I am unswayed in my belief that Anderson is a net negative - injury prone, over-the-hill, huge defensive liability... and monstrously overpaid. Sure he can shoot some, assuming he can stay healthy. But anything he contributes offensively is certain to be deducted (and then some) defensively.
I know everyone has been obsessed for years now with the Suns needing a "stretch 4," as if that is some kind of magic bullet that will turn them into the next Warriors. I guess that has clouded judgment in the NBA as to what comprises an actual valuable asset. Imagine if we had gone out and signed Channing Frye to a two year 55 million dollar deal this off-season. Would anyone be celebrating that as a brilliant move by the front office? That is pretty much where we are with the Anderson trade, minus two trade pieces that may or may not have been put to better use. Unless, I guess you assume Melton is a can't miss contributor, as some seem to think.
Injury prone--averages 62 games a year. OK
Defensive liability--better defender than Chriss or Knight IMO. Opinions on players' defense are so polar. If they are not fantastic, they are horrible. Anderson is neither.
Over-the-hill--30 years old. No. He has 6-7 more years, especially with his style of play.
Overpaid--sure. But with the contract restructure, not a risk and really doesn't hinder us from signing anyone else.
Can shoot some--Um. some. No. A lot. Yes.
Good offense outweighed by bad defense--no. Look at who he is replacing.
Obsessed with finding a "stretch 4"--not here. 90% of the talk has been about a pg. In fact, the trade took most here by surprise. We were not looking for a stretch 4.
Melton as a "can't miss contributor"--another exaggeration. Have not seen that here. At most, some consider Melton a more intriguing prospect than Chriss.
So. It looks like the only thing I agree with is "injury prone" and "overpaid."
