There is a difference.
Jerry Colangelo did what it took to run a first class organization. The reason the Suns became a 'destination' spot was because of JC. The reason we were good is because he wasn't afraid of spending.
Who was the first free agent signed in NBA history? Tom Chambers. Suns
Then there's the issue regarding Danny Manning. He came here under a promise that after his 1 year 1 million dollar deal was up. We'd sign him to a long term deal.
What happens. Manning got seriously injured. What did JC do? Signed him to a long term deal.
That's how you become a destination spot. Treat people good, pay them fairly (sometimes more than others), and show them that if they trust you (manning) - you stick to your word.
The Suns weren't making money and bled a lot of money over the years to become who we thought they were. In essence, although it wasn't like the D-backs fiasco, it appears the sale of the team was to realize what had been gained over the years, as they tended not to make it on a yearly basis, the net worth (increase) of the franchise would be their payment. JC was getting old, and he appreciated the Suns value tremendously.
We can easily point out what about Googs, or Penny Hardaway? Are you kidding me? Seriously. You compare a bad mistake in trying to win by signing Googs....who people forget wasn't a dud until AFTER the practice injury blew out what 3 of the tendons in his knee. ACL, MCL, LCL or something to that effect. He was overpaid, and everyone acknowledged it. But pre-injury, he was solid. [compare that move to one of selling off assets?] They are not the same thing. One's needed, the other is not.
People also forget that while penny hardaway was injured, that was a year we had cap space, remember the whole McDyess scenario? So we weren't given a good hand to begin with. Penny hardaway, while injury prone, was a very good player before hand. He did have some moments here, but was a complete bust nonetheless. But few saw that he would be injured again, and if he wasn't, he would have been great. That's what they tried to sign, but it didn't happen. Although you can fault JC/BC, I'd rather have that happen, then with $arver's constant selling off of assets. Selling off one decent asset is worse imo than making a mistake all gm's make by signing the wrong guy.
Also newsflash, even $arver/Kerr will sign a few bad deals in their reign. But at least with JC/BC we didn't have both bad deals and money deals. With $arver/Kerr, our team will have to overcome the obstacles of BOTH.
However comparing shipping out two firsts to dump off a contract that was expiring in a few months to trying to BETTER the team by signing someone who (if he got healthy), and it appeared he was...and equating the two as equal, is nonsensical.
Every move was either to clear up space to sign another max player or trade to give pieces to do something else. JC and BC did what it took to build a winner, and they a very good job at it in total. How many years did we go to the playoffs from 88-89 season onwards? about 16-18 roughly? All built by sometimes making a mistake, sometimes making a big mistake, but the goal was to WIN, not save money.
I guarantee you, if JC ran it like $arver, there would have been no Tom Chambers, No KJ, No Barkley, No Kidd, No Nash, No Amare. Imagine a Suns era the last 20 years without those names (among many others).
Think $arver would be the first to sign a free agent? No
Think $arver would trade a larry nance for actual players or draft picks?
Think $arver would empower Kerr to trade 4 players for a Barkley? No, he be busy trying trade each individually with draft picks to get rid of their salaries.
Jason Kidd trade? Nah
Oh yeah, that's what JC was about. Accountability. Traded Kidd's wife beating butt to the Nets, for who? A seemingly talented PG, who some claim earlier was a horrible BC move.
But now we forget that, and suddenly Marbury is the worst deal ever. Hey remember Marbury 2000 wasn't Marbury 2007. We traded him at a good time, he went drastically downhill AFTER we traded him (and didn't have to give up 1st round picks to unload him). $arver would.
Let us not forget WHY BC left. There were many factors involved obviously, some we'll never know. But, there was a new sherrif in town, and he didn't want to spend. He wanted to make moves BC KNEW weren't good for the team, and didn't want to be a part of such a business model. Thank $arver for that. A few of those bad deals, remember BC saying they needed to cut payroll and such.
Meaning if JC was around, it wouldn't of happened. With $arver, again you use and example to also blame BC when it was $arver calling the shots. So you in essence agree that, those moves were bad moves, brought to you by $arver, via the law laid down to BC.
$arver did call the shots FINANCIALLY. That's what matters. Obviously it takes awhile to gain full control, but the first thing he got control over, were the finances. As a banker, I'm sure he adapted pretty quickly to their books.
Revisionist history isn't the case. $arver's moves have been completely money based. He's thrown a couple million under the bus, but not really. Oh I'll spend more because I got Shaq, but knowing you aren't going to have to re-sign Marion to another deal surely had something to do with it. It's funny though, he waits until after he makes a bunch of cheap moves to do this. He trades a future 2nd round pick for one last year and paid Dragic's buyout. (which in terms of NBA dollars is nothing).
Those are token, drop in the bucket, ad-hoc, publicity garnering, appeaser moves.
Now we are in the envious position of having all those 'options' as things aren't all too bad. We have 'options'. Instead of 'sure things'.
We have the option of doing good with these deals, OR we can screw them up. To tread water we need to get equal return on each of these options. That would be a long shot.
The end result is that now we have to make a decision that will go one of two ways. Either they tread water, or they don't.
Anyone think that by trading what we have left we in return will receive the equivalent of; Shaq, Nash, Amare, and whatever else we throw in? Umm, no.
Also spending money unwisely, and spending wisely are two different things. You state look at these guys that spend like drunken sailors and equate the few things we wish they had done differently as such.
But you forget the KEY. We weren't signing a bunch of guys to max deals in free agency, and trading for everyone we could. We had a bunch of draft picks, that were CHEAP, and let them go.
We had the chance to RE-SIGN our own guys. We didn't do it.
We had a chance to get a lot of good players, CHEAPLY, not the Knicks and Mavs way.
It would have given us incredible results, and CHEAP too. Just a few million more per season. Not another 40-50 million a season BEFORE luxury tax. To compare those moves to signing everyone to max deals again, is nonsensical.
Remember we had the MOST draft picks in the decade so far. Just drafted the fewest. (although Blazers might have surpassed that this past year, but they drafted)
You can only sell a draft pick for 3 mill. But you can draft a guy, have him help you out, and trade him, or another guy for something of value worth far more than 3 mill a few years later. Not only did they make money moves, they made them in the most illogical way.
Imagine if our 2010 pick was #1. We could almost be handing away 100-200 million dollars in revenue from landing the next lebron or something along those line (even half as good), for what was a cash dump.
Were we clamoring for them to sign free agents like we do on the Cards every year? No.
We just wanted him not to let everyone go every year. Even if only half the draft picks were sold off or traded away to save a buck, we wouldn't be in this position. If none or very little happen, dynasty.
With all the players we'd have on our team. Deng/iggs, jj, amare, marion/garnett/shaq, nash, rondo, barbosa, etc, etc, etc, etc. Those are REAL options. Option for championship in 2019, 2010, 2011. (plus whatever we could of had in previous years).
Just because you have options, doesn't mean you use them well. We're also down to our last ones, involving the most important aspects of our team. Meaning the stakes are the highest. Does any of the past few years give you confidence that with the highest stakes we'll suddenly change course and get great deals on these 'options'? I don't.
We've had plenty of options to get better, we chose to get worse. Now all we have left are our best options.
We won't be a destination spot for long. That was under JC, with $arver, that label is slipping away. Players aren't fools.
$arver will find out it's a lot harder to build a winning team, then dismantle it. In the end he cost himself hundreds of millions, guaranteed. (whereas JC and his investors made hundreds of millions)
The quantifiable effect is this. Instead of dyansty run, or at the very least Conference contenders the last couple of years, and until say 2011-2014, we are talking about potentially winning 20 games next season. That's $arver. Revisionist history we shall not have. This mess is on him.
