Windy: Sessions traded to LA

[trapalizer]

give luke ridnour a max.

 

[Maximus]

So the net of our trade was a top 10 pick in quality player, a late first (Eyenga),

If you are going to "re-draft" and make Ramon a top 10 pick, not sure how in the same breath you can call Eyenga a late first...he wouldn't be drafted in a re-draft.

Also for those of you who think Sessions sucks

I dont think there was too many people that wanted him moved b/c of his play.

I get that we probably HAD to trade him

Do you really? Everyone else seems to get it...but you don't sound like it. That is the bottom line - we had to trade him. So please stop with the PER's and his +/- after a couple games with the Lakers. He wanted several years at $10M per year to sign an extension here and play behind Kyrie. You are right he HAD to be traded. Grant got something for nothing, the key piece being a 1st rounder in a deep draft. There wasn't any more out there to get a couple hours before the deadline. The trade was a WIN for both teams.

 

[MRMsix6]

He wanted several years at $10M per year to sign an extension here and play behind Kyrie.

This is hilarious if true. Probably the least subtle "trade me" request without actually saying "trade me".

 

[TheDudeAbides]

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.

I hope it was done b/c Sessions was 100% sold on going somewhere to start and not the Cavs undervaluing him and just dumping him with no attempt to bring him back. The odds are so small of a player drafted that late of being even close to as good as Sessions. And all the swap will do next year is maybe move up a few spots in the mid-high 20s. Basically worthless. And add Waltons contract? The main argument I see for this trade is getting rid of Sessions makes it easier to lose this year giving the Cavs a better pick. And having Walton take up a roster spot next year will help lead to another tanking year.

 

[chrisrich91]

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.)

I stopped reading after this paragraph. Yes, we HAD to trade him, so all of the above is moot. He is a starting quality PG who will be a FA this summer. He will NOT want to be a 20 year old's backup. No team is going to give up equal value for him because he's about to be a FA and they can just sign him outright this offseason.

So the question of the trade comes down to this: did we get ANYTHING of value for Sessions? If yes, we came out on top. The fact that we got a mid 20s 1st rounder in a deep draft AND the ability to move up a few spots in next year's draft makes the trade a huge success. I would have accepted a project player and a 2nd rounder, and hell, I would have been thrilled with the Lakers 2012 1st alone. We got a very good deal, and Grant left the door open for it to be a monumental deal if the Lakers spontaneously combust next season.

Complaining about this deal is just whining to whine.

 

[Derek]

Sessions is gone, I'm happy, the Cavs are happy and the Lakers are happy. Win-win-win

 

[TitleTown]

Agree with the two above posts from Wuck and Prime.

How you grade this trade has absolutely NOTHING to do with how well Sessions is playing with the Lakers.

If his value was so high, why didn't all of the other teams with point guard needs offer us something better than what we got from the Lakers?

The truth of the matter is that any team, including the Lakers, takes a BIG risk in trading anything for Sessions because he's a FA at the end of the season. What if another team offers Sessions a lot more money after the season, and the Lakers basically rented him for a first round pick for half a season? That would be a huge loss for the Lakers if they don't win a championship. First round picks in the next draft are good as gold.

This trade was a huge win for the Cavs.

EDIT: looks like everyone beat me to the punch on this response. At least it's unanimous.

 

[Jon]

I wish we got Kevin Durant and the #1 pick in the 2012 draft for Ramon, but market value is determined by the market ... not by fan evaluations.

If another GM thought Ramon was worth more than the Lakers offered us, all he had to do was to step-up and make the offer.

fwiw, Kobe didn't exactly sound sold on Ramon. He said he's fast, can get to the rim, and will save a lot of wear and tear on him ... which is all true, but it's not like saying he was the next coming of CP3. As for losing Fisher's leadership, he said the other vets would have to pick that up, and he thought Pau was already stepping up in that area.

Anyway, I appreciated having Ramon because he let us keep Kyrie's minutes low, but we very nearly beat the Hawks on the road without him when we lost by 27 the last time we played them with him.:

Kyrie+Ramon combined for 31/6/4 with 8 turnovers in that game in 54 combined minutes.

Kyrie+Sloan combined for 31/11/9 with 7 turnovers yesterday in 52 combined minutes.

 

[AvonCavsFan]

If you are going to "re-draft" and make Ramon a top 10 pick, not sure how in the same breath you can call Eyenga a late first...he wouldn't be drafted in a re-draft.

We will see on that--that book is not finished yet, I still think Eyenga will end up a decent player long term.

I dont think there was too many people that wanted him moved b/c of his play.

You obviously did not read the game threads or the "bash" Sessions thread we have had in the past. Quite a few on this forum thought Ramon was a really bad player.

Do you really? Everyone else seems to get it...but you don't sound like it. That is the bottom line - we had to trade him. So please stop with the PER's and his +/- after a couple games with the Lakers. He wanted several years at $10M per year to sign an extension here and play behind Kyrie. You are right he HAD to be traded. Grant got something for nothing, the key piece being a 1st rounder in a deep draft. There wasn't any more out there to get a couple hours before the deadline. The trade was a WIN for both teams.

You are not reading what I wrote. My major complaint is not that we traded him, it was the deal we ended up with. I still say the deal we got was not optimal. How do we give the Lakers something of far more value, Sessions vs Hill AND take back a far worse contract? The Lakers NEEDED a PG in the worst way. Who else was giving them one the caliber of Ramon and taking back Walton's contract? They needed Ramon far more than they needed Beasley even. They NEEDED Ramon even more than we NEEDED to trade him. Ramon for Fisher + First + Pick Swap would have been a good deal. Fisher would have gotten the same buyout from us that he did in Houston and we would have gotten the picks AND had $5 plus million more in cap space next year--to use in other beneficial trades. Maximize the assets is the goal, no?

 

[Scholar]

Here is my question for the couple of trade doubters. Let's say the Cavs kept Ramon and he didn't opt out this year. Do you seriously think he'd re-sign with the Cavs over playing for another club where he'd be the starter and likely earn more money? If you are not absolutely sure he'd sign here as a free agent, then it wouldn't matter if we traded him this year or next year. Either way he'd be gone. Course, if you think he'd sign here, that could theoretically still happen. After all, when he opts out, we could bid on him just like anyone else. We have plenty of cap space.

 

[Prime 1978]

We will see on that--that book is not finished yet, I still think Eyenga will end up a decent player long term.



You obviously did not read the game threads or the "bash" Sessions thread we have had in the past. Quite a few on this forum thought Ramon was a really bad player.



You are not reading what I wrote. My major complaint is not that we traded him, it was the deal we ended up with. I still say the deal we got was not optimal. How do we give the Lakers something of far more value, Sessions vs Hill AND take back a far worse contract? The Lakers NEEDED a PG in the worst way. Who else was giving them one the caliber of Ramon and taking back Walton's contract? They needed Ramon far more than they needed Beasley even. They NEEDED Ramon even more than we NEEDED to trade him. Ramon for Fisher + First + Pick Swap would have been a good deal. Fisher would have gotten the same buyout from us that he did in Houston and we would have gotten the picks AND had $5 plus million more in cap space next year--to use in other beneficial trades. Maximize the assets is the goal, no?

And guess what??? We needed to trade Sessions way more than the Lakers needed him.
The Lakers were already the 3 seed in a much stronger Western Conference with still having the core players of a team that won back to back championships.
We on the other hand have a team with 5 maybe 6 legitimate players and two of those players having freedom to decide where they want to play next year. Jamison's contract is up and Sessions had a player option. As a GM Grant had to get something out of it. Jamison by himself gives us 15 million dollars off the cap, so trading him wasn't as imperative. Sessions on the other hand has a very resonable contract and was gonna walk...unless (Per Max) we were gonna pay him to back up a 10 mil/yr budding star of a point guard..... So where is our leverage???

And you bring up Luke Walton, Luke will soon be an expiring contract which can be an asset in two years. Expirings will become valuable again once the amnesty clauses are all used up or expired. With about 20 teams not using there's yet, that's the reason why Jamison's large contract wasn't moved because most teams can just amneesty a guy to get cap relief. Back to Luke even if Luke is just a possible asset for being an expiring he still brings vlaue because the Cavs have very few players on the roster next year and there is a salary cap floor tha Cavs have to meet. He'll help us make that number. My point being, Luke is that much of a problem as you trying to make him.

 

[Maximus]

You are not reading what I wrote. My major complaint is not that we traded him, it was the deal we ended up with. I still say the deal we got was not optimal. How do we give the Lakers something of far more value, Sessions vs Hill AND take back a far worse contract? The Lakers NEEDED a PG in the worst way. Who else was giving them one the caliber of Ramon and taking back Walton's contract? They needed Ramon far more than they needed Beasley even. They NEEDED Ramon even more than we NEEDED to trade him. Ramon for Fisher + First + Pick Swap would have been a good deal. Fisher would have gotten the same buyout from us that he did in Houston and we would have gotten the picks AND had $5 plus million more in cap space next year--to use in other beneficial trades. Maximize the assets is the goal, no?

What was the "optimal" trade we should have made? Thanks to Dwight, no one was willing to do anything until the last few hours. There weren't 5 offers sitting on the table for Ramon. With a few hours to go, you take the best offer or risk getting nothing.

It's strange to me that you are upset about taking back Walton's contract. It's just Gilbert's money, why do you care? Last year you were calling Gilbert a snakeoil saleman and doubting that he would be willing to spend once Lebron was gone. Now he's proving you wrong, but you are still upset??? Taking Luke on doesn't hurt us, we will still have plenty of cap space. It's just more proof that Dan Gilbert will do whatever it takes to get Chris Grant the assets he needs to rebuild. Just like the Baron Davis trade. Luke will probably get flipped for another asset next year anyways.

You people keep saying the same things, "he is willing to spend, thus he is great." This argument is not valid yet. He was willing to spend when he had the LebronCashCow, we do NOT know if he is willing to spend without the LebronCashCow. He "says" it, he "tweets" it, he has his shills in the forums saying he will...but until he does this is NOT a proven point no matter how many times you guys say it.

So is it now a proven point that Gilbert is willing to spend? :chuckles:

 

[Pioneer10]

The only valid argument against the trade is by taking on Waltons' deal we overspent for a 1st round pick. This seemed valid at the time but as further details came out not so much.
According to HOllinger average price for a late first round is 3 million. Walton deal next year is for 6 million.

However, by letting go of Eyenga (who is not going to see anytime with the Lakers) we cut the price to something like 5 million. Then we also found out we got cash considerations meaning that price is lower.

We also found out that 5 million minus cash considerations got us this years Lakers pick but the oppurtunity to move up next year as well. So essentially we are able to get two first rounders for less then the average price of 3 million per pick. The big positive though is by giving up on Sessions we were able to get that pick to be unprotected. May turn out to be nothing but sometimes you win big with these sort of things and the Lakers are exactly the sort of team because of age that will implode one year when no one is expecting it.

Plus, I still don't know why giving up on Sessions hurt us at all no matter how good you think he is. If he's really good, then it's better for us to get rid of him now so we lose more games for draft position (and no there was no freakin way he was staying with us to backup this generation's Isiah). If he sucks, good riddance thanks for getting us an unprotected oppurtunity

 

[Dr. Gymbo]

We will see on that--that book is not finished yet, I still think Eyenga will end up a decent player long term.

You obviously did not read the game threads or the "bash" Sessions thread we have had in the past. Quite a few on this forum thought Ramon was a really bad player.

You are not reading what I wrote. My major complaint is not that we traded him, it was the deal we ended up with. I still say the deal we got was not optimal. How do we give the Lakers something of far more value, Sessions vs Hill AND take back a far worse contract? The Lakers NEEDED a PG in the worst way. Who else was giving them one the caliber of Ramon and taking back Walton's contract? They needed Ramon far more than they needed Beasley even. They NEEDED Ramon even more than we NEEDED to trade him. Ramon for Fisher + First + Pick Swap would have been a good deal. Fisher would have gotten the same buyout from us that he did in Houston and we would have gotten the picks AND had $5 plus million more in cap space next year--to use in other beneficial trades. Maximize the assets is the goal, no?

How do you still not get it?

1. Eyenga is going to be out of the league in a couple years. He is not improving in any of the major deficiencies that he's had basketball wise since he was drafted. He was a late round flier taken only for his freakish athleticism. The guy has nothing else.

2. I will commend Sessions for improving since last season, but I do not ever think the guy will ever play TEAM winning basketball, particularly on a losing/rebuilding squad. Sessions has always been on shitty teams. Maybe that will change now and I hope that he benefits with his trip to LA. I look at Ramon and see someone who cares about his stats, not about how many wins he is adding to his team. Athletes will always say the right thing when the mic is in their face and tell fans what they want to hear.

3. This is still the biggest thing. Sessions HAD to be traded, PERIOD. I pretty much would have traded him for ANYTHING that did not set the franchise back. Prior to the season starting, I would have been happy with two second round picks for him.

It's easy to sit back and compare deals in a vacuum with nothing else going on. However, GMs are constantly moving, pieces are bounced around off of the two trade partners. Trades are an extremely dynamic process, ESPECIALLY at the trade deadline. You or I don't know what other deals the Cavs may have lined up for Sessions. LA dragged their feet big time and had a big trade fall apart between themselves, Portland, and Minnesota. The Cavs had Sessions on the table for a month, LA drug their ass to the finish line. Fisher was traded very late into the game and was likely not an option when the Cavs completed their trade. You have to stop looking at it as a static situation.

Fisher was on the hook for a little over $2.4M more than Walton next season. It's not like it was a huge difference in salary. The Rockets received a pick that's MORE protected than the one the Cavs received. The Cavs also likely got the chance to move up a few spaces in next year's draft. All of that for an extra $2.4M. How is that a bad deal? Also, who's to say Luke won't get bought out at some point? Not every GM is going to get fleeced by the Cavs. Kupchak is a really good GM. He's not Olshey and Kahn. Just as the Lakers needed a PG, the Cavs needed something for Ramon WHO WAS LEAVING THIS YEAR because he has NO FUTURE here. The trade benefited BOTH teams. For the Lakers it's more of a short term benefit and hopefully for Cleveland, it will be more long term.

The Lakers are going to be in a tough situation regarding Ramon after this season. They already have Kobe and Gasol on their roster tying up $46.8M in salary next year. Bynum is entering the last year of his deal and is going to need extended. So how do they have the money to re-sign Ramon? It's likely that they are going to lose him, especially if he plays well into the playoffs. So then the Lakers could face giving away their draft pick this year and an option next year with nothing to show for it. The move isn't so much of a no brainer, no risk type of situation for LA either.

I don't understand why you care so much about Walton's contract. It in and of itself is an expiring asset at the end of this season. The Cavs are right around $31M in committed salary with Walton's contract. If the cap is set as the same it was this year (~$58M), that gives the Cavs $27M in space (prior to their draft picks and re-signing players like Gee). What does $5M more cap space matter when you already have approx $27M?

 

[Lee]

Not to mention that giving up sessions probably took us from 9-11 pick to somewhere around a 7 pick. I am not a fan of tanking on purpose because a winning attitude is extremely important, but i am a fan of higher draft picks.