, per minute averages, and FG% to their respective rookie seasons. The common argument I hear for the Wolves being terrible is that their backcourt is horrific; however, last year the backcourt was the worst in the league, and none of the 3 main contributors played better last year than their rookie seasons. I don’t think we can presume that Flynn/Ellington even in their rookie seasons don’t outperform Telfair/Miller.
by Ebomb on Sep 5, 2009 11:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
not the most convincing of arguments
… considering Miller was ROY in his first year!
by artreddin on Sep 7, 2009 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He means their performance last year.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 7, 2009 8:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no...
I don’t think he means that at all. He mentions “rookie seasons” twice and asks that we accept the comparison that last year was historically awful, so it’s doubtful that this was a mental slip.
Re-read it, psr, and let me know if you still support his argument.
by artreddin on Sep 7, 2009 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s not saying much, because Miller was ROY in a thoroughly mediocre rookie class.
Jennings: F*** the Knicks, them n***** is always going to be weak.
by Xand1 on Sep 7, 2009 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great, Mike Miller was Rookie of the Year during what is perceived as the worst draft in the last 30 years. The tope 5 was KMart, Swift, Miles, Fizer, Miller. I don’t see what your point is. My point was that Mike Miller in his 7th Season and Randy Foye in his 3rd season played nearly identical to their respective season averages as Rookies. If we can expect Flynn and Ellington to produce better as rookies as compared to MIller in 2000-01 and Foye in 06-07, then this backcourt may actually improve.
When we factor in Sessions getting Bassy’s minutes, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that the backcourt could be better, which is contrary to the doom and gloom being reported and the Wolves struggling to win 20 games.
I just don’t understand the love for Miller, Foye, and Bassy and subsequent predictions of doom and gloom for this year’s backcourt. Any contribution the three gave you offensively, unless they were shooting 50% from 3 for the game, they gave it all back and more defensively. I think this year’s wolves team is going to win 30 games if Milwaukee doesn’t match.
by Ebomb on Sep 7, 2009 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sessions
is a great Plan B to Ricky Rubio at a reasonable price. I’m anxious to see SnP’s analysis of his numbers because no one does a more thorough job at breaking down a player statistically.
I think what Kahn is trying to do is get us loaded up with a couple of ball handlers/floor generals to create more easy buckets. Telfair was a decent floor general, but he wasn’t enough of a threat himself to create enough easy looks for other players. My hope is that the Sessions/Flynn combo lifts our collective efficiency as an offense by getting guys easier looks.
by Rascal Flatts on Sep 5, 2009 12:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Ramon will be a great fit for us here
We absolutely needed another PG to grab some big time minutes, especially in an uptempo system. Sessions gets almost half of his points in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock with almost 3/4 of his points coming in the first 15 seconds. Last year, the Wolves had barely set up their offense after 10 seconds into the shot clock. Unfortunately, his stats show that he will never be a number one option (his clutch stats are far worse than his reguluar stats and probably worse than average), but I have a lot of faith that he could easily be the starting PG on a championship caliber team. Did we just fill Kahn’s idea of the “third best player on a championship caliber team?” I think so.
Good player, great value signing. $4M per is not a bad number to pay for his production.
by Mplax on Sep 5, 2009 1:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I guess I never adressed the philosophical part of the question
I think Ramon Sessions deserved a contract somewhere around $6-7M per, but the Bucks only let him earn a contract of about $4-5M per. Thus, providing Session’s with a player option was not a bad decision. Even if Rubio does come over and all three look to be good players who will demand minutes, Sessions’ contract will be an easy one to move. That being said, I almost hope that we could keep Sessions and Flynn (if they pan out and Rubio doesn’t look to be the next Nash) and trade Rubio to a team like NY who will obviously still covet him and have a draft pick plus a couple more players (maybe).
by Mplax on Sep 5, 2009 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get it
I understand we have to have NBA quality players on the team, but I do not understand this move. If this is such a bargain contract why didn’t another team pay a little more? For all the hype, and all the talk of Sessions being a prize, 4 yrs/$16M to a crappy team that just drafted two PGs at the top of the draft (and a SG)? We all expect Flynn to be much better than Ramon before this contract it up, right? So we are willing to pay over $4M for a backup PG who shoots worse than Bassy (from anywhere not at the rim) in 2011-2013?
If he outperfoms the contract he opts out, but the only way we sign him is for a lot more than $5M and only if Flynn busts and Rubio isn’t coming. Further, if he outperforms it what does that do for Flynn? If he underperforms we are overpaying for a backup and creating a logjam at PG that further complicates the Rubio situation as he will obviously not opt out if he is underperforming this modest contract.
I get that he is tradeable, and that is the only way this makes sense – wait for a PG on a contender to go down and extract a good young player nailed to the bench and a pick. I get that he makes our team better for the immediate future, but unless we think we are winning 50 games in 2011/12 I don’t see Ramon in a Wolves jersey when we start our championship contending run. I am not against the asset, but I just don’t think it is a good fit (or that great of an asset, really). I guess I am assuming Flynn and Sessions can’t play long stretches together and that Flynn is going to get 25-30 minutes a night. Unless Flynn can really shoot (and from 3) how can they play together for long? Are we really trying to make Flynn a SG (offensively)? Sessions cannot be a SG. For this season I get it, Flynn will struggle, but after this season we all want Flynn to be our 36 minute starter, right?
(678): Words of Wisdom: ordering a pitcher of whiskey cokes, putting a straw in it, and calling it your drink is not socially acceptable
by CaliWolf on Sep 5, 2009 2:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Against your first knock “if this is such a bargain contract why didn’t another team pay him more?” I can think of a few reason.
- Declining salary cap and luxury tax levels made less teams players in free agency
- PG heavy draft giving lots of teams cheaper options
- Spending teams that needed a PG, LA and Portland went with older vets or other positions altogether.
- It’s possible that Sessions passed on a higher money shorter term deal with less minutes available to come to Minnesota where he knows he’ll get major burn.
- Who cares why other teams didn’t sign him, statistically he’s a player.
Second, I like how you took the only stat where Sessions and Telfair are somewhat equal, outside shooting, and imply that this means it was a bad signing. For one, Sessions goes to the line far more than telfair, he commits less turnovers, gets far more rebounds, has a higher assist rate, and has just as strong +/- numbers as Bassy, really his only defendable stat. If Bassy is worth $2.7 Million, Sessions at $4 MIllion is a bargain.
by Ebomb on Sep 5, 2009 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your last sentence is the key
If Sessions is indeed better than Bassy, then this is a solid upgrade. Time will tell. Also, I would factor in that Sessions is on an improving track, I’m not sure Bassy has upside much above where is is now.
by Rumblebee on Sep 5, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defense
Sessions is a significantly better defender than Telfair as well. I believe that last year he held his opponents to 96% of their normal production.
"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."
by biggity2bit on Sep 5, 2009 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said 'I don't get it'
And I still don’t. I still haven’t heard anything that makes it make any more sense.
I didn’t compare Ramon to Telfair – just stated the fact that he does in fact shoot jumpers worse than Bassy. This is relevant if he and Flynn are going to play together. Obviously, I understand Sessions is a better player than Bassy – just thought it was interesting how badly he shoots. I also never said Bassy was worth $2.7M or Sessions wasn’t worth 4/$16M. The contract appears to be a bargain, but when you heard how low it was didn’t it give you pause? The Knicks weren’t offering that number and the starting job? Nobody offered that number? Maybe not, but your second reason (PG heavy draft, cheaper options) applies to the Wolves. We got our cheaper option in Flynn.
I said I don’t get it. For this year, yes. After that, no. A team on the bottom doesn’t need a $4M backup – two years from now when Flynn is killing it is when I want a signing like this. Now we have two young guys, both will want to start next year. One is younger, cheaper, and hopefully better. Why use the $4M of cap space? I just don’t get it, outside of the asset angle. We do expect Flynn to be better, right? Sessions has to be on the ball right? It just seems like an odd contract from Sessions’ point of view as well. I mean, he’s being projected by some here as becoming a top 10 PG and he can only get 4/$16M from a team that just drafted Flynn?
I see it as a 1-2 year deal to get Flynn up to speed and then trade his good contract and youth in a package for something better. That is how it plays out right? Is that worth $4M less cap space in the next few years?
Look, I will never be against having young players with talent, I am just not sure how this makes sense as a contract, for this team, right now.
(678): Words of Wisdom: ordering a pitcher of whiskey cokes, putting a straw in it, and calling it your drink is not socially acceptable
by CaliWolf on Sep 5, 2009 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't expect Flynn to be better
It seems unlikely he’ll be better for at least a couple of years, and i would think the smart money right now is that he’ll never be better than Sessions.
by Eric in Madison on Sep 5, 2009 6:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never is a very long time
and I think he will be better than Sessions in the future.
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Sep 8, 2009 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It makes sense because in order for Rambis to install a fast-break style offense, the team needs two PGs to be able to run it, and if the team wants to be better offensively, the easiest way to do that is to add players who can create shots for other guys consistently and get FT attempts. It’s a necessary redundancy. It makes sense financially because he could easily be packaged in a deal and recapture that cap space and because they were apparently in no man’s land — not enough for two top players but more than enough for one. So it doesn’t necessarily affect who they target next summer. In the meantime, this signing makes it easier for the team to be successful and individual players to improve. I have doubts about how much it would help Flynn, but they can go small because a majority of NBA teams don’t have two wings with post-up games.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 5, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
…you’ve stated the opposition to this perfectly.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Sep 5, 2009 9:23 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
The contract length bugs me
If this deal prevents us from making a play at some potentially transcendent player, it was a serious mistake to make it. (One might protest that such a player won’t be attainable through free agency for the wolves, but free agents will come to mn for the right price. If everyone else is trying to lowball a guy except for us, he’s going to sign with us. There are a lot of cheapskate franchises these days too, so there’s a good chance an important player will be lowballed. ) Ramon is a good player, but he fills our need for a backup point guard a little awkwardly by pushing Flyn into a sixth man role. Like Caliwolf says, this year it’s great to have Flyn in that sort of role, but eventually we want him to be an on the ball point guard for 35 minutes a game and probably within the next 2 or three years. Ramon is at his best when he’s on the ball.
Yes, we can trade Ramon when things start getting awkward, but we’re not going to get great value for him if we need to get rid of him. That is, unless a playoff team loses it’s starting point guard midway through the season. In the mean time, we’re stuck paying him to complain that golden boy Flyn is stealing his minutes.
Then again, 4 million a year for an above average player isn’t bad.
by oblivionspocket on Sep 6, 2009 12:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is the going price for "transcendant" these days?
There is a lot of water to go under the bridge before things could potentially get awkward. I think we all need to appreciate the signing for what it is, a starting quality guard signed to a reasonable contract both in length and cost. I’ll bet London to a brick that Sessions agent started his client out looking for the full MLE, so to get him for 2/3 of that is good work. I’d be willing to bet this will be our strategy next off season also.
Between now and 2012 we will have four first round picks (presuming we have to pay the Clips), Nikola Pekovic (remember him) potentially arriving in 12 months and development to be garnered from those we already have. If more things go right than wrong in that time, we won’t nearly be so concerned about the base from El Masnou.
Panic stations turned into happy land after we beat an inferior opposition like God wants us to.
You gotta love it when 10 minutes into the match you turn to the Hawk supporter next to you and say: "What the hell were we worried about all week?"
GOLDEN GOD BIRDS --- >>>> PREMIERSHIP HEROES ---- >>>>> BROWN AND GOLD ARMY OF TOUGH WARRIOR MEN ----- >>>>> 4 LIFE
by Auswolf on Sep 6, 2009 5:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Suns didn't need Nash
When he was backing up Kidd and KJ, yet they got two first-rounders and two players for him. That’s not what they’d get for Sessions, obviously, but it goes to show that value is as much about the other team as it is the current team.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 6, 2009 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, who got the two first rounders and two players? I don’t follow you here, psr.
by artreddin on Sep 7, 2009 8:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Suns traded Nash to Dallas for 2 first-rounders and 2 players.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 7, 2009 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I thought Nash had been with the Suns forever. Didn’t realize they once traded him away.
by artreddin on Sep 7, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said I don’t get it. For this year, yes. After that, no. A team on the bottom doesn’t need a $4M backup – two years from now when Flynn is killing it is when I want a signing like this.
I just don’t understand how it’s bad to add a good player. This is a hard thing to do in the NBA. Look at the Cavs, they play West at 6’4" and Williams at 6’1" and pay them $4.5 Million and $8.5 Million respectively. West has been a PG, Williams is a scoring PG. They can both survive together in a backcourt. Sessions played 20% of his minutes at the 2 last year, he can do the same if not more. With backcourts like Terry and Kidd, Williams and West, Brooks and Lowry, teams are showing that playing the best 2 guards in the back court is an effective way to play. Why is Sessions automatically a “backup” in two years, because we have to find a 6’6" SG to guard Brandon Roy?
It’s hard to add talent at a reasonable price, this accomplishes that, especially in the backcourt where we were already thin. After next season when you state his value may not be beneficial the wolves have the following backcourt.
Flynn + Sessions + Ellington + Draft Pick vying for 96 minutes. Isn’t that plenty to go around? I don’t think Brewer is going to be retained, Wilkins, Brown, and Atkins will all be gone.
Let’s distribute the minutes
Flynn – 30 Minutes
Sessions – 30 Minutes
Draft Stud – 24 Minutes
Ellington – 12 Minutes
And this is all dependent on these players being healthy and being able to show enough ability to earn those minutes, 3 of those 4 players haven’t shown anything in the NBA yet.
I think best case scenario, meaning Flynn, Ellington and 2010 Lotto pick are all capable of being impact players in the NBA, then paying $4 Million for 20 minutes of Sessions may seem like a waste, but I think the odds of hitting 2 lottery picks and a late 1st round pick are so low that planning like that will happen is not a logical move.
My feelings though on the draft may be more pessimistic than others, in correlation, I don’t like what Presti is doing in Oklahoma because he is gambling on being able to convince Durant to stay in Oklahoma by relying solely on lottery picks. I just don’t know if that’s a winning strategy, because logically, you aren’t going to hit on many of those picks.
by Ebomb on Sep 6, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Even if you select a player with a lot of talent and spend the time to train them…off the court issues or just being a DB can prevent them from being the player the team needs. There are just too many variables to guarantee anything. You just do your due diligence and hope for the best.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 7, 2009 7:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Second that
I’d argue that the Wolves coaching staff looked at the roster, said “we need another perimeter player who can run the system Rambis wants to run,” and decided Sessions was the best option of PGs and SGs. The talent pool of SGs this offseason was shallow, so it was either AIverson for a year or Sessions (a taller player) for longer.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 7, 2009 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interrupting here...
but who’s to pick up that “Draft Stud’s” minutes this year? And imagine if we HADN’T picked up Sessions!
by artreddin on Sep 7, 2009 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was kinda intrigued by this move. i wondered if they wolves didn’t have enough confidence in the other rookie pg they drafted. but i think sassions is a good pick up. he’ll help the team more than hurt them. also, while i am disappointed rubio opted to stay in europe, i also have to applaud him for at least having the courage to admit he wasn’t ready for the nba. i think it’s a win win situation. the wolves will get a more polished rubio in 2 years and in the meantime can get by with sassions and, is it flynn?
by chaucer on Sep 5, 2009 3:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think, at this stage in the rebuilding game, you can never fault a team for adding talent to a talent-starved backcourt, especially at such a reasonable price.
I do, however, worry just a little bit about what this does to Flynn. Once I’d accepted Rubio not coming, I started looking forward to Flynn playing as much as he wanted and really being given free reign. I realize that he’s now in the same situation he would’ve been in had Rubio signed, but I thought Rubio’s potential made that a necessary evil. Sessions, I’m not so sure.
by LoveTo on Sep 5, 2009 3:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think this is good for Flynn,
Flynn is no more NBA ready than Love was last season. Love was required to earn his minutes and ultimately did, the same will happen with Flynn.
by Rumblebee on Sep 5, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
People complaing about this I don't get
1. He’s a 23 year old player that if he develops a Three-Point Shot (Becomes a Top 10 Starting PG). As for now- he’s clearly a decent NBA starter. This is more than can be said for anyone on team.
2. The contract is a bargain- especially if he keeps developing. Injuries are probably the only thing that derails this contract.
3. I wouldn’t count on anything from Ricky- ever. The way he walked away from the Wolves- along with the change in Kahn’s rhetoric- combined with this move- makes me doubt- Kahn thinks he’s ever playing for the T-Wolves.
4. I get he’s not a shooter. Although as I stated- yesterday if he was adequate from deep- he probably gets a contract for twice as much per year.
by Jose Cordoba on Sep 5, 2009 3:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
you’re right, sessions is a bargain. now all you have to hope for is that the bucks don’t match the offer, and it’s quite possible that they may—since it’s not a large amount of money.
by chaucer on Sep 6, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's about the luxury line
The Bucks are only a million-and-a-half away from the luxury tax. In order to match this and stay below that line, they’d have to move someone else and shed salary.
They’ve repeatedly said they won’t go above the tax threshold this season. They already traded away Richard Jefferson in order to get below it, and let Charlie Villanueva go too. The original tax sins may have been Gadzuric and Redd, but those mistakes are playing out in decisions like this one.
by feral on Sep 7, 2009 6:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two answers
1) His contract isn’t ideal, but it’s reasonable for the team if they keep him for the duration of it and reasonable enough that they could move it if necessary. If Steve Nash, a mid-first rounder and backup, netted two first-rounders and two players, I’d think Sessions could garner something of quality in return if it came to that.
2) Like you mentioned, this team didn’t have enough guys who could get to the FT line and create easy shots for others with few turnovers. In that respect, this team will have a better backcourt than last year. With more emphasis on PnR/PnP, they could shoot better just because they’ll get more open shots. And drawing more FT attempts would give their scoring/efficiency a nice bump.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 5, 2009 3:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't mean to imply that Sessions is worth what Nash was...
But it’s not a stretch to assume that he could fetch a mid-late first rounder or a rotation player if a trade occurred.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 5, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ay mayn iss been a while mayn
ahhh mayn wuss poppin Canis Hoopus mayn?!?! mayn i wuz depressed az hell mayn wunce Rubio went an btich3ed out like a mafuckin bitch mayn fuck u fo doin dat Rubio mayn shotts fired iss gon be plex mayn like dayum dont u kno we got Tamales at Mercado Central mayn u aint have ta stay in spain juss fo de food mayn u stupid fuckin zac effron look a like mafucka mayn fuck u mayn
but mayn Session thowed doe mayn!!!! i wuz like mayn… hol up den i wuz like aight mayn im finna chief on sum uv dis kill mayn dis fiyah dat dro mayn an i watched de boi on youtube he wuz kinda sick wit it mayn i asaw he dropped like 44 wun nigh mayn i thank we got a steal mayn but mayn hol up dis kill way too good mayn im boutta lay back an thow on dis freddie gibbs tape mayn an iss gon be fiyah mayn bumpin ro too mayn less stay smokin yall
MAYN HOL UP!
by MAYNHOLUP on Sep 5, 2009 4:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think . . .
. . . you’ve stated the opposition to this perfectly.
Delaying hope for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 11:43 p.m. on September 1st, 2009.
by PoorDick on Sep 6, 2009 11:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A good philosophical fit..
.. As to the contract, he would have probably gotten the full MLE exception a year ago, the Wolves benefit from the economy. The length and player option don’t bother me either (it would have at the full MLE). The Wolves aren’t going to get a big free agent spender next summer anyways, so for at least the first two years this is a no brainer, he will play enough to earn the contract, the Wolves have plenty of payroll space a year from now, and will need bodies to replace all the expirings. While player options can back fire, they also give a player incentive to perform to out of the option.
As far as on the court, he should be able to play 30-35 MPG while Flynn ends the season averaging 20-25MPG. Until mid season Flynn probably won’t be averaging more than 15 MPG (just like Love) so Sessions should spend the first half exclusively at the point. He also works as an asset. Assuming he continues to develop, he will become more tradeable each passing season. He also gives the Wolves the option of trading Rubio if they decide Flynn and Sessions are the PG duo for the next few years. The contract length may also be good because several aging PGs are nearing their last year or two, and next year’s draft is projected to be PG weak. There should be demand in a year or two for a solid $4 million PG.
by Rumblebee on Sep 5, 2009 4:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I love the fact that the kid is very unselfish, pass first, had a 6 plus at the pg and a 2 plus at the sg. he is a bad shooter but he knows it and does not shoot. if he could improve the shot at all he is a very good piece. I am excited about this signing. value, youth and a proper skillset.
by revprodeji on Sep 6, 2009 4:21 PM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Although...
he did shoot the 2-point jumper at a higher rate than Foye, Telfair, and Love last year, knocking down 38.6% of them. The problem is he is either unwilling or unable to stretch his range out beyond the 3-point arc. I think Chauncey Billups is a good example here. Billups has never been a good 2-point shooter, but his ability to knock down a decent rate of 3’s and get to the FT line have more than made up for it in terms of his overall efficiency. It would be great if Sessions was willing to put in some time finding a few spots where he feels he can knock down 30-some % of his 3’s. That would be a huge addition to his arsenal.
by Rascal Flatts on Sep 6, 2009 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
apparently from some bucks fans
who have watched shoot arounds, he is more than capable of hitting 3’s…I just think that he is a much better long range spot shooter then an on the move guy. He seems to be a smart guy who will get the most out of his skillset. I think this guy will get ellington a lot of open looks.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 7, 2009 7:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's also possible...
That he realized he had to play to his strengths if he was going to make it in the NBA because most 2nd-rounders drafted after #50 don’t.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 7, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's look at it this way . . .
What if the Wolves hadn’t signed Sessions, and:
1. Flynn struggles initially
2. Flynn gets hurt
3. Flynn never gets it
All are possible, one is probable. Then you have zero PG productivity, little-to-nothing in the way of outside shooting and penetration, and a frustrated Love and a recovering AlJeff down low. It could go from “hey don’t forget about the young Wolves” to “What is the league record for losses, anyway?” in a hurry.
If this team were entirely populated with players like Sessions (23 years old, slightly above average and getting better, below average pay scale), we’d all be a lot happier. So view the signing as a low-cost consolation prize—Sessions wouldn’t have signed at this low level for more than a few years, anyway, and the Wolves wouldn’t want to pay him much longer than four years, either—at least, not at this point. Both he and the Wolves are probably a little disappointed, which means it was a fair price all around.
Delaying hope for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 11:43 p.m. on September 1st, 2009.
by PoorDick on Sep 6, 2009 11:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Drunk Ramblings
2-3 years ago, we would have been lucky to sign him for 6 years and 36 million.
Some team actually probably would have given him 8 million a year.
We got him for 4 years and 16 million, unless he’s really good and opts out after 3 years.
Drat.
Wouldn’t be awful if he rocked and opted out?
This signing was stone cold killer.
Thank God they are grabbing good players at a low price now, rather than trying to get in on the spending spree next summer.
Kahn is rocking me hard.
Can’t wait for the season, even if we lose a lot.
It’s going to be entertaining.
And yes, I’m drunk.
Check out Humdinger TV on YouTube.
http://twitter.com/HumdingerTV
by HumdingerTV on Sep 7, 2009 1:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I will say this much
for everyone who was upset with Kahn for throwing this season away…here is your bone. Let’s be honest. Unless the wolves hit it big in the draft and play REALLY well at the end of the year…they were not going to be a FA destination in 2010. The declining cap all but assures that a large portion of the FA class just resigns. Save the home run swings for the draft and make smart logical decisions with the FA $. McHales tenure should have taught us this. We can debate the “need” of this signing, but we shouldn’t question the value and smarts of this deal. Sessions was a better player at both the PG and SG than anyone we had last year. And by better, I mean more effective. You never know if Miller actually shot the damn ball…but I digress.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 7, 2009 7:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
One could also argue...
That this is an upgrade from Foye because it potentially is, considering how inefficient Foye could be and how efficient Sessions is. Foye never dropped 44/12 on someone or dished 24 dimes. He’s obviously a better shooter and probably a better athlete, but I don’t know that he’s more skilled than Sessions overall.
With that in mind, the questions about talent would be: will Flynn be better than Telfair, will Sessions be better than Ollie, will Sessions/Ellington/Brewer/anyone else (I think another move is coming) be better than Foye and Miller, will Gomes be better than last year (his worst shooting from inside the arc in his career), will Jefferson be healthy for more than 50 games, and will Songaila/Pecherov/Hollins be better than Smith? All of these are debatable, and that’s not even mentioning whether Love will improve.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 7, 2009 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
PSR
I think that sessions is a better ball player than Foye…but not a better athlete. Sometimes I think we forget the difference. Sessions plays smart, while Foye would play smart only some of the time.
Other points:
Flynn will be better than Telfair. He will make more mistakes, but will also make the offense and those around him better through ability to finish, better passing skills and leadership.
Sessions>Ollie…don’t need to say anything.
SG debate…I think offensively…no, but they will make up for some of the difference through better perimeter D. Or should I say more sound D. I would say it is a wash simply because miller didn’t shoot and Foye wasn’t very efficient. Both Sessions and Ellington have been efficient players and I expect them to continue to be.
Backup PF…not sure. I haven’t seen enough out of any of them. I doubt they will compare with the offensive output of smith, but I can’t say whether or not songaila (who will get the lions share of PT) can make up for that on D. Judging from the stats I see on 82games and basketball reference…the D may be worse. But I think they are just planning on giving more minutes to Love.
I can’t say they are any worse than last year. One could argue how good last years squad would have been this year…but I think we can all agree that this new squad has a much higher ceiling. starting PG, PF and C are better (once all healed up), but our SG/SF (replacement for Miller) won’t be as productive this year…and that’s saying something.
Gomes will be asked to play out of position to compensate for not having miller…which should mean he replicates last year.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 7, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evil P:
I think that they might care more about defense this year, and I agree that they have more defensive upside in the long run, but I have a sinking feeling that this won’t immediately be evident, and that we may even witness worse perimeter defense than last year, especially early on. Talk me out of this… I’m begging you.
by TheH on Sep 7, 2009 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's easy
Foye gave up a 18.6 PER at the point, and an 18.0 PER as the shooting guard. Telfair gave up 19.1 while out point guard.
Sessions (who we should consider Foye’s replacement) gave up 14.1 and 14.3 at the point guard and shooting guard positions (making a difference of 4.5 and 3.7 in favor of Sessions). As for Flynn, he has to beat a guy (Telfair) who made random point guards look like All-Stars. Here are point guards whose PER is within +/- of 1 point of what Telfair gave up: Steve Nash, Jason Terry, Nate Robinson, Rajon Rondo, Chauncy Billups, Jose Calderon, and Andre Miller. Basically, if Flynn can prevent random point guards from looking like those 7, he’ll be doing better than Telfair.
Oh, and we should have Brewer back for a full season, which will help.
by McCleak on Sep 7, 2009 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And we won't see the dreadful C/PF combinations
of Love/Gomes or Love/Smith anymore defensively. The more minutes Love can play PF and Gomes can play SF, the better. Let’s just hope Hollins and Jefferson can stay healthy enough to man the C minutes all year. I realize Jefferson is no standout defensively, but just by virtue of him being on the court, our length improves along the rest of the frontline.
by Rascal Flatts on Sep 7, 2009 8:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And your prediction?
Not sure I understand your point here, McCleak. Those seven are some of the best, their PER “is within +/- of 1 point of what Telfair gave up”… and yet you’re saying Telfair in comparison – but not this comparison – made random point guards look like All-Stars. I don’t follow.
BTW, with Sessions onboard, what now are you predicting W-L for the year?
by artreddin on Sep 7, 2009 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is that Telfair’s D is so horrible that any random point guard looks like an All-Star on offense when playing against him. As such, it’s impossible to imagine Flynn being worse.
I’m going with 25-30 W next year.
by McCleak on Sep 7, 2009 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But you weren't using the PER Net Production
… to justify this, right? Or were you?
Just want to understand some of the reasoning behind some of the crapping all over last year’s team that’s pretty much taken over this site.
by artreddin on Sep 7, 2009 8:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
1) I’m using defensive PER (it’s the PER of opposing players at one’s position, while one is on the court). You can find it at 82 games.
2) " Crapping all over last year’s team" has been a staple of this site since about a month into last year.
by McCleak on Sep 7, 2009 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine.
I know what defensive PER is. What I don’t know and can’t understand is how it was that you were able to conclude that Telfair sucked defensively when his PER was within +/- 1 of the seven stars mentioned.
And no, I don’t agree on your second point; on the contrary, the commentary here until very recently has been very fair-minded and careful. (You might take a look back at SnP’s contributions on Jefferson as a true center or on Foye’s kamakazee drives or even “The benefits of Bassy” – Mar. 8… it’s all available under “Archives”).
Crapping all over the team was the reserve of the Stibe… but since they’ve had few stories there during the dog days of summer, it seems that many of the Wolves Whiners have migrated over here.
by artreddin on Sep 7, 2009 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A clarification on the Telfair/PER point.
artreddin, let me see if I can try and clear this up for you, since I think I know what you’re not understanding, and it hasn’t been too clear in the comments since you asked.
Sebastian Telfair, on average for the season, let the point guard from the other team post a PER of 19.1. That is within one point either way of the seven point guards listed. This means that when teams played against the Wolves, their point guards, because Telfair was guarding them, played like they were one of those seven, even though they usually weren’t.
by LoveTo on Sep 7, 2009 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
SnP, turns out you were a prophet
… though you probably don’t remember.
A day after you wrote the deserved criticism featured on the page front here following a 4-21 start, you stated in an article entitled “Rapidly approaching the cliff”:
What I do not doubt is that this year’s team will not reach last year’s total of 22 wins. At the beginning of the year, many fans and observers believed that the Wolves could end up being a 30-win team, winning at a .366 clip. Should the Wolves immediately convert into such a beast, they would end the season with a 24-58 record.
Of course, the means of actually arriving at that record could not have been easily forecast by anyone. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that wins over teams that have key players out with injuries get discounted (January) but losses when Miller was playing on sprained ankles or Love was woofing it all up at halftime ’cuz of a flu that lasted most of March or Foye hangs in there about ten games too long after his hip pointer injury, etc. (never mind the loss of both Brewer and Jefferson), get fully accredited as losses of “a team that absolutely sucked” – and the correspondingly lower player stats accredited as legitimate for comparison purposes.
For me, there were some heroic struggles on the court especially after Big Al went down and the team finally got the conditioning and QB-to-receiver open-court smarts to play the uptempo game that McHale instituted. Bassy’s steady improvement, Hot Rod’s energy, K-Love’s and Gomes’ solidness, and Miller’s scrambling (he was about 30% over career averages on assists and rebounding, for Christ’s sakes) were major contributing factors.
… But, second year on a rebuilding project. (Khan, best you pay attention!)
My question is what do you think this 2008-2009 team would have done this year with the addition of Flynn, DeJuan Blair, and Sessions? (I’ve not included Ellington since I don’t know much about him and I’m assuming that McHale would have found Blair a good fit).
by artreddin on Sep 7, 2009 10:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I guess I've actually thought the same thing..
Way back when the destruction of McHale’s team was happening, a part of me was thinking “Really? It was that obvious that Foye sucked? I must have missed something.” I realize he was a flawed and limited player, but he did have some huge games, and really big moments, last season. I would’ve loved to have kept him around as a Jason Terry-esque sixth man.
I’ve kind of wanted to say something about Foye for a while, but I assumed anything I said would be quickly disproved by defensive stats that I don’t know how to find or even read most of the time. All I know is, he was an exciting player to watch, and defensive/positional flaws be damned, I’m going to miss watching him create shots for himself and hit clutch 3’s this year.
by LoveTo on Sep 7, 2009 11:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do think that Foye makes a very good
sixth man. In that role, his limitations wouldn’t have been as exposed as they were. Things were made worse on Foye because McHale did the same thing with Foye that he did with Jefferson…tried to make him a Star before he was. It just raised expectations.
As to why they traded him, I think it was twofold. 1. I think that Kahn’s basic strategy was that if you don’t have your starting rotation of a contending team…it doesnt’ matter who your players are and so everyone is expendable if they don’t fit that mold. Kahn likely also saw Foye as a 6th man type who would never live up to the hype that McHale surrounded him with.
2. I think there was a certain amount of housecleaning to make this his team. He didn’t want constant rumors and comments about how McHale would have done something. Hence the really high turnover. It sent a message to players, except to those who were called out as potential pieces of the puzzle, that I am willing to trade anyone of you. There was a certain amount of declaring control that Kahn needed to do. This was his way of proving he had Taylors backing. this prevents pissing and moaning during a season.
by TheEvilProfessor on Sep 8, 2009 7:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus Foye's rookie contract was expiring
Was it not? And I don’t know that we were going to re-sign him, so it was best to get something in return.
If it wasn't for disappointments, I wouldn't have any appointments
by Jackdaw on Sep 8, 2009 8:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But to answer your question
I think a rotation of:
Sessions/Flynn
Miller/Foye
Brewer/Gomes
Love/Blair
Jefferson/Hollins
Could have approached 40 wins, and kept growing as Flynn, Sessions, and Love improved. Although there would be the danger of getting stuck in 45-win forever mode. The new team has more potential because it has more cap space and will get better draft picks for the next two years.
by LoveTo on Sep 7, 2009 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a possible rotation
Without the trade of Miller/Foye the wolves wouldn’t of had the cap space to make a move for Hollins or Sessions.
by minny_pup on Sep 8, 2009 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not true
They used their MLE on two players, and the MLE has nothing to do with cap space.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Sep 8, 2009 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My question is what do you think this 2008-2009 team would have done this year with the addition of Flynn, DeJuan Blair, and Sessions? (I’ve not included Ellington since I don’t know much about him and I’m assuming that McHale would have found Blair a good fit).
My counter question is why is this relevant? This team, in their current state of rebuilding, should not be judged 1 year out, they should be judged by how they have positioned themselves to rebuild. A team with Foye and Miller is obviously going to be better next year because they’re veterans (albeit very mediocre ones) and the relevant piece for which we moved them isn’t even here.
All that said, I fail to see what the record of next year’s team has to do with the long-term success of the team. If you’ve studied what it takes to become a competitive team in the NBA, you’d know that TALENT stands above all else, and that’s what this team was lacking. With Rubio in the pipeline, we are positioned much better for long-term success than we would have if we had kept those two. We might have pushed for 40 games, but I wouldn’t put our ceiling much above that unless Flynn were to blow up because we still would be lacking above-average NBA talent (not to mention a true star). You can argue that Flynn might become that guy, but that’s not likely and putting all your eggs in one basket isn’t a winning strategy. Sure, there are future drafts, but your odds of getting that #1 guy are significantly lowered if you’re a 40+ win team picking in the late lotto.
I don’t know about you, but I would much rather deal with a losing team for a year or two if it means we’ll be in a position to compete when all is said and done than watch a team stuck in the 40-45 win range every year. IMO that is absolutely the worst place a team can be. Making a move for Rubio was exactly the type of gamble you need to make if you hope to someday win. Even with his buyout issues I would redo that move 10 times out of 10 were I Kahn (not Khan), but that’s just me. Time will tell I guess.
Jennings: F*** the Knicks, them n***** is always going to be weak.
by Xand1 on Sep 8, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
