Phx-Suns.Net

The earliest I've found is 2013, and by then 4.5M would put you at top7 and 500k short of top5. Highest paid was Doc Rivers in Boston, 7M.

We are so lucky that the best available coach also happened to be the one who was willing to take the least money, and the one who was already our 3rd or 4th best assistant coach! What a coincidence!

Mori Chu wrote:We are so lucky that the best available coach also happened to be the one who was willing to take the least money, and the one who was already our 3rd or 4th best assistant coach! What a coincidence!

You are going to look foolish when he wins COY next year while we get a 7th seed and then get swept in the first round by the Spurs.

Indy wrote:

Mori Chu wrote:We are so lucky that the best available coach also happened to be the one who was willing to take the least money, and the one who was already our 3rd or 4th best assistant coach! What a coincidence!

You are going to look foolish when he wins COY next year while we get a 7th seed and then get swept in the first round by the Spurs.

See, I actually think the #7 seed, with this young group, would be a big step forward. This is where my "flaming" comments yesterday found their inspiration. It's a step all rebuilding teams need to take. I don't see why you or anyone else would be upset by such a result.

OE32 wrote:

Indy wrote:

Mori Chu wrote:We are so lucky that the best available coach also happened to be the one who was willing to take the least money, and the one who was already our 3rd or 4th best assistant coach! What a coincidence!

You are going to look foolish when he wins COY next year while we get a 7th seed and then get swept in the first round by the Spurs.

See, I actually think the #7 seed, with this young group, would be a big step forward. This is where my "flaming" comments yesterday found their inspiration. It's a step all rebuilding teams need to take.

I do too, but only if it is our key guys doing it. That said, I think we will get there by signing a vet or two that isn't part of our long-term plan, thereby stealing minutes from key guys that need to develop. The short term would be a 10-15 game boost in the win total, with a longer term effect of nothing.

Indy wrote:

OE32 wrote:

Indy wrote:

Mori Chu wrote:We are so lucky that the best available coach also happened to be the one who was willing to take the least money, and the one who was already our 3rd or 4th best assistant coach! What a coincidence!

You are going to look foolish when he wins COY next year while we get a 7th seed and then get swept in the first round by the Spurs.

See, I actually think the #7 seed, with this young group, would be a big step forward. This is where my "flaming" comments yesterday found their inspiration. It's a step all rebuilding teams need to take.

I do too, but only if it is our key guys doing it. That said, I think we will get there by signing a vet or two that isn't part of our long-term plan, thereby stealing minutes from key guys that need to develop. The short term would be a 10-15 game boost in the win total, with a longer term effect of nothing.

Maybe. I just don't know who that signing would be. Sullinger, perhaps? I wouldn't mind picking up a starter whom we intend to be a bench contributor down the road.

Can we actually call ourselves a young group? Young in actual age but let's be real. Bledsoe is 26 with 7 years in the league, Knight is 24 with 5 years in the league, Archie is 22 with 3 years in the league. Chandler is 34 in October, PJ is 31 in May, Leuer 27 in May and Mirza 31 in September. We're hodgepodge group riding the fence between young players and vets. Hard to build a sustainable, winning team like that.

ShelC wrote:Can we actually call ourselves a young group? Young in actual age but let's be real. Bledsoe is 26 with 7 years in the league, Knight is 24 with 5 years in the league, Archie is 22 with 3 years in the league. Chandler is 34 in October, PJ is 31 in May, Leuer 27 in May and Mirza 31 in September. We're hodgepodge group riding the fence between young players and vets. Hard to build a sustainable, winning team like that.

What if we featured Garnett, Prince, Andre Miller and Kevin Martin?

Of the guys you list, I think Leuer's out, and only Bled, Mirza and maybe Chandler are likely to be with the team two years from now. Philly's all youth, and I don't see that paying dividends.

ShelC wrote:Can we actually call ourselves a young group? Young in actual age but let's be real. Bledsoe is 26 with 7 years in the league, Knight is 24 with 5 years in the league, Archie is 22 with 3 years in the league. Chandler is 34 in October, PJ is 31 in May, Leuer 27 in May and Mirza 31 in September. We're hodgepodge group riding the fence between young players and vets. Hard to build a sustainable, winning team like that.

I agree that some of the young guys have a lot of time in the league for their age, but, for example, Archie's 3 years in the league equaled 2182 minutes. That is only 74 minutes than Booker has in 1 years. So these guys are still inexperienced. As for Bledsoe, yes, he is what he is going to be. You don't play 10,000 minutes in the league and suddenly get better.

And that last sentence is right on. If we are going to build a team (and now a coach) from scratch, you have to let those guys grow together. Look at those Dallas teams with Dirk, Nash, and Fins. That is what you need to do, and then you bring in guys along the way to supplement then, not block them.

Philly's an completely different beast.

And I hope Leuer stays.

Indy wrote:

ShelC wrote:Can we actually call ourselves a young group? Young in actual age but let's be real. Bledsoe is 26 with 7 years in the league, Knight is 24 with 5 years in the league, Archie is 22 with 3 years in the league. Chandler is 34 in October, PJ is 31 in May, Leuer 27 in May and Mirza 31 in September. We're hodgepodge group riding the fence between young players and vets. Hard to build a sustainable, winning team like that.

I agree that some of the young guys have a lot of time in the league for their age, but, for example, Archie's 3 years in the league equaled 2182 minutes. That is only 74 minutes than Booker has in 1 years. So these guys are still inexperienced. As for Bledsoe, yes, he is what he is going to be. You don't play 10,000 minutes in the league and suddenly get better.

And that last sentence is right on. If we are going to build a team (and now a coach) from scratch, you have to let those guys grow together. Look at those Dallas teams with Dirk, Nash, and Fins. That is what you need to do, and then you bring in guys along the way to supplement then, not block them.

This I'll agree with. Which is why it's important that Booker and Warren are starting opening night. Len over Chandler - which I'd prefer - is somewhat less important, just because I'm not convinced Len is our permanent solution at the 5 spot, and I think that if you put the right guys on the floor with them, Len and Chandler can play together some.

ShelC wrote:Philly's an completely different beast.

And I hope Leuer stays.

Didn't like his body language when I saw the team up close in Milwaukee (I had floor seats). I don't think we can keep both Jon and Mirza, and I much prefer Mirza.

OE32 wrote:

Indy wrote:

ShelC wrote:Can we actually call ourselves a young group? Young in actual age but let's be real. Bledsoe is 26 with 7 years in the league, Knight is 24 with 5 years in the league, Archie is 22 with 3 years in the league. Chandler is 34 in October, PJ is 31 in May, Leuer 27 in May and Mirza 31 in September. We're hodgepodge group riding the fence between young players and vets. Hard to build a sustainable, winning team like that.

I agree that some of the young guys have a lot of time in the league for their age, but, for example, Archie's 3 years in the league equaled 2182 minutes. That is only 74 minutes than Booker has in 1 years. So these guys are still inexperienced. As for Bledsoe, yes, he is what he is going to be. You don't play 10,000 minutes in the league and suddenly get better.

And that last sentence is right on. If we are going to build a team (and now a coach) from scratch, you have to let those guys grow together. Look at those Dallas teams with Dirk, Nash, and Fins. That is what you need to do, and then you bring in guys along the way to supplement then, not block them.

This I'll agree with. Which is why it's important that Booker and Warren are starting opening night. Len over Chandler - which I'd prefer - is somewhat less important, just because I'm not convinced Len is our permanent solution at the 5 spot, and I think that if you put the right guys on the floor with them, Len and Chandler can play together some.

We should place a bet on opening night starters. I don't see Watson going away from our vets. And I don't know who we are going to sign, but I bet we bring in a guy (likely one we didn't expect) and he plays more than our future does.

And for the love of god, please dump every single one of our PGs expect Price. I don't care if we get a box of peanuts for them. We can't move forward as an organization, with a PG at Coach, with no starting PG.

Indy wrote:We should place a bet on opening night starters. I don't see Watson going away from our vets.

This is one I'm legitimately worried about.

Indy wrote:And for the love of god, please dump every single one of our PGs expect Price. I don't care if we get a box of peanuts for them. We can't move forward as an organization, with a PG at Coach, with no starting PG.

We could draft Dunn and sell Knight. After a season or two, dump Bled.

OE32 wrote:

Indy wrote:We should place a bet on opening night starters. I don't see Watson going away from our vets.

This is one I'm legitimately worried about.

Bledsoe-Booker-Warren-*Horford (*Ryan Anderson)-Chandler

I'll go with Bledsoe-Booker-Warren-Bender-Len.

Cap wrote:I'll go with Bledsoe-Booker-Warren-Bender-Len. [ Image ]

I think that would be a very effective lineup if we just had a run-of-the-mill, traditional PG leading it. With Bleds at the helm, I don't see the easy shots for anyone else. And all of those guys need easy shots except Booker, but his FG% is awful when he works too hard to get open.

Indy wrote:

Cap wrote:I'll go with Bledsoe-Booker-Warren-Bender-Len. [ Image ]

I think that would be a very effective lineup if we just had a run-of-the-mill, traditional PG leading it. With Bleds at the helm, I don't see the easy shots for anyone else. And all of those guys need easy shots except Booker, but his FG% is awful when he works too hard to get open.

I think Warren should be our go-to guy in the half court. Bender looks more of a facilitator/floor-spreader/defensive type, which would work well with our group IF he's not a bust.

For the record, there's no way Bender's ready to start. I just can't imagine it. I think he's a year or two away.

I don't see Warren being great in the half-court, without a solid PG. I see him being a perfect mix of Ced and Barbosa on offense (getting easy buckets by moving without the ball, and knocking down the corner 3 when open).