Phx-Suns.Net

Superbone wrote:

Superbone wrote:

Shabazz wrote:Supe! going with the B-Knight avatar. That's McDonough-level commitment.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Plus, I can't beat your Len perfection in avatar form.

Additionally, not a bad time to get on the bandwagon after the 28 point, 7 assist, 3 steal, super-close range-nab out of the air-game saving steal game.

Superbone wrote:

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:

Shabazz wrote:Supe! going with the B-Knight avatar. That's McDonough-level commitment.

Why, is he paying 14m per season to have it there?

Not yet! I've got a 30 game rental.

We're the NBA's Redbox.

Knicks are supposedly gauging the value of their potential pick. I don't think they'll actually move it, but if it is lower like 4-5, they might be more tempted to add some vets around Melo now as opposed to waiting on a younger pick not named Okafor, Russell or Towns. Then, I wonder if something like Bledsoe and our pick for their 4-5 pick, assuming our pick is in the early/mid teens. Long shot, but still...they need talent up and down the roster.

ShelC wrote:Knicks are supposedly gauging the value of their potential pick. I don't think they'll actually move it, but if it is lower like 4-5, they might be more tempted to add some vets around Melo now as opposed to waiting on a younger pick not named Okafor, Russell or Towns. Then, I wonder if something like Bledsoe and our pick for their 4-5 pick, assuming our pick is in the early/mid teens. Long shot, but still...they need talent up and down the roster.

Bledsoe to move up 7 spots? Yeesh.

I'd do it yesterday. I was wrong about Bledsoe. He hasn't got the mindset to be a great PG, and our ceiling is low with him starting there.

Mori Chu wrote:I'd do it yesterday. I was wrong about Bledsoe. He hasn't got the mindset to be a great PG, and our ceiling is low with him starting there.

Indy, you want to chime in here and say something about giving away assets?

OE32 wrote:

Mori Chu wrote:I'd do it yesterday. I was wrong about Bledsoe. He hasn't got the mindset to be a great PG, and our ceiling is low with him starting there.

Indy, you want to chime in here and say something about giving away assets?

I just can't decide who I like less right now because I'm not really a fan of Knight and the more I see of Bledsoe running the show the less I like. I don't need a Harvard scholar or anything, but... I'd like someone that can run the offense effectively without the other team knowing exactly what is being run all the time.

Also, does it bother anyone that McDonough keeps spouting the "Knight was valedictorian of his class" nonsense after Knight himself said it was not true?

You don't have to like 'em. You just can't accept less than market value for them in a trade, that's all.

Brandon's struggled mightily on offense with us so far, but then, the whole team's been struggling. Hard to pinpoint the problem when there's nothing that isn't a problem. But I've been impressed by his speed on defense - very good at staying in front of his man, slipping screens.

OE32 wrote:You don't have to like 'em. You just can't accept less than market value for them in a trade, that's all.

Brandon's struggled mightily on offense with us so far, but then, the whole team's been struggling. Hard to pinpoint the problem when there's nothing that isn't a problem. But I've been impressed by his speed on defense - very good at staying in front of his man, slipping screens.

Really? I've noticed a distinct lack of being able to do that. Odd how two people can see totally different things. I did check out after the first half last night tho.

carey wrote:

OE32 wrote:You don't have to like 'em. You just can't accept less than market value for them in a trade, that's all.

Brandon's struggled mightily on offense with us so far, but then, the whole team's been struggling. Hard to pinpoint the problem when there's nothing that isn't a problem. But I've been impressed by his speed on defense - very good at staying in front of his man, slipping screens.

Really? I've noticed a distinct lack of being able to do that. Odd how two people can see totally different things. I did check out after the first half last night tho.

Meh - I've only been able to watch about 40% of total Suns action since the break. Work. You might be right.

OE32 wrote:

ShelC wrote:Knicks are supposedly gauging the value of their potential pick. I don't think they'll actually move it, but if it is lower like 4-5, they might be more tempted to add some vets around Melo now as opposed to waiting on a younger pick not named Okafor, Russell or Towns. Then, I wonder if something like Bledsoe and our pick for their 4-5 pick, assuming our pick is in the early/mid teens. Long shot, but still...they need talent up and down the roster.

Bledsoe to move up 7 spots? Yeesh.

Uh, there could be a HUGE difference in the caliber of player you get when you talk about jumping 7 spots in the lottery.

Another triple double for Westbrook (to go along with 9 turnovers).

I love the Sixers claiming GRIII off of waivers.

Dallas losing to the lakers. there's still one more quarter to go.

OE32 wrote:

Mori Chu wrote:I'd do it yesterday. I was wrong about Bledsoe. He hasn't got the mindset to be a great PG, and our ceiling is low with him starting there.

Indy, you want to chime in here and say something about giving away assets?

I don't think the two arguments are connected at all. If we decide that Bledsoe isn't the guy, we need to get rid of him and the sooner the better. If that means moving up 7 spots in the lottery, it would be worth it.

But that doesn't mean that we weren't already stupid to give up what could very well have been that same pick (and two good players on great contracts) for bird rights.

INFORMER wrote:

OE32 wrote:

ShelC wrote:Knicks are supposedly gauging the value of their potential pick. I don't think they'll actually move it, but if it is lower like 4-5, they might be more tempted to add some vets around Melo now as opposed to waiting on a younger pick not named Okafor, Russell or Towns. Then, I wonder if something like Bledsoe and our pick for their 4-5 pick, assuming our pick is in the early/mid teens. Long shot, but still...they need talent up and down the roster.

Bledsoe to move up 7 spots? Yeesh.

Uh, there could be a HUGE difference in the caliber of player you get when you talk about jumping 7 spots in the lottery.

I would make that trade in a second.

Could we swap the Morri with them for Calderon in the process?

Indy wrote:

OE32 wrote:

Mori Chu wrote:I'd do it yesterday. I was wrong about Bledsoe. He hasn't got the mindset to be a great PG, and our ceiling is low with him starting there.

Indy, you want to chime in here and say something about giving away assets?

I don't think the two arguments are connected at all. If we decide that Bledsoe isn't the guy, we need to get rid of him and the sooner the better. If that means moving up 7 spots in the lottery, it would be worth it.

But it would mean that trading Bled for the Kings picks and Stauskas would not be stupid, since Bled would not be an "asset" in that case.

Indy wrote:But that doesn't mean that we weren't already stupid to give up what could very well have been that same pick (and two good players on great contracts) for bird rights.

Then why did you consider your prior statement to be a retort in the first place? Those "Bird rights" from last year would, in my scenario, equal the pick and Stauskas. Now we have another player whose value could be very similar to Bledsoe's. This is all to say that, in terms of value, there's reason to think we didn't get hosed on the Knight deal. Given his play so far, not a lot of reason to think we came out like bandits, either.

It just seems that the arguments for and against are less important than the popular conclusion, which is Thumbs Down for McD.

I couldn't disagree more about the bird rights. I can't see a way in which have a player for 30 games in a meaningless season, only to have the "right" to sign him for more than anyone else next year, is worth anywhere near what we paid.

But it would mean that trading Bled for the Kings picks and Stauskas would not be stupid, since Bled would not be an "asset" in that case.

Sorry, I think I am slow today. I don't get this.

Indy wrote:I couldn't disagree more about the bird rights. I can't see a way in which have a player for 30 games in a meaningless season, only to have the "right" to sign him for more than anyone else next year, is worth anywhere near what we paid.

Indy wrote:

But it would mean that trading Bled for the Kings picks and Stauskas would not be stupid, since Bled would not be an "asset" in that case.

Sorry, I think I am slow today. I don't get this.

I don't want to do research to find our original dispute, but it went like so. I said that those who were unhappy with the Knight trade could consider that we could recover the assets we lost in that trade - and arguable more - by dealing Bled to the Kings for Stauskas and their pick. You replied by saying something along the lines of, "Oh great, now we have to give up even MORE assets to recover what we lost?!" Now, you're saying that Bled isn't an asset if we decide he's not our future PG, so giving him up just to move up 7 spots is okay (whereas getting that pick outright, in addition to Stauskas, was met with such incredulity). Of course, Bled is an asset regardless whether he fits in with us.

The next point I make is that, like Knight, all we had in Bled this time last year was his Bird rights, which now, few dispute we could deal for something along the lines of Stauskas and the Kings pick. I am simply pointing out that Bledsoe's bird rights turned to be so obviously valuable that there's reason to think Knight's should be as well. The situations aren't just analogous - they're the same.

Yes, Bled and Knight are assets. No, their value league-wide is not determined by how we feel they fit into our long-term plans. If you can't see how all these arguments are connected, I don't know what else to say.