How long until the Suns are back in the playoffs?

[AzStevenCal]

The bottom line is always titles and nothing else.

Nobody cares if you squeaked into the playoffs many times and won many regular season games but often got eliminated in the first or second round.

That's just nonsense. Winning games may be meaningless to you but for those of us that watch each and every game it means a hell of a lot. Give us a title or two surrounded by 40 years of miserable basketball games and I'm sure not going to be happy. And, for the most part, I've been very happy as a Suns fan. It isn't just about titles, it's about building towards those titles.

Steve

 

[Cheesebeef]

If the Suns trade Nash, it could very well be a long time before they make playoffs again. In fact, the current team we have, without Nash, would have a good shot at setting NBA record for fewest wins in a season. Not something to look forward to.

agreed. the downside is we'll be terrible. REALLY terrible. But the upside is we'll be bad enough to get really high draft picks and thus get impact players who can rebuild the team, giving us a future.

If the Suns keep Nash, they might sneak into the playoffs next year as one of the last seeds, or miss out like this year. Not something to look forward to either. This could change if the Suns somehow could manage to pick up a major all-star caliber player in the off-season, but that has not happened under Sarver.

agreed as well. the downside here is we're not very good AND we never have a chance to draft great young talent needed to rebuild, and perpetually end up with picks late in the lottery where we've shown no ability whatsoever to identify any one of any merit. The upside is... NOTHING. This team doesn't have any pieces to pick up a major all-star caliber player.

there really shouldn't be ANY question as to what this team should do at this point.

 

[elindholm]

The Suns could have traded Amare this season for ten times the value that they got by signing Childress and Warrick.

On his contract? Hell no. After the Knicks and Suns, Stoudemire had very few suitors at his price tag. It's true that Childress and Warrick appear to be bad signings, but that's a false comparison: Stoudemire makes more than twice as much as those two players put together, over the remainder of those deals.

Even if Amare's knees become an issue again letting him go will never be justified because the same money was spent on Warrick, Childress and Frye. 2 Players who we couldn't care less about and one decent role player.

It's much, much easier to move a small bad contract than a huge one. Warrick is owed only $14 million over the next three years, and he has shown enough that his trade value isn't much less than zero. Childress looks like a mistake, but even if he doesn't turn it around, I'd much rather be stuck with his deal than with Stoudemire's. The Knicks are going nowhere, and the main reason is that neither Stoudemire nor Anthony is worth the contract he's on.

 

[Superbone]

That's just nonsense. Winning games may be meaningless to you but for those of us that watch each and every game it means a hell of a lot. Give us a title or two surrounded by 40 years of miserable basketball games and I'm sure not going to be happy. And, for the most part, I've been very happy as a Suns fan. It isn't just about titles, it's about building towards those titles.

Bingo! We've actually had it pretty good. We've had a lot of fun along the way in spite of our lack of championships.

Ask a diehard Clippers' fan if they're jealous.

Actually, the Bucks are a good example. They had a championship back in 1971 but haven't had much success since then.

 

[Griffin]

agreed. the downside is we'll be terrible. REALLY terrible. But the upside is we'll be bad enough to get really high draft picks and thus get impact players who can rebuild the team, giving us a future.

Yes, but there is a risk involved there too. The Clippers, for example, have a high lottery pick virtually every season. The T-Wolves had been in the lottery for the past six years. Kings haven't made playoffs since '06. Warriors have one playoff appearance in the last 16 years. Lots of lottery picks there. Yet none of these teams, and there are many more examples, have ever been able to build a contender. Who is to say that the Suns and Sarver will do any better given a few high lottery picks?

I think there is an assumption that a few really bad years will result in a championship contender, but that is far from guaranteed. More likely, the few bad years will turn into a few more bad years and we won't be talking about titles, but about how great it used to be to have a team that made playoffs every year.

I am not saying that this will happen, or that there is a way to prevent this from happening regardless of what we do this summer, but it's a definite possibility.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I think we could be in the playoffs next year with exactly the same team. A training camp with Brooks and Gortat, a little development from Lopez, and we could be right in the mix. If we pick up a decent player in the draft and maybe a FA, even more so.

I am also for keeping Dowdell long term. Having a solid dependable backup pg is a great piece. It means that you can fill other cracks.

But that is not going to happen. Nash will be traded this summer. And once you start making big changes, you never know how it is going to end up.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

That's just nonsense. Winning games may be meaningless to you but for those of us that watch each and every game it means a hell of a lot. Give us a title or two surrounded by 40 years of miserable basketball games and I'm sure not going to be happy. And, for the most part, I've been very happy as a Suns fan. It isn't just about titles, it's about building towards those titles.

Steve

Agree. Just having hope that your team is competitive and tricking yourself that a couple breaks could lead to a title make a season enjoyable. I totally disagree with the championship or failure mantra. It would make almost every season miserable.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Yes, but there is a risk involved there too.

of course there's risk there... but there's also the possibility of reward. I don't see there being ANY possibility of reward in moving forward with some version of the team we have now.

The Clippers, for example, have a high lottery pick virtually every season. The T-Wolves had been in the lottery for the past six years. Kings haven't made playoffs since '06. Warriors have one playoff appearance in the last 16 years. Lots of lottery picks there. Yet none of these teams, and there are many more examples, have ever been able to build a contender.

you're right... and they're all teams run by horrible basketball people... much like we are.

Who is to say that the Suns and Sarver will do any better given a few high lottery picks?

to be honest, until we get respected basketball minds in here, we probably won't do better... and even when we do... Sarver's ******** will probably cut us off at the knees at that point, just as he's done with young talent throughout his reign here.

I think there is an assumption that a few really bad years will result in a championship contender, but that is far from guaranteed.

i think the above is complete fallacy. no one's assuming the above... we just believe it's our best (and probably only) chance to get the type of players a championship team needs... especially a team whose reputation has plummetted.

More likely, the few bad years will turn into a few more bad years and we won't be talking about titles, but about how great it used to be to have a team that made playoffs every year.

we're talking about that now anyway with the way the team is. there's ZERO upside with staying the course.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I think we could be in the playoffs next year with exactly the same team. A training camp with Brooks and Gortat, a little development from Lopez, and we could be right in the mix.

right in the mix... for what? A 7 seed? That's purgatory and about the best this team can hope for moving forward and that's completely pointless with our roster.

Every other team ahead of us is not only already more talented than us, but they're YOUNGER as well.

 

[AzStevenCal]

to be honest, until we get respected basketball minds in here, we probably won't do better... and even when we do... Sarver's ******** will probably cut us off at the knees at that point, just as he's done with young talent throughout his reign here.

I worry about Sarver but I think the jury is still out on our current set of basketball minds. If they really are "Clippers-like" than we have absolutely nothing but misery to look forward to. I don't choose to look forward like that, so, until clearly demonstrated otherwise, I'm going to hold out hope that we've assembled a quality front office. Especially since I think we're in for some tough times even if it turns out that one of these guys is the second coming of Red Auerbach.

Steve

 

[Cheesebeef]

I worry about Sarver but I think the jury is still out on our current set of basketball minds. If they really are "Clippers-like" than we have absolutely nothing but misery to look forward to.

unfortunately, that's what I see coming down the pipe.

 

[elindholm]

More likely, the few bad years will turn into a few more bad years and we won't be talking about titles, but about how great it used to be to have a team that made playoffs every year.

Much more likely. And we'll also get complaints about how the team has only clueless young guys, rather than any established veterans who can provide balance and leadership even if they aren't star players.

There's really only one way to build a contender, and that's to stumble onto a player who is going to be one of the very best in the league for many years. Fitting the right parts around that player is then a mechanical exercise. Over the last 20 years, every championship team except two has had (at least) one of these players on it:

Michael Jordan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant

The two exceptions are the 2004 Pistons and the 2008 Celtics. The Celtics team also had "superstars," but not at the level of those five players above. The Pistons were an anomaly. The Pistons went nowhere after their one fluke title season, and I doubt that the Celtics will be in the Finals again any time soon either.

So really, unless you get a player who is top five in a generation, you're on the outside looking in. All the rest is just window dressing.

(Edited because I forgot O'Neal was on the 2006 Heat!)

 

[Cheesebeef]

Much more likely.

than what exactly? Is it likely this team could be terrible with young talent on it? sure... but isn't it headed that direction NOW... while not even being in the position of acquiring young talent?

And we'll also get complaints about how the team has only clueless young guys, rather than any established veterans who can provide balance and leadership even if they aren't star players.

There's really only one way to build a contender, and that's to stumble onto a player who is going to be one of the very best in the league for many years.

and how do you get those players, eric? By having a top 3 pick... or being a FA destination. considering we're not a FA destination... doesn't it seem like the best way to go about "stumbling" into one of those guys is by putting ourselves in the best position to get him? How do you do that if you're a team who's not a FA destination and you have no young talent by which you can get that guy by trade?

Fitting the right parts around that player is then a mechanical exercise. Over the last 20 years, every championship team except two has had (at least) one of these players on it:

Michael Jordan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant

The two exceptions are the 2004 Pistons and the 2008 Celtics. The Celtics team also had "superstars," but not at the level of those five players above. The Pistons were an anomaly. The Pistons went nowhere after their one fluke title season, and I doubt that the Celtics will be in the Finals again any time soon either.

So really, unless you get a player who is top five in a generation, you're on the outside looking in. All the rest is just window dressing.

right... so, shouldn't you be at least trying to put yourself in a position to get one of those great players?

i mean... what's the alternative you propose in what this team should do from here?

 

[JCSunsfan]

right in the mix... for what? A 7 seed? That's purgatory and about the best this team can hope for moving forward and that's completely pointless with our roster.

Every other team ahead of us is not only already more talented than us, but they're YOUNGER as well.

I am for trading Nash. But the question for the thread is when this team will be back in the playoffs. If Nash stays, it could easily be next year. If not, who knows? It all then depends on the luck of the draft and what kind of deals can be worked. It could be a decade.

 

[TBaslim]

Much more likely. And we'll also get complaints about how the team has only clueless young guys, rather than any established veterans who can provide balance and leadership even if they aren't star players.

There's really only one way to build a contender, and that's to stumble onto a player who is going to be one of the very best in the league for many years. Fitting the right parts around that player is then a mechanical exercise. Over the last 20 years, every championship team except two has had (at least) one of these players on it:

Michael Jordan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant

The two exceptions are the 2004 Pistons and the 2008 Celtics. The Celtics team also had "superstars," but not at the level of those five players above. The Pistons were an anomaly. The Pistons went nowhere after their one fluke title season, and I doubt that the Celtics will be in the Finals again any time soon either.

So really, unless you get a player who is top five in a generation, you're on the outside looking in. All the rest is just window dressing.

(Edited because I forgot O'Neal was on the 2006 Heat!)

This.

It's the fatal flaw of the NBA with regard to any type of true parity year-to-year. The NFL this league is not (and I say that as a huge NBA fan).

Couple this with the league running a different set of rules for the playoffs, and it's a fool's game to bank it all on a title if your team does not have one of these transcendent generational superstars in their prime.

So? I look forward to a well-built, professional team that stays in the upper-rung of the league and competes each year as much as possible. Build toward a title and rebuild if you don't make it. But don't tank for 5 years hoping for the next Wilt.

For those that haven't noticed, the Suns are pretty good at rebuilding quickly on the fly, and that's what they did this year again. Yes, they missed the playoffs, but they are a few players from making them again (like, a good mid-tier draft pick and a decent trade). Millsap anyone?

Heck of a lot better than being a bottom 5 team year after year getting good draft picks, only to lose them as free agents because the team has a losing culture. Players want to play in the big, sunny markets, yes. They also want to play for winning cultures and teams.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Much more likely. And we'll also get complaints about how the team has only clueless young guys, rather than any established veterans who can provide balance and leadership even if they aren't star players.

There's really only one way to build a contender, and that's to stumble onto a player who is going to be one of the very best in the league for many years. Fitting the right parts around that player is then a mechanical exercise. Over the last 20 years, every championship team except two has had (at least) one of these players on it:

Michael Jordan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant

The two exceptions are the 2004 Pistons and the 2008 Celtics. The Celtics team also had "superstars," but not at the level of those five players above. The Pistons were an anomaly. The Pistons went nowhere after their one fluke title season, and I doubt that the Celtics will be in the Finals again any time soon either.

So really, unless you get a player who is top five in a generation, you're on the outside looking in. All the rest is just window dressing.

(Edited because I forgot O'Neal was on the 2006 Heat!)

That is one depressing post right there. It really makes me wonder why I bother to be an NBA or Suns fan. When you couple that with officiating that is completely inconsistent and a league front office that is vindictive, you have to wonder. I do know this, if I had not grown up with it, I probably would not be that interested.

BTW, add Magic Johnson and Larry Bird and you can go back 30 years save 3.

 

[elindholm]

BTW, add Magic Johnson and Larry Bird and you can go back 30 years save 3.

Right. It's not a coincidence that Stern became commissioner right around that time (1984, after having been Executive Vice President since 1980). In the 1970s, the league had eight different champions in ten years! The Knicks and Celtics had two titles each during that decade, and the Bucks, Lakers, Warriors, Blazers, Bullets, and Sonics each had one. Stern saw that marketing a few ultra-stars at the expense of league parity was good money, and that's where we've been all through his reign.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Right. It's not a coincidence that Stern became commissioner right around that time (1984, after having been Executive Vice President since 1980). In the 1970s, the league had eight different champions in ten years! The Knicks and Celtics had two titles each during that decade, and the Bucks, Lakers, Warriors, Blazers, Bullets, and Sonics each had one. Stern saw that marketing a few ultra-stars at the expense of league parity was good money, and that's where we've been all through his reign.

OR, the 70's were an anomaly. It's not like Boston didn't just win 11 out of 13 titles just prior to that time frame. And it was only a few years before that which saw the Lakers win 5 out of 6 titles. Perhaps Stern has contributed to the lack of parity, I really can't speak to that but it seems to me that basketball, more than any sport, has always been like this.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

It's not like Boston didn't just win 11 out of 13 titles just prior to that time frame. And it was only a few years before that which saw the Lakers win 5 out of 6 titles.

Yeah, but there were only about 12 teams then, the money involved was trivial, and the league had only recently integrated. So the talent pool was much, much thinner, which made it a lot easier for one or two teams to be dominant.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Yeah, but there were only about 12 teams then, the money involved was trivial, and the league had only recently integrated. So the talent pool was much, much thinner, which made it a lot easier for one or two teams to be dominant.

And yet, through the years, I've often heard the exact opposite argument. When you add teams to a sport you water down the talent pool, especially at the top which leads to the true stars standing so far above the lower players that one or two teams (or one or two players, depending on the sport) tend to dominate. I understand your point but I'm not sure it holds up.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

When you add teams to a sport you water down the talent pool, especially at the top which leads to the true stars standing so far above the lower players that one or two teams (or one or two players, depending on the sport) tend to dominate.

The league's talent pool has expanded much more dramatically than its number of teams. Increasing salaries a hundredfold will do that. The main advantage to having a smaller number of teams is that you have fewer opponents to beat.

The contention that it's easier to win a title in a 30-team league than in a 12-team one isn't really defensible. You may "hear the argument," but you'll also hear people insist that dinosaurs and humans coexisted or that a coin is "due" to come up heads after you've seen it land tails the last six times in a row. At some point, common sense needs to override the noise of internet chatter.

 

[AzStevenCal]

The league's talent pool has expanded much more dramatically than its number of teams. Increasing salaries a hundredfold will do that. The main advantage to having a smaller number of teams is that you have fewer opponents to beat.

The contention that it's easier to win a title in a 30-team league than in a 12-team one isn't really defensible. You may "hear the argument," but you'll also hear people insist that dinosaurs and humans coexisted or that a coin is "due" to come up heads after you've seen it land tails the last six times in a row. At some point, common sense needs to override the noise of internet chatter.

You've made several assumptions in your comments above that have no bearing on our conversation. First off, IMO, it's insulting to suggest that your point of view carries the weight of common sense thereby suggesting that others lack in that regard.

Secondly, when I mentioned hearing this argument throughout the years, I meant just that. I've been hearing this argument since long before I ever heard of the internet. It comes up pretty much every time a league discusses expansion.

Also, why have you reduced our difference of opinion here to a "contention that it's easier to win a title in a 30 team league than in a 12 team league"? That's hardly the issue. If all things were equal, obviously, competing against 30 teams for a title is more difficult than competing against 8 teams. All things are not equal. Also, please note that I'm not confident of my position, I'm just not convinced by yours.

Steve

 

[AzStevenCal]

The league's talent pool has expanded much more dramatically than its number of teams. Increasing salaries a hundredfold will do that. The main advantage to having a smaller number of teams is that you have fewer opponents to beat.

The contention that it's easier to win a title in a 30-team league than in a 12-team one isn't really defensible. You may "hear the argument," but you'll also hear people insist that dinosaurs and humans coexisted or that a coin is "due" to come up heads after you've seen it land tails the last six times in a row. At some point, common sense needs to override the noise of internet chatter.

I wanted to respond to this point without getting it lost in a longer post. I couldn't disagree more with this contention. I think the NBA is incredibly watered down from the league I grew up watching in the 60's. Yes, the average player is much more gifted athletically but the overall basketball IQ has dropped significantly IMO. And these dollars you're talking about have certainly contributed to this decline.

Steve

 

[Cheesebeef]

For those that haven't noticed, the Suns are pretty good at rebuilding quickly on the fly, and that's what they did this year again.

huh? they went from 2 games away from the NBA finals to not even making the playoffs. that's ATROCIOUS rebuilding on the fly.

Yes, they missed the playoffs, but they are a few players from making them again (like, a good mid-tier draft pick and a decent trade). Millsap anyone?

and just how is this team going to ADD a few players while keeping the entire lotto bound team intact, much less keep father time from taking even more away from Steve Nash?

They also want to play for winning cultures and teams.

unfortunately, that's not us anymore. we're now a team that's been in the lotto two of the last three years with a FO that most of the world regards as a complete joke.

the above reads like a fantasy to me.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I wanted to respond to this point without getting it lost in a longer post. I couldn't disagree more with this contention. I think the NBA is incredibly watered down from the league I grew up watching in the 60's. Yes, the average player is much more gifted athletically but the overall basketball IQ has dropped significantly IMO.
Steve

i've got to agree. the league is wayyyyyyyyy watered down compared to it's hey-day.