Anyone feel bad for Mike D'Antoni?

[JustWinBaby]

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?

Thanks for adressing Mikes tenure as GM. The bad moves were always blamed on Coach D. Some make it seem as though Mike personally destroyed the franchise by his moves as GM. He was handed that job when BC left and really did want the job. He had his hands full coaching our team as well as working with the Dream team. I guess he agreed to the Banks signing but that was after others did the homework. He erred but should never have been given that responsibility. Sarver was saving money as you suggest, in the wrong area.

Grif

Great post

It is nice to see that some remember the facts and don't twist them to fit their argument.

 

[Phrazbit]

Some people cannot be convinced even when presented with the facts.

I am now totally convinced that Mike is the sole problem that New York has. That roster is stellar. He is playing 9 or 10 guys on most nights tring to find 7 or 8 that can play. If he would play 12 guys everything would be just fine.

... I agreed with several of the points. I dont understand why some people get so bent out of shape over simple debate.

And I think New York's roster is monumentally flawed, did I ever say it was a good one? I even mentioned it was built horribly for D'Antoni's system.

If you somehow want to interpet that as "I think New York's roster is stellar and beautiful and deep" then fine, we dont have to discuss this if you have no intention of being rational.

 

[Phrazbit]

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.

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.

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?

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.

I would put the Rondo/Burks disaster more on Mike's head than Sarver's. However, the ABSURD trade of Kurt Thomas and 2 draft picks just to dump Kurt (who was a useful player) off the roster was a purely money motivated move and obviously was disastrous. I am not trying to whitewash Sarver's blame in this either. If the this were a thread about the merits of Sarver as an owner then I certainly would have a lot to say against him.

But the question posed was about sympathy for Mike D'Antoni, and no, I dont feel any sympathy. You can debate the individual usage of each player and if you feel they could never have served a purpose then okay, you agree with how Mike handled it. And yes, all coaches have flaws, but we have gotten to hear Mike (and Amare) say the same stuff for years now and not back up their talk and never learn from their mistakes. And THAT is why I dont have sympathy for them and why I am taking a bit of joy in the Knicks misery. If you dont feel the same way, fine, I can respect that. However, after listening to the media hype up this team I am going to sit back and laugh at their predictable demise.

 

[JustWinBaby]

... I agreed with several of the points. I dont understand why some people get so bent out of shape over simple debate.

And I think New York's roster is monumentally flawed, did I ever say it was a good one? I even mentioned it was built horribly for D'Antoni's system.

If you somehow want to interpet that as "I think New York's roster is stellar and beautiful and deep" then fine, we dont have to discuss this if you have no intention of being rational.

I really think you are the irrational one in the conversation.

Griffin and I have never claimed Mike to be perfect and wish he would have handled certain situations and player rotations differently. He wasn't and isn't perfect.

However you keep trying to justify that he sucked with false accusations. If memory serves me right the year of the Rondo draft pick Mike was given the choice of either signing both LB and Boris to extensions so they would not go on the open market or using the draft picks. Mike chose to protect what he had and use the money saved for Boris and LB. I may be wrong on Rondo and the year but Sarver did give him a choice one year between keeping the current roster in place or signing draft picks. In the end it might look like an error but no one complained about extending both of those players. Well I did, I think they overpaid for both of them,but I was in the minority, so be it.

I believe that we traded the Iggy/Deng pick because we signed Q and needed to save money. That may have been the worst decision of all. How in the world do you ever trade that high a draft pick without getting anything in return.

That is one of Sarver's speciailties, losing players and selling draft picks for nothing in return. He has ruined the team by these moves and another piece will be gone this summer, for nothing in return.

I actually was in favor of not keeping KT. However I certainly thought giving away 2 number one draft picks were nuts. I was also pissed that Sarver did not try to get another big man to help in the paint for less money. KT would have cost about $16 Mil that year including the LT that would have been paid. Something had to be done and Kerr gave away the farm to satisfy the bosses demands. Huge mistake in the end.

Bottom line, Mike played 7 players most of the time because of two reasons
.
1. They were by far his best 7 players (no one was averaging more than 34 or 35 minutes per night). That was less than most of the STARS in the league.

2. Robert Sarver was unwilling to invest in more than 7 players and actually thought paying bench players was a waste of money.

Yep, a lot of the problems go directly to Robert Sarver but each situation has been spun to make people believe he did all he could do. It always was becuase of Joe, or Bryan or Shawn or Amare or Mike or Steve (Who am I missing). Bob always did everything he could do. Those guys all just left on their own, right.

Have you ever heard Robert Sarver say he did anything wrong?

Why have so many key individuals left the ship?

By the way I never said I felt sorry for Mike. He made his choice and is making more money in New York. I just think he is a far better coach than he is given credit for. With a better owner or a couple of good breaks on the court, he might have won a Championship in Phoenix.

 

[Phrazbit]

I really think you are the irrational one in the conversation.

Griffin and I have never claimed Mike to be perfect and wish he would have handled certain situations and player rotations differently. He wasn't and isn't perfect.

However you keep trying to justify that he sucked with false accusations. If memory serves me right the year of the Rondo draft pick Mike was given the choice of either signing both LB and Boris to extensions so they would not go on the open market or using the draft picks. Mike chose to protect what he had and use the money saved for Boris and LB. I may be wrong on Rondo and the year but Sarver did give him a choice one year between keeping the current roster in place or signing draft picks. In the end it might look like an error but no one complained about extending both of those players. Well I did, I think they overpaid for both of them,but I was in the minority, so be it.

I believe that we traded the Iggy/Deng pick because we signed Q and needed to save money. That may have been the worst decision of all. How in the world do you ever trade that high a draft pick without getting anything in return.

That is one of Sarver's speciailties, losing players and selling draft picks for nothing in return. He has ruined the team by these moves and another piece will be gone this summer, for nothing in return.

I actually was in favor of not keeping KT. However I certainly thought giving away 2 number one draft picks were nuts. I was also pissed that Sarver did not try to get another big man to help in the paint for less money. KT would have cost about $16 Mil that year including the LT that would have been paid. Something had to be done and Kerr gave away the farm to satisfy the bosses demands. Huge mistake in the end.

Bottom line, Mike played 7 players most of the time because of two reasons
.
1. They were by far his best 7 players (no one was averaging more than 34 or 35 minutes per night). That was less than most of the STARS in the league.

2. Robert Sarver was unwilling to invest in more than 7 players and actually thought paying bench players was a waste of money.

Yep, a lot of the problems go directly to Robert Sarver but each situation has been spun to make people believe he did all he could do. It always was becuase of Joe, or Bryan or Shawn or Amare or Mike or Steve (Who am I missing). Bob always did everything he could do. Those guys all just left on their own, right.

Have you ever heard Robert Sarver say he did anything wrong?

Why have so many key individuals left the ship?

By the way I never said I felt sorry for Mike. He made his choice and is making more money in New York. I just think he is a far better coach than he is given credit for. With a better owner or a couple of good breaks on the court, he might have won a Championship in Phoenix.

I am being irrational... yet you are continuously putting words in my mouth. First you claim I think New York has some amazing roster (and I said the opposite), then you claim I said D'Antoni "sucks". When did I say he sucks? He has flaws, and flaws that are being exposed in a big way, but I never claimed he sucks.

The question at hand was "do I feel bad for him", and I answered no and explained why. You got seemingly offended because you didnt agree, but I respect your opinion and I will debate without making belittling posts like the yours that I previously quoted, I would appreciate the same courtesy.

The Rondo trade was directly related to the signing of Banks. They signed Marcus to a 5 mil per season deal that same offseason to fill the backup point guard role. Banks was hand picked by Mike, and he certainly could have had Rondo instead and had him for considerably less money. That folly goes on Mike.

I completely agree about the Iggy/Deng vs Q screw up. I understand the teams logic, they wanted to get a proven player who could spread the floor... but it was still a stupid stupid choice, especially with the dumb contract they gave Q. They did get something for the pick though, a future first... which they subsequently sent to New York (with Q) to get Kurt Thomas.

As for Kurt Thomas, I think most people were with you that the Suns should have kept him and should have paid him more. And no move the Suns have made the last 7 years disgusted me more than the Thomas trade. To give away a needed big man AND picks just to save money... when you're as close to a title as the franchise had been since Barkley was abhorrent. That to me was maybe not the most damaging but was definitely the most revolting as a fan.

 

[Covert Rain]

If memory serves me right the year of the Rondo draft pick Mike was given the choice of either signing both LB and Boris to extensions so they would not go on the open market or using the draft picks.

That is not entirely correct. The way the story goes, Sarver didn't want to pay for a draft pick that couldn't contribute to the team. D'Antoni evaluated Rondo and felt that Rondo would never develop into the type of player that could run this team and even made a comment about Rondo not being able to score.

D'Antoni was way off in his assessment but still had the the option to sign Rondo had he wanted to.

I believe that we traded the Iggy/Deng pick because we signed Q and needed to save money. That may have been the worst decision of all. How in the world do you ever trade that high a draft pick without getting anything in return.

Again, same scenario applied. It was a combination of wanting to save money and evaluating the picks impact. D'Antoni was not high on Deng and felt Iggy would have taken the ball out of Nash's hands.

That is one of Sarver's speciailties, losing players and selling draft picks for nothing in return. He has ruined the team by these moves and another piece will be gone this summer, for nothing in return.

No doubt Sarver is a major reason why the team is where it's at but D'Antoni was the GM for a big chunk of time and had much say in the organizations moves. Sarver had the final say but consulted him every step of the way.

Bottom line, Mike played 7 players most of the time because of two reasons
.
1. They were by far his best 7 players (no one was averaging more than 34 or 35 minutes per night). That was less than most of the STARS in the league.

2. Robert Sarver was unwilling to invest in more than 7 players and actually thought paying bench players was a waste of money.

Let's not also forget D'Antoni's unwillingness to place any kind of emphasis on defense and even when rotations or play calling was not working he never budged. I still will never forget D'Antoni force feeding the high pick and roll in a couple playoff games.

My brother and I sat there and counted 11 of 14 play calls or something like that which were high pick and rolls and the Spurs had figured it out and it wasn't working. D'Antoni instead of getting inventive kept force feeding the same play. At half, he came out and did the same thing. D'Antoni was horrible at in game adjustments.

If you look at his evaluating draft picks, lack of bench development, his lack of emphasis in defense, his stubbornness in terms of force feeding plays, changing his style or making adjustments....D'Antoni deserves much of the blame for not getting this team over the top.

D'Antoni obviously had an ego and was stubborn and it got in the way. At some point D'Antoni stop listening to those around him when it was suggested he emphasize defense more, mix up the play calling, develop more of a bench or even giving over some of his duties he didn't want to budge.

The Suns towards the end took away D'Antoni's GM title away and hired Kerr for a reason. They can spin it all they want but it was because of some of these issues I mentioned above. That was the beginning of the end for D'Antoni. The year that he left they again approached him about some of these same issues and the story goes that D'Antoni refused. Remember at one point Kerr tried to get D'Antoni to bring in Tom Thibodeau for a defensive coach and again D'Antoni refused.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I really think you are the irrational one in the conversation.


2. Robert Sarver was unwilling to invest in more than 7 players and actually thought paying bench players was a waste of money.

I am not a Sarver fan, but this one is not true. The "seven deep" thing was DAntoni. If anything, Sarver has been willing to invest too much in marginal players (Childress, Warrick, Frye, Banks, etc) and not enough in top level talent.

Sarver's biggest issue was going along with DAntoni and not drafting or developing young talent. They did that together.

 

[JustWinBaby]

That is not entirely correct. The way the story goes, Sarver didn't want to pay for a draft pick that couldn't contribute to the team. D'Antoni evaluated Rondo and felt that Rondo would never develop into the type of player that could run this team and even made a comment about Rondo not being able to score.

D'Antoni was way off in his assessment but still had the the option to sign Rondo had he wanted to

Rondo probably would have been a bad fit for our group at the time. Mike was probably right in his evaluation. I still wish he would have picked him. We needed a back up for Nash badly and never found one.

[Again, same scenario applied. It was a combination of wanting to save money and evaluating the picks impact. D'Antoni was not high on Deng and felt Iggy would have taken the ball out of Nash's hands.]

I do not remember that scenario. I remember Sarver not wanting to go over the salary cap after signing Q. If Mike made that decision, he was wrong.

[No doubt Sarver is a major reason why the team is where it's at but D'Antoni was the GM for a big chunk of time and had much say in the organizations moves. Sarver had the final say but consulted him every step of the way.]

At quite possibly the most crucial stage for this team, Sarver got rid of BC. That was after BC worked out a really good deal with Atlanta on the sign and trade for Joe Johnson. He got a player Coach D liked and draft picks. While most everyone wanted to keep JJ, life was not horrible with Boris and the Picks. After that move BC left when Sarver was unwilling to meet his salary demands. That started the ball rolling on a series of horrible moves by the organization.

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?

[Let's not also forget D'Antoni's unwillingness to place any kind of emphasis on defense and even when rotations or play calling was not working he never budged. I still will never forget D'Antoni force feeding the high pick and roll in a couple playoff games.]

I believe our defense was better when he was here than at any time since he left. We may be better this year (we have different players) but we can't score. We always needed another big body in the paint to help Amare. We got Shaq but destroyed our perimeter defense when we dropped Shawn and Raja. Shaq was a horrible defender but fun to watch. Maybe just maybe Mike was not a horrible defensive coach maybe he had bad defensive players. We generally were middle of the pack on opponents FG% but had trouble on the boards. Many of us thought we had a possible gem in Steven Hunter. He seemed to be a great pairing with Amare. When he wanted $3 Mil per year, Sarver declined to meet his demands. He flamed out in Memphis but who knows how he would have done if he remained in Phoenix under Coach D. Tim Thomas while not a great defender was tailor made for this team. We had a fantastic run with Amare on the sideline and TT filling in. I thought we could be phenominal with TT and Amare together. Sarver again would not spend the extra dollar to keep a key component to our success, be it a key player or draft pick.

I believe if we really evaluate Mikes time as coach, the lack of a Championship can be more directly blamed on Robert Sarver not spending on that one or two role players to support the core than anything else.

[My brother and I sat there and counted 11 of 14 play calls or something like that which were high pick and rolls and the Spurs had figured it out and it wasn't working. D'Antoni instead of getting inventive kept force feeding the same play. At half, he came out and did the same thing. D'Antoni was horrible at in game adjustments.]

Somehow with his horrible coaching we won a lot of games and were fun too watch.

[If you look at his evaluating draft picks, lack of bench development, his lack of emphasis in defense, his stubbornness in terms of force feeding plays, changing his style or making adjustments....D'Antoni deserves much of the blame for not getting this team over the top.

D'Antoni obviously had an ego and was stubborn and it got in the way. At some point D'Antoni stop listening to those around him when it was suggested he emphasize defense more, mix up the play calling, develop more of a bench or even giving over some of his duties he didn't want to budge.

The Suns towards the end took away D'Antoni's GM title away and hired Kerr for a reason. They can spin it all they want but it was because of some of these issues I mentioned above. That was the beginning of the end for D'Antoni. The year that he left they again approached him about some of these same issues and the story goes that D'Antoni refused. Remember at one point Kerr tried to get D'Antoni to bring in Tom Thibodeau for a defensive coach and again D'Antoni refused.[/quote]

Really

Well Mike is gone as well as all of the players he played and supported, except for one. The style of basketball has changed and we are headed for the lottery and are boring. We did not miss the playoffs during his tenure as coach (except the 1st half season) and were generally considered in the hunt for the Championship every year and the most exciting team in the league. We have missed the playoffs 2 of the 3 years since he left. Our roster is generally a mess, thanks to the GM's that replaced Mike. Our defense might be better but we have different players, while playing at a different pace and we can't score.

The good news is we should have a very good draft pick and a lot of money to spend this summer. We will see how this crack managment team does. I hope the do really well, I have my doubts.

That real complaint was, you cannot win a Championship with the type of basketball he coached. Well at this point you are correct, he hasn't.

How much closer to a Championship are we since he left?

 

[JustWinBaby]

I am not a Sarver fan, but this one is not true. The "seven deep" thing was DAntoni. If anything, Sarver has been willing to invest too much in marginal players (Childress, Warrick, Frye, Banks, etc) and not enough in top level talent.

Sarver's biggest issue was going along with DAntoni and not drafting or developing young talent. They did that together.

Wow

I never realized that D'Antoni told Sarver not to spend money on players he might need.

Is that what you are saying?

I think Mike would rather spend money to keep the core together rather than young talent that may or may not develop. That is the choice I believe he was given.

Since Mike has left, everyone that played for him is gone except Nash.

How is that working out?

 

[JustWinBaby]

I am being irrational... yet you are continuously putting words in my mouth. First you claim I think New York has some amazing roster (and I said the opposite), then you claim I said D'Antoni "sucks". When did I say he sucks? He has flaws, and flaws that are being exposed in a big way, but I never claimed he sucks.

The question at hand was "do I feel bad for him", and I answered no and explained why. You got seemingly offended because you didnt agree, but I respect your opinion and I will debate without making belittling posts like the yours that I previously quoted, I would appreciate the same courtesy.

The Rondo trade was directly related to the signing of Banks. They signed Marcus to a 5 mil per season deal that same offseason to fill the backup point guard role. Banks was hand picked by Mike, and he certainly could have had Rondo instead and had him for considerably less money. That folly goes on Mike.

I completely agree about the Iggy/Deng vs Q screw up. I understand the teams logic, they wanted to get a proven player who could spread the floor... but it was still a stupid stupid choice, especially with the dumb contract they gave Q. They did get something for the pick though, a future first... which they subsequently sent to New York (with Q) to get Kurt Thomas.

As for Kurt Thomas, I think most people were with you that the Suns should have kept him and should have paid him more. And no move the Suns have made the last 7 years disgusted me more than the Thomas trade. To give away a needed big man AND picks just to save money... when you're as close to a title as the franchise had been since Barkley was abhorrent. That to me was maybe not the most damaging but was definitely the most revolting as a fan.

Sorry if I offended you, my error.

The D'Antoni era can be debated in many different ways. I have my beliefs you and others have their own, so be it.

I am just of the strong belief that all of the blame for not winning a Championship can be balmed entirely on Mike. Just as it cannot be blamed entirely on Amare for being a poor defender. Just as it cannot be blamed entirely on 7 SOS and Steve Nash's poor defense. We can go on and on forever debating that era. We were always in the conversation be it good or bad. Currently we are not part of the conversation, it isn't much fun is it.

Coach D's time here was fun, wasn't it?

Frustrating at times. Surely

Do I miss it, yep.

 

[boisesuns]

Some people cannot be convinced even when presented with the facts.

I am now totally convinced that Mike is the sole problem that New York has. That roster is stellar. He is playing 9 or 10 guys on most nights tring to find 7 or 8 that can play. If he would play 12 guys everything would be just fine.

I would think Carmelo Anthony's ball hogging is a HUGE part of the issues with NY.

 

[Covert Rain]

Rondo probably would have been a bad fit for our group at the time. Mike was probably right in his evaluation. I still wish he would have picked him. We needed a back up for Nash badly and never found one.

Rondo would have been a perfect fit for this team. He felt Rondo would never develop a shot. He has. He felt Rondo couldn't direct a team. He can. D'Antoni was flat out wrong.

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?

I wasn't saying that either. However, I don't give D'Antoni a pass because he had say in drafts, personal choices, trades and everything. He was partly responsible.

I believe our defense was better when he was here than at any time since he left. We may be better this year (we have different players) but we can't score.

Defense is better this year for sure. However, just because the defense was better under D'Antoni versus the last couple years doesn't mean it was good. The Suns played defense in spurts under D'Antoni. However, the Suns trademark during his tenure was that the Suns could never get defensive stops when it counted.

Read 7 Seconds or less or interviews from guys who played for D'Antoni. He didn't care about defense.

I believe if we really evaluate Mikes time as coach, the lack of a Championship can be more directly blamed on Robert Sarver not spending on that one or two role players to support the core than anything else.

I disagree. Mike is directly responsible for many of the reasons I already posted. That doesn't absolve Sarver from making his job harder or not retaining players that would have helped.

I am no Sarver supporter and I count the days until he sells the team. However, in my opinion any good coach could have gotten us as far as we did with the talent he had on the roster IMO.

Somehow with his horrible coaching we won a lot of games and were fun too watch.

I don't think he was a horrible coach. I think he was an overrated coach.

Also, who cares how fun we are? The goal is to win a title. The Suns have 50+ years of mostly being entertaining. Give me a boring team with a title any day over an exciting team who never wins a thing.

That real complaint was, you cannot win a Championship with the type of basketball he coached. Well at this point you are correct, he hasn't.

How much closer to a Championship are we since he left?

Close only counts in horseshoes. You either win a title or you don't. I argued with many on the board the Suns would never win a title under D'Antoni. I had the same argument with those that felt he would get it done in New York.

D'Antoni was a good coach but not a great coach. He was an overrated coach and overachieved IMO. I have said this before and I will say it again. Had Phil Jackson been coaching the same group of guys, we have at least 2 titles.

 

[JustWinBaby]

Rondo would have been a perfect fit for this team. He felt Rondo would never develop a shot. He has. He felt Rondo couldn't direct a team. He can. D'Antoni was flat out wrong.



I wasn't saying that either. However, I don't give D'Antoni a pass because he had say in drafts, personal choices, trades and everything. He was partly responsible.



Defense is better this year for sure. However, just because the defense was better under D'Antoni versus the last couple years doesn't mean it was good. The Suns played defense in spurts under D'Antoni. However, the Suns trademark during his tenure was that the Suns could never get defensive stops when it counted.

Read 7 Seconds or less or interviews from guys who played for D'Antoni. He didn't care about defense.



I disagree. Mike is directly responsible for many of the reasons I already posted. That doesn't absolve Sarver from making his job harder or not retaining players that would have helped.

I am no Sarver supporter and I count the days until he sells the team. However, in my opinion any good coach could have gotten us as far as we did with the talent he had on the roster IMO.



I don't think he was a horrible coach. I think he was an overrated coach.

Also, who cares how fun we are? The goal is to win a title. The Suns have 50+ years of mostly being entertaining. Give me a boring team with a title any day over an exciting team who never wins a thing.



Close only counts in horseshoes. You either win a title or you don't. I argued with many on the board the Suns would never win a title under D'Antoni. I had the same argument with those that felt he would get it done in New York.

D'Antoni was a good coach but not a great coach. He was an overrated coach and overachieved IMO. I have said this before and I will say it again. Had Phil Jackson been coaching the same group of guys, we have at least 2 titles.

I diametrically disagree with about everything you believe to be right on the subject.

You totally disagree with my thinking, so be it.

I do prefer to be entertained first and foremost when I watch basketball. Mike's teams entertained me first and foremost. My wife became a fan and she never was a sports fan of anything before, MIke came to town. We have been married for 40 years. Until last year when we dumped Amare we would make our Schedule around watching Suns games while going to some regular season games and playoff games. She has stopped watching this years version of Suns Basketball entirely, it just is not fun to watch. She watched it because she was entertained. Based on what I could see in the stands tonight, she has company.

I am a basketball junky and will watch them but not with near the enthusiasm prior to the mess that Sarver created. Yes he did. He has been the constant in the fall from glory.

Winning a Championship appears to be the only way you will be satisfied, you have no interest in being entertained.

Methinks you have a long time to be unhappy if you solely root for the Phoenix Suns.

 

[Covert Rain]

Methinks you have a long time to be unhappy if you solely root for the Phoenix Suns.

I watch basketball in general to be entertained. I usually will watch other teams for entertainment as well. However, when it comes to your favorite team, if your not invested in your team winning a title you must be a casual fan. Every hardcore fan on the planet wants to see a title above all.

Above all would equal boring and title if that is what it takes. We have had 50 years of entertainment and no title. Enough is enough.

I can be entertained without watching a team score 120 points per game and know they have no shot at a title. Would I prefer they were entertaining as well? Sure but if push comes to shove I know very few fans that wouldn't take a team scoring 80 to 90 per night with a handful of titles. Just ask the Spurs fans.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I watch basketball in general to be entertained. I usually will watch other teams for entertainment as well. However, when it comes to your favorite team, if your not invested in your team winning a title you must be a casual fan. Every hardcore fan on the planet wants to see a title above all.

Above all would equal boring and title if that is what it takes. We have had 50 years of entertainment and no title. Enough is enough.

I can be entertained without watching a team score 120 points per game and know they have no shot at a title. Would I prefer they were entertaining as well? Sure but if push comes to shove I know very few fans that wouldn't take a team scoring 80 to 90 per night with a handful of titles. Just ask the Spurs fans.

I beg to differ. I think I'm as die-hard of a Suns fan as you'll find but winning a championship is and will always be secondary to me. If I had to choose between watching a Mike Fratello coached team that wins it all or any of our playoff years under Dantoni, I'd take Mike D's team every time. If the Suns won every game and did it by holding the ball for 20 seconds and scored in the low 70's each night, I'd find another sport to follow. And keep in mind, I've been a rabid Suns fan from the day they announced we were getting a franchise.

As a Suns fan, I'm pretty miserable right now. I can live with missing the playoffs or getting knocked out in the first round as long as I see real effort being made to put us in a position to have a chance to win it all. Unfortunately, if that effort is there, I can't see it. I'm hoping it's just a vision problem on my end but it's a pretty thin hope.

Steve

 

[JustWinBaby]

Melo goes 0 for 7 and 1 point with 11 rebounds.

The Knicks blow out the Bobcats.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Melo goes 0 for 7 and 1 point with 11 rebounds.

The Knicks blow out the Bobcats.

The key part of those stats is the 7. Melo only took 7 shots and they won.

 

[Covert Rain]

I beg to differ. I think I'm as die-hard of a Suns fan as you'll find but winning a championship is and will always be secondary to me. If I had to choose between watching a Mike Fratello coached team that wins it all or any of our playoff years under Dantoni, I'd take Mike D's team every time. If the Suns won every game and did it by holding the ball for 20 seconds and scored in the low 70's each night, I'd find another sport to follow. And keep in mind, I've been a rabid Suns fan from the day they announced we were getting a franchise.

As a Suns fan, I'm pretty miserable right now. I can live with missing the playoffs or getting knocked out in the first round as long as I see real effort being made to put us in a position to have a chance to win it all. Unfortunately, if that effort is there, I can't see it. I'm hoping it's just a vision problem on my end but it's a pretty thin hope.

Steve

Notice I said " I know very few fans that wouldn't take a team scoring 80 to 90 per night with a handful of titles."

Your in the minority to the majority of fans I know. Most would take a title above all else.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Notice I said " I know very few fans that wouldn't take a team scoring 80 to 90 per night with a handful of titles."

Your in the minority to the majority of fans I know. Most would take a title above all else.

I think you're wrong. I think the majority would say exactly what you have said and they'd be ecstatic over hoisting the O'Brien Trophy but the regular season will have already shown their true colors. Local TV ratings will be historically bad and attendance will drop steadily throughout the season (with perhaps a slight uptick down the stretch as we battle for a playoff spot). Take this season for example. Say we started winning a few more 79 - 71 games and ended up in a 8 way tie for the last playoff spot.

Sneaking into the playoffs on the basis of a tiebreaker then puts us into position to take advantage of the flu outbreak which has sidelined the 3 best players on each opponent. The flu devastates us also but we're somehow able to overcome the loss of Childress, Telfair and Warrick as we claw our way to the lowest rated championship of all time.

Absurd example, I know, but the point is, the championship occurs after the season. We'll all be thrilled we finally won a championship but it can't do anything to fix the attendance issues of the season that just finished. It also won't do all that much for future ticket sales. I mentioned Fratello in my earlier post. Go look at the numbers for the Cavs that led to his firing. He turned that team around but the basketball was incredibly boring and the fans showed their disinterest by staying away.

There are several teams that have won just one championship. Go ask fans of any of them if they are content with watching their team play poorly simply because they can point to their single championship from 30 years ago. Or better yet, look at the numbers during Dantoni's best seasons here. Did the fact we hadn't won ever won a championship stop fans from following their beloved Suns?

To me and I believe this to be true of many fans, it's more important that the team appears capable of winning a championship than it is to actually win a championship. When it comes to keeping fans interested and when it comes to turning a profit, the journey itself is more important than the destination. This doesn't mean you have to play SSOL but IMO, ugly basketball (regardless of results) is a sure fire method of turning die-hard fans into casual fans.

I think you can win ugly in baseball and even in football without doing too much damage to your fan base. I think it's much harder to do that in basketball. Disrupt the beauty and grace of the game and it's almost impossible to sit through a season of it. There's a reason the NBA formed that committee several years ago. The game was losing it's appeal because of the style of play.

Steve

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I think you're wrong. I think the majority would say exactly what you have said and they'd be ecstatic over hoisting the O'Brien Trophy but the regular season will have already shown their true colors. Local TV ratings will be historically bad and attendance will drop steadily throughout the season (with perhaps a slight uptick down the stretch as we battle for a playoff spot). Take this season for example. Say we started winning a few more 79 - 71 games and ended up in a 8 way tie for the last playoff spot.

Sneaking into the playoffs on the basis of a tiebreaker then puts us into position to take advantage of the flu outbreak which has sidelined the 3 best players on each opponent. The flu devastates us also but we're somehow able to overcome the loss of Childress, Telfair and Warrick as we claw our way to the lowest rated championship of all time.

Absurd example, I know, but the point is, the championship occurs after the season. We'll all be thrilled we finally won a championship but it can't do anything to fix the attendance issues of the season that just finished. It also won't do all that much for future ticket sales. I mentioned Fratello in my earlier post. Go look at the numbers for the Cavs that led to his firing. He turned that team around but the basketball was incredibly boring and the fans showed their disinterest by staying away.

There are several teams that have won just one championship. Go ask fans of any of them if they are content with watching their team play poorly simply because they can point to their single championship from 30 years ago. Or better yet, look at the numbers during Dantoni's best seasons here. Did the fact we hadn't won ever won a championship stop fans from following their beloved Suns?

To me and I believe this to be true of many fans, it's more important that the team appears capable of winning a championship than it is to actually win a championship. When it comes to keeping fans interested and when it comes to turning a profit, the journey itself is more important than the destination. This doesn't mean you have to play SSOL but IMO, ugly basketball (regardless of results) is a sure fire method of turning die-hard fans into casual fans.

I think you can win ugly in baseball and even in football without doing too much damage to your fan base. I think it's much harder to do that in basketball. Disrupt the beauty and grace of the game and it's almost impossible to sit through a season of it. There's a reason the NBA formed that committee several years ago. The game was losing it's appeal because of the style of play.

Steve

Yep.

 

[Cheesebeef]

How much closer to a Championship are we since he left?

when we still had the one two punch of Amare-Nash with Gentry, they were just as close as when he was here, going to Game 6 of the WCF, somewhere DA's team hadn't sniffed in his last two years here. And comparing what they've done since Sarver's gotten rid of Amare and Nash has become ancient is pointless in this discussion.

and let's remember this... in DA's last two years, we never even got out of the second round of the playoffs.

and let's really look at this - DA's record without Steve Nash... is HORRENDOUS. Nash and Amare were the system. They proved just as successful without DA as they did with him, meanwhile, DA has proved to be an abject disaster in TWO coaching stints outside of those guys.

 

[JustWinBaby]

Yep.

I think you're wrong. I think the majority would say exactly what you have said and they'd be ecstatic over hoisting the O'Brien Trophy but the regular season will have already shown their true colors. Local TV ratings will be historically bad and attendance will drop steadily throughout the season (with perhaps a slight uptick down the stretch as we battle for a playoff spot). Take this season for example. Say we started winning a few more 79 - 71 games and ended up in a 8 way tie for the last playoff spot.

Sneaking into the playoffs on the basis of a tiebreaker then puts us into position to take advantage of the flu outbreak which has sidelined the 3 best players on each opponent. The flu devastates us also but we're somehow able to overcome the loss of Childress, Telfair and Warrick as we claw our way to the lowest rated championship of all time.

Absurd example, I know, but the point is, the championship occurs after the season. We'll all be thrilled we finally won a championship but it can't do anything to fix the attendance issues of the season that just finished. It also won't do all that much for future ticket sales. I mentioned Fratello in my earlier post. Go look at the numbers for the Cavs that led to his firing. He turned that team around but the basketball was incredibly boring and the fans showed their disinterest by staying away.

There are several teams that have won just one championship. Go ask fans of any of them if they are content with watching their team play poorly simply because they can point to their single championship from 30 years ago. Or better yet, look at the numbers during Dantoni's best seasons here. Did the fact we hadn't won ever won a championship stop fans from following their beloved Suns?

To me and I believe this to be true of many fans, it's more important that the team appears capable of winning a championship than it is to actually win a championship. When it comes to keeping fans interested and when it comes to turning a profit, the journey itself is more important than the destination. This doesn't mean you have to play SSOL but IMO, ugly basketball (regardless of results) is a sure fire method of turning die-hard fans into casual fans.

I think you can win ugly in baseball and even in football without doing too much damage to your fan base. I think it's much harder to do that in basketball. Disrupt the beauty and grace of the game and it's almost impossible to sit through a season of it. There's a reason the NBA formed that committee several years ago. The game was losing it's appeal because of the style of play.

Steve

Stop it

Basketball is not supposed to be fun to watch. If your team does not win a Championship you need to fire the coach and hire Phil Jackson. Just look at all those titles he won with Jordan, Shaq and Kobe. No one else could have done that. (Can't wait for the scolding on that statement)

Get with the program, it is Championship or bust.

I have no idea why everyone got so excited watching 7 SOS. They always were in the playoffs but got beat every year. What fun was that? I wish they would have played the right way and never made the playoffs. This year we hired a defensive coordinator and look how well we are doing. What a bunch of losers we had, especially the coach. I am glad they are all gone, we finally are on the right track.

 

[Covert Rain]

I think you're wrong. I think the majority would say exactly what you have said and they'd be ecstatic over hoisting the O'Brien Trophy but the regular season will have already shown their true colors. Local TV ratings will be historically bad and attendance will drop steadily throughout the season (with perhaps a slight uptick down the stretch as we battle for a playoff spot). Take this season for example. Say we started winning a few more 79 - 71 games and ended up in a 8 way tie for the last playoff spot.

Sneaking into the playoffs on the basis of a tiebreaker then puts us into position to take advantage of the flu outbreak which has sidelined the 3 best players on each opponent. The flu devastates us also but we're somehow able to overcome the loss of Childress, Telfair and Warrick as we claw our way to the lowest rated championship of all time.

Absurd example, I know, but the point is, the championship occurs after the season. We'll all be thrilled we finally won a championship but it can't do anything to fix the attendance issues of the season that just finished. It also won't do all that much for future ticket sales. I mentioned Fratello in my earlier post. Go look at the numbers for the Cavs that led to his firing. He turned that team around but the basketball was incredibly boring and the fans showed their disinterest by staying away.

There are several teams that have won just one championship. Go ask fans of any of them if they are content with watching their team play poorly simply because they can point to their single championship from 30 years ago. Or better yet, look at the numbers during Dantoni's best seasons here. Did the fact we hadn't won ever won a championship stop fans from following their beloved Suns?

To me and I believe this to be true of many fans, it's more important that the team appears capable of winning a championship than it is to actually win a championship. When it comes to keeping fans interested and when it comes to turning a profit, the journey itself is more important than the destination. This doesn't mean you have to play SSOL but IMO, ugly basketball (regardless of results) is a sure fire method of turning die-hard fans into casual fans.

I think you can win ugly in baseball and even in football without doing too much damage to your fan base. I think it's much harder to do that in basketball. Disrupt the beauty and grace of the game and it's almost impossible to sit through a season of it. There's a reason the NBA formed that committee several years ago. The game was losing it's appeal because of the style of play.

Steve

Historically there have been many defensive oriented teams that have won titles that didn't suffer with their fan base. I just don't get this. The Spurs historically have done just fine both in ratings and attendance. Yet many feel it's a more boring brand of basketball. Detroit comes to mind and a few others.

I don't agree that scoring 85 to 95 points a night can't be exciting if you have a dynamic players on your team that makes those 85 points exciting. The very concept that basketball is more exciting the more points that are scored I have never agreed with. I have seen some extremely boring 114 to 118 type games. They literally hurt my eyes to watch because there was no defense. It was like watching a layup drill in practice. Can't think of anything more boring. Just my two cents.

Now I agree there are extremes at both ends. Nobody probably wants to watch games in the NBA that end in both teams scoring 70 points. That would not be about defense and probably 2 really bad teams. There is a difference between low scoring teams playing good defense which is exciting and watching two bad teams go at it that can't shoot.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Historically there have been many defensive oriented teams that have won titles that didn't suffer with their fan base. I just don't get this. The Spurs historically have done just fine both in ratings and attendance. Yet many feel it's a more boring brand of basketball. Detroit comes to mind and a few others.

I don't agree that scoring 85 to 95 points a night can't be exciting if you have a dynamic players on your team that makes those 85 points exciting. The very concept that basketball is more exciting the more points that are scored I have never agreed with. I have seen some extremely boring 114 to 118 type games. They literally hurt my eyes to watch because there was no defense. It was like watching a layup drill in practice. Can't think of anything more boring. Just my two cents.

Now I agree there are extremes at both ends. Nobody probably wants to watch games in the NBA that end in both teams scoring 70 points. That would not be about defense and probably 2 really bad teams. There is a difference between low scoring teams playing good defense which is exciting and watching two bad teams go at it that can't shoot.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. My involvement in this argument began with your statement that "Every hardcore fan on the planet wants to see a title above all". I prefer to watch teams that play upbeat but I'd sacrifice fast paced basketball for a chance to win a championship. I just don't think the ring is all that matters. I have no problem watching a team that's scoring in the 90's regularly. I have no interest in watching the kind of basketball that routinely produces wins in the 70's.

Steve

 

[mojorizen7]

Sorry Daren, but I actually agree with you Steve. I think the majority of Suns fans feel the way you do about the product on the court....and IMO thats a big part of the problem in terms of the culture thats been present here for so many years.
Its traditionally been a product of entertainment first....and substance second.

0-43.........but being one of the most successful regular season franchises in the history of the league says alot to me having watched this team since the mid 80's. I think the majority of the fanbase is proud of an entertaining product on the court vs a culture that says we're going to do whatever it takes to bring a championship to this town.The championship blueprint over the last 30 yrs or so has been everything but what the Suns have tried to put on the court for the most part.
I'm sure you disagree and thats fine.