How many moves away are the Suns?

[Mainstreet]

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

Ty Lawson has problems of his own. I too think Howard is on the decline and he might walk with his player option. I wouldn't do this trade.

 

[Chaplin]

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.

Um, no. Try a little reading comprehension. Where did I say what you are accusing me of? Talk about LOL. I guess your idea of what the "top" is is different than mine.

It's not just about someone else taking over, it's about someone taking over that has had 36 years of experience with no title. I'd rather find a fresh owner like Grant Hill that might do something different than BOTH Sarver and Colangelo.

 

[PDXChris]

Ty Lawson has problems of his own. I too think Howard is on the decline and he might walk with his player option. I wouldn't do this trade.

Even if Howard walks, Morris is gone, Chandler's contract is gone and your log jam at PG is gone since Lawson is a backup. It allows Bledsoe and Booker to start next year. Best case, you re-sign Howard and have Len as his backup. A declining Howard is still better than 95% of the Centers out there.

 

[elindholm]

Ty Lawson has problems of his own. I too think Howard is on the decline and he might walk with his player option.

Yes, but that's why those players are potentially available in a trade.

I wouldn't do this trade.

The combination of Chandler/Morris/Knight has minimal positive value.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Um, no. Try a little reading comprehension. Where did I say what you are accusing me of? Talk about LOL. I guess your idea of what the "top" is is different than mine.

It's not just about someone else taking over, it's about someone taking over that has had 36 years of experience with no title. I'd rather find a fresh owner like Grant Hill that might do something different than BOTH Sarver and Colangelo.

Grant Hill as owner over a guy respected as one of the best basketball minds/most respected owners in the league. What reason could you possibly have to believe that Grant Hill would be a great owner?

 

[Chaplin]

Grant Hill as owner over a guy respected as one of the best basketball minds/most respected owners in the league. What reason could you possibly have to believe that Grant Hill would be a great owner?

Stop deflecting. You've responded without once acknowledging the point. I simply used Grant Hill because there were rumors a while back that he might be part of a potential ownership group, and he's a well known name. That's it.

 

[hcsilla]

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

There is no reason to apply it either. Terribly done.

We unload Chandler for expirings (which we hardly can re-use via free agency) and give away Knight and Morris.

I still hope that we can get more than expiring for Morris (even a high 2nd rounder qualifies) and losing the LAL pick would be a disaster.

 

[SO91]

There is no reason to apply it either. Terribly done.

We unload Chandler for expirings (which we hardly can re-use via free agency) and give away Knight and Morris.

I still hope that we can get more than expiring for Morris (even a high 2nd rounder qualifies) and losing the LAL pick would be a disaster.

I have some bad news for you then...

 

[JustWinBaby]

It is really unbelievable that anyone would not want Colangelo in charge of this franchise.

It even more unbelievable that anyone would want Dwight Howard anywhere near this franchise. He is going to cost about 30 mil per year to keep him, I guess we should do that as well. I would rather sign Markieff to a 20 year extension, at his current price, and tell him to stay home.

 

[Mainstreet]

Even if Howard walks, Morris is gone, Chandler's contract is gone and your log jam at PG is gone since Lawson is a backup. It allows Bledsoe and Booker to start next year. Best case, you re-sign Howard and have Len as his backup. A declining Howard is still better than 95% of the Centers out there.

Trading Markieff for Lawson is only trading problems. Search Lawson and trouble. You will find out all you need to know. Without looking for exact salaries, Lawson will make $13M next season. Markieff will only make about $24M over the next three seasons. I will keep the problem I know.

Markieff will become very tradeable when the court case is resolved. I do not see Howard as a significant improvement for the Suns. Also he has the option to go to another team next season. If you are trying to clear up money for the Suns, what key free agents are they going to be able to spend it on? I would rather keep Chandler, Markieff and Knight rather do this trade. This is the type of trade other GMs want the Suns to make. I do think the Suns will trade Knight to someone at the trade deadline, probably more if there is some value on the table.

 

[Mainstreet]

Yes, but that's why those players are potentially available in a trade.

Because these players are available in trade, it does not mean you must go after them, especially if they do not help the Suns. I've already mentioned Lawson has problems of his own.

The combination of Chandler/Morris/Knight has minimal positive value.

So don't trade the combination together.

 

[Catlover]

Trading Markieff for Lawson is only trading problems. Search Lawson and trouble. You will find out all you need to know. Without looking for exact salaries, Lawson will make $13M next season. Markieff will only make about $24M over the next three seasons. I will keep the problem I know.

Markieff will become very tradeable when the court case is resolved. I do not see Howard as a significant improvement for the Suns. Also he has the option to go to another team next season. If you are trying to clear up money for the Suns, what key free agents are they going to be able to spend it on? I would rather keep Chandler, Markieff and Knight rather do this trade. This is the type of trade other GMs want the Suns to make. I do think the Suns will trade Knight to someone at the trade deadline, probably more if there is some value on the table.

I really don't think we'll move him by the deadline. Between his ankle problem and the sports hernia he's been playing with we haven't seen him at anywhere near his best and the trade market will likely reflect it.

 

[Mainstreet]

I really don't think we'll move him by the deadline. Between his ankle problem and the sports hernia he's been playing with we haven't seen him at anywhere near his best and the trade market will likely reflect it.

I thought one of the reasons we have heard so little about Knight is because he might get traded. It's like he is hardly mentioned. Even Price gets mentioned. The Suns have been so quiet about this. If he does not get traded he might sit out the rest of the season.

 

[sunsfan88]

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.

I actually don't mind this trade. It just means we're admitting that the best we can get for Kieff, Knight and Chandler are expiring contracts (Howard and Lawson).

I hate the idea of watching Knight play for the Suns any longer. I would rather them sign or draft a more pass first type PG (not with their pick but maybe the Cavs pick or something else) to pair with Booker rather than watching Knight attempt at running the offense which is gonna do nothing to help develop Booker's game.

 

[sunsfan88]

Because these players are available in trade, it does not mean you must go after them, especially if they do not help the Suns. I've already mentioned Lawson has problems of his own.



So don't trade the combination together.

Lawson has an unguaranteed contract for next season which is almost equivalent to being an expiring contract so we can just cut Lawson in the summer and he would only be here for two months in March and April.

 

[chickenhead]

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.

I get what you're saying, but I guess I don't agree with the idea that Sarver did almost as well as Colangelo when he did it mostly with pieces inherited from or facilitated by Jerry. Sarver bought a franchise in the most literal sense of the term.

I'm not saying I don't give Sarver any credit for SSOL, just not exclusive credit. I'd suggest the Sarver era truly begins with the 2007-08 season, when Kerr replaced D'Antoni as GM and Bryan Colangelo was two years gone. The team has made the playoffs only twice since then. A first-round loss to the Spurs (Duncan's three-pointer) and the surprise run to the WCF in 2010. Not only have the two high points (2009-10 and 2013-14) been squandered, but there's been continual stunted rebuilding.

We haven't seen Sarver actually build anything yet, so that's why people remain so loyal to Colangelo.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Stop deflecting. You've responded without once acknowledging the point. I simply used Grant Hill because there were rumors a while back that he might be part of a potential ownership group, and he's a well known name. That's it.

I'm not deflecting anything. You're point makes zero sense to me. You said Colangelo would NEVER be a solution even though in 17 years, he made the Suns one of the most winningest teams in league history, and is still as respected as anyone in basketball. The idea that Grant Hill would somehow be better is a complete head-scratcher and so I wanted to know for what possible reason would you rather have Hill as owner then a guy like Colangelo. You still haven't given an answer to that... probably because there isn't one that makes sense. But i'm all ears to hear anything.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I get what you're saying, but I guess I don't agree with the idea that Sarver did almost as well as Colangelo when he did it mostly with pieces inherited from or facilitated by Jerry. Sarver bought a franchise in the most literal sense of the term.

I'm not saying I don't give Sarver any credit for SSOL, just not exclusive credit. I'd suggest the Sarver era truly begins with the 2007-08 season, when Kerr replaced D'Antoni as GM and Bryan Colangelo was two years gone. The team has made the playoffs only twice since then. A first-round loss to the Spurs (Duncan's three-pointer) and the surprise run to the WCF in 2010. Not only have the two high points (2009-10 and 2013-14) been squandered, but there's been continual stunted rebuilding.

We haven't seen Sarver actually build anything yet, so that's why people remain so loyal to Colangelo.

how anyone could not understand the above is simply beyond dense or just being argumentative.

It's hard to have a substantive discussion with someone who can't even get basic facts right... like Colangelo has 36 years to try and win a title. He was the OWNER for 17 years starting in 1987. That when someone has ACTUAL power to do what they want/need to get a title. When you don't even know you're facts, your opinions are obviously going to be wrong as well because there's no basis to make them.

 

[Chaplin]

And again, cheesebeef continues to either ignore the point or is choosing to be argumentative. And to then say that JC had no input in the team until he became the owner is hopelessly naive.

I am saying that going back to same ole same ole with Colangelo isn't a solution, just as staying with Sarver isn't a solution. I say go with some new blood, because what we've had in the past 45 years hadn't brought us a CHAMPIONSHIP. That is a fact.

If your goal is to just bring back entertaining basketball with wins but not trophies, then by all means bring back Jerry. But if you want a ring, then I would look in other directions. Grant Hill was just a name but it can be anyone. Hopefully one that is more hands off, but you won't know unless you try.

 

[slinslin]

I get what you're saying, but I guess I don't agree with the idea that Sarver did almost as well as Colangelo when he did it mostly with pieces inherited from or facilitated by Jerry. Sarver bought a franchise in the most literal sense of the term.

I'm not saying I don't give Sarver any credit for SSOL, just not exclusive credit. I'd suggest the Sarver era truly begins with the 2007-08 season, when Kerr replaced D'Antoni as GM and Bryan Colangelo was two years gone. The team has made the playoffs only twice since then. A first-round loss to the Spurs (Duncan's three-pointer) and the surprise run to the WCF in 2010. Not only have the two high points (2009-10 and 2013-14) been squandered, but there's been continual stunted rebuilding.

We haven't seen Sarver actually build anything yet, so that's why people remain so loyal to Colangelo.

When Sarver bougth the Suns they were one of the 7 worst teams in the league.

So I couldn't care less if you don't want to give Sarver credit for SSOL.

Fact is that era started after Sarver bought the team, not before.

Another fact is that Sarver is one of the very few owners who actually paid luxury tax.

When did Colangelo do that? Colangelo made a terrible trade in which he dumped Gugliotta for several first round picks to make more money by selling the Suns.

 

[mojorizen7]

I am saying that going back to same ole same ole with Colangelo isn't a solution, just as staying with Sarver isn't a solution. I say go with some new blood, because what we've had in the past 45 years hadn't brought us a CHAMPIONSHIP. That is a fact.

If your goal is to just bring back entertaining basketball with wins but not trophies, then by all means bring back Jerry. But if you want a ring, then I would look in other directions.

I actually agree with Chap (Yuck!).
Sarver hasn't a clue and bringing Colangelo back won't solve the problem of basketball culture that Jerry put in place decades ago and still remains ingrained into the fanbase today.

Don't get me wrong. Jerry deserves a lot of respect for his accomplishments here, always keeping an entertaining competitive product on the court etc...but if the Suns hope to take the next step it will have to come from new blood at the top.

 

[BC867]

The idea that Grant Hill would somehow be better is a complete head-scratcher and so I wanted to know for what possible reason would you rather have Hill as owner then a guy like Colangelo. You still haven't given an answer to that... probably because there isn't one that makes sense. But i'm all ears to hear anything.

Anything #1 -- Why is the discussion of a new owner limited to Colangelo and Hill? Hill's name was given as an example, because there was a rumor of him possibly being interested. We need fresh thinking. Ideally an owner committed to keeping the team in Phoenix, but with no ties to the Suns' small town philosophies of the past.

Anything #2 -- Colangelo's age and the prospect that he would bring back heir apparent Bryan for a here-we-go-again.

Anything #3 -- The Suns need an owner who will oversee the finances but not crave attention, whether it is naming himself interim Head Coach (Colangelo twice) or waving a big foam finger at the games (Sarver).

We need an owner who will hire both a GM and Head Coach with NBA experience and let them do their jobs.

 

[Chaplin]

I actually agree with Chap (Yuck!).

Sheesh, don't do me any favors.

 

[SO91]

how anyone could not understand the above is simply beyond dense or just being argumentative.

It's hard to have a substantive discussion with someone who can't even get basic facts right... like Colangelo has 36 years to try and win a title. He was the OWNER for 17 years starting in 1987. That when someone has ACTUAL power to do what they want/need to get a title. When you don't even know you're facts, your opinions are obviously going to be wrong as well because there's no basis to make them.

No need to be a prick and call someone dense because they don't agree with your opinion or point of view. The facts are, Colangelo didn't win squat here, and neither has Sarver. To go back to that era is just as insane as thinking that Sarver will change and win here, IMO. We have several posters that would go on and on about judging success by titles when D'Antoni and Nash (and Sarver by extension) were winning lots of games and coming up short. But when it comes to Jerry, winning games and entertainment are seen as successful for some reason. Oh and also those facts you were quoting were not totally correct. Sarver spent BIG when he acquired the team, signing Nash and Q on his first offseason. It's crazy to not give him credit for those early SSOL years, when the main component of that offense wasn't here until Sarver took over.

 

[mojorizen7]

Sheesh, don't do me any favors.

Sorry, it's just that the last time we agreed on anything Suns was never.