Phx-Suns.Net

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:I've been on the fence about Len. No way he becomes a star, but I think he's a decent role player. I think he could help a good team.

My concern with him has been the annual Logjam and our questionable willingness to flip players for future assets. If Len is taking minutes from someone who will be better than him, then we should let him go. If we keep him just because he's ours and McD doesn't want to move on, that's bad. If we miss out on a potential trade for future assets that would be bad.

OK, so from what we know this summer, I think we have pretty good answers to two of those scenarios. Is Len stealing minutes and hurting the development of Chriss or Bender? No. neither of those guys has shown enough in summer league to make me want to start them together at 4/5. Did we miss out on a trade for him at the deadline? Apparently not, since we haven't heard of anyone with interest in him.

At this point, I would be happy bringing him back for cheap.

An usual complain around here, is that Len was never given the chance to swim or sink, and I agree that neither Chriss nor Bender are showing big things so far, but we would be repeating the cycle of getting a patch player, then benching the prospect we want to develop.

At this point, Bender and Chriss both look like they are not ready for big minutes. They will develop as much as they can in 20 minutes a game, and couldn't handle more than that anyway.

Also, If you get Len on a good contract and actually play him a bit, you can actually build his value and either decide to keep him or trade him depending on what is better for the team.

Sometimes I feel like I'm watching an entirely different team than the rest of you. We didn't give Len a chance? We started him. We let him come off the bench. We payed him heavy minutes. We played him light minutes. We played him at PF. We played him at C. We ran the offense through him. We allowed the offense to come to him. We asked him to just defend and grab boards.

How exactly has he not gotten an opportunity to succeed here? We've been more than fair over 4 years. The idea that he will suddenly build value after signing a contract doesn't make sense to me.

carey wrote:Sometimes I feel like I'm watching an entirely different team than the rest of you.

Life has taught me that I am consistently seeing something that everyone around me isnt seeing, I am either a genius, or its probably time for me to quietly talk to a doctor. Not saying which one applies to you, but I do know a guy.

If you can bring him back for 5-7 million a year, and not more than 2 years (team option in year 3), then do it. But don't sign him to a fully guaranteed 3 year deal unless it matches Big Sauce's.

carey wrote:Sometimes I feel like I'm watching an entirely different team than the rest of you. We didn't give Len a chance? We started him. We let him come off the bench. We payed him heavy minutes. We played him light minutes. We played him at PF. We played him at C. We ran the offense through him. We allowed the offense to come to him. We asked him to just defend and grab boards.

How exactly has he not gotten an opportunity to succeed here? We've been more than fair over 4 years. The idea that he will suddenly build value after signing a contract doesn't make sense to me.

Len's first season was a zero because of injuries, but after that, I agree. We even tried to turn him into a shooting big man. Nothing worked offensively. At this point, I think nobody could be faulted for thinking that he just isn't a worthy offensive player. He can have his utility due to size in terms of rebounding and rim protection, but you have to be careful how much money you pay to guys who only deliver on one half of the court.

O_Gardino wrote: At this point, Bender and Chriss both look like they are not ready for big minutes. They will develop as much as they can in 20 minutes a game, and couldn't handle more than that anyway.

Also, If you get Len on a good contract and actually play him a bit, you can actually build his value and either decide to keep him or trade him depending on what is better for the team.

He already had FOUR freaking year to build up his value!!!

Those "let me sign him and later flip him over" deals easily backfire on the "clever" team: either the player resents the asset treatment, either that supossedly value never get realized, you can also you block the path of players actually on the long term plans, or simply, he is very good, but there is no market for your asset (Isaiah Thomas, Michael Beasley, Brandon Knigth, Eric Bledsoe... just to name a few). One of the biggest flaws on McD, is that he is constantly trying to outsmart every situation he handles, and that affects the outcome on drafting, resigning, free agency etc.

We have Chandler and Williams to share the load with Bender and Chriss, those four should be enough to handle 96 frontcourt minutes, but you can also put Warren and Jackson at PF for some stretches, and we also drafted this Peters guy at least to join us at camp. If this is not a logjam already, surely it is once you add the Len scholarship to the mix.

carey wrote: The idea that he will suddenly build value after signing a contract doesn't make sense to me.

And also this, big time.

carey wrote:Sometimes I feel like I'm watching an entirely different team than the rest of you. We didn't give Len a chance? We started him. We let him come off the bench. We payed him heavy minutes. We played him light minutes. We played him at PF. We played him at C. We ran the offense through him. We allowed the offense to come to him. We asked him to just defend and grab boards.

How exactly has he not gotten an opportunity to succeed here? We've been more than fair over 4 years. The idea that he will suddenly build value after signing a contract doesn't make sense to me.

I see it the same way.

I feel like you guys are helping make my point. We tried starting him, we tried benching him, we tried having him be a jumpshooter, we tried having him be a post player ... It all points to an inconsistent role IMO. Again I direct you to his career stats:

http://www.espn.com/nba/player/stats/_/ ... 7/alex-len

His 2015-16 numbers are quite encouraging; he raised his scoring to 9 ppg and his rebounds to 7.6 rpg, all in 23.3 minutes/game. Then in 2016-17 his minutes drop to 20.3/game as Chandler is brought in to replace him as a starter. Now he's playing a lot of his minutes with the bench unit and ballhog Brandon Knight refusing to move the ball. His ppg drops to 8.0 and his rebounds to 6.6. He starts his fewest games since his rookie season.

Why would you expect him to show a lot of improvement when his role on the team was completely undermined like that? When his minutes were taken away and he was forced to play with a crappy bench unit that wouldn't try to get him the ball?

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:I feel like you guys are helping make my point. We tried starting him, we tried benching him, we tried having him be a jumpshooter, we tried having him be a post player ... It all points to an inconsistent role IMO. Again I direct you to his career stats:

http://www.espn.com/nba/player/stats/_/ ... 7/alex-len

His 2015-16 numbers are quite encouraging; he raised his scoring to 9 ppg and his rebounds to 7.6 rpg, all in 23.3 minutes/game. Then in 2016-17 his minutes drop to 20.3/game as Chandler is brought in to replace him as a starter. Now he's playing a lot of his minutes with the bench unit and ballhog Brandon Knight refusing to move the ball. His ppg drops to 8.0 and his rebounds to 6.6. He starts his fewest games since his rookie season.

Why would you expect him to show a lot of improvement when his role on the team was completely undermined like that? When his minutes were taken away and he was forced to play with a crappy bench unit that wouldn't try to get him the ball?

His per/36 stats matter in this situation because his minutes changed. He increased in scoring, rebounding, shot percentage, steals, and blocks in 16/17 over 15/16. He also decreased his turnovers /36.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... nute::none

carey wrote:Sometimes I feel like I'm watching an entirely different team than the rest of you. We didn't give Len a chance? We started him. We let him come off the bench. We payed him heavy minutes. We played him light minutes. We played him at PF. We played him at C. We ran the offense through him. We allowed the offense to come to him. We asked him to just defend and grab boards.

How exactly has he not gotten an opportunity to succeed here? We've been more than fair over 4 years. The idea that he will suddenly build value after signing a contract doesn't make sense to me.

I don't understand how you can't see he was jerked around last year. We brought Chandler in and Len's minutes were sporadic. Almost impossible to get a rhythm going in those kinds of circumstances. That and the staff asking him to do too much. We just need him to rebound, block shots, dunk the ball, and shoot the occasional wide open jumper. That's it. I agree if you're going to continue to jerk him around like that then yeah, trade him.

There was a point during the season where I wondered if we were actually playing him less to suppress his value. Its a dumb decision, but an argument could be made that by playing him less, we deflated his value enough that his market dried up (even more than it would have been otherwise).

It's weird that you guys see jerked around and I see opportunity to show what he has in a bunch of different roles. If we hadn't done that and tried to make him play one specific role and he failed you'd be complaining that we were forcing a square peg into a round hole. To me you're grasping at ways to cover for a mediocre player. We gave up on Goodwin sooner than Len. We tried him in a bunch of different roles. I don't see many of you supporting Archie in that way. Is there a difference? Other than 1 being 7 feet tall.

carey wrote:It's weird that you guys see jerked around and I see opportunity to show what he has in a bunch of different roles. If we hadn't done that and tried to make him play one specific role and he failed you'd be complaining that we were forcing a square peg into a round hole. To me you're grasping at ways to cover for a mediocre player. We gave up on Goodwin sooner than Len. We tried him in a bunch of different roles. I don't see many of you supporting Archie in that way. Is there a difference? Other than 1 being 7 feet tall.

A lot of us thought Archie was jerked around, too. But the biggest difference between the two is that Len is a mediocre payer, and Archie was a bad one.

I don't think anyone thinks Len is better than average, it's just that some of us are willing to bring back a young average player if the price is right. Others are fed up and just want change.

carey wrote:It's weird that you guys see jerked around and I see opportunity to show what he has in a bunch of different roles. If we hadn't done that and tried to make him play one specific role and he failed you'd be complaining that we were forcing a square peg into a round hole. To me you're grasping at ways to cover for a mediocre player. We gave up on Goodwin sooner than Len. We tried him in a bunch of different roles. I don't see many of you supporting Archie in that way. Is there a difference? Other than 1 being 7 feet tall.

I actually compare it to BK. Many people here see BK's awfulness as his own making, but then blame Len's lack of progress on how the org handled him. It isn't all or nothing, and many seem to be saying it is all of one in the first instance, and all of another in the second.

carey wrote:It's weird that you guys see jerked around and I see opportunity to show what he has in a bunch of different roles. If we hadn't done that and tried to make him play one specific role and he failed you'd be complaining that we were forcing a square peg into a round hole. To me you're grasping at ways to cover for a mediocre player. We gave up on Goodwin sooner than Len. We tried him in a bunch of different roles. I don't see many of you supporting Archie in that way. Is there a difference? Other than 1 being 7 feet tall.

Its an interesting argument--I pulled up Archie and Lens stats from 2015-2016 (the last time they both played on the Suns, and also because Goodwin played on 3 teams last season and did not play a full 82 games). Though both players have fairly mediocre stats, Len generally had higher PER and win shares. Im not saying that I feel a great deal of confidence about either player, but I believe the statistics suggest that Len provides more for the team.

Archies stats in 2015-2016: Minutes--19.5, FG%.417,3PT% .23,RB-2.5,Assists-2.1,Steals-.5,Blk-.2,Turnovers--1.8,PTS--8.9,PER-11.1,Win Share-.1

Lens stats in 2015-2016--Minutes--23.3,FG%.423,RB-7.6,Assists-1.2,Steals-.5,Blk-.8,Turnovers--1.9,PTS--9.0,PER-12.4,Win share-1.3

Indy wrote:

carey wrote:It's weird that you guys see jerked around and I see opportunity to show what he has in a bunch of different roles. If we hadn't done that and tried to make him play one specific role and he failed you'd be complaining that we were forcing a square peg into a round hole. To me you're grasping at ways to cover for a mediocre player. We gave up on Goodwin sooner than Len. We tried him in a bunch of different roles. I don't see many of you supporting Archie in that way. Is there a difference? Other than 1 being 7 feet tall.

I actually compare it to BK. Many people here see BK's awfulness as his own making, but then blame Len's lack of progress on how the org handled him. It isn't all or nothing, and many seem to be saying it is all of one in the first instance, and all of another in the second.

Oh, I think there's plenty of "credit" to go around in both cases.

Knight has been terrible, but the Suns gave up to much to get him, and certainly overrated his abilities when they acquired him. Knight then went out there and stunk up the place and didn't adjust at all on the court once he was demoted to the bench.

The Bobster wrote:

Indy wrote:

carey wrote:It's weird that you guys see jerked around and I see opportunity to show what he has in a bunch of different roles. If we hadn't done that and tried to make him play one specific role and he failed you'd be complaining that we were forcing a square peg into a round hole. To me you're grasping at ways to cover for a mediocre player. We gave up on Goodwin sooner than Len. We tried him in a bunch of different roles. I don't see many of you supporting Archie in that way. Is there a difference? Other than 1 being 7 feet tall.

I actually compare it to BK. Many people here see BK's awfulness as his own making, but then blame Len's lack of progress on how the org handled him. It isn't all or nothing, and many seem to be saying it is all of one in the first instance, and all of another in the second.

Oh, I think there's plenty of "credit" to go around in both cases.

Knight has been terrible, but the Suns gave up to much to get him, and certainly overrated his abilities when they acquired him. Knight then went out there and stunk up the place and didn't adjust at all on the court once he was demoted to the bench.

Oh, I know how you feel about it. But there were plenty around here putting all of the blame on Knight. I just find it funny to say it is all his fault for those failures, but the org is the one that failed Len.

Lens nothing special right now and probably never will be but we should keep trying with him we have nothing to lose on doing so.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

The lesson with lots of these players, whether it's Len, B.Knight, Williams, or whomever, is that a player has a certain value. If you can sign a guy for his value or thereabouts, you've done well. If you sign a mediocre player to a huge contract, you're in big trouble. Len does have value and he's a young center with some legitimate skills. He isn't worth $15m / year, but that doesn't mean he is worthless.