Windy: Sessions traded to LA

[I LOVE YOU ABBY]

FUCKING LUKE!!!!!

Finally, I can attend a game and scream LUUUUUKE and not look like a fucking crazy man.

Luke is a champion, and a beautiful soul. HE WAS DESTINED TO WIN RINGS. He's already got 2, he's got at least 2 more in him.

Someone's going hard for Saint Patty's Day...:chuckles:

 

[Man Called X]

Someone's going hard for Saint Patty's Day...:chuckles:

I haven't even started drinking yet. I worked til 8.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

I haven't even started drinking yet. I worked til 8.

The old X would not have fucking cared.

Drink up, old friend. Drink up.

 

[Man Called X]

The old X would not have fucking cared.

Drink up, old friend. Drink up.

My body isn't the old X body either. Going out with the wifey, can't be getting retarded drunk.

 

[I LOVE YOU ABBY]

 

[eureca]

I don't expect for the Lakers to have any big drop off next year. If you are hoping for injuries yes they could happen but who knows. Lakers as currently constructed I would expect a top 5 top 4 record from with the Thunder, Heat, Bulls leading the pack. Especially with a whole training camp with Mike Brown. And I would expect Sessions to be back as Mitch said the day of the trade he will either opt in or he expects to re-sign him. And I would expect Sessions to want to come back to a winning team where he could start.

One other thing is that Lakers will be players for 2 free agents this summer. Twolves were looking to trade Beasley because they weren't expecting to re-sign him this summer or take on his 8+ mil qualifying offer. Lakers have the 8.9 mil TPE from Lamar trade which can be used in sign and trades. In the new CBA teams over the luxury tax can do sign and trades for the first 2 years of the new CBA which this summer would fall into. Which also opens up the possibility of a Deron sign a trade involving Pau. However that is up to Deron where he wants to play. He will likely sign with the Mavs into their cap room to play in Dallas and with Dirk. Or if he thinks he can have a better chance at winning with Kobe and Bynum he might choose the Lakers. Which the Nets would likely have to sign and trade or just let him walk for nothing to the Mavs who can sign him with their cap room. So its gonna be up to Deron, but I do see that is a valid possibility.

You can never 100% predict something, but Lakers being real good is usually a good prediction no matter what year it is.

Still a good part of the trade for the Cavs any way to get a slightly better pick then before is a good thing. I personally don't expect it to be much of a gap between the Heat's and Lakers spots next season. I think it was a good trade for both sides. Sessions was not in the Cavs future you got value for him that will be part of the Cavs future. Lakers obviously very badly needed a competent PG. They got him and they shed some salary that was just sitting on the bench in the process. Sessions impressed in his debut by just being able to get to the rim period. It just made it more obvious how much they were hurting at PG. Cavs are rebuilding right now and Lakers are trying to fill in needed pieces to make a run. Deep draft this year definitely good trade for both sides. If the Cavs are willing to eat Walton's contract then it really doesn't matter they took it on if they got what he wanted in the deal.

 

[Douglar]

I don't expect for the Lakers to have any big drop off next year. If you are hoping for injuries yes they could happen but who knows.

It is still a long shot for the Lakers pick or the Miami pick to be better than 20th in the 2013 draft. Seems pretty likely that the right to swap picks in 2013 will only move the Cavs from the 29th pick to the 25th pick or something like that.

But the gambler in me likes to think that getting the right to trade picks in 2013 increased the odds of getting a draft pick in the teens from something like a 1 in 40 shot to a 1 in 20 shot, because now good things happen for the Cavs if either of the teams implode.

And getting Walton's contract wasn't a complete waste. His expiring contract gives that Cavs another card to play for draft day trades.

 

[davedugan43]

Is Kapono still a marksman from the 3-point line? I wouldn't mind giving him some time if that were the case.

 

[wuck]

Is Kapono still a marksman from the 3-point line? I wouldn't mind giving him some time if that were the case.

Cavs waived Kapono earlier today and used the roster spot to sign Manny Harris for the rest of the season.

 

[Mdog1]

You raise very solid points and argue your case well, but i wouldn't count on it. It's the Lakers.... They are (almost) always pretty good, adept at rebuilding on the fly and never seem to have a problem swinging a decisive trade or especially attracting FAs.

The chances of that pick being in th etop 10 are minuscule, imho. I know they have recently missed the payoffs, not saying it wouldn't ever happen, just that it's less likely than your well lined-up arguments would suggest.

However, you have to hand it to the FO again... same as with the positioning of the Miami picks. The chances are that those won't be great either, but in both cases, they managed to get the picks that are likely to be as favorable as ever from those teams.

The Lakers are a FA destination when they have cap space, and why wouldn't they be. Great team management, storied franchise, great city, etc. But here's the thing the Lakers have a lot of money tied up, and all they can offer is the MLE to free agents. MLE free agents can be good players, but they are never great. Also if the Lakers do not do well in the playoffs I could totally see them amnestying Pau if they can't find a trade for him. He is set to make 19 million next year. That is like 38 million including the luxury tax. Also if Sessions gets a good offer from another team then the Lakers could be on the hook for another 7 million to their already 63 million (9 players on the roster). If they sign Sessions to a 7 million contract and sign an MLE FA, that is 11 players on the roster so another 700 thousand on top of their already 74 million dollar pay roll. I don't know when the luxury tax kicks in, but I think it is around 68 million, so we're talking the Lakers could be paying 90 million dollars or more for a 2nd round team. I can't see them doing that, but maybe it's just me.

 

[B Mac]

FUCKING LUKE!!!!!

Finally, I can attend a game and scream LUUUUUKE and not look like a fucking crazy man.

Luke is a champion, and a beautiful soul. HE WAS DESTINED TO WIN RINGS. He's already got 2, he's got at least 2 more in him.

We've had the market covered on white Luke's for several years now.

and now...

 

[Giambiwannabe7]

:chuckles:
If we sign Ridnour it's all over.

 

[AvonCavsFan]

As most of you know I thought this was a bad deal at first because of the pick swap--I had it as an F---I changed my mind to a C when the pick swap was in our favor. Still not sure. Yes, I like having an extra pick. No, I did not like giving up Ramon, as I see him as someone who could have been a part of the core long term (now I am not in the front office, I do not know if he was opting out FOR SURE, I do not know what other teams were going to offer--I do not know if he could have been sold on playing 28 to 30 min per game as backup PG, sharing some minutes with Kyrie---I get all the issues we probably had--I get that we probably HAD to trade him.)

One thing to think about--go back draft Ramon came into the league--if there was a re-draft, he goes top 10 with almost no problem. So the net of our trade was a top 10 pick in quality player, a late first (Eyenga), took on $5 million to get a late first and optional pick swap. The Lakers are saving $10Million and got a starting PG--all for one late first round pick and swapping a few spots next year (after watching the game last night, I do not see them dropping much next year unless someone gets hurt and is out the year).

Now for a comparison trade, the Rockets gave up a crappy "big", took back Fisher, who they bought out for NOTHING and got the Mavs pick. THAT is an A deal for the Rockets. Why didn't we take Fisher?? Why didn't we offer to add any of our crappy bigs (Hollins? Erden? Jordan Hill sucks, so don't try to even tell me he was a diff maker here--Hollins could have been 6 fouls a game for them) plus maybe even add Parker (SF D, three pt shooter to play spot minutes?) and take Fisher back with Walton and get both picks??

Also for those of you who think Sessions sucks--go watch the Lakers play with him--and he is just getting used to his new team and offense....PLUS 40 in 99 minutes when he is on the floor so far. How long before potato head sees this and lets him play 35 minutes a night?? Per 36 numbers so far..17.3, 8.6, 4.7 shooting 56%,42.9% and 78.6%..PER of 23.7 with a USG rate of just 20. I know small sample size---but once he gets the offense down, I think his assist numbers might go even higher--his shooting probably won't stay that high, but I do see him around 45% from the floor and 35 to 38% or so from three.

 

[wuck]

Now for a comparison trade, the Rockets gave up a crappy "big", took back Fisher, who they bought out for NOTHING and got the Mavs pick. THAT is an A deal for the Rockets. Why didn't we take Fisher??

A few things:

1) The Lakers were saving the Mavs pick for the Beasley deal, which fell through after the Sessions deal was completed (due to the Wolves pulling out). Fisher and the Mavs pick were intended to get Beasley, and the Lakers made the Rockets trade only after the Beasley deal fell through.

2) Once the Lakers decided to trade Fisher to the Rockets, yes it would have been great if the Cavs had gotten involved. Of course, the Lakers may have preferred to get Hill over Erden and Hollins (hard to blame them), since it was otherwise just a salary dump.

3) The Mavs pick is Top-20 protected for this year (and for years to come). If the draft were held today, the Rockets wouldn't get the pick (Mavs are in 20th place and are tied with 3 teams in the loss column). It's a risk for the Rockets in the sense they may not see that pick this year (or longer if the Mavs age fast). I wish the Cavs had gotten the pick, but again, Lakers may have liked Hill over anything the Cavs could have offered.

4) Swapping picks in 2013 is another potential gain of the Cavs trade (also unknown factors, like where the Mavs finish).

Again, I agree and wish the Cavs had found a way to get the pick that was sent to the Rockets, but the situation wasn't as simple or one-sided.

No doubt that Sessions has played well so far for the Lakers.

 

[Prime 1978]

As most of you know I thought this was a bad deal at first because of the pick swap--I had it as an F---I changed my mind to a C when the pick swap was in our favor. Still not sure. Yes, I like having an extra pick. No, I did not like giving up Ramon, as I see him as someone who could have been a part of the core long term (now I am not in the front office, I do not know if he was opting out FOR SURE, I do not know what other teams were going to offer--I do not know if he could have been sold on playing 28 to 30 min per game as backup PG, sharing some minutes with Kyrie---I get all the issues we probably had--I get that we probably HAD to trade him.)

One thing to think about--go back draft Ramon came into the league--if there was a re-draft, he goes top 10 with almost no problem. So the net of our trade was a top 10 pick in quality player, a late first (Eyenga), took on $5 million to get a late first and optional pick swap. The Lakers are saving $10Million and got a starting PG--all for one late first round pick and swapping a few spots next year (after watching the game last night, I do not see them dropping much next year unless someone gets hurt and is out the year).

Now for a comparison trade, the Rockets gave up a crappy "big", took back Fisher, who they bought out for NOTHING and got the Mavs pick. THAT is an A deal for the Rockets. Why didn't we take Fisher?? Why didn't we offer to add any of our crappy bigs (Hollins? Erden? Jordan Hill sucks, so don't try to even tell me he was a diff maker here--Hollins could have been 6 fouls a game for them) plus maybe even add Parker (SF D, three pt shooter to play spot minutes?) and take Fisher back with Walton and get both picks??

Also for those of you who think Sessions sucks--go watch the Lakers play with him--and he is just getting used to his new team and offense....PLUS 40 in 99 minutes when he is on the floor so far. How long before potato head sees this and lets him play 35 minutes a night?? Per 36 numbers so far..17.3, 8.6, 4.7 shooting 56%,42.9% and 78.6%..PER of 23.7 with a USG rate of just 20. I know small sample size---but once he gets the offense down, I think his assist numbers might go even higher--his shooting probably won't stay that high, but I do see him around 45% from the floor and 35 to 38% or so from three.

Sessions sucking or not sucking was never the debate in regards to this trade. The thought process was why lose him for nothing when it was about 99.99999% chance of him not picking up his player option at the end of the season. If I were his agent, there is no way I'd let my 26 yr old client sign an option to be the back up a team who just drafted a franchise point guard. Having Sessions for the rest of the season and then walking away would have been just plain stupid for THIS TEAM and where they are in the rebuilding process. Again, Grant is in the process of stockpiling and maximizing assets. With this deal he did 2 things. He maximized Sessions as an asset by getting something for him and he gave himself the ability to maximize an already aquired asset by being able to improve any one of 2 possibly 3 picks (Sacremento's very unlikely though) next year.

Grant without having a ton of leverage made a pretty good deal...bottom line is either Sessions was leaving for nothing or we get something for him. Getting the 25-27th pick in a deep draft is a pretty good coup if you as me. I also think that Jordan Hill is better than Semih or Hollins...so to compare the deals isn't fair. Not to mention the Lakers probably don't make that deal without making our deal first....apples and oranges if you ask me.