Phx-Suns.Net

Superbone wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Nodack wrote:I would say yes to Knight being traded but, wouldn't pull my hair out if it didn't happen

I absolutely would. Knight has showed time and time again that he can't help a team like ours. He needs a winning team where he is surrounded by the right group of players and perhaps more importantly, the right coach. He is Jamal Crawford before he found his niche on the Clipps. We don't need that unless we want to keep racking up frustration. He needs to be gone asap and we need to forget about what he did cost. What is done is done and all we can look forward to now is finding him a new home so we can move on from being the worst passing team in the business.

Depends on if you want a top lottery pick or not. The numbers don't lie. When we play Knight any significant minutes, we lose. Keep Knight and we have an excellent shot at a top pick. Trade him and then we'll probably end up 9th or 10th in the West with a low lottery pick.

Either losing all the way to a top3 pick, or hanging into mid lottery, I want it in a way that benefits the young core. So I want veterans that field a team ball mentality, both in offense and defense. I don't like Tucker because of that, all that effort and hustle, are in a me-first mentality, worst than Knight and Bledsoe, except that they are guards, so is more noticeable. Those three should have been traded weeks ago, it's clear we are going nowhere with them playing heavy minutes. Keep Dudley, Barbosa and Chandler.

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:So I want veterans that field a team ball mentality, both in offense and defense. I don't like Tucker because of that, all that effort and hustle, are in a me-first mentality, worst than Knight and Bledsoe, except that they are guards, so is more noticeable.

That's not how I see it. Tucker seems like a team player to me. It's not like he dominates the ball.

Superbone wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:So I want veterans that field a team ball mentality, both in offense and defense. I don't like Tucker because of that, all that effort and hustle, are in a me-first mentality, worst than Knight and Bledsoe, except that they are guards, so is more noticeable.

That's not how I see it. Tucker seems like a team player to me. It's not like he dominates the ball.

He force too many shots, he tries to "take over", he takes the ball up instead of giving it to the guards (altough this I can understand). He dominates the ball when he get it, like I said, he is not a guard, so he doesn't get enough touches to look hoggish. Dudley is the contrast you need to see what I'm talking about.

I don't blame Tucker, he is looking for survival, and is on a contract year, babysitting and developing, do not serve him well, as none of the rookies will send him a check in Greece when they sign their extensions. But we all would be better served if he goes full contract-year-effort in a team that could take advantage of it, and actually make him part of their future.

pickle wrote:Can I pick option 2 with an asterisk of "winning the lottery" tacked on the end?

Sounds good to me. Say we win the lottery and Philly gets picks 3 & 6, would you trade the #1 pick for #3 + #6?

Split T wrote:

pickle wrote:Can I pick option 2 with an asterisk of "winning the lottery" tacked on the end?

Sounds good to me. Say we win the lottery and Philly gets picks 3 & 6, would you trade the #1 pick for #3 + #6?

I wouldn't. Fultz is not only the best player in this draft, but also probably the best fit for the team.

OE32 wrote:

Split T wrote:

pickle wrote:Can I pick option 2 with an asterisk of "winning the lottery" tacked on the end?

Sounds good to me. Say we win the lottery and Philly gets picks 3 & 6, would you trade the #1 pick for #3 + #6?

I wouldn't. Fultz is not only the best player in this draft, but also probably the best fit for the team.

I'm torn. I agree that Fultz is the best player, I just don't know how much better he is than Josh Jackson. If we could land Josh Jackson at 3 and Frank Ntilikina at 6, that's very tempting.

I think Ntilikina could be very, very good and is flying under the radar a bit because not many people have seen him play. I've only seen a few videos of him, but he looks very good and reports are highly favorable. He's 6'5 with long arms and is very advanced defensively for an 18 year old. Can defend 1-3. Reports also say his feel for the game and basketball IQ are very advanced for his age and specifically that his passing in the PNR is phenomenal. The biggest knock on him previously was his jumpshot, but he's been shooting very well this past year.

Still, going back to the original question, adding two more rookies to the 3 we got this year might not be the best idea. That's a lot of players to develop and to get minutes too.

Superbone wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Nodack wrote:I would say yes to Knight being traded but, wouldn't pull my hair out if it didn't happen

I absolutely would. Knight has showed time and time again that he can't help a team like ours. He needs a winning team where he is surrounded by the right group of players and perhaps more importantly, the right coach. He is Jamal Crawford before he found his niche on the Clipps. We don't need that unless we want to keep racking up frustration. He needs to be gone asap and we need to forget about what he did cost. What is done is done and all we can look forward to now is finding him a new home so we can move on from being the worst passing team in the business.

Depends on if you want a top lottery pick or not. The numbers don't lie. When we play Knight any significant minutes, we lose. Keep Knight and we have an excellent shot at a top pick. Trade him and then we'll probably end up 9th or 10th in the West with a low lottery pick.

I think we can get a top pick without Knight. 76rs are starting to win games somehow, Dallas only has vets and unless Dirk truly goes down for good I expect them to win more games than us the rest of the way. The Wolves are starting to get their shit together defensively. BRY, MIA and PHX is where it's at, I believe. But even if we end up winning a handful more of games than expected at this moment, if it comes by playing the kids I'll take it. What I am not willing to endure is yet another futile fight with vets who offer a terrible product.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Superbone wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Nodack wrote:I would say yes to Knight being traded but, wouldn't pull my hair out if it didn't happen

I absolutely would. Knight has showed time and time again that he can't help a team like ours. He needs a winning team where he is surrounded by the right group of players and perhaps more importantly, the right coach. He is Jamal Crawford before he found his niche on the Clipps. We don't need that unless we want to keep racking up frustration. He needs to be gone asap and we need to forget about what he did cost. What is done is done and all we can look forward to now is finding him a new home so we can move on from being the worst passing team in the business.

Depends on if you want a top lottery pick or not. The numbers don't lie. When we play Knight any significant minutes, we lose. Keep Knight and we have an excellent shot at a top pick. Trade him and then we'll probably end up 9th or 10th in the West with a low lottery pick.

I think we can get a top pick without Knight. 76rs are starting to win games somehow, Dallas only has vets and unless Dirk truly goes down for good I expect them to win more games than us the rest of the way. The Wolves are starting to get their s*** together defensively. BRY, MIA and PHX is where it's at, I believe. But even if we end up winning a handful more of games than expected at this moment, if it comes by playing the kids I'll take it. What I am not willing to endure is yet another futile fight with vets who offer a terrible product.

Probably going to have to add the Lakers to that list. For all the talk about what a great job Walton was doing in LA, the lakers have been terrible lately and although they have a higher winning percentage, are actually a half game behind us in the standings. But I agree that Dallas and Minny seem to be headed upwards. I'd watch out for Orlando and the Knicks out east. While they have a decent lead on us right now, if they decide to give up and start tanking, they could fall off quickly. I'd guess they keep trying to win games though. They probably wouldn't enter tank mode until late in the season.

Split T wrote:

OE32 wrote:

Split T wrote:

pickle wrote:Can I pick option 2 with an asterisk of "winning the lottery" tacked on the end?

Sounds good to me. Say we win the lottery and Philly gets picks 3 & 6, would you trade the #1 pick for #3 + #6?

I wouldn't. Fultz is not only the best player in this draft, but also probably the best fit for the team.

I'm torn. I agree that Fultz is the best player, I just don't know how much better he is than Josh Jackson. If we could land Josh Jackson at 3 and Frank Ntilikina at 6, that's very tempting.

I think Ntilikina could be very, very good and is flying under the radar a bit because not many people have seen him play. I've only seen a few videos of him, but he looks very good and reports are highly favorable. He's 6'5 with long arms and is very advanced defensively for an 18 year old. Can defend 1-3. Reports also say his feel for the game and basketball IQ are very advanced for his age and specifically that his passing in the PNR is phenomenal. The biggest knock on him previously was his jumpshot, but he's been shooting very well this past year.

Still, going back to the original question, adding two more rookies to the 3 we got this year might not be the best idea. That's a lot of players to develop and to get minutes too.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Plus, while developing draft picks internally is the best way to have long-term success, it's not all you need to maximize your peak success - it is only reasonable to believe that at some point, we'll sign a core addition in free agency or via trade. We just need to nail one pick this summer. We already have the majority of a rotation made up of recent draft picks: Ulis-Booker-Warren-Bender-Chriss-Len makes six. One more makes 8. Thinner in the back court than the front court.

Part of my thinking also has to do with that MIA 19 pick. That draft is projected to be loaded with bigs as of now, and a dominant C may just be what puts this core over the top. We'll have a great opportunity to start ascending the NBA ranks without having to worry about compromising the upside on our draft picks between years 2019-2021, much like Boston is able to do currently.

Speaking of which, anyone else tempted to try to throw some talent Brooklyn's way just to frustrate the Celtics? JC, that trade was disgusting.

I think we have a good mix of young guys with upside and good solid veterans.

Plus we have Booker, who has superstar potential.

I would just like to see growth from the young guys. But i don't think the solution is running five of them out there all the time.
Playing with the veterans is a good way to learn the game.

That being said, Knight needs to go, and at whatever price. I'd even include a second rounder to unload him.
He's detrimental to the growth of the team.

Tucker and Chandler, I'd listen to offers for. If someone wants to give us a mid first rounder and an expiring for them, I'd do it.
But I don't think we need to trade them, just for the sake of doing so.

I must say also that TJ's defense on Lebron against Cleveland was a thing of beauty. TJ's hands and physical tools really frustrated Lebron. TJ wasn't able to do anything in the half court against the King, however. Still, very encouraging for a player whose major knock was defense.

The better Bender and Warren play, the more I focus on my draft antennas on guards, which naturally turns my eyes to the top of the draft. On the other hand, the most important thing to me right now is that our young players play well. Everything else is secondary to that.

I'm not even desperate to use our draft pick this year, given where we are developmentally. We could add a player the following summer or the one after and still fit our timeline. I'm open to whatever opportunities present themselves.

MightyMoog wrote:I think we have a good mix of young guys with upside and good solid veterans.

Plus we have Booker, who has superstar potential.

I would just like to see growth from the young guys. But i don't think the solution is running five of them out there all the time.
Playing with the veterans is a good way to learn the game.

That being said, Knight needs to go, and at whatever price. I'd even include a second rounder to unload him.
He's detrimental to the growth of the team.

Tucker and Chandler, I'd listen to offers for. If someone wants to give us a mid first rounder and an expiring for them, I'd do it.
But I don't think we need to trade them, just for the sake of doing so.

I agree with the general sentiment, but I do have some qualifications and a disagreement. I don't think we should be looking to take an additional loss from offloading Knight - that's an overreaction. There are still plenty of people in NBA circles who think he has useful talents. Everyone's watched him struggle, so his value is, I think, down, but not gone, and not negative. There's no evidence he's a been a bad locker room influence. No off court issues or embarrassing episodes. He's sprinkled in stretches of solid performance along with his generally bad play.

I would try to get a protected first round pick for him. I don't mind if it's deferred. The team we send him to would want downside protection on their pick in part in case BK flames out. That's reasonable. I think that deal is somewhere out there.

As for Chandler - I've all but given up thinking that Tyson will be traded this year. McD likes having another guy under contract when he goes into RFA negotiations. He likes flexibility. I think we'll re-sign Len this summer, but we'll have our phone lines open to moving either Len or Chandler if there's a solid deal to be had.

Finally, Tucker - there's just no saying. I don't think McD will move him unless he gets a first round pick in return. This summer, we'll have to chose between Tucker and Dudley - and it's possible that in the right situation, we'd move the latter rather than the former.

Tucker, Chandler and Bledsoe are the three toughest guys on the roster, followed by Len. If we lost both of them, the team would need some toughness in return. I just can't see it.

OE, I agree with you. I hope that we could get something of value for Knight. But we should motivated to move him.

I've watched most of the games this year. I've seen about 10 games that were close enough that I thought had we had not had Knight in we'd have had a better shot to win.
Most recently the Mavs game. I don't care much for making the playoffs, but I do think there is a lot to be gained by increasing the confidence of our youngsters. They need to believe that they could win every game they play. I've seen far too many games where we were up 10 when Knight came in and we were tied when he left the game.

Knight to the Nets for their 2nd round pick works. Nets are way under the cap and we wouldn't even have to take back any salary.

MightyMoog wrote:OE, I agree with you. I hope that we could get something of value for Knight. But we should motivated to move him.

I've watched most of the games this year. I've seen about 10 games that were close enough that I thought had we had not had Knight in we'd have had a better shot to win.
Most recently the Mavs game. I don't care much for making the playoffs, but I do think there is a lot to be gained by increasing the confidence of our youngsters. They need to believe that they could win every game they play. I've seen far too many games where we were up 10 when Knight came in and we were tied when he left the game.

I've seen the same thing. Ulis has been a + player from where I sit. We are a better team without Knight right now and going forward. I think that's had as much to do with how good Ulis has been than how bad Knight's been.

Split T wrote:Knight to the Nets for their 2nd round pick works. Nets are way under the cap and we wouldn't even have to take back any salary.

There must be a way to get more value for him than that.

I think we could as well, mostly just joking about your earlier comment about shipping talent to the Nets to screw up the Boston pick. They would not be able to trade Boston's 1st rounder to us, since they didn't have a 1st last year and don't have one next year. And I don't think they'd trade any of the players on their team I'd be interested in. I think there are better trade candidates for Knight than Brooklyn.

Split T wrote:I think we could as well, mostly just joking about your earlier comment about shipping talent to the Nets to screw up the Boston pick. They would not be able to trade Boston's 1st rounder to us, since they didn't have a 1st last year and don't have one next year. And I don't think they'd trade any of the players on their team I'd be interested in. I think there are better trade candidates for Knight than Brooklyn.

I think we are playing Tucker to showcase him. If we really wanted to hang on to him for the whole year, then we really have 0 reason to play him that many minutes. I've seen a lot of anger towards the way that Watson has handled the rotation, even when a perfectly plausible and less upsetting explanation is right in front of us: that we are working the phones to get an asset back for Tucker. Work has been kicking my ass hard so I haven't paid close attention to the league or the team the past couple of months; over the last couple of weeks I caught up on some of the past weekly threads and there was a lot of anger expressed towards Bender/Chriss/Ulis not getting minutes, but for the last 2 or three games I've been able to catch, those three guys have been getting a reasonable amount of exposure, so maybe Watson isn't crazy after all. He may not be a perfect coach, but so far in terms of player development he really hasn't done anything to draw this much ire, as far as I can tell.

I don't mind moving Chandler, and I don't mind hanging onto him.

I would move Knight for Brooklyn's second rounder, but I don't see them doing it. A high second rounder is almost just as good as a low first rounder, as it gives us more flexibility.

In terms of swapping the #1 pick for 3 and 6, realizing that it's a hypothetical, I would do it... I know we have a lot of youth, but unless Fultz is a LeBron/Durant level talent, this draft is loaded enough that I'd love to take two cracks at that one superstar. Plus what I've read/heard about Jackson really intrigues me, a tough defensive wing with great playmaking ability who doesn't need to score to produce. Sounds like a combination of Marion and Grant Hill (in his Phoenix days).

Split T wrote:Probably going to have to add the Lakers to that list. For all the talk about what a great job Walton was doing in LA, the lakers have been terrible lately and although they have a higher winning percentage, are actually a half game behind us in the standings. But I agree that Dallas and Minny seem to be headed upwards. I'd watch out for Orlando and the Knicks out east. While they have a decent lead on us right now, if they decide to give up and start tanking, they could fall off quickly. I'd guess they keep trying to win games though. They probably wouldn't enter tank mode until late in the season.

I think we are safe from Orlando and NY, but yeah, the Lakers will be down there with us too. Their 'hot' start was a fluke. Have you seen Ingram? Hot garbage at the moment. Won't say it will remain like that the rest of his career but honestly I don't see the amount of potential people were giving him credit for. Having KD's body type without the explosion is some tough luck.

Ring_Wanted wrote:

Split T wrote:Probably going to have to add the Lakers to that list. For all the talk about what a great job Walton was doing in LA, the lakers have been terrible lately and although they have a higher winning percentage, are actually a half game behind us in the standings. But I agree that Dallas and Minny seem to be headed upwards. I'd watch out for Orlando and the Knicks out east. While they have a decent lead on us right now, if they decide to give up and start tanking, they could fall off quickly. I'd guess they keep trying to win games though. They probably wouldn't enter tank mode until late in the season.

I think we are safe from Orlando and NY, but yeah, the Lakers will be down there with us too. Their 'hot' start was a fluke. Have you seen Ingram? Hot garbage at the moment. Won't say it will remain like that the rest of his career but honestly I don't see the amount of potential people were giving him credit for. Having KD's body type without the explosion is some tough luck.

Ya I liked Ingram in the draft, but he's been very underwhelming as a pro. I wonder if he's just too weak right now. He's clearly not Durant or really even that close to Durant, but once he adds some strength he might become a useful player.