Kerr is on the Bill Simmons podcast

[elindholm]

I'm just saying I can guar-damn-tee there is a contingency plan.

Yeah, it's "We just have to run more." It's Brown or no one, as far as big men who can actually contribute are concerned. D'Antoni is happy to go the distance with the current seven, and then he can always blame injuries or bad luck when his team inevitably falls short.

As I've said before, competitors fall into two categories: those who genuinely hate to lose, and those who don't actually mind it as long as they have an excuse. D'Antoni clearly falls into the second group.

 

[Rab]

I love how we assume we know more than the FO around this kind of stuff. Lets get all pissy once PJ makes a decision.

Not to mention its bad practice to say something like "If we don't get PJ, we plan on trading for (insert name here)" or "signing (insert name here)" Its in their best interest to be vague.

I guess I just have more faith in Kerr and D'Antoni than most.

Steve Kerr himself has said these things. Mike D'Antoni has said this as well. It's not us fans trying to put words in the FO's mouth.

Of course they're not going to say we will trade so and so for so and so because management doesn't do that. The fact that they said they may wait for PJ into the season, possibly through December, shows they really aren't worried about having a backup plan. Not to mention waiting on a guy that long could damage the chances they may have negotiating trades if he turns the offer down. Plus, they really don't have any desirable or tradeable assets that are available that would help us with our size problem.

To me it's worse for one to pretend there isn't anything wrong here than it is for people to realize it and discuss it. People like to think that constructive criticism is hating for some reason.

 

[azirish]

This debate gets really old. Everybody agrees that the Suns need to add a big? It is generally agreed that PJ Brown would qualify. So why don't we talk about what is really going one - a battle over money.

Yes, there is a chance that PJ really really really wants to retire and just wants to torment us. "I really hate thos Suns fans. How about I stretchthis out as long as I can so they can spend their summer in misery and prevent the team from signing somebody else".

IMHO, what is much more likely is that he knows perfectly well that the Suns need him and have plenty of cap space. The Suns don't want to spend a lot due to the luxury tax, but figures eventually they'll give in and up the ante.

IMHO, the Suns think he wants to play but is trying to pull more money out of them because he figures he has the leverage. They're pretty sure no one else is seriously in the bidding above the veteran minimum.

So rather than fret about playing the season with Marks as the only backup big, why not simply accept that this is about money. Sarver's reputation for being tight actually helps in the negotiation if PJ is just after more money because he'd know a s "softy" would give in.

Obvioulsy if PJ signs elsewhere or makes an absolutely retired declaration, then we can criticize the Suns FO and say they've messed up. But criticising them for taking a negotiating pose seems to me to be absurd.

 

[playstation]

This debate gets really old. Everybody agrees that the Suns need to add a big? It is generally agreed that PJ Brown would qualify. So why don't we talk about what is really going one - a battle over money.

Yes, there is a chance that PJ really really really wants to retire and just wants to torment us. "I really hate thos Suns fans. How about I stretchthis out as long as I can so they can spend their summer in misery and prevent the team from signing somebody else".

IMHO, what is much more likely is that he knows perfectly well that the Suns need him and have plenty of cap space. The Suns don't want to spend a lot due to the luxury tax, but figures eventually they'll give in and up the ante.

IMHO, the Suns think he wants to play but is trying to pull more money out of them because he figures he has the leverage. They're pretty sure no one else is seriously in the bidding above the veteran minimum.

So rather than fret about playing the season with Marks as the only backup big, why not simply accept that this is about money. Sarver's reputation for being tight actually helps in the negotiation if PJ is just after more money because he'd know a s "softy" would give in.

Obvioulsy if PJ signs elsewhere or makes an absolutely retired declaration, then we can criticize the Suns FO and say they've messed up. But criticising them for taking a negotiating pose seems to me to be absurd.

good post.

i think the bigger issue is that even if pj signs it won't help. why you ask?

this is how it will happen: dantoni will play the entire season with pj playing a bit part at best to "conserve" him for the playoffs. at this point, once again the team will not have practiced being able to play big for long stretches and when we play the spurs we'll lose again because of it.

most of you will disagree with me. i lived in chicago in the 90's. i watched phil jackson play luc longley, bill wennington, will perdue, etc more than i care to remember. it got the team ready for when it mattered. you take your licks in the season because the season is not a SHOWCASE for a high caliber team, it is a drawn out opportunity to prepare. the suns need to take advantage of it by playing during the season using the same strategies as though they were playing in the playoffs...

 

[Errntknght]

I don't disagree at all. I (and others) faulted Mike for that approach back when Hunter was our lightly used 'other' big.

The argument by D'Antoni supporters was that Hunter got in Amare's way so he shouldn't play them together. Of course, there was no evidence of that since they were on the floor together for a total of about 50 minutes all year - and, in fact, the team prospered in those rare minutes.

 

[azirish]

This should be another thread. The Suns system is about imposing its will on their opponents and avoiding letting the other team impose their will on them. If the Suns can force the other team to play small, the Suns win. If the other team can force the Suns to play big, they win.

Oh sure, if their other big was KG, the Suns would go big. But the truth remains, this team is designed to destroy teams that try play with a big lineup against them. Big lineups are left constantly chasing vastly quicker guys who can shoot and get by them to the basket.

The usual response is, but the bigs will kill them on the end. Not necessarily. Small lineups can play a very disruptive defensive style and take bigger teams out of their rhythm. There was an interesting example the other night when Brazil beat Canada. The game got very close and then Nene and Splitter of Brazil fouled out within 30 seconds. The announcers said that Dalembert should overwhelm the tiny Brazilian team, but the Canadians couldn't get Dalembert the ball and Brazil won going away.

Does this mean the Suns will make the small ball lineup work well enough to win the championship? I don't know. The Spurs are the only team with a big lineup capable of dealing with the Suns speed and outside shooting.

For example, the Mavs got sliced up by a Warrior's team that shoots only 36% for three and has no inside presence.

Would practicing the big lineup help the Suns against the Spurs? I'd think so, but so would forcing the Spurs to play small. I'm not convinced the Suns can force them to go small, but then again I'm not sure a big lineup can beat the Spurs either no matter how much they work on it.

But like you, I'd like to have the option.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

This should be another thread. The Suns system is about imposing its will on their opponents and avoiding letting the other team impose their will on them. If the Suns can force the other team to play small, the Suns win. If the other team can force the Suns to play big, they win.

Oh sure, if their other big was KG, the Suns would go big. But the truth remains, this team is designed to destroy teams that try play with a big lineup against them. Big lineups are left constantly chasing vastly quicker guys who can shoot and get by them to the basket.

The usual response is, but the bigs will kill them on the end. Not necessarily. Small lineups can play a very disruptive defensive style and take bigger teams out of their rhythm. There was an interesting example the other night when Brazil beat Canada. The game got very close and then Nene and Splitter of Brazil fouled out within 30 seconds. The announcers said that Dalembert should overwhelm the tiny Brazilian team, but the Canadians couldn't get Dalembert the ball and Brazil won going away.

Does this mean the Suns will make the small ball lineup work well enough to win the championship? I don't know. The Spurs are the only team with a big lineup capable of dealing with the Suns speed and outside shooting.

For example, the Mavs got sliced up by a Warrior's team that shoots only 36% for three and has no inside presence.

Would practicing the big lineup help the Suns against the Spurs? I'd think so, but so would forcing the Spurs to play small. I'm not convinced the Suns can force them to go small, but then again I'm not sure a big lineup can beat the Spurs either no matter how much they work on it.

But like you, I'd like to have the option.

if our system is completely predicated on making other teams go small it's pretty much a gimmick that a well-rounded team (also read: spurs) will repeatedly beat soundly. i'd rather we weren't so reliant on a gimmick and we could adjust to styles as the spurs do.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

if our system is completely predicated on making other teams go small it's pretty much a gimmick that a well-rounded team (also read: spurs) will repeatedly beat soundly. i'd rather we weren't so reliant on a gimmick and we could adjust to styles as the spurs do.

But we do adjust! We can go smaller, and if necessary, faster! This is the flexibility everyone is talking about!

 

[Errntknght]

I've characterized small ball as a gimmick for two decades but the Suns have won several playoff series playing that way so that designation is no longer accurate.

If you put Grant Hill in his prime on this team they would have an good chance of getting past the formidable Spurs so I do believe its possible for a team to win it all with small ball. It may not be economically feasible to put together such a team, but, in theory it could work.

 

[JCSunsfan]

But we do adjust! We can go smaller, and if necessary, faster! This is the flexibility everyone is talking about!

That's the Suns motto. Put on the unis and letterhead.

Smaller, Faster, Cheaper!

 

[elindholm]

The Spurs are the only team with a big lineup capable of dealing with the Suns speed and outside shooting.

The problem with this analysis is that it overlooks the fact that the Spurs ended up playing "small" most of the time in the Suns series, and won anyway. Oberto gave them little and I can't even remember who the other center on their roster was, so it was typically Duncan in the middle and wings (including Horry, whose natural position is SF) manning both forward spots.

The difference is that the Spurs' version of small is anchored by a big man who (a) is a great rebounder, (b) is a great interior defender, and (c) never gets called for a foul, so he can always be on the court when his team really needs him. Stoudemire can't meet any of those three critical criteria.

It also helps that the Spurs have multiple players who can attack the defense off the dribble, with Parker and Ginobili of course being the headliners. The Suns have one, Nash. (Barbosa's ball handling isn't reliable in a bump-and-grind playoff series, and let's not even talk about Diaw.) Hill may help if he is healthy come playoff time, but it's unrealistic to hope that he'll be at the level of Ginobili, never mind Parker.

Ironically, what should have been the Suns' advantage against the Spurs was that they had two big men who could really contribute. Unlike Oberto or the other Spurs stiffs, Thomas actually had to be guarded, and when he was in the game along with Stoudemire, the Suns' offense flowed more smoothly as a result.

"Forcing" the Spurs to go small absolutely will not work. They are happy to do it, and they are better at it than the Suns are.

 

[Ballamania]

The problem with this analysis is that it overlooks the fact that the Spurs ended up playing "small" most of the time in the Suns series, and won anyway. Oberto gave them little and I can't even remember who the other center on their roster was, so it was typically Duncan in the middle and wings (including Horry, whose natural position is SF) manning both forward spots.

The difference is that the Spurs' version of small is anchored by a big man who (a) is a great rebounder, (b) is a great interior defender, and (c) never gets called for a foul, so he can always be on the court when his team really needs him. Stoudemire can't meet any of those three critical criteria.

It also helps that the Spurs have multiple players who can attack the defense off the dribble, with Parker and Ginobili of course being the headliners. The Suns have one, Nash. (Barbosa's ball handling isn't reliable in a bump-and-grind playoff series, and let's not even talk about Diaw.) Hill may help if he is healthy come playoff time, but it's unrealistic to hope that he'll be at the level of Ginobili, never mind Parker.

Ironically, what should have been the Suns' advantage against the Spurs was that they had two big men who could really contribute. Unlike Oberto or the other Spurs stiffs, Thomas actually had to be guarded, and when he was in the game along with Stoudemire, the Suns' offense flowed more smoothly as a result.

"Forcing" the Spurs to go small absolutely will not work. They are happy to do it, and they are better at it than the Suns are.

couldnt have said it any better.

 

[azirish]

This season Horry played 20 minutes a game in the four games he played:

Game 1 - 28 minutes
Game 2 - 17 minutes
Game 3 - 23 minutes
Game 4 - 12 minutes

I was surprised to find that Oberto played only 13.7 minutes and Elson 11.0 minutes per game.

You could make a case that the Spurs beat the Suns by playing small in that they 7 more three point shots than the Suns (Spurs 44 of 122 versus 37 of 89). For the season, the Suns hit 190 more threes than the Spurs, so the Spurs ability to limit the Suns three point shooting was a huge factor in the the Spurs victory.

As the Spurs went smaller to take away the Suns three point shooting, Amare began to heat up.

Game 1 20 points
Game 2 27 points
Game 3 21 points in 21 minutes
Game 4 26 points
Game 6 38 points

IMHO, the Suns did not work hard enough to get Amare the ball and force the Spurs to foul him. The Spurs attacked Amare at every opportunity, but the Suns did not do the same to Duncan. In Game 2 when the Suns got Duncan into foul trouble, the Suns blew the Spurs out.

But none of this matters if the Suns do not learn how to play small ball defense. For some reason, they do not understand that when you double team a player that every other players needs to go immediately into denial mode to cut down the passing lanes - especially in the paint. The only open man should be the guy on the opposite side of the court. Unfortunately, they'd leave Parker open in the paint which was a disaster.

Another problem with their small ball defense is that they do a terrible job of denying the ball to Duncan. I'm not sure what the exact problem is, but the Spurs know much more about making entry passes than the Suns do. A lot of it seems to be that they do not rely on the PG to get the ball inside, but do a lot more entry stuff from the wings.

Clearly it would b a lot easier if Amare could play post defense without fouling. It's hard because Amare still does not understand that defense starts with footwork and that at the low post jumping is a liability. I would suggests the Suns bring in a guy like Cowens to teach "post play for short centers".

I'm not saying any of this is better than getting a low post defender. However, they will end up playing small at least some and need to a much better job of execution on the defnsive end. There is no margin for error.

 

[sly fly]

The problem with this analysis is that it overlooks the fact that the Spurs ended up playing "small" most of the time in the Suns series, and won anyway. Oberto gave them little and I can't even remember who the other center on their roster was, so it was typically Duncan in the middle and wings (including Horry, whose natural position is SF) manning both forward spots.

The difference is that the Spurs' version of small is anchored by a big man who (a) is a great rebounder, (b) is a great interior defender, and (c) never gets called for a foul, so he can always be on the court when his team really needs him. Stoudemire can't meet any of those three critical criteria.

It also helps that the Spurs have multiple players who can attack the defense off the dribble, with Parker and Ginobili of course being the headliners. The Suns have one, Nash. (Barbosa's ball handling isn't reliable in a bump-and-grind playoff series, and let's not even talk about Diaw.) Hill may help if he is healthy come playoff time, but it's unrealistic to hope that he'll be at the level of Ginobili, never mind Parker.

Ironically, what should have been the Suns' advantage against the Spurs was that they had two big men who could really contribute. Unlike Oberto or the other Spurs stiffs, Thomas actually had to be guarded, and when he was in the game along with Stoudemire, the Suns' offense flowed more smoothly as a result.

"Forcing" the Spurs to go small absolutely will not work. They are happy to do it, and they are better at it than the Suns are.

The only difference between PHX and SA is that SA has Tim Duncan. And, they had a Tim Duncan who started playing like the best player in the NBA once again. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[tobiazz]

Agree 100%

I'm just saying lets see how this all pans out. If we somehow do replace KT with PJ at 1/7 the salary we will all be singing how Sarver and Kerr are geniuses.

We will be singing that Sarver and Kerr are geniuses for trading two unprotected first round draft picks to cut down KT's salary to 1/7th? When those drafts roll by will we also be cheering about how those several million dollars are being spent by the multimillionaire Suns investors? If the most exciting thing the Suns can do to build for the future is save money, then my interest in the team will disappear soon. I'm barely interested in watching next season as it is.

 

[goldseraph]

whats the fascination with Kurt Thomas here. There seems to be a group of guys that think he is the best thing since sliced bread, and that trading him was some huge sin. You guys need a reality check, hes a past his prime, undersized big with limited athleticism. Yes he can shoot a mid range jump shot, yes he can play ok defense and rebound, that's about it. I don't see KT as much better than say, Tony Battie. No, he is not part of our core. The core is what holds the team together - that's obviously Nash, Amare, Marion.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

I think the vast majority of posters here are ok with KT gone.

I was completely content with moving him. Having no backup plan in the works was the frustrating part.

 

[Bufalay]

whats the fascination with Kurt Thomas here. There seems to be a group of guys that think he is the best thing since sliced bread, and that trading him was some huge sin. You guys need a reality check, hes a past his prime, undersized big with limited athleticism. Yes he can shoot a mid range jump shot, yes he can play ok defense and rebound, that's about it. I don't see KT as much better than say, Tony Battie. No, he is not part of our core. The core is what holds the team together - that's obviously Nash, Amare, Marion.

He's actually an excellent defender and rebounder. That is MUCH different than being OK as you said.

 

[Gaddabout]

He's actually an excellent defender and rebounder. That is MUCH different than being OK as you said.

I'll split the difference and say he was somewhere between excellent and OK. And the frustrating part was: (a) the Suns have no one else like him. No one. They officially have no ability to go big. (b) it cost the Suns two first-round picks to unload him.

KT does look like "the best thing since sliced bread" when you literally have no one else like him on the roster and you're facing guarding Tim Duncan as the major obstacle to a championship.

 

[azirish]

In our constant "woulda, coulda, shoulda" goes back to the signing of Q. He still has some fans, but it turns out he was a terrible signing even before it turned out he has a back injury. He did contribute the year he was here, but it turns out he is unmoveable and the Knicks cannot even pretend to get rid of his contract. KT cost more per year, but had two fewer years.

Signing Q had a second effect in that it set in play the eventual JJ disaster. Partly Saver was freaked by the thought of giving out three major contracts at once, but also that JJ rightly believed himself to be worth more than Q. He was right.

But wait, there's more. The cap space the Suns used to sign Q came from using a pick to unload Jahidi White and from the trading out of the #7 pick. In short, it was a combo diaster. KT is just an after echo that would have been worse if they had kept Q.

It is hard to work out from under blunders. 2004 is memorable for one brilliant move in signing Nash and terrible moves leading up to and including signing Q. In a weird way, the signing of Kt was a form of a salary dump two years ago.

 

[elindholm]

It is hard to work out from under blunders.

Absolutely. That's why it's important to avoid them in advance, rather than say "Well we had to because of (insert short-sighted reason here)."

I wouldn't blame the Richardson signing on Johnson's departure, though. Remember, Sarver offered to match Atlanta's offer, so he was willing to pay for his earlier mistake and give Johnson what he wanted. Johnson wanted to be The Man, and there's no way that was ever going to happen on the Suns, regardless of his salary. (Well, ironically, he perhaps could have been The Man once Stoudemire was lost to microfracture.)

It's funny how things work out, or don't. Had Sarver been stubborn and kept Johnson against his will, the Suns never would have gotten Diaw. And since all of the other assets in the Atlanta trade have now been sold off (or are about to be), it's basically a max contract for Johnson vs. Diaw's current deal. Right now we'd have to say the Suns would have been better off with Johnson -- unless Barbosa would have also been axed, in which case it's a much harder call.

Still, I can't fault management for making decisions that seem correct at the time. Once in a while they do something that's obviously a mistake from the get-go, and it's fair to criticize them for that. Delaying Johnson's extension, then letting him go, and then rewarding Diaw all seemed like the right things to do, or at least coin flips. I'll be critical of a move that looks wrong when it's made, but I won't play the 20-20 hindsight gotcha game.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Absolutely. That's why it's important to avoid them in advance, rather than say "Well we had to because of (insert short-sighted reason here)."

I wouldn't blame the Richardson signing on Johnson's departure, though. Remember, Sarver offered to match Atlanta's offer, so he was willing to pay for his earlier mistake and give Johnson what he wanted. Johnson wanted to be The Man, and there's no way that was ever going to happen on the Suns, regardless of his salary. (Well, ironically, he perhaps could have been The Man once Stoudemire was lost to microfracture.)

It's funny how things work out, or don't. Had Sarver been stubborn and kept Johnson against his will, the Suns never would have gotten Diaw. And since all of the other assets in the Atlanta trade have now been sold off (or are about to be), it's basically a max contract for Johnson vs. Diaw's current deal. Right now we'd have to say the Suns would have been better off with Johnson -- unless Barbosa would have also been axed, in which case it's a much harder call.

Still, I can't fault management for making decisions that seem correct at the time. Once in a while they do something that's obviously a mistake from the get-go, and it's fair to criticize them for that. Delaying Johnson's extension, then letting him go, and then rewarding Diaw all seemed like the right things to do, or at least coin flips. I'll be critical of a move that looks wrong when it's made, but I won't play the 20-20 hindsight gotcha game.

Its so hard to know what actually would have happened. I seriously doubt, if we had kept JJ, that we would still have Marion on the roster. In fact, we'd be dealing alot more picks to move salary. I also doubt we would have resigned Barbosa, but maybe Barbosa would not have developed as much with the drop in playing time that would have occured with JJ still on the roster.

Certainly we would not have Raja.

I am with you. You have to make moves that seem right at the moment, but do consider longterm value.

Dealing picks for cash seems very short sighted--whether its in straight up deals or in order to move a player's contract. Not only is KT a very under rated interior defender, he is in the last year of his contract. I could see dealing picks to move longer paper, but two-first rounders to move a one year deal is just nuts.

I am assuming they really thought they could get PJ Brown, which if he is a step down, is not much of one for the money savings. But that doesn't look like its working out.

 

[Mainstreet]

Dealing picks for cash seems very short sighted--whether its in straight up deals or in order to move a player's contract. Not only is KT a very under rated interior defender, he is in the last year of his contract. I could see dealing picks to move longer paper, but two-first rounders to move a one year deal is just nuts.

You caught lightning in a bottle here. The Suns use first round picks like loose money on a Saturday night. The Suns should have planned to eat some LT for one year for the benefit of future years of prosperity. I fear the Suns FO chooses the easy way out of situations whereas BC was more creative.

 

[asudevil83]

I think the vast majority of posters here are ok with KT gone.

I was completely content with moving him. Having no backup plan in the works was the frustrating part.

same here. but giving him up for 2 firsts did hurt.

and without a touch inside defender to replace KT, i just see the suns getting run over in the paint and Amare/Diaw getting quick fouls night in and night out.

 

[azirish]

The great irony with Diaw is that they could have had him for a first round pick at any time. The Hawks were (probably still are) pretty clueless and had all but given up on him. They were shocked the Suns asked for him rather than Josh Smith or Childress.