Phx-Suns.Net

I'd definitely move knight and our two lotto picks for George. I'd try to get them to take 28 instead of 13, but wouldn't let that be a deal breaker. If they insist on Booker I'd probably say no.

I doubt George would come here, but I would absolutely trade those assets (the non-Booker version) for him.

Indy wrote:The Suns continually pimp Bleds in most of their advertising. I just can't see them trading him. And with as bad as Knight has been for us, I can't see them getting anything for him.

I'm a big Bledsoe hater but from everything I've read he's been working his ass off this offseason and I expect him to be a much improved player next year. I would guess he's tired of seeing all these other guards emerge in the league pushing him further back in the pack. I think he's finally hungry enough to be the player everyone thought he could be. Just not sure if his knees will allow him to go to the next level.

As far as free agents, what's the point? We have like 80 draft picks in the next few years. Batum and Barnes don't help our progress. Horford at least makes sense on paper although I don't advocate getting him. This would be the one time I would want Sarver to save his money.

Also, if we are going to bring Bogdanovich or whatever his name is over I don't see a point unless we rid ourselves of Knight. Knight is Jamal Crawford, Monte Ellis, Lou Williams or whoever else is a shooting guard trapped in a PG's body.

someone, Booker, Warren, George, Len is a solid lineup if you ask me.

In2ition wrote:Rumor has it that the Suns could trade the 2 lottery picks and Brandon Knight for Paul George. Or instead of Knight, the Suns would have to include Booker.

I would do Knight, Tucker, 4 & 28.

I'm not really a fan of Paul George, although I admit that he had a monster playoffs this year. But he's a guy who's fg% has gone steadily down since he was a rookie. 20 pts on .419 shooting over the last 4 seasons. Can he be a better scorer on a team with more options? Is he such a good defender that we would want him over Warren?

Hermen wrote:someone, Booker, Warren, George, Len is a solid lineup if you ask me.

George was pretty unhappy about playing out of position in Indiana. I don't think he will play the 4 at his new destination.

O_Gardino wrote:

Hermen wrote:someone, Booker, Warren, George, Len is a solid lineup if you ask me.

George was pretty unhappy about playing out of position in Indiana. I don't think he will play the 4 at his new destination.

Agreed

In2ition wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Hermen wrote:someone, Booker, Warren, George, Len is a solid lineup if you ask me.

George was pretty unhappy about playing out of position in Indiana. I don't think he will play the 4 at his new destination.

Agreed

Probably not full time of course, but it seems like every 3 plays some 4 these days. And as far as I know those are usually the successfull lineups. So at least when opponents go small, George really shouldn't mind guarding the other team's 3 playing the 4. If he has a problem with it, then you call Warren the 4 and problem solved

I'm starting to wonder what positions mean anyway.
For example, Curry is considered a pg, yet from the games I saw (and I'm reaching into Mori's expertise now, so he'll correct me if I'm wrong) he spends most of possessions off-ball running around getting open, then getting a pass and do his thing.
And on defense he's guarding the easiest matchup, which usually isn't the "pg", at least not for long. And there are switches on most possessions anyway.

Hermen wrote:

In2ition wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Hermen wrote:someone, Booker, Warren, George, Len is a solid lineup if you ask me.

George was pretty unhappy about playing out of position in Indiana. I don't think he will play the 4 at his new destination.

Agreed

Probably not full time of course, but it seems like every 3 plays some 4 these days. And as far as I know those are usually the successfull lineups. So at least when opponents go small, George really shouldn't mind guarding the other team's 3 playing the 4. If he has a problem with it, then you call Warren the 4 and problem solved

I'm starting to wonder what positions mean anyway.
For example, Curry is considered a pg, yet from the games I saw (and I'm reaching into Mori's expertise now, so he'll correct me if I'm wrong) he spends most of possessions off-ball running around getting open, then getting a pass and do his thing.
And on defense he's guarding the easiest matchup, which usually isn't the "pg", at least not for long. And there are switches on most possessions anyway.

Yes, in the Warriors offense, he doesn't always have the ball for 15-20 seconds of each possession, and personal dictates matchups for them. Basketball has been talking about it, but its starting at the much younger levels to transform into a positionless game. Its going to take a long time to drastically change, as coaches are creatures of habits and learned habits. course, you will use different personal to dictate the tempo or matchups in the NBA, and you can't always play the smallest kids just because they are the best players on the team.

Hermen wrote:I'm starting to wonder what positions mean anyway.
For example, Curry is considered a pg, yet from the games I saw (and I'm reaching into Mori's expertise now, so he'll correct me if I'm wrong) he spends most of possessions off-ball running around getting open, then getting a pass and do his thing.
And on defense he's guarding the easiest matchup, which usually isn't the "pg", at least not for long. And there are switches on most possessions anyway.

Curry does a ton of both. He brings the ball up the floor most of the time and initiates the offense, often leading to a pass to the eventual shooter or to himself shooting it, or some screen-roll action, etc. Or he'll hand the ball off to another player and play off the ball. He's extremely good at both styles. When he's off the ball, he can run around several cuts and screens to get open, and then the other players are really good about hitting him for an open shot. When he's holding the ball, he's quite good at all the various things you'd want him to do, like dribbling/handles, passing, seeing the open man, driving to the basket and finishing, and of course the long distance shooting. He's got a nasty mix of skills and versatility.

I wouldn't say that he spends "most" possessions off the ball. Maybe that is more the case in this series because he is injured and his legs need to be saved more.

Just not sure if his knees will allow him to go to the next level.

That's just it tho. He can work as hard as he wants, if his body can't hold up...

Position is more about defense that offense. On offense, great teams have a variety of guys that can make plays in a variety of ways. Your position on defense has more to do with the size and quickness of opponents. When George says he doesn't want to be a 4, it means he doesn't want to guard dudes who are so much bigger than he is.

O_Gardino wrote:Position is more about defense that offense. On offense, great teams have a variety of guys that can make plays in a variety of ways. Your position on defense has more to do with the size and quickness of opponents. When George says he doesn't want to be a 4, it means he doesn't want to guard dudes who are so much bigger than he is.

I agree. That's why I figured he could at least play it when other teams go small, which happens often enough.

And he's just as tall as i'd guess half of power forwards, although probably lighter than most. You don't put him on Sullinger, but Patterson, Young, Millsap, Deng etc. have nothing on him physically, do they? Draymond isn't exactly tall either and he's even playing center.

djy2j wrote:

Indy wrote:The Suns continually pimp Bleds in most of their advertising. I just can't see them trading him. And with as bad as Knight has been for us, I can't see them getting anything for him.

I'm a big Bledsoe hater but from everything I've read he's been working his ass off this offseason and I expect him to be a much improved player next year. I would guess he's tired of seeing all these other guards emerge in the league pushing him further back in the pack. I think he's finally hungry enough to be the player everyone thought he could be. Just not sure if his knees will allow him to go to the next level.

Bledsoe has stayed in town and is working his ass off but so is Knight. It's actually pretty cool that so many players have stayed in town and are getting work in and doing activities together (Bleds, Knight, Archie, Booker, Len to my recollection):

http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/h ... /84914638/
https://twitter.com/Earl_Watson/status/735504901959208960

It really bothers me that TJ isn't here doing that.

Indy wrote:It really bothers me that TJ isn't here doing that.

True.

Does anyone think there is a chance we might use Knight to try and trade for K. Faried from Denver if draft day doesn't result in many options at PF?
Salaries are reasonably similar. Faried isn't a complete player but it would at least give us some roster balance which we haven't had in two years. I just feel with McD on the clock somewhat this might be the kind of move he might make. I heard faried had been out of sorts last year in Denver. Couldn't play chandler and faried that much together and certainly couldn't play chandler, tucker, Faried almost at all but they would gobble up a lot of rebounds. Len's jumper would make them a better pairing. Could then hand over the offense to tj, booker and bled.

I've never been a fan of Faried but it might make sense at this point. If you are a guard-centric team, you ca use an active PF. And you can go crazy and try him at C in a ultra-small lineup.

Ring_Wanted wrote:I've never been a fan of Faried but it might make sense at this point. If you are a guard-centric team, you ca use an active PF. And you can go crazy and try him at C in a ultra-small lineup.

I'm not saying he's a great solution as it still results in a lack of low post play, but I can see it as McD saying he got a name player. To me he probably holds more value around the league than he actually contributes to wins. However still more of a positive than knight on this roster. Plus Denver are stacked with young bigs and there seems to be a number of articles about them being at a cross roads about what to do with him. If we could some how acquire gary harris at the same time and thrown in Goodwin plus other filler (tucker,goodwin)/later picks then potentially we achieve a bit more balance. Kinda wished we drafted gary harris in the first place.

I would love that trade. Faried is a player I've liked for a while. Has a few flaws in his game, but I'd rather have a player like that anyday over a chucker like Knight.