Phx-Suns.Net

O_Gardino wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:

O_Gardino wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:

Indy wrote: Not sure this is the best place, but https://www.prosportstransactions.com/b ... e/Suns.htm says it isn't expected to transfer this year. Am I missing something?

“That moment when you can’t believe you are the team taking advantage...”

I think either we agreed to just take him off their hands but still have to send something in return, (so we send the pick less likely to convey) or they were so desperate to sold him for anything, that we forced them to take this pick among all. “Draft considerations” sounds much better than “let him walk for nothing”, and the casual fan mostly forgets to look out for what happened with a second rounder.

Quick, lock him up to a multi-year contract!

We better do it, that huge investment needs to be justified, a dubious second rounder for just half season on Elfrid? No way, we are no cowards!!!

There is a real possibility that Payton turns out to be a better player for us than Knight.

Split T wrote:Interesting stat I heard on empire of the Suns podcast. Elfrid Payton shooting percentage at the rim amongst pg's:

Rookie year: 98th percentile
2nd year: 93rd percentile
3rd year: 100th percentile
This year: 96th percentile

So a truly elite finisher at the rim.

Split T wrote:Yes I did hear that. However I did read an article (I'll see if I can find it) that kinda explained that defensive rating. Basically the only thing that changed about Orlando's defense when Payton was on the court was the opponents 3 pt% went way up. It was something like 40% when Payton is on the court and 33% when he's off.

However there is a stat that gives you expected fg% based on shot selection/defensive presence etc. and there is no difference between having Payton on or off the floor. That indicates there might be some lucky shot making going on against Payton.

It's been a disappointing season for Payton despite him posting career-best offensive statistics. The Magic went 5-4 in the nine games he missed early in the season and have given up 9.4 more points per 100 possessions with Payton on the court, according to NBA Advanced Stats.

The problem is there's no particular reason to believe this is Payton's doing. As I noted early in the season, the big difference in Orlando's defensive stats with and without Payton is 3-point shooting. Opponents are making 41 percent of their 3s with Payton on the court and 32 percent with him on the bench. That difference is larger than the gap between the NBA's best team in terms of opponent 3-point percentage (the Philadelphia 76ers, at 33.5 percent) and the worst (the Sacramento Kings, at 38.4 percent). To the extent players have any control over opponent 3-point shooting, it's not plausible the difference could be that large.

Critics have pointed to Payton's defense at the point of attack, but this isn't reflected in terms of shot quality. Second Spectrum's qSQ rating measures the effective field goal percentage an average team would shoot given the location and type of shots taken and distance to the nearest defender. The Magic's qSQ with Payton (52.1 percent) is almost exactly the same as without him (52.3 percent). This is true even if we drill down just on 3-point attempts (54.3 percent with, 54.2 percent without). Orlando isn't giving up easier 3-point attempts with Payton on the court. They're just going in more often.

specialsauce wrote:

Cap wrote:

specialsauce wrote:

Cap wrote:

specialsauce wrote:Man that's a lot of hypotheticals and unknowns in Package A. As you already know, ping pong balls don't guarantee anything. And I'd say you have a MUCH better chance of keeping a FA after trading for him than you do recruiting him to come to Phoenix. Look at our history of stars. We've never(?) recruited a big time player to come here.

I'll take the sure thing than wishing for a miracle that so far we haven't done s*** with. We've had a ton of cap room for years and we've been looking to acquire assets from a team looking to dump salary, we've come away with absolutely nothing.

The only "sure thing" we'd have gotten with this deal is two years of flirting with .500.

If you really think that we would have acquired Irving and done nothing else, stood pat and ended up .500, there's really nothing to say. You've clearly made up your mind that the Suns are better off without him and you're trying to rationalize it yourself.

No, I think we're better off with all the assets in Package A. We weren't getting him for free.

Fair, and I don't think any of those assets will turn out to be better than Kyrie Irving and the team we would have built around he and Book. Agree to disagree.

Cap wrote:

specialsauce wrote:

Cap wrote:

specialsauce wrote:

Cap wrote:
The only "sure thing" we'd have gotten with this deal is two years of flirting with .500.

If you really think that we would have acquired Irving and done nothing else, stood pat and ended up .500, there's really nothing to say. You've clearly made up your mind that the Suns are better off without him and you're trying to rationalize it yourself.

No, I think we're better off with all the assets in Package A. We weren't getting him for free.

Fair, and I don't think any of those assets will turn out to be better than Kyrie Irving and the team we would have built around he and Book. Agree to disagree.

I'm OK with "Agree to disagree."

You have a habit of bringing up the subject unprovoked and using strawman arguments to mock opponents of the trade. "Agree to disagree" means you knock that off. Of course, I'm happy to engage you in a serious discussion of the merits of the proposed trade any time.

Split T wrote:Ya, didn't mean to say he was a good defender, just that the stats labeling him an atrocious defender may be a little misleading

Cap wrote:

specialsauce wrote:

Cap wrote:

specialsauce wrote:

Cap wrote:
The only "sure thing" we'd have gotten with this deal is two years of flirting with .500.

If you really think that we would have acquired Irving and done nothing else, stood pat and ended up .500, there's really nothing to say. You've clearly made up your mind that the Suns are better off without him and you're trying to rationalize it yourself.

No, I think we're better off with all the assets in Package A. We weren't getting him for free.

Fair, and I don't think any of those assets will turn out to be better than Kyrie Irving and the team we would have built around he and Book. Agree to disagree.

I'm OK with "Agree to disagree."

You have a habit of bringing up the subject unprovoked and using strawman arguments to mock opponents of the trade. "Agree to disagree" means you knock that off. Of course, I'm happy to engage you in a serious discussion of the merits of the proposed trade any time.

In2ition wrote:

Cap wrote:

specialsauce wrote:

Cap wrote:

specialsauce wrote:
If you really think that we would have acquired Irving and done nothing else, stood pat and ended up .500, there's really nothing to say. You've clearly made up your mind that the Suns are better off without him and you're trying to rationalize it yourself.

No, I think we're better off with all the assets in Package A. We weren't getting him for free.

Fair, and I don't think any of those assets will turn out to be better than Kyrie Irving and the team we would have built around he and Book. Agree to disagree.

I'm OK with "Agree to disagree."

You have a habit of bringing up the subject unprovoked and using strawman arguments to mock opponents of the trade. "Agree to disagree" means you knock that off. Of course, I'm happy to engage you in a serious discussion of the merits of the proposed trade any time.

Imo, it seems nearly everyone on this forum uses strawman arguments from time to time. I don't think specialsauce is an exception. Sorry to interject.

carey wrote:What's that supposed to be?

Cap wrote:

carey wrote:What's that supposed to be?