It's All About Health

[George O'Brien]

I am something of a fatalist. I have little interest in hysterical comments to the effect that Amare will not effective following surgery or that no one every plays well after a foot injury like KT's. If they can't play, they can't play. Getting hysterical doesn't change anything.

I'm also clear that if BOTH Amare and KT don't play, the Suns won't win the championship. I can't think of any team that can lose an all star and inside starter and still won a championship, al least not in the past three decades.

There are some people who suggest that if the Suns brought back TT, they could do it without Amare and KT. I think they're wrong. The usual refrain is that with TT in the lineup, the Suns almost got to the finals.

There is another way of looking at this past playoffs. The Suns had the less difficult path to the WCF, None the less, with TT and no Amare or KT, the Suns nearly lost to a very weak Lakers team and it took considerable luck to get by the Clippers.

If the rumor mill is accurate, the Suns did try to trade for another big man like Wilcox or Gooden. This might have helped, but it didn't happen and it's not clear there was ever a chance it would have. They picked up some minimum contract guys in Jumaine and Marks. Neither seem likely to replace KT's defense and nobdoy can replace what Amare provided.

The same can be said about getting Banks. He should be a help, but if Nash is down for an extended period, the Suns don't win the championship. Banks can help to reduce Nash's minutes, but he's not going to replace a two time MVP.

What the Suns need is a healthy Amare, a healthy Nash, and a healthy KT; without losing anyone else. Healthy and effective, this could be an awsome team. Lose any of those guys and they struggle. Lose two and it becomes very hard

Even without these guys the Suns should be an entertaining team to watch. However, the notion that there is something realistic the Suns could do to substantially improve their chances of winning the championship seems remote. I'm reconciled to that.

 

[Chaplin]

Breaking news!

 

[George O'Brien]

Breaking news!

Indirectly I was responding to the constant harping about how the Suns should have paid the extra to get TT. I would have like to have TT, but I don't think it would have made any difference if Amare doesn't return nor is his defense good enough to offset losing KT again.

 

[JS22]

Breaking news!

And you wonder why people don't like you? Stop being such an ass. I, for one, enjoy reading George's posts because they are simply the most insightful on this board. You generally do nothing but attack others if they disagree with your point.

No wonder people are leaving this board. Posts like yours are essentially what drive them away.

 

[Chaplin]

And you wonder why people don't like you? Stop being such an ass. I, for one, enjoy reading George's posts because they are simply the most insightful on this board. You generally do nothing but attack others if they disagree with your point.

No wonder people are leaving this board. Posts like yours are essentially what drive them away.

I was just joking, don't be such a big baby. Do I wonder why people don't like me? Well, I certainly don't wonder why you don't like me. I could care less why people don't like me. I don't need to. People "don't like me" because I have strong opinions that I stick to like glue. I'll be the first to admit that I can go overboard in discussions (cheese knows that), but I'll also be the first to NOT apologize for my opinions. And if that one 2-word post drives posters away, then maybe they weren't worth being around in the first place. You know for a fact that my post did not drive away guys like Eric and Yuma, so stop acting high and mighty post police.

George keeps this board alive during the offseason, no issues with that. He's also a terrific writer. George, apologies for sounding mean towards your post. Doubt that will placate every poster on this board, since they all hate me, but there it is, and it is sincere.

 

[George O'Brien]

Thank you, although I don't mind Chap. He's not a troll and usually makes a valid point even if not always as gracefully as he might.

It is certainly reasonable to say that I covered old ground. In my defense, I have to say that it is hard to avoid covering old ground if only to give context to a possibly new point being made. We tend to go on and on in disputes where narrowly constructed comments are taken out out of context and used to draw different conclusions. Still, I don't mind people disagreeing with my points, that's why this is a "discussion" board.

 

[elindholm]

No wonder people are leaving this board. Posts like yours are essentially what drive them away.

As someone who has more or less left the board, I have to say that this is unfair to Chaplin. He has nothing to do with why I don't post anymore.

I don't intended for this to be a referendum on George O'Brien's posts, but I would have difficulty characterizing them as "insightful." Others may find them insightful, and that's perfectly fine; they are entitled to their opinion.

But I think that most of us would hope that posts here do something other than repost articles available elsewhere, recite statistics out of context, or find verbose ways to restate what everyone already knows, such as "The Suns' title chances depend on Stoudemire's health" or "Defending the D'Antoni/Nash running game is difficult."

Personally, I find it frustrating when our collective intelligence is insulted by such posts masquerading as insightful analysis. Now, I'll grant that a sarcastic "Breaking news!" doesn't go far to address the problem, but I can sympathize with the reaction. As the saying goes, if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all -- but that's exactly why posters are deserting, because too many threads really don't warrant a reaction beyond scorn and curt dismissal.

Regarding the Tim Thomas point, as long as I've gotten this far:

Except for superstars, it's never possible to point to a single player, in advance, as being a certain difference-maker between a contender and an also-ran. And yet, as most people who follow the NBA have noticed, a tight playoff series will often come down to a key play by a supporting character.

It seems to me that some people on this board are content to say, "If Stoudemire is full strength, the Suns are good enough, and if he isn't, they aren't, so nothing else really matters." As I explained months ago, however, it's nowhere near that simple. Maybe Stoudemire will be at 90%, or 80%, or pick your favorite number, and the Suns really will need a seventh or eighth man to step up big in a critical game. Or maybe someone else will get hurt, the bench will get shortened, and a part-time player will find himself thrust into the spotlight, as happened to Barbosa a couple of times.

Can you imagine the Bulls during their second threepeat saying, "We don't really need to keep Steve Kerr, because he's not a major player and it's all up to Jordan and Pippen"? Of course not. Whether Kerr would wind up hitting a big shot in a key game is irrelevant; what the Bulls recognized was the importance of making your team as strong as possible, from top to bottom, and minimizing the effects of chance in the equation.

The point is, fatalism is an irresponsible and defeatist stance for a contending sports team to adopt in a critical off-season. In a recent interview, D'Antoni identified this year's four top contenders as Miami, Detroit, Dallas, and San Antonio -- not Phoenix -- which would seem to indicate that he is aware of his own team's second-tier status. The Suns, to their credit, did undertake steps that they thought would improve the team this summer. But the question of whether they did the best they could is a valid one, and tossing it aside by saying "It's all up to Stoudemire" is not only a way to squelch truly insightful and interesting discussion -- it's also just plain incorrect.

 

[George O'Brien]

"The point is, fatalism is an irresponsible and defeatist stance for a contending sports team to adopt in a critical off-season."

Now that really is an interesting position. Irresponsible?

I've been as anxious as everyone to see the Suns improve the team as much as possible. And I'm the first to congratulate them when the team overachieves when faced with seemingly impossible odds.

What I consider "irresponsible" is to harp endlessly because Sarver and the rest of the Suns management have not been able to eliminate our general anxiety about the health of the Suns key players. The Suns did a lot to try to improve the team's depth, but every acquisition is panned because these new guys won't guarantee a championship.

Eric, you want to have it both ways. You want to pan every decision the Suns make and then attack me for being "defeatist". Huh?

Maybe saying there wasn't a lot the Suns could do TO WIN THE CHAMPIONSHIP if their stars aren't healthy isn't a great insight, but it is hardly defeatist. Obviously losing their key guys does not mean giving up, but ripping the team for not making some magical move doesn't seem all that constructive either.

If anything, the constant second guessing the Suns for not signing TT is about as negative as it gets. The team made a calcuated decision that they needed the cap space for a point guard and ended up signing Banks. I think their gamble worked.

What is your point in comparing TT to Steve Kerr? Kerr's big shot was not some fluke. He had a career 47.9% shooting percentage and 45.4% for three. He was a key part of the Bulls from 1993-1998. Using Kerr as an example of an "afterthought" is pretty lame.

 

[cepstrum]

As someone who has more or less left the board, I have to say that this is unfair to Chaplin. He has nothing to do with why I don't post anymore.

Hmmmm...

I don't intended for this to be a referendum on George O'Brien's posts, but I would have difficulty characterizing them as "insightful." Others may find them insightful, and that's perfectly fine; they are entitled to their opinion.

But I think that most of us would hope that posts here do something other than repost articles available elsewhere, recite statistics out of context, or find verbose ways to restate what everyone already knows, such as "The Suns' title chances depend on Stoudemire's health" or "Defending the D'Antoni/Nash running game is difficult."

Personally, I find it frustrating when our collective intelligence is insulted by such posts masquerading as insightful analysis. Now, I'll grant that a sarcastic "Breaking news!" doesn't go far to address the problem, but I can sympathize with the reaction. As the saying goes, if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all -- but that's exactly why posters are deserting, because too many threads really don't warrant a reaction beyond scorn and curt dismissal.

What point does this part really serve other than it being a big F U to the rest of the board? If you aren't going to post often, then at least make your posts worthwhile. I (and most people) really have no problem with posts that aren't necessarily groundbreaking during periods of inactivity. I really would have no problem with your response if it was coming from a regular poster, but just showing up from time to time so you can insult the rest of the board is unwarranted.

 

[elindholm]

I really would have no problem with your response if it was coming from a regular poster, but just showing up from time to time so you can insult the rest of the board is unwarranted.

Thanks.

I defended Chaplin, which is rather different from insulting him. You, on the other hand, insulted me, which is okay, but seems to raise a "glass house" issue.

More importantly, however, I wrote four lengthy paragraphs about the issue at hand. If you didn't find those four paragraphs worthwhile, that's fine, but it isn't fair to suggest that I didn't try.

It is often the case that a new member will be disrespected, and several people will rush to his defense saying that it isn't fair to show prejudice against those with low post counts, and what we should really do is focus on content. Now you want to criticize me because I post rarely, which falls into the same category of hostility.

 

[fordronken]

It seems to me that some people on this board are content to say, "If Stoudemire is full strength, the Suns are good enough, and if he isn't, they aren't, so nothing else really matters." As I explained months ago, however, it's nowhere near that simple. Maybe Stoudemire will be at 90%, or 80%, or pick your favorite number, and the Suns really will need a seventh or eighth man to step up big in a critical game. Or maybe someone else will get hurt, the bench will get shortened, and a part-time player will find himself thrust into the spotlight, as happened to Barbosa a couple of times.

Can you imagine the Bulls during their second threepeat saying, "We don't really need to keep Steve Kerr, because he's not a major player and it's all up to Jordan and Pippen"? Of course not. Whether Kerr would wind up hitting a big shot in a key game is irrelevant; what the Bulls recognized was the importance of making your team as strong as possible, from top to bottom, and minimizing the effects of chance in the equation.

The point is, fatalism is an irresponsible and defeatist stance for a contending sports team to adopt in a critical off-season. In a recent interview, D'Antoni identified this year's four top contenders as Miami, Detroit, Dallas, and San Antonio -- not Phoenix -- which would seem to indicate that he is aware of his own team's second-tier status. The Suns, to their credit, did undertake steps that they thought would improve the team this summer. But the question of whether they did the best they could is a valid one, and tossing it aside by saying "It's all up to Stoudemire" is not only a way to squelch truly insightful and interesting discussion -- it's also just plain incorrect.

I'm probably an optimist with the Suns(why, I have no idea), as are most people on this board. From as much of an objective standpoint as I can muster, I'd say that Eric is a little bit of a pessimist, but nowhere near the amount suggested often on this board. Simply because of the huge difference between what a homer thinks(greatly inflated) and a slight pessimist(a little deflated), the optimists tend to think much worse of Eric's opinions than are actually true.

The reality of this, in my opinion, is that the Suns were really close to winning the championship last year. I'd put them a Raja Bell injury away from the finals. So to me, putting Tim Thomas in the Steve Kerr role, assuming a healthy Stoudemire and Thomas, is not very accurate. I'd obviously rather have Thomas than either of the Jones-es, but I don't think it's really that simple. By adding Stoudemire and Kurt Thomas, it pulls other more prominent players from last year into more supporting categories. While Raja Bell is certainly a supporting player, in last year's playoffs he became a primary component. I would probably still call him the team's best player in the Clippers series.

So to me, it's not as simple as saying "If Stoudemire and Thomas are healthy, we win the title." While I do think that's probably true, it is not however because I think they'll be enough on their own. I think it's because we do have adequate role players-- and I think Kurt Thomas is one of them. Rather than calling Jumaine Jones the Tim Thomas replacement, it's more likely that we could call Kurt Thomas his replacement.

So, the big three would be back. Then after that, we have a great number of role players who can take over games, step into the limelight when necessary, or just make a few key plays in big games. To me, those players are Diaw, Barbosa, Bell and Kurt Thomas. Then, the other guys are there to try to play defense, hit open shots, and hopefully, make a few key plays of their own. They are essentially Banks and the Jonses. By my math, that's ten useable players in the playoffs. Let's assume a rotation of about 7-9, and that still leaves at least 1 player who can come in to replace an injured player without even having to shorten the rotation.

Thus, in conclusion(apologies for the length), I would say that we do have the team, the pieces and the role players to win the championship. It would just kind of be nice if Stoudemire and Kurt Thomas were healthy.

 

[JS22]

Looking back, I guess I shouldn't have even posted the reply to Chap. His post just seemed extremely rude in response to George's. I mean, honestly, there really was no need to basically insult him - even if Chap was just "joking."

I guess what I'm trying to say is that George is one of the few solid posters here, and I don't want to see him be pushed away by childish replies to his thoughtful posts. If George were to ever leave, this forum would take an enormous hit on the quality of its posts and threads.

 

[cepstrum]

I defended Chaplin, which is rather different from insulting him. You, on the other hand, insulted me, which is okay, but seems to raise a "glass house" issue.

Of course you didnt insult Chaplin. This has nothing to do with his post. Coming back from time to time and stating that you no longer post because the posts are not intellectually stimulating for you is an indirect way of bashing the rest of the board. As far as me insulting YOU goes, just show me where. If you personally feel insulted about anything that I wrote, then I apologize. That wasn't the purpose of the post.

More importantly, however, I wrote four lengthy paragraphs about the issue at hand. If you didn't find those four paragraphs worthwhile, that's fine, but it isn't fair to suggest that I didn't try.

If you are referring to your original post about why you are no longer posting, then that point has already been made and is well understood. The point does lose effect, however, when you come back and post.

It is often the case that a new member will be disrespected, and several people will rush to his defense saying that it isn't fair to show prejudice against those with low post counts, and what we should really do is focus on content. Now you want to criticize me because I post rarely, which falls into the same category of hostility.

Dude you have over 9000 posts and you are comparing yourself to a new poster??? New posters deserve slack until they learn the general rules of the board. All this doesnt matter though. Can you honestly say that your post above was more enlightning than the posts you were so quick to criticize? I mean you have alreaded stated all those complaints in a previous thread and I dont think there is a single poster that isn't clear about why you no longer post.

 

[elindholm]

Argh, if only this data conversion utility that I'm waiting on weren't so slow...

Of course you didnt insult Chaplin. This has nothing to do with his post.

Well, you said I insulted "the rest of the board," of which Chaplin is a part. Actually, he was one of only three people who had posted in the thread to that point. So I think you were exaggerating.

If you are referring to your original post about why you are no longer posting, then that point has already been made and is well understood.

Apparently it isn't well understood, or you wouldn't be blaming my reduced activity on Chaplin.

The point does lose effect, however, when you come back and post.

You are absolutely correct about that. It is a problem.

Can you honestly say that your post above was more enlightning than the posts you were so quick to criticize?

Did you even read the second half of it? Yes, I did think it was more accurate (I won't go so far as to say "enlightening") than the posts I was criticizing. You may not think so, and that's okay.

I dont think there is a single poster that isn't clear about why you no longer post.

Actually I've tried to be relatively vague about it, so that certain people won't feel singled out. But in fact I would guess that very few people know exactly why I'm staying away. It doesn't really matter, and as you point out, my stance is getting weaker all the time.

I just don't think it was fair to blame Chaplin for what has happened to this board, and in my opinion that really shows a misunderstanding of what many of us think the issues are.

 

[fordronken]

I should be meaner in my posts. I never get a fun reaction.

 

[cepstrum]

Well, you said I insulted "the rest of the board," of which Chaplin is a part. Actually, he was one of only three people who had posted in the thread to that point. So I think you were exaggerating.

Of course "rest of the board" is a generalization. Does it apply to everyone? Of course not.

Apparently it isn't well understood, or you wouldn't be blaming my reduced activity on Chaplin.

Im not really sure why you think Im blaming Chaplin about anything. I really have no problem with his original post since you can kind of tell that it was meant to be sarcastic. It was actually kind of funny.

Did you even read the second half of it? Yes, I did think it was more accurate (I won't go so far as to say "enlightening") than the posts I was criticizing. You may not think so, and that's okay.

Actually the second part of it was very much worth reading because it was related to basketball. This whole discussion was about the first part, which I found to be arrogant. Maybe I should have been clearer.

I just don't think it was fair to blame Chaplin for what has happened to this board, and in my opinion that really shows a misunderstanding of what many of us think the issues are.

I dont blame him at all. As far as it being hard to stay away, I agree. I dont post very often and I stopped reading for a little while, but I couldnt stay away long.

 

[Chaplin]

I dont blame him at all. As far as it being hard to stay away, I agree. I dont post very often and I stopped reading for a little while, but I couldnt stay away long.

Hey, I've tried to stay away a bunch of times, but it never works.

ASFN, it's like the mafia: You try to get out, but then they suck you back in!

 

[elindholm]

Im not really sure why you think Im blaming Chaplin about anything.

Oops, you're right. I was assigning WastedFate's response to you. Sorry about that.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Looking back, I guess I shouldn't have even posted the reply to Chap. His post just seemed extremely rude in response to George's. I mean, honestly, there really was no need to basically insult him - even if Chap was just "joking."

Lots of people think they are joking, and use joking as a "catch all" answer when they are called on something...

"Oh I was just joking!"

Please...

Doesn't matter though...Chaplin will never change his tone in posts, no matter how many people try to help him change for the better.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Im not really sure why you think Im blaming Chaplin about anything.

Oops, you're right. I was assigning WastedFate's response to you. Sorry about that.

And Eric...seriously, I am going to make it a rule on the board that people use the board quoting tool, because while you somehow think this is easier, I absolutely can't stand having to look back to search for the little line you took out of someone's post...

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Of course "rest of the board" is a generalization. Does it apply to everyone? Of course not.



Im not really sure why you think Im blaming Chaplin about anything. I really have no problem with his original post since you can kind of tell that it was meant to be sarcastic. It was actually kind of funny.



Actually the second part of it was very much worth reading because it was related to basketball. This whole discussion was about the first part, which I found to be arrogant. Maybe I should have been clearer.



I dont blame him at all. As far as it being hard to stay away, I agree. I dont post very often and I stopped reading for a little while, but I couldnt stay away long.

Now that's how you quote a post!

 

[haverford]

I should be meaner in my posts. I never get a fun reaction.

Critique as simple truth. Bravo fordronken--you have my vote as most perceptive and sanest poster, past and present.

 

[Chaplin]

Lots of people think they are joking, and use joking as a "catch all" answer when they are called on something...

"Oh I was just joking!"

Please...

Doesn't matter though...Chaplin will never change his tone in posts, no matter how many people try to help him change for the better.

Ugh, I can't believe you actually posted this tripe.

I guess it's convenient that you don't have to police yourself, eh, Mike?

 

[Cheesebeef]

this thread is great.

 

[boisesuns]

The summer brings out the best in us, huh?



Soon the season will be in full swing, and we can talk about Basketball.