slinslin
Welcome to Amareca
Marbury was extended to keep all options open. If they didn't he could have opted out or the Suns would have been in a bad position to negotiate a good trade.
A Few Thoughts About Plan C
- Thread starter George O'Brien
- Start date
elindholm
edited for content
Marbury was extended to keep all options open. If they didn't he could have opted out or the Suns would have been in a bad position to negotiate a good trade.
There are very, very few cases of teams losing free agents "for nothing." It gets talked about a lot, but it rarely happens. The player has to be very unhappy with his team in order to leave, or there has to be a big difference between what the old team and the new team are willing to pay.
If Bryant leaves the Lakers this summer, which remains unlikely, it will be an extremely unusual case. In a previous discussion on this board, the closest thing we could find to a recent example was Grant Hill, and even there the Pistons got significant talent in return.
The Suns would not have lost Marbury "for nothing." If they thought he was going to leave, they could have gotten a lot back for his expiring deal. Just look at what a commodity Rasheed Wallace was this year -- or Antonio McDyess, for that matter. Similarly, the Knicks would not have hesitated to acquire Marbury before his extension was awarded. Everyone knows he has always wanted to play for the Knicks, so why would he leave once finally getting there? In fact, the Knicks could very well have negotiated an extension as part of the trade, if they had wanted to.
If the choice is between two risks, one being losing a player for nothing and the other being getting stuck with a burdensome, overpriced extension, there's really no contest between which happens more often. The smart teams are the ones that realize how minimal the risk of losing players really is.
There are very, very few cases of teams losing free agents "for nothing." It gets talked about a lot, but it rarely happens. The player has to be very unhappy with his team in order to leave, or there has to be a big difference between what the old team and the new team are willing to pay.
If Bryant leaves the Lakers this summer, which remains unlikely, it will be an extremely unusual case. In a previous discussion on this board, the closest thing we could find to a recent example was Grant Hill, and even there the Pistons got significant talent in return.
The Suns would not have lost Marbury "for nothing." If they thought he was going to leave, they could have gotten a lot back for his expiring deal. Just look at what a commodity Rasheed Wallace was this year -- or Antonio McDyess, for that matter. Similarly, the Knicks would not have hesitated to acquire Marbury before his extension was awarded. Everyone knows he has always wanted to play for the Knicks, so why would he leave once finally getting there? In fact, the Knicks could very well have negotiated an extension as part of the trade, if they had wanted to.
If the choice is between two risks, one being losing a player for nothing and the other being getting stuck with a burdensome, overpriced extension, there's really no contest between which happens more often. The smart teams are the ones that realize how minimal the risk of losing players really is.
Last edited:
scotsman13
Registered User
Chaplin said:The problem is that you are perfectly okay with overpaying players--overpaying huge injury risks because they finally have good years in a contract year.
i am sorry where did i states that i was favor of bring overpaid players? if you are saying that we bring in camby (who is one player i have put down to fit this teams needs) and pay him a max contract then chaplin i wouldnt be in favor of that. but if you think bring mcdyess back for a 2 or 3 year deal starting at 2.5 million would be a big risk then i would tell you are mistaken.
Chaplin
Better off silent
scotsman13 said:
McDyess at 2.5 million a year is not what we were discussing (for the record, I am about 75% in favor of that idea), what I dislike is the idea of bringing Marcus Camby for anything more than 5 million a year. And the problem is that he'll most likely demand more than that, maybe even substantially more.
And please understand that my opinion is based on his penchant for injury, not as a player.
Last edited:
thegrahamcrackr
Registered User
slinslin said:
You mean in a seperate trade? In the expansion draft a team may only use 1 pick to bribe the Bobcats.
Of course, after the draft they might not have enough cap space to absorb a player, meaning we owuld have to take something back. Not really ideal if you ask me.
elindholm said:
I'm not following at all. At the beginning of this season and really through much of last season Marbury dominated the ball so much at Amare Stoudemire was rarely getting it in the low post. Not only that, he was constantly getting missed by Marbury when he was wide open going to the basket. I thought it was very evident until his injury this year at Amare Stoudemire was a very frustrated with Marbury.
I'm not sure why that seems far-fetched. If I remember correctly Bryan Colangelo even set as much himself. He said the New York Knicks had been trying to get Marbury from the Suns since he was traded here for Jason Kidd. He said that the extension was vital in the trade because otherwise Marbury could have opted out of his contract after this summer. Wallace is a completely different situation because the Pistons when they acquired him were not even sure they want to keep him after this season. They will have room under the salary cap. The New York Knicks, on the other hand, will have any wiggle room under the cap even without Marbury's contract. It's really very different.
There's no doubt that New York wants Marbury there. There's no doubt that they wanted him there for the long haul when they traded for him. Without the extension he could have left them high and dry if he didn't like the way things were going.
I do think the financial implications had a lot to do with the deal happening. I don't think they would have traded Marbury unless the deal was going to help financially. However I do think the deciding factor was that the Phoenix Suns did not like what they saw on the court, especially the chemistry, or lack thereof, between Marbury and Stoudemire.
Joe Mama
elindholm
edited for content
At the beginning of this season and really through much of last season Marbury dominated the ball so much at Amare Stoudemire was rarely getting it in the low post.
Then trade Marbury during the summer. Wouldn't there have been plenty of takers?
I thought it was very evident until his injury this year at Amare Stoudemire was a very frustrated with Marbury
How many games did they play together? Ten? Stoudemire gets frustrated now, too, when defenses figure out what he's going to do and clamp down on him. As he was coming back slowly from injury, Stoudemire probably had more difficulties with this than usual. If he blamed Marbury for his own shortcomings and management allowed themselves to be influenced by that, that's not an encouraging sign at all. Which All-Star teammate will Stoudemire pick on next?
If I remember correctly Bryan Colangelo even set as much himself. He said the New York Knicks had been trying to get Marbury from the Suns since he was traded here for Jason Kidd. He said that the extension was vital in the trade because otherwise Marbury could have opted out of his contract after this summer.
In my opinion, after-the-fact rationalizations that Bryan Colangelo makes up in a press conference aren't evidence.
However I do think the deciding factor was that the Phoenix Suns did not like what they saw on the court, especially the chemistry, or lack thereof, between Marbury and Stoudemire.
Then the timing is really weird. Of course there won't be chemistry between two players when one has hardly played in several months due to injury. Can this obvious fact have been lost on Suns management? I don't think so.
Then trade Marbury during the summer. Wouldn't there have been plenty of takers?
I thought it was very evident until his injury this year at Amare Stoudemire was a very frustrated with Marbury
How many games did they play together? Ten? Stoudemire gets frustrated now, too, when defenses figure out what he's going to do and clamp down on him. As he was coming back slowly from injury, Stoudemire probably had more difficulties with this than usual. If he blamed Marbury for his own shortcomings and management allowed themselves to be influenced by that, that's not an encouraging sign at all. Which All-Star teammate will Stoudemire pick on next?
If I remember correctly Bryan Colangelo even set as much himself. He said the New York Knicks had been trying to get Marbury from the Suns since he was traded here for Jason Kidd. He said that the extension was vital in the trade because otherwise Marbury could have opted out of his contract after this summer.
In my opinion, after-the-fact rationalizations that Bryan Colangelo makes up in a press conference aren't evidence.
However I do think the deciding factor was that the Phoenix Suns did not like what they saw on the court, especially the chemistry, or lack thereof, between Marbury and Stoudemire.
Then the timing is really weird. Of course there won't be chemistry between two players when one has hardly played in several months due to injury. Can this obvious fact have been lost on Suns management? I don't think so.
thegrahamcrackr
Registered User
elindholm said:
I am not taking a stand on either side here, but Eric, you are over looking an important part of the timing. The suns made the deal shortly after Isiah Thomas became GM. Perhaps they were considering it all along, but never got an offer they liked??
Scott Layden was notorious for offering lopsided deals. My guess is he was offering the suns half of what Thomas did for Marbury. It is pretty obvious that Thomas will trade away a lot to get a player he wants, so perhaps that had more to do with the timing??
We could probably go back and forth on this stuff all day long. You asked why they didn't just wait until this summer to trade Marbury. Do you think the Knicks would have had anybody left to trade at that point? You can be sure that Isaiah Thomas wanted to make the deal when he did, and that he was not going to wait.
Joe Mama
Joe Mama
Plenty of stuff here to chew over, for a Tuesday.
Well, White is one-for-one in a Phoenix uniform, and when he came from Washington, the fans there said that he always played great against Shaq. (It was the other 80 games where they had a problem with him.) Oliver Miller did a pretty good job against Shaq, too, back when he was in shape--Shaq has trouble with the shorter, thicker centers, because he can't bulldoze them, and his shot doesn't have enough arc for him to shoot over them.
If we're playing the Lakers, I would take Jahidi over big Jake, easily.
I think there's enough blame to go around in LA, and Kobe's share is as big as anybody else's.
The main thing that would concern me if I wanted Kobe is that he's a complete black hole as far as leadership. I understand that he's never had an opportunity to develop any leadership skills, but I also remember that MJ never developed any and won anyway, so Kobe may not think he needs to.
Needless to say, I think Kobe would be a bad example to hold up in front of Amare, since Amare is still trying to figure out who he is as a player.
Didn't it turn out that the Suns tried to trade Marbury to Miami last year? (Not that finances weren't the main reason then, too.)
Whatever the reason, I think the trade has been good for Amare and especially Joe J. It's hard to focus on winning games and developing young players at the same time.
I'm pretty sure that Amare had completely solidified his position as Future of the Franchise by the middle of last season. How much do you think the Suns' brass needed to see before they concluded that the kid was going to be a great one?
It seems now that they might have decided Marbury's fate as early as last year, and the only thing holding them back was the Suns' surprising success (and possibly Scott Layden's obstinance). Once those obstacles were removed, the deed was done...again, I'm not assuming that finances aren't the main reason, but that would explain the timing to my satisfaction.
elindholm said:
Well, White is one-for-one in a Phoenix uniform, and when he came from Washington, the fans there said that he always played great against Shaq. (It was the other 80 games where they had a problem with him.) Oliver Miller did a pretty good job against Shaq, too, back when he was in shape--Shaq has trouble with the shorter, thicker centers, because he can't bulldoze them, and his shot doesn't have enough arc for him to shoot over them.
If we're playing the Lakers, I would take Jahidi over big Jake, easily.
elindholm said:
I think there's enough blame to go around in LA, and Kobe's share is as big as anybody else's.
The main thing that would concern me if I wanted Kobe is that he's a complete black hole as far as leadership. I understand that he's never had an opportunity to develop any leadership skills, but I also remember that MJ never developed any and won anyway, so Kobe may not think he needs to.
Needless to say, I think Kobe would be a bad example to hold up in front of Amare, since Amare is still trying to figure out who he is as a player.
elindholm said:
Didn't it turn out that the Suns tried to trade Marbury to Miami last year? (Not that finances weren't the main reason then, too.)
Whatever the reason, I think the trade has been good for Amare and especially Joe J. It's hard to focus on winning games and developing young players at the same time.
elindholm said:
I'm pretty sure that Amare had completely solidified his position as Future of the Franchise by the middle of last season. How much do you think the Suns' brass needed to see before they concluded that the kid was going to be a great one?
elindholm said:
It seems now that they might have decided Marbury's fate as early as last year, and the only thing holding them back was the Suns' surprising success (and possibly Scott Layden's obstinance). Once those obstacles were removed, the deed was done...again, I'm not assuming that finances aren't the main reason, but that would explain the timing to my satisfaction.
elindholm
edited for content
thegrahamcrackr:
The suns made the deal shortly after Isiah Thomas became GM. Perhaps they were considering it all along, but never got an offer they liked??
Scott Layden was notorious for offering lopsided deals. My guess is he was offering the suns half of what Thomas did for Marbury.
I'm not arguing the quality of the deal, just the motivation. In terms of players, the Suns got a big project (Lampe), a mysterious combo guard who may never play in the NBA (Vujanic), a broken-down veteran in the last year of his deal (McDyess), and two draft picks that they promptly dumped. From that, I conclude that the deal was financially motivated. Maybe Thomas offered more than Layden did, but that's not really the point.
Joe Mama:
You asked why they didn't just wait until this summer to trade Marbury.
Sorry, I meant last summer. If all the Suns wanted was cap flexibility, I bet they could have found takers for similar trades (Marbury plus Hardaway for expiring deals). Marbury's stock was very high last summer.
F-Dog:
The main thing that would concern me if I wanted Kobe is that he's a complete black hole as far as leadership.
Really? Then who was the leader of the Lakers' three championship teams? Surely not O'Neal, and please don't say Phil Jackson. Derek Fisher?
Didn't it turn out that the Suns tried to trade Marbury to Miami last year?
That's news to me, but maybe. What were the reports?
I'm pretty sure that Amare had completely solidified his position as Future of the Franchise by the middle of last season. How much do you think the Suns' brass needed to see before they concluded that the kid was going to be a great one?
Right -- which is why it made no sense at all to sign Marbury to a huge extension, hold a press conference announcing that he'd be part of the franchise for a long time, and then dump him for scraps after a rough half-season.
Whatever the reason, I think the trade has been good for Amare and especially Joe J.
I wouldn't disagree, and I'm not trying to re-open the question of whether it was a good or bad trade. I'm just saying it was motivated by finances, and any basketball benefits that may have come as part of the package are bonuses.
It seems now that they might have decided Marbury's fate as early as last year, and the only thing holding them back was the Suns' surprising success (and possibly Scott Layden's obstinance).
Boy, that's an interesting possibility. Imagine if the Suns' plans had been stalled by making the playoffs last season! That would go along with Frank Johnson's training-camp complaints about how the team wasn't nearly as good as it thought it was, as well as their bizarre decision to dump Tsakalidis and Outlaw.
I'd been guessing all along that management's optimistic "party line" was genuine, and that it was only when things started to go sour this year that they panicked and bailed out. But maybe it was a ruse all along. Maybe they were thinking, "Marbury sucks, this team is going nowhere, let's blow the whole thing up" -- even while the Suns were grabbing a surprise playoff spot last year. It sounds strange, but there really might be something to it. That would explain everything except the Marbury extension, which will probably always be a mystery to me.
Okay, now it's time for someone with a short attention span to make a sarcastic comment about how long this post is.
The suns made the deal shortly after Isiah Thomas became GM. Perhaps they were considering it all along, but never got an offer they liked??
Scott Layden was notorious for offering lopsided deals. My guess is he was offering the suns half of what Thomas did for Marbury.
I'm not arguing the quality of the deal, just the motivation. In terms of players, the Suns got a big project (Lampe), a mysterious combo guard who may never play in the NBA (Vujanic), a broken-down veteran in the last year of his deal (McDyess), and two draft picks that they promptly dumped. From that, I conclude that the deal was financially motivated. Maybe Thomas offered more than Layden did, but that's not really the point.
Joe Mama:
You asked why they didn't just wait until this summer to trade Marbury.
Sorry, I meant last summer. If all the Suns wanted was cap flexibility, I bet they could have found takers for similar trades (Marbury plus Hardaway for expiring deals). Marbury's stock was very high last summer.
F-Dog:
The main thing that would concern me if I wanted Kobe is that he's a complete black hole as far as leadership.
Really? Then who was the leader of the Lakers' three championship teams? Surely not O'Neal, and please don't say Phil Jackson. Derek Fisher?
Didn't it turn out that the Suns tried to trade Marbury to Miami last year?
That's news to me, but maybe. What were the reports?
I'm pretty sure that Amare had completely solidified his position as Future of the Franchise by the middle of last season. How much do you think the Suns' brass needed to see before they concluded that the kid was going to be a great one?
Right -- which is why it made no sense at all to sign Marbury to a huge extension, hold a press conference announcing that he'd be part of the franchise for a long time, and then dump him for scraps after a rough half-season.
Whatever the reason, I think the trade has been good for Amare and especially Joe J.
I wouldn't disagree, and I'm not trying to re-open the question of whether it was a good or bad trade. I'm just saying it was motivated by finances, and any basketball benefits that may have come as part of the package are bonuses.
It seems now that they might have decided Marbury's fate as early as last year, and the only thing holding them back was the Suns' surprising success (and possibly Scott Layden's obstinance).
Boy, that's an interesting possibility. Imagine if the Suns' plans had been stalled by making the playoffs last season! That would go along with Frank Johnson's training-camp complaints about how the team wasn't nearly as good as it thought it was, as well as their bizarre decision to dump Tsakalidis and Outlaw.
I'd been guessing all along that management's optimistic "party line" was genuine, and that it was only when things started to go sour this year that they panicked and bailed out. But maybe it was a ruse all along. Maybe they were thinking, "Marbury sucks, this team is going nowhere, let's blow the whole thing up" -- even while the Suns were grabbing a surprise playoff spot last year. It sounds strange, but there really might be something to it. That would explain everything except the Marbury extension, which will probably always be a mystery to me.
Okay, now it's time for someone with a short attention span to make a sarcastic comment about how long this post is.
thegrahamcrackr
Registered User
I am not really talking about it from a talent point of view. I was guessing that Layden was unwilling to take Hardaway AND Marbury's contracts. Either that, or ownership wouldn't trust him in such a big move due to his past failures. I think Thomas was more willing to part with picks/Euro prospects than Layden, but I also think he was more willing/able to take on the financial burden.
About a month after the Marbury trade, the Miami Herald printed a story about a trade the suns nixed last year.
It was,
Penny Hardaway/Stephon Marbury
for
Zo's expiring contract, the Heat's pick (which wound up being Dwane Wade), and they were uncertain about the inclusion of Caron Butler (they said it was a sticking point).
Anyways, the report claimed the suns backed off after the team went on the December run last year.
After thinking about it, I wouldn't be surprised this was the case actually. I mean you cant trade star players after they go on a run unless you get something unbelievable in return. Marbury was reportedly being shopped his first year here pretty heavily. In fact, I think he was linked to Denver a lot in particular.
elindholm
edited for content
About a month after the Marbury trade, the Miami Herald printed a story about a trade the suns nixed last year... Anyways, the report claimed the suns backed off after the team went on the December run last year.
Wow, that's very interesting. I wonder whether there's any truth to those reports. That would make things a lot clearer.
Marbury was reportedly being shopped his first year here pretty heavily.
Unfortunately, if this is true, it means that the Suns really got fleeced in the Kidd/Marbury deal. They never wanted Marbury in the first place. And the danger of losing Kidd "for nothing" could easily been averted by packaging him with Hardaway in a cap move, the same way they later did with Marbury -- the only difference being that Kidd is a better player on a better contract, which would have put the Suns in a stronger position.
Wow, that's very interesting. I wonder whether there's any truth to those reports. That would make things a lot clearer.
Marbury was reportedly being shopped his first year here pretty heavily.
Unfortunately, if this is true, it means that the Suns really got fleeced in the Kidd/Marbury deal. They never wanted Marbury in the first place. And the danger of losing Kidd "for nothing" could easily been averted by packaging him with Hardaway in a cap move, the same way they later did with Marbury -- the only difference being that Kidd is a better player on a better contract, which would have put the Suns in a stronger position.
Chaplin
Better off silent
I remember hearing about the Miami thing, but it was never substantiated.
As for Marbury always being on the block, I find that difficult to believe, and an easy way to ease the pain for people that didn't like the Knick trade.
As for Marbury always being on the block, I find that difficult to believe, and an easy way to ease the pain for people that didn't like the Knick trade.
thegrahamcrackr
Registered User
Chaplin said:
He wasn't always on the block. However, his first season here there were several rumors when it was apparent the suns weren't going to be a playoff team. Supposedly a lot of teams were calling, but the suns never bit. The official statement from the suns was denying he was being shopped. Maybe it was just all the other teams in the league looking for a bargain deal, but he was definitely the part of many rumors, especially post DUI.
I have been a supporter of the deal since about day 2 (you cant honestly like it the first time you hear about it), however, I dont think it is unreasonable he was almost traded last season. He was a soon to be FA, the community hadnt embraced him yet and the team was doing horrible. I don't think anyone honestly expected the run last year, mostly because no one expected Amare to flourish so fast.
It could be more of they just didnt want Kidd, and Marbury was the best alternative. There wasn't talk of the suns trading Marbury until after they floundered, which I don't think was necessarily planned.
Also, I think it would have been much harder to package Hardaway and Kidd together. At the time of the kidd trade, Penny still had like 5 years on his contract, and hadn't shown a bit of life (at least not as much as he did last year).
It was amazing the suns found a team willing to take on both Steph and Hardaway. When you look at the history of big trades, there hasn't been one involving that much salary, especially so lopsided. This is was definitely a once and a life time deal.
thegrahamcrackr
Registered User
The link for the sun sentinal (thought it was the herald, my bad) was dead, but here is a copy of the article posted here:
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23720
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23720
The problem with this entire argument from both sides is that so much of it is unsubstantiated hearsay. It wouldn't surprise me if those talks between Phoenix and Miami really took place, but we'll never know how serious they really were. We'll never know for sure what other offers for Jason Kidd or Marbury to Phoenix Suns received before they made their deals.
Eric, I just don't understand what you're saying about the sums getting "fleeced" in the Jason Kidd deal. At the point that trade was made we were all hoping that Penny Hardaway would stay injured, so insurance would pay his contract and it would come off the salary cap. He also had another couple seasons on his contract.
Obviously finances played a big part in the trade, but I just don't think they would have blown up the team if they felt Marbury and Amare Stoudemire were a good fit together.
Joe Mama
Eric, I just don't understand what you're saying about the sums getting "fleeced" in the Jason Kidd deal. At the point that trade was made we were all hoping that Penny Hardaway would stay injured, so insurance would pay his contract and it would come off the salary cap. He also had another couple seasons on his contract.
Obviously finances played a big part in the trade, but I just don't think they would have blown up the team if they felt Marbury and Amare Stoudemire were a good fit together.
Joe Mama
slinslin
Welcome to Amareca
No.
The Jazz got both of the Knicks picks.
The Jazz got both of the Knicks picks.
slinslin said:
I don't think that is correct. Everything I have seen states "Utah receives a future Phoenix first-round pick" I suppose it could be the Knicks pick, but I've yet to hear anything that was certain on it. And as long as the pick is considered a "future Phoenix first-round pick" I assume that it will hamper the teams ability to trade a future first round pick.
However, I could be completely wrong and I hope I am.
slinslin
Welcome to Amareca
It is the New York pick.
It couldn't even be a Phoenix pick because since the Barbosa deal we can't trade our own future picks.
It couldn't even be a Phoenix pick because since the Barbosa deal we can't trade our own future picks.
Chaplin
Better off silent
ehale911 said:
That "future Phx first-round pick" is actually the "future NY first-round pick" we received in the Knick trade. We got two picks in the Marbury trade--both those picks went to Utah.
elindholm said:
Shaq, of course. He was the one who dealt with his lesser teammates, who got them to pass him the ball (except Kobe) and play off of him. I'm not saying he was a great leader, but he was what they had.
Kobe was the closer, but didn't seem to involve himself in the team beyond that role. IMO the most interesting thing after the Kobe rape allegation is that his teammates (after the initial shock) all seemed to realize that they didn't know Kobe at all, either inside or outside the locker room.
elindholm said:
It's possible that there's truth to the Suns' contention that Marbury was more valuable if he was locked up to a long-term supermax contract. If they'd already talked with Miami, the sticking point in those talks could easily have been the lack of a long-term extension for Marbury.
Remember, the Suns weren't looking to merely dump Marbury's contract--they were expecting significantly more than that. From NYK, they got both immediate and lasting cap relief by moving Penny (they could never have gotten under the cap this year without Charlie Ward's buyout), plus prospects and draft picks, in addition to the expiring McDyess contract.
Of course, if the Suns signed Marbury to the extension expecting to move him (as it now seems), then they treated him very shabbily. I'm sure the sting has been taken off because he's playing for his favorite team and making the most $$$ possible, but he still gets extra marks from me for his class in not ripping the organization on his way out.
elindholm said:
One other thing--the Suns set up D'Antoni to take over the head coaching job this summer, while FJ was still getting votes of confidence.
I'm not sure whether they expected to fail as spectacularly as they actually did--the injuries to Amare and Zarko were the real key to the basement IMO, and it strikes me as improbable that they were both severely injured in the same week--but they were definitely prepared to take the next step when it happened.
Now I'm starting to wonder how things would have gone down if everybody had stayed healthy...
OP
OP
George O'Brien
ASFN Icon
F-Dog said:
If everyone had stayed healthy, the Suns would be at about 41 wins (50%) and just mis the playoffs. But the Suns would be above $60 million, have a major hole at center, and have an offense that only ran the pick and roll. Their draft pick would be at about #16 with little help in sight.
Also, we would be having debates over whether to trade Marion or Marbury to clear cap space and criticising the Suns for not being willing to take risks.
