Suns News: Week 14 1/23-1/29

[Ring_Wanted]

I am more than willing to give up Warren, Len, Chriss and one Miami pick for Boogie, plus Knight obviously. I can go as high as both Miami picks if it means I keep my '17 1stR and Bender.

What if they insist on our own 1st round pick this year?

Then the best Miami pick and Bender need to be removed from the package.

But if I am Sacto, my interest in that '17 Suns pick decreases as Boogie should help PHX climb to the lower end of the lotto, if not making the playoffs.

Chriss (Sacto native), Warren, Len and two Miami picks is a hell of a deal. My only concern would be Boston ('17 BRY, Brown+) and Minni (Dunn, '17 pick+), but the player would need to want to be on those teams, and I don't see it happening in Minni. Boston gives me pause as they can make a better offer than us, but I have my doubts about Cousins wanting to play with IT4 again (especially an IT4 whose current usage is way higher than that of his last season in Sacramento).

[Indy]

I agree with T and Mori that we may as well hang on to Knight at this point. I'd much rather deal Bledsoe and then play Knight into an attractive asset, and then move him in the off-season.

This is never going to happen. If the Suns are waiting on this then they will just end up waiting through all 5 years of Knight's contract or maybe in the final season of his contract, he'll have some value as an expiring contract but that's about it.

How can you say it will never happen? In 2014-15 for the bucks he was averaging 17.8/4.3/5.4 while shooting 40% from 3. I'm not saying he will return to that level of play, but it's certainly a possibility. He's still 25 years old and hasn't lost any skills.

I think if he were our starting PG, played 35 mpg, and didn't have to play alongside a 2nd PG, he could get close to that. But that isn't ever going to be the case here.

But that's exactly my point. Trade Bledsoe, give Knight 35 mpg, then trade him in the offseason.

I would support that approach.

[UglyTruth]

I agree with T and Mori that we may as well hang on to Knight at this point. I'd much rather deal Bledsoe and then play Knight into an attractive asset, and then move him in the off-season.

This is never going to happen. If the Suns are waiting on this then they will just end up waiting through all 5 years of Knight's contract or maybe in the final season of his contract, he'll have some value as an expiring contract but that's about it.

How can you say it will never happen? In 2014-15 for the bucks he was averaging 17.8/4.3/5.4 while shooting 40% from 3. I'm not saying he will return to that level of play, but it's certainly a possibility. He's still 25 years old and hasn't lost any skills.

I think if he were our starting PG, played 35 mpg, and didn't have to play alongside a 2nd PG, he could get close to that. But that isn't ever going to be the case here.

But that's exactly my point. Trade Bledsoe, give Knight 35 mpg, then trade him in the offseason.

So trade Bledsoe for the sole purpose of increasing Knight's trade value?

That makes no sense. It's like saying Portland should trade McCollum to start Crabbe and increase Crabbe's trade value.

[In2ition]

I may be wrong, but interpreted this as selling high on Bledsoe and then rebuilding Knight's value to become an asset again to be traded, knowing that neither are going to be part of the Suns future.

I just get the feeling that the Suns love Bledsoe so much, that they think he is going to turn into the next Nash and get better with time. They aren't planning on trading him unless an offer they can't refuse comes about. If that's the case, it's going to be nearly impossible to rebuild Knight's trade value, IMO.

[Mori Chu]

I may be wrong, but interpreted this as selling high on Bledsoe and then rebuilding Knight's value to become an asset again to be traded, knowing that neither are going to be part of the Suns future.

I just get the feeling that the Suns love Bledsoe so much, that they think he is going to turn into the next Nash and get better with time. They aren't planning on trading him unless an offer they can't refuse comes about. If that's the case, it's going to be nearly impossible to rebuild Knight's trade value, IMO.

I agree with all of this.

[pickle]

I may be wrong, but interpreted this as selling high on Bledsoe and then rebuilding Knight's value to become an asset again to be traded, knowing that neither are going to be part of the Suns future.

I just get the feeling that the Suns love Bledsoe so much, that they think he is going to turn into the next Nash and get better with time. They aren't planning on trading him unless an offer they can't refuse comes about. If that's the case, it's going to be nearly impossible to rebuild Knight's trade value, IMO.

You are not wrong, this is exactly what I mean. We can't really influence anything the ball club does, but if there was an ideal scenario, I'd like to move Knight, Tucker, Chandler, and Bledsoe, in that order. But this is not an ideal world and I know that these four guys are not in our mid-term future, so I'm willing to sacrifice some short term success to maximize the value that we would get from these four guys. Hell I'd say that that's an added bonus that we can tank and get more value out of the draft in that process.

[pickle]

But that's exactly my point. Trade Bledsoe, give Knight 35 mpg, then trade him in the offseason.

So trade Bledsoe for the sole purpose of increasing Knight's trade value?

That makes no sense. It's like saying Portland should trade McCollum to start Crabbe and increase Crabbe's trade value.

Great job taking things completely out of context and sticking to the very literal statement and making an outrageous analogy to prove that I'm being stupid.

This is a Suns board. I hope I don't have to predicate everything I say with the announcements that a lot of us here take for granted, such as "Bledsoe and Knight should not be in our future plans".

[UglyTruth]

But that's exactly my point. Trade Bledsoe, give Knight 35 mpg, then trade him in the offseason.

So trade Bledsoe for the sole purpose of increasing Knight's trade value?

That makes no sense. It's like saying Portland should trade McCollum to start Crabbe and increase Crabbe's trade value.

Great job taking things completely out of context and sticking to the very literal statement and making an outrageous analogy to prove that I'm being stupid.

This is a Suns board. I hope I don't have to predicate everything I say with the announcements that a lot of us here take for granted, such as "Bledsoe and Knight should not be in our future plans".

No your right, that's obvious but it doesn't make sense to trade the guy with the 2nd most trade value on this entire team just to increase the trade value of the guy with the worst trade value on the team.

Unless of course we get some really can't turn down offer for Bledsoe.

I also thinking playing Knight with Booker for however long it may be (half a season? One full season?) could end up proving disastrous for Booker's development. He may start hogging the hell outta the ball and taking ridiculously bad shots just like Knight.

[Hermen]

No your right, that's obvious but it doesn't make sense to trade the guy with the 2nd most trade value on this entire team just to increase the trade value of the guy with the worst trade value on the team.

It's not JUST to increase Knight's value, you get something back from the trade. It's selling high on Bledsoe while his value is probably the highest and he's not someone you want long-term. It makes sense even without involving Knight, increasing his value is just a potential bonus.

[pickle]

But that's exactly my point. Trade Bledsoe, give Knight 35 mpg, then trade him in the offseason.

So trade Bledsoe for the sole purpose of increasing Knight's trade value?

That makes no sense. It's like saying Portland should trade McCollum to start Crabbe and increase Crabbe's trade value.

Great job taking things completely out of context and sticking to the very literal statement and making an outrageous analogy to prove that I'm being stupid.

This is a Suns board. I hope I don't have to predicate everything I say with the announcements that a lot of us here take for granted, such as "Bledsoe and Knight should not be in our future plans".

No your right, that's obvious but it doesn't make sense to trade the guy with the 2nd most trade value on this entire team just to increase the trade value of the guy with the worst trade value on the team.

Unless of course we get some really can't turn down offer for Bledsoe.

I also thinking playing Knight with Booker for however long it may be (half a season? One full season?) could end up proving disastrous for Booker's development. He may start hogging the hell outta the ball and taking ridiculously bad shots just like Knight.

I don't get it. Why are you insisting that I'm suggesting that we move Bledsoe "just to increase the trade value" of Knight? I think I've made it quite clear that I want both of them gone, and I don't have a real preference as to who I want to move first. In terms of being rational, it's preferable that we move the one who is performing well at this time; not only are we more likely to get equal value for him right now, we also have the chance to increase the value of the other guy, who's currently mired in the worst slump of his career and unlikely to fetch back a bag of potato chips.

And I guess I just have more faith in Booker than you do. If he survived a year of Markieff/Bledsoe/Knight in his 19-yr old season while playing spotty minutes off the bench for the first half and didn't pick up terrible passing instincts, then methinks another half year of said influence when he's clearly more featured on offense and has stepped up to that role rather brilliantly in his 20-yr old season will probably not knock him off-course that much.

And I think we may fundamentally disagree on the return on investment for Bledsoe. I love the guy, he plays his heart out and other than that one summer holdout he's been a chemistry net plus (albeit a marginal plus). However, he just isn't a point guard that makes others better, he's 5 yrs older than our current core, and he's had multiple catastrophic knee surgeries. Will he continue to improve? Maybe, perhaps even likely. Will he lead us to the promised land? Highly doubtful. Will he still contribute to the team when our current group of youngsters are in their primes? Probably, if his injuries don't flare up again, but I'm just not willing to make that bet, given that his skill set is a precarious fit to the young talent already on the roster. So I'm not looking for an offer we "really can't turn down" or maybe for me any trade that returns some value, say one future first and one future second, would be offers that I "really can't turn down".

[Indy]

Exactly, pickle.

It would be silly to wait until he is injured again to try and trade him.

Pro-Bledsoe Rant: [He has clearly been our best player this year. And he does everything off the court you could want. He even got his TOs down quite a bit this year. And since January his 3s are falling wonderfully.]

He just doesn't seem to be a PG in the mold of sharing the ball.

[JCSunsfan]

Exactly, pickle.

It would be silly to wait until he is injured again to try and trade him.

Pro-Bledsoe Rant: [He has clearly been our best player this year. And he does everything off the court you could want. He even got his TOs down quite a bit this year. And since January his 3s are falling wonderfully.]

He just doesn't seem to be a PG in the mold of sharing the ball.

It isn't silly to wait until summer and see what happens in the draft.

[pickle]

You mean the draft that is point guard heavy, so we would be faced with a) drafting a point guard, and asking the rest of the league to fleece us because we'd have 2.5 starting caliber pgs (I'm counting Knight as the 0.5 -- between his potential and his 13 mil a year contract he's worth half) on the roster and a promising youngster backup on the bench and would need to clear up this massive logjam, or risk losing Ulis like we did Ennis; or b) limit our draft options to non-pgs and have even less freedom to draft BPA?

I guess I'm not seeing what might possibly happen in the draft that will lead me to want to keep either Bledsoe or Knight. It's not like Bledsoe is hurt and I'm advocating dumping him for pennies on the dollar.

[Indy]

You mean the draft that is point guard heavy, so we would be faced with a) drafting a point guard, and asking the rest of the league to fleece us because we'd have 2.5 starting caliber pgs (I'm counting Knight as the 0.5 -- between his potential and his 13 mil a year contract he's worth half) on the roster and a promising youngster backup on the bench and would need to clear up this massive logjam, or risk losing Ulis like we did Ennis; or b) limit our draft options to non-pgs and have even less freedom to draft BPA?

I guess I'm not seeing what might possibly happen in the draft that will lead me to want to keep either Bledsoe or Knight. It's not like Bledsoe is hurt and I'm advocating dumping him for pennies on the dollar.

ding ding ding

[UglyTruth]

But that's exactly my point. Trade Bledsoe, give Knight 35 mpg, then trade him in the offseason.

So trade Bledsoe for the sole purpose of increasing Knight's trade value?

That makes no sense. It's like saying Portland should trade McCollum to start Crabbe and increase Crabbe's trade value.

Great job taking things completely out of context and sticking to the very literal statement and making an outrageous analogy to prove that I'm being stupid.

This is a Suns board. I hope I don't have to predicate everything I say with the announcements that a lot of us here take for granted, such as "Bledsoe and Knight should not be in our future plans".

No your right, that's obvious but it doesn't make sense to trade the guy with the 2nd most trade value on this entire team just to increase the trade value of the guy with the worst trade value on the team.

Unless of course we get some really can't turn down offer for Bledsoe.

I also thinking playing Knight with Booker for however long it may be (half a season? One full season?) could end up proving disastrous for Booker's development. He may start hogging the hell outta the ball and taking ridiculously bad shots just like Knight.

I don't get it. Why are you insisting that I'm suggesting that we move Bledsoe "just to increase the trade value" of Knight? I think I've made it quite clear that I want both of them gone, and I don't have a real preference as to who I want to move first. In terms of being rational, it's preferable that we move the one who is performing well at this time; not only are we more likely to get equal value for him right now, we also have the chance to increase the value of the other guy, who's currently mired in the worst slump of his career and unlikely to fetch back a bag of potato chips.

And I guess I just have more faith in Booker than you do. If he survived a year of M******f/Bledsoe/Knight in his 19-yr old season while playing spotty minutes off the bench for the first half and didn't pick up terrible passing instincts, then methinks another half year of said influence when he's clearly more featured on offense and has stepped up to that role rather brilliantly in his 20-yr old season will probably not knock him off-course that much.

And I think we may fundamentally disagree on the return on investment for Bledsoe. I love the guy, he plays his heart out and other than that one summer holdout he's been a chemistry net plus (albeit a marginal plus). However, he just isn't a point guard that makes others better, he's 5 yrs older than our current core, and he's had multiple catastrophic knee surgeries. Will he continue to improve? Maybe, perhaps even likely. Will he lead us to the promised land? Highly doubtful. Will he still contribute to the team when our current group of youngsters are in their primes? Probably, if his injuries don't flare up again, but I'm just not willing to make that bet, given that his skill set is a precarious fit to the young talent already on the roster. So I'm not looking for an offer we "really can't turn down" or maybe for me any trade that returns some value, say one future first and one future second, would be offers that I "really can't turn down".

I understand you better now and no we actually don't disagree on Bledsoe. I'm all for trading Bledsoe because of his knees.

[pickle]

Cool, makes sense. Probably because I didn't state my position clearly before.

[Indy]

I think it was clear, but the specific post UT quoted didn't include it. That's probably where the confusion started.