Can fans make amends with Sarver?

[devilalum]

Now that the Clippers are winning everybody seems to have forgotten that their owner is the most unbelievable tool on the planet.

 

[Phrazbit]

I've said before, Sarver's problem is not that he is cheap (the Suns have outspent 75% of the teams in the league during his tenure), its that he has been dumb about what he spends it on. Low balling front office guys, overspending on role players...

If he is learning from his mistakes then that is a very good sign. The Ryan McDonough hiring was a great sign in his evolution as an owner IMO. Even if McDonough sinks, he went and hired a guy with league wide respect and not some buddy or yes man or bargain basement doofus.

 

[Phrazbit]

Hey genius, Go back and read my posts the fact you are even calling out someone stating the very obvious "that those were possibly the best years in Suns history" makes you look stupid.

Even if I was going to admit that the late 80s or early 90s were better eras my comment still stands as correct. Yet you are trying to argue it which is plain stupid.

Truth is during Colangelo's era the Western Conference was historically weak for a good part 40 wins could still get you into the playoffs. During Sarver's era for many years even the last seed won 50.

Yeah, the Jazz, Rockets, Spurs, Lakers, Blazers, Sonics... even the run n gun Warriors... all "weak"... despite being bloated with future hall of famers.

You say some insane stuff but your views of 80s and 90s basketball are shockingly ignorant.

And what the hell would your point be anyway? Even if it was a "weak" era (which it wasnt), the Suns still had the same supposedly weak talent pool as everyone else did to work with.

BTW, the actual weakest era for the league was probably from the late 90s to mid 2000s. A real lack of star level talent around the league, poorly assembled teams all over and several franchise destroying themselves financially.

 

[desertdawg]

Much props to the Green man on the piece, I finally found/clicked on the link and I dig the view.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I am done arguing with you. You think that expanding your era to 23 years works against your argument, yet I pointed out to you that even when you combine all memorable Suns accompishments during those 23 years they don't measure up to the 6 years after Sarver bought the team.

If I limited it to any 6 years during that time your argument would look even worse.

why did you expand it when I specifically said 1988-1995 was our best era?

Again, are ANY of the below false?

We won more playoff series during those years then we did from 2004-2011. True or False?

We made just as many WCF as we did during 2004-2011. True or False?

We made more FINALS then we did from 2004-2011. True or False?

We NEVER missed the playoff entirely from 1988-1995 as opposed to missing them TWICE during the 2004-2011 stretch. True or False?

The ONLY thing the 2004-2011 era had on the 1988-1995 era was that it won ONE more Western Division Title. Whoop-dee-doo!

Maybe you measure "success" by All-Star appearances and awards, you know, things that are given OFF-THE-COURT, but call me crazy if i measure a team's success by how successful they are ON THE COURT...WHEN IT COUNTS.

 

[elindholm]

During Sarver's era for many years even the last seed won 50.

Do you just assume that we won't catch exaggerations like this?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Hey genius, Go back and read my posts the fact you are even calling out someone stating the very obvious "that those were possibly the best years in Suns history" makes you look stupid.

Even if I was going to admit that the late 80s or early 90s were better eras my comment still stands as correct. Yet you are trying to argue it which is plain stupid.

Truth is during Colangelo's era the Western Conference was historically weak for a good part 40 wins could still get you into the playoffs. During Sarver's era for many years even the last seed won 50.

when the Sarver Suns were in their heyday, the last seed in 2004-2007 had 45 wins in 2005, 44 in 2006 and whopping 42 in 2007. You don't even know you're facts, dude.

And the West, during our heyday was HISTORICALLY weak, as was the entire league. The Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Heat and Pistons were pretty much the ONLY contenders in the entire league from 2004-2007. I mean... the Suns in 2006 played a 46 win team in the second round of the playoffs...and it was that powerhouse of basketball greatness... the freaking CLIPPERS!

The idea that the 1988-1995 WCF was historically weak with the Lakers/Blazers/Suns/Jazz/Spurs ruling the roost in the late 80's and then followed up by the Seattle/Suns/Rockets/Spurs/Jazz all in their prime in the 90's is HISTORICALLY stupid...or spoken as someone who never watched any of those teams play.

Slin, when were you born and have you always lived in Germany?

 

[BC867]

It is interesting to compare the Colangelo and Sarver eras of the Suns.

Because each in their own way were built primarily for the regular season. Entertain the fans. Revenue over the art of advancing.

It wasn't until Jerry switched his attention to the Diamondbacks that he built a team to be the best of the best.

And Sarver through D'Antoni led teams that played as though there were no tomorrow. Sprints not marathons.

Both approaches were flawed and look where we are now. The worst Suns team since their inaugural season. Pathetic! Sarver's one-time apology doesn't begin to address what he has done to a Phoenix institution.

And the sad part is how can he be so successful with the Mercury and so pathetic with the D'backs? Because he left running the Mercury in the hands of basketball people but used the Suns as his toy.

His only real apology would be to sell the team, make millions of dollars and buy another bank to play in.

 

[Phrazbit]

why did you expand it when I specifically said 1988-1995 was our best era?

Again, are ANY of the below false?

We won more playoff series during those years then we did from 2004-2011. True or False?

We made just as many WCF as we did during 2004-2011. True or False?

We made more FINALS then we did from 2004-2011. True or False?

We NEVER missed the playoff entirely from 1988-1995 as opposed to missing them TWICE during the 2004-2011 stretch. True or False?

The ONLY thing the 2004-2011 era had on the 1988-1995 era was that it won ONE more Western Division Title. Whoop-dee-doo!

Maybe you measure "success" by All-Star appearances and awards, you know, things that are given OFF-THE-COURT, but call me crazy if i measure a team's success by how successful they are ON THE COURT...WHEN IT COUNTS.

And its worth noting that the division from 1988-95 was a 7 team division opposed to the current 5, and the two extra teams were Seattle and Portland, perennial playoff teams that averaged around 50 wins a year over that stretch.

 

[Mulli]

Quite true but acknowledging your part in the screwup is far better than not.

Steve

Unless, he continues to do the same thing that makes it not an "amends." I suppose his words alone justify a fan's increased support in words alone.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Unless, he continues to do the same thing that makes it not an "amends." I suppose his words alone justify a fan's increased support in words alone.

Yes, the life preserver he tossed us is riddled with holes. It's not much but when you're drowning....

Steve

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Show me, don't tell me.

Based on his history and results, I am skeptical.

That being said, I do like the GM hire, and this is the first Suns event in a long time that elicits any excitement.

 

[frdbtr]

Sarver took one of the most talented teams that the suns ever assembled(assembled by Jerry Colangelo by the way) and slowly dismantled it into what it is today......starting with the Joe Johnson Debacle. Seriously, trading Shawn Marion for a completely washed up Shaq. Lettting Stoudemire go for nothing. He is a disaster.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I will never trust this douchebag.
I will never support his BS.


He is a POS who ground my favorite team on earth into a team I barely watch.

This man deserves no more chances. I wish him nothing but disaster.

 

[Gaddabout]

The late 80s/early 90s Suns had to contend with:

- The Lakers (Magic/Worthy)
- The Trail Blazers (Porter, Drexler, Kersey, Cliff Robinson)
- The Rockets (Hakeem, Maxwell, Horry, etc.)
- The Jazz (Stockton, Malone)
- The Sonics (Payton, Kemp, Schrempf)
- The Spurs (David Robinson, Sean Elliot, Terry Cummings)

The years between 1989 and 1995 were the strongest I've ever seen the Western Conference, and I've been watching since 1975. It was BRUTAL at the top of WC.

 

[Gaddabout]

I will never trust this douchebag.
I will never support his BS.


He is a POS who ground my favorite team on earth into a team I barely watch.

This man deserves no more chances. I wish him nothing but disaster.

Is that a picture of Honey Badger in your sig box?

 

[Budden]

Sarver took one of the most talented teams that the suns ever assembled(assembled by Jerry Colangelo by the way) and slowly dismantled it into what it is today......starting with the Joe Johnson Debacle. Seriously, trading Shawn Marion for a completely washed up Shaq. Lettting Stoudemire go for nothing. He is a disaster.

I'm really curious about the "completely washed up Shaq" comment. In the full season Shaq played in Phoenix, he averaged 18ppg on 60% shooting, grabbed 8.5 boards, blocked 1.5 shots and was the best center in the Western Conference. He was an all-star, and the guy PLAYED 75 games. 75 GAMES!

And, the Suns got Shaq to address probably the single biggest complaint we hear on these boards: to build the team that could compete in the playoffs.

So, how is it a knock on Sarver for allowing his GM to take a huge risk in trading Shawn Marion - the quintessential built-for-the-regular-season Phoenix Sun, the poster-child for small-ball, can't get it done in the post-season, too small to defend 4s, too little ball-handling/playmaking ability to play the 2 - for a Shaquille O'neal who turned out to be the best true center the Suns ever had?

 

[Budden]

My biggest issue with Sarver is that his philosophy seems to be: every time the Suns get good, find the best players on that team and get rid of them. Consider the players this team gave up since the start of the Nash Era:

2005: Joe Johnson, Q. Rich, Steven Hunter - 3 starters
2009: Shaq, who was the best player on the team in 2008-09
2010: Amare, who was the best player on the team; J. Rich, who was the team's best 3pt shooter and probably the team's most consistent guy in the clutch; Barbosa, one of the only players on the 2010 squad who could create his own shot; Lou Admunson
2011: Nash and Hill, the team's best and second-best players, respectively

It really sucks because the Suns have been on the cusp of greatest so often over the last decade. When you lose in the conference finals, you really have two acceptable choices: 1) spend a little more money to bring in a couple of guys that can shore up your weaknesses, or 2) keep the same group of guys, hoping that they'll have spent the offseason reflecting on why they came up short and improving their individual games. Time and again, Sarver has gone with Option 3: identify key contributors from those teams and trade them away, either for less talented imitations of them for lower cost, or (worse) for nothing at all (i.e. Shaq for Pavlovic and Ben Wallace's buy-out'able contracts).

The fundamental problem is that it takes 3 or 4 years to build a championship team. Over that time, your talent evaluators need to identify under-appreciated guys who can thrive within the team/system you're trying to create. Sarver's biggest problem is that he doesn't seem willing to commit to guys for 4 or even 5 years. So when guys perform better than what we're paying them for, the offseason comes along and those guys are now on other contenders' radars, and Sarver's not willing to commit to them at the market rate for the required 4 years or so that those other teams are willing to give them. Those guys leave, and the Suns are left looking for other under-valued players to pick up the slack. The Suns do find those guys, but inevitably they're a 1 or 2 years away from their full potentials, and the cycle begins again.

 

[Errntknght]

Rather than dispute your points, many of which are debateable, I offer my opinion of one problem that plagued us the entire time, and it wasn't Sarver, as poor as he was in his decision making. Our basketball people, D'Antoni at the forefront, did not grasp that playing Nashball meant you had to take extraordinary measures with backup PG or with the entire second unit. It showed up Nash's first season when Barbosa had a nervous/mental breakdown trying to be Steve's backup. Many of us on here talked about the problem with expecting any other PG trying to run a system designed around Nash and his unique skills. Jason Kidd would probably have worked because he would flourish in an SSOL type game, and Mike probably wouldn't have yanked him around the way he did young guys. Maybe some older, shoot-first PG who basically ignored the playbook anyway. (A matured Gilbert Arenas type.)
The other way to attack it is to use a different playbook for the second unit - which pretty much means you have two separate lineups that you don't mix. I imagine that would have required firing D'Antoni because its hard to have two separate lineups and use only seven players - to me that would have been an added bonus.

 

[TJ]

Now that the Clippers are winning everybody seems to have forgotten that their owner is the most unbelievable tool on the planet.

Most Angelinos here still know that Sterling is a tool and a bigot. This is only two consecutive seasons of getting into the playoffs, which makes a whopping three postseason appearances since 1994.

Sterling needs to make two franchise-changing moves this offseason: re-sign CP3 and fire VDN. The fact that VDN would not adjust to the Grizzlies's physicality was an embarrassment for them. They have more talent than anyone in the west, with the lone exception being OKC, so to see the Clippers bounced in the first is nothing short of a disappointment.

If Sterling whiffs on any of the two, especially letting CP3 walk, he's going to be tarred and feathered, and those bandwagon fans will go elsewhere.

 

[TJ]

If he gets me a few consecutive playoff appearances and a serious title run, Sarver and I will start becoming cordial.

I've heard this song and dance before. He apologized about five years ago for selling off so many draft picks, making specific reference to the Rondo deal (doh!). I want to see results and a franchise player that's not eligible for AARP.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Is that a picture of Honey Badger in your sig box?

yes sir

 

[Raindog]

I'm on board with the notion that Sarver has never really been cheap per se in his running of the team. The big problem with him is that he is an arrogant so-and-so who gave himself credit for the success the team did have after he first bought it, even though he contributed really nothing of substance to actually build that team. As a result, he then decided that every decision he made while ruining... errr, running... his new toy was a brilliant one because don't you know, after all he was the "brains" behind the Suns' mid oughts run of success. It's always been about the hubris with this guy.

That being said, I think the lion's share of the blame for all of the stupid things that kept the Suns from winning with that team really belong to ultra-putz D'Antoni. I think Sarver went along with DA's "plan" of having no depth and no youth because supposedly D'Antoni was such a basketball genius. I would bet good money that the annual sell-off of useful assets was based more on Dumbtoni's advice than anything Sarver came up with on his own.

Of course, stuff like the Joe Johnson debacle and Steve Kerr flying the coop were the sole result of Sarver's getting into "nobody's going to tell me how to run things" pissing matches. So he has contributed to the eventual fail of the franchise quite a bit, too.

I guess we shall see if he is properly chastened by the demise of quality of what is essentially his product and ultimately reflects on him. Perhaps this can be taken as a real sign that he is wising up. Certainly, the franchise needs to change direction and quickly. They are about two rungs away from being the most irrelevant team in the league at present.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Hoping Sarver sells is a pipe dream. It like hoping you win the lottery in order to solve your financial problems.

The more realistic situation is for Sarver to hire people that are competent and than he trusts and then for him to learn to get out of the way.

As long as Sarver's name is mentioned consistently as part of the decision making group, especially about such matters as draft picks, there is still a problem.

Of course, he has to have a say when a decision is made to spend big bucks on a FA.

 

[frdbtr]

I'm really curious about the "completely washed up Shaq" comment. In the full season Shaq played in Phoenix, he averaged 18ppg on 60% shooting, grabbed 8.5 boards, blocked 1.5 shots and was the best center in the Western Conference. He was an all-star, and the guy PLAYED 75 games. 75 GAMES!

And, the Suns got Shaq to address probably the single biggest complaint we hear on these boards: to build the team that could compete in the playoffs.

So, how is it a knock on Sarver for allowing his GM to take a huge risk in trading Shawn Marion - the quintessential built-for-the-regular-season Phoenix Sun, the poster-child for small-ball, can't get it done in the post-season, too small to defend 4s, too little ball-handling/playmaking ability to play the 2 - for a Shaquille O'neal who turned out to be the best true center the Suns ever had?

He also ground the suns offense to a complete stop, and didn't play a lick of defense.