Phx-Suns.Net

O_Gardino wrote:

Hermen wrote:

jonh wrote:Second, they have to remove the incentive to tank, if only to promote competition within the non-playoff teams. Give the teams a chance to play for some pride again.

This. Why punish teams like the Heat for doing their best, to favor teams that don't even try? Also, right now if you're a very good team without a top superstar, you're likely stuck: capped out and with a bad draft position but not a contender. Teams like Atlanta, Memphis, Utah, Portland. Or even teams with a superstar and some role players, like Indiana. How can they get better?

If teams like that have to blow it up if they want to contend, well, guess where their stars are going? Or when they get tired of stagnation. With something like the wheel system, they can get better without a rebuild.

Middling teams can improve by bringing in players who are up for sale by other middling teams. The Spurs do it, the Celtics did it, the Lakers used to do it all the time, even the Suns used to be kings of the rebuild while still making the first round of the playoffs. It's about talent in the front office. I wouldn't want to create a rule set where front office talent didn't matter. Some teams are going to be stuck because they don't have the talent to do better.

When did the Suns rebuild while still making the playoffs and have it amount to anything?

Indy wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Hermen wrote:

jonh wrote:Second, they have to remove the incentive to tank, if only to promote competition within the non-playoff teams. Give the teams a chance to play for some pride again.

This. Why punish teams like the Heat for doing their best, to favor teams that don't even try? Also, right now if you're a very good team without a top superstar, you're likely stuck: capped out and with a bad draft position but not a contender. Teams like Atlanta, Memphis, Utah, Portland. Or even teams with a superstar and some role players, like Indiana. How can they get better?

If teams like that have to blow it up if they want to contend, well, guess where their stars are going? Or when they get tired of stagnation. With something like the wheel system, they can get better without a rebuild.

Middling teams can improve by bringing in players who are up for sale by other middling teams. The Spurs do it, the Celtics did it, the Lakers used to do it all the time, even the Suns used to be kings of the rebuild while still making the first round of the playoffs. It's about talent in the front office. I wouldn't want to create a rule set where front office talent didn't matter. Some teams are going to be stuck because they don't have the talent to do better.

When did the Suns rebuild while still making the playoffs and have it amount to anything?

If the question is "when did the Suns win a championship', then the answer is never.
But here we are talking about having parity in the NBA, and I would say tat the Suns have mostly been a competitive team that contributed to the parity of the NBA. Specifically, Herman is concerned that teams which are pretty good but not great don't have a way to get better. I would point to the Barkley trade and Nash signing as examples of the Suns getting better without tanking.

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Hermen wrote:

jonh wrote:Second, they have to remove the incentive to tank, if only to promote competition within the non-playoff teams. Give the teams a chance to play for some pride again.

This. Why punish teams like the Heat for doing their best, to favor teams that don't even try? Also, right now if you're a very good team without a top superstar, you're likely stuck: capped out and with a bad draft position but not a contender. Teams like Atlanta, Memphis, Utah, Portland. Or even teams with a superstar and some role players, like Indiana. How can they get better?

If teams like that have to blow it up if they want to contend, well, guess where their stars are going? Or when they get tired of stagnation. With something like the wheel system, they can get better without a rebuild.

Middling teams can improve by bringing in players who are up for sale by other middling teams. The Spurs do it, the Celtics did it, the Lakers used to do it all the time, even the Suns used to be kings of the rebuild while still making the first round of the playoffs. It's about talent in the front office. I wouldn't want to create a rule set where front office talent didn't matter. Some teams are going to be stuck because they don't have the talent to do better.

When did the Suns rebuild while still making the playoffs and have it amount to anything?

If the question is "when did the Suns win a championship', then the answer is never.
But here we are talking about having parity in the NBA, and I would say tat the Suns have mostly been a competitive team that contributed to the parity of the NBA. Specifically, Herman is concerned that teams which are pretty good but not great don't have a way to get better. I would point to the Barkley trade and Nash signing as examples of the Suns getting better without tanking.

I think the question is more about how to the bottom 10 teams in the league get better without high draft picks (or trading those high draft picks for other players)? For sure the Barkley trade does not fit that already a good playoff team), and the Nash signing was combined with 3 top 10 picks in Shawn, Amare, and JJ.

Indy wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Indy wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Hermen wrote: This. Why punish teams like the Heat for doing their best, to favor teams that don't even try? Also, right now if you're a very good team without a top superstar, you're likely stuck: capped out and with a bad draft position but not a contender. Teams like Atlanta, Memphis, Utah, Portland. Or even teams with a superstar and some role players, like Indiana. How can they get better?

If teams like that have to blow it up if they want to contend, well, guess where their stars are going? Or when they get tired of stagnation. With something like the wheel system, they can get better without a rebuild.

Middling teams can improve by bringing in players who are up for sale by other middling teams. The Spurs do it, the Celtics did it, the Lakers used to do it all the time, even the Suns used to be kings of the rebuild while still making the first round of the playoffs. It's about talent in the front office. I wouldn't want to create a rule set where front office talent didn't matter. Some teams are going to be stuck because they don't have the talent to do better.

When did the Suns rebuild while still making the playoffs and have it amount to anything?

If the question is "when did the Suns win a championship', then the answer is never.
But here we are talking about having parity in the NBA, and I would say tat the Suns have mostly been a competitive team that contributed to the parity of the NBA. Specifically, Herman is concerned that teams which are pretty good but not great don't have a way to get better. I would point to the Barkley trade and Nash signing as examples of the Suns getting better without tanking.

I think the question is more about how to the bottom 10 teams in the league get better without high draft picks (or trading those high draft picks for other players)? For sure the Barkley trade does not fit that already a good playoff team), and the Nash signing was combined with 3 top 10 picks in Shawn, Amare, and JJ.

That's not Hermen's question.

Hermen wrote: ... if you're a very good team without a top superstar, you're likely stuck ... Or even teams with a superstar and some role players... How can they get better? ... teams like that have to blow it up if they want to contend...

Then I clearly cannot read this week.

Indy wrote:Then I clearly cannot read this week.

Okay, the Finals officially start today! Last chance to make a Finals prediction. Who's winning? How many games?

There has been a bit of sports media pushback during the long break, suggesting that the Cavs may be underrated and have a good chance to win the series. I see the logic, but they have been atrocious defensively most of the season and playoffs. I think Golden State will feast on them and score a ton of points. I have been going back and forth between a GSW sweep and 4-1.

Marty Mori's official Finals prediction: Warriors in 5. That was my prediction back in April when I made my Playoff Predictions thread, and I'll stick with it.

I'm going to take it safe and say Warriors in 6.

I am going to say Cavs in 6. I know, call me crazy.

Cavs in 4. Because I'd like nothing more than to see this.

I hate the Warriors since the Durant signing so I want Cleveland to win. However, I think Warriors win in 5 or 6. I'll give the Cavs the benefit of the doubt and go with Warriors in 6.

I think Warriors in 5

Didn't like the Cavs play on D this yr and I think being able to use double team schemes against 1star Isolation teams with PG - DeMar - IT masked their defensive issues. The game3 lost was said to be just not planning for the Celtics to move the ball like that so we'll see if they will simply be better prepared for Warriors or if they just don't have the personnel to defend lots of motion, back cuts and "5 threats" on the floor

Lebron in 6. Having the best player matters.

I'm enjoying the physicality of this game. I wish every game was officiated like this.

Ws made that look easy. Healthy Steph and a dominant KD? Cavs will need to tighten up that defense. LeBron had 8 turnovers...

They survived Klay going 3-16 and Draymond going 3-12, easily. If G.S. defends like that all series it's going to be a short one.

EDC wrote:Lebron in 6. Having the best player matters.

Oh?

Went about as expected, I really hoped the Cavs would show a little better, but the Warriors are so loaded everywhere, its gross. Bleh..

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:Went about as expected, I really hoped the Cavs would show a little better, but the Warriors are so loaded everywhere, its gross. Bleh..

Yup.

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:Went about as expected, I really hoped the Cavs would show a little better, but the Warriors are so loaded everywhere, its gross. Bleh..

Don't forget about last year.

That game was a lot of fun to watch. But I can't shake the feeling that this is bad for the league. Warriors just have a bit too much concentration of talent. If they didn't have Durant, the matchup would be a lot more even and interesting.