Marvin for Sessions

[Joker]

Notice that only one person here is claiming that Sessions is a scrub. If by scrub that person is referring to a 25 player with a career high scoring game which is higher than any Joe Johnson has had, then yes he's a scrub. Or if it refers to a player who has had a game with 24 assists and who's career season average in assists is better than our starting PGs best season, then yes he's a scrub.

I will gladly up this thread if we do something stupid like trade for Sessions just to act like a child and say I told you so. Stats are great especially on teams that have losing records and your overall impact is below average majority of the time. He's a backup. I wouldn't even start him. I pray to God a stupid team like LA trades for him but LA isn't stupid. We are the stupid ones. So I am betting a team that drafted Shelden Williams and Josh Childress in the lottery becomes smart.

Teague is a lot more talented than Sessions. Better no but that's why Teague's not a starting PG at a NBA level.

Sessions is not needed on this team.

Steve Nash for Marvin and two future 1sts.

You want to trade Marvin, trade him for someone who can get us wins. Not go in reverse. Atlanta has proved that when they get rid of talent. They never get it back. We aren't the Pittsburgh Steelers.

That's what separates us from San Antonio of the world. Not just coaching. But making SMART personnel decisions.

[Diesel]

The problem with the bigger deal is I think the rules prohibit the Hawks from trading first round picks in consecutive years. In addition, adding Jamison doesn't make the Hawks title contenders.

The deal straight up makes more sense. It would also allow the Hawks to use Kirk's expiring deal as part of a bigger deal to add a player(s) with a view to next year. More than just Marvin needs to be moved to right this sinking ship.

You are right on the rules prohibiting the Hawks from trading first rounders. Maybe we throw in a second. However, Jamison is better than keeping Hinrich. I understand you say Hinrich in a bigger deal, but let's face it, ASG is not keen on giving up Smoove or Horf. thus, you have 1 year of Jamison. The guy is more physical than any of our front court players and he pulls down 17 a night. On our team with 24 + minutes (mostly at C or Pf) I say we're looking at a good 13 a night.

It's not the total effect that you want, but it's a serious net effect from being able to play other players.

[Joker]

You need talent. You don't trade Marvin for Sessions. That's like saying a have a big party at my house. I want to order one pan pizza. WTH?

[Admin]

I will gladly up this thread if we do something stupid like trade for Sessions just to act like a child and say I told you so. Stats are great especially on teams that have losing records and your overall impact is below average majority of the time. He's a backup. I wouldn't even start him. I pray to God a stupid team like LA trades for him but LA isn't stupid. We are the stupid ones. So I am betting a team that drafted Shelden Williams and Josh Childress in the lottery becomes smart.

Teague is a lot more talented than Sessions. Better no but that's why Teague's not a starting PG at a NBA level.

Sessions is not needed on this team.

Sessions IS needed on this team if it gets us out of a year of Marvin's contract AND allows us to trade Hinrich and get an asset in return. What you're failing to understand is that there are only a handful of teams under the cap and how many of them do you think are willing to trade us a younger player and take back quite a bit more money in the process?

The important thing is that we are able to trade Hinrich and get a player in return because right now we need to get rid of him and we need to cut salary to get below the luxury tax and this type of deal allows us to do just that.

Steve Nash for Marvin and two future 1sts.

You want to trade Marvin, trade him for someone who can get us wins. Not go in reverse. Atlanta has proved that when they get rid of talent. They never get it back. We aren't the Pittsburgh Steelers.

This is not the place for non-rumored fantasy trades.

[Diesel]

That rule only applies to future picks. The fact that we traded away last year's pick is irrelevant the day after last year's draft so that wouldn't be an obstacle.

Throwing in a first to get Jamison and Sessions would be crazy to me. They would leave us in the exact same position as we would be without them (likely first round exit from the playoffs with a cap of second round exit); they would push us well into the luxury tax; and we would be giving up a first round pick we desperately need to add depth and youth to this roster to do it. In less than 12 months, Jamison would be gone.

Save the $8M this would cost the Hawks this year and spend it on next year's team that will benefit from a cheap young talent on the roster as well.

Marvin for Sessions straight up followed by a Kirk trade makes much more sense to me.

What you're saying is still semantics. Marvin for Sessions is the 4 million dollars you speak. Add to that unless the Lakers give us their TPE, we're still over the cap and have to dol out 8 Million.

So what you're really saying is:

Marvin for Sessions and Hinrich for TPE.

or

Marvin/Hinrich for Sessions/Jamison.

The thing is that is Jamison's last year. That's 15 million off the books next year compared to Hinrich's 8 or the TPE's 8.

Plus Jamison can get you 17/6 this year and he can play some C in a small lineup.

[Admin]

You need talent. You don't trade Marvin for Sessions. That's like saying a have a big party at my house. I want to order one pan pizza. WTH?

[Diesel]

You need talent. You don't trade Marvin for Sessions. That's like saying a have a big party at my house. I want to order one pan pizza. WTH?

Ramon Sessions

Marvin Williams

Please, look... Look hard.. and tell me what you really see!

[Admin]

What you're saying is still semantics. Marvin for Sessions is the 4 million dollars you speak. Add to that unless the Lakers give us their TPE, we're still over the cap and have to dol out 8 Million.

So what you're really saying is:

Marvin for Sessions and Hinrich for TPE.

or

Marvin/Hinrich for Sessions/Jamison.

The thing is that is Jamison's last year. That's 15 million off the books next year compared to Hinrich's 8 or the TPE's 8.

Plus Jamison can get you 17/6 this year and he can play some C in a small lineup.

What he's saying is that Marvin/Hinrich for Sessions/Jamison will cost the ASG 8 million MORE this year than where we presently stand today since that trade leaves us an additional 4 million upside down plus another 4 million in luxury tax money.

On the other hand, you trade Marvin for Sessions and save 3 million of of where we presently stand, plus get us under the luxury tax and actually get some money back from the league. On top of that, now you can trade Hinrich for another player without having to move him for a TPE or to a team under the cap because we could take back all of Hinrich's salary plus another 20% on top of that and get back a quality player on a longer contract.

There is an ENORMOUS difference between those 2 possibilities.

[Joker]

Sessions IS needed on this team if it gets us out of a year of Marvin's contract AND allows us to trade Hinrich and get an asset in return. What you're failing to understand is that there are only a handful of teams under the cap and how many of them do you think are willing to trade us a younger player and take back quite a bit more money in the process?

The important thing is that we are able to trade Hinrich and get a player in return because right now we need to get rid of him and we need to cut salary to get below the luxury tax and this type of deal allows us to do just that.

This is not the place for non-rumored fantasy trades.

We aren't going to do anything with the space. We have Teague and Smith due for a contract in a season 13-14. This team can't afford to take steps back. hawkfanatic is great with the cap on here. Tell us we are a due to have a cap space after a trade like this one and who can we get?

Ramon Sessions

Marvin Williams

Please, look... Look hard.. and tell me what you really see!

I watched the games Diesel. I know what BOTH players bring to the table. I been keeping an eye on Cleveland for Kyrie in my charts. By that, I have to see Sessions. I know how BOTH teams use or UNDERUSE in Marvin's case each player.

[Admin]

We aren't going to do anything with the space. We have Teague and Smith due for a contract in a season 13-14. This team can't afford to take steps back. hawkfanatic is great with the cap on here. Tell us we are a due to have a cap space after a trade like this one and who can we get?

Not SALARY cap space, LUXURY TAX space. Meaning the amount of money that the ASG will have to come out of pocket.

For example, right now I believe that we are slightly over the luxury tax so a couple of things happen:

1. We don't get money BACK from the league for being under the luxury tax.
   
2. We have to pay $1 for every $1 that we're over the luxury tax.
   

On the other hand, you make a deal like Marvin for Sessions and you get the team $3 million under the luxury tax and a few things happen.

1. You immediately save 3-4 million salary between the 2 players.
   
2. You get under the luxury tax so you no longer have to pay the league for being over.
   
3. You also get money back from the league for being under the luxury tax.
   

HF please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly confident that I'm correct here.

[Joker]

Not SALARY cap space, LUXURY TAX space. Meaning the amount of money that the ASG will have to come out of pocket.

For example, right now I believe that we are slightly over the luxury tax so a couple of things happen:

1. We don't get money BACK from the league for being under the luxury tax.
   
2. We have to pay $1 for every $1 that we're over the luxury tax.
   

On the other hand, you make a deal like Marvin for Sessions and you get the team $3 million under the luxury tax and a few things happen.

1. You immediately save 3-4 million salary between the 2 players.
   
2. You get under the luxury tax so you no longer have to pay the league for being over.
   
3. You also get money back from the league for being under the luxury tax.
   

HF please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly confident that I'm correct here.

At the end of the day we are trading a better player, who plays in a position of NEED as well as put him a personnel that would be much better suited for him, and we are getting in return a player who isn't better than the other players we have at his position. Sounds like a typical Atlanta Hawks crap deal to me.

If you thought I hated the idea of Teague for Sessions, you kicked open the gates of hell with the idea of Marvin for Sessions.

Edited February 27, 2012 by nbasuperstar40

[thecampster]

I will gladly up this thread if we do something stupid like trade for Sessions just to act like a child and say I told you so. Stats are great especially on teams that have losing records and your overall impact is below average majority of the time. He's a backup. I wouldn't even start him. I pray to God a stupid team like LA trades for him but LA isn't stupid. We are the stupid ones. So I am betting a team that drafted Shelden Williams and Josh Childress in the lottery becomes smart.

Teague is a lot more talented than Sessions. Better no but that's why Teague's not a starting PG at a NBA level.

Sessions is not needed on this team.

Steve Nash for Marvin and two future 1sts.

You want to trade Marvin, trade him for someone who can get us wins. Not go in reverse. Atlanta has proved that when they get rid of talent. They never get it back. We aren't the Pittsburgh Steelers.

That's what separates us from San Antonio of the world. Not just coaching. But making SMART personnel decisions.

Which is evidence enough to why you aren't an NBA GM. 2 future 1sts for a guy who will be out of the league in 3-5 years and a player who is a good size expiring next year.

[Admin]

At the end of the day we are trading a better player, who plays in a position of NEED as well as put him a personnel that would be much better suited for him, and we are getting in return a player who isn't better than the other players we have at his position. Sounds like a typical Atlanta Hawks crap deal to me.

If you thought I hated the idea of Teague for Sessions, you kicked open the gates of hell with the idea of Marvin for Sessions.

You are the only one who feels like Marvin is the vastly superior player, which you're doing by creating such a fuss over.

There is a huge difference between giving up a young and untested PG like Teague was last year vs trading a guy who has been in the league 7 years and is clearly giving us less and less.

Which is evidence enough to why you aren't an NBA GM. 2 future 1sts for a guy who will be out of the league in 3-5 years and a player who is a good size expiring next year.

I think 3-5 years is being generous... but with Nash who knows. Even with his bad back he just keeps on going and going.

[Joker]

Marvin overall numbers and production possession to possession tells me he's a good player. Misused when I watch the games. I personally don't think he's misused, just has the wrong supporting cast like 90% of the team as it is. The only one who fits is Josh Smith and he's a never fit player so that answer that question. Marvin is also just a much better player. He's a very good man defender. Solid team defender. Always moving on offense. Has great tools. Has High BBIQ. Is a team player. He's nothing special without question but in the right system he's a 15ppg 20 PER and top win shares player. Marvin with a lot of PT equals wins by adv statistics. If you are willing to give that up for a scrub and Atlanta does too, I will gladly up this thread in a couple of months. I will bash the h*ll out of this franchise to the point where you think AHF is light on ASG.

Cleveland actually has a real PG in Kyrie Irving. They actually have pieces that fit. It should be fun watching Marvin make all you who wanted a trash trade like this eat crow. I know for a fact Sessions will prove me right. I seen him enough to know he's a bonafide scrub, I don't give a darn if his stats say otherwise. His game is like Anthony Johnson and the rest of those crappy journeyman PG's we always have.

Which is evidence enough to why you aren't an NBA GM. 2 future 1sts for a guy who will be out of the league in 3-5 years and a player who is a good size expiring next year.

We aren't going to draft anyone special. Probably another 3 year project who might be a role player come year 3.

[ATLSmith]

I like the length Sessions adds at PG but this move has me scratching my head a little. I don't see how Session is any better than Teague. My only thought is that the Hawks are preparing for a larger deal involving Teague, or even Hinrich, and they need some depth.

Overall I think the Marvin for Sessions is a relatively fair trade. It also has me wondering if the Hawks will move Smoove to SF.

[hazer]

I like the length Sessions adds at PG but this move has me scratching my head a little. I don't see how Session is any better than Teague. My only thought is that the Hawks are preparing for a larger deal involving Teague, or even Hinrich, and they need some depth.

Overall I think the Marvin for Sessions is a relatively fair trade. It also has me wondering if the Hawks will move Smoove to SF.

^^^This^^^

[Jody23]

You are right on the rules prohibiting the Hawks from trading first rounders. Maybe we throw in a second. However, Jamison is better than keeping Hinrich. I understand you say Hinrich in a bigger deal, but let's face it, ASG is not keen on giving up Smoove or Horf. thus, you have 1 year of Jamison. The guy is more physical than any of our front court players and he pulls down 17 a night. On our team with 24 + minutes (mostly at C or Pf) I say we're looking at a good 13 a night.

It's not the total effect that you want, but it's a serious net effect from being able to play other players.

I get what you're saying D, but the reality is a move like the bigger trade is a time waster, something that's delaying the inevitable. If the Hawks ever want to get serious about becoming a title contender rather than holding on to players for sentimental reasons (aka being fanboy homers), then they must address the problem of having an undersized front court. If they don't plan on playing Josh at the 3, then he or Horford has to go. And unless you can get a LARGE dominant center, I think you have to look at moving Josh.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Jody23

[Admin]

I like the length Sessions adds at PG but this move has me scratching my head a little. I don't see how Session is any better than Teague. My only thought is that the Hawks are preparing for a larger deal involving Teague, or even Hinrich, and they need some depth.

Overall I think the Marvin for Sessions is a relatively fair trade. It also has me wondering if the Hawks will move Smoove to SF.

The deal on it's own is questionable as far as personnel are concerned, but you have to believe that there would be a follow up deal with Hinrich and/or Pargo. Then again Sessions may be the best asset we can get back for Marvin and gain luxury tax relief.

[AHF]

You are right on the rules prohibiting the Hawks from trading first rounders. Maybe we throw in a second. However, Jamison is better than keeping Hinrich. I understand you say Hinrich in a bigger deal, but let's face it, ASG is not keen on giving up Smoove or Horf. thus, you have 1 year of Jamison. The guy is more physical than any of our front court players and he pulls down 17 a night. On our team with 24 + minutes (mostly at C or Pf) I say we're looking at a good 13 a night.

It's not the total effect that you want, but it's a serious net effect from being able to play other players.

As I mentioned earlier, we can trade our first round pick in 2012. We just can't trade our 2012 and 2013 picks. This rule only applies to future picks. You can trade your first round pick every single season if you want. You just can't trade two in a row that are future picks so you could trade the 2012 pick now, the 2013 pick after the 2012 draft, the 2014 pick after the 2013 draft, etc.

What he's saying is that Marvin/Hinrich for Sessions/Jamison will cost the ASG 8 million MORE this year than where we presently stand today since that trade leaves us an additional 4 million upside down plus another 4 million in luxury tax money.

On the other hand, you trade Marvin for Sessions and save 3 million of of where we presently stand, plus get us under the luxury tax and actually get some money back from the league. On top of that, now you can trade Hinrich for another player without having to move him for a TPE or to a team under the cap because we could take back all of Hinrich's salary plus another 20% on top of that and get back a quality player on a longer contract.

There is an ENORMOUS difference between those 2 possibilities.

Exactly. Marvin for Sessions saves the ASG money and opens up trading options for Kirk.

Trading Marvin/Kirk for Jamison/Sessions costs the ASG $8M for this season and gets us nothing of long-term value for Kirk because we won't resign Jamison. This isn't the year to sell out cash and first rounds picks to make a marginal upgrade for the playoffs.

[Guest]

You need talent. You don't trade Marvin for Sessions. That's like saying a have a big party at my house. I want to order one pan pizza. WTH?

Marvin and talent in same sentence is confusing...Nobody's giving you talent for Marvin.