Bledsoe: To Keep or Shop

[sunsfan88]

I'm not sold on Hornacek needing a two PG offense. If that is a lock, then the Suns have the wrong coach. It would be great if one could find a taller PG that can shoot and defend but those are hard to find. I wish Hornacek could adapt his offense to players available. IMO, the Suns reached for Knight and that experiment is still in development. If Knight does not work out, the Suns are stuck and maybe even need to trade for another starting caliber PG. I do not want the Suns to go farther down this road especially with Archie Goodwin and Bogdan Bogdanovic on the horizon.

Agreed. If Hornacek really "needs" a two PG system to be successful as a coach...it's already time to move on. The two PG system isn't going to take us anywhere. To continue down this path is pure insanity.

But....but....but....but....Hornacek and KJ worked!

 

[BC867]

You build around him because he's arguably the best player on the team and not a malcontent like Markieff. He's not a vocal leader, but as you said, would be a piece for a solid to great team. It's up to the FO to bring in other pieces.

But this response doesn't address the issue that we'd be tying up the Point Guard position with a player who is not suited for it on a playoff calibre team.

And when you diminish the Point Guard position, it diminishes the rest of the team, more than any other position. It's the team quarterback.

 

[Phrazbit]

But this response doesn't address the issue that we'd be tying up the Point Guard position with a player who is not suited for it on a playoff calibre team.

And when you diminish the Point Guard position, it diminishes the rest of the team, more than any other position. It's the team quarterback.

The PG is no more or less influential than any other position in the modern NBA. Mario Chalmers is flat out terrible and he was the starting PG on TWO title winners. Derek Fisher's only strong quality was that he was really dirty, he won multiple titles as a starting PG.

Bledsoe as THE guy does not work, but he'd be fine as a 2nd or 3rd banana to a legit star scorer.

 

[Zobaczcie suki]

To me, it doesn't matter whether you put a "PG" or a "SG" next to their names, but Eric Bledsoe and Brandon Knight can be very a solid backcourt. We saw glimpses of it this year before Knight's injury, and they are still getting used to playing together obviously.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The PG is no more or less influential than any other position in the modern NBA. Mario Chalmers is flat out terrible and he was the starting PG on TWO title winners. Derek Fisher's only strong quality was that he was really dirty, he won multiple titles as a starting PG.

Bledsoe as THE guy does not work, but he'd be fine as a 2nd or 3rd banana to a legit star scorer.

can't agree with the above. Fisher and Chalmers are the exception to the rule simply because they played with arguably the two greatest players of their generations who pretty much always initiated the offense. For Bledsoe to work in that way, that means he'd have to be playing with that caliber of a player and that ain't in the cards.

 

[sunsfan88]

I feel like the days of contending without having a PG that is capable of running an offense is over.

In the East, Cavs, Hawks, Raptors, Bulls, Wizards (all the main threats from the East) all have PGs that are either elite or at the very least, capable of running an offense.

In the West, all playoff teams except for Houston have PGs that are capable of running an offense (most of them are capable of much more) in Curry, Paul, Parker, Lillard, Rondo, Conley, and Westbrook.

Even for the Rockets, their fans believe that their one good PG away from being perhaps the best in the West. There's a reason why they were so interested in Dragic and why their fans were having all kinds of wet dreams about him.

I don't think the PG can be brushed off like in the past unless you have 2 or 3 top 10 players on your team that play other positions.

 

[Phrazbit]

can't agree with the above. Fisher and Chalmers are the exception to the rule simply because they played with arguably the two greatest players of their generations who pretty much always initiated the offense. For Bledsoe to work in that way, that means he'd have to be playing with that caliber of a player and that ain't in the cards.

Bupkis.

We won 48 games last year with a stellar winning percentage while Bledsoe was our starting PG, along side him on the court was Dragic and a bunch of guys that are reserve quality players on any decent team.

Bledsoe as "the man" does not work, but he does not need a hall of famer either in order to play playoff caliber basketball.

 

[TJ]

I feel like the days of contending without having a PG that is capable of running an offense is over.

In the East, Cavs, Hawks, Raptors, Bulls, Wizards (all the main threats from the East) all have PGs that are either elite or at the very least, capable of running an offense.

In the West, all playoff teams except for Houston have PGs that are capable of running an offense (most of them are capable of much more) in Curry, Paul, Parker, Lillard, Rondo, Conley, and Westbrook.

Even for the Rockets, their fans believe that their one good PG away from being perhaps the best in the West. There's a reason why they were so interested in Dragic and why their fans were having all kinds of wet dreams about him.

I don't think the PG can be brushed off like in the past unless you have 2 or 3 top 10 players on your team that play other positions.

Last year, the Spurs won the championship with Tony Parker at point, who averaged less points, assists, steals, and rebounds per game than Bledsoe did this season (Parker also was an all-star last season).

The difference? A great supporting cast, great coach, and great team chemistry; something the Suns lacked all season.

Tony Parker is not the face of the Spurs, but part of what makes that team a title contender year in and year out.

So, at worst, if we get that kind of production from Bledsoe again, and he has much more to work with, then less people are calling for Bledsoe to be dealt. The problem is not Bledsoe. Never has been. The problem is with coaching for not fostering team chemistry and the front office for not being able to look one step ahead in most of their transactions.

 

[slinslin]

can't agree with the above. Fisher and Chalmers are the exception to the rule simply because they played with arguably the two greatest players of their generations who pretty much always initiated the offense. For Bledsoe to work in that way, that means he'd have to be playing with that caliber of a player and that ain't in the cards.

What utter non-sense. Bledsoe is 3x times the player that Fisher or Chalmers were.

 

[SirStefan32]

What utter non-sense. Bledsoe is 3x times the player that Fisher or Chalmers were.

He didn't say he wasn't. He was just correctly pointing out that they are bad examples because they played next to once-in-a-generation players. You can't use those two of them as examples because Chalmers played next to James, as well as Wade and Bosh, and Fisher played next to Kobe AND Shaq (TWO once-in-a-generation players.) Sure, Fish won some once Shaq left, but he was replaced by Gasol and the rest of the team was damn good.

 

[elindholm]

Why does everyone always make this so complicated? You need great players on your roster, period. It doesn't matter what position they play. If you have great players at some positions, you can have less-great players at other positions. The end.

 

[Catlover]

Why does everyone always make this so complicated? You need great players on your roster, period. It doesn't matter what position they play. If you have great players at some positions, you can have less-great players at other positions. The end.

+1.

 

[Cheesebeef]

He didn't say he wasn't. He was just correctly pointing out that they are bad examples because they played next to once-in-a-generation players. You can't use those two of them as examples because Chalmers played next to James, as well as Wade and Bosh, and Fisher played next to Kobe AND Shaq (TWO once-in-a-generation players.) Sure, Fish won some once Shaq left, but he was replaced by Gasol and the rest of the team was damn good.

I'm starting to see the Bledsoe bias...

 

[Phrazbit]

I'm starting to see the Bledsoe bias...

Oh please. No one is calling him the savior thats going to lead us to a championship, no one is claiming he is going to toss up averages of 23-12, but its silly to think he couldn't be a key part of a successful team if there were other strong players around him.

Its not bias to say they were a playoff caliber team last year with Bledsoe playing point. My point about Fisher and Chalmers was exaggerated for effect. Those guys stunk and won titles, Bledsoe does not by any means stink, but he isn't good enough to elevate a lineup of Tucker, the Morris dummies and Brandon Wright either.

As Elind up there said, its not complicated, we need more talent, period.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Oh please. No one is calling him the savior thats going to lead us to a championship, no one is claiming he is going to toss up averages of 23-12, but its silly to think he couldn't be a key part of a successful team if there were other strong players around him.

Its not bias to say they were a playoff caliber team last year with Bledsoe playing point. My point about Fisher and Chalmers was exaggerated for effect.

well, you exaggerated and I responded to what you wrote. can't read your mind there and the point remains, that even with exaggerations those are bad examples because they were parts of teams with THE BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE on them... while surrounded by other GREAT talent.

Those guys stunk and won titles, Bledsoe does not by any means stink, but he isn't good enough to elevate a lineup of Tucker, the Morris dummies and Brandon Wright either.

never said he stunk... I'm not Stefan and you know that. But he's an above average player at this point, nothing more, nothing less, making a GRIP of cash. He's the embodiment of the entire organization. He's purgatory and his play and contract will help keep us there because we'll never be terrible because he's a solid player, which will keep us from ever getting the transcendant superstar the team NEEDS.

As Elind up there said, its not complicated, we need more talent, period.

right... but the problem is, as Eric said, you need GREAT players to be GREAT. And there's only so much money to go around and Bledsoe is making GREAT player money, which he's not, which means there's less money those GREAT players.

I'm not talking about being a playoff contender... I'm talking about building a title contender. Most title contenders have 3 great players on them, at according salaries. I don't think Bledsoe can be one of them. I mean, maybe he could if we had a Durant or a Lebron, but couldn't you say that about ANY decent player?

 

[Errntknght]

Why does everyone always make this so complicated? You need great players on your roster, period. It doesn't matter what position they play. If you have great players at some positions, you can have less-great players at other positions. The end.

That's true but I would add that talent at head coach position has to taken into account as well. No, no coach is going to put the team on his back and carry them but he's probably as important as the third or fourth best player.

 

[elindholm]

That's true but I would add that talent at head coach position has to taken into account as well. No, no coach is going to put the team on his back and carry them but he's probably as important as the third or fourth best player.

It's (nearly) impossible to judge the strength of a coach independent of his roster. Spoelstra looked great when he had James on his team; now he looks like a schlub. Westphal won Coach of the Year when he had the MVP Barkley, and now he can't get a job. Ditto D'Antoni. Popovich is in a category by himself, but otherwise, I think the coach's role is much more about promoting chemistry and accountability with a specific group of players than it about his abstract skill as a basketball coach.

It cracked me up when Phil Jackson took over the Knicks and people started assuming that he'd "turn them around" and make them contenders within a couple of years. True, he's not the coach, but even if he were, there's just not that much that can be done with a poor roster. Jackson's great strength as a coach was his ability to get great players to take him seriously. That is something, but take him out of that unique environment, and I doubt he'd be anything special.

 

[Cheesebeef]

It's (nearly) impossible to judge the strength of a coach independent of his roster. Spoelstra looked great when he had James on his team; now he looks like a schlub. Westphal won Coach of the Year when he had the MVP Barkley, and now he can't get a job. Ditto D'Antoni. Popovich is in a category by himself, but otherwise, I think the coach's role is much more about promoting chemistry and accountability with a specific group of players than it about his abstract skill as a basketball coach.

It cracked me up when Phil Jackson took over the Knicks and people started assuming that he'd "turn them around" and make them contenders within a couple of years. True, he's not the coach, but even if he were, there's just not that much that can be done with a poor roster. Jackson's great strength as a coach was his ability to get great players to take him seriously. That is something, but take him out of that unique environment, and I doubt he'd be anything special.

agreed. Jackson's unique talent was to take GREAT talent and help them become legendary. That's not to downgrade his accomplishments. Getting the biggest superstars in the game to actually listen to ANYONE is one thing, but to motivate them to dynasties is another. He's the best closer of all time but I wouldn't want him at the helm building from scratch.

 

[Phrazbit]

well, you exaggerated and I responded to what you wrote. can't read your mind there and the point remains, that even with exaggerations those are bad examples because they were parts of teams with THE BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE on them... while surrounded by other GREAT talent.

And what I wrote was in response to BC's archaic basketball philosophy, claiming that Bledsoe and guys of his ilk make the entire rest of the team worse. Which is why I mentioned some guys so obviously extreme to the other end. Guys much worse than him who played on teams much much better.

As to the rest, we'll see. I agree that draft is the most important aspect of building a team, but IMO its more important to draft wisely than draft high. Sure, you can suck and you might stumble into the dumb luck of winning the lotto with a generational talent sitting there, but most of the teams that go the "suck for luck" route just end up sucking for a long time as they whiff on picks and cycle through staffs. I am still optimistic that McDonough is capable of drafting wisely. And I also think that the front office is more than willing to tank if the situation really calls for it, they are not aspiring for mediocrity. Last season's surprise success gave them little choice but to build upon a team that in retrospect had a low ceiling, I don't think they'll hesitate to blow it up... as we already saw during the deadline.

Lastly, I don't think Bledsoe's contract is going to prevent us from getting anyone. 15 million against a cap that is going up to nearly 90 million in the next couple years.

 

[Chaz]

It's (nearly) impossible to judge the strength of a coach independent of his roster. Spoelstra looked great when he had James on his team; now he looks like a schlub. Westphal won Coach of the Year when he had the MVP Barkley, and now he can't get a job. Ditto D'Antoni. Popovich is in a category by himself, but otherwise, I think the coach's role is much more about promoting chemistry and accountability with a specific group of players than it about his abstract skill as a basketball coach.

It cracked me up when Phil Jackson took over the Knicks and people started assuming that he'd "turn them around" and make them contenders within a couple of years. True, he's not the coach, but even if he were, there's just not that much that can be done with a poor roster. Jackson's great strength as a coach was his ability to get great players to take him seriously. That is something, but take him out of that unique environment, and I doubt he'd be anything special.

Not that he isn't a good coach but Popovich has never coached a full season without Tim Duncan on the roster.

 

[sunsfan88]

Speaking of Bledsoe, I sure hope that he isn't caught up in this

https://twitter.com/KBergCBS/status/588789519199182852

Many suspect LeBron to be a user and Bledsoe works out exclusively with LBJ in the off season so there's that.

 

[elindholm]

Not that he isn't a good coach but Popovich has never coached a full season without Tim Duncan on the roster.

True, but it's hard to argue that Duncan is even a top-20 player at this point. The Spurs are definitely greater than the sum of their parts.

 

[Mainstreet]

True, but it's hard to argue that Duncan is even a top-20 player at this point. The Spurs are definitely greater than the sum of their parts.

I've learned to never under estimate Tim Duncan but Spurs players openly talk about Kawhi Leonard as the new standard bearer. I agree the Spurs are greater than the sum of their parts. I attribute it to Gregg Popovich.

 

[Cheesebeef]

True, but it's hard to argue that Duncan is even a top-20 player at this point. The Spurs are definitely greater than the sum of their parts.

agreed. same can be said of the last three years. his prime was A LONG time ago and the Spurs have still been at the top or on top of the league despite that.

And Pop won two titles when Duncan was really the only superstar on that team. His first title team had a pretty atrocious supporting cast when you look at other teams. Robinson was already a shell of himself... Avery Johnson was the PG... Elliot was decent but nothing special and everyone else was role players at best.

The second title team wasn't much better. Robinson was even worse, Parker was a 19 year old rookie being benched for Speedy Claxton at crunch time and Manu had just started rounding into form.

I'm actually stunned they lost that last game to the Pelicans last night. I still think they'll get through the Clippers and probably the Rockets in round 2, but the wear and tear of having to play two road series before they get to GS probably does them in at that point. Otherwise, I'd give them a great shot to get back to the Finals and probably beat LeBron... again.

 

[elindholm]

I'm actually stunned they lost that last game to the Pelicans last night.

I suspect they had in the back of their minds that, if they lost, Russell Westbrook would be out of the playoffs. Funny how the Spurs always seem to get those little details to align their way.