Phx-Suns.Net

ShelC wrote:

Their big difference is Tatum is a better ISO scorer and Warren plays more without the ball.

Yea, that's a pretty big difference in terms of offense.

Indeed.

For example, its like comparing Carmelo Anthony to Shawn Marion. They both play SF, they both score buckets, they do it in completely different ways. Obviously every NBA player scores, thats why they are there, but just because they play the same position doesnt make them similiar.

ShelC wrote:

Their big difference is Tatum is a better ISO scorer and Warren plays more without the ball.

Yea, that's a pretty big difference in terms of offense.

I guess, when I think of exactly opposite I think more like Klay Thompson vs Jimmy Butler. One spends his time running off screens, spotting up and being one of the 2 or 3 best shooters in the game but doesn't provide much shot creation for himself or others. The other creates a lot of his own offense off the dribble and creates for others, but is just an ok shooter from range.

I still think Tatum makes Warren very expendable. What use would we have for Warren with Tatum on the team? My ideal wing partner for Tatum and Booker would have 3 qualities, in order:

1. Defense
2. 3 pt shooting
3. Play making ability

Warren literally offers none of those.

Split T wrote:

ShelC wrote:

Their big difference is Tatum is a better ISO scorer and Warren plays more without the ball.

Yea, that's a pretty big difference in terms of offense.

I guess, when I think of exactly opposite I think more like Klay Thompson vs Jimmy Butler. One spends his time running off screens, spotting up and being one of the 2 or 3 best shooters in the game but doesn't provide much shot creation for himself or others. The other creates a lot of his own offense off the dribble and creates for others, but is just an ok shooter from range.

I still think Tatum makes Warren very expendable. What use would we have for Warren with Tatum on the team? My ideal wing partner for Tatum and Booker would have 3 qualities, in order:

1. Defense
2. 3 pt shooting
3. Play making ability

Warren literally offers none of those.

He would however offer a dynamite option off the bench. Who scores when Booker/Tatum sit? Bledsoe isnt long for this roster, gotta have dudes that can score. Warren/Ulis are tailor made for each other on a bench unit.

You could go small and put TJ at the 3, Tatum at the 4 and Chriss/Bender at the 5.

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:

Split T wrote:

ShelC wrote:

Their big difference is Tatum is a better ISO scorer and Warren plays more without the ball.

Yea, that's a pretty big difference in terms of offense.

I guess, when I think of exactly opposite I think more like Klay Thompson vs Jimmy Butler. One spends his time running off screens, spotting up and being one of the 2 or 3 best shooters in the game but doesn't provide much shot creation for himself or others. The other creates a lot of his own offense off the dribble and creates for others, but is just an ok shooter from range.

I still think Tatum makes Warren very expendable. What use would we have for Warren with Tatum on the team? My ideal wing partner for Tatum and Booker would have 3 qualities, in order:

1. Defense
2. 3 pt shooting
3. Play making ability

Warren literally offers none of those.

He would however offer a dynamite option off the bench. Who scores when Booker/Tatum sit? Bledsoe isnt long for this roster, gotta have dudes that can score. Warren/Ulis are tailor made for each other on a bench unit.

I won't dispute that, but at some point we're gonna have to play defense, right? Can't we just stagger booker and tatum's minutes to keep offense on the floor and pair them with a wing defender?

I don't think either of us are going to convince the other, I guess we'll see what happens if we draft Tatum.

Split T wrote:http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/why-m ... t-ceiling/

Read this article, realize that Isaac is the only guy we've brought in twice (that we know of) and this rumor (http://www.sbnation.com/2017/6/14/15800 ... tics-magic) that Isaac isn't working out for anyone outside the top 4 and try and tell me he's not our pick.

That article just hits everything Watson and McD want in their prospects.

There are pretty well defined rules about what workouts are like. Teams are only allowed 2 workouts, so I assume any prospect we like in the 3-7 range is getting 2 looks from us.

But I do think we have a good chance of getting Isaac + someone in this draft.

Split T wrote:

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:

Split T wrote:Care to explain how they're different?

One guy makes a living on cuts, transition and garbage buckets, rarely creating for himself.

The other guy has an advanced half court game that doesn't rely on others creating for him because he can get his own.


I really don't see how you don't see the difference, but whatever. I will gladly solo this Tatum wagon

My point is Warren's game offers nothing that Tatum doesn't also offer. I know Tatum has a more advanced game, but they're still very similar. They both live in the mid range and have shaky outside shots. Tatum's will probably develop better than Warren's, but that doesn't change my point. I feel like you're taking this as a knock on Tatum when it's not at all. I'm saying anything Warren can do, Tatum can do better. Why keep Warren in that situation? I'd much rather bring someone in with different skills, namely defense.

I see what you guys are saying, but I read the difference in favor of Warren. Warren can get space in a crowd and make those little garbage buckets at a very efficient pace. Every team needs a guy who can score even though the plays aren't run for him. Tatum needs the ball in his hands to be effective, and instead of creating space for his shots he creates contact. Oh, and in college, he didn't get to the line much, he just took very difficult shots. If he can do that in the NBA, he'll be a star. But if he can't, what does he offer? To me, Tatum has 'bust' written all over him.

Superbone wrote:

jonh wrote:

carey wrote:Y'all are pretty down on McDonough, huh? Lol.

Perhaps my post was a little strong--I actually think that he could be a good GM, and I have generally liked his approach up to this point. I just think its funny how McD has often talked about using draft picks to trade for a star.

Because that is what happened in Boston that got them a championship. He has been unable to make that big move so far.

Um, he brought in Knight for some garbage pick?! And Knight is basically a star (in the east). Check your facts!

O_Gardino wrote:

Superbone wrote:

jonh wrote:

carey wrote:Y'all are pretty down on McDonough, huh? Lol.

Perhaps my post was a little strong--I actually think that he could be a good GM, and I have generally liked his approach up to this point. I just think its funny how McD has often talked about using draft picks to trade for a star.

Because that is what happened in Boston that got them a championship. He has been unable to make that big move so far.

Um, he brought in Knight for some garbage pick?! And Knight is basically a star (in the east). Check your facts!

Uh, yeah... my bad.

https://twitter.com/Schultz_Report

This guy Shultz reported about 2 weeks ago the Lakers were considering not taking Ball. Now he's saying the Kings love Fox and want to move up to 4, we want 5 and 10 for our 4th and 32nd. No official offer's been made, then says a Sixers-King deal is more likely...

That's my dream scenario right now. I guess outside of Boston trading Fultz to us.

Split T wrote:That's my dream scenario right now. I guess outside of Boston trading Fultz to us.

Boston kinda owes us, don't they?

What if it's 5 and a 2018 pick or the right to swap the next 2 years?

It's tough to get a lot by trading from 4 to 5. Getting 10 in the deal would be a coup. When Toronto traded from 4 to 5 in the Vince Carter draft, they got cash.

Tatum worked out / visited us a gain marking his 2nd time with the team. It's starting to look like the decision is between Tatum & Isaac*.

*Unless Ball falls to 4.

carey wrote:Tatum worked out / visited us a gain marking his 2nd time with the team. It's starting to look like the decision is between Tatum & Isaac*.

*Unless Ball falls to 4.

50/50 odds for me eh? I'll take it.

Suns also attended a workout with Josh Jackson today. I just really hope Sacramento trades up for Fox. If they do with Philly, Jackson or Ball falls to us, if they trade with us, we pick up an extra asset and still get the player we probably take at 4, most likely Isaac or Tatum.

One week until the draft!

At this point my draft board of prospects that have any reasonable chance of falling to us looks like this:

- Ball (unlikely to fall)
- Jackson
- Tatum
- Monk
- Isaac

I'm just not that sold on Isaac. I don't get why we would draft him given that we have both Chriss and Bender already. How will we find minutes for him? And I happen to believe that both Chriss and Bender can take those minutes and become good players.

I know you're supposed to draft "BPA" when you are a bad team like we are. But I have no particular confidence that Isaac is the BPA.

I listed Monk on my board above not because I like him but just to underscore that I'd rather have most anybody else above Isaac based on the poor fit.

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:At this point my draft board of prospects that have any reasonable chance of falling to us looks like this:

- Ball (unlikely to fall)
- Jackson
- Tatum
- Monk
- Isaac

I'm just not that sold on Isaac. I don't get why we would draft him given that we have both Chriss and Bender already. How will we find minutes for him? And I happen to believe that both Chriss and Bender can take those minutes and become good players.

I know you're supposed to draft "BPA" when you are a bad team like we are. But I have no particular confidence that Isaac is the BPA.

I listed Monk on my board above not because I like him but just to underscore that I'd rather have most anybody else above Isaac based on the poor fit.

I have to say that my draft board looks exactly like yours right now with the exception that I would put in Fox between Tatum and Monk. I like Isaac, but I like Monk better. I think Isaac can become a good player and the eventual rotation of Isaac, Bender, and Chriss at the pf and c is really intriguing. The problem I have with it is that I think that means Bledsoe(I am not a hater. I really like Bledsoe and think he's the best player on the Suns right now) is going to be a Sun going forward, and I am not sold that he's the pg of the future. Also, I think this pushes the rebuild back a year or two as all three of those guys are going to take time to develop.