- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 114,786
- Reaction score
- 54,695
We mostly agree, but I wouldn't have traded Bridges.
2024-2025 Around the NBA Thread
- Thread starter Chaplin
- Start date
We mostly agree, but I wouldn't have traded Bridges.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Posts
- 36,517
- Reaction score
- 16,016
I'm torn on that, now and when it went down. I love Bridges but if we had the chance to get KD without giving up much more value than Mikal, I understand the appeal and I'm okay with the gamble. But with CP3 aging out and Ayton pulling such a disappearing act, we were no longer all that close to winning it all with or without KD.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 114,786
- Reaction score
- 54,695
As I saw the trade, Bridges, was untouchable.
The Suns could have made a trade like the Mavericks if they hadn't panicked, who acquired Daniel Gafford and P.J. Washington.
OP
OP
Chaplin
Better off silent
Bridges wasn't untouchable. That's revisionist history, and obviously incorrect, since he was traded. You hang your hat on "what ifs" and it's amazing that you continue to do so for so long. What if we didn't trade Mikal? What if we drafted Haliburton? What if we signed a 4th string center or a 5th string guard? It's not like we traded Bridges for Gordon Hayward or Mike Conley.
You have to give up to get, that's the reality of trades. Mikal Bridges was gangbusters on a bad Nets team for the first half of his time there, but he did fall back to earth and wasn't this great indispensable superstar you'd like him to be. The problem with the KD trade has nothing whatsoever to do with Mikal Bridges and even Cam Johnson. It's all about the draft picks. I'm in the camp that the picks aren't going to be as valuable as everything thinks they will be, but I will concede they were at the very least potentially good trade chips. The value in the KD trade is ONLY in the picks, especially now, considering Bridges is nothing more than a good role player and Cam Johnson is always injured.
Yuma
Suns are my Kryptonite!
we'll never know.
Yuma
Suns are my Kryptonite!
I agree with all this. Just using Chap's post as a jump off point.
However the picks as trade chips, maybe we could have gotten a few guys with lesser talent for the same amount of picks and upgraded around the edges instead of using them to get KD. We used the picks in one trade instead of several trades. We probably would have ended up using the same picks since we didn't value them at the time anyway. Even if we did use the picks like everyone wanted, it doesn't mean we would have been any more successful than we are now. Not arguing with you Chap, just using your post to add on more to it since I agreed with what you said. I am just pointing out in general that yes there are many ways we could have done things, but we didn't. In general this topic keeps coming up over and over in this forum. I believe we would have traded all those picks. All in on one player, or several players, who knows how it would have turned out? It's not what happened.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 90,300
- Reaction score
- 65,541
That would have been meaningless moves around the edges.
It also ignores that the Mavs also made a trade for Kyrie, who was the key second superstar to a generational Luka to get the Mavs to the Finals.
In your scenario, we’re then looking at a team built around Booker/Bridges… with a Daniel Gafford and PJ Washington… while also giving away draft picks. That core might not even make the playoffs much less even come close to smelling the Finals, while also giving away some of our future.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 114,786
- Reaction score
- 54,695
The Suns could have likely made a similar trade as the Mavericks did for Gafford and Washington and had plenty of change to make other trades then or later. They didn't have to give up Bridges and likely not Cam Johnson either.
The Durant trade was a Hail Mary pass play when none was necessary.
The Suns didn't get good value in return for what they gave up. See below:
By Tim MacMahon, ESPN Staff WriterFeb 8, 2024, 11:44 AM ET:
This is all the Mavericks gave for these two players.
The Mavericks sent center Richaun Holmes and draft compensation to the Wizards for Gafford, and traded forward Grant Williams, guard Seth Curry and their lightly protected 2027 first-round draft pick to the Hornets for Washington.
The Mavericks announced that they agreed to swap rights of 2028 first-round picks with the Thunder in order to obtain Oklahoma City's 2024 first-rounder. The 2024 pick will be sent to Washington in the Gafford deal.
www.espn.com
The Durant trade was a Hail Mary pass play when none was necessary.
The Suns didn't get good value in return for what they gave up. See below:
By Tim MacMahon, ESPN Staff WriterFeb 8, 2024, 11:44 AM ET:
This is all the Mavericks gave for these two players.
The Mavericks sent center Richaun Holmes and draft compensation to the Wizards for Gafford, and traded forward Grant Williams, guard Seth Curry and their lightly protected 2027 first-round draft pick to the Hornets for Washington.
The Mavericks announced that they agreed to swap rights of 2028 first-round picks with the Thunder in order to obtain Oklahoma City's 2024 first-rounder. The 2024 pick will be sent to Washington in the Gafford deal.
Mavs get Gafford, Washington in separate trades
The Mavericks made a pair of trades before Thursday's deadline, acquiring Daniel Gafford from the Wizards and P.J. Washington from the Hornets.
Did you miss this part from @Mainstreet ?
There is nothing revisionist about his opinion. He's been the loudest voice here saying Mikal shouldn't have been included even before the KD trade happened, back when the rumor was floated 6-7 months before the trade happened. You are either ignoring he's stating his point of view, which seems odd since you go on to list some other things he's been vocal about, or you are trying to twist his words in order to make a point. I'm going with the latter. So why start by misrepresenting his view and saying it's "revisionist history" when it's clearly not?
Mikal was on the verge of breaking out. He was coming off being 1 of the 3 finalists for DPOY and 1st Team All Defense honors and his offense was looking good, while Monty was trusting him within the system to do some Booker like drives for middies and score more overall, since Ayton wasn't a real option.
Mikal was our top asset. Young, elite 3&D wing who never got hurt and was on an excellent contract long-term. He was exceeding his value from jump, from a strict dollars to production standpoint. Plus we've seen since he's been dealt that he was a glue guy in that locker room that kept everyone upbeat while also making it fun to watch as a fan. He was looking to be the Pippen to Booker that many of us hoped, prayed, and foolishly convinced ourselves Josh Jackson was supposed to be. I was one of those guys. He wasn't untouchable, to me or any team since few guys are, but we didn't receive proper value for him. A year and a half after we traded him he was dealt again for 5 1st round picks and not to be a #1 somewhere, or even a #2, but to be that #3 guy who picks up the slack. He showed he could do that here but we didn't get to see that play out since Ayton's ego, CP3's age, and Monty's disagreements with JJ, didn't allow that team to reach it's full potential.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 90,300
- Reaction score
- 65,541
Great. Building around a Booker, Bridges, Cam Johnson, Gafford and Washington would have done what exactly? Struggle to make the playoffs? Maybe win us 45 games a season. Yay. And it would have cost us some of that “change” to those guys. Sure we have a more picks at our disposal, but if we wanted to contend in the future, we still needed to get a legit… eh, here’s the real question Mainstreet that might bring some clarity to this discussion.
Do you believe the Suns could have built a title contending team around Booker/Bridges as your superstar #1 and 2 players?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 114,786
- Reaction score
- 54,695
I don't believe in giving another team everything they want in a trade because the right deal has not yet come along.
Still, I'm hopeful about the season as the Suns have added two quality point guards and perhaps with some good fortune, they can add another rotation quality big man in a trade or some other means.
Still, I'm hopeful about the season as the Suns have added two quality point guards and perhaps with some good fortune, they can add another rotation quality big man in a trade or some other means.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 90,300
- Reaction score
- 65,541
That didn’t answer my question. We made a bad deal. I acknowledge that.
I’ll ask again… do you think the Suns could have built a legit title contender with Booker/Bridges as their best two players?
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 114,786
- Reaction score
- 54,695
It was never or had to be just Booker and Bridges. Time does not stand still. The Suns had all their assets prior to the trade for Durant.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 90,300
- Reaction score
- 65,541
Yeah… that’s why I said do you think we could BUILD AROUND Booker/Bridges as our best two players.
Do you believe the Suns could have gotten a generational talent to put with Booker/Bridges just based off middling first round draft picks?
And if so, could you provide me examples of previous generational talent traded for draft picks alone to back that idea up?
alternatively, do you believe that Booker/Bridges and great depth surrounding them, gotten by using all our assets outside of those two could have made us a legit contender?
Last edited:
Phrazbit
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Posts
- 20,084
- Reaction score
- 11,090
Bridges was just traded for FIVE first round picks.
He is was and still is wildly undervalued by a lot of people on this board.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 90,300
- Reaction score
- 65,541
Bridges is a fantastic 3rd wheel. I think the Knicks overpaid for him (and it wouldn’t be the first time they’ve made questionable personnel decisions). But this season will be a nice test to see how big of an impact he can have on a good team where he’s now depended on to be the 2nd or 3rd best player for a contender.
This is just ridiculous. Why put this specific constraint in place? We had more than picks, we had Cam, we had Crowder, we had CP3 on a very movable expiring deal, and we had Ayton to trade. This team would look vastly different. Why does Mikal have to be the #1 or #2 here instead of a #3 like he was? We had financial flexibility, moveable contracts, players with positive trade like Cam, and a cabinet full of draft picks. Look what Indiana gave up for Siakam, for example. We could have easily beat that offer.
Those who were in favor of the KD now look will admit it was a bad trade but refuse to look at options outside of that specific deal. Time doesn't freeze. We didn't need a star to speak up and say "I want to be in Phoenix" to trade for one. Dame didn't say he wanted to go Milwaukee, Siakam didn't say he wanted to go to Indiana, Jrue didn't want to leave Milwaukee either. Players don't have the leverage some envision and the Suns aren't what they were a 7-8 years ago either. Booker is respected by his peers and I can't see anyone refusing to play alongside him if we had the means to trade for them.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 90,300
- Reaction score
- 65,541
Why put the Booker/Bridges duo question out there? Well, I’ve seen so many comments about how we should have built around our homegrown talent and those were our best homegrown talent so they seem like the natural 1/2 building blocks for the post CP3 Suns. Also, you and I disagree about how good our assets were outside of draft picks. For starters, CP3’s deal couldn’t be that attractive considering the only thing we got for it was a huge risk player who had one of the most toxic contracts in the league. Ayton was negative value. Crowder was value? What value did Crowder have? Cam had solid value. I agree there.
Okay… I think now we get to the crux of the issue and I appreciate you giving an actual example of a guy we could have gotten with assets like the above that you brought up. Maybe we could have swung a deal for Siakam. Do you think a Booker/Siakam/Bridges trio with good depth around them could be an actual title contender? And out of those assets you listed, what do you think we would have had to give up for Siakam?
I think if there was a universe where we could have Booker as a 2 and Bridges a 3, that would have been perfect. I just don’t know if it’s realistic to get a legit 1 or at least a 1a to go with Booker’s 1b with draft picks,
and Cam.
Again, my point isn’t that the KD trade was good… worth the risk… or even that we wouldn’t be in a better position right now to try to improve if we stayed put. I just think the key to ever getting back to title contention requires getting a player who’s better than Booker to be this team’s best player/leader and those guys don’t usually just come by way of draft picks. There’s usually a very promising or close to All-Star type player. I think Bridges eventually would have been the guy needed to get that kind of guy.
Last edited:
Just going to stick to this since it's the most productive and civil way we can both engage. Cool. Book, Siakam, Bridges is a great SG, SF, PF trio that could compete. Would they be favorites? No. They'd have as good of a chance getting to the dance as anyone in the West if they can stay healthy. They're also much younger than our current Big 3 and then we have more flexibility trading Ayton, CP3, and probably 2 draft picks. I imagine Cam and 2 picks would be the cost for Siakam.
Part of the issue with the Ayton deal how it happened was we were forced to trade a C for a C and why is anyone going to give us someone better than him when there's no way we can sweeten the deal without picks. It never made sense to me why some thought we'd pull that off. Walking back the KD trade changes that though since we'd have different needs and assets. We could then look for a C using CP3 and then use Ayton for a PG or depth. It allows much more flexibility because we're not as constrained financially as well. That allows us to let our team of Book, Siakam, Bridges play until we find a way to add a missing piece, like a Rasheed Wallace was for the Pistons years back. I also think KCP will prove to be that in more current times, he helped LA win a title and he was big for Denver also. They're going to take a hit letting him walk. We'll see that discussion start popping up soon unless Denver makes a move because they took a step back this off season.
I'd rather have 3 guys that are all on the same side of 30 looking for luck to fall our way than having 2 guys nearing the ends of their career while 1 hasn't even entered his prime in his late 20's yet. The ages are huge now and for the future. I wouldn't mind having an empty cupboard of picks if our core pieces were all within 3-4 years of each other and none of them are over the age of 30.:
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 90,300
- Reaction score
- 65,541
Without a great PG, or even a good PG, I just don’t see that nucleus giving us a good shot to get to the dance. You mention below that they’d need their Sheed… but they’d also need their Chauncey. I struggle to see how they could have gotten both of those guys, as CP3’s expiring wouldn’t be around after last year and I think we just totally disagree as to Ayton’s value. I think the book was out on him and anything we were gonna get was gonna be a pupu platter.
I think you’re right that there would have been more upside with that Big 3 than with our current one, but that looks very Sacramento-ish no man’s land type of club to me.
As I said above, I’d rather have that trio now also just because of youth, even though I think they’d be around the same win total and playoff success as the last couple years teams have been. And they’d still have a major defect in leadership as I don’t see any of those three guys having what I think is necessary from physical or mental skills to really lead a team. But as you said, they would be younger and have some draft picks to play with. I still think those draft picks and Bridges woulda been needed to get someone better than Book and an older Siakam eventually to make them serious title contenders.
It’s also REALLY hard to build a Pistons type title contender. They and the Celtics are the 2 exceptions to the rule title winners, all of whom have had at least one generational talent leading them over the last what… 33 years?
Phrazbit
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Posts
- 20,084
- Reaction score
- 11,090
The real killer was not trading for Gordon in 2021... Nuggets got him for a song, a mediocre vet, a very iffy prospect and a pick 4 years down the road. Gordon would have been perfect here. The exact kind of rim running, high octane, physical defender we needed... perfect age for the rest of the core. He was talked about often here as a potential target, I remember the radio guys talking about him a lot as someone maybe we'd look at, everyone knew Orlando was moving him.
Jalen Smith, contract filler and a pick, maybe 2 picks to safely outbid the Nuggets and we couldla had him. IMO, that team wins a title in 21, health permitting, maybe 22 as well.
Even with CP3's decline, we'd have a pretty loaded roster, just looking for a PG to keep things humming.
Womp womp.
