Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Discussion of the league and of our favorite team.
User avatar
Superbone
Posts: 11802
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:44 am
Location: Escondido, CA (Phoenix Native)

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Superbone » Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:11 am

Superbone wrote:
Cap wrote:
Superbone wrote:QOTD: Will the Suns win a game before Booker rejoins the team?
The gameday thread says we're playing the Nets tonight, so, maybe?
;) Making the game day threads isn't as easy as it looks. :P
Wow, didn't think my QOTD would be answered so quickly. Especially when playing a team that hadn't lost to a WC opponent at home all season.
O_Gardino: "Ntilikina is going to lead the NBA in assists once he gets going[2025]..."

User avatar
Split T
Posts: 4861
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:51 am
Location: Provo, Utah

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Split T » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:07 am

specialsauce wrote:
Split T wrote:You and Mori always conveniently leave out the fact that Cleveland wanted our first round pick as well. And there's no chance Kyrie is considered a top 10 player if he's on the Suns.

A future first round pick was what was reported. You and I have no idea what that means. You just assume it means our unprotected pick this coming year which 1) most likely wouldn’t have been the case and 2) wouldn’t have been as valuable once we traded for Kyrie as we would almost definitely be better. Also, if we traded for Kyrie who’s to say we don’t approach FA differently and actually add talent to the squad rather than intentionally try to fill the roster out with the worst possible collection of players

That's a good point, we probably approach FA differently, but the Kyrie trade stuff was after most of the free agents had already signed. I'm not sure there was much left. Had we acquired him in the rumored pre draft trade, then that's a different story. By all accounts we were perfectly willing to move our pick at that point.

I wanted Kyrie, I just didn't see any reason to offer what Cleveland wanted. None of the other rumored teams could beat our offer of Bled/Warren/Miami pick. Boston came in at the end and got Kyrie for IT/Crowder/Brooklyn pick. Is that really much better?

Brooklyn pick will be better than the Miami pick, but I'd argue bled/Warren is better than IT/Crowder.

User avatar
Ring_Wanted
Posts: 4092
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:47 am

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Ring_Wanted » Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:16 am

Split T wrote:Boston came in at the end and got Kyrie for IT/Crowder/Brooklyn pick. Is that really much better?
Uh, much better. BRY pick and IT are the two best assets in this scenario (a deep team with LeBron, which can more than keep its head afloat while IT recovers). And a contender like CLE could see more value in Crowder's 3D ability than in Warren's old school scoring (and eventual RFA status at the time, if not extended like we did). Bledsoe's contract doesn't make our package overcome the difference, in my opinion (and you know he is still going to demand a crazy amount in two years).

User avatar
Split T
Posts: 4861
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:51 am
Location: Provo, Utah

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Split T » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:05 am

Crowder is a better fit than Warren for sure, but I think they'd prefer Bledsoe to IT, especially considering the uncertainty of his health. Still, I meant it more from our perspective. Cleveland obviously preferred the Boston trade, they took it, but Boston didn't really give much up. IT was replaced by a better, younger version of him. Crowder had three wings(Hayward, brown, and Tatum) ahead of him in the pecking order. The Brooklyn pick was the big piece and while it is still very valuable, Boston has a surplus of very good first rounders and was ok moving it. Also, Brooklyn is making that pick less valuable by playing better than expected, granted that's a hindsight situation.

My point is, bledsoe, Jackson and a first was more valuable to us than what IT/Crowder/Brklyn pick was to Boston.

User avatar
Marty [Mori Chu]
Posts: 8109
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Marty [Mori Chu] » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:48 am

Boston's offer is a lot better than what we reportedly were offering. That 1st round pick is a gem, and IT had averaged literally 30 points a game last year. Also as much as we love Warren, Crowder also had great stats last season and looked/looks like a piece that can help a team win a title.

We didn't put forth our best offer, and Cleveland knew it. They got a better offer and they took it. And now the team that got Kyrie is at the top of the league and looks like a title contender.

"Kyrie would have left Phoenix" is the most pathetic sentence I've seen on this board perhaps since its inception. We had *two years* to make our case to the guy. Two, years. I would understand if he were a one-season or partial-season rental. For example, I would never want the Suns to acquire Paul George who is known to want to go to the LA Lakers after 1 season. But with two years, and no obvious single preferred destination for Kyrie, I think we had every chance to show him that it was great to play here. In 2 years he would have had time to mesh with Booker, to get to know this great city, to see the team building and growing, perhaps to go to the playoffs, etc. Plus we can offer more money than any other team, which people seem to forget and is a HUGE advantage. We would have had a great chance to retain him. I don't get why people so quickly dismiss all of this and say, "he would have left after two years." It's such a cowardly statement and really doesn't reflect any confidence in our city, franchise, players, team, etc.

User avatar
Cap
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:08 pm

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Cap » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:12 pm

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Boston's offer is a lot better than what we reportedly were offering. That 1st round pick is a gem, and IT had averaged literally 30 points a game last year. Also as much as we love Warren, Crowder also had great stats last season and looked/looks like a piece that can help a team win a title.

We didn't put forth our best offer, and Cleveland knew it. They got a better offer and they took it. And now the team that got Kyrie is at the top of the league and looks like a title contender.

"Kyrie would have left Phoenix" is the most pathetic sentence I've seen on this board perhaps since its inception. We had *two years* to make our case to the guy. Two, years. I would understand if he were a one-season or partial-season rental. For example, I would never want the Suns to acquire Paul George who is known to want to go to the LA Lakers after 1 season. But with two years, and no obvious single preferred destination for Kyrie, I think we had every chance to show him that it was great to play here. In 2 years he would have had time to mesh with Booker, to get to know this great city, to see the team building and growing, perhaps to go to the playoffs, etc. Plus we can offer more money than any other team, which people seem to forget and is a HUGE advantage. We would have had a great chance to retain him. I don't get why people so quickly dismiss all of this and say, "he would have left after two years." It's such a cowardly statement and really doesn't reflect any confidence in our city, franchise, players, team, etc.
I think he probably would have left. He didn't want to come here in the first place, and giving up two lottery picks in the trade would have left us with very limited ability to put a good team around him. And if he did pull a McDyess it would have been a huge setback to the franchise.

I'm not seeing proponents of the trade make a lot of logical arguments that he wouldn't have left, or that the probably of it happening are so small that it makes sense as a calculated risk. Just claims that even considering the downside risk reflects cowardice, a loser's mentality, or some such character flaw.

The two sides are just going to keep talking past each other because they're not even using compatible models of rationality.
JJ will be better than KP when all is said and done [in 2020]. Mark it. — AIG, with Indy betting against
TJ Warren will average 20+ points a game this year.... Mark it. — iLLmatic

User avatar
Superbone
Posts: 11802
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:44 am
Location: Escondido, CA (Phoenix Native)

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Superbone » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:53 pm

Cap wrote:
Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Boston's offer is a lot better than what we reportedly were offering. That 1st round pick is a gem, and IT had averaged literally 30 points a game last year. Also as much as we love Warren, Crowder also had great stats last season and looked/looks like a piece that can help a team win a title.

We didn't put forth our best offer, and Cleveland knew it. They got a better offer and they took it. And now the team that got Kyrie is at the top of the league and looks like a title contender.

"Kyrie would have left Phoenix" is the most pathetic sentence I've seen on this board perhaps since its inception. We had *two years* to make our case to the guy. Two, years. I would understand if he were a one-season or partial-season rental. For example, I would never want the Suns to acquire Paul George who is known to want to go to the LA Lakers after 1 season. But with two years, and no obvious single preferred destination for Kyrie, I think we had every chance to show him that it was great to play here. In 2 years he would have had time to mesh with Booker, to get to know this great city, to see the team building and growing, perhaps to go to the playoffs, etc. Plus we can offer more money than any other team, which people seem to forget and is a HUGE advantage. We would have had a great chance to retain him. I don't get why people so quickly dismiss all of this and say, "he would have left after two years." It's such a cowardly statement and really doesn't reflect any confidence in our city, franchise, players, team, etc.
I think he probably would have left. He didn't want to come here in the first place, and giving up two lottery picks in the trade would have left us with very limited ability to put a good team around him. And if he did pull a McDyess it would have been a huge setback to the franchise.

I'm not seeing proponents of the trade make a lot of logical arguments that he wouldn't have left, or that the probably of it happening are so small that it makes sense as a calculated risk. Just claims that even considering the downside risk reflects cowardice, a loser's mentality, or some such character flaw.

The two sides are just going to keep talking past each other because they're not even using compatible models of rationality.
Nailed it.
O_Gardino: "Ntilikina is going to lead the NBA in assists once he gets going[2025]..."

Online
User avatar
O_Gardino
Posts: 4195
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:47 pm
Location: Shreveport, LA

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by O_Gardino » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:58 pm

Cap wrote:The two sides are just going to keep talking past each other because they're not even using compatible models of rationality.
I'm going to try that line next time my wife is hangry and doesn't want to eat at any of the restaurants I suggest.
SELL THE TEAM

Doncic, Ayton, JJJ, Bamba, Mikal B, M Porter, SGA, Carter, Bagley, Trae

User avatar
AmareIsGod
Posts: 1754
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:24 pm

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by AmareIsGod » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:38 pm

We still talking Kyrie? He's not coming here. Time to move on.
What is smallball? I play basketball. I'm not a regular big man. I can switch from the center to the guards. The game is evolving. You got dudes like Joel Embiid, Anthony Davis, all these 7-footers, doing everything. There's no stopping us. - Ayton

User avatar
Wally_West
Posts: 1803
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Wally_West » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:25 pm

You guys remember when we traded the Lakers’ pick for Brandon Knight?

User avatar
Wally_West
Posts: 1803
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:12 pm

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Wally_West » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:27 pm

In2ition wrote:
Wally_West wrote:
Superbone wrote:
In2ition wrote:Have you guys seen the leaked images of the Suns 5th jersey? I don't have an image myself, but if they are true, oh boy...
Good or bad?
Image
Idk, are cheap looking Rec League uniforms a good or bad look?
Looking at the other jerseys from this line, it would’ve been a good opportunity to incorporate the Sunburst logo on the front of the jersey like the ones from the 90’s.

1tinsoldier
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:54 pm

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by 1tinsoldier » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:54 pm

Wally_West wrote:You guys remember when we traded the Lakers’ pick for Brandon Knight?
imo, THAT is the major regret to have. not what we didn't trade for Kyrie

for at least 5 years many here HAVE lost confidence in this "city, franchise, players, team, etc.." to do what is necessary to compete at a high level
but regardless
as long as they can compete at the level they have the past 3 games
and show some improvements
i will enjoy watching

User avatar
Marty [Mori Chu]
Posts: 8109
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Marty [Mori Chu] » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:25 pm

Cap wrote:I think he probably would have left. He didn't want to come here in the first place, and giving up two lottery picks in the trade would have left us with very limited ability to put a good team around him. And if he did pull a McDyess it would have been a huge setback to the franchise.

I'm not seeing proponents of the trade make a lot of logical arguments that he wouldn't have left, or that the probably of it happening are so small that it makes sense as a calculated risk. Just claims that even considering the downside risk reflects cowardice, a loser's mentality, or some such character flaw.
You have every right to disagree with me. But claiming that the "we should have traded for Kyrie" camp has no logical argument at all, or that they aren't making/articulating such an argument, is inaccurate and disingenuous. For clarity, I will state the argument that we would have had a good chance to convince Kyrie Irving to stay here. If you disagree with this argument, please feel free to address any of its bullet points.

=============================================

1. We had 2 years to convince him. That is a pretty long time to show him why it's good to play here.

2. Playing with Devin Booker and our other young talent may have produced a promising young team, either a playoff squad or a fringe playoff squad. And Kyrie would have been an unquestioned star of the roster. This may have been enjoyable for Kyrie and caused him to enjoy being here.

3. We had financial advantages to help keep him here. We could have offered him more years and more money than any other team could have offered. This is often a factor that gets FAs to stay with their current teams.

4. The assets we would have given up for him would not have been prohibitively valuable. Bledsoe wasn't very valuable to us, and we got almost nothing for him anyway. Jackson has not been good so far. And the 1st rounder, well, if we had been a playoff team or nearly so, the pick would not be all that valuable of an asset. I could have lived with that.

5. Even if Kyrie had decided to leave, we could have flipped him next year for an asset if necessary. He would have been highly sought after and could have netted plenty of return.

=============================================

I'm sure there are even more points to argue why Kyrie may have stayed here and/or why we would have been wise to trade for him. There are my main ones above. Again, please feel free to disagree. But please do not claim that there is no logical argument being made here, that this side is only name-calling and not presenting a rational argument for why we think this would have been a good decision. There it is, above, for you to see.

User avatar
Split T
Posts: 4861
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:51 am
Location: Provo, Utah

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Split T » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:39 pm

I know you were responding to cap, but I'll add a few comments.

1. I agree that if the only reason to not trade for Kyrie is that you thought he wouldn't stay, then you don't have a very strong argument.

2. I wasn't sold on a Booker/Kyrie pairing. And Booker may be ready to start competing, but the rest of our youth isn't. I think we would have struggled and did not see this as a playoff team, with or without Kyrie.

3. No issues here

4. You have to look at the value of what we were trading at the time of the trade. Not the current value. Bledsoe killed his value and we would have gotten more from him in the summer. Jackson was a highly coveted player and had lots of value. And Kyrie certainly would have made our pick better, but by trading for him we'd have been giving up a top 5 pick because that's where we'll be picking this year. Cleveland never would have gotten a top 5 pick from us, but we would have without Kyrie.

Is upgrading from Bledsoe to Kyrie worth two top 5 picks? That's how I looked at it and the answer to me is no.

I don't think y'all are crazy for wishing we made the trade, I see the appeal, I just think we're better off in 2020 and beyond without the trade.

User avatar
Aztec Sunsfan
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:56 pm

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Aztec Sunsfan » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:21 pm

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:
Cap wrote:I think he probably would have left. He didn't want to come here in the first place, and giving up two lottery picks in the trade would have left us with very limited ability to put a good team around him. And if he did pull a McDyess it would have been a huge setback to the franchise.

I'm not seeing proponents of the trade make a lot of logical arguments that he wouldn't have left, or that the probably of it happening are so small that it makes sense as a calculated risk. Just claims that even considering the downside risk reflects cowardice, a loser's mentality, or some such character flaw.
You have every right to disagree with me. But claiming that the "we should have traded for Kyrie" camp has no logical argument at all, or that they aren't making/articulating such an argument, is inaccurate and disingenuous. For clarity, I will state the argument that we would have had a good chance to convince Kyrie Irving to stay here. If you disagree with this argument, please feel free to address any of its bullet points.

=============================================

1. We had 2 years to convince him. That is a pretty long time to show him why it's good to play here.

2. Playing with Devin Booker and our other young talent may have produced a promising young team, either a playoff squad or a fringe playoff squad. And Kyrie would have been an unquestioned star of the roster. This may have been enjoyable for Kyrie and caused him to enjoy being here.

3. We had financial advantages to help keep him here. We could have offered him more years and more money than any other team could have offered. This is often a factor that gets FAs to stay with their current teams.

4. The assets we would have given up for him would not have been prohibitively valuable. Bledsoe wasn't very valuable to us, and we got almost nothing for him anyway. Jackson has not been good so far. And the 1st rounder, well, if we had been a playoff team or nearly so, the pick would not be all that valuable of an asset. I could have lived with that.

5. Even if Kyrie had decided to leave, we could have flipped him next year for an asset if necessary. He would have been highly sought after and could have netted plenty of return.

=============================================

I'm sure there are even more points to argue why Kyrie may have stayed here and/or why we would have been wise to trade for him. There are my main ones above. Again, please feel free to disagree. But please do not claim that there is no logical argument being made here, that this side is only name-calling and not presenting a rational argument for why we think this would have been a good decision. There it is, above, for you to see.
1- No we didn’t. Today’s players ask for trades all the time, and he already pull it off in Cleveland, as well as Bledsoe and Goran did to us. We had maybe one year to show him what we got, and beyond Booker, there is just not enough to make a 25 years old player, believe that makes sense to waste his prime carrying the team to fringe playoff candidate while the younglings develop, even more risking to do so, just to became an expendable asset.

2- Kirye would have saved Watson’s job lifting us into mediocrity. Enough said. People seems to have already forgotten Watson’s ways, as in “give the ball to Kyrie and let him pound the ball, until everybody else on the team have checked out”, “we don’t want our players to arrive at the same time (aka I don’t want Bender to look better that my boy Chriss)”, “Sky is the limit for Marquese-super-star-in-the-making collecting technicals”, etc.

3. No argument here, excepts that sponsors could be a factor into leveling his income playing in NY per example.

4. Split T nail it.

5- Yeah, let’s keep playing “You can later flip your unhappy Star and get a surplus”. People would start marching with torches and pitch forks under that scenario.

We can use our imagination to accommodate reality, but the odds were heavily against us. Hindsight says otherwise, but we took a sound, calculated decision. Dismissing Jackson so soon it’s almost hilarious, Bledsoe’s knees will always be there to end your season and Cleveland knew it, and we are not ready to stop drafting high, until we know what we have on our multiple projects.

Besides all this, the previous arguments were not as complex as this, just the “losers mentality” falacy.

User avatar
Cap
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:08 pm

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Cap » Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:47 am

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:
Cap wrote:I think he probably would have left. He didn't want to come here in the first place, and giving up two lottery picks in the trade would have left us with very limited ability to put a good team around him. And if he did pull a McDyess it would have been a huge setback to the franchise.

I'm not seeing proponents of the trade make a lot of logical arguments that he wouldn't have left, or that the probably of it happening are so small that it makes sense as a calculated risk. Just claims that even considering the downside risk reflects cowardice, a loser's mentality, or some such character flaw.
You have every right to disagree with me. But claiming that the "we should have traded for Kyrie" camp has no logical argument at all, or that they aren't making/articulating such an argument, is inaccurate and disingenuous. For clarity, I will state the argument that we would have had a good chance to convince Kyrie Irving to stay here. If you disagree with this argument, please feel free to address any of its bullet points.
OK. Been a couple days, but this was addressed to me, so I suppose I should respond.
1. We had 2 years to convince him. That is a pretty long time to show him why it's good to play here.
Cleveland had him for 6 years. The last 3 went to the Finals. One of those trips featured Irving hitting the championship-winning shot at the end of Game 7. And they couldn't convince him to put down roots.

But 2 years of playing for Robert Sarver on a roster whose only other starter-caliber player plays a role similar to his own, that would do the trick? I think that's unlikely.

Try to take the "we" out of the equation and look at it from the perspective of an observer who speaks of the Suns in the 3rd person and looks at both sides of the balance sheet. Would you expect such an observer to see Phoenix, under the conditions of the proposed trade, as an especially attractive situation for Kyrie?
2. Playing with Devin Booker and our other young talent may have produced a promising young team, either a playoff squad or a fringe playoff squad. And Kyrie would have been an unquestioned star of the roster. This may have been enjoyable for Kyrie and caused him to enjoy being here.
Young, certainly. Most of the team would be significantly younger than Kyrie. I've seen no indication that's what Kyrie is looking for.

"Promising" is spin, not analysis. Outside of Booker (and maybe Jackson, who wouldn't be here under the proposed trade), there isn't a young player on the roster who can promise he'll ever be good enough to start for a contender. Because our young players are so young they offer hope, but what they've shown so far doesn't promise anything.
3. We had financial advantages to help keep him here. We could have offered him more years and more money than any other team could have offered. This is often a factor that gets FAs to stay with their current teams.
True, that would be an advantage, but Kyrie's willingness to forgo the financial advantage of re-signing with his own team is the reason he was on the market in the first place. Even as a team-hopper he can get a nine-figure payday that will set up his family for generations.
4. The assets we would have given up for him would not have been prohibitively valuable. Bledsoe wasn't very valuable to us, and we got almost nothing for him anyway. Jackson has not been good so far. And the 1st rounder, well, if we had been a playoff team or nearly so, the pick would not be all that valuable of an asset. I could have lived with that.
As to the latter point, Our opportunity cost is determined by the pick we have without the trade, not the pick the other team gets with the trade.

I grant that the return we got for Bledsoe was disappointing, and Jackson has been underwhelming so far. That hindsight makes the proposed trade look better now than it did at the time. But on balance, I still think it would be a bad idea.
5. Even if Kyrie had decided to leave, we could have flipped him next year for an asset if necessary. He would have been highly sought after and could have netted plenty of return.
This feels like you're just letting your imagination soar to come up with scenarios in which it works out well for us. We trade two high lotto picks for a star who says he doesn't want to be here, then flip him for a profit a year later when he says he won't stay? Has anything like that ever happened in the real world?

Let's let imagination fly in the other direction for a while.

It's 2019. Our 2016 picks are having very limited impact (not McD's fault, just a crappy draft). Our 2017 and 2018 picks are gone in the trade. Our 2019 pick isn't particularly high because Kyrie and Devin managed to carry us to 35-40 wins. Kyrie signs with another team. Outside of Booker we have basically an expansion team roster, and we're running out of time to put a good team around him before he becomes a UFA and enters his prime. In desperation we package our 2019 and 2020 picks for an established player who also turns out to be a two-year rental...

Admittedly, that's a worst case scenario. And it could still happen if Jackson and our 2018 pick both bust. But I think that trying to build through the draft yields a better chance for sustained success than a two-year rental of Irving.
JJ will be better than KP when all is said and done [in 2020]. Mark it. — AIG, with Indy betting against
TJ Warren will average 20+ points a game this year.... Mark it. — iLLmatic

Online
User avatar
O_Gardino
Posts: 4195
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:47 pm
Location: Shreveport, LA

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by O_Gardino » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:18 am

It comes down to 2 perspectives on Irving.

Some think he's an excellent player who would make the Suns quite a bit better.

Others think he is only situationally good, and that the Suns aren't a situation in which he would elevate the team much. We would still be bad with him.

If I like Kyrie as much as ShelC and Marty like him, then I would have been all in on the trade. But I don't, and nothing that has happened this season has changed my mind. Kyrie would be a high volume scorer for us, he would be a borderline allstar, and we would be the worst defensive team in the NBA getting almost no contribution from our forwards. The story in the national media would be that Kyrie was exposed as a supporting player who relied on LeBron to get wins.

Just becasue it was a great trade for Boston, doesn't mean it would have been a great trade for us.
SELL THE TEAM

Doncic, Ayton, JJJ, Bamba, Mikal B, M Porter, SGA, Carter, Bagley, Trae

User avatar
ShelC
Posts: 3498
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:00 am

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by ShelC » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:25 pm

I've skipped over these last few posts so I apologize if some of these point have been made...but also consider that adding Kyrie to Booker in the backcourt just might have caught the attention of other stars/superstars who might have considered coming here or asking for a trade here. We'd have 2 out of a potential Big 3 and we'd have the young talent in Len/Bender/Chriss to make for an intriguing trade for another frontcourt player. Not going to get into who could/would be available, but something like that has to be thought about.

Also, maybe Kyrie would've helped make Bender/Chriss better? He's not Nash or JKidd, but just by being such an offensive threat, he could've made the game a ton easier on those guys, as well as Booker. You can't discount that.

User avatar
specialsauce
Posts: 2300
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:45 pm

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by specialsauce » Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:56 pm

Yeah but he would've left, and we don't want that. In 2 years when the guys are older and solidified as the best 10th men in the league, we will be able to attract a superstar talent to sign with us or trade for a player with 25 years left on their contract lol.

Sorry, I realize I came off as an ass, just really down on the state of this team and the misguided hope by the organization. I really hope they realize their #timeline projects out to at best 1 superstar, and a load of bench players at best. I hope their public statements are all just spin, and they don't actually expect these prospects to turn into franchise players.

User avatar
Marty [Mori Chu]
Posts: 8109
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Suns News: Week 9 12/11-12/17

Post by Marty [Mori Chu] » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:22 am

ShelC wrote:I've skipped over these last few posts so I apologize if some of these point have been made...but also consider that adding Kyrie to Booker in the backcourt just might have caught the attention of other stars/superstars who might have considered coming here or asking for a trade here. We'd have 2 out of a potential Big 3 and we'd have the young talent in Len/Bender/Chriss to make for an intriguing trade for another frontcourt player. Not going to get into who could/would be available, but something like that has to be thought about.

Also, maybe Kyrie would've helped make Bender/Chriss better? He's not Nash or JKidd, but just by being such an offensive threat, he could've made the game a ton easier on those guys, as well as Booker. You can't discount that.
I agree with this. If we'd gotten Kyrie we could also have worked on other moves to make the team even better. You just never know what one key acquisition of a star can do for a team. See the transformative effect that the Nash signing had. Sometimes one guy makes all the difference.

Post Reply