Phx-Suns.Net

Jackson is the guy, 100%. I just wish he were a better shooter. Maybe we can teach him? But I don't have great faith in our coaching staff.

Would not be stunned if the Suns took Fox. As for what we could get for #4, Would anyone deal #4 for D'Angelo Russel? Russel and Book together would be really interesting. I guess it's a question if you would have him or Jackson/Tatum/someone else.

Here is the bigger question, if we were willing, What could Bledsoe fetch us? I know the Pups have Dunn, but I wonder if they'd swap #6 for him.

At first blush I'd say Jackson or Tatum at #4. I know nothing about the french dude though, I've heard good things. De'Aaron Fox could trhive in the right place, I just worry about him being your typical tweener guard. His speed and the way he roasted other top pics in college has me intrigued.

I am in the minority here but I actually think Lonzo is the best player in this draft, but his dad and their hard on for LAL clouds it. That was bound to be a headache for someone if he didn't go to LA I feel. Be interested to see how his Dad's crap translates to the NBA. With Russel and Clarkson in that backcourt, its pretty crowded for shots and PT, atleast in year 1.

I liked Russell a lot in the draft, but I'm not trading #4 for him. Jackson is a much better compliment to booker. if Jackson can shoot, he's a star and I think he's there at 4. I would be happy with fox as well, he'd be a good backcourt partner with booker and compliments him better than Russell as well.

As for Bled, I'd love to trade him for any of the spots 5-10(kings,magic,wolves,knicks,mavs,kings) they all need pg's and it's possible only smith/Ntilikina make it to #5 and they could all be gone before pick 7

I mention the wolves because apprantly they were enamored with him a few years back and have been looking to unload rubio since.

If you're dealing him for another top 10 pick are you thinking Jackson/Fox

BTW split, Jordan Bell is my #1 guy at 32 as well.

Sunsfan4life wrote:I mention the wolves because apprantly they were enamored with him a few years back and have been looking to unload rubio since.

If you're dealing him for another top 10 pick are you thinking Jackson/Fox

I'd love to grab Jackson/Fox but that would be tricky unless we're trading with the kings at 5. Jackson/Ntilikina is an option if we take Jackson at 4, but more likely, we'd take fox at 4 and take the best player available with whatever pick we get. I'd love Jackson, but someone like Isaac would seem more likely.

Fox could fall. I think he can go anywhere from 3-10. Depends how you view him.

Highly doubt Jackson makes it out of the top 5/6.

Fox isn't falling.

I think fox range is pretty secured in the 3-5 slots. I can't see Sacramento passing on him. Jackson shouldn't fall, but a lot of teams need guards and there could be a run. I could see the draft going Fultz, Ball, Monk, Fox, Tatum, Smith or something similar. Jackson is interesting in that he's a good fit just about anywhere, but I think really only a great fit with us.

BPA seems to depend on the team this year. The whole drafting for need vs BPA is a bit muddled.

Here's my opinion on the whole best player available thing:

If there is a clear cut better prospect, you take him regardless of need. We don't need a pg, we've got Bled, but I wouldn't hesitate to take Fultz because he's clearly the best prospect, IMO. If we've got fox as a clearly better prospect than Jackson, you take fox.

If you've got guys rated similarly, you take the guy who fits your team and style. Jackson is a better fit than fox, especially if we have no intention of moving Bled.

I think a team needs to be willing to adjust their system and roster make up if they're strictly going bpa. I listened to a podcast this morning about the knicks and the triangle and how terrible a fit Dennis smith would be in the triangle. Dennis smith might be a better prospect than Ntilikina, but unless the knicks are willing to scrap the triangle, they'd be crazy to draft smith over Ntilikina.

Would you guys trade Bled and #4 for #1?

Boston wouldn't be interested, but maybe in a 3 way? Bled and #4 to Chicago, Butler to Boston, #1 to Phoenix? Who says no?

Split T wrote:Would you guys trade Bled and #4 for #1?

Boston wouldn't be interested, but maybe in a 3 way? Bled and #4 to Chicago, Butler to Boston, #1 to Phoenix? Who says no?

That is an interesting proposal. When I read the first half I though, no way. But after reading the 2nd, I am not sure who says no.

Split T wrote:Here's my opinion on the whole best player available thing:

If there is a clear cut better prospect, you take him regardless of need. We don't need a pg, we've got Bled, but I wouldn't hesitate to take Fultz because he's clearly the best prospect, IMO. If we've got fox as a clearly better prospect than Jackson, you take fox.

If you've got guys rated similarly, you take the guy who fits your team and style. Jackson is a better fit than fox, especially if we have no intention of moving Bled.

I think a team needs to be willing to adjust their system and roster make up if they're strictly going bpa. I listened to a podcast this morning about the knicks and the triangle and how terrible a fit Dennis smith would be in the triangle. Dennis smith might be a better prospect than Ntilikina, but unless the knicks are willing to scrap the triangle, they'd be crazy to draft smith over Ntilikina.

I believe this 100%. The BPA, all other things being close to equal, is the player that fits your team, system, and need best.

Indy wrote:

Split T wrote:Would you guys trade Bled and #4 for #1?

Boston wouldn't be interested, but maybe in a 3 way? Bled and #4 to Chicago, Butler to Boston, #1 to Phoenix? Who says no?

That is an interesting proposal. When I read the first half I though, no way. But after reading the 2nd, I am not sure who says no.

I would consider this. I would also consider trading #4 and an asset (BK, a future first, another player) for #3. I am afraid that Philly would take Jackson or trade him to someone else.

Would Ainge take Chandler, Bledsoe, and a couple future firsts for #1? They are in a win now mode.

JCSunsfan wrote:

Indy wrote:

Split T wrote:Would you guys trade Bled and #4 for #1?

Boston wouldn't be interested, but maybe in a 3 way? Bled and #4 to Chicago, Butler to Boston, #1 to Phoenix? Who says no?

That is an interesting proposal. When I read the first half I though, no way. But after reading the 2nd, I am not sure who says no.

I would consider this. I would also consider trading #4 and an asset (BK, a future first, another player) for #3. I am afraid that Philly would take Jackson or trade him to someone else.

Would Ainge take Chandler, Bledsoe, and a couple future firsts for #1? They are in a win now mode.

I can't believe that adding Bledsoe and Chandler make them closer to beating the Cavs next year. So no way he would do that. But if he could add Butler, then sure I can see him doing that.

Indy wrote:

JCSunsfan wrote:

Indy wrote:

Split T wrote:Would you guys trade Bled and #4 for #1?

Boston wouldn't be interested, but maybe in a 3 way? Bled and #4 to Chicago, Butler to Boston, #1 to Phoenix? Who says no?

That is an interesting proposal. When I read the first half I though, no way. But after reading the 2nd, I am not sure who says no.

I would consider this. I would also consider trading #4 and an asset (BK, a future first, another player) for #3. I am afraid that Philly would take Jackson or trade him to someone else.

Would Ainge take Chandler, Bledsoe, and a couple future firsts for #1? They are in a win now mode.

I can't believe that adding Bledsoe and Chandler make them closer to beating the Cavs next year. So no way he would do that. But if he could add Butler, then sure I can see him doing that.

So a three way?
Chandler, Bled, and a Miami first to Chicago.
Butler and a Suns first to Boston.
#1 overall to the Suns.

I don't think Chicago would take that for Butler.

I don't know enough about the players in the draft to chime in, but I do wonder if it might be worthwhile to trade the #4 for a pair of lower picks. If this really is a deep draft, and if there are several sleepers out there that McD knows about, then it might be worth getting two shots at the next Booker (#13) than a single shot.

BTW -- JJ, welcome back.

The only team with two lotto picks is Sacramento and they're only one spot behind us. Maybe they'd bite of they love fox and we bluff enough that we're taking fox or trading it to someone to take fox. Still think we'd have to add like the Miami pick next year or something.