Phx-Suns.Net

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote: When a player is a net negative for your team, it would be better to trade him for nothing than have him on the roster. I think Knight hurts us and we'd be better with him gone, even if we got absolutely nothing in return. If somebody will give us a late-first-rounder or even a second-rounder for him, without making us take a horrible contract back, they can have him.

I'd like to trade him as much as the next guy, but he's a 20/5/5 player and they don't exactly grow on trees. He's more valuable than just nothing. He did cause us to lose some games last year but so did a lot of people. I voted to wait with Markieff and we got a late lotto pick for him. I vote the same for Knight.

I'd like to trade him as much as the next guy, but he's a 20/5/5 player and they don't exactly grow on trees.

Eh, they kind of do. But what good's a 20/5/5 guy if you're not winning? Marbury was a 20 and 8 guy. Nash never averaged 20ppg in a season. It goes beyond the stats.

He's more valuable than just nothing. He did cause us to lose some games last year but so did a lot of people.

The market dictates his value. The Knicks traded for Rose. Brooklyn and Philly can sign Jennings and Rondo. So what other teams are out there looking for a PG? Houston? Sacramento?

I voted to wait with Markieff and we got a late lotto pick for him. I vote the same for Knight.

And again, it cost us a respected coach and submarined an entire season. It's not just about what you get back in a trade. It's how that player affects the entire organization. Not saying we'd have made the playoffs last year had we traded M*****f in August when he was running his mouth, but Hornacek might still be our coach and we wouldn't have had the constant aggravation and misery surrounding the team.

Knight is useful. That's the point. A number of teams could use him either as starter or as a 6th man. I get wanting to cut bait as soon as possible, addition by substraction and all that, but you can't have it both ways. You can't complain about IT3 hogging the ball and being bad for the chemistry and then complain again when you essentially dump him for a low pick.

Since the team is not going anywhere, we have the luxury of time, assuming Knight doesn't become a chemistry cancer. You keep him, use him at whatever role you want and once there is something decent on the table, you trade him. If something decent comes before the season, all the better.

That's my mindset at least. And I want him gone as much as anyone.

Ring_Wanted wrote:Knight is useful. That's the point. A number of teams could use him either as starter or as a 6th man. I get wanting to cut bait as soon as possible, addition by substraction and all that, but you can't have it both ways. You can't complain about IT3 hogging the ball and being bad for the chemistry and then complain again when you essentially dump him for a low pick.

Since the team is not going anywhere, we have the luxury of time, assuming Knight doesn't become a chemistry cancer. You keep him, use him at whatever role you want and once there is something decent on the table, you trade him. If something decent comes before the season, all the better.

That's my mindset at least. And I want him gone as much as anyone.

I would make that argument about Chandler, but I'm not sure about Knight. I think the young guys aren't learning to play good basketball with him on the floor. And that matters to me a lot. I wan the ball in Len, Warren, and Booker's hands a lot next season.

On the other hand, I do think he has more value than just a salary dump. He's young, athletic, and can shoot. There will be some team out there that thinks he will mature into something more than he is today. Maybe we can bring back a bad contract and get a lottery pick or two late first rounders.

Ring_Wanted wrote:Knight is useful. That's the point. A number of teams could use him either as starter or as a 6th man. I get wanting to cut bait as soon as possible, addition by substraction and all that, but you can't have it both ways. You can't complain about IT3 hogging the ball and being bad for the chemistry and then complain again when you essentially dump him for a low pick.

Since the team is not going anywhere, we have the luxury of time, assuming Knight doesn't become a chemistry cancer. You keep him, use him at whatever role you want and once there is something decent on the table, you trade him. If something decent comes before the season, all the better.

That's my mindset at least. And I want him gone as much as anyone.

I get the logic, but would be afraid that we would be showcasing him to raise his value. And showcasing him likely means less time for Booker, or Booker playing the 3. I don't want to see either. Well, I would be OK seeing him at 3 if we had two different starting guards than we do now.

I think Booker's status is more than solidified and he will get his playing time and touches regardless. If he doesn't (was not with Hirny btw), we have bigger problems than we thought.

ShelC wrote:

I'd like to trade him as much as the next guy, but he's a 20/5/5 player and they don't exactly grow on trees.

Eh, they kind of do. But what good's a 20/5/5 guy if you're not winning? Marbury was a 20 and 8 guy. Nash never averaged 20ppg in a season. It goes beyond the stats.

He's more valuable than just nothing. He did cause us to lose some games last year but so did a lot of people.

The market dictates his value. The Knicks traded for Rose. Brooklyn and Philly can sign Jennings and Rondo. So what other teams are out there looking for a PG? Houston? Sacramento?

I voted to wait with Markieff and we got a late lotto pick for him. I vote the same for Knight.

And again, it cost us a respected coach and submarined an entire season. It's not just about what you get back in a trade. It's how that player affects the entire organization. Not saying we'd have made the playoffs last year had we traded M*****f in August when he was running his mouth, but Hornacek might still be our coach and we wouldn't have had the constant aggravation and misery surrounding the team.

Yea, Kieff didn't "cost us an entire season". Our best player missed the majority of our games because of injuries. That's what cost us. Don't get me wrong, he was brutal, but the suns did well to get a late lotto for him. I'm not a fan of how they spent that lotto, but still.

And for the record even if we were entirely healthy having traded Markieff (or cut him) we wouldn't of made the playoffs. So not sure what we lost other then a temultous few months. I doubt Hornecek would of served another season without making the playoffs with the expectations management had at the beginning of the yr.

O_Gardino wrote:He's young, athletic, and can shoot. There will be some team out there that thinks he will mature into something more than he is today.

Unfortunately, that's McDonough. "You haven't seen the real Brandon Knight yet."

Superbone wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:He's young, athletic, and can shoot. There will be some team out there that thinks he will mature into something more than he is today.

Unfortunately, that's McDonough. "You haven't seen the real Brandon Knight yet."

I think it's fair in a sense. Knight was actually playing OK before bledsoe got hurt. Most of our negative opinions of him come while he was the only non 18 year old on the roster who could do anything with the ball in his hands. I think what I've learned is that he should not be a lead guard. I think he can still be a solid scorer/secondary play maker. Ideally, he'd do that off the bench.

I guess what I'm saying is that as long as he's not an issue chemistry wise, I'm OK hanging on to him and seeing how he develops with our other young guys. I'm not going to be upset if we trade him either though.

Split T wrote:

Superbone wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:He's young, athletic, and can shoot. There will be some team out there that thinks he will mature into something more than he is today.

I guess what I'm saying is that as long as he's not an issue chemistry wise, I'm OK hanging on to him and seeing how he develops with our other young guys. I'm not going to be upset if we trade him either though.

YES

Split T wrote:I think he can still be a solid scorer/secondary play maker.

Can he be a solid scorer/secondary play maker who's not a liability on defense?

Cap wrote:

Split T wrote:I think he can still be a solid scorer/secondary play maker.

Can he be a solid scorer/secondary play maker who's not a liability on defense?

I don't know about that. When he plays with Bledsoe I don't think it's as big of a deal because bled can usually guard the 1 or the 2 and Knight can take the lesser player. But neither Knight or Booker are good defenders right now, and having them in together could be trouble. I think it's lessened by having one come of the bench and matching up with opposing teams 2nd units, but hopefully they both get better as defenders.

Agreed. Knight and Booker are awful defensively. I am hoping that Booker improves, you know, like when he reaches 20 years old.

Indy wrote:Agreed. Knight and Booker are awful defensively. I am hoping that Booker improves, you know, like when he reaches 20 years old.

Ya, I'm not too worried about Booker yet, not many teenagers have ever been good at defense in the nba. Knight doesn't have as many excuses. He should at least be able to guard 1's with his length and quickness.

I just had a vision while watching a Tyler Ulis highlight video. A 2021 NBA Finals Suns rematch with the Boston Celtics. Ulis vs Thomas as starting point guards. Can't wait!

Here's the video if anybody wants to join me:

[youtube][/youtube]

Here's a complete list of free agents: http://www.nba.com/freeagents/2016/

Players I'd be interested in:
Darrell Arthur
Brandon Bass
Trevor Booker
Jared Dudley
Mo Harkless
Solomon Hill
Dwight Powell
Willie Reed


Pretty blah list. The guys in bold I like a little more. Harkless I like, but he'll be expensive. As I said before, I'd be OK with sitting out free agency and making trades to take on salary and assets, etc.

Trevor Booker is very decent if you don't want/need anything fancy. Same with Darrell Arthur. Dudley would be cool but he should get in the best possible shape and sign with a contender.

Saw something about Solomon Hill getting 14-16mil from the Jazz? I almost threw up.

Arthur caught my eye as a hustle PF who could be a stop gap for us.

The more I think about it, the more I hope we do nothing. I'd be OK bringing back leuer or teletovic on short deals, although both will probably want to cash in. Maybe sign amare, he's made a bunch, he won't need a big payday.