2024-2025 Around the NBA Thread

Raindog

I didn't come here to be liked!
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Posts
5,439
Reaction score
6,915
Trading Mikal and Cam was a dealbreaker for me. 1 young talent? Ok, 2 and every pick we could legally deal? Why not throw in Crowder, whose value was low at that point because of JJ's idiocy. Brooklyn immediately turned him into 5 2nd round picks, IIRC. There wasn't a single concession made by Brooklyn. The final deal was worse than the rumored deals during the off-season. Brooklyn had much less leverage than the Suns as well. JJ was taken to school but I really don't think he learned from it.
The picks were what bugged me. And I attribute that to James Jones being nonchalant (and even contemptuous) of drafting... and arrogantly believing he's smarter than everyone else in front offices around the league who knows that the best way to improve your team without overwhelming your payroll is to build diligently with good drafts.

It's the same bad philosophy (and arrogance) that has haunted the franchise all throughout Sarver's (and D'Antoni and assorted other's) days of running the front office.
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
119,174
Reaction score
59,762
Of his caliber? Who else was clamoring to come here? What other Superstar was there for us to trade for where the other ownership side was willing as well? Plugging Superstars into trade machines doesn't make it feasible.

Three superstars look to be a thing of the past. Having two star players and upper echelon depth, going at least 8 deep, may be the way to go.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
36,767
Reaction score
15,860
Location
Arizona
Three superstars look to be a thing of the past. Having two star players and upper echelon depth, going at least 8 deep, may be the way to go.
I hope so but I will believe it when I see parity actually work.
 

GatorAZ

feed hopkins
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Posts
25,611
Reaction score
18,597
Location
The Giant Toaster
However, the Suns had all their draft picks and assets to trade if they hadn't locked onto a one-sided trade.

Kevin Durant wasn't the only fish in the sea.

I didn’t care about giving up picks in the KD trade but you have to leave yourself enough players to win now in a win now trade. It should have been Bridges/Crowder/non-Cam filler and picks or just call their bluff and wait until the next offseason.
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
119,174
Reaction score
59,762
I didn’t care about giving up picks in the KD trade but you have to leave yourself enough players to win now in a win now trade. It should have been Bridges/Crowder/non-Cam filler and picks or just call their bluff and wait until the next offseason.

Bridges was always off the table for me in the Durant trade, but I understand your thinking.
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
20,357
Reaction score
11,446
I didn’t care about giving up picks in the KD trade but you have to leave yourself enough players to win now in a win now trade. It should have been Bridges/Crowder/non-Cam filler and picks or just call their bluff and wait until the next offseason.

Exactly.

We were left with a roster that was well short of contention with almost no avenues to significantly improve it.
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
20,357
Reaction score
11,446
He said he was a cancer. I'm not making that up.

Without talking about Brooklyn or OKC, tell me one instance where he's been on the Suns where he was a cancer.

If his past is that big of a problem for you and others, don't forget to throw Grayson Allen into that same bucket as well.

Huh? Where did I say you made something up?

As for here, he’s already had no shortage of his strange passive aggressive behavior and comments, and a few games where he seemingly just flat out quit. The Christmas game in particular was disgraceful.
 
OP
OP
Chaplin

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,457
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
Huh? Where did I say you made something up?

As for here, he’s already had no shortage of his strange passive aggressive behavior and comments, and a few games where he seemingly just flat out quit. The Christmas game in particular was disgraceful.
Passive aggressive = cancer. Got it. Christmas game was disgraceful across the board, but since you like singling people out in the hopes of supporting your flimsy insults, then more power to you.
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
20,357
Reaction score
11,446
Passive aggressive = cancer. Got it. Christmas game was disgraceful across the board, but since you like singling people out in the hopes of supporting your flimsy insults, then more power to you.

huh...
 

JCSunsfan

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 24, 2002
Posts
22,115
Reaction score
6,551
Yes, the Suns trade for Kevin Durant was a high-stakes gamble. I could have better lived with the trade if the Suns hadn't included Mikal Bridges in the deal. The biggest mistake the Suns made is overpaying for Durant.

The trade gives the appearance of being impulsive where new ownership wanted to make a splash and perhaps the GM wanting the same thing as well. I do think James Jones had been exploring such a trade all season. The question in my mind, would James Jones have stopped short of trading Mikal Bridges without a nudge from the owner.

IMO, the Suns need to be as careful trading Durant as they were imprudent in trading for him at the asking price. The Suns can't afford to compound mistakes. Now, if the Suns received an attractive trade offer for Durant, that's another matter. If the Suns received the right trade offer for him, I would probably do it.

I wish Bradley Beal didn't have a no trade clause because that's where I would look as well. If I were the Suns, I would still discreetly explore such options, especially if he is unwilling to come off the bench. This might be the better alternative and satisfy both parties. Still, it takes another team to show interest.
Even if they had kept Cam.
 

GatorAZ

feed hopkins
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Posts
25,611
Reaction score
18,597
Location
The Giant Toaster
Passive aggressive = cancer. Got it. Christmas game was disgraceful across the board, but since you like singling people out in the hopes of supporting your flimsy insults, then more power to you.

Not speaking to your coach is definitely cancerous behavior whether Vogel was a bad fit or not.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
92,039
Reaction score
70,100
Three superstars look to be a thing of the past. Having two star players and upper echelon depth, going at least 8 deep, may be the way to go.
Sure… but of those two star players, one of them almost always has to be a year in year out All-NBA first teamer who can be a factor on both sides of the ball and the other has to be someone who’s top 10-20 player.

Building around a Booker/Bridges combo doesn’t provide that.

Booker isn’t close to being a title level #1 type player. He’s more of the 10-20 type players. And Bridges isn’t even close to the top 10-20 type player so building around those two guys as your core “stars” with depth would have been an exercise in futility.

That said, we got fleeced in that deal. Bridges was always going to be the centerpiece of any deal to try and put a number 1 next to Booker. So we shoulda held firm to Bridges/Filler/some picks instead of selling the farm.

Also, we traded for a guy that looked like a #1 but just wasn’t at this stage of his career.
 
Last edited:

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,533
Reaction score
9,794
Location
L.A. area
Booker isn’t close to being a title level #1 type player. He’s more of the 10-20 type players. And Bridges isn’t even close to the top 10-20 type player so building around those two guys as your core “stars” with depth would have been an exercise in futility.

But again, you never know what opportunities to improve the roster might present themselves. Durant happened to be the star that was available when the Suns were desperate to make a move, but it could be a different star in a year or two.

It's not true that the only options were the Durant trade or standing pat. The options were the Durant trade, standing pat, or treading water for a couple of years to see what other moves might be possible.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
92,039
Reaction score
70,100
But again, you never know what opportunities to improve the roster might present themselves. Durant happened to be the star that was available when the Suns were desperate to make a move, but it could be a different star in a year or two.

It's not true that the only options were the Durant trade or standing pat. The options were the Durant trade, standing pat, or treading water for a couple of years to see what other moves might be possible.

I never said those were the only options. I just said trying to build around Booker/Bridges wasn’t going to equal a title team no matter how much great depth they had. Bridges was always going to have to be the piece to get them the other star to match with an ultimately usurp Book.

But the trade we made with him as centerpiece was a bad one. I’m not even saying we had to do it. Point blank… we made too big of a bet on the wrong horse.
 

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
17,537
Reaction score
12,737
Location
Tempe, AZ
I hope so but I will believe it when I see parity actually work.

You want to see that work? Denver, Milwaukee, Boston. The last 3 champs.

Now tell me when emptying a teams cupboard for a star at the end of their career has produced a title? The Suns were on the other side of that with Chuck going to Houston, didn't work for Houston or the Suns. It didn't work for Brooklyn back when they brought in KG and Paul Pierce. It actually made Boston a contender down the road.

It's such a ridiculous notion that what the Suns had tried for years didn't produce a title so they should mortgage a decade of the teams future for a malcontent who was going to break the cycle. In league history there are teams that did that and it didn't work. The path to a championship is generally surrounding home grown stars with exceptional role players that accentuate their abilities. That's been seen in virtually all title winning teams outside of Los Angeles and the Heatles. Dallas, Milwaukee, Boston, San Antonio, Houston, and Denver all followed a similar path. We're not the Lakers, which you have said, so why would a Lakers like path work for us? It doesn't make sense.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
64,031
Reaction score
58,907
Location
SoCal
But again, you never know what opportunities to improve the roster might present themselves. Durant happened to be the star that was available when the Suns were desperate to make a move, but it could be a different star in a year or two.

It's not true that the only options were the Durant trade or standing pat. The options were the Durant trade, standing pat, or treading water for a couple of years to see what other moves might be possible.
But it’s tough to argue that Durant wasn’t the only option available for a star at the time. And he wanted to come to AZ. What you’re saying is true, but it’s also dependent on being okay with resting a bit in hope that the right guy will come available, will want to come to AZ, and that the suns will have the pieces that can close the deal at that time without someone else outbidding us.

Again, for the millionth time discussing this on ASFN (not directed at you, e), this seems to have been a bad deal in retrospect (kudos to you guys who called it in advance), but at the time there was certainly basis for considering it somewhat reasonable.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
36,767
Reaction score
15,860
Location
Arizona
You want to see that work? Denver, Milwaukee, Boston. The last 3 champs.

Now tell me when emptying a teams cupboard for a star at the end of their career has produced a title? The Suns were on the other side of that with Chuck going to Houston, didn't work for Houston or the Suns. It didn't work for Brooklyn back when they brought in KG and Paul Pierce. It actually made Boston a contender down the road.

It's such a ridiculous notion that what the Suns had tried for years didn't produce a title so they should mortgage a decade of the teams future for a malcontent who was going to break the cycle. In league history there are teams that did that and it didn't work. The path to a championship is generally surrounding home grown stars with exceptional role players that accentuate their abilities. That's been seen in virtually all title winning teams outside of Los Angeles and the Heatles. Dallas, Milwaukee, Boston, San Antonio, Houston, and Denver all followed a similar path. We're not the Lakers, which you have said, so why would a Lakers like path work for us? It doesn't make sense.
Boston has two legit stars and the new rules have not had a chance to take hold yet (2nd apron rules just kicked in) so the new rules have not even had enough time to realize the impact yet. If a few season from now the titles are still being spread around then I can buy it. I hope it does because it might even the playing field.
 
Last edited:

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
92,039
Reaction score
70,100
Boston has two legit stars and the new rules have not had a chance to take hold yet (2nd apron rules just kicked in) so the new rules have not even had enough time to realize the impact yet. If a few season from now the titles are still being spread around then I can buy it. I hope it does because it might even the playing field.

Boston’s also the canary in the coal mine with their two stars. And their two stars are both better and younger than the two stars I think people are saying we could have built around. The other teams mentioned who built around their homegrown talent found GENERATIONAL, multiple MVP type talent. We don’t have one of those guys or anywhere close to one of those guys either.

But we still made a bad trade. Bridges/all the picks in the world might have gotten us a legit #1 to pair with Booker at some point. But we also might have fallen back a little into a run of the mill franchise that no one’s clamoring to come to.

The real problem is we had a chance at a generational talent… and took DeAndre Ayton. And blew the pick before him as well.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
36,767
Reaction score
15,860
Location
Arizona
Boston’s also the canary in the coal mine with their two stars. And their two stars are both better and younger than the two stars I think people are saying we could have built around. The other teams mentioned who built around their homegrown talent found GENERATIONAL, multiple MVP type talent. We don’t have one of those guys or anywhere close to one of those guys either.

But we still made a bad trade. Bridges/all the picks in the world might have gotten us a legit #1 to pair with Booker at some point. But we also might have fallen back a little into a run of the mill franchise that no one’s clamoring to come to.

The real problem is we had a chance at a generational talent… and took DeAndre Ayton. And blew the pick before him as well.
The blown Ayton trade IMO is the biggest mistake we have made and it’s not even close.
 

JCSunsfan

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 24, 2002
Posts
22,115
Reaction score
6,551
But it’s tough to argue that Durant wasn’t the only option available for a star at the time. And he wanted to come to AZ. What you’re saying is true, but it’s also dependent on being okay with resting a bit in hope that the right guy will come available, will want to come to AZ, and that the suns will have the pieces that can close the deal at that time without someone else outbidding us.

Again, for the millionth time discussing this on ASFN (not directed at you, e), this seems to have been a bad deal in retrospect (kudos to you guys who called it in advance), but at the time there was certainly basis for considering it somewhat reasonable.
Winning a championship requires taking risks. We could have waited, but who knows what would have happened. If we had waited, we would probably talking today about how we should have done the Durant deal when we had the chance. In retrospect, it was a bad deal. Dems da berries.
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,852
Reaction score
16,641
Winning a championship requires taking risks. We could have waited, but who knows what would have happened. If we had waited, we would probably talking today about how we should have done the Durant deal when we had the chance. In retrospect, it was a bad deal. Dems da berries.
I hate to go back to this but again, some of us were confident that we could have had Durant for much less and we jumped the gun. AFAIC the writing was on the wall, Durant had to go and Brooklyn didn't have any real suitors. Had we made the trade and hung onto Cam and a few picks we'd have been in much better shape when it came to filling out the post trade roster.

If, by holding firm, someone else was able to jump in and steal KD before us or if the Nets turned us down even at the last minute, than so be it. We simply didn't have the assets to pay the price we did for KD and still round out the rotation.
 
Top