Phx-Suns.Net

Indy wrote:

ShelC wrote:I don't think we ever really wanted IT. It was asset acquisition. We signed him to a great deal and knew, at the very least, Boston would have interest.

I am not that upset about trading IT. He wasn't going to turn into the Boston IT here. So we probably weren't going to get much more for him. I am more bothered by how awful that entire year was from a trade/roster move standpoint. Just downright awful.

After coming off such a surprisingly good season too. It went from fun to not fun quickly.

ShelC wrote:I think he absolutely could've been the Boston IT here. He just needed a chance to be given the ball and told to play his game.

Like we talked about at the time or at least soon after, it would have been so much better to have held onto IT and NOT picked up Knight. It is so g dang obvious now though.

Superbone wrote:

ShelC wrote:I think he absolutely could've been the Boston IT here. He just needed a chance to be given the ball and told to play his game.

Like we talked about at the time or at least soon after, it would have been so much better to have held onto IT and NOT picked up Knight. It is so g dang obvious now though.

Both trades were pretty indefensible. That was obvious then, and has became even more so in hindsight.

McD's our guy and I support him, but there's no denying he has made some unbelievably boneheaded moves.

Cap wrote:

Superbone wrote:

ShelC wrote:I think he absolutely could've been the Boston IT here. He just needed a chance to be given the ball and told to play his game.

Like we talked about at the time or at least soon after, it would have been so much better to have held onto IT and NOT picked up Knight. It is so g dang obvious now though.

Both trades were pretty indefensible. That was obvious then, and has became even more so in hindsight.

McD's our guy and I support him, but there's no denying he has made some unbelievably boneheaded moves.

Yup. It's almost like he's the youngest GM in the league and inexperienced.

I know this will sound inconsistent since I want us to acquire Kyrie, but I'm not sure I would have wanted a team led by the "Boston" IT. He was a really frustrating player for me to watch. He hogged the ball mercilessly and took crazy/bad shots beyond count. Sometimes he played heroically and looked like our best player out there; his best was better than most anybody else's. But he drove me batty with the bad shots and constantly not seeing the open man.

It does raise the question, why do I want Kyrie so much if I dislike IT so much? Aren't they similar players with similar flaws? Maybe they are. I guess I have more faith in Kyrie's ability to perform well at a high level (read: NBA Finals) than I do for Thomas. I think IT is too short and that his game may not really work as well in a playoff setting. Kyrie can do what he does all the way through a playoff run to a championship. I also have some faith that Kyrie can learn to improve in some ways that IT maybe cannot.

I think IT has more heart. He's worked for everything, has a chip on his shoulder. I'm not sure Kyrie has ITs toughness. Not to say I wouldn't take Kyrie, but I think IT is easier to root for.

Kyrie has a ring thats the only attraction

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

BlaCkAdDa wrote:Kyrie has a ring thats the only attraction

So did Luc Longley. Mario Elie. And the pu-pu platter we got from Houston for Barkley. Let's not go down that road.

Even Chuck Nevitt has a ringI

I think about the Nets' trade for three champs from Boston and I feel a little bit better about our own history of such trades.

the problem was both Bled and IT were starting point guards and would not have been happy sharing that position (Bled worked with Drajic but he was a passer). I believed IT was star material at the time but i was ok with trading him because of my/our bias for the Kidd/Nash types. the problem with the trade was the value in return. i guess everyone assumed other teams weren't into the IT MO either, and it seemed to be the case at the time. Regardless, Knight was unproven and a risk.

I don't buy into the IT hype. He's a darned great player, but he's no better than Bledsoe, he just looks shiny because he plays in the leastern conference and actually has a competent coach. The trade was fine, we signed him as a free agent, so we turned cap space into a pick, maybe we could've gotten more, but it was a net positive. I still don't think you can win a championship with him as your starting point guard. The Brandon Knight trade was the only serious mistake, it reeked of the Googs signing, a total panic move.

ShelC wrote:I think he absolutely could've been the Boston IT here. He just needed a chance to be given the ball and told to play his game.

I mean we were not going to give him the keys to the car and make him the starting PG. So he couldn't have blossomed here with the leadership the way it was.

MightyMoog wrote:I don't buy into the IT hype. He's a darned great player, but he's no better than Bledsoe, he just looks shiny because he plays in the leastern conference and actually has a competent coach. The trade was fine, we signed him as a free agent, so we turned cap space into a pick, maybe we could've gotten more, but it was a net positive. I still don't think you can win a championship with him as your starting point guard. The Brandon Knight trade was the only serious mistake, it reeked of the Googs signing, a total panic move.

Does anyone believe IT would have been an all-star in the west last year?

jonh wrote:

MightyMoog wrote:I don't buy into the IT hype. He's a darned great player, but he's no better than Bledsoe, he just looks shiny because he plays in the leastern conference and actually has a competent coach. The trade was fine, we signed him as a free agent, so we turned cap space into a pick, maybe we could've gotten more, but it was a net positive. I still don't think you can win a championship with him as your starting point guard. The Brandon Knight trade was the only serious mistake, it reeked of the Googs signing, a total panic move.

Does anyone believe IT would have been an all-star in the west last year?

If he won 53 games and scored 29 on 56%, then yes. But there's no way he would have won 53 games if the Suns had kept him. IT on a lottery team would be just another one-dimensional scorer.

MightyMoog wrote:I don't buy into the IT hype. He's a darned great player, but he's no better than Bledsoe, he just looks shiny because he plays in the leastern conference and actually has a competent coach. The trade was fine, we signed him as a free agent, so we turned cap space into a pick, maybe we could've gotten more, but it was a net positive. I still don't think you can win a championship with him as your starting point guard. The Brandon Knight trade was the only serious mistake, it reeked of the Googs signing, a total panic move.

This is how I feel as well. I wish him well in Boston, but I don't miss him. Glad we got a pick for him, and glad he's working out well for BOS. I don't think he would have been quite as successful here, and even if he had, I don't think I would want that brand of basketball.

Didn't see that this was posted so apologies if it already was. I thought it was relevant to this thread. I see both sides but lean more toward the "it takes some serious balls to do what he did and I kind of like that" side.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/08/07/cavs- ... id-griffin

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

MightyMoog wrote:I don't buy into the IT hype. He's a darned great player, but he's no better than Bledsoe, he just looks shiny because he plays in the leastern conference and actually has a competent coach. The trade was fine, we signed him as a free agent, so we turned cap space into a pick, maybe we could've gotten more, but it was a net positive. I still don't think you can win a championship with him as your starting point guard. The Brandon Knight trade was the only serious mistake, it reeked of the Googs signing, a total panic move.

This is how I feel as well. I wish him well in Boston, but I don't miss him. Glad we got a pick for him, and glad he's working out well for BOS. I don't think he would have been quite as successful here, and even if he had, I don't think I would want that brand of basketball.

There is no way that the Celtics with Bledsoe instead of IT would have been in the same (or better) position. No. Way.

AbeVroman wrote:Didn't see that this was posted so apologies if it already was. I thought it was relevant to this thread. I see both sides but lean more toward the "it takes some serious balls to do what he did and I kind of like that" side.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/08/07/cavs- ... id-griffin

Exactly.

Indy wrote:

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:

MightyMoog wrote:I don't buy into the IT hype. He's a darned great player, but he's no better than Bledsoe, he just looks shiny because he plays in the leastern conference and actually has a competent coach. The trade was fine, we signed him as a free agent, so we turned cap space into a pick, maybe we could've gotten more, but it was a net positive. I still don't think you can win a championship with him as your starting point guard. The Brandon Knight trade was the only serious mistake, it reeked of the Googs signing, a total panic move.

This is how I feel as well. I wish him well in Boston, but I don't miss him. Glad we got a pick for him, and glad he's working out well for BOS. I don't think he would have been quite as successful here, and even if he had, I don't think I would want that brand of basketball.

There is no way that the Celtics with Bledsoe instead of IT would have been in the same (or better) position. No. Way.

I agree with your statement and don't think it contradicts mine. Lots of players are better or worse in different situations. IT was better for that Celtics team than, say, Bledsoe or Dragic would have been.