All Things Ayton

[Indy]

Anybody remember Austin Croshere? As a third-year player, he had a terrific playoff run as his team made it to the Finals, and he was paid accordingly. That playoff run proved to be an aberration and he never came close to living up to his new contract.

If Ayton wants to hold out for a 5-year max, I’m OK with making him prove his value first. One playoff run is not proof.

That’s not disrespect. It’s just being realistic.

You're seriously comparing Ayton to Austin Croshere? Croshere never had anywhere near the resume that Ayton has built for three whole years. And Croshere was only good for one series (the Finals).

Not exactly comparing the two players, just pointing out that sometimes players overachieve and then revert. The Suns would be taking a huge risk by giving him a supermax contract now when he hasn’t even made an All-Star team.

If he wants the supermax contract, I’m OK telling him to prove it for the next eight months. We’ll still have the option of signing him to the supermax next summer. If he wants the security of having that contract now, he should sacrifice a few bucks. If he wants to get paid based on what he’s going to do next year, he can get paid after next year. If he wants to get paid now, he can get paid based on what he’s already proved.

If he proves to be worth the supermax, we can offer him the max QO next summer, and we have guaranteed control of him through 2025 at least, even if he signs an offer sheet from another team.

Does anyone remember when Aron Baynes looked like a top 5 center in the league for a stretch of 20 games while Ayton was suspended?

[ShelC]

Remember when Tim Thomas showed out in the playoffs and we didn't re-sign him because the coaches thought if you gave him a long term deal he'd break your heart?

[JeremyG]

This is interesting and actually makes a lot of sense as we have quite a few tradeable contracts now to combine together next year for another star. But we would be limited on who we could trade for if we gave Ayton the 5 year designated max.

I can't believe that James Jones is actually thinking like that. There is no guarantee that you'll be able to trade for a star down the road. Why worry about a possible trade in the future for a max player, when you have a homegrown one now who wanted to be here for the next 6 years?! It's ridiculous. And as Sam Amick said, "the prospect of landing a player of that caliber without giving up Booker or Ayton in return is likely far-fetched." So what's the point of witholding it from Ayton?

And the fact that the gap in negotations wasn't even about the amount per year (according to Jones' claims) but the number of years is utterly astounding. Why would you not want to keep your 23-year old player for the maximum number of years???

Jones' rationalizations about the negotiations (or lack thereof) seemed incoherent. Very shocking to me. I thought he was smarter than this.

That is literally his job. Find a way to put the best team together. If that means trading Jevon Carter and a pick for Landry, then you do it. If that means trading Ricky Rubio and Kelly Ourbre and a pick and 2 other players for Chris Paul, you do it.

What this all tells me is that James Jones doesn't see Deandre Ayton as the 1st or 2nd best player on this team in the next 3-5 years. I don't blame him for that thought.

Then he isn't doing his job well enough. As the Sam Vecenie article posted above points out, there are exactly zero players that we could reasonably trade for (without including Ayton) before Booker is done with his designated rookie max:

By the time franchise players like Trae Young, Luka Doncic, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Jayson Tatum, Donovan Mitchell, De’Aaron Fox and Bam Adebayo have potential to come available (in three years), Booker will already be off his designated extension, meaning the team would have its extra spot for a designated player back.

Really, there are only four players out there where that argument holds any water because 2017 and 2018 didn’t feature many extensions: Ben Simmons, Karl-Anthony Towns, Michael Porter Jr. and Jamal Murray.

Unless we think that James Jones is worried that if he has Booker and Ayton on designated rookie max deals, he can't trade Mikal Bridges for Michael Porter Jr. (LOL), then I see no coherence to Jones' excuses.

[Indy]

You might not be the most objective person when it comes to Ayton.

[AmareIsGod]

You might not be the most objective person when it comes to Ayton.

Hey now! .net is big enough for two AIG's around here!

[JeremyG]

You might not be the most objective person when it comes to Ayton.

What does that have to do with the fact that there are no designated rookie max players to trade for before Booker's expires?

[Indy]

You might not be the most objective person when it comes to Ayton.

Hey now! .net is big enough for two AIG's around here!

But only 1 SpiveyIsGod.

It is OK--I was not the most objective when it came to Jason Kidd (because he is a wife-beating asshole).

[JeremyG]

Just heard James Jones on Burns and Gambo. Couldn't even give a reason for why they refused to give Ayton 5 years. He just said they had a "multitude of reasons."

[Indy]

You might not be the most objective person when it comes to Ayton.

What does that have to do with the fact that there are no designated rookie max players to trade for before Booker's expires?

That isn't true. You said there were "literally" none, then listed some.

[Indy]

Just heard James Jones on Burns and Gambo. Couldn't even give a reason for why they refused to give Ayton 5 years. He just said they had a "multitude of reasons."

Well, 150 games is a multitude.

[JeremyG]

Just heard James Jones on Burns and Gambo. Couldn't even give a reason for why they refused to give Ayton 5 years. He just said they had a "multitude of reasons."

Well, 150 games is a multitude.

If you think he is worth a 4 year max, why wouldn't you want to lock him up for 5 years? It's nonsense.

[Flagrant Fowl]

4 years, so why not 5? Hell, make it 6. Or how about 7? Nah, sign him to a lifetime max contract.

[Indy]

Just heard James Jones on Burns and Gambo. Couldn't even give a reason for why they refused to give Ayton 5 years. He just said they had a "multitude of reasons."

Well, 150 games is a multitude.

If you think he is worth a 4 year max, why wouldn't you want to lock him up for 5 years? It's nonsense.

they have zero dollars on the books for what would be that 5th year. And the only money they have on the books for more than 2 years after this one is Mikal. They are keeping their options open. I am not sure they would have given him a 4 year deal either.

[JeremyG]

You might not be the most objective person when it comes to Ayton.

What does that have to do with the fact that there are no designated rookie max players to trade for before Booker's expires?

That isn't true. You said there were "literally" none, then listed some.

I didn't say "literally none," I said "there are exactly zero players that we could reasonably trade for (without including Ayton)," and I quoted an objective observer (Sam Vecenie) for that.

Which of these players would we possibly trade for without giving up Booker or Ayton? Ben Simmons, Karl-Anthony Towns, Michael Porter Jr. and Jamal Murray.

Those last two have injury problems, we aren't going to touch Simmons, and KAT would require trading Ayton.

[JeremyG]

4 years, so why not 5? Hell, make it 6. Or how about 7? Nah, sign him to a lifetime max contract.

If you think your 23-year old player is worth a max contract, you would naturally want to sign him for the maximum amount of years. That's how this always works. The only exception would be if the player has significant injury history, like MPJ where you sign him to 5 years but not all of the years are guaranteed.

Remember when Booker signed his extension? The victory for the Suns in that negotation was that there was no player option for the 5th year. Teams want their young players locked up for as long as possible, if they think they're worth a max deal. That's how this works.

And as Vecenie pointed out, it should be that way now more than ever, since after 2025 the deal would look like a bargain.

[Indy]

4 years, so why not 5? Hell, make it 6. Or how about 7? Nah, sign him to a lifetime max contract.

If you think your 23-year old player is worth a max contract, you would naturally want to sign him for the maximum amount of years. That's how this always works. The only exception would be if the player has significant injury history, like MPJ where you sign him to 5 years but not all of the years are guaranteed.

Remember when Booker signed his extension? The victory for the Suns in that negotation was that there was no player option for the 5th year. Teams want their young players locked up for as long as possible, if they think they're worth a max deal. That's how this works.

And as Vecenie pointed out, it should be that way now more than ever, since after 2025 the deal would look like a bargain.

If you think Book and DA are in the same stratosphere, you are wrong.

[Indy]

You might not be the most objective person when it comes to Ayton.

What does that have to do with the fact that there are no designated rookie max players to trade for before Booker's expires?

That isn't true. You said there were "literally" none, then listed some.

I didn't say "literally none," I said "there are exactly zero players that we could reasonably trade for (without including Ayton)," and I quoted an objective observer (Sam Vecenie) for that.

Which of these players would we possibly trade for without giving up Booker or Ayton? Ben Simmons, Karl-Anthony Towns, Michael Porter Jr. and Jamal Murray.

Those last two have injury problems, we aren't going to touch Simmons, and KAT would require trading Ayton.

sorry for mixing up literally none and exactly zero.

[Split T]

The suns front office clearly doesn’t view Ayton the way you do Jeremy…that’s simply the answer.

[JeremyG]

The suns front office clearly doesn’t view Ayton the way you do Jeremy…that’s simply the answer.

Then what is the answer to Sam Vecenie's logical arguments (who has no bias for or against Ayton)? If they're just throwing out bs to the media about how they would have loved to sign Ayton to a 4-year max, then they need to be called out for it.

[JeremyG]

You might not be the most objective person when it comes to Ayton.

What does that have to do with the fact that there are no designated rookie max players to trade for before Booker's expires?

That isn't true. You said there were "literally" none, then listed some.

I didn't say "literally none," I said "there are exactly zero players that we could reasonably trade for (without including Ayton)," and I quoted an objective observer (Sam Vecenie) for that.

Which of these players would we possibly trade for without giving up Booker or Ayton? Ben Simmons, Karl-Anthony Towns, Michael Porter Jr. and Jamal Murray.

Those last two have injury problems, we aren't going to touch Simmons, and KAT would require trading Ayton.

sorry for mixing up literally none and exactly zero.

Nope, you left out the part about "reasonably trade for."