How many moves away are the Suns?

[JCSunsfan]

OK. I hate Griffin. But would this make sense for the Suns?

Blake Griffin for Kieff, Chandler, Suns 2016 first. Would it take more? Would we want to give more?

 

[chickenhead]

Sarver bought an existing franchise. Stoudemire was already in Phoenix. Marion was already in Phoenix. D'Antoni was already in Phoenix. Nash wouldn't have returned to Phoenix without Colangelo's involvement. Separating Sarver's 12 years out from Colangelo, and then trying to compare them as independent quantities is an absolute logical fallacy. And the point about USA basketball is that Colangelo has the relationships. If a chimp could have done it, and did it, then the chimp would have the relationships. Sarver doesn't have the relationships.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The halo that Colangelo has is ridiculous. He was it who sold the team to Sarver in the first place.

I don't want to bring back the facts but the 12 or so years of Sarver have been better on average than the 30+ years under Colangelo - whether it is players on all-nba teams, allstars, mvps, conference finals etc

A chimp could have resurrected USA basketball. Really how much of an accomplishment is that, there was never any resurrection needed just putting together a valid team. Based on talent USA basketball has always been way ahead of other countries.

trying to compare Colangelo's success as Owner to Sarver's as in any way shape or form not a complete and utter drubbing is as laughable as thinking Magic Johnson wasn't a PG.

 

[chickenhead]

I don't want to bring back the facts but the 12 or so years of Sarver have been better on average than the 30+ years under Colangelo - whether it is players on all-nba teams, allstars, mvps, conference finals etc.

You're not actually bringing back any useful facts. It doesn't make sense to compare the entire Suns history to 2004 (including the lean years during expansion and rebuilding) then compare them directly to Sarver's ownership--as if he bought an expansion franchise--and take the averages of these quantities. The averages themselves may be "facts," but isolating them is bad analysis.

Take conference finals. Sarver's Suns may have averaged more conference finals than the franchise average to that point, but they went to the same number as the late 80s/early 90s Suns over roughly the same time period. The all-star numbers are slightly (and I mean slightly) better than the previous era, and Nash did win one more MVP than Barkley--but I would privilege playoff series wins (they had fewer), playoff victories (they had fewer), regular season winning % (theirs is worse), and finals appearances (they didn't have one). And everything they did do was an outgrowth of the team Colangelo sold.

If Sarver lasts, maybe in 25 years we can do a direct comparison of each's full tenure. I hope he comes out ahead. But right now he doesn't.

 

[sunsfan88]

Yeah, a dream of 50-and-fade seasons. I think Jerry is better than Sarver, but his championship pedigree is non-existant. Another 36 years of championship futility isn't exactly where I'd like the franchise to go, do you?

I agree it would be great if Sarver would sell the team, but to Colangelo? Not so sure about that one. Someone get Grant Hill on the phone.

Yes to Colangelo. I'm a 100% sure about that one.

 

[Chaplin]

Yes to Colangelo. I'm a 100% sure about that one.

Which completely explains your priorities. And it isn't a championship.

 

[Covert Rain]

Which completely explains your priorities. And it isn't a championship.

You have to get there to have a chance. Looking at his division titles and two trips to the finals? He made his own list of mistakes but I don't buy just because you want him that means a Championship isn't your priority. Colangelo is spades better than what many teams have in the NBA today. Plus he proved with the Diamondbacks he wasn't afraid to go for broke.

 

[sunsfan88]

Which completely explains your priorities. And it isn't a championship.

Reason Suns never won a championship under Colangelo wasn't because of Colangelo. I think it's beyond foolish to blame him for that.

 

[Milgod]

trying to compare Colangelo's success as Owner to Sarver's as in any way shape or form not a complete and utter drubbing is as laughable as thinking Magic Johnson wasn't a PG.

Who said Magic wasn't a PG?

 

[Catlover]

I loved having Colangelo here but his time is past. He lacks the deep pockets we would want from a new owner if Sarver was ever willing to sell. I wouldn't mind seeing him here in some capacity with or without Sarver but he's in Philadelphia right now and I suspect most fans want a right now solution.

 

[Chaplin]

Reason Suns never won a championship under Colangelo wasn't because of Colangelo. I think it's beyond foolish to blame him for that.

Really? But it's so easy to blame Sarver for this team being so awful. Don't be naive.

 

[Chaplin]

You have to get there to have a chance. Looking at his division titles and two trips to the finals? He made his own list of mistakes but I don't buy just because you want him that means a Championship isn't your priority. Colangelo is spades better than what many teams have in the NBA today. Plus he proved with the Diamondbacks he wasn't afraid to go for broke.

Colangelo had 36 years to get a championship and didn't get it, close or not. You can't use that as a reason to bring him back and in the same breath disregard Sarver who came just about as close in a third of the time.

This isn't a vote of support for Sarver, but a reason to not bring Colangelo back.

 

[Covert Rain]

Really? But it's so easy to blame Sarver for this team being so awful. Don't be naive.

Chap, not sure what you're saying here. Their records are not even comparable. At the end of the day the buck stops with any owner. They get credit for success and failures of the franchise. It's the only constant as GMs, coaches and players come and go.

Why is Sarver any different?

By the way, my biggest concern with Jerry would be his age. How many years does he have left? Probably not many. That would be my main reservation. Sarver doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence otherwise. Sure at the end of the day they both have ZERO titles but there are still degrees of separation title or no.

My wish would be Sarver to sell and get someone with deep pockets to take over.

 

[SO91]

Or anyone else for that matter. And I certainly mean it, any one else. Colangelo would obviously be a dream come true though.

Any? I'd be pretty freaking scared in that scenario, especially after what happened with the Sonics.

 

[devilalum]

There were 6 years when every team that didn't have Michael Jordan had no chance of winning a title. Does that mean that 29 owners in those years were all failures?

To me the measure of success is "Does this team have a legit shot at making the finals?" Usually top 4 or 5 in the league.

The Suns have had several "contenders' over the years and all these teams were definitely worth the price of admission.

The NBA is an entertainment industry. Really good teams are more fun to watch.

 

[elindholm]

There were 6 years when every team that didn't have Michael Jordan had no chance of winning a title.

I really don't think that's true. One of the peculiarities of how people think about the NBA is that every outcome seems inevitable in retrospect, but that's a fallacy. If Paxson misses at the buzzer in Game 6, the Suns have Game 7 at home. They might have lost, but that would be a long way from having "no chance."

Jordan's 6-0 record in the Finals is impressive, but it wasn't preordained.

 

[Covert Rain]

Jordan's 6-0 record in the Finals is impressive, but it wasn't preordained.

Maybe not per-ordained but the odds were severely against any team that had to face that guy in the finals. That record isn't just impressive..it's historic.

 

[elindholm]

Maybe not per-ordained but the odds were severely against any team that had to face that guy in the finals.

Like I say, it looks that way now. But let's say that each of those Bulls teams had "only" a 75% chance of winning the Finals once they got there. There's still an 18% chance that they would have gone 6-0, the same as a 75% free-throw shooter making six in a row, or whatever. So I don't buy the argument that the perfect record proves that they were unbeatable. They didn't lose, so good for them, but a lot of people thought they looked vulnerable at the time. If you watch a guy make six straight free throws, you don't automatically conclude that he's a superb free-throw shooter.

 

[PDXChris]

Here you go! Lets Booker be your #1 SG, gives you a back up PG and legit #1 Center, while shipping out pieces that don't work. Show some chemistry, miss the playoffs, get a good pick and convince Howard to resign seeing a better team with Bledsoe healthy and a top 3 pick. Lawson can play PG the rest of the way too.

 

[elindholm]

Wow. There's no obvious reason to reject that trade proposal. Nicely done!

 

[JCSunsfan]

Chap, I cannot believe you are comparing the Sarver era with the Colangelo era favorably. Jerry Colangelo consistently put a competitive club on the floor--especially when he had full control as the owner. When he took over as an owner, the club was in disarray, he had been GM but was hampered by an ownership group that was inordinately focused on the bottom line.

He immediately turned the team around and went on to 13 straight playoff appearances. The only reason he sold the team was because he had a cancer scare and thought his family was going to have to pay huge inheritance taxes.

 

[Chaplin]

Chap, I cannot believe you are comparing the Sarver era with the Colangelo era favorably. Jerry Colangelo consistently put a competitive club on the floor--especially when he had full control as the owner. When he took over as an owner, the club was in disarray, he had been GM but was hampered by an ownership group that was inordinately focused on the bottom line.

I think you are mistaken. I was simply taking the side against a Colangelo takeover. My points are still valid. I agree, the club was competitive and is one of the most competitive teams in all of sports.

But again, how many championships are there to show for it? NONE. We won't get any with Sarver either, but I simply don't think Colangelo is an alternative if WE WANT A CHAMPIONSHIP. Where do you get that I think the Sarver years are better than the Colangelo years? That's pretty out there.

He immediately turned the team around and went on to 13 straight playoff appearances. The only reason he sold the team was because he had a cancer scare and thought his family was going to have to pay huge inheritance taxes.

So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Neither Robert Sarver nor Jerry Colangelo are solutions to this crisis. And they never will be.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Here you go! Lets Booker be your #1 SG, gives you a back up PG and legit #1 Center, while shipping out pieces that don't work. Show some chemistry, miss the playoffs, get a good pick and convince Howard to resign seeing a better team with Bledsoe healthy and a top 3 pick. Lawson can play PG the rest of the way too.

YOu even get a pass first pg thrown in. I do think Howard is on the decline, big time though.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I think you are mistaken. I was simply taking the side against a Colangelo takeover. My points are still valid. I agree, the club was competitive and is one of the most competitive teams in all of sports.

But again, how many championships are there to show for it? NONE. We won't get any with Sarver either, but I simply don't think Colangelo is an alternative if WE WANT A CHAMPIONSHIP. Where do you get that I think the Sarver years are better than the Colangelo years? That's pretty out there.



So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Neither Robert Sarver nor Jerry Colangelo are solutions to this crisis. And they never will be.

LOL... the above is ridiculous. Are you saying that the ONLY solution to getting a Championship is to have an owner buy the team who's already won a title?

The idea that one of the most respected owners/people in the history of the NBA could never be a solution to getting this team back to the top is laughable.

 

[BC867]

The idea that one of the most respected owners/people in the history of the NBA could never be a solution to getting this team back to the top is laughable.

Is "back to" the top a valid comment? In all of the Suns seasons, there have been one Cinderella finals and one legitimate finals. They have never been at the top.

For the rest of our history, our best performances have been 50-and-fade. Until pro baseball and pro football teams came on the scene, that was all that the 'only game in town' needed to be for Colangelo's team success. Was that not the case?

Since the Suns became a major City with four major sports teams, it is a whole different ball game, so to speak. What was once good enough is no longer good enough.

The Cardinals were on the brink of the top prize recently and the D-backs are putting together a team that could challenge in the near future.

Meanwhile the Suns are disorganized and dysfunctional. As a pro team and as a business. Their 'next step up' for the past half-decade+ has been to make an appearance in the first round of the playoffs. And they have failed, constantly turning over the roster and trying again.

Back to the top . . . for the first time. We're a long way from even making the playoffs. Sadly, that's our current "back to". Maybe if Sarver bought all of the Suns Deloreans, they could go back to the future. 50 and fade.