Phx-Suns.Net

Superbone wrote:

Indy wrote:Agreed guys. And there either wasn't a GM that could teach Sarver, or one that he trusted to teach him.

Colangelo, Sr. could have set him straight had Sarver let him. That's on Sarver.

It takes a very unusual man to take advice from the previous business owner you just bought out. And who has never achieved the ultimate prize, after decades of trying...

And that is in no way a knock on Jerry.

SwingMan wrote:

Shabazz wrote:

JCSunsfan wrote:

SwingMan wrote:

Indy wrote:I didn't at the time, but I blame a lot of that on Mike. And I am not bashing on him. I think he was very good for us as a coach for "winning now". Unfortunately, you can't afford to mortgage your future very often and have it pay off (like Colangelo did to win a World Series). It will catch up with you...

Alot of it *was* D'Antoni's fault in that he had no time for rookies unless they were forced on him (Barbosa in the 2nd half of 2003-2004), so I guess i can see some of Sarver's mindset - problem is, it was short-sighted to a million faults.

"7 starters".....

Yes. Basically, MikeD told Sarver, "You can draft them, but I am not going to play them." So Sarver got cash instead. If you tell me wife, "You can make dinner, but I won't eat it" she is heading out for sushi without me.

Sarver was not saavy enough as an owner yet to see how stupid his coach was acting.

I've gone into this in more detail before and don't care to again, but while you can assign blame to D'Antoni for the Rondo pick trade, the Iguodala pick trade took place after he had been coach for less than half a season and didn't have Nash, Q-Rich or any track record of NBA success (and by extension clout to say he "wouldn't play rookies"). That one was a miscalculation by Bryan Colangelo. And I don't see how trading Kurt Thomas and two 1st round picks can be pinned on D'Antoni. Awful Sarver mandated salary dump that saw Kerr get bent over by OKC.

I don't think I ever claimed the #7 pick trade in 2004 was D'Antoni's fault - matter of fact, I outlined that the reason was because they "figured" that Iguodala wouldn't be around at #7, meaning that, at least, some form of intention to use the pick was implicated. Just a plain dumbfuck move, is all that was.

And, the Thomas/Grant trades were idiotic salary dumps right smack in the middle of a run, but the picks were all the more available to throw in, in big part because, again, D'Antoni had no time for rookies.

Matter of fact, in 2006, it can feasibly ALL be pinned on D'Antoni because that was during his disasterous off-season stretch as coach/GM right after BC skipped.

That still irks me. Not that Bryan left, because you have to leave in that situation. Your dad just sold the family business. You HAVE to leave and leave quickly. But the fact that there was no plan from Sarver is the thing that really bothers me. You KNEW it was coming. Plan something!

Superbone wrote:

SwingMan wrote:Matter of fact, in 2006, it can feasibly ALL be pinned on D'Antoni because that was during his disasterous off-season stretch as coach/GM right after BC skipped.

However, Sarver is responsible for giving him that position and power in the first place.

As owner, it's tough to dispute that.

Both deserve plenty of blame for selling the future out.....

Indy wrote:

SwingMan wrote:

Shabazz wrote:

JCSunsfan wrote:

SwingMan wrote:Alot of it *was* D'Antoni's fault in that he had no time for rookies unless they were forced on him (Barbosa in the 2nd half of 2003-2004), so I guess i can see some of Sarver's mindset - problem is, it was short-sighted to a million faults.

"7 starters".....

Yes. Basically, MikeD told Sarver, "You can draft them, but I am not going to play them." So Sarver got cash instead. If you tell me wife, "You can make dinner, but I won't eat it" she is heading out for sushi without me.

Sarver was not saavy enough as an owner yet to see how stupid his coach was acting.

I've gone into this in more detail before and don't care to again, but while you can assign blame to D'Antoni for the Rondo pick trade, the Iguodala pick trade took place after he had been coach for less than half a season and didn't have Nash, Q-Rich or any track record of NBA success (and by extension clout to say he "wouldn't play rookies"). That one was a miscalculation by Bryan Colangelo. And I don't see how trading Kurt Thomas and two 1st round picks can be pinned on D'Antoni. Awful Sarver mandated salary dump that saw Kerr get bent over by OKC.

I don't think I ever claimed the #7 pick trade in 2004 was D'Antoni's fault - matter of fact, I outlined that the reason was because they "figured" that Iguodala wouldn't be around at #7, meaning that, at least, some form of intention to use the pick was implicated. Just a plain dumbfuck move, is all that was.

And, the Thomas/Grant trades were idiotic salary dumps right smack in the middle of a run, but the picks were all the more available to throw in, in big part because, again, D'Antoni had no time for rookies.

Matter of fact, in 2006, it can feasibly ALL be pinned on D'Antoni because that was during his disasterous off-season stretch as coach/GM right after BC skipped.

That still irks me. Not that Bryan left, because you have to leave in that situation. Your dad just sold the family business. You HAVE to leave and leave quickly. But the fact that there was no plan from Sarver is the thing that really bothers me. You KNEW it was coming. Plan something!

Fortunately, it looks like Sarver's learned his lessons - better late than never, I guess.....

I hope so.

Superbone wrote:

SwingMan wrote:Matter of fact, in 2006, it can feasibly ALL be pinned on D'Antoni because that was during his disasterous off-season stretch as coach/GM right after BC skipped.

However, Sarver is responsible for giving him that position and power in the first place.

Oh no, this is all God's fault, because he put Sarver in that position

INFORMER wrote:

Shabazz wrote:I would explore trades for Horford and Favors (if Gobert proves ready for prime time).

If Utah moves anyone, it will be Kanter, not Favors.

I do think Atlanta and Horford will eventually part ways.

what's the scouting report on kanter and favors? i've been told that jefferson and millsap were moved to make room for these two but there is no way either of them will ever live up to what jefferson/millsap were providing the jazz... what are their styles like, kanter and favors i mean?

why must you guys relive misery in such fine detail! argh! those pick-dumping moves put me in basketball purgatory for basically 3 years, where i pretended no bad news about the suns could hurt me. i'm still not sure i'm fully recovered from it.

pickle wrote:

INFORMER wrote:

Shabazz wrote:I would explore trades for Horford and Favors (if Gobert proves ready for prime time).

If Utah moves anyone, it will be Kanter, not Favors.

I do think Atlanta and Horford will eventually part ways.

what's the scouting report on kanter and favors? i've been told that jefferson and millsap were moved to make room for these two but there is no way either of them will ever live up to what jefferson/millsap were providing the jazz... what are their styles like, kanter and favors i mean?

Kanter is skilled on offense, Favors is skilled on defense. Kanter can hit from mid-range, score in te post, and has shown flashes of double-figure rebounding ability. He can be a plodder at times, and isn't too effective on the defensive end.

Favors is an athlete. His offense is still a work in progress, but he can still contribute on that end. Te Jazz have made a sizable, financial commitment to him ($12 or $13 million a year) while Kanter is entering the last year of his rookie deal and probably won't be extended before the October 31 deadline.

INFORMER wrote:
Kanter is skilled on offense, Favors is skilled on defense. Kanter can hit from mid-range, score in te post, and has shown flashes of double-figure rebounding ability. He can be a plodder at times, and isn't too effective on the defensive end.

Favors is an athlete. His offense is still a work in progress, but he can still contribute on that end. Te Jazz have made a sizable, financial commitment to him ($12 or $13 million a year) while Kanter is entering the last year of his rookie deal and probably won't be extended before the October 31 deadline.

thanks inf. i can always count on you for honest readings of the players. it feels like this league is quickly becoming smaller and faster, from your description kanter seems to be somewhat out of favor (no pun intended) while favors seems to be at least useful in the faster flowing game today if he's mobile and can help protect the rim. is he considered a good rebounder as well?

pickle wrote:

INFORMER wrote:

Shabazz wrote:I would explore trades for Horford and Favors (if Gobert proves ready for prime time).

If Utah moves anyone, it will be Kanter, not Favors.

I do think Atlanta and Horford will eventually part ways.

what's the scouting report on kanter and favors? i've been told that jefferson and millsap were moved to make room for these two but there is no way either of them will ever live up to what jefferson/millsap were providing the jazz... what are their styles like, kanter and favors i mean?

Favors is a top athlete but lacks polish although could become one of the best D+R big men in little time. Kanter is really strong and has a pretty good all around offensive game on offense and is not afraid to shoot from mid range, but is not very effective at this point and is a poor defender. Not remotely close to Millsap-Jefferson, but they are not their age either.

The Jazz let them go right before entering their prime because they wanted to rebuild after Deron was moved. During the 2011-12 season they had Millsap and Jefferson (soon to expire) plus Kanter and Favors on rookie contracts (and Hayward-Burks).

During the last two seasons of Jefferson and Millsap the Jazz made the playoffs once and had 43 wins the following year. People now call that mediocrity, being stuck, treadmill, etc, so when the contracts were up, they made their choice and went with the youth.

That's ok in theory, but they also made the mistake of letting their two best players go without getting anything in return, which can be a disaster strategically, above all if you don't have the power to attract relevant free agents.

One thing we have to consider, though, is that Jefferson and Millsap went to the East and the competition there is significantly weaker. I have no doubt that they don't get the accolades and recognition they have if they stay in the West, but in the end that point only has a cosmetic effect and it doesn't turn a mistake into a right call.

Letting players above a certain level go for nothing is a mistake more often than not, so keeping them under a new contract is a gamble sometimes you are forced to take. From the Suns standpoint, that's what I felt regarding Bledsoe and Kieff. Of course, the Jazz can show a Dante Exum for their troubles, so time will tell if the path they chose led them to greener pastures or just took them to a travel through hell to end up in the same purgatory.

pickle wrote:why must you guys relive misery in such fine detail! argh! those pick-dumping moves put me in basketball purgatory for basically 3 years, where i pretended no bad news about the suns could hurt me. i'm still not sure i'm fully recovered from it.

I'm with you. I don't enjoy rehashing this stuff. It seems to be an annual tradition around here though. I usually just tune it out until it passes.

Those who forget (ignore) the past...

I don't like Utah's big men. Millsap was the best of the lot, if you ask me, and Jefferson was second-best, and they let both of them go. In their place, they have two middling bigs who don't seem to have any virtue over Millsap/Jefferson other than being younger. They're both measurably inferior players. The Jazz can say they didn't want to tie up huge money in aging vets, but they will put that same money into Favors and Kanter. It's the same thing. Why not just be good? Why not keep the better players?

Mori Chu wrote:They're both measurably inferior players.

Mori, I don't think you'll find a GM in the league that would trade Derrick Favors for Paul Millsap.

I agree, but that's because of age and scarcity of players with Favors' skillset, plus current contract status. Still, Millsap is a better basketball player. Did you watch his playoffs last season? He was outstanding.

He was very productive but he also shot under 40%. And we're talking about a 7 game stretch in the Leastern Conference playoffs. Come on now.

Sure, he was not efficient, but you know %s are not everything. He had to lead a team without Horford against what still was one of the best defenses in the L. Of course his efficiency is going to suffer, but he made a lot of big plays and displayed quite an array of weapons on offense, without sucking on D and while helping on the boards.

Favors is full of athleticsm, youth and potential, but 2014 Millsap is just a better player.

Ring_Wanted wrote:but you know %s are not everything

I don't like my chances to win anything if my starting power forward is shooting under 40%.

2014 Millsap is just a better player.

We're getting away from the point, but there is something very important about that statement. The 2013-14 was a career year for Millsap. Utah didn't get rid of the 2014 Millsap. And Mori's original point was that Favors was "measurably inferior." Even if you think Millsap is better, I don't think he's measurably superior. My opinion? They're just different players.

Bottom line, I can appreciate what Utah did and is trying to do. Fringe playoff team was the ceiling of those Millsap-Jefferson led teams. Sure, they could have settled for that, but I applaud them for not doing so. I guess it is just a matter of what you want as a fan.

And mind you, I'm not a Favors fan. I wouldn't have paid him what they're paying him, and in general I wouldn't elect to build with him. But again, I do get what they're doing.