3. If Sessions is so good, why don't the Bucks at least think he is worthy of being their backup point guard?

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

As for the interest level in these players. I think the financial situation is making some of these guys look less wanted than they really are. I think in a normal market guys like David Lee, Nate, Sessions not only would be signed, they probably would have been overpaid

Eh, thats too speculative and is sort of a cop out. Regardless of the circumstances, the results are the results. Teams found ways to give money to the guys they wanted to give it to i.e, Charlie V, Gordon, Miller, ext.

Perhaps the economic climate has made them more judicious with their money that's why guys like Lee and Sessions, whom they are suspicious of, are on the outside looking in. They dont feel they have the money to waste on guys they dont believe in.

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

As for the interest level in these players. I think the financial situation is making some of these guys look less wanted than they really are. I think in a normal market guys like David Lee, Nate, Sessions not only would be signed, they probably would have been overpaid

Eh, thats too speculative and is sort of a cop out. Regardless of the circumstances, the results are the results. Teams found ways to give money to the guys they wanted to give it to i.e, Charlie V, Gordon, Miller, ext.

Perhaps the economic climate has made them more judicious with their money that's why guys like Lee and Sessions, whom they are suspicious of, are on the outside looking in. They dont feel they have the money to waste on guys they dont believe in.

It appears that you are speculating as much as I am

[Edited by - bippity10 on 28-07-2009 4:42 PM]

Way to completely miss the point and go the snippy route.

said mr snippy himself.

Posted by Bippity10:

Sebstar: Is there ever a moment on here where you aren't on edge?

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

As for the interest level in these players. I think the financial situation is making some of these guys look less wanted than they really are. I think in a normal market guys like David Lee, Nate, Sessions not only would be signed, they probably would have been overpaid

Eh, thats too speculative and is sort of a cop out. Regardless of the circumstances, the results are the results. Teams found ways to give money to the guys they wanted to give it to i.e, Charlie V, Gordon, Miller, ext.

Perhaps the economic climate has made them more judicious with their money that's why guys like Lee and Sessions, whom they are suspicious of, are on the outside looking in. They dont feel they have the money to waste on guys they dont believe in.

It appears that you are speculating as much as I am

[Edited by - bippity10 on 28-07-2009 4:42 PM]

Way to completely miss the point and go the snippy route.

snippy? I was snippy? How did you get snippy from my post?

You pointed out that I was speculating and coping out. You were too, just thought I'd point that out.

What is your point? Guys don't want Sessions/Lee/Nate?

Of course that's what I am trying to say. You ignored my whole post and keyed in on one word to try to frame it as a: " I know you are but what am I" battle between you and me. You "speculating" wasnt the thrust of my post, but rather challenging your views on why people arent showing interest in Lee.

So if it wasn't the "thrust" of your post save yourself some words and leave it out and get to your point. You called my point speculation, that was your challenge. Then you raised an alternate point which was equal parts speculation. That was my point.

We don't know why these guys aren't getting offers, but I can speculate. Part of my personal business is to work with companies on setting salary levels within their organizations. In the real world, what companies/candidates are currently wrestling with is the market conditions verse the actual long-term worth of the candidate. Some companies feel they can pay less because of the current market conditions. They know that people are out of work and are desperate for jobs, so many companies in turn offer less. They also may be victims of budget constraints which force them to pay less. Candidates are accepting positions for less pay because they need the money. They know their worth in a level economy and they know that when the economy turns around they will get it. So they accept the lower money, settle into their jobs, with full intentions of finding a new job when the market straightens out and they can get their true value. What does this have to do with basketball?...........

Teams are businesses and run no different than companies in "the real world". They want some of these midlevel players but feel they can get the players for less then they are asking, or they have budget constraints which force them to avoid offering the asking price. Players however are in a different situation then you and me. First unlike you and me, they have to sign a contract. If it's for a few years they can't just opt out when the economy straightens out. If they sign for less, they are locked into that salary for a period of the contract. Number two, if a player signs for a shorter contract(anticipating economy change) he may be injured or suffer an off year that cuts into the dollar number he was expecting at the end of the contract. It's a risk many players aren't willing to take. So players get an idea of what they are worth, they dig their feet into the sand and they try to stick to it no matter what the economy says. Management just may not agree with them.

My last point is something that we all seem to miss from time to time here. We don't know everything that's going on. These players are talking with teams every day/week. This is not speculation, it is happening. Teams are talking to their agents trying to make deals, we just don't hear about it in the papers. When they all get on the same page offers will go out. If they don't, offers will not. I don't know if you are saying that Lee and Nate and Sessions are European players or what? But I'm pretty sure they are wanted around the league, just not at their asking price.

Posted by rvwink:

Mike D'Antoni is on record as having said that Chris Duhon played well in the first half of last season. He predicted Chris would do well in the coming season. This theory is contradicted by the obvious interest the Knicks have paid to other team's point guards in both the draft and also in free agency.

Here are some questions that puzzle me:

1)Did Donnie make a move for Sessions as a ploy to get Nate back to the table to sign a one year deal?

2) Or does Donnie really believe that Sessions would be a better point guard for the Knicks this year than Chris Duhon?

3) If Sessions is so good, why don't the Bucks at least think he is worthy of being their backup point guard?

4) Are the Knick's actively looking to move Chris Duhon and might that be a reason for their delay in moving forward with the Sessions deal currently?

5} When Duhon named his favorite coaches recently, D'Antoni wasn't on his list. Mike gave Chris another chance to be a starter. Based on what he did for Nash, he seems to be good at helping his point guards play better. Even if Duhon had some behind the scenes disagreements with D'Antoni, doesn't it seem strange Chris is kicking sand in Mike's face, while he is still potentially the starting point guard for the Knicks in the coming season?

6) Has Mike already decided that he needs a higher profile point guard than Chris Duhon going into the 2010 free agency sweepstakes?

Which of these questions do you have answers for?