Bill Simmons on Atlanta pick

TucsonDevil

Good to be back!
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Posts
2,575
Reaction score
19
Location
SLC, UT
Right Now, Atlanta has the 7th worst record. No shot at Noah at #7. Maybe we could just sell the #7 pick for cash considerations. Hopefully we can bring in another stiff for the end of the bench, instead of drafting for the future.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
No need, I do understand how the lottery balls work...

I expect you do; I meant discussion from other people.

my point is - our odds continue to worsen for that #4 pick.

True, but they were never much good. The best-case scenario for getting the #4 pick (oddly enough) would be if Atlanta were to finish with the worse record in the league, in which case they'd have a probability of about 35% of slipping to fourth. If they finish in the #4 spot, they have only about a 10% chance of staying there. The Suns' best hope from the beginning has been for Atlanta to finish with one of the three worst records and get leapfrogged in the lottery.

It's not until you get to the #6 position that a team is most likely to stay in its original lottery position, and even then the probability is only about 44%.
 
OP
OP
F

fordronken

Registered User
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Posts
3,806
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles area
Can't teams only jump up to the top three? If memory serves me, Atlanta having the seven "position" would mean they could only potentially have picks 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 or 10. Of course, getting 9 or 10 would require being leapfrogged by two or three teams-- which would be pretty incredibly unlikely.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Sometimes I feel like the last CBA changed some random things like this and nobody told me. I know this was true a few years ago.
 

Hugh D'Man

Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Posts
225
Reaction score
0
Smack isn't allowed in this forum. Write your posts without it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

schutd

ASFN Addict
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Posts
6,246
Reaction score
2,173
Location
Charleston, SC
Nice post, Hugh. I love how nay sayers like you juxtaposition "Our"'s and "we"'s with a bunch of bile about how bad "we" have it. Good lord. Wait. I think I got it. Cause if the Suns prove you wrong, you still have an out and can say you were there all along, eh?
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
The contracts for Burke and Piatkowski are stupid, but they aren't doing any harm.

Of course the Suns have trade bait. They have the draft picks. What makes one kind of trade bait strategically superior to another? The Suns use draft picks as a savings account, acquiring future ones when they have extra resources (like, uh, current draft picks for example) and then cashing them in at what they think is an opportune time.

The Suns have made some good moves and some bad ones, and that will continue. They are not, however, locked into their present position. Depending on whether Diaw ever wakes up and how the draft looks, for instance, Bell could be moved next summer. That would probably disappoint me, but it's a viable option.
 

devilalum

Heavily Redacted
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Posts
16,776
Reaction score
3,187
I think it is easy to underestimate the value of getting mature veteran players to fill out a roster. I've read about young 11th and 12th guys that party and create a distraction.

I imagine Pike, Burke and Marks do everything that is asked of them in the way of practice, showing up for meetings, planes etc. on time and more.

I bet the Suns signed them to these contracts for their ability to do these things and never felt they would play a minute of real game time.
 

Hugh D'Man

Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Posts
225
Reaction score
0
The contracts for Burke and Piatkowski are stupid, but they aren't doing any harm.

Of course the Suns have trade bait. They have the draft picks. What makes one kind of trade bait strategically superior to another? The Suns use draft picks as a savings account, acquiring future ones when they have extra resources (like, uh, current draft picks for example) and then cashing them in at what they think is an opportune time........


Now thats a good one.

Draft Pick = Savings Account

I'd like to take a look at our statement over the past couple of yrs. We sure haven't cashed in much. We keep leveraging the future, we will repeat the past.

As for Burke and Pike....exactly...they are doing us no harm ...but
THEY ARE DOING US NO GOOD. cant trade either one, and shouldn't play either one. Same goes for Jumaine, Marks, Rose, and almost Banks. These are mismanaged assets. (but model citizens...)

Being the naysayer I am, maybe someone can explain to me
just WT* has the D'Ant administration done to improve this team ?
We are heading into the LUX TAX zone, currently have 5 -6 players who have practically ZERO value, other players that will require a WITHDRAW from our savings account to move...and we still need a PG +. Do we chalk up another yr like last, when HardHeaD'Ant snubbed at making any adjustments until TThomas fell in his lap? I just don't have the same optimism with this team as in '05 and '93. Not with the improvement of Dal, Utah, LA, Den, ... oh yeah, and San Ant


and please don't start by stating our record. That is a flimsy argument over improvement... I don't think this team is as good as its record as we have been freakishly fortunate to play shorthanded teams. We also displayed reasonable difficulty with the very ones we will face in the post season. But that is no secret. Regular season is 7 months of practice for a 28 game tournament.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
46,462
Reaction score
16,990
Location
Round Rock, TX
There's also a minimum roster requirement, so whether it's Pike or not, their would be another player just like him that you'd be complaining about it.

You ask what they've done to improve the team? Last year we overachieved like crazy, but who knew that Boris would regress as much as he had? It looked like he was definitely a player, but this year he's been woefully inadequate. The team could not have forseen that. Marcus Banks has the tools to be successful, but nobody could have known how big his learning curb has been. Every team has problems, even the Mavs have issues.

We've already had a couple huge winning streaks--better than 98% of the Suns teams in the past. ANY team can be improved, including the Dallas Mavericks and the San Antonio Spurs.

Also keep in mind the nature of the league--not many teams, unless they are bottom-feeders, are willing to deal with the league-leading teams. And those bottom-feeders usually don't have players worth trading for anyway. You have no clue how many phone calls the team has made or how many they have taken (my guess is that they have made a whole hell of a lot more than they've taken).
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
I'd like to take a look at our statement over the past couple of yrs. We sure haven't cashed in much.

The Suns have used draft picks to unload bad contracts in favor of better ones. That's cashing in on the investment.
 

Skkorpion

Grey haired old Bird
LEGACY MEMBER
Supporting Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Posts
11,026
Reaction score
5
Location
Sun City, AZ
I'd like to take a look at our statement over the past couple of yrs. We sure haven't cashed in much.

The Suns have used draft picks to unload bad contracts in favor of better ones. That's cashing in on the investment.

Yes we have but when we do it again this year, it will be a mistake, IMO. We need some new young legs. Nash and Amare and KT and Bell don't have a long shelf life left.

Budinger? Yeah, he played great against UCLA didn't he? The guy runs hot and cold and rarely plays much defense.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
Being the naysayer I am, maybe someone can explain to me
just WT* has the D'Ant administration done to improve this team ?
We are heading into the LUX TAX zone, currently have 5 -6 players who have practically ZERO value


Figure out what your complaint is. The D'Antoni administration, last summer, extended Diaw and Barbosa and brought in Banks. True, only one of those moves currently looks like a good idea, but they all seemed reasonable at the time and were supported by the majority of this board.

The "zero value" players are Banks (according to you), whose value can be debated, and the several minimum-contract players, who don't matter. Every team in the league has worthless guys making the minimum; that's just part of how the league works.

If you want to criticize the Banks signing, go ahead. But don't try to make it out to be a massive procedural problem. It's just one bad signing.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
Yes we have but when we do it again this year, it will be a mistake, IMO. We need some new young legs. Nash and Amare and KT and Bell don't have a long shelf life left.

You can't have everything. The Suns hired their future last summer with Diaw and Barbosa. Combine them with the Big Three and Thomas, and there's no more room to maneuver. That's part of the reason that many on this board were surprised when Diaw was extended -- it's very unclear how the Suns are going to afford their intermediate-term future.
 

Hugh D'Man

Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Posts
225
Reaction score
0
I'd like to take a look at our statement over the past couple of yrs. We sure haven't cashed in much.

The Suns have used draft picks to unload bad contracts in favor of better ones. That's cashing in on the investment.


No....that is cutting your losses. And dealing from a standpoint of NEED. We will be dealing from a position of little leverage this yr...and likely, as Elindy claims, 'cashing in' on our investments.



and Banks was 'more than one bad signing' ....D'cAnt managed to add 5 players to the roster and not improve this team. (OK, four players and Banks, who ran into Chappy's learning 'curb' ) We gained nothing on the court, nor anything in our trade bait tackle box. Thus, will have nothing to show for it. (except one more yr of stellar locker room performances by PIKE...amazing how that millionaire can be on time for work)
 
Last edited:

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
Hugh D'Man said:
No....that is cutting your losses. And dealing from a standpoint of NEED.

What is your definition of "need"? Did the Suns "need" to trade Quentin Richardson for Kurt Thomas (which was enabled by the inclusion of a pick)? Well, sure, if they wanted to upgrade their interior defense. But so what? That's why teams make trades -- to get something they don't have. Whether you call it "need" or not is a semantic issue.

How come when they make a trade, you say it's because they "needed" to, but if they don't make a trade, you say it's because they can't?

We will be dealing from a position of little leverage this yr...and likely, as Elindy claims, 'cashing in' on our investments.

What kind of leverage would you like the Suns to have? Lots of teams would like to get their hands on Stoudemire, but he's not available. I'm sure the Suns could get a great deal for Barbosa if they wanted to, but they don't. The Suns have two things (or three, depending on how you count) that nearly every other team in the league will want next summer: first-round picks in the upcoming draft. You want trading chips? There they are. What's the problem?

Can you give an example of a team that is in the kind of trade position you'd like the Suns to be in? The Bulls, maybe? Everyone knows that the Bulls have lots of trade assets, and yet a blue-chipper like Gasol comes on the market and Chicago can't pull the trigger. What's the use of good young players if you won't trade them? Oh, that's right, they make your team better, just like Stoudemire and Barbosa are doing for the Suns.

D'cAnt managed to add 5 players to the roster and not improve this team. (OK, four players and Banks, who ran into Chappy's learning 'curb' ) We gained nothing on the court, nor anything in our trade bait tackle box.

Again with the sob story about the minimum-salary guys. Here's a secret: There's a reason that minimum-salary guys make the minimum, and if you think hard about it, I'll bet you can figure out what it is.

Look around the league for minimum veteran FAs and see how many of them make you think, "Wow, there's someone who can really help!" I'll be surprised if you come up with any.

(except one more yr of stellar locker room performances by PIKE...amazing how that millionaire can be on time for work)

Who did you want instead? You know how the salary cap works, right? Once the Suns signed Banks (who was supposed to be Salmons, remember), they were out of money except for minimum (or near-minimum) deals. So what do you want them to do? Minimum players are minimum players.
 

Chris_Sanders

Not Always The Best Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
40,365
Reaction score
32,013
Location
Scottsdale, Az
Hugh D' Man,

If you wish to continue to post in this forum you will stop with the smack laden posts. You will stop deliberately changing other users names in some childish attempt to get a rise out of them. Make your post without trying to sound like you are on the Jim Rhome show.

This is your only warning.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,541
Reaction score
9,821
Location
L.A. area
Hugh D'Man said:
Or if Thomas goes down again....would we have more of a NEED for a pf/c ?
Much like AMARE of last yr....but what happened ? D'Ant bullheaded his way through the yr.

I'm not sure what you mean. There weren't any decent big men available (until Tim Thomas), and had the Suns given up anything to get one of them, that's an asset they wouldn't have now.

I do believe that we have very little to offer, that we are willing to part with.

That's true for every team in the league, to a point. They want to keep what they have that's good. Especially if a team is poised for a strong playoff run, they don't want to give up a key piece.

Lets start with positions of advantage when negotiating. Have you ever tried to buy something that is not for sale ?

Again, I don't know what your point is. GMs are a lot more stubborn than you seem to think. You can't talk them into a bad trade just through force of will. (And to fend off the Isaih Thomas jokes: He thinks those trades are good for him all along.)

When we try to move a bad contract, and 'push' it off on someone else...we lose leverage, and have to compensate for the 'negative' value....(more rant deleted)

So your point is that the Suns have a lot of players with negative trade value. Yes, that's true. In fact I'd say the only players with positive trade value are Stoudemire, Barbosa, and Bell. But that's a problem they weren't going to solve this past summer.

Somehow SanAnt managed to get a center who we wanted.

Ely? That's a joke. I never wanted him, and the only reason he might help the Spurs is because they are even thinner up front than Phoenix is.

Dallas seems to just keep adding pieces (and they are doing for THIS yrs run)

Huh? Who have they added? You just made that up. They haven't added anyone. Their only new rotation player is Devean George, and he's awful.

..... Pick any team with good expendable talent, desirable MAX contract players, expiring contracts, cap space, surplus of positional talent, and of course Draft Picks.

LOL! You mean, "Pick any team in perfect position." Okay, sure, pick one. Go ahead, I'm all ears.

Now go ahead and pick apart the teams I quickly selected.

You selected the Spurs, for their irrelevant acquisition of Ely, and Dallas, for unspecified roster improvements that have not, in fact, occurred.

Sure, every team has stiffs, but when we are signing Pike, NJ was signing Moore (for less).

Minimum is minimum, to within a few dollars, and the league makes up the difference (or at least a lot of it) anyway. Moore is a surprise, I'll grant you that, but had Krstic not been lost for the season, Moore wouldn't have had any impact. He's been in the league forever and never had a year like this.

SanAnt goes out and gets Orberto out of thin air

I don't know enough about Oberto's game to know whether he would help the Suns, but sure, I'll give you that one. He's nearly 32 years old, though, so I don't think he fits into the "developing young talent" category.

We snub Rodriguez for cash, then overpay Banks and fawn over him like he is the next curly neal.....and now we are looking for a pg.

If you want to criticize the Banks signing, you'll get no argument from me, as I was against it from the beginning. But it's the only strong point you have.

As far as Rodriguez goes (or Marcus Williams, whom the Suns could also have had), the jury is still out. Let's see what the Suns do this summer. In general, though, I agree that the Suns have been far too quick to sell draft picks recently.

but if this administration continues to ignore player developement, they will to continue to mortgage their/our future.

I don't see how you can call Barbosa and Diaw "ignoring player development."

Why do you think the D-League was set up ? Teams will benefit from it. Both from finding players and from giving drafted prospects solid PlayingTime....AND INCREASING THEIR VALUE.

You must be joking. Give me one example of a player who spent significant time in the D-League and then was sold at a profit. One.

Is Marks or Pike or Jumaine or Jalen worth more NOW than when we signed them ?

Good heavens, no, of course not. Their value was zero originally and it is still zero. But Moore, Oberto, and Ely don't have any trade value either.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
556,062
Posts
5,431,320
Members
6,329
Latest member
cardinals2025
Top