Phx-Suns.Net

And he still looks younger than I do (I'm 37). Good on him for a great career.

Gotta cut out the smoking.



Of course, this may be the wrong week for that.

Will the Rockets' Superstar Experiment Be a Boom or Bust?

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/07/31/james ... aryl-morey

“Talent was priority 1, 2 and 3 [in the Paul decision]. Generally, when you’re looking at long-term acquisitions of top-10 players in the league, it’s better to not be too selective and then work out the best way to create synergy second. … We were in the [2015] West finals, and there were 26 other teams that didn’t make it, some of which people said had better chemistry than us. Would you rather be the team with what people might consider less-than-perfect chemistry, or the team that’s not in the conference finals?”

Long article, but this particular quote, reflects how I feel about Kyrie, of course it all starts with an adequate price, but I think we must open ourselves to the possibilities. Houston acknowledged that even his super offense could be stopped because it was too heavily centered in Harden, a problem D'Antoni already was familiar with. They decided to look out for solutions, and even if Paul looks like an odd fit, he was AVAILABLE, and pass on him still leaved them with their current dilemma. If Houston, being infinitely closer to the prize than us, thinks is better not to be picky when Top Talent is available, why should we? They also face the risk of Paul leaving, but hey, this modern era of shorter contracts, have created a revolving door for stars, "long term" is not anymore what it used to be.

So we can pass on Irving and stay on our current dilemma, or get him on a contained cost and move forward. Good news is that our current dilemma is not Title-or-bust, so we can be patient, bad news is that our current dilemma is not Title-or-bust.

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:Will the Rockets' Superstar Experiment Be a Boom or Bust?

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/07/31/james ... aryl-morey

“Talent was priority 1, 2 and 3 [in the Paul decision]. Generally, when you’re looking at long-term acquisitions of top-10 players in the league, it’s better to not be too selective and then work out the best way to create synergy second. … We were in the [2015] West finals, and there were 26 other teams that didn’t make it, some of which people said had better chemistry than us. Would you rather be the team with what people might consider less-than-perfect chemistry, or the team that’s not in the conference finals?”

Long article, but this particular quote, reflects how I feel about Kyrie, of course it all starts with an adequate price, but I think we must open ourselves to the possibilities. Houston acknowledged that even his super offense could be stopped because it was too heavily centered in Harden, a problem D'Antoni already was familiar with. They decided to look out for solutions, and even if Paul looks like an odd fit, he was AVAILABLE, and pass on him still leaved them with their current dilemma. If Houston, being infinitely closer to the prize than us, thinks is better not to be picky when Top Talent is available, why should we? They also face the risk of Paul leaving, but hey, this modern era of shorter contracts, have created a revolving door for stars, "long term" is not anymore what it used to be.

So we can pass on Irving and stay on our current dilemma, or get him on a contained cost and move forward. Good news is that our current dilemma is not Title-or-bust, so we can be patient, bad news is that our current dilemma is not Title-or-bust.

I guess it comes down to whether we are shooting for improvement in 2018 or 2020. I would prefer we are better in both, but does the cost for being better in 2018 hurt us in 2020? If you are in win-now mode, you don't care about 2020.

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:Good news is that our current dilemma is not Title-or-bust, so we can be patient, bad news is that our current dilemma is not Title-or-bust.

That should be your sig!

O_Gardino wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:Good news is that our current dilemma is not Title-or-bust, so we can be patient, bad news is that our current dilemma is not Title-or-bust.

That should be your sig!

Yeah, that was a good one!

Ha, I certainly need one, is it written right?

I think that Kyrie upgrades us for 2018, but him leaving will hurts us on 2020 given the pportunity cost that would be our Mia2018 pick and (hopefully) Chriss, both already gone since day one of the experiment. Now, how much of a setback is that?

Consider either our pick or Chriss/Warren as future All-Stars, and that would be a huge setback, but true is that both are unlikely to be. Deep down we know it, otherwise we wouldn't be considering it at all, like we think about Booker and JJ (on various degrees for every poster here). The pick itself is already top 7 protected, likely to be collected, but how good is talent at that spot? Let's agree into being still a great spot to pick, then we could screw Cleveland further adding another layer of protection, Top11-15. Would it make it worth it to consider that pick a safe asset to give?

Now about Chriss, he is far from a sure thing, that's why Cleveland keeps pushing for JJ, and also why we stand still on the opposite side, bottomline, the kid has not shown anything truly special, Warren is likely to be better, but also due for an extension sooner and overlapping with JJ (still thinks they could coexist taking minutes across the 3 and 4 spots). Bledsoe is gone even more probably than Irving, so that's a wash.

So, basketball aside, and strictly from a gross Risk Measuring point of view, I would say that it is very probably to be better in 2018 with Irving, and about the same probability to be as bad with him leaving as we would be with Bledsoe leaving and a couple more expendable players in the roster. If Kyrie stays, it's a no brainer.

So I would stay put on pulling the trigger for Bledsoe, Mia'18 and Chriss, nothing beyond that.

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:So I would stay put on pulling the trigger for Bledsoe, Mia'18 and Chriss, nothing beyond that.

I am even 'cheaper' than you. Bledsoe and Chriss plus seconds and/or Chandler and/or taking back certain dead salary.

(btw you are posting great stuff lately)

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:So I would stay put on pulling the trigger for Bledsoe, Mia'18 and Chriss, nothing beyond that.

I am even 'cheaper' than you. Bledsoe and Chriss plus seconds and/or Chandler and/or taking back certain dead salary.

(btw you are posting great stuff lately)

Thanks a lot.

I think everybody here is getting cheaper by the day, I used to feel, that my offer was a bit of a reach in our favor, now I feel the oppposite, like doing it with a "helping you save face" blink to Cleveland. I believe in fair trade, because if you keep screwing over people, sooner than later they will stop taking your calls. But time is becoming a factor, like Len's situation, it grows clearer by the day that Kyrie's market is not as big as many thought, and yesterday's weak offer, today is a solid proposition.

And if Cleveland keeps being stubborn, maybe we can wait them out into an offer like yours, I don't think anyone here would object it. How sweet would it be, if we can send them Brandon? Damn, you have truly opened my eyes to new and better scenarios, toying around Cleveland's despair.

Bledsoe + Chriss + Knight for Irving + Frye + Shumpert, and the Cavs still saves over $5mill in salary, and then some more on tax payments. Maybe now even the pick might be worth it to see this trough.

It's fine to me if you guys don't want to trade our various assets, like Bender, or our 1st-rounder, or Jackson, or whatever. But I think it strains credibility a little to claim that offering a lowball package like Bledsoe + future second-rounder or Chandler is even remotely fair value for Kyrie Irving. Now you're just asking Cleveland to give him away. It's okay with me if that is all you would give up; but that is another way of saying you don't want to make a trade for Irving. That is not a fair asking price for a guard of Kyrie's caliber.

Yeah, the Kyrie trade ain't happening if it's a perceived lowball offer.

I have an almost religious objection to trading away potential lottery picks. If we can get top-14 protection on the Miami pick, I'd feel better about trading it. Not a huge ask, since MIami is expected to make the playoffs.

Alternatively, offer Cleveland the worse of the Miami pick or our pick the year it conveys. From Cleveland's perspective this isn't much of an ask, because they expect us to be worse than Miami, but we have the security of knowing we're not giving away a lottery pick unless we have a higher lottery pick in the same draft.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:It's fine to me if you guys don't want to trade our various assets, like Bender, or our 1st-rounder, or Jackson, or whatever. But I think it strains credibility a little to claim that offering a lowball package like Bledsoe + future second-rounder or Chandler is even remotely fair value for Kyrie Irving. Now you're just asking Cleveland to give him away. It's okay with me if that is all you would give up; but that is another way of saying you don't want to make a trade for Irving. That is not a fair asking price for a guard of Kyrie's caliber.

Under regular circumstances, you would be completely right, but as we already learn from our own previous mismanagements on players, a deteriorating situation can force a team's hand. Stranger things had happened, (Counsin's trade), and if Kyrie is completely out of considering mending the fence in Cleveland, the King dictates that Bledsoe will be his 4th horseman, and McD holds the line on keeping the most assets posible out of the table (we know he can do wonders trading assets), then all bets are off. None of them is a Big IF.

I'm really surprised Minny or Denver hasn't made a big offer. Kyrie would be great for both of them. Kyrie/Butler/Towns or Kyrie/Millsap/Jokic

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:It's fine to me if you guys don't want to trade our various assets, like Bender, or our 1st-rounder, or Jackson, or whatever. But I think it strains credibility a little to claim that offering a lowball package like Bledsoe + future second-rounder or Chandler is even remotely fair value for Kyrie Irving. Now you're just asking Cleveland to give him away. It's okay with me if that is all you would give up; but that is another way of saying you don't want to make a trade for Irving. That is not a fair asking price for a guard of Kyrie's caliber.

Under regular circumstances, you would be completely right, but as we already learn from our own previous mismanagements on players, a deteriorating situation can force a team's hand. Stranger things had happened, (Counsin's trade), and if Kyrie is completely out of considering mending the fence in Cleveland, the King dictates that Bledsoe will be his 4th horseman, and McD holds the line on keeping the most assets posible out of the table (we know he can do wonders trading assets), then all bets are off. None of them is a Big IF.

Really? The guy who traded the #3 pick in the 2017 draft for Brandon Knight? We're still kinda waiting for his first won trade. Dragic for two #1s was a good trade considered in a vacuum, but with everything else that went down at the same time, that was not a good day. Other than the addition-by-subtraction Keef trade, what was the last trade that really worked out well?

Double post. Nothing to see here.

The thing is - Irving has different value to Cleveland than he does to any team trading to him when they know he may be there only two years.

You would mortgage a little of your future in order to get a top-notch superstar in their prime for two years, by Irving isn't that guy. He's a notch or two below that. Perennial All-Star, viable second option for a championship team.

You especially have to take into consideration that they *might* be fighting for the 8th seed with that trade.

Cap wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:It's fine to me if you guys don't want to trade our various assets, like Bender, or our 1st-rounder, or Jackson, or whatever. But I think it strains credibility a little to claim that offering a lowball package like Bledsoe + future second-rounder or Chandler is even remotely fair value for Kyrie Irving. Now you're just asking Cleveland to give him away. It's okay with me if that is all you would give up; but that is another way of saying you don't want to make a trade for Irving. That is not a fair asking price for a guard of Kyrie's caliber.

Under regular circumstances, you would be completely right, but as we already learn from our own previous mismanagements on players, a deteriorating situation can force a team's hand. Stranger things had happened, (Counsin's trade), and if Kyrie is completely out of considering mending the fence in Cleveland, the King dictates that Bledsoe will be his 4th horseman, and McD holds the line on keeping the most assets posible out of the table (we know he can do wonders trading assets), then all bets are off. None of them is a Big IF.

Really? The guy who traded the #3 pick in the 2017 draft for Brandon Knight? We're still kinda waiting for his first won trade. Dragic for two #1s was a good trade considered in a vacuum, but with everything else that went down at the same time, that was not a good day. Other than the addition-by-subtraction Keef trade, what was the last trade that really worked out well?

Dudley for Bledsoe? I get your point though, McD is due to outright win a trade soon, hopefully.

Cap wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:It's fine to me if you guys don't want to trade our various assets, like Bender, or our 1st-rounder, or Jackson, or whatever. But I think it strains credibility a little to claim that offering a lowball package like Bledsoe + future second-rounder or Chandler is even remotely fair value for Kyrie Irving. Now you're just asking Cleveland to give him away. It's okay with me if that is all you would give up; but that is another way of saying you don't want to make a trade for Irving. That is not a fair asking price for a guard of Kyrie's caliber.

Under regular circumstances, you would be completely right, but as we already learn from our own previous mismanagements on players, a deteriorating situation can force a team's hand. Stranger things had happened, (Counsin's trade), and if Kyrie is completely out of considering mending the fence in Cleveland, the King dictates that Bledsoe will be his 4th horseman, and McD holds the line on keeping the most assets posible out of the table (we know he can do wonders trading assets), then all bets are off. None of them is a Big IF.

Really? The guy who traded the #3 pick in the 2017 draft for Brandon Knight? We're still kinda waiting for his first won trade. Dragic for two #1s was a good trade considered in a vacuum, but with everything else that went down at the same time, that was not a good day. Other than the addition-by-subtraction Keef trade, what was the last trade that really worked out well?

I agree with you for the most part but the bolded statement is fake news. The Lakers pick was top 3 protected this year so it did not convey. It's going to be wherever the Lakers land in next year's draft unless it's top two. Also, I'd consider the trade that landed us Miles Plumlee and Gerald Green a win.

This "only for 2 years" thing is quite silly. Most contracts nowadays are only for 3-4 years maximum. You will almost never find a star player in a trade who is locked up under contract for more than 2 years. Acting like Kyrie is a "2 year rental" is ridiculous; if almost any player is on a team for 2+ years and is unhappy, he can leave. This literally shouldn't be part of your thought process when it comes to whether we should trade for Kyrie. I'd prefer to talk about the basketball reasons / fit with the team rather than trying to negatively predict things that could happen 2 years down the line with no reason to believe whether they will or won't happen.

If you're so concerned about players leaving the Suns someday, perhaps it's worth it to worry about Booker leaving us after his contract's up because we didn't do what we could to put a good team around him. That's at least as likely, perhaps more, than Kyrie leaving the Suns after 2 years.