Grade the Suns off season roster moves for 2019-20

[Mainstreet]

The Suns roster currently stands at 14 players under contract.

It's hard to see them carrying five or six players that can play point guard. They are Ricky Rubio, Ty Jerome, Tyler Johnson, Jevon Carter, Elie Okobo and Jalen Lecque. Even Booker can play point guard during stretches of the game.

The Suns can probably use another power forward and they have room for 2 two-way contracts.

Here are the players currently on the roster:

Devin Booker, $27,285,000
Tyler Johnson, $19,245,370
Ricky Rubio, $16,190,476
Kelly Oubre, Jr., $14,423,077
Deandre Ayton, $9,562,920
Aron Baynes, $5,453,280
Frank Kaminsky, $4,767,000
Mikal Bridges, $4,161,000
Cameron Johnson, $4,033,440
Dario Saric, $3,481,986
Ty Jerome, $2,193,480
Jevon Carter, $1,416,852
Elie Okobo, $1,416,852
Jalen Lecque, $898,310


https://www.spotrac.com/nba/phoenix-suns/cap/
https://www.azcentral.com/story/spo...layer-salaries-2019-20-nba-season/1708632001/

 

[Mainstreet]

I've decided to make this a poll. The Suns off season moves has been graded as worse as an F by some in the media.

Adding Rubio and keeping Oubre in addition to the other roster moves have me giving the Suns an A.

If the Suns should add Faried, I would improve my grade to an A+.

 

[SirStefan32]

I give them a B+. They had four big issues last year- no NBA-level point guard, no power forward, no shooting, and lack of NBA-level talent.

As far as PG goes, they added a legitimate NBA point guard, they retained the best they had last year in Johnson, added an older point guard who may be the best passer in this year's draft.

They added a legitimate NBA power forward and a legitimate back-up PF in Saric and Kaminsky.

Point guard they added is not a shooter, but they added two bigs that can shoot, a backup big that can kind of shoot from the corner, and they added two of the best shooters in the draft, one of which was likely the best shooter in the draft class.

They also added quite a few legitimate NBA players. They now have Rubio, Saric, Kaminsky, Baynes, in addition to the returning Booker, Bridges, Ayton, Johnson, and Oubre (whom they retained). They also added two older rookies who may not have a huge ceiling, but their floor is pretty high. That's a pretty deep NBA-level roster.

My only gripe is that they didn't add any defense at 4. I would have preferred someone like Vonleh over Kaminsky, but it is what it is. While I am OK with Melton and JJ getting dumped, my favorite lineups last year were the defensive units featuring those two, along with Bridges, Oubre, and Holmes. I am not seeing an all-defense unit on the roster right now. That said, you can't plug every single hole on the roster in one offseason.

 

[Finito]

Yeah I seen some of the media grading the suns offseason as an F.

But trust me if the Lakers added Saric, Baynes and Rubio the national media would be losing there sh*t about what a great team the Lakers have built

 

[devilalum]

I'll give my grade in December after I see if all these new pieces fit together.

 

[devilalum]

Yeah I seen some of the media grading the suns offseason as an F.

But trust me if the Lakers added Saric, Baynes and Rubio the national media would be losing there sh*t about what a great team the Lakers have built

The Suns are a self fulfilling prophecy.

The Suns are gonna be ridiculed for all the moves they make until they win some games.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I've decided to make this a poll. The Suns off season moves has been graded as worse as an F by some in the media.

Adding Rubio and keeping Oubre in addition to the other roster moves have me giving the Suns an A.

If the Suns should add Faried, I would improve my grade to an A+.

You must be grading on a curve. And even then it’s not even a recognizable curve. When other teams add a Davis, or a George and Kawhi, how can we get the same grade as them?

We improved our team, yes.

Could we land those guys? There are no rules that preclude the suns from doing what other teams do. We have to compete against those teams directly. We are literally in the same league. Whether it’s realistic or not is immaterial to the grade imo. If you give the suns an A, what grade do the clippers get?!?

I give a C because they improved, but I think what they did was the minimum they had to do - get a PG, get a PF, and get some nba depth. Did they get the best PG? No. Did they get the best PF? No. Did they get the best depth? No. So I think it was an average offseason. A solid C. When we’ve gotten a D or an F in past offseasons this may feel like an A but that’s total grade inflation.

 

[Raze]

I'm going with a D, although it's a homer D because if I was being objective, I'd probably go with an F.

By my count they've lost value on 9 assets that were moved or obtained (in order of value lost):

1. TJ
2. #11
3. JJ (I know, I know, you guys disagree with me. But I still see this as a loss)
4. #6
5. #32
6. Melton
7. 2020 2nd rounder
8. 2021 2nd rounder
9. #24 (only slightly disagree with drafting Jerome)

The degree to which they lost value varies wildly. (The 2nd rounders for instance are of minor concern, butt the value lost on #11 is embarrassing.) I mean to say, taken quantitatively it looks far worse than if you look at it qualitatively. Still very bad though.

By my count they gained on 4:

1. Rubio (worth the $17M for 3 years)
2. Milwaukee pick
3. Oubre's contract makes sense
4. Lecque was a great UDFA signing

These cover a portion of the qualitative loss we accrued above, but not all. None of these were homeruns.

From everything I've listened to, read, and the countless podcasts I've gone over, it would appear we could have still gained on these 4 without having to sell low on the 9 above. Certainly not substantiated, but that seems to be the common understanding by guys smarter than me. (That's been debated ad nauseam on here so I won't rehash any more of it.)

I'm going to give us a D, as opposed to an F, only because we're better. And that's the weird part. I actually like where we finished. I just strongly believe we took too many needless casualties to get there.

 

[Mainstreet]

You must be grading on a curve. And even then it’s not even a recognizable curve. When other teams add a Davis, or a George and Kawhi, how can we get the same grade as them?

We improved our team, yes.

Could we land those guys? There are no rules that preclude the suns from doing what other teams do. We have to compete against those teams directly. We are literally in the same league. Whether it’s realistic or not is immaterial to the grade imo. If you give the suns an A, what grade do the clippers get?!?

I give a C because they improved, but I think what they did was the minimum they had to do - get a PG, get a PF, and get some nba depth. Did they get the best PG? No. Did they get the best PF? No. Did they get the best depth? No. So I think it was an average offseason. A solid C. When we’ve gotten a D or an F in past offseasons this may feel like an A but that’s total grade inflation.

I definitely give the Clippers an A+ because they not only added Leonard and George but have a nice roster surrounding them.

The Lakers roster is less attractive to me because of the depth surrounding Lebron and Anthony Davis. I do give them a B+ because they added Anthony Davis and they still have Kuzma.

In regard to the Suns I am grading their roster based upon the talent maturing as the season progresses.

I view Booker, Ayton and Oubre as pillars alongside Bridges and Rubio. Plus the Suns have added nice role players in the other positions.

 

[Chaplin]

I'm going with a D, although it's a homer D because if I was being objective, I'd probably go with an F.

By my count they've lost value on 9 assets that were moved or obtained (in order of value lost):

1. TJ
2. #11
3. JJ (I know, I know, you guys disagree with me. But I still see this as a loss)
4. #6
5. #32
6. Melton
7. 2020 2nd rounder
8. 2021 2nd rounder
9. #24 (only slightly disagree with drafting Jerome)

The degree to which they lost value varies wildly. (The 2nd rounders for instance are of minor concern, butt the value lost on #11 is embarrassing.) I mean to say, taken quantitatively it looks far worse than if you look at it qualitatively. Still very bad though.

By my count they gained on 4:

1. Rubio (worth the $17M for 3 years)
2. Milwaukee pick
3. Oubre's contract makes sense
4. Lecque was a great UDFA signing

These cover a portion of the qualitative loss we accrued above, but not all. None of these were homeruns.

From everything I've listened to, read, and the countless podcasts I've gone over, it would appear we could have still gained on these 4 without having to sell low on the 9 above. Certainly not substantiated, but that seems to be the common understanding by guys smarter than me. (That's been debated ad nauseam on here so I won't rehash any more of it.)

I'm going to give us a D, as opposed to an F, only because we're better. And that's the weird part. I actually like where we finished. I just strongly believe we took too many needless casualties to get there.

I’m confused. We didn’t lose the #11. And even if you consider Cam Johnson a “loss”, I’d like to see that reasoning. I’ve asked this board multiple times who is significantly better at #11, and nobody has answered. In fact, I’ve asked the same question about #6.

Based on team building alone, this is at worst a B offseason, I’d say even an A. But the talent level we’ve gained probably pushes that down to a B- or C+, but that’s because the rookies, Saric and Kaminsky are such unknowns right now.

 

[Raze]

I’m confused. We didn’t lose the #11. And even if you consider Cam Johnson a “loss”, I’d like to see that reasoning. I’ve asked this board multiple times who is significantly better at #11, and nobody has answered. In fact, I’ve asked the same question about #6.

Again, all these "losses" are opinions, but then so are the "gains".

Almost every pundit agrees that Cam could have been had near the early 20's. That's why they are all screaming that it was a reach. Now, we certainly don't know if we could have traded back (as we needed a partner), but we also don't know if we couldn't have. It seems reasonable to suggest we could have since there was a litany of trades. So if we "could have" received, say a future 1st AND still gotten Cam, there's a definite loss of value for all that could be had at #11. That's all guessing of course, but anyone who says otherwise is also guessing.

If it's true that NO ONE would have traded up to get #11 than I would absolutely concede that we didn't lose value. And since we'll probably never know that truth we'll have to go on the best evidence. I don't see enough evidence to refute that we couldn't have traded down AND still got Cam. Therefore, my best guess is that we lost value at #11.

I understand what your asking about who we thought was better than him at #11, but when it comes to value it doesn't necessarily matter who we thought was better than Cam at #11 as it does what we think opposing teams did. They are the ones that create ACTUAL value for an asset. So if they ALL had him at #25, we could have theoretically traded back to #24 and still gotten him and gained whatever value teams were willing to give up for the move.

To answer your question though, I would say White, Culver, Clarke, and Kab were "significantly better" than Cam. Even with their major warts they had more potential.

(Personally, I think Cam is a once in a decade kind of shooter, is productive for what he does, and has great character. I really like him for that. I just don't like his lack of D or the fit.)

 

[Mainstreet]

I'm going with a D, although it's a homer D because if I was being objective, I'd probably go with an F.

By my count they've lost value on 9 assets that were moved or obtained (in order of value lost):

1. TJ
2. #11
3. JJ (I know, I know, you guys disagree with me. But I still see this as a loss)
4. #6
5. #32
6. Melton
7. 2020 2nd rounder
8. 2021 2nd rounder
9. #24 (only slightly disagree with drafting Jerome)

The degree to which they lost value varies wildly. (The 2nd rounders for instance are of minor concern, butt the value lost on #11 is embarrassing.) I mean to say, taken quantitatively it looks far worse than if you look at it qualitatively. Still very bad though.

By my count they gained on 4:

1. Rubio (worth the $17M for 3 years)
2. Milwaukee pick
3. Oubre's contract makes sense
4. Lecque was a great UDFA signing

These cover a portion of the qualitative loss we accrued above, but not all. None of these were homeruns.

From everything I've listened to, read, and the countless podcasts I've gone over, it would appear we could have still gained on these 4 without having to sell low on the 9 above. Certainly not substantiated, but that seems to be the common understanding by guys smarter than me. (That's been debated ad nauseam on here so I won't rehash any more of it.)

I'm going to give us a D, as opposed to an F, only because we're better. And that's the weird part. I actually like where we finished. I just strongly believe we took too many needless casualties to get there.

Are you grading other teams by assets lost because by the marketplace because some of the players the Suns lost had minimal or negative value.

 

[Raze]

Are you grading other teams by assets lost because by the marketplace because some of the players the Suns lost had minimal or negative value.

Absolutely. Like the Knicks. They suck.

On the other hand, I think the Pacers did very well. Gave up very little to land perfect fitting assets.

But even then, to your point, I don't believe in the concept of "giving something to get rid of something else" (aka negative value). I'm far more inclined to trade one of our problems for someone else's (trading negatives).

In fact, I'll give you a good example. Most everyone would, or should say Ryan Anderson had negative value. Yet somehow, JJ scored a great deal getting Johnson. This was a savvy move by JJ and he deserves the praise for it.

He also deserves HEAPS of praise for trading that quitter for Oubre. Talk about trading a negative for a positive.

 

[Mainstreet]

Absolutely. Like the Knicks. They suck.

On the other hand, I think the Pacers did very well. Gave up very little to land perfect fitting assets.

But even then, to your point, I don't believe in the concept of "giving something to get rid of something else" (aka negative value). I'm far more inclined to trade one of our problems for someone else's (trading negatives).

In fact, I'll give you a good example. Most everyone would, or should say Ryan Anderson had negative value. Yet somehow, JJ scored a great deal getting Johnson. This was a savvy move by JJ and he deserves the praise for it.

He also deserves HEAPS of praise for trading that quitter for Oubre. Talk about trading a negative for a positive.

The Suns went through the Eric Bledsoe situation where they hung onto him going into the season and we know how that worked out. I guess they could have done the same with Warren and Jackson. However, sometimes it is better to add players in free agency than wait for a draft pick or trade that may not work out.

The Suns have the same GM in James Jones who made the trades for Oubre and Tyler Johnson. Are we to second guess him without seeing how it works out?

The bottom line for me, the Suns were rebuilding the team for this season. They made the moves they did to get the players they wanted based on the market this off season.

If I didn't like the addition of Rubio and Oubre plus the other role players, I would be more critical but the Suns got much stronger

I guess I like what the Suns have done this off season but I'm not saying I'm right as it is only my opinion.

Can't see where the Suns deserved an F when they added key pieces to the core of Ayton and Booker.

 

[Ronin]

Incomplete.

 

[Sunburn]

Again, all these "losses" are opinions, but then so are the "gains".

Almost every pundit agrees that Cam could have been had near the early 20's. That's why they are all screaming that it was a reach. Now, we certainly don't know if we could have traded back (as we needed a partner), but we also don't know if we couldn't have. It seems reasonable to suggest we could have since there was a litany of trades. So if we "could have" received, say a future 1st AND still gotten Cam, there's a definite loss of value for all that could be had at #11. That's all guessing of course, but anyone who says otherwise is also guessing.

If it's true that NO ONE would have traded up to get #11 than I would absolutely concede that we didn't lose value. And since we'll probably never know that truth we'll have to go on the best evidence. I don't see enough evidence to refute that we couldn't have traded down AND still got Cam. Therefore, my best guess is that we lost value at #11.

I understand what your asking about who we thought was better than him at #11, but when it comes to value it doesn't necessarily matter who we thought was better than Cam at #11 as it does what we think opposing teams did. They are the ones that create ACTUAL value for an asset. So if they ALL had him at #25, we could have theoretically traded back to #24 and still gotten him and gained whatever value teams were willing to give up for the move.

To answer your question though, I would say White, Culver, Clarke, and Kab were "significantly better" than Cam. Even with their major warts they had more potential.

(Personally, I think Cam is a once in a decade kind of shooter, is productive for what he does, and has great character. I really like him for that. I just don't like his lack of D or the fit.)

I've thought about this for a bit. They probably could have traded back farther and gotten Cam. The problem with this is if you miscalculate, and someone else takes him before you, you might've really screwed up your draft. The Suns clearly liked him. There's a school of thought that says if he's your guy, you take him, regardless of draft position. We modified this a bit by trading back some to extract value, but not far enough that would put in question him being on the board. If he was our guy all along, then this was actually a fairly savvy move. After pondering, I'm ok with it if we were sold on him.

 

[Carolinacacti]

You have to look at how much have they improved. Clippers and lakers where good anyways and are better now. Suns where god awful and probably made them selves better then most teams. I gave them a B

 

[JCSunsfan]

I am giving a B. The roster in the end looks good but we overpaid by a little to get there. We are now a complete team going on the floor every night. Improvements can be made by swapping out present players for better ones through the draft, through roster development, or free agency. I am glad to have some clarity. We have committed to Booker and Ayton as our two stars to build around. If they fail to deliver within three years or so, we will be blowing it up and starting over.

 

[Cheesebeef]

They got the best coach on the market. Good points there.

Their draft was pretty atrocious. Not buying so much into the idea that just because guys are older they can or will contribute right away and their ceilings are basically floors. And they sold off all of their assets for pretty much nothing. Major negative there.

FA was as conservative as could possibly be and pretty underwhelming... and we had to overpay to even get to that point. Judging the team from the perspective of themselves shouldn't be the bar for the worst franchise in sports. Okay, but for the most part very underwhelming. Neutral here.

Final grade all things considered:

C+

 

[SunnyBaller]

I give them a C-C+ based on the positive roster changes from the coach to getting rid of disgruntled players/head cases and filled out a roster that includes all positions. They lost points because these improvements with depth are great and all but they still lack the PG (unless Jerome becomes really good) and PF of the future leaving them with similar holes next season only next time they aren't as glaring.

Side question since I keep seeing everyone talk about how we exhausted all our assests this off-season - JJ, TJ, Melton, Mil pick, 2 2nd rounders. Without debating what they actually got for these assets what do people realistically think we could have gotten with these. I'm in the camp that outside of TJ it isn't really anything just curious to see the responses are

 

[JCSunsfan]

Again, all these "losses" are opinions, but then so are the "gains".

Almost every pundit agrees that Cam could have been had near the early 20's. That's why they are all screaming that it was a reach. Now, we certainly don't know if we could have traded back (as we needed a partner), but we also don't know if we couldn't have. It seems reasonable to suggest we could have since there was a litany of trades. So if we "could have" received, say a future 1st AND still gotten Cam, there's a definite loss of value for all that could be had at #11. That's all guessing of course, but anyone who says otherwise is also guessing.

If it's true that NO ONE would have traded up to get #11 than I would absolutely concede that we didn't lose value. And since we'll probably never know that truth we'll have to go on the best evidence. I don't see enough evidence to refute that we couldn't have traded down AND still got Cam. Therefore, my best guess is that we lost value at #11.

I understand what your asking about who we thought was better than him at #11, but when it comes to value it doesn't necessarily matter who we thought was better than Cam at #11 as it does what we think opposing teams did. They are the ones that create ACTUAL value for an asset. So if they ALL had him at #25, we could have theoretically traded back to #24 and still gotten him and gained whatever value teams were willing to give up for the move.

To answer your question though, I would say White, Culver, Clarke, and Kab were "significantly better" than Cam. Even with their major warts they had more potential.

(Personally, I think Cam is a once in a decade kind of shooter, is productive for what he does, and has great character. I really like him for that. I just don't like his lack of D or the fit.)

Almost every pundit agrees that from pick 4 until the second round this draft was a crap shoot. Obviously Cam was the guy they wanted. They traded back and got Saric in the deal and still got the guy they wanted. Yes. They could have traded back farther but then they would have not gotten Saric. Grading them against the pundits is foolish. The pundits loved the Josh Jackson draft. They lived the BenderChriss draft too.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I give them a C-C+ based on the positive roster changes from the coach to getting rid of disgruntled players/head cases and filled out a roster that includes all positions. They lost points because these improvements with depth are great and all but they still lack the PG (unless Jerome becomes really good) and PF of the future leaving them with similar holes next season only next time they aren't as glaring.

Side question since I keep seeing everyone talk about how we exhausted all our assests this off-season - JJ, TJ, Melton, Mil pick, 2 2nd rounders. Without debating what they actually got for these assets what do people realistically think we could have gotten with these. I'm in the camp that outside of TJ it isn't really anything just curious to see the responses are

I agree with you. The Milwaukee pick was a virtual second rounder. I am disappointed in that he TJ trade.

 

[Hoop Head]

Again, all these "losses" are opinions, but then so are the "gains".

Almost every pundit agrees that Cam could have been had near the early 20's. That's why they are all screaming that it was a reach. Now, we certainly don't know if we could have traded back (as we needed a partner), but we also don't know if we couldn't have. It seems reasonable to suggest we could have since there was a litany of trades. So if we "could have" received, say a future 1st AND still gotten Cam, there's a definite loss of value for all that could be had at #11. That's all guessing of course, but anyone who says otherwise is also guessing.

If it's true that NO ONE would have traded up to get #11 than I would absolutely concede that we didn't lose value. And since we'll probably never know that truth we'll have to go on the best evidence. I don't see enough evidence to refute that we couldn't have traded down AND still got Cam. Therefore, my best guess is that we lost value at #11.

I understand what your asking about who we thought was better than him at #11, but when it comes to value it doesn't necessarily matter who we thought was better than Cam at #11 as it does what we think opposing teams did. They are the ones that create ACTUAL value for an asset. So if they ALL had him at #25, we could have theoretically traded back to #24 and still gotten him and gained whatever value teams were willing to give up for the move.

To answer your question though, I would say White, Culver, Clarke, and Kab were "significantly better" than Cam. Even with their major warts they had more potential.

(Personally, I think Cam is a once in a decade kind of shooter, is productive for what he does, and has great character. I really like him for that. I just don't like his lack of D or the fit.)

Cam figured he was going to New Orleans at 17, OKC at 21, or Philly at 24 at the absolute latest. Considering Gambo and Burns backed up the idea that New Orleans really liked Cam at #17, there is a damn good chance the Suns wouldn't have been capable of trading down enough to add future value, in a future 1st or 2nd, and land back in the teens to take Cam before New Orleans could have selected him. So you can guess that he might have been there at #25 but that's a guess, and from his own mouth he said Philly was taking him at #24 at the latest but they traded up to 20 for a reason, could it have been for Cam?

I'm sure he heard of those teams from his agent rather than just guessing during an interview. Here is info on that from a post I made in the Welcome Cam thread that recaps his appearance on Burns and Gambo and provides a link if you care to listen to the show your self.

I can understand why you're grading the Suns a bit negatively but I think you're going too far into the negative. We'll see, I suppose, but I wanted to point out that info on Cam.

How much of a reach he was won't really be determined until we see him play. Even with Booker being selected where he was projected, after his rookie year it was said he fell too far and teams should have taken him sooner. Same thing was said with Donovan Mitchell. So a players value in the draft can change after the fact. Like Giannis was viewed as a reach at a time but no one would say that now. I'm definitely not saying Cam is Giannis but just using that as an example of a player who was a reach for a year or two until he started showing why he was taken so high.

Here is a recap of Johnson on Gambo & Burns the other day.

Link to the show, https://omny.fm/shows/burns-gambo/cam-johnson-phoenix-suns-draftee

I took the recap from Reddit but it is accurate.

• He was expecting to go in mid to late teens with early 20s being the latest.
  
  
• Worked out for Phoenix about a week after the combine. Said it felt different. Loves the area.
  
  
• Three teams he thought he was most likely to go to were New Orleans at 17 (who apparently had Cam Johnson "VERY" high on their board according to Burns and Gambo), OKC at 21, and Philadelphia (assuming) at 24 before they traded to 20.
  
  
• No issues with his hips, feels better than ever. Surgery was a corrective thing, something not to get back to an old level but to get to a higher level.
  
  
• Warriors LOVED him. Really wanted him.

 

[Raze]

They got the best coach on the market. Good points there.

Their draft was pretty atrocious. Not buying so much into the idea that just because guys are older they can or will contribute right away and their ceilings are basically floors. And they sold off all of their assets for pretty much nothing. Major negative there.

FA was as conservative as could possibly be and pretty underwhelming... and we had to overpay to even get to that point. Judging the team from the perspective of themselves shouldn't be the bar for the worst franchise in sports. Okay, but for the most part very underwhelming. Neutral here.

Final grade all things considered:

C+

Crud. I completely forgot to factor in the Monty hire. Gotta give them a full letter increase for that one considering he was such a hot commodity and we actually got him.

Mods. Is there a way to fix my vote on the poll from a D to a C?

 

[JCSunsfan]

Crud. I completely forgot to factor in the Monty hire. Gotta give them a full letter increase for that one considering he was such a hot commodity and we actually got him.

Mods. Is there a way to fix my vote on the poll from a D to a C?