Phx-Suns.Net

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Bledsoe's destiny is to be exactly what he is: starting PG on a bad team. He's too good to come off the bench, and he's not good enough to lead a team to contention. He's just good enough not to help us get where we need to go.

If he's the best player on your team, I agree. But he doesn't have to be the best player. Do you think Bledsoe replacing Parker on the spurs would make a good team? Or how about Bledsoe replacing Rondo in Chicago or Teague in Indiana or Brogdon in Milwaukee?

O_Gardino wrote:

Split T wrote:

The Bobster wrote:Bledsoe would be the absolute perfect 3rd guard.

If you could get him to accept that, then ya, he'd be great, but he's a lot better than 3rd guard status. There are 60 starting guards in the league, can you even name 15 guards in the NBA better than him? I think he's right about 15th. The 10 pg's I previously named and then Derozan, McCollum, Thompson, and Beal.

It's hard to be convinced that he's actually better than guys like Teague, when Bed gets way more plays for himself on a way worse team. And next season, I think Booker will be better.

That's fair, they're pretty close in offensive efficiency, Teague is slightly more efficient. However, as you said, he's not asked to do as much. I think the role Teague has is the perfect one for Bledsoe. Bled could play off the ball more and when the D shifts towards George, swing it to bled and he'd have less resistance on his forays to the rim.

Split T wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Bledsoe's destiny is to be exactly what he is: starting PG on a bad team. He's too good to come off the bench, and he's not good enough to lead a team to contention. He's just good enough not to help us get where we need to go.

If he's the best player on your team, I agree. But he doesn't have to be the best player. Do you think Bledsoe replacing Parker on the spurs would make a good team? Or how about Bledsoe replacing Rondo in Chicago or Teague in Indiana or Brogdon in Milwaukee?

I think nearly half of the playoff teams would be happy to swap starting PGs with us. So it isn't about him not being good enough to be a starting PG on a good team. He absolutely can be. Like Split said, if he is your best player (like he is for us), you probably can't be a playoff team.

Indy wrote:

Split T wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Bledsoe's destiny is to be exactly what he is: starting PG on a bad team. He's too good to come off the bench, and he's not good enough to lead a team to contention. He's just good enough not to help us get where we need to go.

If he's the best player on your team, I agree. But he doesn't have to be the best player. Do you think Bledsoe replacing Parker on the spurs would make a good team? Or how about Bledsoe replacing Rondo in Chicago or Teague in Indiana or Brogdon in Milwaukee?

I think nearly half of the playoff teams would be happy to swap starting PGs with us. So it isn't about him not being good enough to be a starting PG on a good team. He absolutely can be. Like Split said, if he is your best player (like he is for us), you probably can't be a playoff team.

Good! Let's swap with one of them and get a pick or two in the deal.

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

Split T wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Bledsoe's destiny is to be exactly what he is: starting PG on a bad team. He's too good to come off the bench, and he's not good enough to lead a team to contention. He's just good enough not to help us get where we need to go.

If he's the best player on your team, I agree. But he doesn't have to be the best player. Do you think Bledsoe replacing Parker on the spurs would make a good team? Or how about Bledsoe replacing Rondo in Chicago or Teague in Indiana or Brogdon in Milwaukee?

I think nearly half of the playoff teams would be happy to swap starting PGs with us. So it isn't about him not being good enough to be a starting PG on a good team. He absolutely can be. Like Split said, if he is your best player (like he is for us), you probably can't be a playoff team.

Good! Let's swap with one of them and get a pick or two in the deal.

I think they are similar enough where we wouldn't be getting a pick or two from them. That is my point. He is about average of playoff PGs in the league. But not the teams where their PG is their best (or 2nd best) player. Unfortunately, he is our best player (unfortunate for us, not him).

Indy wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

Split T wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Bledsoe's destiny is to be exactly what he is: starting PG on a bad team. He's too good to come off the bench, and he's not good enough to lead a team to contention. He's just good enough not to help us get where we need to go.

If he's the best player on your team, I agree. But he doesn't have to be the best player. Do you think Bledsoe replacing Parker on the spurs would make a good team? Or how about Bledsoe replacing Rondo in Chicago or Teague in Indiana or Brogdon in Milwaukee?

I think nearly half of the playoff teams would be happy to swap starting PGs with us. So it isn't about him not being good enough to be a starting PG on a good team. He absolutely can be. Like Split said, if he is your best player (like he is for us), you probably can't be a playoff team.

Good! Let's swap with one of them and get a pick or two in the deal.

I think they are similar enough where we wouldn't be getting a pick or two from them. That is my point. He is about average of playoff PGs in the league. But not the teams where their PG is their best (or 2nd best) player. Unfortunately, he is our best player (unfortunate for us, not him).

This is an interesting discussion.

While Bledsoe is probably our best player today, will he be our best player going forward? Many believe Booker is or will be our best player. There are several potential choices for this honor going forward. Will it be Bledsoe, Booker, Chriss, Bender or the player we draft this summer or a future free agent?

While the PG is certainly an important position it has not been the key position in determining NBA champions. If that were the case the champion would have been crowned last night when arguably the best two point guards played and the Rockets won. Yeah the best player for the Warriors when they won the ring 2 years ago happened to be a point guard but he had plenty of help.

Who was the point guard on their teams when Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Jordan, Shaq and Dirk won championships?

Bledsoe does not need to be our best player going forward. While I am not in love with his game he is pretty good and does play defense while being a willing if not a great passer. I can seeing him being part of a really good team, in Phoenix.



I

JustWinBaby wrote:

Indy wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

Split T wrote:
If he's the best player on your team, I agree. But he doesn't have to be the best player. Do you think Bledsoe replacing Parker on the spurs would make a good team? Or how about Bledsoe replacing Rondo in Chicago or Teague in Indiana or Brogdon in Milwaukee?

I think nearly half of the playoff teams would be happy to swap starting PGs with us. So it isn't about him not being good enough to be a starting PG on a good team. He absolutely can be. Like Split said, if he is your best player (like he is for us), you probably can't be a playoff team.

Good! Let's swap with one of them and get a pick or two in the deal.

I think they are similar enough where we wouldn't be getting a pick or two from them. That is my point. He is about average of playoff PGs in the league. But not the teams where their PG is their best (or 2nd best) player. Unfortunately, he is our best player (unfortunate for us, not him).

This is an interesting discussion.

While Bledsoe is probably our best player today, will he be our best player going forward? Many believe Booker is or will be our best player. There are several potential choices for this honor going forward. Will it be Bledsoe, Booker, Chriss, Bender or the player we draft this summer or a future free agent?

While the PG is certainly an important position it has not been the key position in determining NBA champions. If that were the case the champion would have been crowned last night when arguably the best two point guards played and the Rockets won. Yeah the best player for the Warriors when they won the ring 2 years ago happened to be a point guard but he had plenty of help.

Who was the point guard on their teams when Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Jordan, Shaq and Dirk won championships?

Bledsoe does not need to be our best player going forward. While I am not in love with his game he is pretty good and does play defense while being a willing if not a great passer. I can seeing him being part of a really good team, in Phoenix.



I

I hope so, because I don't see Ryan trading him unless we get the 1st or 2nd pick. And we know that isn't happening.

I honestly think we take Jackson above Ball. Fultz at 1 is a no brainer, after that I think Tatum/Jackson are higher on our board because I feel as though McD will think Bledsoe and Ulis will be sufficient at PG.

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:I honestly think we take Jackson above Ball. Fultz at 1 is a no brainer, after that I think Tatum/Jackson are higher on our board because I feel as though McD will think Bledsoe and Ulis will be sufficient at PG.

Despite his talk of BPA?

Bledsoe is not our best player as of today.

Ring_Wanted wrote:Bledsoe is not our best player as of today.

If you could both sides of the court, I disagree.

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:I honestly think we take Jackson above Ball. Fultz at 1 is a no brainer, after that I think Tatum/Jackson are higher on our board because I feel as though McD will think Bledsoe and Ulis will be sufficient at PG.

I honestly don't know that much about Fultz, many believe he is the 2nd coming, so be it.

However virtually every champion has had a real defensive difference maker on the wing. That reportedly is what Jackson is. I loved Nash & Amare but Marion probably was our most important player in the day. He defended everyone and anyone on the opposing team big or small. The importance of that type of player cannot be ignored.

If San Antonio plays the Rockets I expect that Pop will put Kwame on Harden. Both Harden and Westbrook are not going anywhere anytime soon and if we want to really compete with those teams we must put up some resistance to what they want to do.

Yea, Kwame Leonard is a beast defensively.

ShelC wrote:Yea, Kwame Leonard is a beast defensively.

And pretty much offensively as well. Sigh. Drafted. after. Markieff. Morris.

ShelC wrote:Yea, Kwame Leonard is a beast defensively.

size and agility!

JustWinBaby wrote:

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:I honestly think we take Jackson above Ball. Fultz at 1 is a no brainer, after that I think Tatum/Jackson are higher on our board because I feel as though McD will think Bledsoe and Ulis will be sufficient at PG.

I honestly don't know that much about Fultz, many believe he is the 2nd coming, so be it.

However virtually every champion has had a real defensive difference maker on the wing. That reportedly is what Jackson is. I loved Nash & Amare but Marion probably was our most important player in the day. He defended everyone and anyone on the opposing team big or small. The importance of that type of player cannot be ignored.

If San Antonio plays the Rockets I expect that Pop will put Kwame on Harden. Both Harden and Westbrook are not going anywhere anytime soon and if we want to really compete with those teams we must put up some resistance to what they want to do.

I agree that we need defense on the wing, but you need dynamic offensive players too. The truth is, those 2004-2010 era suns had success without Amare and without Marion but really struggled without Nash. Granted we only saw them without Nash in limited spurts as opposed to whole seasons without Marion/amare. Still, I think the most integral piece to a team is someone who can make plays with the ball, both for themselves and for others. Josh Jackson has actually shown the ability to do that as well as be a top notch defender, which is why I'd be happy to have him. Not over Fultz though and I'm 50/50 right now between him and Ball.

I'm hoping for both a top tier pg and getting back in and picking up Jackson too

Does top tier just mean ball or Fultz? Hard to see how we could pull off Fultz/ball and Jackson. The only scenario I see is if we land #1 and Philly gets 2 and 4 and really, really wants Fultz. Would they give up 2 and 4 for 1? I don't know, we might have to throw in a Miami pick.

Indy wrote:

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:I honestly think we take Jackson above Ball. Fultz at 1 is a no brainer, after that I think Tatum/Jackson are higher on our board because I feel as though McD will think Bledsoe and Ulis will be sufficient at PG.

Despite his talk of BPA?

McD might have a different BPA than the media and talking heads.

Split T wrote:Does top tier just mean ball or Fultz? Hard to see how we could pull off Fultz/ball and Jackson. The only scenario I see is if we land #1 and Philly gets 2 and 4 and really, really wants Fultz. Would they give up 2 and 4 for 1? I don't know, we might have to throw in a Miami pick.

#2 and #4 sounds nice, but it might be hard to incorporate two top rooks at once. That'd be a good problem to have, though. I'd much rather have Ball + #4 than Fultz + nothing.