Are you really just curious? I dont agree with that point either necessarily mind you,but now I'M just curious....that post you quoted was pretty spot on(and you know it is)....so after reading it you're just going to quote the 1% and question that?
Howabout disputing the other 99% ?
Because we've been through this over and over in the past and it's getting pointless rehashing the same old arguments. The only reason I responded to that one line is because Phrazbit implied that Gentry somehow unearthed some talented players that D'Antoni's overlooked, but that is simply not true. The only four players that were still on the roster from D'Antoni's years when Gentry took over were Nash, Stoudemire, Hill and Barbosa while many of the bench players that D'Antoni had to work with were already out of the league. Show me one player who was buried on D'Antoni's bench that went on to play a significant role for another team later.
The other popular argument is that he didn't develop young players. So who did he fail to develop? Jacobsen? Strawberry? Tucker? These weren't NBA-caliber players.
And then there's the Rondo/Banks fiasco. But let's remember that had the Suns kept that pick, they likely would not have selected Rondo (recently it was suggested the Suns would have drafted Shannon Brown instead). That's on the scouting department as well. The reason the Suns signed Banks instead was because the mandate was to win now not later, so the reasoning was that a more experienced player like Banks would help more than a rookie in a title pursuit. And while Banks failed miserably (as did every other backup to Nash) Rondo didn't do much in his rookie season either, playing for a lottery team.
But I ask, why didn't the Suns do both like any other team would? Why didn't the Suns draft someone to use as trade asset or potential piece for the future and then sign a veteran player to help immediately? It was simply cheaper not to. Sarver wasn't going to pay for players who weren't likely going to contribute right away like rookies. In NY D'Antoni has given his young players plenty of playing time. What's the difference? You have young players who can actually play, an owner that doesn't mind drafting players and still signing veteran free agents, and no pressure to win a title immediately, although that last one may change soon.
lol, you're still using samples from halves or quarters of a season to point to D'Antoni using his bench, but when you break it down by game he is using 7 man rotations.
You are missing my point. I have never argued that our rotation was anything more than 7 or 8 deep on any given night. My argument was that players who were good enough to play played. Players who weren't, didn't. Playing players that don't belong in the NBA just so you can have a deep rotation doesn't help you win games, and in those years the Suns were chasing a championship. A lottery team perhaps could afford to experiment more with the lineup, but for the Suns there was a lot less room for error.
Do you honestly think D'Antoni used his bench properly? I dont care what guys did for other teams, there are plenty of bench guys all over the league who have their run for a team then pitter out of the league. Dantoni never even TRIED to make players useful off his bench. And sure, you can try to blame the talent, but then you're also blaming Mike again, because he had major influence over roster moves and was even the GM for a time.
I believe that had D'Antoni played guys like Pat Burke, Jalen Rose, Eric Piatkowski, Brian Grant or Bo Outlaw more then the Suns would have lost a lot more games. These players were all either marginal NBA-level talent, or already on their way out. There are certain things that he could have done better such as playing Kurt Thomas more like Eric pointed out. But that would hardly make the team deeper than 7 or 8. Going deeper than that would mean winning fewer games, imo, given the talent level of the remaining players. The fact that none of our deep bench guys ever played a significant role for another team afterwards is evidence that they just weren't worthy of playing time. Otherwise, you would expect at least a few of them to be useful to another team at some point. And as Eric also said, D'Antoni did try to play those players. I remember stretches where guys like Outlaw, Banks and even Rose were part of the rotation. The reason they fell out of rotation is because they couldn't really play.
Also, I never argued that D'Antoni was a good GM. So why didn't Sarver hire a real GM right away? What possible (financial) advantage to the owner could there be from having one person fill two positions?
And again, we are arguing over one of the MANY factors that made Mike frustrating. I appreciate what he did for the Suns in bringing in his system, but it does not mean he did not have major flaws. The biggest being his aversion to developing young players... leading to picks being dumped so the team could use that money on a vet... who Mike would proceed to not play. His refusal to work on defense, his infamous doghouse, and him simply getting out coached over the course of 7 game series on a regular basis.
Of course he had flaws, who doesn't? No one is arguing the guy was a saint. But he gets blamed for things that really were the fault of many people involved. For example, why did the Suns have to sell picks in order to sign vets? Why couldn't they have done both like every other team does? What coach or GM would ever say "go ahead and sell that pick, we don't need that asset, we'd rather have cash"? The Suns were the only team selling picks in order to generate the funds to pay other players' salaries. Sarver was essentially mortgaging the team's future in order to try to win a title as cheaply as possible. He failed. Now we are left with the remnants of that failed experiment.