Any chance he could come back for the trade exception and a pick

[Forrestham]

Steven Hunter said he understood why he had been on the bench in the 76ers' last two games before last night, but the reason doesn't exactly agree with that of coach Maurice Cheeks.

The 7-foot Hunter had back-to-back games of 10 or more rebounds on Nov. 21 and 23 while starting in place of the injured Samuel Dalembert. But since Dalembert's return, he managed only 14 rebounds in his next six contests, and sat out games Friday and Saturday against Charlotte and New Jersey, when Cheeks went with Michael Bradley as the first center off the bench.

"That's what happens when you lose basketball games," Hunter said last night. "Coaches look for a spark, for something different. It wasn't anything that I did or anything like that. It's just that Michael Bradley hasn't played all year, and there comes a time when everybody gets their chance. I'm not worried about it."

Cheeks said the reason for the change was that he "just tried a couple of other guys, and they have worked out well," referring to Bradley and rookie Shavlik Randolph.

"If you're not in the game from the beginning and you see guys not rebound the ball and you go in the game, that's what you should do," Cheeks said. "I think Michael and Shavlik have kind of figured that out, and I don't see any reason to change that."

Hunter got a chance to play last night because Bradley sat out the game after experiencing tightness in his back during pregame warm-ups. Hunter grabbed four rebounds in 16 minutes but missed all three of his shots from the field.

 

[elindholm]

The Suns...



do not...



want...



Steven Hunter.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

The Suns...



do not...



want...



Steven Hunter.

Thank you....but please ignore us....let the obsession for a tenth man off the bench for the freaking sixers continue...

If they wanted him to stay they wold have been willing to go over 1.7 million....they never did...

 

[keric]

The Suns...



do not...



want...



Steven Hunter.

I wouldn't say the Suns do not want Hunter, I think its more of "They aren't able to get him". (Don't think the money was there when he was to be signed as well)

Last year I thought Hunter played a key role in the Suns' success. Granted he wasn't a scorer (we had players who did that) nor was he a great rebounder (Marion and Amare did that) but what he brought to the table was an interior defensive presence. Something that was mightily exposed in the Clippers game. Brand killed us on the inside.

If I remember correctly and also have been looking at some of last year's games. Hunter defended the likes of KG and Duncan pretty effectively one on one in the post. (I think he could've done the same with Brand)

He also had some good games for Philly, before Dalembert returned. (Can't beat out Dalembert but then again neither could Grant and Burke)

While the West is loaded with great power forwards, I think Hunter would be an asset in the playoffs. Much better defender than Burke!

Too bad it will never come to be though.

 

[Mainstreet]

I really think Steven Hunter could help this Suns team although there are probably better acqusitions that may become available around December 15th. I'm still not sure if bringing back Hunter is permissible under the CBA.

However, in a previous post, my mere suggestion of bringing Steven Hunter back as a Sun was met with a great deal of sarcasm.

Steven Hunter can add an element of athleticism, height, shot blocking (and the threat thereof) and some occassional straight-up defense on some opposing big men like Paul Gasol.

Right now the opposing teams are driving the ball straight to the hoop with impunity. The Suns definitely team another big man or two to shore up their frontline as their is no guarantee Amare can come back from injury this year.

The Suns know how to uniquely utilize Hunter's skills whereas he probably would be useless to many other teams. And Hunter is still young and figures only to improve.

I'm not pushing for the return of Hunter to the Suns' team as the primary focus, however, they could do alot worse. IMO (and to my knowledge) the only reason the Suns did not resign Hunter is that they could not match the money and long term security Philly offered.

 

[elindholm]

IMO (and to my knowledge) the only reason the Suns did not resign Hunter is that they could not match the money and long term security Philly offered.

I think that's where we disagree. In my opinion, the Suns didn't want Hunter at all. Brass said that money was the issue, because you don't generally want to insult someone to his face by saying, "We really don't care if you stay here or not." But had they wanted to keep him, they certainly could have; the Suns have consistently shown that they're willing and able to free up a couple million dollars when the circumstances demand it. It was quite late in the free agency period that Hunter finally got an offer for more than half of the MLE. The Suns could have locked him up early for a price that made sense to both sides.

As for why the Suns didn't want him, the reasons are pretty clear. Hunter doesn't rebound, he was in the way on offense, and his defense was spotty. In an earlier thread, I refuted the argument that Hunter defended Garnett well by looking at each of last season's Phoenix-Minnesota games. The same could be said for any other opposing big man. Hunter had flashes of brilliance, but that's all they were. Overall, he was a one-dimensional tease, and an unreliable one at that. The Suns already invested a year trying to figure out whether he could get it together, and they came to the conclusion that he couldn't.

They didn't want him last summer, and they don't want him now.

 

[Mainstreet]

IMO (and to my knowledge) the only reason the Suns did not resign Hunter is that they could not match the money and long term security Philly offered.

I think that's where we disagree. In my opinion, the Suns didn't want Hunter at all. Brass said that money was the issue, because you don't generally want to insult someone to his face by saying, "We really don't care if you stay here or not." But had they wanted to keep him, they certainly could have; the Suns have consistently shown that they're willing and able to free up a couple million dollars when the circumstances demand it. It was quite late in the free agency period that Hunter finally got an offer for more than half of the MLE. The Suns could have locked him up early for a price that made sense to both sides.

My memory is somewhat fuzzy about this issue, but wasn't the JJ sign and trade with Atlanta still on the table when Hunter signed with Philly so the Suns could not afford (even if they wanted too) to offer Hunter any more than the minimum because it would threaten to put the Suns in luxury tax land (and ruin their bluff with Atlanta to match for JJ).

If the Suns had signed JJ for that ridiculous contract (especially the upfront money) I think the Suns current roster would have to be made up of near minimum players so they could accomodate the large contracts of Nash, Amare, Marion and JJ.

If the Suns had signed Hunter (while negotiating with Atlanta) for what Philly was offering it would have tipped their hand concerning their alleged intent to match for JJ. I don't believe the Suns would have risked it and rightly so.

Anyway, this is probably a mute issue. However, personally, I would rather have Hunter on the roster instead of Jackson especially after the Suns were able to reshuffle the roster after not signing JJ.

 

[cly2tw]

Eric is right on this one. After one year of direct experience with this guy, the Suns were not willing to sign him for more than the LLE, a 7footer blocking machine. That's telling enough where it's rare for a 7 footer with Hunter's athletism anywhere in the league. And his benching in Philly is another proof of why the Suns did what they did. For a 12th man on the bench, which Hunter would be on this year's Suns, maybe just a little ahead of Burke, you don't pay more than the LLE. Period.

 

[haverford]

Aw what the heck, bait taken. I've been watching Hunter's fall in Philly and the rise of KT here, and feeling better, I guess, about us having "lost" him. And yet, with our latest rash of injuries, particularly Grant and now maybe Burke, Hunter's history with the Suns becomes a bit less relevant. Eric is right about everything, but perhaps some of the variables have changed. All that said, though, I don't see the Suns doing a damn thing to get Hunter--been there, done that. If they're looking, it is elsewhere.