NBA Finals' Biggest Loser: Phoenix Suns Owner Robert Sarver

[AzStevenCal]

I really don't understand people trying to give Sarver much credit here. He signed checks, but it's pretty clear that team was built by Jerry and his Son and once they and the players they put together were both removed from the equation, the team has steadily declined from one of the crown jewels of the league to laughingstock in six years.

I'm not. Nowhere in here did I try and give him credit. Go back and look at the post that started this conversation. The guy (frdbtr) said that Sarver inherited a championship contending team. That's all I'm arguing against. He did not inherit a championship contending team. He's now sidestepped into a "someone else did the work" argument but I've stayed out of that.

I will say this though, we piss and moan all the time about Sarver sticking his nose into the decision making process. It seems lame to then to say he doesn't deserve an owner's amount of credit when he actually sat there and behaved like an owner. It's his job to sign checks, it's his job to be convinced by people like Jerry. It's not his job to go out and sign whoever, when he does that we end up with Hakim Warrick.

 

[Covert Rain]

So wait a minute, Bryan Colangelo, who worked for Sarver for awhile AFTER Jerry left gets all the credit for any good moves in the first couple years, but not Sarver? How does that make sense? You honestly believe Bryan was working on his own and doing these moves DESPITE Sarver? That's ludicrous!

But he's never, except for maybe those couple months before hiring Babby and Kerr, been on his own. He's always had a GM, whether it was BC or D'Antoni, Kerr or McD. If BC was the impetus of Sarver's success (and you are unwilling to give Sarver credit), then shouldn't you put all the bad things on whoever the GM was during all the bad moves during Sarver's tenure? You can't have it both ways.

Naturally he was never "on his own". That's why they call it a team. Come on Chap. You know that was not meant to be a literal statement. Sarver does get credit for writing checks. What indication is there that Sarver was responsible for anything happening while the Colangelos or the FO staff he hired were here? Sarver himself said that he was going to let things run the same while he learned the ropes. What kind of credit should he get aside from getting out of the way exactly? Sarver didn't foster any of those relationships. His knowledge about basketball didn't lead to any of those hires or trades.

Once Jerry and Bryan were gone, Sarver made his own decisions without intervention or help. He is responsible for who was put in place to run the franchise and help him make decisions. We also know by multiple counts that Sarver was knee deep in many of the teams decisions on players and draft picks in the post Jerry/Bryan era. Huge difference.

 

[Chaplin]

Naturally he was never "on his own". That's why they call it a team. Come on Chap. You know that was not meant to be a literal statement. Sarver does get credit for writing checks. What indication is there that Sarver was responsible for anything happening while the Colangelos or the FO staff he hired were here? Sarver himself said that he was going to let things run the same while he learned the ropes. What kind of credit should he get aside from getting out of the way exactly? Sarver didn't foster any of those relationships. His knowledge about basketball didn't lead to any of those hires or trades.

Once Jerry and Bryan were gone, Sarver made his own decisions without intervention or help. He is responsible for who was put in place to run the franchise and help him make decisions. We also know by multiple counts that Sarver was knee deep in many of the teams decisions on players and draft picks in the post Jerry/Bryan era. Huge difference.

You need to revise your history. BC was here when Jerry was not. You can't lump them together in this argument.

 

[Covert Rain]

You need to revise your history. BC was here when Jerry was not. You can't lump them together in this argument.

Correct if I am wrong..BC left in 2006. Jerry resigned in 2007. I seem to recall JC had plans to stick around longer but had issue with the rift between Sarver and BC. JC originally planned on staying for 5 years after the sale (through 2009). Wasn't that part of the narrative on why Jerry didn't see his contract through back then? I don't recall now, it all blurs together.

Either way that statement is ridiculous. I most certainly can. If any part of foundation built by the Colangelo's will still in place (parts and pieces) that is an appropriate part of the argument.

Since Sarver has held the reigns this team took a huge turn. That's not debatable. At any rate, IMO, I have blasted Sarver because he deserved it. I also have no problem with giving him credit as I stated the last two seasons seem to be the turning point and that credit goes to Sarver.

 

[Cheesebeef]

You need to revise your history. BC was here when Jerry was not. You can't lump them together in this argument.

You need to refresh your memory. Bryan resigned in 2006 and Jerry left after the 2007 season. Up through the 2007 season, Jerry was still Chairman and CEO.

Here's an article from the East Valley Trib back in 2006. The Title is: Bryan Colangelo leaves Suns, is Jerry next?

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/news/article_498ade1e-0da7-55c5-ac3f-f89fe6f6432c.html

 

[Chaplin]

You need to refresh your memory. Bryan resigned in 2006 and Jerry left after the 2007 season. Up through the 2007 season, Jerry was still Chairman and CEO.

Here's an article from the East Valley Trib back in 2006. The Title is: Bryan Colangelo leaves Suns, is Jerry next?

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/news/article_498ade1e-0da7-55c5-ac3f-f89fe6f6432c.html

My bad, I got the two mixed up. Sorry about that fellas.

 

[Cheesebeef]

My bad, I got the two mixed up. Sorry about that fellas.

Lol... No prob. But in future, you might not want to call people ludicrous when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Chaplin]

Lol... No prob. But in future, you might not want to call people ludicrous when you don't know what you're talking about.

You know, I'd normally get really upset at this.





But when you're right, you're right.


Even though I also do not like Sarver, I still think the amount of hate that is bestowed on him is unrealistic. He deserves some, but certainly not all.

 

[Covert Rain]

My bad, I got the two mixed up. Sorry about that fellas.

It's not a biggie Chap. Heck as I find my self getting older, details, places an events all blur for me. My wife usually keeps me in check. LOL.

P.S. I am giving Sarver much credit for the last two years.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

And the rules about free agency have changed dramatically since the days when Jerry was able to bring in big name free agents seemingly every season. It's doubtful that JC would have had much more luck in free agency today than we've had under Sarver.

Yeah, I don't agree with this. Jerry was a great recruiter. Great reputation always tried to build a winner. Wasn't an embarrassment. Players would have still come here. In fact, I think I can say with confidence that in those past six years he would have brought us some marquee names.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Sarver had the final say on the financial decisions. I agree Colangelo was the key reason we got Nash, even said so in the post you're responding to. But no matter how it's spun, that was during Sarver's tenure. Every owner has someone functioning as a GM, Jerry was ours at the start of the Sarver era and taking away all credit from Sarver for that era makes zero sense.

I'm willing to bet Sarvers only contribution to that run was saying yes and paying checks. Otherwise the ideas and influence was all jerry.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Here's the way I see it. Sarver deserves an owner's like credit for his role during the Nash years. He started taking a bigger role in the decision making process and the more he did, the more we suffered. After hitting rock bottom a few years ago, he stepped back and started acting like an owner once again. Hopefully, he'll remain uninvolved with the day to day operations of this franchise.

I'm willing to bet Sarvers only contribution to that run was saying yes and paying checks. Otherwise the ideas and influence was all jerry.

I agree, completely. That's all I want or expect from the owner. I was fine with him when he was just signing checks and providing some oversight. I think he's doing that again, giving general direction and making the final call on money issues. If he's doing any more than that, we're screwed.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Yeah, I don't agree with this. Jerry was a great recruiter. Great reputation always tried to build a winner. Wasn't an embarrassment. Players would have still come here. In fact, I think I can say with confidence that in those past six years he would have brought us some marquee names.

Well, that's your opinion versus my opinion, so who knows. But what isn't opinion is that the rules of free agency have changed, dramatically, and we aren't the only franchise that is finding it difficult to attract quality free agents. Sarver certainly has a negative reputation and I could easily see it costing us a quality free agent, I just don't think it's happened yet.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

So wait a minute, Bryan Colangelo, who worked for Sarver for awhile AFTER Jerry left gets all the credit for any good moves in the first couple years, but not Sarver? How does that make sense? You honestly believe Bryan was working on his own and doing these moves DESPITE Sarver? That's ludicrous!



But he's never, except for maybe those couple months before hiring Babby and Kerr, been on his own. He's always had a GM, whether it was BC or D'Antoni, Kerr or McD. If BC was the impetus of Sarver's success (and you are unwilling to give Sarver credit), then shouldn't you put all the bad things on whoever the GM was during all the bad moves during Sarver's tenure? You can't have it both ways.

Bryan was already employed by the Suns when Sarvers took over. And I don't think you can separate Bryan from Jerry in those first few years of transition.

Sarver hired those other front office members and coaches without input from the Colangeli. Once BOTH Colangeli were gone it was truly up to sarver and it was the first we got to see a purely sarver-run squad. And it's been pretty darn disappointing.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Well, that's your opinion versus my opinion, so who knows. But what isn't opinion is that the rules of free agency have changed, dramatically, and we aren't the only franchise that is finding it difficult to attract quality free agents. Sarver certainly has a negative reputation and I could easily see it costing us a quality free agent, I just don't think it's happened yet.

The rules have definitely changed. But the organizations with top reputations still attract the top free agents (Miami and San Antonio -and that's not just big markets) and under Colangelo the Suns were considered an organization with a top reputation. And thus, although it does come down to my opinion verses yours, that's why I think my opinion holds more water. Because despite the rules changing the general actions of FAs (going to organizations with good reputations) has remained constant. What changed to make the Suns (who were definitely an organization held in high regard under Jerry) a non-player . . . uh, Sarver.

 

[AzStevenCal]

The rules have definitely changed. But the organizations with top reputations still attract the top free agents (Miami and San Antonio -and that's not just big markets) and under Colangelo the Suns were considered an organization with a top reputation. And thus, although it does come down to my opinion verses yours, that's why I think my opinion holds more water. Because despite the rules changing the general actions of FAs (going to organizations with good reputations) has remained constant. What changed to make the Suns (who were definitely an organization held in high regard under Jerry) a non-player . . . uh, Sarver.

Dallas has a good reputation which includes the owner, front office and coaching staff and they can't land any of their targets. There are many other examples. You can't buy free agents like we used to do, most of what Jerry did is against the rules today.

None of them were superstars but we've landed plenty of quality free agents without Jerry. The well dried up when Nash got old and traded. We didn't get them because of Sarver but he didn't appear to be an obstacle then. I just don't know who we could have brought in that Jerry would have succeeded with.

We've been a bad team for awhile now and free agents don't usually want to go to bad teams in today's NBA. And they don't automatically flock to the LA's of the league any more either, look at how many suitors were devastated when Monroe went to Milwaukee (and they're all probably thankful now). As long as Sarver keeps his mouth shut (and to a lesser extent, Ryan keeps his mouth shut) I think we'll land a quality free agent when our performance becomes more appealing.

 

[Covert Rain]

The owner should be cultivating relationships around the league. It's what Jerry was so good at. He was named ambassador to the game, governor of some of the league committees. That kind of stuff goes along way when it comes to making trades, deals, attracting FO talent and even players. That's an owners responsibility. Not just signing checks. Sarver's only accomplishment up until the last two years was signing checks.

By the way, Dallas has it's own issues. Just ask Nash. The team has a reputation for cut throat negotiations or wanting to sign guys on their own terms.

 

[frdbtr]

I don't hate Sarver. I've never met him. I just don't like the way he is running what used to be my favorite sports team. I literally can't watch the Suns anymore. I get too upset with what I see on the court. The Suns don't have the talent to compete and a few draft picks aren't going to change that, unless we got a diamond in the rough this year. I don't see anything changing anytime soon. I predicted back when Jeff Hornecek was hired that he was going to be fired in a couple of years because I knew back then what is still relevant today; It doesn't matter who coaches this team, with our ownership we are going to be a perrenial bad team. I hope Sarver sells the team soon. Being realistic, I don't see that happening so I will continue to be disappointed and have to stay away from watching the Suns.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Dallas has a good reputation which includes the owner, front office and coaching staff and they can't land any of their targets. There are many other examples. You can't buy free agents like we used to do, most of what Jerry did is against the rules today.

None of them were superstars but we've landed plenty of quality free agents without Jerry. The well dried up when Nash got old and traded. We didn't get them because of Sarver but he didn't appear to be an obstacle then. I just don't know who we could have brought in that Jerry would have succeeded with.

We've been a bad team for awhile now and free agents don't usually want to go to bad teams in today's NBA. And they don't automatically flock to the LA's of the league any more either, look at how many suitors were devastated when Monroe went to Milwaukee (and they're all probably thankful now). As long as Sarver keeps his mouth shut (and to a lesser extent, Ryan keeps his mouth shut) I think we'll land a quality free agent when our performance becomes more appealing.

Here's my problem with your comments:

Essentially you're saying that bc the rules changed Jerrys tactics wouldn't work anymore. I say wrong. Jerry proved to be on top of the rules and ahead of the rest of the league in taking advantage of them. He was extremely strategic AND tactical. He also solved major problems (the drug scandal). There is a reason Jerry succeeded and it wasn't $$$ (remember, Jerry wasn't a wealthy owner), so to say he just bought players is disingenuous. He was a creative thinker and problem solver. He would have adapted and succeeded. He has done so everywhere.

And this is ignoring the fact that he was adored and respected across the league. Making Jerry a BIG positive in recruiting. While in your same post you basically state that our OWNER and GM need to shut up. In other words, they are net negatives in recruiting.

How anyone can defend Sarver is beyond me. If everyone could just admit that he's a bad owner but that maybe we all feel it's different levels of bad I could be down with that. But defending him . . . man it just feels like you're saying, "no man the titanic can hit that iceberg and keep chugging along."

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

The owner should be cultivating relationships around the league. It's what Jerry was so good at. He was named ambassador to the game, governor of some of the league committees. That kind of stuff goes along way when it comes to making trades, deals, attracting FO talent and even players. That's an owners responsibility. Not just signing checks. Sarver's only accomplishment up until the last two years was signing checks.

By the way, Dallas has it's own issues. Just ask Nash. The team has a reputation for cut throat negotiations or wanting to sign guys on their own terms.

Exactly right on BOTH points.

Cuban has shown loyalty to dirk. Otherwise he's had bad dealings with most others. Ask parsons. Ask Nash. Ask the kid from the clips who Cuban bad mouthed after he resigned with clippers. And there are a lot more. Dallas doesn't compare with what the Suns org was. Cuban is NIT Jerry.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Here's my problem with your comments:

Essentially you're saying that bc the rules changed Jerrys tactics wouldn't work anymore. I say wrong. Jerry proved to be on top of the rules and ahead of the rest of the league in taking advantage of them. He was extremely strategic AND tactical. He also solved major problems (the drug scandal). There is a reason Jerry succeeded and it wasn't $$$ (remember, Jerry wasn't a wealthy owner), so to say he just bought players is disingenuous. He was a creative thinker and problem solver. He would have adapted and succeeded. He has done so everywhere.

And this is ignoring the fact that he was adored and respected across the league. Making Jerry a BIG positive in recruiting. While in your same post you basically state that our OWNER and GM need to shut up. In other words, they are net negatives in recruiting.

How anyone can defend Sarver is beyond me. If everyone could just admit that he's a bad owner but that maybe we all feel it's different levels of bad I could be down with that. But defending him . . . man it just feels like you're saying, "no man the titanic can hit that iceberg and keep chugging along."

How many ways do I have to say that for it to register. Of course he's a bad owner. We'd be far better off if Jerry had never sold the Suns or if he'd remained as the GM after the sale. I've never suggested otherwise.

But that doesn't change the fact that the days of JC and Jerry Buss buying or seducing the top free agents are over. Players do more recruiting than GMs and Owners do. I don't doubt that we might have lost out on a quality free agent along the way if we'd been in a heads-up battle with an organization that didn't have a Robert Sarver, it's just that we haven't had that chance. Unless you want to use that to explain Aldridge away but the evidence suggests that our owner wasn't a factor in any way.

Our product on the court has been keeping the big names away, not our annoying owner. Our owner is in large part responsible for the poor product on the court so he's certainly had an influence in free agents but not in the way we're talking about.

 

[devilalum]

How many ways do I have to say that for it to register. Of course he's a bad owner. We'd be far better off if Jerry had never sold the Suns or if he'd remained as the GM after the sale. I've never suggested otherwise.

But that doesn't change the fact that the days of JC and Jerry Buss buying or seducing the top free agents are over. Players do more recruiting than GMs and Owners do. I don't doubt that we might have lost out on a quality free agent along the way if we'd been in a heads-up battle with an organization that didn't have a Robert Sarver, it's just that we haven't had that chance. Unless you want to use that to explain Aldridge away but the evidence suggests that our owner wasn't a factor in any way.

Our product on the court has been keeping the big names away, not our annoying owner. Our owner is in large part responsible for the poor product on the court so he's certainly had an influence in free agents but not in the way we're talking about.

Chicken or the egg?