No one said that Sessions WILL improve. He’s already good and likely to improve. At $4 mill per that’s pretty good. No one is calling Sessions the next Oscar Robertson. You hurt your argument by consistently ignoring and twisting facts.

As much as we needed a decent SG to help out in lastseason two-man (Duhon & Nate) guard rotation (Q.Rich had to be the worst SG in the NBA,traded 4 times in one month). So adding the last decent young upcoming FA PG-Session to our roster could have paid off in so many ways for this Knick team……

If the Bucks do not match that petty offer-sheet the Wolves gave to Session, then alot of people especially NBA players will look at the Bucks organization as just petty petty petty.

With the NBA economic market looking shady to where the salary-cap will be reduced a second year in a row, every NBA team should fix themselves to pay luxury tax this season to bring-up the market so there would be less of a chance the NBA salary-cap dont be reduced on one of the biggest star FA markets in the NBA in decades. The Bucks organization should know this.

The Knicks would’ve been building their chances up higher for an elite 2010 FA by giving Sessions that same petty offer-sheet of $16M for 4 years (weeks ago)…..only our Knick management do not have any confidence within itself to rid itself of Jefferies ($6M) contract before the 2009-10 trading deadline. No Confidence!
Having Sessions $4M contract with Curry $11M as their highest contracts to start the 2010 offseason is more reasonable.
The confidence level shown this offseason by our Knick management were not high or optimistic at all for Knick-Fans or any 2009 or 2010 FA.

Last season Duhon & Nate held-down the backcourt by themselves all season long, a player like Sessions added with them this upcoming season would’ve been a great uplift to the Knicks guard rotation. Which could add temptation to SG-Wade, or SG-Joe Johnson, or even a healthy T-Mac for a cheap price in the 2010 offseason.
The Knicks benching selfish SG-Larry Hughes individual performance for speedy PG-Sessions talent would’ve been best for the Knicks team and a great guidance for the rookie combo-guard Douglas future growth on the team.

Tony Parker is also the fastest player in the NBA. As was Allen Iverson before him. Can you figure out why a Sessions comparison won’t apply?

“Same with David Lee.”

A bigman who can rebound and shoot excellent percentages around the rim? Why would he need 3pt range again?

“Jason Kidd has been awful his whole career”

Jason Kidd ranks 9th all-time in threes made.
Jason Kidd has averaged 1.3 threes per game in his career (low: 0.8 – high: 2.0). Jason Kidd has shot .342 for his career.
Ramon Sessions has averaged 0.1 threes per game in his career. He is at .220 for his career.

If Kidd is awful, what does that say about Sessions? Kidd shot 33% (1.6 made per game) as a 22 year old. It is INCREDIBLY unlikely Sessions ever becomes a below average 3pt threat. And by below average, I mean a threat to hit 27% and 0.5 threes per game.

What makes it a good bet? How many PGs went on to have better years? Kirk Hinrich was a pretty good bet to improve and he never really did.

“You look silly arguing that he wouldn’t start for 90 percent of the league”

Mike Bibby
Rajon Rondo
Raymond Felton
Derrick Rose & Kirk Hinrich
Mo Williams
Jason Kidd
Rodney Stuckey
Chauncey Billups
Monta Ellis
T.J. Ford
Baron Davis
Derek Fisher (yeah, even he’d start over Sessions given how poor a fit for the triangle he’d be)
Mike Conley
Mario Chalmers
Devin Harris & Rafer Alston
Chris Paul
Russell Westbrook
Jameer Nelson
Steve Nash
Andre Miller & Steve Blake
Tony Parker
Jose Calderon
Deron Williams
Gilbert Arenas

I’m the one who looks silly? Know your league. The only teams I didn’t list were Minnesota, Sacramento, and New York (and it’s no given he starts over Tyreke Evans or Chris Duhon). That’s 27/30 teams which is 90%. Did you really think I was exaggerating?

While Sessions was drafted 56th overall, played 28 mpg in his age 22 season. Both are pass first PGs. My point was that pass first PGs who struggle to score seldom improve, and I think we bring up quite a few examples of this if needed.

“As Caleb points out, Sessions was only 22 last season so he should be expected to improve.”

But what will he improve? His poor shooting? Just because a player is young does not mean he has a high ceiling. Andre Miller didn’t improve much from his rookie season, he has been relatively the same player since entering the league. Brevin Knight never improved. Raymond Felton hasn’t really improved. Jason Williams never became a deadeye shooter, never became a deadly slasher, the only improvement he ever made was deciding not to play like a retard.

Does Ramon Sessions have the tools to be a deadly scorer like Allen Iverson, Tony Parker, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, or even Devin Harris? No. Does he have the tools to be a lockdown defender? No.

So please, explain to me what Sessions is capable of improving. There’s a reason why big men are projects and not point guards. Point guards have developed their skills by the time they get to the league, and the ones that do improve are the ones with the outstanding physical tools they learn to take better advantage of.

Sessions would play with Duhon about as well as he’d play with Luke Ridnour – good enough to pad his scoring numbers and not win any games.

To emphasize this point I’ll list some stats from 82 games:

Duhon:

67% jump shots .533 eFG% 44% assisted
33% inside shots .478 eFG% 13% assisted

Sessions:

56% jump shots .376 eFG% 40% assisted
44% inside shots .543 TS% 38% assisted

Duhon is a jump shooter who can get to the basket passably. Sessions is a slasher with a weak jump shot. Given how many of his inside shots were assisted, Sessions probably could have played with Duhon offensively.

I agree with some of your points. Nate is a very good combo guard. I think you’re seriously undervaluing Sessions, though. Not that you’re alone given the lack of interest in signing the guy. I don’t see why it’s an either or thing. The Knicks could have easily signed both Sessions and Nate this offseason if they wanted to.

Caleb points out a lot of the flaws I see in your arguments (BTW, while Sessions is not at all a diminutive PG and the comparisons ARE ridiculous, Brevin Knight was drafted 16th and played 30 mpg for 80 games as a 22 yr old rookie).

Sessions is a much better playmaker than Duhon, who is an average or even below average playmaker for a PG. As Caleb points out, Sessions was only 22 last season so he should be expected to improve.

Last season’s assist rates:

Duhon: 27.9 (highest since his rookie year where he was at 28.6)
Sessions: 34.6

Sessions is a different player than Duhon, definitely not Duhon without a 3 pt shot.

You look silly arguing that he wouldn’t start for 90 percent of the league, or that he’s worse than Chris Duhon (and never will be better!)

IMO it boils down to not understanding the difference between and 18 year-old and a 22-year-old and a 25-year-old. Nothing is 100 percent certain, but age is by far the best predictor of improvement. Your comparisons are ridiculous. Brevin Knight didn’t even make the NBA until he was 26, when he racked up a TS% of 44. And he defends like the 5’10 guy he is. Vaughn et al, never sniffed what Sessions did at age 22.

You don’t have to keep flogging Nate. I’m a fan. To a point. But if you’re Nate’s agent, don’t complain about diminutive PGs. And Sessions is listed at 6’3, 190.

D’Antoni’s teams make a lot of 3s because they take a lot of 3s… but he’s a coach who adapts to thetalent. Nash and Joe Johnson were great 3-point shooters; Shawn Marion averaged 33 percent under Mike D. and Grant Hill hit 31 percent. (Marion hit 25 percent this year, and Hill hit 17 percent the year before he got to Phoenix, so maybe the system will bump Sessions in the right direction, anyway).

A jumper is overrated, anyway — Tony Parker was a good player without one, although he’s better now. Same with David Lee. Jason Kidd has been awful his whole career. Etc.

4 million a year is fair market value considering the current economic state of the NBA. The guy essentially has only one season under his belt and would not start for 90% of the teams in the league. It’s not a given that he will improve, and I’d probably bet against it given his draft status. Diminutive PGs without a jumper tend to not improve very much. For reference see: Brevin Knight, Jacque Vaughn, Jason Hart

“I don’t care that Sessions can’t hit 3s – he’s still efficient. (Partly because he doesn’t TRY to hit 3s!)”

Sessions had a .525 TS% and .449 eFG%.
Nate had a .549 TS% and .496 eFG%
Duhon had a .570 TS% and .515 eFG%

Sessions ain’t efficient. People who think he could step into Duhon’s role would be sadly mistaken.

“Anyway, his value doesn’t depend so much on scoring (like Nate’s does) because he’s a terrific playmaker, and a solid defender – way better than Nate in that category. He’s also a good rebounder or a PG (not as good as Nate, tho!)”

The thing is we wouldn’t dream of asking Nate to be the playmaker when he’s one of the few players on the team capable of dropping 20 nightly. Much like you wouldn’t expect Leandro Barbosa to take Steve Nash’s place in Phoenix, or Monta Ellis to take Baron Davis’ place in Golden State. Nate is a combo guard similar to Ellis, Barbosa, Jason Terry, Eddie House, etc. He’s very good at that role, and that role is very important to teams. He is much better at that role than Ramon Sessions is at running a team. He provides more value than Ramon Sessions, who is basically Chris Duhon without a 3pt shot.

“It’s a big mistake to think you have to be a “shooter” to fit D’Antoni’s system.”

Because his teams don’t lead the league in threes?

“the other is to get a lot of layups, via quick shot opportunities before the defense is set. Guess what SSOL is designed to do… I think the main requirements are players who can thrive in the open court, who can pass and who don’t turn it over. Sessions would be fine.”

Nate thrives in the open court and frankly is the only guard on the team capable of making a layup. He also had a 2.1 A/T ratio which is pretty darn good for a combo guard.

Terry: 2.1
Barbosa: 1.7
House: 1.6
Monta: 1.4

“It’s one thing to grab Rubio on a rookie deal, but offering $5 million-plus, long-term, to yet another PG? hmmmmm.”

The Wolves grabbed Sessions for 4 years and 16 million (4 million per year). Rubio won’t be around for another 2-4 years which is for the best anyway because he’s better off starting overseas than riding the pine as a teenager in the NBA.

TBQH Sessions AT BEST is no better than Chris Duhon. The Knicks would be better off trying to UPGRADE the position rather than commit to mediocrity long-term (otherwise why not just give Duhon a 3 year extension?). Because unless you have Sessions pegged to be a future all-star, what’s the point of signing him for four years when you’re unwilling to give better players (Lee, Nate) more than one?