Amare: Extension in the works

[devilalum]

unless everything other than winning it all is mediocrity.
Steve

This is how many on this board define mediocrity.

 

[Chaplin]

Hey, it's nice to have a perennially-winning team year after year. But after how many years is it time to start asking what they have to show for it? The Suns in the 90s and the 2000s, have been one of the winningest clubs in the NBA. But there is no title to show for it.

Having winning seasons are nice, but after awhile, that becomes the norm, and by definition, the norm can be "mediocrity".

 

[devilalum]

Hey, it's nice to have a perennially-winning team year after year. But after how many years is it time to start asking what they have to show for it? The Suns in the 90s and the 2000s, have been one of the winningest clubs in the NBA. But there is no title to show for it.

Having winning seasons are nice, but after awhile, that becomes the norm, and by definition, the norm can be "mediocrity".

I would say the Suns have had several teams that had a shot at winning it all. Isn't that all you can ask?

As a GM or an owner you can put together a great team but the players have to play the games.

There were 3 Barkley teams that could of/ should of won it all and there were at least 2 more a couple of years ago.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Having winning seasons are nice, but after awhile, that becomes the norm, and by definition, the norm can be "mediocrity".

Oh come on, you can't possibly mean that! If all it takes to qualify as mediocre is to perform at the same level over a period of time then we should talk about those mediocre Bruins that kept winning championships or those mediocre Yankees or those mediocre Celtics. Also, mediocrity carries with it a pejorative connotation that hardly applies to the Suns over any extended period.

Steve

 

[Divide Et Impera]

Hey, it's nice to have a perennially-winning team year after year. But after how many years is it time to start asking what they have to show for it? The Suns in the 90s and the 2000s, have been one of the winningest clubs in the NBA. But there is no title to show for it.

Having winning seasons are nice, but after awhile, that becomes the norm, and by definition, the norm can be "mediocrity".

Bingo!

 

[devilalum]

Bingo!

So you're not even going to differentiate between teams like this year that may win 50 but have no realistic shot at making the finals and the SSOL teams from a few of years ago?

 

[Divide Et Impera]

Go back and look through the archives. I have been saying for YEARS that we need to reformat our approach to basketball. Guard-oriented play will NEVER win you a ring unless that guard is Jordan. Even the MIA win had a good year from Shaq AND they beat a guard-oriented team in DAL. LAL has a huge frontcourt (and a capable one) and BOS is as deep as you can get across the front line.

I had brief hopes when we drafted Amare that we were headed the right way, but by the end of his year 4, he showed exactly what he is - a softie loafer and thus NOT the answer in the frontcourt.

The SSOL teams were a gimmick (and I said as much at the time). The SSOL teams always got killed by teams that, guess what, HAD A HUGE FRONTLINE....

 

[Cheesebeef]

A protected pick is far from enough for Nash, considering we'd have to take back contracts on top of that from Toronto.

DeRozan and a pick, maaaybe..

I don't think they or anyone else would give up this much.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I would say the Suns have had several teams that had a shot at winning it all. Isn't that all you can ask?

As a GM or an owner you can put together a great team but the players have to play the games.

There were 3 Barkley teams that could of/ should of won it all and there were at least 2 more a couple of years ago.

that's 5 teams in the last 25 years. That's not very good, especially since only one of them even made it to the Finals.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Oh come on, you can't possibly mean that! If all it takes to qualify as mediocre is to perform at the same level over a period of time then we should talk about those mediocre Bruins that kept winning championships or those mediocre Yankees or those mediocre Celtics.

surely, this argument is made in jest, no? I think it's pretty clear what Chap meant. If you consistently have a team that doesn't contend for a title but is competitive, that could be construed as being mediocre... as opposed to teams which continually win titles, which is excellence.

 

[Chaplin]

So you're not even going to differentiate between teams like this year that may win 50 but have no realistic shot at making the finals and the SSOL teams from a few of years ago?

True, there was an outside chance that the teams in 2006 and 2007 could have won the title. (Joe Johnson's face injury in 06 and the suspensions in 07 affected the outcome)

In the NBA of 2009/2010, neither of those teams probably wouldn't win the title, not with teams like the Lakers, Magic and the Cavs around.

Not only do you have to look at the makeup of the team, you have to take into consideration the makeup of the league. Because while we are improving, several other teams are doing the same. We have done enough to tread water for years and years, but never gotten over the hump. Whether that's dumb luck (rare) or bad decisions (common) is irrelevant. You have to make your own luck, and the Suns haven't been able to do that since 93. This year is a move in that direction, but the personnel just isn't enough.

 

[Mainstreet]

I would say the Suns have had several teams that had a shot at winning it all. Isn't that all you can ask?

As a GM or an owner you can put together a great team but the players have to play the games.

Absolutely. All you can do as an owner or GM is put yourself in a position to win a Championship. However, an owner can take the extra step to increase his team's chances of winning a Championship such as Mark Cuban of the Mavericks. He has went all out to get the right players together to contend for a Championship. I wish the Suns had an owner willing (or probably rich enough) to take that extra step but I do understand the constraints of the LT.

 

[BC867]

Hey, it's nice to have a perennially-winning team year after year. But after how many years is it time to start asking what they have to show for it? The Suns in the 90s and the 2000s, have been one of the winningest clubs in the NBA. But there is no title to show for it.

Having winning seasons are nice, but after awhile, that becomes the norm, and by definition, the norm can be "mediocrity".

I agree. In a small market, such as Salt Lake City, it is all that's required to be considered successful.

Ironically, Jerry himself changed our standard, which neither he nor his successors could keep up with, when he created the Diamondbacks, who with the Suns, Cardinals and Coyotes, have made Phoenix one of the few four-major league team cities.

That made it a whole different ball game. But the Suns are still a 50-and-fade team.

Jerry was pleased that the D'backs brought Phoenix its first major championship. But he was heartbroken that it wasn't his Suns. And it was his own doing.

Even the Suns subsidiary, the Phoenix Mercury, have won two league Championships recently.

Plus the Cardinals recent success reaching the Super Bowl. Unfortunately, they're predicted to sink back into mediocrity.

So this year, it will be the D'backs with the potential to go all the way.

And still the Suns meander along, putting on a good-enough show. But y'know what they say, "Good enough is not good enough."

 

[AzStevenCal]

surely, this argument is made in jest, no? I think it's pretty clear what Chap meant. If you consistently have a team that doesn't contend for a title but is competitive, that could be construed as being mediocre... as opposed to teams which continually win titles, which is excellence.

And here we have the big difference between some of us on this board. IMO, we HAVE consistently contended for a title the past several years. If you look at it solely from an after-the-fact perspective it's easy to say we haven't but at the time it was happening it sure felt like we were contending. Our style of play and Sarver's desire to be both successful and frugal left us with little margin for error and the Johnson/Bell/Barbosa injuries plus the bench incident exceeded that margin but we were contending.

Chap made the point that regardless how much you win, if you do it consistently it is your average and therefore falls under the definition of mediocrity. I took it to the extreme but I didn't do it in jest - I think my point is valid. I see no reasonable method of measurement that would categorize the results of recent years as mediocrity.

Steve

 

[overseascardfan]

I agree. In a small market, such as Salt Lake City, it is all that's required to be considered successful.

Ironically, Jerry himself changed our standard, which neither he nor his successors could keep up with, when he created the Diamondbacks, who with the Suns, Cardinals and Coyotes, have made Phoenix one of the few four-major league team cities.

That made it a whole different ball game. But the Suns are still a 50-and-fade team.

Jerry was pleased that the D'backs brought Phoenix its first major championship. But he was heartbroken that it wasn't his Suns. And it was his own doing.

Even the Suns subsidiary, the Phoenix Mercury, have won two league Championships recently.

Plus the Cardinals recent success reaching the Super Bowl. Unfortunately, they're predicted to sink back into mediocrity.

So this year, it will be the D'backs with the potential to go all the way.

And still the Suns meander along, putting on a good-enough show. But y'know what they say, "Good enough is not good enough."

God I really miss Jerry and Bryan. Jerry wasn't the wealthiest owner but he knew how to build a team. Jerry always tried to make the team better and Bryan was an above average GM. Jerry made basketball decisions not financial decisions like Sarver. If Jerry were still here I am willing to bet JJ would still be here.

 

[Cheesebeef]

And here we have the big difference between some of us on this board. IMO, we HAVE consistently contended for a title the past several years.

huh? First, Chap is talking about the last twenty years, not just the last couple and second, we did consistently contend for a title but that was three years ago and it was only for three years and never did that team even break through to the Finals. This isn't about looking at anything after the fact. We had a very short window, we never got there and now we've DEFINITELY decided to stick with mediocrity which is what we are now, were last year and are set up to be for years with the contract extensions given to old aging players last year, while not having a first round pick for until 2011.

Chap made the point that regardless how much you win, if you do it consistently it is your average and therefore falls under the definition of mediocrity. I took it to the extreme but I didn't do it in jest - I think my point is valid.

no it's not.

I see no reasonable method of measurement that would categorize the results of recent years as mediocrity.

Steve

how is the last three years of getting crushed in the first round, missing the playoffs entirely and being a 6 seed this year anything but mediocrity?

The contending team is long gone Steve. Stop living in the past man.

 

[AzStevenCal]

huh? First, Chap is talking about the last twenty years, not just the last couple and second, we did consistently contend for a title but that was three years ago and it was only for three years and never did that team even break through to the finals.

First off, you're a better mind-reader than I am if you know Chap meant the last 20 years and not the last 25 years or 13 years. Secondly, I think we did put a team out there that was designed to contend much more often than just the 3 you've mentioned.

This isn't about looking at anything after the fact.

Sorry if that came across as an accusation of hindsight. It was intended to be an acknowledgement that we failed if we're looking back on it.

We had a very short window, we never got there and now we've DEFINITELY decided to stick with mediocrity which is what we are now, were last year and are set up to be for years with the contract extensions given to old aging players last year, while not having a first round pick for until 2011.

For me, going into this season was the first time that felt like we were settling for mediocrity. Last year we had our hopes raised that a defensive minded coach would improve our chances.

no it's not.

Well, I guess you have the right to simply dismiss my opinion as not valid but I think I'm going to hang on to it anyway.

how is the last three years of getting crushed in the first round, missing the playoffs entirely and being a 6 seed this year anything but mediocrity?

Our results were far from satisfactory but the team wasn't designed to fail. The Shaq trade and the Amare injury and the failed coaching change were not part of some plan designed to keep the Suns marketable but ultimately uncompetitive.

The contending team is long gone Steve. Stop living in the past man.

I probably can't argue this one. I do tend to live in the past and I don't see any realistic hope that we will soon be contenders again. I have a far-fetched hope that everything will come together and we'll be playing for a championship this season but I do realize how unlikely that will be.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

Steve, I'm curious. What is your definition of mediocrity in the NBA?

I will concede that up against the Milwaukee Bucks, the LA Clippers and the Golden State Warriors, yes, we aren't "mediocre".

But up against past Suns teams? How can you say we are anything BUT mediocre? How long before you get tired of the same schtick every single year. The playoffs are no longer a goal, but expected. The goal is actually getting into the 2nd round and beyond, and a vast majority of past Suns teams just didn't do that.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Steve, I'm curious. What is your definition of mediocrity in the NBA?

I will concede that up against the Milwaukee Bucks, the LA Clippers and the Golden State Warriors, yes, we aren't "mediocre".

But up against past Suns teams? How can you say we are anything BUT mediocre? How long before you get tired of the same schtick every single year. The playoffs are no longer a goal, but expected. The goal is actually getting into the 2nd round and beyond, and a vast majority of past Suns teams just didn't do that.

Before I get into this I'll point out that this conversation came out of a comment by Divide and Conquer "and we need to stop trying to sustain mediocrity". I don't believe that we have ever (in the past 20 some years anyway) TRIED to sustain mediocrity with the possible exception of this season.

I'm disappointed that we've had so many 1st round flameouts but there are a variety of reasons and I don't think any of them point to "a management game plan to sustain mediocrity". We have a winning percentage that is well above the league average and a team salary that far exceeds the average also. I think we have tried to succeed not tried to be mediocre. I could understand someone saying that we failed to succeed just not that it was part of the plan.

Although I understand what they're thinking proabably was, I'll go to my grave detesting the management philosophy that allowed us to give away so many draft picks for nothing more than a few dollars (in the NBA world anyway). Besides losing the actual value of those picks it's shortsighted because of what it does to us fans. We love looking at our picks and projecting how they'll grow and help us in the future and dream about which one will become the next surprise star. Even if we had the same level of success over the past few years I suspect a lot of the disappointment about this franchise would be muted if they'd not been so penny-wise and pound foolish.

Steve

 

[mojorizen7]

Admittedly i tend to oversimplify things but....

Our style of play and Sarver's desire to be both successful and frugal left us with little margin for error and the Johnson/Bell/Barbosa injuries plus the bench incident exceeded that margin but we were contending.

You must be registered for see images attach

...and it breaks my balls that apparently that narrow margin for error still exists in the form of just trying to make the playoffs in addition to STILL playing the same ole style. Thats mediocrity.

 

[Sunburn]

me·di·o·cre

 

You must be registered for see images

 /ˌmi

You must be registered for see images

diˈoʊ

You must be registered for see images

kər/

You must be registered for see images

Show Spelled[mee-dee-oh-ker]

You must be registered for see images

Show IPA
–adjective 1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate.

2. rather poor or inferior.


That does not sound like the suns of the past 6 years to me.


And back to the original thread subject, Amare with 44 points tonight on 16 shot attempts. Only 16 attempts. That's ridiculous efficiency. Unstoppable. Extension anyone

 

[Chaplin]

me·di·o·cre

 

You must be registered for see images

 /ˌmi

You must be registered for see images

diˈoʊ

You must be registered for see images

kər/

You must be registered for see images

Show Spelled[mee-dee-oh-ker]

You must be registered for see images

Show IPA
–adjective 1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate.

2. rather poor or inferior.


That does not sound like the suns of the past 6 years to me.


And back to the original thread subject, Amare with 44 points tonight on 16 shot attempts. Only 16 attempts. That's ridiculous efficiency. Unstoppable. Extension anyone

"neither good nor bad; barely adequate."

Um, that pretty much sums it up.

And besides, you're the one who goes on every game thread and says you hate the team!

 

[overseascardfan]

Back on topic, sign Amare please. 44pts vs the Jazz, man is on fiiiiiirrreee!

 

[BC867]

Amare with 44 points tonight on 16 shot attempts. Only 16 attempts. That's ridiculous efficiency. Unstoppable. Extension anyone

Extreme efficiency in two categories. 14 of 16 shots made when he was not fouled, for 28 points.

And another 16 points when fouled on 9 shots (which led to 18 free throws).

So overall, he attempted 25 shots from the field which resulted in 44 points out of a potential 50. There were no 3-point attempts.

At a 50% shooting average, you'd expect 25 shots to yield 25 points. 44 is spectacular. But it must be mentioned that the opposition was not equipped to play NBA caliber.

 

[krazyasiankid]

I dont care what anyone else thinks. Amare is the Sun's best player, apart from Nash. Re-sign him now, while we have the chance. Why let one of the top power forwards in the NBA walk for nothing this off-season?