Draft grades

[KloD]

Absolutely true, however, the discussion is there, and while we can't say he is a franchise player yet, we definitely cannot say he won't get there.

Which is true of anyone whether drafted 1st or 25th. The lottery is a crap shoot. There are more disappointments than not in the top 10. How many teams have played the lottery game and came away disappointed with a guy who many thought was a sure thing over and over again. IMO the Suns are doing it the best way. Did Sarver make mistakes, yep. The guy made many, but I also think he's learned from them. He has a great front office and coach in place now. He seems to be trusting them to make the decisions. They are building a team and we'll either get lucky in the draft or they will find a way to make a trade or sign a good free agent down the road. I have no doubt that they are trying, but it's only been a year. As much crap as Sarver gets, Jerry ran this team for many years and there were many bad decisions and zero championships.

This was not directed at you as I believe we are in agreement, but I quoted your post to build on your comment.

 

[Covert Rain]

Which is true of anyone whether drafted 1st or 25th. The lottery is a crap shoot. There are more disappointments than not in the top 10. How many teams have played the lottery game and came away disappointed with a guy who many thought was a sure thing over and over again. IMO the Suns are doing it the best way. Did Sarver make mistakes, yep. The guy made many, but I also think he's learned from them. He has a great front office and coach in place now. He seems to be trusting them to make the decisions. They are building a team and we'll either get lucky in the draft or they will find a way to make a trade or sign a good free agent down the road. I have no doubt that they are trying, but it's only been a year. As much crap as Sarver gets, Jerry ran this team for many years and there were many bad decisions and zero championships.

This was not directed at you as I believe we are in agreement, but I quoted your post to build on your comment.

Statistically there is a massive difference between the 1st pick and the 25th pick in terms of opportunity (70% chance versus 5% chance) of said player becoming a star.

 

[JS22]

Its not about them being terrible. Its about them winning a championship. And you need superstar caliber players to win a championship. And to get superstar calibers player, you need to get top selections more often than not. Whether that's through trades or sucking or whatever.

What your telling me is that you care more about the Suns getting 48 or 50 wins more so than them winning a championship.

I'll give you two scenarios, pick which one you want.

A) Throughout the next 10 years, the Suns win 2 championships and then suck really bad for the rest of the 8 years.

OR

B) Throughout the next 10 years, the Suns win 0 championships however, they are a playoff team every season.

I already know that you will pick scenario B.

Of course I'd pick A if I knew it would guarantee 2 championships. Most people would.

But I'd rather the Suns ditch the loser mentality that so many other teams have had for YEARS. Most of those teams have gotten nowhere.

Not talking about you specifically, but it seems like most people would rather then Suns tank it every year and cross their fingers during the draft for the next Lebron. Why not build a winning team through trades, smart FA signings, and hitting on a few picks?

 

[Covert Rain]

Of course I'd pick A if I knew it would guarantee 2 championships. Most people would.

But I'd rather the Suns ditch the loser mentality that so many other teams have had for YEARS. Most of those teams have gotten nowhere.

Not talking about you specifically, but it seems like most people would rather then Suns tank it every year and cross their fingers during the draft for the next Lebron. Why not build a winning team through trades, smart FA signings, and hitting on a few picks?

I would argue some people want to see the team bottom out for as long as it takes to get a franchise player to turn the team into a winner. That is not a loser mentality. Keeping things status quo and wallowing in mediocrity while the team continues it's streak of 0-46 in terms of titles is the loser mentality. It's the very definition of complacency. People have become satisfied with entertaining teams in regards to the Suns.

What in Sarver's tenure says he can pull off a blockbuster trade or attract a tier 1 free agent? JC had a track record. 10 years of Sarver? Nada.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I would argue some people want to see the team bottom out for as long as it takes to get a franchise player to turn the team into a winner. That is not a loser mentality. Keeping things status quo is the loser mentality.

What in Sarver's tenure says he can pull off a blockbuster trade or attract a tier 1 free agent. JC had a track record. 10 years of Sarver? Nada.

If I had to pick between your two options, this one is the clear winner for loser mentality. And I have yet to see anyone, ANYONE, say I just want things to remain status quo.

You show me evidence that bottoming out every year increases the likelihood that you'll turn your team into the ultimate winner and I'll change my opinion. Bad teams stay bad more often than not. They draft a Love or a Lebron and those guys say goodbye and go play for a team that doesn't have a loser mentality. As far as I can tell, you have to go back to 1997 to find a player that was drafted number one and led the team that drafted him to a championship. And before that you have to go to 1987 for the previous one. Both, btw, drafted by the Spurs. Losing to win is a loser's proposition IMO. Not that you can't pick your spots with this approach but as a year after year routine, it doesn't seem to work.

Steve

 

[KloD]

Statistically there is a massive difference between the 1st pick and the 25th pick in terms of opportunity (70% chance versus 5% chance) of said player becoming a star.

You're telling me 70% of first picks are stars? What qualifies as a star? Because I would disagree with that by what I believe a star to be. In the last 20 years only 2 1st picks have been a won championships. Since Shaq, 3. I don't recall if any 1st pics were on a team that won one, but I'm pretty certain only 3 were starters when they won. I'm not saying they have to win a championship to be a star. But, I would disagree with that stat in a big way.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Bottoming out every year trying to get a good player is the Clippers/Cavaliers model of futility. Look at the most successful teams in the NBA and they do not function that way.

The Lakers made a good trade for a mid-first round player, added free agents, or made good trades. They haven't had a high pick in ages.

Boston jumped on a good player that slid in Pierce, but then added quality at the bottom of the first round in Rondo and make good trades or free agent signings in getting Garnett and others.

Even the Spurs, while they did get the first pick in Duncan have been making and remaking that team with late picks, and Euro-league rejects.

Even up and coming teams are building good core rosters without early picks. Houston has Howard and Harden and drafted neither of them. They could easily get into the mix.

While Miami drafted Wade their real core came through trades and free agency with players like Shaq, LeBron, and Bosh. Even then Wade was not a top 3 pick.

When the Mavericks won, they did not have one starter that they drafted themselves.

In the last 30 plus years there has been only one team that MAY have tanked and got a player that went on to help them win a championship and that is San Antonio.

It is by far, the exception, not the rule and it is not the way I want my team to play.

 

[KloD]

Bottoming out every year trying to get a good player is the Clippers/Cavaliers model of futility. Look at the most successful teams in the NBA and they do not function that way.

The Lakers made a good trade for a mid-first round player, added free agents, or made good trades. They haven't had a high pick in ages.

Boston jumped on a good player that slid in Pierce, but then added quality at the bottom of the first round in Rondo and make good trades or free agent signings in getting Garnett and others.

Even the Spurs, while they did get the first pick in Duncan have been making and remaking that team with late picks, and Euro-league rejects.

Even up and coming teams are building good core rosters without early picks. Houston has Howard and Harden and drafted neither of them. They could easily get into the mix.

While Miami drafted Wade their real core came through trades and free agency with players like Shaq, LeBron, and Bosh. Even then Wade was not a top 3 pick.

When the Mavericks won, they did not have one starter that they drafted themselves.

In the last 30 plus years there has been only one team that MAY have tanked and got a player that went on to help them win a championship and that is San Antonio.

It is by far, the exception, not the rule and it is not the way I want my team to play.

Thank you!

 

[FutureSuperstar]

Its not about them being terrible. Its about them winning a championship. And you need superstar caliber players to win a championship. And to get superstar calibers player, you need to get top selections more often than not. Whether that's through trades or sucking or whatever.

What your telling me is that you care more about the Suns getting 48 or 50 wins more so than them winning a championship.

I'll give you two scenarios, pick which one you want.

A) Throughout the next 10 years, the Suns win 2 championships and then suck really bad for the rest of the 8 years.

OR

B) Throughout the next 10 years, the Suns win 0 championships however, they are a playoff team every season.

I already know that you will pick scenario B.

Are you serious dude? Can you not comprehend that a team doesn't go from a 25 win team to a 60 win team in 1 season .... There has to be a 45 - 50 win team in there in between ...

- The Thunder won roughly 25 games in 2008/09 ... Then 50 in 09/10 - According to you, that was useless because they were an 8th seed and thus not a contender - This is exactly your argument against ... I don't even know what you're against, winning?

And yes, the 2 situations are comparable - I guess I have to dumb things down for you ... The Suns have Dragic, Bledsoe, Plumlee, Morris Twins, Goodwin, Warren, Ennis, so much cap space, future picks, etc., great coach, great GM .... That is a ton of assets - And some people here believe a team that had like 5 more wins than the Suns (Rockets, Clippers, Warriors, etc.) are in a better position to win for the next decade? Who exactly on those teams is going to improve in the next few years to create distance from Phoenix?

It seems people are buying into the media-narrative that the Suns overachieved last year and thus may fall back this year, instead of accepting the fact that we have a coach that maximizes his player's abilities and that won't change ... The Spurs overachieve every year too I guess given their talent level, but "overachieving" is meaningless if it happens consistently due to a team's structure/coach/culture . I think that's what we have brewing here in Phoenix.

 

[Covert Rain]

If I had to pick between your two options, this one is the clear winner for loser mentality. And I have yet to see anyone, ANYONE, say I just want things to remain status quo.

You show me evidence that bottoming out every year increases the likelihood that you'll turn your team into the ultimate winner and I'll change my opinion. Bad teams stay bad more often than not. They draft a Love or a Lebron and those guys say goodbye and go play for a team that doesn't have a loser mentality. As far as I can tell, you have to go back to 1997 to find a player that was drafted number one and led the team that drafted him to a championship. And before that you have to go to 1987 for the previous one. Both, btw, drafted by the Spurs. Losing to win is a loser's proposition IMO. Not that you can't pick your spots with this approach but as a year after year routine, it doesn't seem to work.

Steve

I have read plenty of comments to the effect of people saying they just want the team to be entertaining again. That is the very definition of loser mentality. Basically that is saying hey...if we never get a title...it's OK as long as the team is competitive? Really?!!?

There are no guarantees of anything in the NBA including turning a team around. The best you can do is put your team in the best position to turn things around. Constantly drafting in the middle of the pack while not being able to pull of a blockbuster trade or bring in a tier 1 fee agent is a guarantee of mediocrity. Will the team be more watchable? Sure....but how the heck is that putting your team in the best opportunity to build a title contender?

Look...all things being equal I would prefer this team to pull of blockbuster trade. All things being equal I would prefer this team be a destination team that major free agents always consider. With Sarver I don't think that is possible. So, understand that is where I am coming from. I don't think this team has any other choice but to land that caliber of a player through the draft.

I think that if you disagree with that and feel we have another way that is fair.

You're telling me 70% of first picks are stars? What qualifies as a star? Because I would disagree with that by what I believe a star to be. In the last 20 years only 2 1st picks have been a won championships. Since Shaq, 3. I don't recall if any 1st pics were on a team that won one, but I'm pretty certain only 3 were starters when they won. I'm not saying they have to win a championship to be a star. But, I would disagree with that stat in a big way.

Here is a 10 year breakdown that I posted above. Obviously, what constitutes a "star" is debatable but there are plenty of great players who don't have titles but that doesn't make them any less great. My definition of a star is someone who is a franchise changer. The status below used a combination of statistics.

By the way that doesn't mean players don't slide and it's impossible. It just means is statistically unlikely. This is not meant to be a black and white definition but give you an idea. There are too many variables to make it black and white. However, you can draw some conclusions for example that the top 5 picks are more likely to net you a stud versus any other positions in the draft.

They concluded that picks:

• 1-5 range, your chances are very good to land a star. 1st pick 70%, 2nd pick 60%, 3rd pick 85%, 4th pick 60%, 5th pick 60%. After #5 your chances drop significantly (less than 35%).
• [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1] 6-10 range your chances are about 1/3 of the picks reach star status. [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]6th pick 25%, [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]7th pick 30%, [/SIZE][/SIZE]8th pick 35%, [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]9th pick 30%, [/SIZE][/SIZE]10th pick 35%.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
• [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]11-20 - produces as many busts as stars. 11-16 usually end up as role players and 17-20 career bench warmers. #11th pick 15%, 12th 5%, 13th 20%, 14th 25%, 15th 10%, 16th 5%, 17th 20%, 18th 5%, 19th 5%, 20th 5%.
  [/SIZE][/SIZE]
• 21-30 range only 6% of picks become stars, and less than half even make it to role player caliber stats and this is bust city territory.

 

[JS22]

I would argue some people want to see the team bottom out for as long as it takes to get a franchise player to turn the team into a winner. That is not a loser mentality. Keeping things status quo and wallowing in mediocrity while the team continues it's streak of 0-46 in terms of titles is the loser mentality. It's the very definition of complacency. People have become satisfied with entertaining teams in regards to the Suns.

What in Sarver's tenure says he can pull off a blockbuster trade or attract a tier 1 free agent? JC had a track record. 10 years of Sarver? Nada.

You don't think that this team is different than the boring, old, 45 win teams of the past?

Sure they missed the playoffs and ended up with a late lottery pick. But this is a young, exciting team that would have been third in the East. I believe they were also the best team in the past 10-15 years not to make the playoffs?

It's not like the Suns are running out a bunch of vets just looking to cash a paycheck. I could see your argument if then.

 

[Covert Rain]

You don't think that this team is different than the boring, old, 45 win teams of the past?

Sure they missed the playoffs and ended up with a late lottery pick. But this is a young, exciting team that would have been third in the East. I believe they were also the best team in the past 10-15 years not to make the playoffs?

It's not like the Suns are running out a bunch of vets just looking to cash a paycheck. I could see your argument if then.

I think this team has had lots of boring and exciting teams right around this win mark over the years.

 

[JS22]

I think this team has had lots of boring and exciting teams right around this win mark over the years.

What does that have to do with this roster, coach, and GM?

 

[Covert Rain]

What does that have to do with this roster, coach, and GM?

You asked if I think this team is different. I am saying it's just more of the same. In other words, this organization putting together rosters just good enough to squeak into the playoffs or build entertaining teams.

 

[mojorizen7]

What does that have to do with this roster, coach, and GM?

Professional sports teams(basketball, football, baseball, hockey) all have their own particular culture, which directly affects the culture of the fan base.

The Suns' culture is pretty well defined and in place, and has been for decades.

 

[leclerc]

I guess that depends on what you call a future? A future in mediocrity? A future of continuing the Suns legacy of one of the most winning franchise in all of sports without a title?

Steve, do you really consider that a future? Maybe some do and that's fair but anything short of a title is a failure to me.

This is why the Suns need to draft higher to have a shot statistically of landing a franchise player.

Hey man cheer up. There are good times and there are bad. We almost won with Barkley and KJ. Ced went down. Then things were not good for a while with Kidd and Spliffy & co until we got Amaré and Nash. Then JJ hit the floor and later the Spurs thugged us. So now we've been bad but we're a lot better than 1 1/2 years ago. We have a young and exciting core. We can make moves this summer. Goodwin hopefully can take the step. If you must cheer for a championship team then maybe it's time to find another club.

Go Suns!

 

[Covert Rain]

Hey man cheer up. There are good times and there are bad. We almost won with Barkley and KJ. Ced went down. Then things were not good for a while with Kidd and Spliffy & co until we got Amaré and Nash. Then JJ hit the floor and later the Spurs thugged us. So now we've been bad but we're a lot better than 1 1/2 years ago. We have a young and exciting core. We can make moves this summer. Goodwin hopefully can take the step. If you must cheer for a championship team then maybe it's time to find another club.

Go Suns!

You know the biggest difference is for me? I think I would feel much different if we had a competent owner. Not saying JC was perfect but he had track record of pulling off some pretty amazing things here. People would rather see things sugar coated. Seriously....I was there...for freaking years.

I have no such confidence in Sarver 10 years later.

I know everyone thinks I am just being a Debbie Downer but I am just calling it like I see it and refuse to pull anymore punches. Some people would rather look at the glass half full....even after all these years. In fact, we need people like that to balance out people like me who have moved to the dark side. LOL.

That's cool though. Everybody is entitled to their view.

 

[FutureSuperstar]

On the discussion in the thread - Do you guys realize that a team does not stink for 5 years and then instantly becomes a contender in the 6th year? This is the easiest thing ever to understand, but it seems half of the people in this thread don't understand this.

Example: The Sixers will not be "terrible" for 8 years and then in the 9th and 10th year win a championship ... The 6th, 7th, 8th years will probably have gradual improvement where they are "mediocre" or maybe not a contender ... The Suns are in that stage right now - and actually accelerating that stage given their win improvement and how close they were to being a contender this season - How is that a bad thing?

An overachieving team lucks out in every close game and stays injury-free - The Suns had neither of those advantages last season. If the Suns won 30 games last year, then I agree that maybe it would be too much expected of the 6 - 8 young guys on the team to improve the Suns to a contender. But we won 48 games! The young guys don't even have to improve that much for the Suns to be a legit contender ...

 

[KloD]

I

Here is a 10 year breakdown that I posted above. Obviously, what constitutes a "star" is debatable but there are plenty of great players who don't have titles but that doesn't make them any less great. My definition of a star is someone who is a franchise changer. The status below used a combination of statistics.

By the way that doesn't mean players don't slide and it's impossible. It just means is statistically unlikely. This is not meant to be a black and white definition but give you an idea. There are too many variables to make it black and white. However, you can draw some conclusions for example that the top 5 picks are more likely to net you a stud versus any other positions in the draft.

They concluded that picks:

• 1-5 range, your chances are very good to land a star. 1st pick 70%, 2nd pick 60%, 3rd pick 85%, 4th pick 60%, 5th pick 60%. After #5 your chances drop significantly (less than 35%).
• [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1] 6-10 range your chances are about 1/3 of the picks reach star status. [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]6th pick 25%, [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]7th pick 30%, [/SIZE][/SIZE]8th pick 35%, [/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]9th pick 30%, [/SIZE][/SIZE]10th pick 35%.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
• [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]11-20 - produces as many busts as stars. 11-16 usually end up as role players and 17-20 career bench warmers. #11th pick 15%, 12th 5%, 13th 20%, 14th 25%, 15th 10%, 16th 5%, 17th 20%, 18th 5%, 19th 5%, 20th 5%.
  [/SIZE][/SIZE]
• 21-30 range only 6% of picks become stars, and less than half even make it to role player caliber stats and this is bust city territory.

Thank for posting it again, I did see your other post of this. We'll have to agree to disagree here because I believe whatever criteria they are using to call someone a "star" is not the same as I would. IMO there are very few "stars" in this league, nowhere near the number they must conclude to get those stats. Lebron is one of the best and most complete ever and the team that drafted him never won a championship and they were only able to get to the finals because they played in the Easy, I mean East IMO.

Championship teams have been built using every method. There is no sure way, but there is certainly methods that have failed time and time again and tanking is one of them. I believe the way this current front office is going about it is much more likely to get there than the way teams like Philly are going about it. We can disagree on that and neither of us will be wrong or right, but in the mean time I'm enjoying the product my team is building and you seem to be miserable.

 

[Covert Rain]

Thank for posting it again, I did see your other post of this. We'll have to agree to disagree here because I believe whatever criteria they are using to call someone a "star" is not the same as I would. IMO there are very few "stars" in this league, nowhere near the number they must conclude to get those stats. Lebron is one of the best and most complete ever and the team that drafted him never won a championship and they were only able to get to the finals because they played in the Easy, I mean East IMO.

Championship teams have been built using every method. There is no sure way, but there is certainly methods that have failed time and time again and tanking is one of them. I believe the way this current front office is going about it is much more likely to get there than the way teams like Philly are going about it. We can disagree on that and neither of us will be wrong or right, but in the mean time I'm enjoying the product my team is building and you seem to be miserable.

That's why I said it's a tad subjective but I think you are confusing "star" with legend. There are very few of those but there are plenty of players that turn around franchises and at times made them contenders. If they won a title or not is a different story.

Again...those are just statistics over a 10 year period. Maybe a better way to describe those players statistically is to call them "high impact" players versus stars. Still though....the statistics bear out if you want a high impact player...pick in the top 5.

Hell...I am not even saying that guarantees the Suns anything. I just want to have a shot. Right now drafting in the middle, not attracting the tier 1 free agents or pulling off blockbuster trades does guarantee something.

 

[KloD]

That's why I said it's tad subjective but I think you are confusing "star" with legend. There are very few of those but there are plenty of players that turn around franchises and at times made them contenders. If they won a title or not is a different story.

Again...those are just statistics over a 10 year period. Maybe a better way to describe those players statistically is to call them "high impact" players versus stars. Still though....the statistics bear out if you want a high impact player...pick in the top 5.

I can agree with that, but it's still far from a sure thing. I also think you have a skewed memory of JC. Don't get me wrong, I loved him as an owner, but he made many many bad moves and never brought a championship to the city. Saver has made his share of bad decisions for sure, but he's not stupid and he seems to have and be learning from those. The Suns are far from the worst run team and things are certainly on the upswing. Give it time and see what they can do. After all this is just entertainment and if someones not entertained than they should find somewhere else to put their focus. Hell, I've been a Red Sox, Rams, and Suns fan for 40 years and 2 out of 3 of my teams finally got there. I'm certain the Suns will too eventually. Have faith man, I know what frustration is in following a team.

 

[leclerc]

I admit I wanted a potential franchise player, someone who can take us into the finals one day. It does not look like we've got him. I also wish Sarver would sell the team but now it looks like we have a competent and respected GM and a pretty good coach, so it's been worse. With Sarver we almost made the finals. We're not a mediocre club. We're a hell of a lot better than many teams out there. If we one day win it's fine but if we don't... it's just entertainment.

 

[JS22]

You asked if I think this team is different. I am saying it's just more of the same. In other words, this organization putting together rosters just good enough to squeak into the playoffs or build entertaining teams.

You don't go from 20 wins to 60. This team won 48 games last year and has a bunch of quality young players. Adding a few key pieces here and there will hopefully bring them closer to 55 wins next season. Especially if the Suns keep Bledsoe and he remains healthy.

It's not like they're throwing together a bunch of average vets and pushing for the 8 seed.

And it's still really, really early in the offseason.

 

[Covert Rain]

I can agree with that, but it's still far from a sure thing. I also think you have a skewed memory of JC. Don't get me wrong, I loved him as an owner, but he made many many bad moves and never brought a championship to the city. Saver has made his share of bad decisions for sure, but he's not stupid and he seems to have and be learning from those. The Suns are far from the worst run team and things are certainly on the upswing. Give it time and see what they can do. After all this is just entertainment and if someones not entertained than they should find somewhere else to put their focus. Hell, I've been a Red Sox, Rams, and Suns fan for 40 years and 2 out of 3 of my teams finally got there. I'm certain the Suns will too eventually. Have faith man, I know what frustration is in following a team.

I don't think so. I said he wasn't a perfect owner. However, look at the big names he acquired. What has Sarver done? He hasn't made one move as big as Chambers, Barkley or Nash for example. All sports is entertainment. It's not life or death but they all have goals or what's the point of it all? Nothing is more fun than winning a title.

You don't go from 20 wins to 60. This team won 48 games last year and has a bunch of quality young players. Adding a few key pieces here and there will hopefully bring them closer to 55 wins next season. Especially if the Suns keep Bledsoe and he remains healthy.

It's not like they're throwing together a bunch of average vets and pushing for the 8 seed.

And it's still really, really early in the offseason.

Who said you normally did? Even when you get a franchise caliber player it can take a few years. It's not super hard in this league to build a team with decent young talent and hang around in the middle of the pack. That is not the goal. Sure there are some really bad owners out there that screw things up. There is always a few in the bunch.

 

[SirStefan32]

A lot of people seem to forget just how terrible this team was prior to last off-season. No assets, terrible roster. There are steps to becoming a contender. You have to have assets, whether they are players or picks. It looks to me like McD/Babby are doing a fine job step by step, but a lot of fans here seem to want to skip a couple of steps.