Overall, we've had a good offseason. Right Kerr/Sarver bashers?

[elindholm]

When Amare was taken I don't remember any mock that had him in the lottery

Wow, where do you come up with this stuff? The first one I looked up just now had him at 12:

http://nbadraft.net/mocks/2002_nba_mock_draft.html

and I'm sure that wasn't the only one.

Stoudemire's selection wasn't a surprise to this board either, as they selected him in the voting mock draft. (I'll admit it was a surprise to me, since I had unhappily resigned myself to Jeffries, but I'm about the furthest thing from a draft expert, so I don't count.)

 

[elindholm]

Hmm, it's funny to look at that list now and see how many players the mock got wrong but who are now with the team that was predicted to draft them!

Nene -- drafted by Knicks, now with Nuggets (draft-day trade)
Jeffries -- drafted by Wizards, now with Knicks
Rush -- drafted by Raptors, now with Pacers
Boozer -- drafted by Cavaliers, now with Jazz

 

[Irish]

Wow, where do you come up with this stuff? The first one I looked up just now had him at 12:

http://nbadraft.net/mocks/2002_nba_mock_draft.html

and I'm sure that wasn't the only one.

Stoudemire's selection wasn't a surprise to this board either, as they selected him in the voting mock draft. (I'll admit it was a surprise to me, since I had unhappily resigned myself to Jeffries, but I'm about the furthest thing from a draft expert, so I don't count.)

There are an awful lot of mocks and unfortunately most go away soon after the draft. I wish they stayed around longer so it would be easier to track who was accurate and who wasn't. It is also hard because the only thing nbadraft.net will store is their last mock even though they didn't list somebody there in the weeks preceeding the draft.

I'm not saying there weren't some mocks listing Amare better than 15, but at the time I thought he was a real reach at #9 because so many mocks had him a lot lower than #9. Sometimes they know what they are talking about and often they don't.

Just out of curiosity, I checked who nbadraft.net thought the Suns would take at #15 this year. They had Chalmers who instead fell to #34. Oddly enough, I think there would be a lot less controversy if they had taken Chalmers.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I didn't reply because you analogy is simplistic and absurd. And you know it. I understand where you are coming from and while I might not disagree with you, there's not a lot I can say to make you change your mind.

it was simplistic and absurd to prove a point. a point that you apparently refuse to address. if the suns acquired pg-X and c-Y they succeeded according to you. doesn't matter who X and Y are, right? as long as the suns like 'em and sell X & Y to you, they succeeded, right? so what if it was ed stokes for center and jason gardner? that's not as absurd as me and cheese. they played the positions in bigtime college hoops and maybe kerr thought they could still squeeze something outta them. X & Y would be filled. is that a success?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I wonder why Chap thought that was insulting?

i used his words, not my own.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Situation is not even comparable. You know what your going to get in Lebron. He is a tier 1 player. There is no doubt what he would bring to the table. Comparing a signing of a player where you know what your getting to someone with no NBA experience is not a good analogy.

If we signed 4 players in the offseason the equivalent of Sean Marks caliber (including some crappy backup PG), people would be skewering the Suns right now. There is not a person on this board that would be saying "A" or hey we got a backup PG so "goal met". According to that logic we should. On what planet would that be considered a successful offseason?

There is no way to judge if your offseason was a success until you see how those players perform. However, if you did sign players and you knew what you were getting I could buy people making a logical conclusion. For instance, if we had signed 4 players similar to Matt Barnes level and someone wanted to give the Suns an "A" or a "B", I could understand that. When 2 of the players your signing have zero NBA experience, that's when I don't understand an "A" or a "B". Let alone saying "goal met".

The Suns had offseason plans. Those plans may have been executed. However, their goal is to have players contribute (especially at the backup PG). Their goal is to win a title. There is no way to know if your going to meet either of those goals until the players play.

well put. thank you.

 

[nowagimp]

I wonder how much D'Antoni sympathizers attribute the awards these players got to coaching and how much to the players own abilities and mix with the other players.

Nash, All star, MVP
Stoudemire, Rookie of the year, All star, All NBA first team
Marion, All star, consistant 20/10
Diaw most improved player
Barbosa 6th man of the year
Bell All NBA defensive team
Hill Rookie of the year, All star
Shaq Rookie of the year, All star, MVP

How much credit goes to the coach if the coach says it is not his job to develope players?

Each case you have there is different.

Nash: Everyone knows what nash was in dallas, and he was way better on the suns. I think he found his offense, dallas offense was alot of isos, and they had no post player worth a crap to run the pick and roll. So its DA offense+ complememntary players.

Amare: definitely arrived totally raw and has developed an outstanding all around game with hard work(on offense at least) and the coaching of ivaroni(mostly). this one coaching gets credit, he was so raw.

Bell: was an outstanding defender and a good shooter before joining the suns. coaching had little impact here. raja cut his NBA teth defending kobe int he finals as a rook(damn, thats a tough job). Bellworks so hard onm D, most NBA playuers dont have a clue.

Diaw: when the suns had shooters and diaw was used heavily when amare was out, he was very productive, at the very least, the offense helped alot. Coaching? I dunno, I kind of blame both atlanta and the suns for not properly using/developing him. This was partly due to the general logjam at his position in atl, and his apparent incompatibility with amare here.

Shaq and hill: were dominant college players that were NBA ready coming in. Hill had a great college coach at duke and shaq is shaq, strongest NBA player ever with a soft touch around the rim.

 

[BC867]

I think a monkey could do almost as good of a job of getting beat in the playoffs with this much talent around a guy like Nash as D'antoni did.

And that's the bottom line. He didn't prepare his teams for playoff success or develop his players beyond their existing skills.

Although his regular season teams were exciting on offense (until the league caught up with it), his overall results didn't change my early opinion of him.

D'Antoni is a one-dimensional coach with a gimmick, in a rather complex sport.

Does anyone have a doubt that Terry Porter will be a much more complete Head Coach for the Suns? He may make some mistakes, but he addresses the big picture. D'Antoni did not.

 

[Irish]

And that's the bottom line. He didn't prepare his teams for playoff success or develop his players beyond their existing skills.

Although his regular season teams were exciting on offense (until the league caught up with it), his overall results didn't change my early opinion of him.

D'Antoni is a one-dimensional coach with a gimmick, in a rather complex sport.

Does anyone have a doubt that Terry Porter will be a much more complete Head Coach for the Suns? He may make some mistakes, but he addresses the big picture. D'Antoni did not.

Actually, D'Antoni did get his team ready for the playoffs, just not for the Spurs.

In a thread I started a few weeks ago, I noted that last season over their last 20 games, the Suns reduced their opponent shooting percentage from 45.9% to 44.8% once they stopped having everybody out of position. You can draw a variety of conclusions from that.

IMHO the problem for the Suns has been to sustain their offense while still playing defense. A lot of teams get defense only by having very poor offensive stats. Here are the regular season stats for the other 7 Western Playoff teams:

Houston - Offense 44.8% Defense 43.3%
Dallas - Offense 46.4% Defense 44.3%
San Antonio - Offense 45.7% Defense 44.4%
Lakers - Offense 47.6% Defense 44.5%
Denver - Offense 47.0% Defense 45.7%
New Orleans - Offense 46.6% Defense 46.0%
Utah - 49.7% Defense 46.1%

New Orleans stepped up their defense a lot in the playoffs and held their opponents to just 42.5%

Utah improved their defense to 44.9% in the playoffs, but their offense shot only 44.5%

Denver did badly in the playoffs in both spheres: Offense 42.7% and 48.3% on defense.

Dallas shot 40.1% and on defense gave up 48.5%.

The Suns defensive problems with the Spurs were what killed them. The Suns shot 46.1% in tha series but let the Spurs shoot 46.7%. By comparison the Spurs only shot 44.3% against the Hornets but won when the Hornets shot only 44.9%.

In the playoffs, the Suns had the 4th best shooting percentage without playing a weak defensive team; but let the Spurs shoot well above their season and playoff avreage.

With mostly the same personnel, the Suns should be able to shoot, but the teams that played good defense did the best. Hardly news, but defense has to be a much bigger priority than it was with D'Antoni.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

Has anyone considered that Suns fans and their high expectations is actually forcing Sarver to bend his philospophy? I think it has had an impact, Suns fans continue to hammer Sarver for being cheap, and it's probably in his DNA to fight that and to a degree is the reason we are a salary cap payer. I think it provides a nice heck and balance, something that's kind of rare out west.

 

[SirStefan32]

Has anyone considered that Suns fans and their high expectations is actually forcing Sarver to bend his philospophy? I think it has had an impact, Suns fans continue to hammer Sarver for being cheap, and it's probably in his DNA to fight that and to a degree is the reason we are a salary cap payer. I think it provides a nice heck and balance, something that's kind of rare out west.

I would guess than Sarver doesn't give a rat's ass about you or me calling him cheap. Sarver is a businessman- doesn't want to pay more than he has to, but will do so if there is a good reason for it.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

I would guess than Sarver doesn't give a rat's ass about you or me calling him cheap. Sarver is a businessman- doesn't want to pay more than he has to, but will do so if there is a good reason for it.

I don't agree Sarver hates being called cheap.

"It does kind of bother me, because it's not true," Sarver said of the frugal label. "The fact that people will look at the team and say, 'I disagree that they did this or that,' is totally understandable. Some decisions we make are good ones and some aren't. To think it's about money and that we're not competitive and we don't have a strong desire to win is completely inaccurate.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Why is it that if someone disagrees with you, you and your brethren need to get insulting? People disagree, your whole "any body" comment is completely out of line, along with most of what many on this thread have been saying. I see that none of the pro-offseason people insulting the anti-offseason crowd, but hey, it certainly isn't vice versa.

you see NONE of that? Chap, are you really a ghost because as I read the above, I'm reminded of words from Cole in the 6th Sense.

"They only see what they want to see."

Here's a post from earlier in this thread from one of the "pro-offseason" guys:

"Then by your definition, wouldn't your grade be "Inccmplete"? If so, why even be on this thread? Not trying to degrade your being here, but you are so negatively adamant about everything all the time, I just wonder why you waste your time."

You know who wrote that post? YOU. Is the above not supposed to be insulting? I mean, you get up in arms about Hoover writing "any body" and yet you can throw out "SO NEGATIVELY ADAMANT ABOUT EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME" and not see you're guilty of that which what you're talking about? Am I sunshine and roses about the Suns? No. Did I say there were things I really liked about the offseason? YES. Unless you call "LOVING the Matt Barnes signing and seeing RAYS OF HOPE in regards to Sarver and his purse strings" being so negatively about EVERYTHING ALL OF THE TIME. Forgive me for being able to see two sides to a coin.

But let's move on from that. What about just lumping people into an "anti-offseason" group which completely misrepresents what they are and labels them with a negative connotation? In what universe can average (C), a little above average (C+) or incomplete be deemed ANTI OR "SUCKED" as you posed projected on to others in this thread (when it seems like only ONE person (Hoover) thinks the off-season sucked).

What about calling "the anti--offseason" people's opinions "whining"? That's not insulting? Are people supposed to take it as a compliment when they're told they're acting like babies (definition of whining: To complain or protest in a childish fashion.)

Now, let's move on from you, as apparently, George calling Anti-Robin people DISGUSTING somehow can't be deemed an insult either. Now, has there been stuff from the other side? Sure, there always is, but to say the "pro-offseason" people have done nothing like the insulting stuff the "anti-offseason" crowd season crowd is as have just doesn't hold water.

Chap, if you don't want people to insult you, I'd suggest that you:

 

[Cheesebeef]

Then by your definition, wouldn't your grade be "Inccmplete"?

I could go with that as I agreed with Griffin who said pretty much the same thing.

If so, why even be on this thread? Not trying to degrade your being here, but you are so negatively adamant about everything all the time, I just wonder why you waste your time."

Here's where you completely lose me. The thread title is:

"We've had a good offseason, right Sarver/Kerr bashers?"

So the above calls out Sarver/Kerr bashers for their opinion on whether or not the off-season was good, right? I'm no fan of Sarver/Kerr and it's my opinion that the off-season has been a average or incomplete at best at this point, thus I don't believe it's been "good". So, I'm on the thread because it called a group of people (which I identify with and am known as) out for an answer, which I gave. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when someone asks you or your group a question?

The better question I have for you is: If I'm gonna "waste my time" (which is what everyone does here) on any thread, wouldn't it make the most sense that I do so in a thread that was directed at me (a Sarver/Kerr basher)?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Okay, let's go back last year. The Suns GOALS in the off-season were to:

a) Get Grant Hill

b) improve depth

b) shed salary

c) get someone to be the backup C

d) get a backup PG for Nash

and how did they do?

a) They got Grant Hill (goal accomplished)

b) they shed salary (but lost three first round draft picks in the process along with our best interior defender and a three point shooter who helped with depth/spacing that DA's system needed... but, the GOAL was accomplished - they shed salary, damn the way they did it, but they accomplished the goal).

b) they drafted Tucker for depth at the 3 and Strawberry for depth at the 1 (goal accomplished - they added two pieces to the roster... who conversely never played or added anything to the team)

c) They signed Brian Skinner and Sean Marks to be the backup Cs (goal accomplished - even though Skinner wasn't trusted by DA and couldn't fill KT's shoes while being a liability on offense and mediocre at best on D while Marks never saw the light of day - but the GOAL of getting backup C WAS accomplished, damn if they looked like or ended up being good enough to play)

d) they drafted Strawberry who was a backup PG (who never saw the light of day, but they still drafted him and got a backup PG on the roster, so the goal was accomplished).

Looks like they accomplished ALL of their goals they set last offseason according to the standards set down by some in this thread, whether you agreed with them or not, right? Did y'all think that an "A" offseason at the time? Looking back, do you think it was an A offseason?

Also, looking back, if you did and do think it was a "good" offseason, were the people (or I guess, "anti-offseasoners" or Sarver/Kerr bashers) who thought it was a bad offseason wrong because even though the Suns accomplished their "goals" they did so in a manner which hurt us more than they helped... like when we thought their goal of cutting payroll, while accomplished was done so at the expense of our interior D/depth by giving up KT along with two first round picks... or that we met the same goal by dumping JR even though it hurt our depth/three point shooting/spacing options alone with a first round pick... or the goal of signing Grant Hill, who we all liked, was tempered by the fact that we were worried that he'd break down at some point during the season and possibly miss the playoffs yet made no adequate backup plan for him because we didn't believe in the draft picks... which also happened?

Again, just because goals are set by the team, and the team thinks it's "met" those goals doesn't mean they were automatically met well or in really bad english, GOOD.

 

[Irish]

Has there ever been an off season that could counted as "mission accomplished"? By Beef's definition, the answer is "no". Since this debate is over semantics, it is certainly not going anywhere.

BTW, I don't remember the Kerr team being all that excited by their off season last summer. Maybe I just missed it, but it sure felt like they were rather subdued - with good reason. Kerr knew he was going to get trashed because of the KT deal and the dumping JR was horribly expensive Nobody confused Skinner with KT since their real goal was PJ Brown. At best, they added Hill for a couple of years.

Is this year's enthusiasm by Kerr, et al justified? I hope so. In any case, if you think they are all wet about their draft picks then its a crappy summer. If you are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, then its a good summer. Who's right? We won't know until these guys play; but the same holds for every other team.

 

[cly2tw]

Has there ever been an off season that could counted as "mission accomplished"? By Beef's definition, the answer is "no". Since this debate is over semantics, it is certainly not going anywhere.

BTW, I don't remember the Kerr team being all that excited by their off season last summer. Maybe I just missed it, but it sure felt like they were rather subdued - with good reason. Kerr knew he was going to get trashed because of the KT deal and the dumping JR was horribly expensive Nobody confused Skinner with KT since their real goal was PJ Brown. At best, they added Hill for a couple of years.

Is this year's enthusiasm by Kerr, et al justified? I hope so. In any case, if you think they are all wet about their draft picks then its a crappy summer. If you are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, then its a good summer. Who's right? We won't know until these guys play; but the same holds for every other team.

True. Kerr's only marketing slogan last offseason was that Marks might surprise the world. They didn't show the draft warroom video like they do now.

 

[mojorizen7]

Has there ever been an off season that could counted as "mission accomplished"? By Beef's definition, the answer is "no". Since this debate is over semantics, it is certainly not going anywhere.

Bullseye!
THREAD LOCKED

You must be registered for see images

Now....can we all move on?

 

[Irish]

True. Kerr's only marketing slogan last offseason was that Marks might surprise the world. They didn't show the draft warroom video like they do now.

Marks had one good game and it surprised everyone who saw it.

From what I can tell, Amundson was signed mostly based on his summer league stuff and D-League. However, he may have impressed Porter in the playoffs against the Pistons. On Apr 23 he grabbed 2 rebounds in 4 minutes. On May 1 he grabbed 5 rebounds in 7 minutes. In Las Vegas he averaged 0.31 rebounds per minute.

 

[nowagimp]

Marks had one good game and it surprised everyone who saw it.

Yeah that made up for KT, paid vet min by the spurs, feasting on the suns on the boards in the playoffs. Goal accomplished. And saying they werent excited about Hill joining the team is incredibly selective memory. That suns team banked everything on getting PJ Brown, and that didnt happen so they traded for shaq and becaue weak on wing defense. Hill went down, that was all she wrote. It was a great plan, by great planners(sarcasm).

 

[Irish]

Do I have to give a sarcasm lable when it should be obviouss?????

Marks had one good game in his entire NBA career. Kerr decided to sign Amundson rather than bring back Marks, so I think that tells a lot.

BTW, I don't think Marks had anything to do with lett KT go. Beyond the obvious money issue, I think they really did believe they could sign PJ Brown. Did they offer him more than the Vet Min?

 

[Diamondback Jay]

I like the signing of Barnes and think by and large, the Suns had a half decent draft, even though I wasn't crazy about the Lopez pick.

I'd have to say a solid B, B + for the grade. Sure beats previous post-seasons where they were selling draft picks.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Has there ever been an off season that could counted as "mission accomplished"? By Beef's definition, the answer is "no".

thanks for putting completely false words into my mouth. George, would you like to show me just where my "definition for mission accomplished is"?

Good lord. You're not only usually completely wrong about your basketball opinions and make up things that never happened, but you just outright lie about other people's opinions. I'd say the 2004 off-season, while not being perfect (not signing JJ and the draft pick were big gaffes), was a pretty damn good one as we acquired what was about to be a two-time MVP which laid the groundwork for three title contending years. I'd say the next off-season when we got KT, Raja and JR and made the best out of a bad situation with JJ was a decent offseason as well as it too not only allowed us to deal with a pretty horrific situation with Amare's injuries, but set us up as contenders for the next two years. There was good and bad, but the good outweighed the bad both of those years. However, I think the last two off-seasons have been pretty bad. Sue me.

But yeah, apparently, NO OFF-SEASON is mission accomplished to me. Good lord.

Since this debate is over semantics, it is certainly not going anywhere.

you're right. when you start putting words into other people's mouth, the conversation is over.

 

[mojorizen7]

 

[Cheesebeef]

mojo, would you or George like to show me where I provided my "definition for mission accomplished?" before you roll your eyes at me?