Clippers @ Suns 4/14

[Sunburn]

I am shocked at how quickly the FO destroyed what was such a promising team last year.

 

[BC867]

Ha! You are a youngster.

Ya, but that was 40 years ago.

Ahem.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I am shocked at how quickly the FO destroyed what was such a promising team last year.

As in?

1. Letting Ish Smith go.
2. Letting Channing Frye go.
3. Signing IT.
4. Trading Goran.
5. Trading Plumlee.

So, which of these moves destroyed last year's team and what would/could you have done differently.

 

[elindholm]

As in?

1. Letting Ish Smith go.
2. Letting Channing Frye go.
3. Signing IT.
4. Trading Goran.
5. Trading Plumlee.

You left out buckling to Bledsoe's salary demands and trading Thomas away at a loss, which were the two biggest mistakes. And asking "What would you have done differently" misses the point. No one on this board is paid seven figures to run an NBA franchise, so it's not fair to hold us to the same standard that those in charge are.

 

[Phrazbit]

How did we trade Thomas away at a loss? We got a 1st round pick in the trade and gave up nothing when we acquired him.

 

[elindholm]

How did we trade Thomas away at a loss? We got a 1st round pick in the trade and gave up nothing when we acquired him.

I think he had more value than that of the pick that was returned.

 

[JCSunsfan]

You left out buckling to Bledsoe's salary demands and trading Thomas away at a loss, which were the two biggest mistakes. And asking "What would you have done differently" misses the point. No one on this board is paid seven figures to run an NBA franchise, so it's not fair to hold us to the same standard that those in charge are.

I did not leave those out. Neither of those changed last year's roster in any way. He mentioned the promising young roster from last year. IT was not part of that, and Bledsoe was.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I think he had more value than that of the pick that was returned.

He was signed as a FA in August, produced on the team but complained about his role and was a locker room nightmare, and you trade him for a 1st round pick in February.

Most free agents are wash value the moment you sign them. In fact, if there is anything negative about them you have to give up assets to move them.

Maybe they could have gotten a little more for IT, but I doubt it. I have a hunch Danny Ainge was bidding against himself if there was any bidding going on at all.

 

[JCSunsfan]

As in?

1. Letting Ish Smith go.
2. Letting Channing Frye go.
3. Signing IT.
4. Trading Goran.
5. Trading Plumlee.

So, which of these moves destroyed last year's team and what would/could you have done differently.

I guess I will quote myself.

1. Letting Ish go was way bigger of a deal than than most realized. If they had kept Ish and not signed IT, Goran might still be here. Maybe. Just maybe.
2. Channing Frye. Tough one. Definitely not worth the contract he got. Big loss, but I don't see any choice.
3. Signing IT. Seemed low risk at the time. Still they are only out some cash and got a 1st rounder for their trouble--that is unless you think that Goran would still be here if IT was not. I am not so sure about that. Goran was bothered by Bledsoe. Not sure it would have helped and Goran might be gone this summer anyway. He seems very fond of testing free agency even if he says he loves Miami.
4. See three. Probably were going to lose him anyway. Got two potentially very valuable picks for what might be a rental for Miami. If he really wanted to be here, he could always come back this summer.
5. Plumlee asked to be traded when Len moved into the starting role. Good grief. If this kid does not get that he is a backup, then he needed to go.

 

[elindholm]

I did not leave those out. Neither of those changed last year's roster in any way. He mentioned the promising young roster from last year. IT was not part of that, and Bledsoe was.

Well, okay, but the way that a roster harmonizes is at least as important as the names of the players on it.

He was signed as a FA in August, produced on the team but complained about his role and was a locker room nightmare, and you trade him for a 1st round pick in February.

I'm not so sure he was a locker room nightmare. It's clear that team chemistry was bad before the trade deadline, but it doesn't look like it has gotten any better. The evidence suggests that the problem players are among those still on the roster, not those who were traded away.

Most free agents are wash value the moment you sign them.

That would be true only if they were signed to their correct market value. Most people, including on this board, believed that the Suns got Thomas at a relative bargain, maybe because he expected to have a larger role.

I have a hunch Danny Ainge was bidding against himself if there was any bidding going on at all.

Thomas averaged 19.0/5.4 for the Celtics, in the same minutes he was getting for the Suns (26 per game). What do you suppose his value is now?

 

[Phrazbit]

I think he had more value than that of the pick that was returned.

That could be, but its still not selling at a loss, other than a few million on last year's cap he didn't cost them anything.

 

[Mainstreet]

The only moves I think about are the Suns trading IT for a lesser first round pick. He had more value especially with the departure of Dragic and Ennis. Plumlee and Dragic wanted out so I do not spend much time thinking about that.

Also I look at the Suns trading the Lakers pick for Knight. This is a trade that needs to work. The Suns do need to keep Brandan Knight with the departure of the Minnesota pick.

Ish Smith was a nice 3rd PG, that's about it.

Forgot to mention, Frye cost too much money for his worth.

 

[elindholm]

That could be, but its still not selling at a loss

Selling something at less than its value is selling at a loss. It doesn't matter what you paid for it. If I give you a $100 bill and you sell it to someone for $75, you've taken a loss on that transaction.

 

[Phrazbit]

Selling something at less than its value is selling at a loss. It doesn't matter what you paid for it. If I give you a $100 bill and you sell it to someone for $75, you've taken a loss on that transaction.

You're comparing apples to oranges, its not that black and white. We got a 1st round pick, its not like it cost us a better first round pick to get him. In terms of future value it cost us nothing to acquire him, we sold him for something with tangible value. Did we maximize his value in the sale? Maybe, maybe not, but there is no way paint sum total as a "loss".

 

[JCSunsfan]

Selling something at less than its value is selling at a loss. It doesn't matter what you paid for it. If I give you a $100 bill and you sell it to someone for $75, you've taken a loss on that transaction.

Not in any financial world I know. If you value your stock trades against the best possible scenario, everyone would be a loser virtually all the time. The best traders constantly leave money on the table. They do not call it taking a loss.

Selling at a loss is when you get less than what you paid. Your $100 bill analogy is a fallacy since it is the currency by which everything else is measured. The value of a particular player has so many factors that enter in, including his production, contract, value to the receiving team, value to the sending team, etc. Your analogy is cut an dried. Your evaluation of IT is speculation with the benefit of hindsight (no one knew exactly how he would impact the Celtics).

His value now is completely unrelated. Had he stayed with the Suns, his value could be (or not be) less than what it was then. The Suns ended up with a first round pick for the cost of IT for a few months.

 

[Mainstreet]

IT had more value than the Cleveland pick before he was traded to the Celtics. Nothing he accomplished after being traded to the Celtics surprises me. The Suns traded IT for supposed chemistry reasons.

 

[elindholm]

You're comparing apples to oranges, its not that black and white. We got a 1st round pick, its not like it cost us a better first round pick to get him. In terms of future value it cost us nothing to acquire him, we sold him for something with tangible value. Did we maximize his value in the sale? Maybe, maybe not, but there is no way paint sum total as a "loss".

If the Warriors were to trade Curry for Bledsoe straight up, that would be trading him at a loss, even though they'd be getting something of value in return. That is a more extreme version of the Thomas case.

Not in any financial world I know. If you value your stock trades against the best possible scenario, everyone would be a loser virtually all the time. The best traders constantly leave money on the table. They do not call it taking a loss.

Right, it's not the best possible scenario, but instead an estimate over the range of possible scenarios. And no, stock traders do not routinely sell stock for less than they believe it is worth. They recognize that the value fluctuates wildly, but that isn't the same thing.

Selling at a loss is when you get less than what you paid. Your $100 bill analogy is a fallacy since it is the currency by which everything else is measured.

That doesn't matter. Currency has an easily defined value, yes, but other things also have value even if it's harder to define. If I inherit a classic car from a relative and, through ignorance, sell it for a few hundred dollars, I've taken a loss on that sale.

Your evaluation of IT is speculation with the benefit of hindsight (no one knew exactly how he would impact the Celtics).

True, but it was reasonable to project that he would prove to be worth more than what the Suns got in return.

Had he stayed with the Suns, his value could be (or not be) less than what it was then. The Suns ended up with a first round pick for the cost of IT for a few months.

The fact that the Suns got Thomas "for nothing" is confounding your analysis. The Suns had cap room and spent it on what looked like a good asset. They then moved that asset for less than its estimated value. Surely the Suns could have gotten something better than this one pick in the first place with their salary space, had that been their intention from the outset.

If the Suns now trade this first-round pick for a second-rounder, wouldn't you consider that a loss? And yet your argument, by extension, should be that it's still a chain-reaction value from the "free" Thomas signing, and therefore still a gain.

 

[Catlover]

I'm not so sure he was a locker room nightmare. It's clear that team chemistry was bad before the trade deadline, but it doesn't look like it has gotten any better. The evidence suggests that the problem players are among those still on the roster, not those who were traded away.

How so?

 

[elindholm]

How so?

How would you compare the apparent chemistry of the team before and after the trades? Not just the few games right before and after, but the two (approximate) half-seasons.

 

[Phrazbit]

If the Warriors were to trade Curry for Bledsoe straight up, that would be trading him at a loss, even though they'd be getting something of value in return. That is a more extreme version of the Thomas case.

You're really reaching. Now you're comparing apples to bricks.

Thomas was a free agent, who we paid for all of a few months, many people on here questioned if he was an asset at all, he was flipped for a 1st rounder. The cost to acquire him went along with him in the trade, the Suns essentially got a 1st round pick for nothing.

You can argue that they undersold (but I suspect if he was still on the roster you'd argue that he has no value) but its still not a "loss".

 

[Catlover]

How would you compare the apparent chemistry of the team before and after the trades? Not just the few games right before and after, but the two (approximate) half-seasons.

Not good but noticeably improved. The sideline behavior (especially) seemed much better as a whole. Other than a brief "happy" stretch at the start of December, the behavior pre-trade reflected the rumored locker room disruptions. After that early December fight between Thomas and Goran, this team was a mess of individuals. The last 2 months of the season there were signs of cohesion and group support that we didn't see earlier in the year. It didn't manifest itself in wins but that was a lack of talent not chemistry.

 

[elindholm]

Thomas was a free agent, who we paid for all of a few months, many people on here questioned if he was an asset at all

They did? I don't recall a lot of people saying they thought his contract was a liability. I know I wasn't.

The cost to acquire him went along with him in the trade, the Suns essentially got a 1st round pick for nothing.

They got it for $7.2 million of the cap space they had last summer, which is a darn high price to pay for a pick at the end of the first round. But even so, that isn't the point. We apparently have different ways of thinking about the relationship between asset transactions and how one assesses loss or gain from them. Every time I offer an analogy, you shoot it down as irrelevant and re-state your argument. I know where you are coming from; I just disagree.

 

[Phrazbit]

They did? I don't recall a lot of people saying they thought his contract was a liability. I know I wasn't.



They got it for $7.2 million of the cap space they had last summer, which is a darn high price to pay for a pick at the end of the first round. But even so, that isn't the point. We apparently have different ways of thinking about the relationship between asset transactions and how one assesses loss or gain from them. Every time I offer an analogy, you shoot it down as irrelevant and re-state your argument. I know where you are coming from; I just disagree.

I get where you're coming from, but it requires a strong belief in Thomas' value that I'm not sure existed, and I know a lot of the front office detractors seemed to think he held no value at all.

Seeing as they dumped Thomas with no apparent regard to how the Dragic situation was going to play out, I suspect that the Boston offer was the best offer available. That being the case, I find it really difficult (no matter how you view it as a cost to acquire vs selling) that he was sold at a loss.

 

[Chaz]

I also find this argument unconvincing that that the Suns had any value invested in Thomas that they lost. The analogy of unrealized gains is apt. Besides the salary that they are required to spend on someone the acquisition cost them nothing.
Now the argument comes down to the on court value of Thomas against some unrealized unknown. But again that unknown had very little investment and the salary is now expiring in Thornton.
It could be said that it was a mistake to sign him but it can't simultaneously be a mistake to trade him for an expiring contact and a first.

 

[Errntknght]

Quote:
Originally Posted by itlnsunsfan
I am shocked at how quickly the FO destroyed what was such a promising team last year.

Second Quote: As in?

1. Letting Ish Smith go.
2. Letting Channing Frye go.
3. Signing IT.
4. Trading Goran.
5. Trading Plumlee.

So, which of these moves destroyed last year's team and what would/could you have done differently.
End Quotes:

To begin with, the team last year was not that promising despite winning 48 games. The big mistake the FO made was believing that we had a foundation for the future and opting to forgo a real rebuilding process. The 48 wins was overachieving via very good chemistry, gutsy play and opponents underestimating us.

Dragic and Green had career years yet their ages and history argued against them being building blocks. The same for Frye - even moreso, becaise he'd never performed well in a stretch run nor the playoffs. PJ was on the verge of too old and he was, at best, a utility player on a contending team. The Morrises had some promise, particularly Markieff as a high scoring substitute PF - his defense and rebounding were too weak to be a starting PF - but he wasn't too old to have a chance to grow some. Plumlee, who'd shown good rebounding and defense early on faded in the second half of the year - for unknown reasons. Perhaps useful if he returned to his early form but way too 'iffy' to be a building block.

I wasn't convinced that Bledsoe was a building block for reasons we hashed over at length during the summer and I'm still not entirely convinced he's a starter on a contending team - I think his best position is sixth man, playing few enough minutes so he can use his energy to be a disruptive defender and attack the basket as well.

Most of the other mistakes followed from the primary one I mentioned, though, in a sense Frye and Goran leaving weren't mistakes from the long range viewpoint. Plumlee had become useless so losing him was no mistake. I think letting Ish go was a minor mistake and was almost certainly due to signing IT. Now, that signing didn't pan out but at the time, with Bled's status up in the air, it was understandable. (It kind of reminds me of signing Quentin Richardson as insurance against Joe Johnson leaving or not panning our - he turned out to be the probable cause of Joe leaving - though we never knew exactly what prompted him to force his way out the way he did. Insurance in this business can be a two edged sword.)

I think the biggest actual blunder was signing Tolliver instead of someone who could rebound and defend at PF - for example, Ed Davis or Tarik Black who were readily available. McD did well to shed him quickly but we were stuck with a woeful rebounding/defending front court, which is a disaster if your plan is to be a fastbreaking team. The worst of it is that neither McD nor Hornacek seem to grasp that connection. What the heck use is it to have two outlet targets, which is whole thing driving the idea of having two PGs on the floor, if you can't rebound the dang ball. Cripes, we have to keep Bledsoe and Tucker hitting the glass to have average team rebounding. Result: our fastbreak is broke! (Losing Ish didn't help.)

The big blunder this year is going to be signing Brandon Knight. Although a pretty good player signing him means we are going to continue Hornacek's and McD's folly - after observing that it didn't work. Two PGs on the floor but they can't fastbreak because we need them to rebound. Zero PGs when it comes to running the half court offense... great days coming, if you're a masochist!

The good news is we have lots of draft picks coming... so we can keep drafting combo guards, allowing us to keep trying until we get it right, in the immortal words of Jeff Hornacek.