Direction of the Phoenix Suns: My Thoughts

by Dan on Jul 1, 2007 12:02 AM MDT in Suns News Comment 56 comments

A lot has been said on this blog over the past few days - especially after the draft. It's ranged from "Well, the draft wasn't terrible" to "Holy Cow! The ship's sinking! We better get off FAST!" I've been keeping quiet the past few days but really want to let everyone know where I stand on the issue.

I think the Suns are going to be fine. Sure, the front office wasn't able to complete a deal with Minnesota (for Kevin Garnett) or with the Bobcats (for the 8th pick). But guess what? No other team has KG yet either. So I don't know that it is as much the front office's fault as the Timberwolves wanting too much in return. We have to remember that each team is out for itself. Gone are the days where a team will give up its franchise player for a few small pieces in return. We all saw what happened when the Lakers did that with Shaq. The Heat went on to win the championship and the Lakers are now mired in their remaining star playing realizing his mistakes and wanting to be traded.

I say we give the team a chance! The Suns had the 2nd best record in the league and got stopped in 6 games to a well-traveled, much more experienced Spurs team. They also got the raw end of the deal in several calls during the series that changed it to the Spurs' favor - the most notable of which was the Stoudemire and Diaw suspensions. Without those suspensions, there was a very good chance the Suns could have pulled out the series win. We seem to forget that they were coming home after tying the series at 2 games a piece and they had home court advantage and momentum on their side. They even came within a missed 3-point shot of winning game 5 and going up 3-2 in the series.

So all of this talk about the ship sinking, about Coach D'Antoni, Robert Sarver or anyone else ruining the team is a little exaggerated. Coach D'Antoni did what he thought he had to do to get the Suns in the position they were in during the playoffs. He really couldn't win no matter what he did. If he would have played more guys and lost 5-6 more games because of it (sidenote: I don't know if many of you remember the first game against the Grizzlies where the Suns were up by about 30 points, D'Antoni put in his scrubs and they promptly gave up the ENTIRE lead, making D'Antoni have to put his starters back in. Everyone was killing him for doing that the next day...now everyone is saying the opposite. End Sidenote) everyone would have been down on the team because they didn't have a great record and were seeded 4th in the conference. In hindsight, that would have meant they would have had to play Golden St. in the 2nd round instead of the Spurs. But at the start of the playoffs, everyone would have been up in arms because D'Antoni didn't play his starters more and get a better seed so the team didn't have to play Dallas.

I say we give the team a chance. Amare and Boris are working out nearly every day to get better. Boris should come into training camp looking a lot better than he did the previous season. Amare's knees should be even stronger. Steve will obviously be in shape. Shawn Marion should be hungrier and more ready to beat up on weaker teams. And we have two new guys who will be fighting for playing time and will hopefully be a good addition to the chemistry and camaraderie that seemed to be there the year before.

I say enough with the negativity. Let's definitely figure out what we would do if we were the coach/GM/owner but realize that we don't know everything that is going on. If certain decisions were made, it is most likely for a good reason. For those of you who have been following the Suns for several years, remember when the joke was that Bryan Colangelo should be the GM of the year because he helped so many other teams get better? Yet 2 years later, the decisions he made helped the Suns get Steve Nash, Raja Bell and be able to sign Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire to the contracts needed to keep them.

Let's look on the bright side of things and instead of thinking the worst about the front office, figure they know what they're doing and see what the changes (or non-changes) do over the next year. I'd rather be positive about everything and be ready to root my team on in the fall instead of be negative about it all and despise the team that is out there. The players we've come to respect deserve more than that from us.

0 recs | Comment 56 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Agreed.

It's way too soon to write off the entire off-season as a failure just because the early results have been less than overwhelming. So far the Suns improved their draft pick usage rate by two, and traded a guy who had me shouting at the TV in frustration at least 70% of the time he was on the floor. If they replace him with Grant Hill, maybe the mood around here will brighten up a bit (pun intended).

I remember that Grizzlies game you mentioned quite well -- I was there. I especially remember the disgruntled season ticket-holder behind me complaining about exactly what you said: that D'Antoni waited so long to put the starters back in that it nearly cost the game. I guess it's one of those "can't win" situations.

by TexSUN on Jul 1, 2007 12:33 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I was there as well

And I can remember just sitting there watching the Grizzlies score point after point while the Suns bench players missed shot after shot. That was one of the first times Coach D'Antoni lost his will to use those guys. If they can't hold a 30 point lead, then there is obviously a problem. (And no, these guys weren't all D'Antoni signings either.)

It's just one of those can't win situations where you're booed if you do and you're booed if you don't.

by Dan on Jul 1, 2007 1:51 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Deeper bench

A deeper bench doesn't mean putting all the subs in together as in that Grizz game.

It means having a different rotation so that Banks is on the floor w/ Amare and Marion or Jalen plays a few minutes with Nash and the other starters.

There was a point in the season where Coach D was doing this - after the all star break I think. Remember Pike getting time in the 2nd qtr for a few games in a row.

This prepares the team to moments in the playoffs when that is needed. When Stat has to sit for an entire half due to foul trouble. Or an injury to a starter or a suspension.

If you look at championship teams there's almost always a game or two the was won by an unknown hero. Look at Cleveland and Boobie this year.

The Suns need to spread the minutes out more and mix up the rotations. Not just sit the A team and play the B team. This isn't hockey w/ different lines that play together.

by Phoenix Stan on Jul 1, 2007 10:06 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Good points

I think what I meant on the Grizzlies game was with a 30 point lead and a quarter to go, you would think the guys would be able to hold the lead. When none of the 5 guys stepped up to take the lead on the court, I think Coach D lost faith in them.

But I think you're right that it probably does make sense to give guys a chance inside tighter games just to give them the opportunity and experience.

by Dan on Jul 1, 2007 10:22 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

And who they play with

You can't expect your five worst guys to just somehow play well together. But if you mix it up and play your lesser guys with your better guys you can find combinations that work...or at least don't suck too bad.

by Phoenix Stan on Jul 1, 2007 11:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

bench

I agree with srp (sorry Dan). Using the bench does not mean using all 5 bench players at one time. Coach needs to mix them up so that they have some experience playing with the starters and with the #6,7,8. If they have not played together, they cannot be successful. The rotation needs to be used correctly.

Sure it was frustrating to watch the 30 point lead evaporate, but did Dantoni analyze objectively why it happened? It was easy to put all the blame on the bench players and not use them for the rest of the season. Instead, he could have faced his own mistakes and made some corrections.

Coach used Pike early in the game in the second half of the season. I think when he started making corrections, it was a little late. He needed to try different players in the first part of the season more. Then they would have the whole season to play together. I want to see if he uses that approach his coming season. It may mean losing a few more games, but it may work out better in the long run- toward the end of the season we will have a stronger and deeper team.

In the Memphis game (I don't remember if I was there) if there was a full quarter left, it was wrong to put in all bench players at the same time. I could understand it if there were just 2-3 minutes left in the game.

At other times i have seen him play the starters even with the Suns leading by 20 and less than 2 minutes left in the game. Why not save their legs for the next game?

I am very critical of Dantoni at times. When you are that close to a championship, those little things make a difference between winning a title and being a bridesmaid. Some things are out of our control but some can be controlled.

by Vash01 on Jul 1, 2007 12:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still don't see how it is a mistake

to put in your scrubs with a 30 point lead. Check out what other coaches do. They do the same thing, I guarantee it. So when you scrubs are screwing around and not playing with intensity when they are given the chance, what makes you think they're going to do any better against a team's better players?

by Dan on Jul 1, 2007 8:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

It's called garbage time for a reason. One should be able to empty his bench with a 30 point lead and not worry about it. This would mean that the subs were playing only with subs not starters, as to give them much needed rest. You can't have it both ways people, you just can't.

I got nothin more to say - Jimmy Buffett

by DenverCub on Jul 1, 2007 11:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Garbage

Garbage time with one full Quarter left? This is the NBA. You have to expect the other team to fight back with that much time left.

by Vash01 on Jul 1, 2007 11:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Coach D

The reason that he had to leave the starters in with two minutes to go in multiple situations was BECAUSE of the fact that his bench players could not hack it and hold the lead. Coach D just coached our team to the second best record in the league and we narrowly lost to the world champion.

Do you really think that Pat Burke getting more PT alongside Steve Nash or Shawn Marion was going to make him defend Tim Duncan more efficiently in game 5?

by ASUmike on Jul 3, 2007 12:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Burke and game 5

I think the key in game 5 wasn't a big man off the bench it was playing either Jalen or Banks to get Steve more time sitting (laying down) at the end of the 3rd and early 4th quarter like he normally does. Instead, Coach D left Nash in to try and keep the lead instead of letting the bench hold the lead and or let the lead drop a bit but then Nash comes in fresh w/ 8 or 9 minutes to go and he can take over at the end like he did in game 6 and 4.

Burke came in during the 2nd quarter while Duncan was on the bench and was SO clueless that he was getting in the way. That's b/c he hadn't had enough practice or game time in that situation.

Burke wasn't going to guard Duncan - who can? But he should have been able to play 10 minutes without looking totally lost.

by Phoenix Stan on Jul 3, 2007 12:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

PT

There is no amount of playing time that can turn a big clumsy white guy into a fine tuned athletic machine. Trust me, I know. :)

You are correct about Steve being tired, but it was mostly because everyone was playing up a position and Leandro couldn't come in to spell him as usual.

by ASUmike on Jul 3, 2007 1:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The latest on Grant Hill

Hill would be a total STEAL at $1.2m with only $750k coming from the Suns pockets. In NBA terms that's complete chump change.

Given the Suns success in these things (remember Salmons?) I am only cautiously optomistic and I am sure Vash is convinced that Sarver won't cough up even that much money and TexSun is thinking that Hill won't help the team and Dan isn't quite sure how Hill helps us get in w/ Stern and avoid getting jobbed by the league and refs....just kidding guys and gals!

Phoenix and San Antonio are offering only the veteran minimum salary for next season to Grant Hill: $1.2 million, with nearly $450,000 of that amount paid by the league office from a fund for veterans.

Detroit, Toronto and Orlando will be offering the 35-year-old much more.

Yet one source insisted early Sunday that he's already convinced that the injury-tortured Hill, having just completed a $93 million deal with Magic, is "going to Phoenix for sure."

That would be welcome news in the desert, since the Suns are desperate for savvy veterans to improve the team's overall IQ and since Hill is the only free agent Phoenix is looking to add to its hefty payroll.

The early indications, though, suggest Hill does want to consider all his options and won't rush into a commitment.

by Phoenix Stan on Jul 1, 2007 12:17 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

You've got it wrong!

Actually, I would love for the Suns to sign Hill. I'm not sure he's the only new piece they need to add, but I certainly think he would be a sizable upgrade from James Jones even if he has to miss some time with injury. What I am worried about, though, is the Suns being so overly-optimistic that Hill will sign with them that they neglect to explore contingency options should he decide to go elsewhere. That's what seemed to happen last year with Tim Thomas, and while everyone says Hill is a much better "character guy" than Thomas, I still won't believe Hill is going to sign with the Suns until I hear it officially announced. There's just way too much misinformation out there, and way too many more contending teams that have more money to offer than we do.

by TexSUN on Jul 1, 2007 2:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just kidding w/ you... :)

by Phoenix Stan on Jul 1, 2007 3:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hill

You are absolutely right. Last year the Suns assumed that TT would sign with them. When he did not know, they did not know what to do. They scrambled around to find someone. The found Salmons and he said no, so they scrambled again and signed Banks. Someone is not doing the job on that Suns team and I don't know who it is (could be all of them). Now I see them do the same thing with Hill just because he said he would like to play here. Other teams are offering him more money. What if he signs with them (from all indications it could be Detroit) what are the Suns going to do? We don't need another Marcus Banks.

by Vash01 on Jul 1, 2007 9:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hill vs. TT

Well, Hill hasn't officially announced anything with Detroit as far as I know, so the Suns are still in the mix (maybe even the favorites). But you're right that it would be a good idea for the Suns to have other options just in case things don't go as planned. I really think that's how they got off on the wrong foot last year, and repeating that mistake can be avoided if they put their minds to it.

by TexSUN on Jul 1, 2007 9:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Official

Isn't it true that no signings can take place before July 11th?

About Hill there is a lot of speculation. Phoenix and Detroit are the two teams that seem to be in the running. If Detroit offers him significantly more money, why would he come here?

Some signings have been announced (Kapono to Toronto, for example) which is confusing to me.

by Vash01 on Jul 1, 2007 9:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Commitments not signings

Teams are allowed to negotiate with free agents and reach a verbal agreement (non-binding, of course), but not actually sign contracts until July 11.

by TexSUN on Jul 1, 2007 9:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hill

thats great if Grant Hill comes to the Suns, but won't he just end up in Jalen Rose's seat, as an unused veteran who plays in maybe half the teams games in D'Antoni's supertight rotation? Even if he does play, will he be able to run?

by Aluminum Foyle on Jul 1, 2007 3:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hill last year

Grant looked really good last year and played...wait I will look it up...he played in 65 games and averaged 30 minutes/game. Not bad. He hit 52% from the field and still can get to the rim and hit and open mid range J.

With James Jones gone I think he could possibly start or be the 7th or 8th guy off the bench. I think he will play if he's here. This guy was a super special player and I think he can still contribute a lot. I have always loved this guys game and make up. If you can get a guy like Hill for this price - that's a no brainer.

I agree that they need to still get a Big but with the salary situation that's going to take some other kind of deal like a Diaw trade to free up enough cap space to get someone worth while. Or maybe someone would take KT and give up a younger player just to get "veteran presense".

by Phoenix Stan on Jul 1, 2007 3:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

i hope your right but..

I don't think there are many teams that would pay diaw or k.thomas what they get, you agree

Making a trade harder to make happen

by jasonsuns1 on Jul 2, 2007 12:08 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I totally agree

It would really have to be a team that is young and has a specific need and salary cap room. Orlando? The Bucks? The Jordancats? Even ATL could benefit from a guy like KT. They don't have a ton of beef and inside D and KT could be a great mentor to Al Horford.

The good thing about taking KT for a team is that he only has one year left on his deal.

Diaw is a mystery for me. Sometimes, I would love to get rid of his contract and get more value but at the same time the guy has got serious skills and does some very unique things. Coach D loves him and says his basketball IQ is very high even if his stats weren't. So, I kind of want to see what he can do next year if he really works this summer on his fitness and mid-range jumper.

There's a great chance that he will come back and be a great part of the team next year....I can't decide!

by Phoenix Stan on Jul 2, 2007 9:01 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

on diaw

I sure agree about Diaw, he has his moments where he does things that get me excited. I think he's decided he's going to be the first player to win the most improved player award twice, and the only way to do that was to have a bad year last year, and now come back again. :-)

Thanks for the insight on K.Thomas

by jasonsuns1 on Jul 2, 2007 9:06 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bigs?

Why would we get rid of one ormore of our current big guys to get another who doesn't know our system and possibly could not be compatible with the team? That does not make sense! Plus, I would sincerely miss his french presence in the "It's game time!" presentation on the jumbotron before every game.

by ASUmike on Jul 3, 2007 12:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

diaw

he plays invisible sometimes, and is more of a point guard than a big, look at his past.

by jasonsuns1 on Jul 4, 2007 9:21 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look at his past!!!

Think about where we would have been in 2005-2006 without him. If he hadnt been suspended in the Spurs series, our chances improved dramatically. It takes a special big man to break into this rotation and play this brand of basketball. Trading such a valuable asset would be foolish.

by ASUmike on Jul 5, 2007 7:02 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hill

As long as he stays healthy, I have no problem with signing Hill. However, if he gets injured, I will hate to see that one spot wasted. I would have preferred seeing 2 or 3 specialists signed, or one key big man who can stay healthy for a whole season.

Let us hope Hill can stay healthy. The Suns do have good people in that dept. Nash has been healthier here than in Dallas.

by Vash01 on Jul 1, 2007 12:27 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget the Suns are actually good!

I think we all agree this draft didn't go the way we were hoping or the fact that probably Steve Kerr could have been a little bit more aggressive. That doesn't mean the Suns will be one of the best team in the Western Conference next season and will have a legitimate shot at the championship.
It's much easier to be aggressive when your desperate and you're just trying to have a shot at .500 like Boston or NY.
We're just a couple of bench players away and maybe Tucker could be one of them. I think first of all we need a back up point guard to save Steve N. some minutes.
Go Suns !

by Son of Steve Nash on Jul 1, 2007 2:29 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow...

You're either posting from the future, or you're the son of a different Steve Nash than the one who plays for the Suns. Nice nickname, though. :)

by TexSUN on Jul 1, 2007 3:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Draft

i wish the Suns would have kept the 24th pick, and drafted Aaron Brooks, instead of selling the pick.

by Aluminum Foyle on Jul 1, 2007 3:23 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Money

They sold the pick to create more room and more money to acquire someone who we really need. It is all part of the bigger picture.

Imagine Steve Kerr as God, and we are just on day 4 or 5 of creation. Creating cattle probably didn't make sense until humans were there. He knows what he is doing. Be still, and know that he is the GM.

Little too much blasphomy in that analogy? :)

by ASUmike on Jul 3, 2007 12:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seattles bigs

The team that seems to be to be loaded w/ bigs that we should be looking at is Seattle.

A guy like Petro or Sene is who I would like to see the Suns find a way to get. Long athletic shot blockers. I am sure it would take some kind of creative deal to make that happen but I would be on the phone w/ the Sonics. They have too many guys to get under contract anyway. They are going to have to move a couple of players.

by Phoenix Stan on Jul 1, 2007 4:09 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Diop?

Is Diop a free agent this year? If he is, the Suns could also consider him. However, if the Sonics need to dump some players, we may get a better deal from them.

by Vash01 on Jul 1, 2007 9:32 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

this is his last contract year

I think, at least according to hoopshype, 2+ million this year for him

by jasonsuns1 on Jul 2, 2007 12:11 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Many assume a win over SA was all it took

Uh, wasn't Utah next.

And with Utah's BIGS inside (Boozer/Okur/Kirilenko), we would've had similar problems with our interior D as we did with the Spurs.

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Utah give us problems in the regular season.

I am not trying to be negative. I'm pumped that Sarver/Kerr/D'Antoni didn't blow up the team. I actually like drafting Tucker, and I like that Phoenix is actively trying to get under the cap.

I'd like for our Suns to do three things:

Get some effective Big Men to defend/rebound/block shots and help Amare out.
Have Coach D emphasize D continuously -- practically running drill after drill after drill that reinforces an attention to improving that area of our team's game.
Fortify our bench with players with a history of being a productive contributor and then, actually use those players... giving them some minutes.

With all sincerity, I hope that these comments didn't come across negatively. Like most of you, I'm very passionate about the Phoenix Suns, and I want them to improve and succeed next year and for many years to come.

"I am not a role model. A million guys can dunk a basketball in jail, should they be role models?" - Charles Barkley

by kcbrett5 on Jul 2, 2007 7:10 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

FA BIGS Available...

The link below shows the Free Agent Big Men available (see paragraph under "Roster Roulette"...

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-070628bullsbits,1,5466357,print.s tory?coll=cs-home-headlines

"I am not a role model. A million guys can dunk a basketball in jail, should they be role models?" - Charles Barkley

by kcbrett5 on Jul 2, 2007 9:56 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Utah

Yes, Utah would have been tough to beat also, but all of our losses to them were by tiny margins, so with a few adjustments I think the Suns could have won the series 4-2 (it is safe to be optimistic here because the event never took place- LOL)

by Vash01 on Jul 2, 2007 10:55 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

who can beat us?

I still think the only team that can beat the Suns is the suns themselves, and we proved it this season ....

by emirem on Jul 2, 2007 11:56 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Paul Coro and the $arver discussion

Since we've had so many people referring to Robert Sarver as "$arver", that seemed like a good way to fit "Paul Coro and the 'is Sarver cheap' discussion" as the subject of my comment. :)

Anyway, Paul Coro takes a look at whether or not Sarver is really "cheap" in his latest blog entry on AZCentral. I found the following passage particularly interesting:

Shawn Marion (pre-Sarver) has an uber-maximum contract under the old CBA. Steve Nash was the first to get cash from the Sarver ownership and got a near-max deal that was questioned by many at the time and has proven to be below-MVP value. Amare Stoudemire received a max deal even after he had started to complain of a knee problem before the surgery. Boris Diaw and Leandro Barbosa got the extensions, taken by many as a lesson from when the Suns did not take care of Johnson.

And when Phoenix was scrambling to make a trade to put it in the top 10, Sarver signed off on tossing his own $3 million check onto the package to make it work. But Golden State just had a better offer with Jason Richardson in it for what Charlotte wanted to do.

He also mentions the well-known fact that once a team crosses the luxury tax threshold, they have to pay dollar for dollar for anything over--and the fact that not only would the Suns have to pay the tax, they also miss out on being "one of the teams that gets to divvy up the tax pool".

by TexSUN on Jul 2, 2007 1:34 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

I am not buying into the Sarver is cheap this either. I think there were some bad decisions but I don't think its from being "cheap". The Suns right now are slated to have the 2nd highest payroll just behind NY Knicks who are in class of spend-stupidness of their own.

I am a fan of the salary cap concept to promote partity and its part of the game. Getting the best players you can and staying under the cap is just the way it works. I don't like the Yankee's theory of out spending your way to the ring - and as we know it doesn't always work.

So, while I don't agree w/ trading the #24 pick for cash I don't think it was done for money alone. They could have easily pick a Euro like Splitter and stashed him overseas and saved the money for a year or two.

I think they were trying to get rid of James Jones and that was the way to do it.

by Phoenix Stan on Jul 2, 2007 4:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Splitter not a Euro - I know...

but you get my point

by Phoenix Stan on Jul 2, 2007 4:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

We Need Change!

That was the tagline that Fraser gave to Woody when Woody decided to run for city council during the last season of Cheers. When Woody asked, "Change to what?" Fraser told him it didn't matter.

Notice how all politicians always say that.

Ask yourself why monumental changes is seemingly always needed.

If you want to argue that past financial decisions over the last few years have put the Suns in a bad salary-cap position, that's very defensible.

But, we've got what we've got, and some tweaking should take place and that's the best the Suns can do. And it will still make for a good season and a strong play-off. And if Amare is "on a mission" as the reporters say, I wouldn't want to be standing in his way.

Mmmmm ... Guinness

by JSun on Jul 2, 2007 1:41 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Cash for Rookies

I think ClipperSteve at Clipper Nation has scoped out the Phoenix situation perfectly. If you've not read his analysis of the Suns' last 2 drafts, I suggest you do. I'm all for giving Sarver a chance but I think its now obvious what his motivations are. Sure he'd like to win a title. Who wouldn't? But money plays a much bigger factor to him than winning. When he sold last years top draft pick for cash, I felt the stirring of unease. But they had recently resigned Amare for a lot of cash so maybe throwing away a first round draft pick was understandable( at least thats what I told myself). But now he has done it again. And I feel sick. Its clear the Colangelo days are over. I'm afraid we have the worst kind of owner. One that sees money as the most important factor and not fielding the best possible team. I will always admire and appreciate Jerry Colangelo. He always strove to get the best team possible and financial considerations were there but in second place, behind having the best team possible. Throwing 2 first rounds picks away is simply greedy and stupid. Not to mention short sighted. I suspect, as ClipperSteve notes, that the Suns will be contenders until Steve Nash fades or retires. So maybe another 2 years. After that the Suns will follow the Phoenix Cardinals motto of putting just enough money in the team to be somewhat competetive during the regular season but unlikely to make the playoffs and certainly never capable of winning a championship.

Damn! What a shame. The Suns have been such a wonderful franchise with the rare combination of a motivation to win and making insightful personnel moves. Now the Suns will be treated like an investment in Sarver's 401K plan. Its so difficult to build something up and so easy to tear it down. I think we are witnessing the death of a franchise.

Does anyone think Portland's owner Allen would be interested in having 2 NBA teams? Maybe hire Colangelo to handle GM duties? There's no law against dreaming.

by Taltos50 on Jul 4, 2007 10:07 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Clippersteve notes

Here is a part of that article:

"...the Suns team payroll has been knocking on the door of the luxury tax since Stoudemire's maximum extension kicked in. Sarver has been willing to sign the stars, but unwilling to spend money on anything else. Rookie contracts are the best bargain in the NBA, yet the Suns have eschewed them for almost four seasons. It's not even smart cap management - he's sold first round picks in the last two drafts straight up for cash. That's just money on his bottom line - it does nothing to help the Suns long term cap situation. It would be one thing to bundle Diaw's contract and a draft pick for an expiring deal - at least that would help down the road. But trading picks for Paul Allen's money only lines Sarver's pockets, while the Suns roster gets older and older. I've said it before - if you're running an NBA team to make money, you're in the wrong business. Go back to your bank."

Actually it was Diaw's contract and LB's contract that have created LT problems for the Suns. LB is still a very good return on investment. Diaw and Banks are not. Their contracts created a situation where the Suns did not have much spending money. KT's contract has also become a financial problem even though I love him as a player and I hope he stays this season (translation: I hope they don't trade him for a 'low cost' player just to stay below the LT).

However, that is why rookie contracts make more sense than trying to find 'cheap' free agents. Using the draft picks would have served a dual purpose: build a future for the team and save some money. Getting 3M from Portland for every draft pick (we lost two talented players because of this) does not help the team much. How many top quality free agents can you really sign for that kind of money? Not even one (Banks gets paid more than 3M per year).

It is not as much thrift as it is mismanagement of money and players in the Suns case. I agree with him on one point though- In 2 to 3 years the Suns will become a mediocre team. I wrote in my posts that the Suns have gotten old and I was slammed for it.

Now that Jerry Colangelo is gone, I expect to see more problems for the Suns, particularly after the Nash era is over. He is the main reason (though not the only one) the Suns have been title contenders last 3 years.

by Vash01 on Jul 4, 2007 11:16 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Suns Support!

But this "nash" era is here because of Sarver's ownership group. As is the Amare Stoudamire era, and the Shawn Marion era, and so on. The Suns have one of the most loaded rosters in the league. We have eight players who would start on any team in the NBA. They had to be groomed and situated to be in this point. Amare Stoudamire is only 24 years old! He has ten years left of his PRIME! He is only going to continue getting better.

Steve is a great player, but he is not just a lucky catch. The Suns organization has worked hard to get to this point. Each move (ie. selling picks, trading rookies) is calculated towards making a better basketball team in the long run.

by ASUmike on Jul 5, 2007 7:01 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Who found them?

The Colangelos were mainly responsible for bringing in all 3 key players.

by Vash01 on Jul 5, 2007 9:29 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

But

The Sarver group is responsible for keeping them around. Dont get me wrong, I think that Bryan Colangelo is one of the best businessmen in the entire NBA. He is a revolutionary, and changed our team forever. I just think that the hate on Sarver is unwarranted. It could be much much much worse (See: Kevin McHale)

by ASUmike on Jul 8, 2007 2:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would like to weigh in

I've read this blog off and on for a few months. Since I myself am a Kings fan, and have my own concerns with my own team and frustrating conflicting emotions on every new topic daily it seems, I don't think that it greatly effects me one way or the other what Robert Sarver does. Except the Suns are in the same division as the Kings and Sarver is currently owning a team with a very talented group of players easily good enough to be champions each of the last 3 seasons. Why they didn't happen? A Multitude of reasons that make perfect sense I suppose. But is Robert Sarver cheap? Yes, I think he is. But whether he is cheap by selling picks in the 20's is not the best example. I think he has either forced or just done dumb things as his owner. My best memory of him is 3 years ago where he called the Spurs "Chicken". Look I'm not the smartest guy in the world but calling a team that had won a championship 2 seasons prior a chicken is not a wise route to go. Passionate ownership I get and have no problem with really. It's at what point does passion cross the line into utter and pointless stupidity? I think Sarver crossed that line ,and to be honest, hasn't stepped back across since.

Selling draft picks inof itself mean little. After all I thought (i cant remember who it was either Vash srp or Texsun) that pointed out that selling James Jones along with the 24th pick was a wise thing to do. I agree that was. And the team didn't turn around and sell the 29th pick either. So that's clearly a step in the right direction also. The question is does Sarver understand that paying players comes at a price? I don't know that he does. If you expect to get under Luxury Tax when you have a 77 million payroll clearly you don't quite understand how luxury tax works. You're not 1 million over at that point. You're roughly 10 million over. If Sarver, and whoever has been running the personnel whether it was Colangelo,Griffin or D'Antoni, doesn't get that keeping draft picks is an excellent way to save money than that is his fault. I totally agree with Clipper Steve's post about Sarver perhaps not understanding that future success was drastically underminded by selling those picks.

As I say it's all a personal opinion. Have a great summer y'all.

by pookeyguru on Jul 6, 2007 4:14 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

What I said...

...was that packaging Jones with the pick makes sense in that it cleared out space to sign Grant Hill plus both of the picks they did keep while either lowering, or at least not significantly raising the payroll. I can't remember what the exact numbers were, but had Hill signed for the minimum, the overall payroll would have been lower despite replacing one player with three. Since he signed for the MLE instead, I'm not sure how it works out, but should still be close. Had the Suns gotten rid of all of their picks, I would have a different opinion, but given that they kept two of the three, then actually succeeded in wooing the free agent they wanted, I'm inclined to cut them some slack. That seems like a good balance between improving the team for winning now, while also picking up some pieces for the future.

by TexSUN on Jul 6, 2007 7:50 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hill signed for the MLE?

I thought hill signed for 3 million and change in total. Maybe I read that article wrong (or it probably got the number wrong). Anyway thanks for recapping what you said. Because that's basically what my point was. I would be inclined to cut them slack too. Or at least Kerr/Griffin anyway. I'm not sure Sarver has earned it quite yet lol.

Bright Side of the Moon or Bright side of the Sun...take your pick

by pookeyguru on Jul 6, 2007 10:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ack... Sorry

That's what I get for commenting when I was in a hurry. Hill agreed to the biennial exemption, not the MLE. He'll get $1.83 million this season, and $1.97 million next season if he picks up his second year option. So, it was higher than the minimum, but much less than the MLE. Sorry for the confusion. My fingers typed without asking my brain first I guess. :)

by TexSUN on Jul 6, 2007 10:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

No Worries

I make mistakes all the time. Can't hate ya for a minor mistake (very minor at that). And I think Hill will prove to be a bargain if he plays 70 games @ 20 mins per. That's all the Suns need out of him during the regular season AT THE VERY MOST.

Bright Side of the Moon or Bright side of the Sun...take your pick

by pookeyguru on Jul 6, 2007 2:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kings fan

Thanks for your perspective. I think we are in agreement that Sarver does not really understand the intricacies of basketball, and it influences his decision making. That's where the Colangelos had a huge advantage. They really knew the game and the business that is the NBA.

Calling the Spurs 'chicken' was in poor taste but i don't think it affected the team a whole lot. Since I did not hear about it, I assume it was forgotten. Mark Cuban has verbally attacked SA also, but he is just being Mark Cuban. Sarver's enthusiasm for the team is great but it's not enough. I think he needs to listen more to the basketball brains on his staff. The team may have just 2 more chances to win a title. I hope he does not ruin it by making bad decisions just to stay under LT -e.g. trading KT or Marion at this point will be a big mistake, unless it is for KG and obviously that will not solve the LT problem. So he may end up trading KT (to save $8.1 M) for nothing and that will hurt the team.

by Vash01 on Jul 6, 2007 11:12 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anytime

I give my opinion on everything, and since I assume there isn't much news on the Suns for most of this summer, I won't be commenting much outside of whatever is out there.

As far as Sarver and the chicken thing it didn't make any difference. The Joe Johnson injury had a greater impact than alot of people realize who didn't watch the suns much that year (I watched them a ton and was amazed by his progression from just several years prior). The thing about Sarver is that he doesn't get it. Sort of like the Maloof's he was handed this great situation by his predecessor's but like many owners he thinks he knows more than the other guys around. He thinks he can do new things under the sun. He thinks he can change the NBA business and all that. Many of those guys often do. They stick around for 5 years like Howard Schultz and they realize," Oh Shit, this isn't quite like running Starbucks (insert company here)." The question is not whether up to this point has Sarver been an issue in terms of his financial commitment. The question is will he change his approach as the years go by ,and trust his basketball people more and more. Time will only tell on that one.

Bright Side of the Moon or Bright side of the Sun...take your pick

by pookeyguru on Jul 6, 2007 2:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Biennial exemption

Grant signed for the Biennial exemption, which is a $3.8M contract for 2 years, the second year being optional. The MLE would have been around $5.5M. Grant will get approx. Just over $1.8M this year, and the rest next year if he decides to stay.

So the Suns went slightly over what they had initially offered- the veteran's minimum. It does not sound like money was a factor in his decision, still I think the Biennial exemption is a fair deal for Hill.

by Vash01 on Jul 6, 2007 11:03 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs