Jazz @ Suns Game Thread 1-4-13

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,599
Reaction score
9,920
Location
L.A. area
I agree about Beasley being a big mistake. Almost everyone has come around to this position.

I haven't. Beasley was signed as a project. So far, he has been with the Suns for about 1/3 of a season. Whatever improvement he needs to make to become an NBA player, he hasn't made it. But he's not pouting to the media, I've read reports that he's still working hard in practice, and his body language on the floor hasn't gotten any worse now that his minutes have been slashed. Consider that his salary is about what the Suns were paying Childress, only for half as long, and he's far from a disaster.

Beasley may never get it, but that doesn't mean that the signing was a mistake. Teams that are as far behind the talent race as the Suns are need to take risks. Pursuing Eric Gordon was a huge risk, but the Suns got away with it. Whether taking a gamble is a good idea doesn't depend on whether the gamble pays off -- that's not a fair way to judge. You need to assess the magnitude and likelihood of the reward versus the cost.

I don't understand people who say, "Put Morris, Marshall, and Johnson on the floor to see what they can do, sink or swim, but for god's sake banish Beasley to the inactive list." Beasley is younger than Johnson and only a few months older than Morris, and is far more likely to develop into a quality NBA player than either Johnson or Marshall is. It's not even close. Beasley is probably the best player on the team at creating his own offense -- inefficient though it may be -- and he's a surprisingly good passer, trailing only Dragic and Telfair in assists per minute.

I'm not disagreeing that Beasley has been lousy so far, but to call his signing a mistake shows a misunderstanding of why he was signed in the first place. Expecting him to come in and look like a star right away, when two teams had already given up on him, was unrealistic. There are reasons that he was available to a team like Phoenix for a relatively cheap contract, and we're seeing them. There's a good chance that the risk won't pay off, but compared to ideas like re-acquiring Stoudemire or going after Greg Oden, it was a pretty sane proposition.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,599
Reaction score
9,920
Location
L.A. area
Even if he never plays another minute this season, our 2013 non-playoffs finish has been carved in stone because of his presence early in the season.

It's absurd to put that in Beasley's lap. This team is terrible, with or without him. Yes, they've been more terrible with him than without, but he's barely playing now, and they're still terrible. The notion that he managed to infect the entire roster with Chronic Suck by playing starter's minutes for 20 games is superstition and nothing more. If we subjected every player on the roster to the same scrutiny that Beasley is now undergoing, we'd find at least half of them to be just as deficient. This is a very bad team.
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,978
Reaction score
16,866
I haven't. Beasley was signed as a project. So far, he has been with the Suns for about 1/3 of a season. Whatever improvement he needs to make to become an NBA player, he hasn't made it. But he's not pouting to the media, I've read reports that he's still working hard in practice, and his body language on the floor hasn't gotten any worse now that his minutes have been slashed. Consider that his salary is about what the Suns were paying Childress, only for half as long, and he's far from a disaster.

Beasley may never get it, but that doesn't mean that the signing was a mistake. Teams that are as far behind the talent race as the Suns are need to take risks. Pursuing Eric Gordon was a huge risk, but the Suns got away with it. Whether taking a gamble is a good idea doesn't depend on whether the gamble pays off -- that's not a fair way to judge. You need to assess the magnitude and likelihood of the reward versus the cost.

I don't understand people who say, "Put Morris, Marshall, and Johnson on the floor to see what they can do, sink or swim, but for god's sake banish Beasley to the inactive list." Beasley is younger than Johnson and only a few months older than Morris, and is far more likely to develop into a quality NBA player than either Johnson or Marshall is. It's not even close. Beasley is probably the best player on the team at creating his own offense -- inefficient though it may be -- and he's a surprisingly good passer, trailing only Dragic and Telfair in assists per minute.

I'm not disagreeing that Beasley has been lousy so far, but to call his signing a mistake shows a misunderstanding of why he was signed in the first place. Expecting him to come in and look like a star right away, when two teams had already given up on him, was unrealistic. There are reasons that he was available to a team like Phoenix for a relatively cheap contract, and we're seeing them. There's a good chance that the risk won't pay off, but compared to ideas like re-acquiring Stoudemire or going after Greg Oden, it was a pretty sane proposition.

All of that makes sense and yet, it doesn't. Yanking him in and out of the lineup has hurt his confidence and yes, he does show it in his body language. At the start of the season he was encouraging his teammates and congratulating them when they did well. I don't see that anymore. He's almost a man alone out there, on the court and on the bench.

As for it not making sense in a way, my point is that I could see this grand experiment if we really were buying into it but clearly we're not. We're trying to win games now rather than trying to develop talent for the future. Why bring someone like Beasley in and not give him every chance to succeed if you truly believe in him. He was giving great effort to start the season although his results were poor more often than not. If we were committed enough to go down this road we should have travelled it a lot further. I can't stand what we're doing now. We're pulling out all stops to win the game AFTER we've already hurt our chances to win the game.

Steve
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
36,978
Reaction score
16,866
It's absurd to put that in Beasley's lap. This team is terrible, with or without him. Yes, they've been more terrible with him than without, but he's barely playing now, and they're still terrible. The notion that he managed to infect the entire roster with Chronic Suck by playing starter's minutes for 20 games is superstition and nothing more. If we subjected every player on the roster to the same scrutiny that Beasley is now undergoing, we'd find at least half of them to be just as deficient. This is a very bad team.

He starts, we get behind. He goes to the bench, we catch up. He doesn't start, we get a lead. He subs in, our lead goes away. These two scenarios repeat, night after night.

Steve
 
OP
OP
Mainstreet

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
120,124
Reaction score
60,704
I haven't. Beasley was signed as a project. So far, he has been with the Suns for about 1/3 of a season. Whatever improvement he needs to make to become an NBA player, he hasn't made it. But he's not pouting to the media, I've read reports that he's still working hard in practice, and his body language on the floor hasn't gotten any worse now that his minutes have been slashed. Consider that his salary is about what the Suns were paying Childress, only for half as long, and he's far from a disaster.

Good for you. I have already made my assessment on Beasley as a project player and I deem the gamble a failure. I may be completely wrong but I don't think so. I too have been pleasantly surprised by his attitude as a player.

Beasley may never get it, but that doesn't mean that the signing was a mistake. Teams that are as far behind the talent race as the Suns are need to take risks. Pursuing Eric Gordon was a huge risk, but the Suns got away with it. Whether taking a gamble is a good idea doesn't depend on whether the gamble pays off -- that's not a fair way to judge. You need to assess the magnitude and likelihood of the reward versus the cost.

How can the signing not be a mistake if Beasley does not work out. Perhaps you want longer to decide. I do not. Losing a gamble is a mistake unless one wants to rationalize it. I count success in terms of results, not reward versus the cost. Beasley had already failed with two other teams who wanted him to succeed. I think the Suns decision to sign Beasley was a mistake. Why they keyed in on him, I have no idea.

I don't understand people who say, "Put Morris, Marshall, and Johnson on the floor to see what they can do, sink or swim, but for god's sake banish Beasley to the inactive list." Beasley is younger than Johnson and only a few months older than Morris, and is far more likely to develop into a quality NBA player than either Johnson or Marshall is. It's not even close. Beasley is probably the best player on the team at creating his own offense -- inefficient though it may be -- and he's a surprisingly good passer, trailing only Dragic and Telfair in assists per minute.

Sometimes, out of frustration, I want the Suns to put their five worst players on the court at the same time (my perspective only) to demonstrate how bad the Suns FO is at making player personnel decisions. Fielding a team of Zeller, Marshall, Morris, Johnson and Beasley would put that on display as a signature moment though not a lineup to develop.

I'm not disagreeing that Beasley has been lousy so far, but to call his signing a mistake shows a misunderstanding of why he was signed in the first place. Expecting him to come in and look like a star right away, when two teams had already given up on him, was unrealistic. There are reasons that he was available to a team like Phoenix for a relatively cheap contract, and we're seeing them. There's a good chance that the risk won't pay off, but compared to ideas like re-acquiring Stoudemire or going after Greg Oden, it was a pretty sane proposition.

Intent does not absolve failure IMO. I would like the the decision makers in the Suns FO to be held accountable. I would trade Beasley in a nano second if that were possible. Would you keep him as a project player if he could be included in a trade?
 

BC867

Long time Phoenician!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
17,827
Reaction score
1,709
Location
NE Phoenix
How can the signing not be a mistake if Beasley does not work out . . . I would like the the decision makers in the Suns FO to be held accountable.
All sports personnel decisions are gambles. The great GM's have a great track record. The good GM's have a good track record. And the bad (less skilled) GM's have a bad track record.

I agree that the decision makers in the Suns FO be held accountable for assembling an incomplete, dysfunctional roster. And I give credit to the Coach for squeezing the most he can out of it for the past two seasons.

However, for fans in the Valley, as in most cities, this isn't Chicago. There are no lovable losers.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,599
Reaction score
9,920
Location
L.A. area
Losing a gamble is a mistake unless one wants to rationalize it. I count success in terms of results, not reward versus the cost.

That is one way to think about gambles, but it's not a productive one, in my opinion. It will usually (or always, really) be the case that it's impossible to know how things are going to work out. If someone offers me a simple bet when the odds are in my favor (example: I pay someone $1 to roll a fair six-sided die, and he gives me $10 if a 5 comes up), it is correct for me to take the bet, even if I end up losing in that particular case, because in the long run I will come out ahead.

Beasley had already failed with two other teams who wanted him to succeed. I think the Suns decision to sign Beasley was a mistake.

But we already knew that two teams had given up on him. What new information have we gotten this season that has changed the signing from a calculated risk to a mistake?

Intent does not absolve failure IMO.

No, it certainly doesn't. But the question isn't intent, but rather an assessment of the rewards versus the risks. The Suns may well have erred in that calculation, but what I've seen so far this season hasn't increased my skepticism. In fact no one should be surprised by what they've seen from Beasley so far, because again, there was a reason that two teams had quit on him and that the Suns were able to add him. I'm not saying that I saw all of this coming, because I didn't; I knew very little about Beasley before he came to the Suns. I figured that signing him was a long shot, but a gamble worth taking. I've seen some good and a lot of bad by now, but I haven't completely given up hope that the good can be mined.

Would you keep him as a project player if he could be included in a trade?

Yes. Seriously, what better options do the Suns have? No one is going to give up a quality player for anyone on the roster, whether Beasley is part of the deal or not. From a trade standpoint, the Suns have one of the least appealing rosters in the entire league -- in fact it could well be dead last. What does it cost them to invest another year or two in figuring out whether Beasley can get it?
 

BC867

Long time Phoenician!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
17,827
Reaction score
1,709
Location
NE Phoenix
What does it cost them to invest another year or two in figuring out whether Beasley can get it?
I would hope that the coaching staff (which is probably the strongest group on the team, as opposed to the Front Office and its roster) has the skill to determine if Beasley "can get it" without waiting another two years.

There is another factor -- addition by subtraction. Not having to play Beasley would help the rest of the roster succeed more. Case in point? Hidayet Türkoğlu better known as Hedo.

Except for the fans who have called for the Suns to tank for draft purposes. And hope that the FO doesn't keep making bad decisions.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
27,599
Reaction score
9,920
Location
L.A. area
Not having to play Beasley would help the rest of the roster succeed more.

Beasley's minutes are already down to single digits. He's not interfering with anyone's development. And he's one of the youngest players on the roster! Do you really want to "develop" Scola at the expense of Beasley?

Hidayet Türkoğlu better known as Hedo.

You lost me. How did trading Turkoglu and Richardson help other players succeed more? Which ones did, exactly? The traded netted the Suns Gortat, which was nice, but they were saddled with even worse wings in Carter and Pietrus for the rest of that season. Turkoglu's contract was a monstrosity and the Suns were up against the luxury tax line, so getting him off the books was huge, but the financial situation with Beasley isn't remotely similar.
 
OP
OP
Mainstreet

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
120,124
Reaction score
60,704
All sports personnel decisions are gambles. The great GM's have a great track record. The good GM's have a good track record. And the bad (less skilled) GM's have a bad track record.

I agree that the decision makers in the Suns FO be held accountable for assembling an incomplete, dysfunctional roster. And I give credit to the Coach for squeezing the most he can out of it for the past two seasons.

However, for fans in the Valley, as in most cities, this isn't Chicago. There are no lovable losers.

I have no doubt the Suns GM(s) fall in the latter category. The Suns should hire the best scouts and FO staff including the GM position first, then worry about player personnel second. I think they would actually save money in the long run which should be to Sarver's liking. I do not think Gentry (who I think is a good coach) will survive this fiasco. As you say, good GMs have a good track record.
 
OP
OP
Mainstreet

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
120,124
Reaction score
60,704
Yes. Seriously, what better options do the Suns have? No one is going to give up a quality player for anyone on the roster, whether Beasley is part of the deal or not. From a trade standpoint, the Suns have one of the least appealing rosters in the entire league -- in fact it could well be dead last. What does it cost them to invest another year or two in figuring out whether Beasley can get it?

I totally agree,

From a trade standpoint, the Suns have one of the least appealing rosters in the entire league -- in fact it could well be dead last.

Maybe it's just me, but I like to move on from mistakes quickly. I do not like to have them staring at me. :)

I see your perspective though.
 

BC867

Long time Phoenician!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
17,827
Reaction score
1,709
Location
NE Phoenix
You lost me. How did trading Turkoglu and Richardson help other players succeed more?
When I posted "addition by subtraction", I was referring to Steve's earlier comments in this thread: "This team is mediocre without Beasley. But this team is horrible with Beasley. Every team has runs, every team has momentum shifts but playing Beasley almost guarantees that the opposing team gets one extra momentum shift, one extra run and our team is just not good enough to spot the opponents that unnecessary advantage." Between Beasley's sloppy defense and disappointing offense, any time he spends on the court turns us into a 5-on-4, and not in our favor.
 
Last edited:

Superbone

Phoenix native; Lifelong Suns Fan
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Posts
6,481
Reaction score
3,716
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Eddie is trying to convince somebody (the audience?) that the Suns will come back in this one. We're only down by 9 points but I don't think we win this one. Fortunately for the Suns, I'm rarely right when I predict.

Steve

Yeah, I knew we were losing this one. It was just their body language whereas I knew we were going to beat the 76ers.
 

Superbone

Phoenix native; Lifelong Suns Fan
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Posts
6,481
Reaction score
3,716
Location
Phoenix, AZ
It's simple, really. I mean it, it's very simple. If you want to improve the starting lineup, don't start Beasley. If you want to improve the bench, don't use Beasley off the bench. As I said, it's simple. Unless of course you're required to give Beasley some minutes in which case you're simply screwed.

This team is mediocre without Beasley. But this team is horrible with Beasley. Every team has runs, every team has momentum shifts but playing Beasley almost guarantees that the opposing team gets one extra momentum shift, one extra run and our team is just not good enough to spot the opponents that unnecessary advantage.

Steve

This.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
558,180
Posts
5,453,091
Members
6,336
Latest member
FKUCZK15
Top