Knight Deal Agreed Upon ? 5 yrs 70 Mil ? W/Suns

[3rdside]

I probably should have said "I can't say I blame him for thinking that" but..

I can.

Totally false characterization of last summer. They made a reasonable offer, always said they would negotiate that number, and settled on a number a little higher than they originally offered but less than Bledsoe was asking for to begin with.

We low balled Bledsoe at 4yr/$48m, naturally offsiding the guy in the process (he even said "the suns are using the system against me" - or words to that effect) only to then apparently spaz out increasing the offer to 5yr/$70m i.e 1yr longer and 17% higher per year. Bledsoe did pretty well then but maybe the extra year works in the Suns' favour with the salary cap increase. It definitely left me and plenty others thinking the FO are a bit weird.

They traded Ennis to get who they thought was a better player in Knight.

They traded Ennis and the Lakers pick - the jury's out on this one still but is looking like a good trade for us depending on your view of the Lakers next season.

They have not chosen Knight over Bledsoe. Per the report they are planning on paying them about the same. All indications by the Suns so far is that they plan on playing and paying them both.

If they trade Bledsoe they will have, and in light of McD going from some PG's to way too many PG's back to one PG...would also look a little strange considering how much trouble it caused this club. This last one's conjecture at this point but the Bledsoe rumours aren't disappearing (assuming they're legit in the first place..)

 

[JCSunsfan]

I probably should have said "I can't say I blame him for thinking that" but..



We low balled Bledsoe at 4yr/$48m, naturally offsiding the guy in the process (he even said "the suns are using the system against me" - or words to that effect) only to then apparently spaz out increasing the offer to 5yr/$70m i.e 1yr longer and 17% higher per year. Bledsoe did pretty well then but maybe the extra year works in the Suns' favour with the salary cap increase. It definitely left me and plenty others thinking the FO are a bit weird.
)

That's not low-balling. They started negotiations at $12 million per year, Paul said they wanted $16 per year. They settled for $14.

I think the Suns were genuinely surpised Bledsoe wanted a 5 year deal. They assumed he wanted a 4 year deal so he could renegotiate when the cap rises. The 5 year deal works to the Suns advantage.

Those are classic negotiating steps.

 

[3rdside]

That's not low-balling. They started negotiations at $12 million per year, Paul said they wanted $16 per year. They settled for $14.

I think the Suns were genuinely surpised Bledsoe wanted a 5 year deal. They assumed he wanted a 4 year deal so he could renegotiate when the cap rises. The 5 year deal works to the Suns advantage.

Those are classic negotiating steps.

Maybe but I don't think anyone appreciated the 3 month silence which was indicative of a low ball even though it was what Kyle Lowry got paid. I thought we should have opened with 4/$52m to avoid the silence but perhaps we would have finished on $14m per anyway.

I guess it was the 'optics' that looked bad - a low ball offer (which wasn't really) to paying over the top (which we might not have considering where the cap will be).

Interesting.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Maybe but I don't think anyone appreciated the 3 month silence which was indicative of a low ball even though it was what Kyle Lowry got paid. I thought we should have opened with 4/$52m to avoid the silence but perhaps we would have finished on $14m per anyway.

I guess it was the 'optics' that looked bad - a low ball offer (which wasn't really) to paying over the top (which we might not have considering where the cap will be).

Interesting.

There was nothing that was going to avoid that silence except giving Rich Paul everything he wanted up front. That was all on Rich Paul.

 

[SweetD]

Funny how one rumor starts to turn into the Suns dumping Bledsoe.

The way McD and Horney have come out and denied the rumors is telling. Especially after what Goran bitched about last year.

 

[KloD]

Funny how one rumor starts to turn into the Suns dumping Bledsoe.

The way McD and Horney have come out and denied the rumors is telling. Especially after what Goran bitched about last year.

Yes, but to hear some on this board, there are lots of rumors and all that smoke has to mean fire. Of course these same folks can't differentiate between one rumor being repeated and several different rumors. Apparently logic must be checked in at the door when posting on a message board.

 

[elindholm]

Of course these same folks can't differentiate between one rumor being repeated and several different rumors.

Or, can't differentiate between a "legitimate rumor" (whatever that is) and something that somebody made up in order to have something to post. Here's a great example that I just came across:

http://www.thebirdwrites.com/2015/6...-deandre-jordan-demarcus-cousins-trade-rumors

The URL says "rumors," and the subtitle says "potential trade." But it's entirely the author's creation. He even says toward the end that "there is no real noise behind it" -- with the word "real" strategically included in order to suggest the possibility of wiggle room. ("Hmm, no real noise, but there's still some kind of noise, right?")

That article was posted a week ago and I guess it failed to catch fire, but it wouldn't surprise me if it had. A couple of other people decide to run with "three-team Cousins trade rumor," and there you go.

 

[Covert Rain]

Yes, but to hear some on this board, there are lots of rumors and all that smoke has to mean fire. Of course these same folks can't differentiate between one rumor being repeated and several different rumors. Apparently logic must be checked in at the door when posting on a message board.

Yet to hear others on this board, they also check out logic wise and believe everything the FO says publicly hook line and sinker despite a long history of front offices in sports not being exactly up and up with the public.

Or, can't differentiate between a "legitimate rumor" (whatever that is) and something that somebody made up in order to have something to post. Here's a great example that I just came across:

http://www.thebirdwrites.com/2015/6...-deandre-jordan-demarcus-cousins-trade-rumors

The URL says "rumors," and the subtitle says "potential trade." But it's entirely the author's creation. He even says toward the end that "there is no real noise behind it" -- with the word "real" strategically included in order to suggest the possibility of wiggle room. ("Hmm, no real noise, but there's still some kind of noise, right?")

That article was posted a week ago and I guess it failed to catch fire, but it wouldn't surprise me if it had. A couple of other people decide to run with "three-team Cousins trade rumor," and there you go.

You definitely have to bother to actually figure out if this is just a blogger throwing out his opinion versus someone who is a legit reporter claiming to have inside sources with teams in the know. I don't put any stock in opinion pieces. Also, I know sometimes people put stuff out there just to spark discussion on the board. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Chaplin]

Yet to hear others on this board, they also check out logic wise and believe everything the FO says publicly hook line and sinker despite a long history of front offices in sports not being exactly up and up with the public.

And yet, you have no problem believing, at least in part, unsubstantiated rumors coming from outside the team. You can't have it both ways.

 

[KloD]

Or, can't differentiate between a "legitimate rumor" (whatever that is) and something that somebody made up in order to have something to post. Here's a great example that I just came across:

http://www.thebirdwrites.com/2015/6...-deandre-jordan-demarcus-cousins-trade-rumors

The URL says "rumors," and the subtitle says "potential trade." But it's entirely the author's creation. He even says toward the end that "there is no real noise behind it" -- with the word "real" strategically included in order to suggest the possibility of wiggle room. ("Hmm, no real noise, but there's still some kind of noise, right?")

That article was posted a week ago and I guess it failed to catch fire, but it wouldn't surprise me if it had. A couple of other people decide to run with "three-team Cousins trade rumor," and there you go.

There you go... a few on this board are likely reposting it to any and every basketball message board in their mad attempt to be the first to bring this big "news" to the group. Hell, I'd be surprised if they didn't title the thread as an imminent trade. These are the same folks who love to declare the Suns 2 PG system a failure. They base their claim that it failed due to player selfishness and prima donna attitude, they even try to legitimize it. All while ignoring stats that show when the players shut up and play, it worked. At times it's funny, but mostly it hurts my head.

 

[Covert Rain]

And yet, you have no problem believing, at least in part, unsubstantiated rumors coming from outside the team. You can't have it both ways.

You can't? So as you state it...if a rumor hits...you either believe it or not? That's ludicrous. All trade scenarios are rumor until they happen. They are all unsubstantiated until they happen or the FO admits it which is rare.

I have never claimed that any of the trade scenarios are completely accurate or legit. I have only said that when someones name keeps coming up there must be something to it....at least exploration of a trade. Yet somehow in your mind that is unreasonable.

 

[KloD]

Yet to hear others on this board, they also check out logic wise and believe everything the FO says publicly hook line and sinker despite a long history of front offices in sports not being exactly up and up with the public.

Show us an example of a member of this board doing so. Sounds like yet another claim without merit. Perception, while important is not fact. I've seen nobody do what you claim, but I've seen a few throwing around a ton of nonsense.

 

[Covert Rain]

Show us an example of a member of this board doing so. Sounds like yet another claim without merit. Perception, while important is not fact. I've seen nobody do what you claim, but I've seen a few throwing around a ton of nonsense.

There have been multiple comments from folks quoting the FO or referring to their comments about not shopping Bledsoe. Chaz has done it. See SweetD in this thread . So you may not have seen it but that tells me you have not read through all the threads either.

It seems to me that someone taking a stance based on either position is simply an OPINION. I personally don't find issues with someone taking one stance or another. It's all good discussion and fun discussion.

P.S. In fact you just used Eric's example article to predict that someone on the board would use it as verbatim and fact. Where did that happen? Have you even bothered to ask anybody your policing rumors for if they actually believe they are legit or is that your perception?

 

[Chaplin]

You can't? So as you state it...if a rumor hits...you either believe it or not? That's ludicrous. All trade scenarios are rumor until they happen. They are all unsubstantiated until they happen or the FO admits it which is rare.

I have never claimed that any of the trade scenarios are completely accurate or legit. I have only said that when someones name keeps coming up there must be something to it....at least exploration of a trade. Yet somehow in your mind that is unreasonable.

So a rumor that starts that says, say, that we are exploring a Harden for Bledsoe trade. It starts on some obscure website and is tweeted by people and it keeps getting traction over the internet until you are hearing it from everywhere. That means there is some truth to it?

Being Suns fans, I figured we should have learned by now that most rumors, no matter how "reported" are pretty much baseless no matter who is reporting them and how much. And I think taking the same tack with front office speak is essentially the same. Only difference is we are hearing it from the horse's mouth rather than some twitter rumor. Both aren't very believable without proof, but at least the FO statements aren't coming from thin air.

 

[Covert Rain]

So a rumor that starts that says, say, that we are exploring a Harden for Bledsoe trade. It starts on some obscure website and is tweeted by people and it keeps getting traction over the internet until you are hearing it from everywhere. That means there is some truth to it?

Being Suns fans, I figured we should have learned by now that most rumors, no matter how "reported" are pretty much baseless no matter who is reporting them and how much.

Maybe you missed my earlier comment on the subject. I don't put much stock in blogs and non-reporter types. I have maintained from the start that there might be nothing to it, it could be the Suns exploring or they could be actively shopping. I personally don't know. If someone would like to prove that all of the rumors have originated from one source I am open to that. Until then there is nothing wrong with discussing IMO. Who exactly has stated any of these scenarios are cold hard facts?

 

[JCSunsfan]

So a rumor that starts that says, say, that we are exploring a Harden for Bledsoe trade. It starts on some obscure website and is tweeted by people and it keeps getting traction over the internet until you are hearing it from everywhere. That means there is some truth to it?

Being Suns fans, I figured we should have learned by now that most rumors, no matter how "reported" are pretty much baseless no matter who is reporting them and how much. And I think taking the same tack with front office speak is essentially the same. Only difference is we are hearing it from the horse's mouth rather than some twitter rumor. Both aren't very believable without proof, but at least the FO statements aren't coming from thin air.

I am all for the Harden for Bledsoe deal. I am sure they would want a little more thrown in, but maybe if it nets them Alderidge in the end, they would do it anyway.



Just figured if its going to start, it might as well be with you.

 

[Covert Rain]

I am all for the Harden for Bledsoe deal. I am sure they would want a little more thrown in, but maybe if it nets them Alderidge in the end, they would do it anyway.



Just figured if its going to start, it might as well be with you.

 

[Chaz]

There have been multiple comments from folks quoting the FO or referring to their comments about not shopping Bledsoe. Chaz has done it. See SweetD in this thread . So you may not have seen it but that tells me you have not read through all the threads either.

That isn't what you said.

Yet to hear others on this board, they also check out logic wise and believe everything the FO says publicly hook line and sinker despite a long history of front offices in sports not being exactly up and up with the public.

I would like for you to expand your reasoning beyond "where there is smoke there must be fire".
It is most likely people blowing smoke.

 

[KloD]

There have been multiple comments from folks quoting the FO or referring to their comments about not shopping Bledsoe. Chaz has done it. See SweetD in this thread . So you may not have seen it but that tells me you have not read through all the threads either.

It seems to me that someone taking a stance based on either position is simply an OPINION. I personally don't find issues with someone taking one stance or another. It's all good discussion and fun discussion.

P.S. In fact you just used Eric's example article to predict that someone on the board would use it as verbatim and fact. Where did that happen? Have you even bothered to ask anybody your policing on rumors if they actually believe they are legit or is that your perception?

No, here we go again. You claimed there are people that buy "everything" the front office says. It was your claim. I asked for examples of people who do that. You failed to provide even one person.

I've seen a few on here that start numerous threads, make a multitude of posts and fail regularly to both understand what they read and often times make claims on that misunderstanding. I can (but have no interest in) provide example after example of this. In the past few days I've seen a few refer to Bledsoe as having a bunch of trade rumors surrounding him, yet there has been one rumor repeated many times, not many. The team came out to say they fielded a call from NY, but were not interested. Seems awfully specific to be a lie or spin from the front office. If it was false, don't ya think NY couldn't quickly deny that and make the Suns look bad? Why would the Suns say that if it wasn't true? They wouldn't say anything IMO rather than flat out lie and chance looking the fool. So yes, in this situation I do tend to believe they aren't shopping Bledsoe and that they are being truthful. Don't confuse that with my buying whatever they feed. Each situation is different.

 

[Covert Rain]

That isn't what you said.

I would like for you to expand your reasoning beyond "where there is smoke there must be fire".

I was being a bit facetious and sarcastic in my response to make the point that not everything is black and white. Not everything has to be I believe 100% or don't believe 100%. I do believe when someones name comes up multiple times at the very least there is exploration talk going on. It's my opinion based on seeing similar scenarios unfold in sports.

Just like I think it's opinion that every single rumor around Bledsoe all originated from the same place. If someone can prove that, I am open to it. I have heard people say they believe it but have not seen any proof. Just like there is no proof that the rumors are true.

Why doesn't it have to be one way or the other?

No, here we go again. You claimed there are people that buy "everything" the front office says. It was your claim. I asked for examples of people who do that. You failed to provide even one person.

See my response to Chaz. I thought you were being a little ironic in your claim that:

"There you go... a few on this board are likely reposting it to any and every basketball message board in their mad attempt to be the first to bring this big "news" to the group. Hell, I'd be surprised if they didn't title the thread as an imminent trade."

I mean come on...really? Normally when I see people posts rumors it's to spark discussion and nothing more. Why is that not OK?

I've seen a few on here that start numerous threads, make a multitude of posts and fail regularly to both understand what they read and often times make claims on that misunderstanding. I can (but have no interest in) provide example after example of this.

Compared to what? How many people actually buy some rumor hook line and sinker versus want to post it for discussion? Do you know? I don't know which happens more. It's a perception thing right?

In the past few days I've seen a few refer to Bledsoe as having a bunch of trade rumors surrounding him, yet there has been one rumor repeated many times, not many. The team came out to say they fielded a call from NY, but were not interested. Seems awfully specific to be a lie or spin from the front office. If it was false, don't ya think NY couldn't quickly deny that and make the Suns look bad? Why would the Suns say that if it wasn't true? They wouldn't say anything IMO rather than flat out lie and chance looking the fool. So yes, in this situation I do tend to believe they aren't shopping Bledsoe and that they are being truthful. Don't confuse that with my buying whatever they feed. Each situation is different.

I think teams make public statements all the time to save face and not piss off players. I have said repeatedly I don't know where all the rumors are coming from only that I think there might be something to them. That's it. I mean to listen to you tell it, all of us discussing rumors feel a trade is imminent. You didn't bother asking one person you are claiming is discussing these.

For example, I said earlier the Suns shouldn't entertain any trade with Bledsoe that doesn't have a high impact player coming in return. PERIOD. I have never made a claim that a trade is imminent or that I want him gone. I think he is our best bargaining chip should we decide to move him.

 

[Chaz]

I was being a bit facetious and sarcastic in my response to make the point that not everything is black and white. Not everything has to be I believe 100% or don't believe 100%.

Yea, it is called epistemology. It is how you separate good information from bad. You have to evaluate what makes sense and the quality of the sources.

Internet and print rumors by unnamed sources don't carry as much weight to me as direct quotes from people actually in the know. If MCD or Coach want to deny or deflect they would equivocate not straight out lie about it. I have to believe that logically that their personal reputation means something to them.

 

[Covert Rain]

Yea, it is called epistemology. It is how you separate good information from bad. You have to evaluate what makes sense and the quality of the sources.

Internet and print rumors by unnamed sources don't carry as much weight to me as direct quotes from people actually in the know. If MCD or Coach want to deny or deflect they would equivocate not straight out lie about it. I have to believe that logically that their personal reputation means something to them.

Exactly. Since nobody knows the source of all these rumors how do you evaluate the quality of information? Also, if you deny the rumors and nobody can prove otherwise how does that damage ones reputation?

I think it's a pretty standard practice for GM's to pick up and answer calls or make inquiries to other GM's to discuss "what if" about players. Heck I heard Sarver admit to it before all the turnover during the Nash era.

Again, if you want to take what the FO says at face value and believe there is nothing to it....I am good with that.

 

[elindholm]

Also, if you deny the rumors and nobody can prove otherwise

You don't have to be able to prove something one way or another in order to be able to come to an informed opinion about whether it is likely to be accurate. You're playing the conspiracy theorist card that nothing can be disproved. While that's technically correct, it can lead to a lot of faulty conclusions.

In the Bledsoe-for-Harden example, anyone who follows the league would reject the idea as making no sense for Houston. And yet, with some effort, I could probably get enough of a "rumor" going that people would start quoting it. It would still be nonsense, but then we could have someone waiting in the wings ready to say, "But you can't prove it's nonsense, can you?" That's pretty much the role that you're playing with your "if there's smoke there's fire" mantra.

 

[Covert Rain]

You don't have to be able to prove something one way or another in order to be able to come to an informed opinion about whether it is likely to be accurate. You're playing the conspiracy theorist card that nothing can be disproved. While that's technically correct, it can lead to a lot of faulty conclusions.

In the Bledsoe-for-Harden example, anyone who follows the league would reject the idea as making no sense for Houston. And yet, with some effort, I could probably get enough of a "rumor" going that people would start quoting it. It would still be nonsense, but then we could have someone waiting in the wings ready to say, "But you can't prove it's nonsense, can you?" That's pretty much the role that you're playing with your "if there's smoke there's fire" mantra.

I totally agree rumors are often just that and they do lead to many faulty conclusions. However, if you see a pattern in something and draw an OPINION I don't see that as necessarily less informed.

In the specific example you brought up, you proved it's nothing more than opinion. Therefore, I personally would discount it. That is different from not understanding where something originated and discounting it all together. I would much rather discuss a lead until it's proven false. That is completely different than saying I believe the lead with 100% certainty.

What is being missed here is I have seen nobody ask anybody talking about these rumors if they think there is anything to it or what they believe. Instead I am seeing some rumor police saying that we all believe trades are imminent. IMO I see a bunch of people discussing what if's for the sake of discussion. Isn't that what discussion boards are for?

That's why even though I do think there is something to it, that is hardly conspiracy theory territory. I call that being open to the possibility. Now if I went around telling everyone a trade was immanent and that everyone was stupid for thinking otherwise? That would be different.

 

[elindholm]

However, if you see a pattern in something and draw an OPINION I don't see that as necessarily less informed.

Well no, it's not necessarily less informed. But I don't understand how you're using the word "opinion." An uninformed opinion is useless. If you were to ask me to provide an opinion on something where I have no information, I would decline, because I don't want to express an opinion that's nothing more than a wild guess.

For that matter, why should I be interested anyone else's wild guesses? You say that they can lead to discussion, but they can't, really, if they aren't based on any information. What is there to discuss? "I think the President of the United States in 2051 will be a Latin-American woman." Okay, well that's a wild guess, might happen, might not, but there's not much to discuss about it, is there?

In the specific example you brought up, you proved it's nothing more than opinion. Therefore, I personally would discount it.

I could be lying. Theoretically, I could have an inside source and only be claiming that I made it up on my own. Isn't the conspiracy theory game fun?

Where IMO, I see a bunch of people discussing what if's for the sake of discussion. That's why even though I do think there is something to it, that is hardly conspiracy theory territory.

But that doesn't follow. Whether you find something interesting to discuss shouldn't impact whether you find it credible. Advocating an idea for "the sake of discussion" is a dead end unless there's something to back it up.

I call that being open to the possibility.

Then why not be open to the Bledsoe-Harden possibility? We can "discuss" that too.