Detroit. That ended up being one of the best contracts signed in NBA history. I think Ramon Sessions has a great chance to Nba great ballplayer here. I don't think it is necessary to try to lower the MLE on him or not give him a fully guaranteed 5 years. The full MLE front loaded in year 1 is a deterrent to Milwaukee matching a cheaper modified offer. I don't think we should play that game. Where the NY Knicks got in trouble was with max contracts and the secondary max contracts. Using the full MLE on a promising reasonably proven up and coming big PG who is 23 years old will prove to be a savvy prescient signing. I look at how Joe Dumars does it every year --and lets face it Joe D is the best in the game. He never pays max contracts but he pays and he beats people to the punch. There is no indecision but rather intelligent quickly calculated maneuvers--striking before other teams lift a finger. We have identified a player who can really help this team. My advice--stop F around and give him a front loaded MLE. Get it done--no reason to be thrifty over a little bit of money which will turn out to be smart money spent anyway.

We may be able to get away with a little less than the full mle. Maybe $5 million per year. My only concern with Sessions is his 3 point shooting. But, except for that, he's a good pg with a balanced game.

Maybe the old man smells the fear on Kahn and makes the deal for RickyRickeyRicky as the kid aint fooling around when he say minny a no-no!

These Spaniards are not playing around and the kid could get some juice in Madrid and make some good money, defer his payments to his old team and come back to the NBA when the Kahn game is over.

Its up to Walsh to make the guy look go so Im not saying fleece him, just make the deal. Send DLee and some change and he'll look good.

sessions is good, but he gotta get a 3, and does he have leadership skill like Billups? Like Nash? I mean this is gonna be the QB right?

Posted by Bonn1997:

I don't think there's such a thing as a front-loaded full MLE contract. You can give the full MLE (and I agree they should) for 5 years but it won't be front-loaded--the salary will still increase each year.

you can make an MLE contract heavy in the first year (to its limit) and then have it decrease in other years.

Ariza's making the full MLE, which is $5.8 mil in year 1 and then in the subsequent years, $6.3, 6.8, 7.3, and 7.8 mil. If you want to front-load the contract, I believe you can still give only $5.8 mil in year 1. Then you could give LESS than that amount in the following years--that would be front-loading the contract but I don't see the point to that. I don't think you can reverse the order, though (7.8, then 7.3, 6.8, 6.3, 5.8) or even take the average and spread it evenly among the years.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=31993

see thread re signing bonus, and how that works.

I think this is what Briggs is talking about doing with Sessions.


MDA has the inside scoop on Sessions. So if they have any concerns about whether he can make it - I am sure they will pass.

Posted by martin:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by martin:

Posted by Bonn1997:

I don't think there's such a thing as a front-loaded full MLE contract. You can give the full MLE (and I agree they should) for 5 years but it won't be front-loaded--the salary will still increase each year.

you can make an MLE contract heavy in the first year (to its limit) and then have it decrease in other years.

well then that's not the full MLE for 5 years. It would be the full MLE for the first year and less for the subsequent years. That's basically getting stingy over a small amount of money, which I don't think is worthwhile and I thought Briggs was saying that too.

i think BRIGGS is talking about something different than you are.

BRIGGS is saying: use the full MLE on him in the first year, instead of only offering part of the MLE to him.

Yes I think the cost structure is 5 years 34mm for the MLE. But you can frontload the contract in year 1. It will still be 5 years 34mm whatever way you want to look at it but you can make it more painful for Milwaukee if it's loaded this year and I would add in a small trade kicker--enough annoyance that it would deter the Bucks from matching. With a frontload--the back end is fluid if he ever needs to be dealt and also cap friendly. Nevertheless I think the MLE was built for this kind of player. Skimping a tad makes no sense. Being even a tad bit cheap could have consequence. To be honest I don't know why this hasnt been offered other than possibly S+T---but that hasnt gone anywhere. We need to win some games this year.

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by martin:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by martin:

Posted by Bonn1997:

I don't think there's such a thing as a front-loaded full MLE contract. You can give the full MLE (and I agree they should) for 5 years but it won't be front-loaded--the salary will still increase each year.

you can make an MLE contract heavy in the first year (to its limit) and then have it decrease in other years.

well then that's not the full MLE for 5 years. It would be the full MLE for the first year and less for the subsequent years. That's basically getting stingy over a small amount of money, which I don't think is worthwhile and I thought Briggs was saying that too.

i think BRIGGS is talking about something different than you are.

BRIGGS is saying: use the full MLE on him in the first year, instead of only offering part of the MLE to him.

Yes I think the cost structure is 5 years 34mm for the MLE. But you can frontload the contract in year 1. It will still be 5 years 34mm whatever way you want to look at it but you can make it more painful for Milwaukee if it's loaded this year and I would add in a small trade kicker--enough annoyance that it would deter the Bucks from matching. With a frontload--the back end is fluid if he ever needs to be dealt and also cap friendly. Nevertheless I think the MLE was built for this kind of player. Skimping a tad makes no sense. Being even a tad bit cheap could have consequence. To be honest I don't know why this hasnt been offered other than possibly S+T---but that hasnt gone anywhere. We need to win some games this year.

now I have no idea what you are talking about and might add that Bonnie is correct in my new understanding of what you are trying to do with Sessions: you can't give an MLE player a 5 year full MLE deal and "front-load" it.

The MLE is by definition the average all NBA salaries. So, this year full-MLE candidates can be offered $5.8 and then they can get 8% raises. You can't give a player $8M in year one and then lower it so that it fits the total amount over the years you want in consideration of the 8% raises.

Posted by martin:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by martin:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by martin:

Posted by Bonn1997:

I don't think there's such a thing as a front-loaded full MLE contract. You can give the full MLE (and I agree they should) for 5 years but it won't be front-loaded--the salary will still increase each year.

you can make an MLE contract heavy in the first year (to its limit) and then have it decrease in other years.

well then that's not the full MLE for 5 years. It would be the full MLE for the first year and less for the subsequent years. That's basically getting stingy over a small amount of money, which I don't think is worthwhile and I thought Briggs was saying that too.

i think BRIGGS is talking about something different than you are.

BRIGGS is saying: use the full MLE on him in the first year, instead of only offering part of the MLE to him.

Yes I think the cost structure is 5 years 34mm for the MLE. But you can frontload the contract in year 1. It will still be 5 years 34mm whatever way you want to look at it but you can make it more painful for Milwaukee if it's loaded this year and I would add in a small trade kicker--enough annoyance that it would deter the Bucks from matching. With a frontload--the back end is fluid if he ever needs to be dealt and also cap friendly. Nevertheless I think the MLE was built for this kind of player. Skimping a tad makes no sense. Being even a tad bit cheap could have consequence. To be honest I don't know why this hasnt been offered other than possibly S+T---but that hasnt gone anywhere. We need to win some games this year.

now I have no idea what you are talking about and might add that Bonnie is correct in my new understanding of what you are trying to do with Sessions: you can't give an MLE player a 5 year full MLE deal and "front-load" it.

The MLE is by definition the average all NBA salaries. So, this year full-MLE candidates can be offered $5.8 and then they can get 8% raises. You can't give a player $8M in year one and then lower it so that it fits the total amount over the years you want in consideration of the 8% raises.

I didn't know that. I'm sure there has to be a way to get more money to him upfront

ic sessions as a good PG that cant shoot, not someone that is ideal if we do add lebron or wade but he can still develop his shooting and defense. but i think he can inflate his stats in this system and can thrive with 3 other 3pt shooters...gallo/harrington type 4. if he can be signed for the midlevel he would probably bring back good value within a year at worse at good value player, think most of you can agree on that. If we do add sessions, I wonder if we can bring back camby with so many centers on the LA roster for mobley, duhon, hughes and/or expirings maybe a 2nd round pick?

i think we would have a decent shot at contention for playoffs this year with that roster. we can be decent on both ends of the court and have a system to actually play with n the players to do it...
i believe camby is an expiring this year as well...

If we don't sign Sessions then we used the media to get nate to come home and sign if he thought we were messing around. Some use us for contracts, and I guess it works the other way also.

There is a game with the game going on here. Remember when Riley signed elton brand when he knew the clippers would match? he really wanted Odom and got him knowing Clips could not match both.

The market bears all truth!