Phx-Suns.Net

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

Split T wrote:Does top tier just mean ball or Fultz? Hard to see how we could pull off Fultz/ball and Jackson. The only scenario I see is if we land #1 and Philly gets 2 and 4 and really, really wants Fultz. Would they give up 2 and 4 for 1? I don't know, we might have to throw in a Miami pick.

#2 and #4 sounds nice, but it might be hard to incorporate two top rooks at once. That'd be a good problem to have, though. I'd much rather have Ball + #4 than Fultz + nothing.

Ya, it's an interesting dilemma. We had 4 rookies and 1 second year player this year, add two more next year and you're looking at 7 guys that need developing. That doesn't even include Warren or Williams or any 2nd rounders we draft. Then again, we're talking about some pretty ready to play rookies in Fultz, ball, Jackson, and Tatum.

Indy wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:Bledsoe is not our best player as of today.

If you could both sides of the court, I disagree.

Noted. But Armani is just that good as a playmaker (imo of course).

ShelC wrote:Yea, Kwame Leonard is a beast defensively.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Indy wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:Bledsoe is not our best player as of today.

If you could both sides of the court, I disagree.

Noted. But Armani is just that good as a playmaker (imo of course).

That should have read "count." But I think you got the drift.

Indy wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Indy wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:Bledsoe is not our best player as of today.

If you could both sides of the court, I disagree.

Noted. But Armani is just that good as a playmaker (imo of course).

That should have read "count." But I think you got the drift.

Yeah, I get what you mean, but my point is that Bledsoe's B+ (perhaps) defense, don't overcome the different offensively, despite what the stats might say. Booker has no apparent flaw to his offensive game.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Indy wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Indy wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:Bledsoe is not our best player as of today.

If you could both sides of the court, I disagree.

Noted. But Armani is just that good as a playmaker (imo of course).

That should have read "count." But I think you got the drift.

Yeah, I get what you mean, but my point is that Bledsoe's B+ (perhaps) defense, don't overcome the different offensively, despite what the stats might say. Booker has no apparent flaw to his offensive game.

And on the other side, he has nothing he is good at on the defensive side.

But trust me, I get what you mean too. Nobody in the league would prefer to have Bledsoe over Booker right now.

Bledsoe can be a good defender. The problem is he sleep walks through over half the games he plays. McD better make the right call this summer. His obsession with Bledsoe has to stop.

EDC wrote:Bledsoe can be a good defender. The problem is he sleep walks through over half the games he plays. McD better make the right call this summer. His obsession with Bledsoe has to stop.

It feels like it all depends on where the Suns land in the lottery and/or who is available at their spot. I really wish the lottery would come quickly, all this speculation based on where we hope and think they will land and where anyone else may land is starting to get tedious.

If we don't get a top-2 draft pick (which is more statistically likely than getting a top-2 pick), we won't get a stud PG. We'll get some swingman / SF like Jackson. In such a case, we will want and need to keep Bledsoe around. That seems like the most likely scenario for what will happen going into next season.

I am fine with Bledsoe. Ulis looked real good to me and is more of a true PG. His size bothers me a little bit. Then again we dumped IT like a hot potato and he became a star the minute he left Phoenix.

I don't follow college BB and am not an expert in this draft at all but, if we could draft another potential All Star PG who can distribute and shoot with size that might be a good thing. I wouldn't be pissed off if we moved Bledsoe if that happened.

Brandon Knight went from being the next All Star to failing sixth man to being benched. That has to weigh heavily on a guy. I wonder what is going on in his mind and what is he doing to turn it around.

Tonight I had a dream (more like nightmare) where we end up #5 and I lost my shit.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:If we don't get a top-2 draft pick (which is more statistically likely than getting a top-2 pick), we won't get a stud PG. We'll get some swingman / SF like Jackson. In such a case, we will want and need to keep Bledsoe around. That seems like the most likely scenario for what will happen going into next season.

I think even under that scenario, Bledsoe is not a need with Booker on board. If you could pick an ideal complement to Booker, it would be a 3D PG like Beverly, George Hill, Avery Bradley, etc. Really, everything points to trading Bledsoe, but it remains to be seen if the FO actually is inclined to do so and what would be the price they ask. Some articles said this past deadline that Bledsoe was available, but the market could be cold at this point, as a number of teams that could be interested will be picking where supposedly nice PG prospects will be attanaible.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:If we don't get a top-2 draft pick (which is more statistically likely than getting a top-2 pick), we won't get a stud PG. We'll get some swingman / SF like Jackson. In such a case, we will want and need to keep Bledsoe around. That seems like the most likely scenario for what will happen going into next season.

I think even under that scenario, Bledsoe is not a need with Booker on board. If you could pick an ideal complement to Booker, it would be a 3D PG like Beverly, George Hill, Avery Bradley, etc. Really, everything points to trading Bledsoe, but it remains to be seen if the FO actually is inclined to do so and what would be the price they ask. Some articles said this past deadline that Bledsoe was available, but the market could be cold at this point, as a number of teams that could be interested will be picking where supposedly nice PG prospects will be attanaible.

Exactly.