Sessions on why he left LA

jlkr · by **jlkr** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:41 pm

I have to say I liked Myrtle Beach a lot and seriously contemplated picking up a cheap condo there. Miniature golf capital of the world; a local House of Blues; shag dancing; nice beaches; the best evarrr peanut butter pie in the whole wide world at Hoskins Restaurant; a cool Irish pub called Flynn's next door; etc...

Will I miss Ramon? Nah, only if all of the current backups fail.

GoldenKnight · by **GoldenKnight** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:26 pm

Center Court wrote:I don't want to sit here and rip him because I still think he'd be the ideal backup point guard now and as a starter (at the time) I was very happy having him in LA.

But, he failed. He claims he is super competitive and that he lives for the competition and that's where he draws his confidence from, but clearly he's fooling him self... He was a deer in the headlights when Westbrook was attacking him relentlessly...

Agreed, he is competitive but decided to go to the Bobcats? He might as well have said "I am so competitive that I came here to turn this franchise around and lead them to the NBA playoffs"

ChumsGum · by **ChumsGum** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:22 pm

summary of the article

"I'll just go to Charlotte where I can lose and never return to the playoffs."

Frank Dux · by **Frank Dux** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:40 pm

Marc J Spears of Yahoo wrote: As long as the name is still on the back of the jersey, that's what I'm worrying about."

And that's all you need to know about him. He's just simply not a big time player. Ramon is content with losing and collecting a paycheck. It's especially alarming that he was so worried about being traded for a big name player. There is a pretty simple solution to that, play better! There's no guarantee that the Lolcats are going to keep him around, they'll trade him the second they have a good offer. It just goes to show you he's a bit of a head case, and definitely over thinks things, which is what we saw from him in the playoffs.

He's a nice kid, but all he is in Laker history is another Tierre Brown, Smush Parker, Chucky Atkins.

lotus · by **lotus** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:18 pm

He was facing $10 million 2 year deal versus a 1 year extension at $4.5 million while still being trade bait for a trade deadline salary dump. Screw all the other considerations, he made the right decision.

Kou · by **Kou** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:15 pm

lotus wrote:He was facing $10 million 2 year deal versus a 1 year extension at $4.5 million while still being trade bait for a trade deadline salary dump. Screw all the other considerations, he made the right decision.

Which shows he wasn't good enough here, he was scared he was going to be traded, what does that say about yourself?

lakersin4 · by **lakersin4** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:21 pm

I still think he made a mistake.. He would have still had a large role backing up Nash who has to rest his back, not to mention he has history playing at SG. We probably wouldn't have signed Meeks & Sessions would be beating out Ebanks for those minutes. Being a 6th man for a championship team will get him paid more than adding 2 wins to the Lolcats. But I'm glad he left.. That part about "as long as my name's on the back of the jersey" says it all. Champions put the name on the front first.

lotus · by **lotus** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:37 pm

Kou wrote:
lotus wrote:He was facing $10 million 2 year deal versus a 1 year extension at $4.5 million while still being trade bait for a trade deadline salary dump. Screw all the other considerations, he made the right decision.

Which shows he wasn't good enough here, he was scared he was going to be traded, what does that say about yourself?

It says he was smart in taking $10 million instead of $4.5 million. Which would you take? He wasn't Dwight Howard status where he can play out a contract year knowing he has a max deal waiting for him. He's a journeyman, you take the best deal you can get.

You seem caught up into some sort of Lakers pride or ego as to whether he felt good enough and confident enough to be a Laker. That's a fan perspective. From his perspective why would he even care? He's there to make money, not prove he's man enough to risk his career trying to impress the Lakers enough to get a new contract on a team that doesn't need him, has an odd thinking coach, and is getting taxed out the a$$. He made a smart decision.

Ariza3 · by **Ariza3** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:43 pm

would have been great if he stayed and was backing up Nash. Bench would be amazing especially after he got used to playing solely with them.

oh well, he made a stupid choice that no one will ever understand.

gcclaker · by **gcclaker** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:56 pm

Long term security and money... Sessions had to take care of himself. Can't blame him but...had he stayed, played well and strenghtened his appeal then there is no reason for him not to get that anyway with the Lakers or elsewhere.

John3:16 · by **John3:16** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:12 pm

Another article about Smush?

Couldn't handle a demanding Kobe. Choked in the playoffs. More concerned about the name on the back then the one on the front.

Bring on the season.

Kou · by **Kou** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:34 pm

lotus wrote:
Kou wrote:
lotus wrote:He was facing $10 million 2 year deal versus a 1 year extension at $4.5 million while still being trade bait for a trade deadline salary dump. Screw all the other considerations, he made the right decision.

Which shows he wasn't good enough here, he was scared he was going to be traded, what does that say about yourself?

It says he was smart in taking $10 million instead of $4.5 million. Which would you take? He wasn't Dwight Howard status where he can play out a contract year knowing he has a max deal waiting for him. He's a journeyman, you take the best deal you can get.

You seem caught up into some sort of Lakers pride or ego as to whether he felt good enough and confident enough to be a Laker. That's a fan perspective. From his perspective why would he even care? He's there to make money, not prove he's man enough to risk his career trying to impress the Lakers enough to get a new contract on a team that doesn't need him, has an odd thinking coach, and is getting taxed out the a$$. He made a smart decision.

I'm not saying he didn't make a good monetary move, he chose money over winning.

dj vitus · by **dj vitus** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:19 pm

Are you guys kidding?? Sessions made the RIGHT choice. After Nash signed, no way Sessions wanted to play SG under MB's system. :man11:

solenstyle · by **solenstyle** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:22 pm

revgen wrote:10 million for 2 years or 4.5 million for 1 year. He made a business decision.

But if the Lakers win a championship, teams would pay him more money for that championship experience like nearly all players get after winning a chip.

JGC · by **JGC** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:38 pm

solenstyle wrote:
revgen wrote:10 million for 2 years or 4.5 million for 1 year. He made a business decision.

But if the Lakers win a championship, teams would pay him more money for that championship experience like nearly all players get after winning a chip.

If the Lakers win it all, there is no guarantee he would be able to make up $5.5M for being a backup PG on a championship team. It's possible.

But if he blows out a knee or worse, suffers some kind of career ending injury, then it is possible no one would sign him and he'd be out $5.5M.

Bottom line is that he could guarantee himself $10M no matter what happens. Or, guarantee himself $4.5M no matter what happens. How taking the latter is the better option I don't get.

JGC · by **JGC** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:39 pm

Kou wrote:
lotus wrote:
Kou wrote:
lotus wrote:He was facing $10 million 2 year deal versus a 1 year extension at $4.5 million while still being trade bait for a trade deadline salary dump. Screw all the other considerations, he made the right decision.

Which shows he wasn't good enough here, he was scared he was going to be traded, what does that say about yourself?

It says he was smart in taking $10 million instead of $4.5 million. Which would you take? He wasn't Dwight Howard status where he can play out a contract year knowing he has a max deal waiting for him. He's a journeyman, you take the best deal you can get.

You seem caught up into some sort of Lakers pride or ego as to whether he felt good enough and confident enough to be a Laker. That's a fan perspective. From his perspective why would he even care? He's there to make money, not prove he's man enough to risk his career trying to impress the Lakers enough to get a new contract on a team that doesn't need him, has an odd thinking coach, and is getting taxed out the a$$. He made a smart decision.

I'm not saying he didn't make a good monetary move, he chose money over winning.

You're saying he should be different than every single player who isn't on the verge of retiring? Why?

OX1947 · by **OX1947** on Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:50 pm

He would have been a perfect back. I would have felt very comfortable with him playing 18 min a game behind Nash. Lakers would have needed to dump Blake and Duhon though. I have no idea what would have happen had he not opted out.

KB24 · by **KB24** on Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:31 am

He is a good guy but I don't believe him when he says he was unsure whether the Lakers want him

In his exit interview he said Mitch made it very clear that they want him back. I still think he can average 15 ppg and 7 apg on any team in the NBA. But he seemed like he didn't have that competitive fire that it takes to be really great. Talentwise, he was exciting.

Kou · by **Kou** on Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:44 am

JGC wrote:
Kou wrote:I'm not saying he didn't make a good monetary move, he chose money over winning.

You're saying he should be different than every single player who isn't on the verge of retiring? Why?

Not at all, i'd hardly say Meeks is a veteran, who took less to come in here, being in nearly the exact situation.

JGC · by **JGC** on Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:52 am

Kou wrote:
JGC wrote:
Kou wrote:I'm not saying he didn't make a good monetary move, he chose money over winning.

You're saying he should be different than every single player who isn't on the verge of retiring? Why?

Not at all, i'd hardly say Meeks is a veteran, who took less to come in here, being in nearly the exact situation.

You're right, Meeks isn't a veteran. But, who offered Meeks more money that he turned down?

Kou · by **Kou** on Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:23 am

JGC wrote:
Kou wrote:
JGC wrote:
Kou wrote:I'm not saying he didn't make a good monetary move, he chose money over winning.

You're saying he should be different than every single player who isn't on the verge of retiring? Why?

Not at all, i'd hardly say Meeks is a veteran, who took less to come in here, being in nearly the exact situation.

You're right, Meeks isn't a veteran. But, who offered Meeks more money that he turned down?

Alex Kennedy ‏@AlexKennedyNBA
Jodie Meeks had larger offers from the Washington Wizards and Milwaukee Bucks, but signed with the Los Angeles Lakers to compete for title.

432J · by **432J** on Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:15 am

its simple, he just couldnt handle the pressure of playing for the lakers

so he signed with the worst team in the league where there is no pressure whatsoever

lakersStan24 · by **lakersStan24** on Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:37 am

sad to see Him go thought He could have been a special player for Us

Juronimo · by **Juronimo** on Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:50 am

If you have a job at a company making $50K and a competitor calls you up and offers you $75K would you take it? Most would.

Why would it be any different just because these guys make millions? On top of that they have a short window to get their money.

I would love to have Sessions as a back up point guard but I completely understand his decision and it's the same decision most would make.

therealdeal · by **therealdeal** on Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:00 am

^ Because if the IT guy at SavMart doesn't get famous. The best IT guy working for Google does.

Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Re: Sessions on why he left LA

Who is online