yes over all but Lakers and even there, that’s assuming the Lakers are healthy. And I think they’ll be better than all those teams because the team that got “blitzkrieged” had a one arm CP3 and ZERO backup big men, while next year’s team will have a healthy CP3 and a legit back-up big man. just like THIS year when we had the second best record in the league. Or did you forget that we also played very well when Nader was getting Craig’s minutes and Craig was only a replacement once Nader went down with injury?
Hell, if you put McGee and Shamet on this year’s Suns team they might have beat the Bucks even WITH a one armed CP3.
Now, ask yourself honestly, after a season where you crapped your pants spectacularly with every dire prediction, are you a Suns fan or just some old man, fatalist troll who can never admit he’s wrong and has nothing better to do with his life than make himself and others on this board miserable.
I won't make this personal the way you are here. I will simply remind you how critical to this team's success Saric was in the first half of the regular season, and how critical to this team's success Craig was in the second half of the regular season. Take those two off the roster for the entire season, and this team probably wins 10-15 fewer games at least.
Now ask yourself: Are McGee and Shamet worth 10-15 wins?
Even if your answer is "yes" (and I don't see how it possibly could be), replicating last year's regular season would also depend on all of the other teams being equally unlucky on the injury front, with none of the other teams improving their rosters.
The fact of the matter is that on the cusp of a championship, the Suns, having lost two critical cogs, are electing to stand pat while every other contender in the West is improving. And in doing so, the Suns are leaving at least $10 million on the table unspent.
I will grant you that in re-signing Paul and Payne and replacing Saric with McGee and Carter with Shamet, the Suns won't be substantively worse. But this close to a championship, and with only a two or three year window to win one with Chris Paul, is anyone here honestly satisfied with "not substantively worse", as opposed to "significantly improved", particularly when other contenders ARE significantly improved?