Phx-Suns.Net

It sounds like Jae was most upset that we wouldn't offer him any extension. Not just the starter/bench thing. I'm sure both factors contributed, but if the Suns had offered to extend him but not promise him a starting role, would he be this upset?

Probably not..I think it was more the combination. What makes sense to me is he was told he’d probably be coming off the bench and he realized that would impact his minutes/numbers, which would impact how he was viewed and how much money he’d get in free agency. So then he asked to be extended so it wouldn’t impact his salary. When we said no, he said, well I guess they don’t really want me here and I’ll go elsewhere. Ultimately I think it comes down to money. If he stays here as a backup, he makes less money on his next deal.

Shabazz wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:19 pm

Indy wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 1:42 pm

Split T wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 1:39 pm

Unless what pissed him off was trying to upgrade him and replace him. He’s better than nothing obviously and we could use him right now, but I think almost all of us agreed he was the easiest rotation guy to upgrade.

I am not sure he was the easiest, but he was the worst starter on the team, so we just naturally looked there. I think his ability to bridge the gap between the young guys and the old-heads is under-rated.

FTFY

If you aren't counting Book as an old-head you are mistaken. I don't care what the calendar says, he is an old-head.

Split T wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:47 am

Probably not..I think it was more the combination. What makes sense to me is he was told he’d probably be coming off the bench and he realized that would impact his minutes/numbers, which would impact how he was viewed and how much money he’d get in free agency. So then he asked to be extended so it wouldn’t impact his salary. When we said no, he said, well I guess they don’t really want me here and I’ll go elsewhere. Ultimately I think it comes down to money. If he stays here as a backup, he makes less money on his next deal.

So we made the team worse just to keep him as an expiring contract in case that became useful to us later? I think the real reason is Robert Sarver did not want to give him an extension. Just like with Raja Bell, "you earned it but I don't have to to give it to you so I won't."

JeremyG wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:45 am

Split T wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:47 am

Probably not..I think it was more the combination. What makes sense to me is he was told he’d probably be coming off the bench and he realized that would impact his minutes/numbers, which would impact how he was viewed and how much money he’d get in free agency. So then he asked to be extended so it wouldn’t impact his salary. When we said no, he said, well I guess they don’t really want me here and I’ll go elsewhere. Ultimately I think it comes down to money. If he stays here as a backup, he makes less money on his next deal.

So we made the team worse just to keep him as an expiring contract in case that became useful to us later? I think the real reason is Robert Sarver did not want to give him an extension. Just like with Raja Bell, "you earned it but I don't have to to give it to you so I won't."

I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. That’s not what I was implying. Robert Sarver isn’t even in charge anymore…If he was the issue, he’s gone, but Crowder still isn’t around. If I was implying anything, it’s that the front office doesn’t value Crowder at the number he wants to get paid in the future. I don’t think it’s smart to extend someone just to keep them happy.

Crowder isn’t some indispensable player. I’m sure he responded differently than we thought with his trade demand and unwillingness to show up and do his job. If we knew that going in, I imagine we would’ve tried harder to trade him earlier.

Personally I think we should have traded him already, but if we don’t have any good offers, I’d ask him to come play if he wants his money. I’m all for players having some control of their situation, but if he’s not going to play, he shouldn’t be paid.

Split T wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:57 am

JeremyG wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:45 am

Split T wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:47 am

Probably not..I think it was more the combination. What makes sense to me is he was told he’d probably be coming off the bench and he realized that would impact his minutes/numbers, which would impact how he was viewed and how much money he’d get in free agency. So then he asked to be extended so it wouldn’t impact his salary. When we said no, he said, well I guess they don’t really want me here and I’ll go elsewhere. Ultimately I think it comes down to money. If he stays here as a backup, he makes less money on his next deal.

So we made the team worse just to keep him as an expiring contract in case that became useful to us later? I think the real reason is Robert Sarver did not want to give him an extension. Just like with Raja Bell, "you earned it but I don't have to to give it to you so I won't."

I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. That’s not what I was implying. Robert Sarver isn’t even in charge anymore…If he was the issue, he’s gone, but Crowder still isn’t around. If I was implying anything, it’s that the front office doesn’t value Crowder at the number he wants to get paid in the future. I don’t think it’s smart to extend someone just to keep them happy.

Crowder isn’t some indispensable player. I’m sure he responded differently than we thought with his trade demand and unwillingness to show up and do his job. If we knew that going in, I imagine we would’ve tried harder to trade him earlier.

I was referencing what you had said earlier about the reason we didn't extend him:

Split T wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:06 pm

JeremyG wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 1:47 pm

Split T wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 13, 2022 1:39 pm

Unless what pissed him off was trying to upgrade him and replace him. He’s better than nothing obviously and we could use him right now, but I think almost all of us agreed he was the easiest rotation guy to upgrade.

I would have had no problem upgrading him. But since we didn't, we should have extended him.

That’s a weird all-or-nothing mentality. If we know we want to upgrade him, you don’t extend him. His contract is much easier to move as an expiring.

And I don't think Garvin is going to go against what Sarver wanted. If anything, the Suns are probably even less likely to extend players with the team up for sale.

Split T wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:57 am

Personally I think we should have traded him already, but if we don’t have any good offers, I’d ask him to come play if he wants his money. I’m all for players having some control of their situation, but if he’s not going to play, he shouldn’t be paid.

I agree with this part completely.

Well I do think he’s more easily traded on an expiring deal. If the goal is to move him, extending him isn’t a good idea imo.

Agreed. You back yourself into a corner giving a new deal to someone who isn't in your plans going forward.

And this blaming Sarver thing is silly. He is cool with handing Shamet an extension before he even plays a game, but refuses to extend Crowder because he is cheap? Come on. Just stop.

You don't think Sarver was concerned about next year's luxury tax implications? Come on.

Why are we all arguing about Crowder being a giant bitch? He's been a malcontent all summer and stuck in his feels. Arguing if it was us or him is stupid.

I agree(even though I’m guilty of it haha). Just trade him already

INFORMER wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:08 pm

Agreed. You back yourself into a corner giving a new deal to someone who isn't in your plans going forward.

And this blaming Sarver thing is silly. He is cool with handing Shamet an extension before he even plays a game, but refuses to extend Crowder because he is cheap? Come on. Just stop.

Let's just hope Sarver's last basketball decision is who to sell the franchise to.

AmareIsGod wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:18 pm

Why are we all arguing about Crowder being a giant bitch? He's been a malcontent all summer and stuck in his feels. Arguing if it was us or him is stupid.

Let's just break up already with the standard, "It's not you, it's me."

AmareIsGod wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:18 pm

Why are we all arguing about Crowder being a giant bitch? He's been a malcontent all summer and stuck in his feels. Arguing if it was us or him is stupid.

Yeah he’s not important enough. Fuck him

Split T wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 10:57 am

Personally I think we should have traded him already, but if we don’t have any good offers, I’d ask him to come play if he wants his money. I’m all for players having some control of their situation, but if he’s not going to play, he shouldn’t be paid.

If we were even thinking of playing him, we wouldn’t have told him to skip camp. It seems the decision has already been made.

I would add a Taurean Prince/Naz Reid package as another Crowder trade scenario I would be interested in.

I think the big question we all need to be asking ourselves is why hasn't Flex told us where Jae is getting traded to?

Because his source is player driven and connected to CP3 and/or Booker and their agency. If those players don’t know, Flex doesn’t know. He doesn’t have a suns front office source.

Mori Chu wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:31 am

It sounds like Jae was most upset that we wouldn't offer him any extension. Not just the starter/bench thing. I'm sure both factors contributed, but if the Suns had offered to extend him but not promise him a starting role, would he be this upset?

It was hard to do. The Suns gave Booker the super max and Bridges an extension. Ayton's offer sheet was matched as well. After all of this, it was hard to give Crowder an extension too.

Split T wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:51 am

Because his source is player driven and connected to CP3 and/or Booker and their agency. If those players don’t know, Flex doesn’t know. He doesn’t have a suns front office source.

This assumes that the front office actually knows where Jae is going. I'm not even sure they know yet.