Phoenix should trade for Brandon Jennings

[sunsfan88]

I wouldn't Dragic will get way too much money based on 5 good weeks in a contract year.

I still worry Dragic quit giving his best to the Suns. He didn't workout well for the Suns the first go around. I'm not willing to pay him more money (which I think he will get) for a second go around even if Nash leaves.

It worked with Nash didn't it when Nash was traded away and then we resigned him?

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Very few. Most of the time they don't fall out of the top 10 but this is a deeper draft than usual. Also, with the screwy NBA age rule more freshman come out today than used to so you have a larger group that falls into that talented-but-mostly-unproven player pool to draw from. In general, taking a huge gamble at the 13 spot is probably a bad idea. If we had almost anything else to cling to, I'd be pushing for us to grab a safe, solid player and leave the gambling to the perpetual losers. Unfortunately, I think we're about to join that perpetual losers crowd once Nash leaves (or once his game takes another inevitable dip).

I'm not sure my thinking is really correct on this but for me, I see it this way. Take a huge risk on a player that might become a game changer. If you fail (and you probably will), you're looking at a better draft slot and a better chance to grab that game changer. Even if you get lucky and find a Kevin Durant in the making, you're still probably going to be a top of the lottery team for a few years.

Steve

I agree with this theory, especially with our current situation. Role players are just not very valuable in the NBA, especially in the absence of stars. We desperately need multiple stars.

 

[Phrazbit]

It worked with Nash didn't it when Nash was traded away and then we resigned him?

We traded Nash because he was stuck playing behind 2 all-NBA guards, and we got a top 10 pick in return... and while Nash was gone he evolved into an all-star and one of the primary cogs of the leagues best offense.

We trade Dragic because he was playing like garbage... and we got an even bigger chunk of trash in return. I hated that trade but I still wouldnt want Dragic back at the price he will command.

 

[Joe Mama]

Also, with the screwy NBA age rule more freshman come out today than used to so you have a larger group that falls into that talented-but-mostly-unproven player pool to draw from.

I don't get this at all. The reason more freshman come out is because before this rule two thirds of these freshman draftees would have come out before they ever went to college. That is what made it more likely somebody might slip through the cracks back then ... there were a lot of guys including internationals who had not played against any decent competition. Scouts had very little to go on before this screwing NBA age rule. They would have workouts and maybe they could get their hands on some video where the player might been facing another highly touted high school player.

Now nearly every one of these guys has played at least one year and in almost every case significant minutes for a major college program. Unless I misinterpreted you, and you think they should increase the age limit, this argument makes no sense to me. [/Quote]

In general, taking a huge gamble at the 13 spot is probably a bad idea. If we had almost anything else to cling to, I'd be pushing for us to grab a safe, solid player and leave the gambling to the perpetual losers. Unfortunately, I think we're about to join that perpetual losers crowd once Nash leaves (or once his game takes another inevitable dip).

I'm not sure my thinking is really correct on this but for me, I see it this way. Take a huge risk on a player that might become a game changer. If you fail (and you probably will), you're looking at a better draft slot and a better chance to grab that game changer. Even if you get lucky and find a Kevin Durant in the making, you're still probably going to be a top of the lottery team for a few years.

this team needs good solid players as well as stars. They just flat out need to accumulate assets at this point and unlike a lot of other teams they really cannot afford to wiff with this draft pick. I mean I know this is common sense, but it just depends on how strongly they feel about a guy like Jones if he falls to them. The one scout I've spoken to so far thinks he is a bust. One of these nights I'll go and watch a lot of his video as well as some other players. Other than him and maybe one or two other players there aren't a lot of high risk/high reward choices in this draft anyways. You won't find anybody saying this draft has a lot of star potential. That's not the way it's deep. It's deep with guys who should be good but probably not spectacular players. It's deep with contributors.

My biggest fear, and I think a lot of people here feel the same way, is that the Phoenix Suns overpay to sign very mediocre (I'm being kind) free-agents this summer. I don't care whether this includes Steve Nash or not. Some of the names that have been mentioned along with their expected price tags scare the crap out of me. I mean I don't know what Brandon Jennings is going to be paid, but I guarantee I'm going to think it's way too much.

Joe

 

[slinslin]

Hello Jeff Green 5 yrs/45M$ contract.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I don't get this at all. The reason more freshman come out is because before this rule two thirds of these freshman draftees would have come out before they ever went to college. That is what made it more likely somebody might slip through the cracks back then ... there were a lot of guys including internationals who had not played against any decent competition. Scouts had very little to go on before this screwing NBA age rule. They would have workouts and maybe they could get their hands on some video where the player might been facing another highly touted high school player.

Now nearly every one of these guys has played at least one year and in almost every case significant minutes for a major college program. Unless I misinterpreted you, and you think they should increase the age limit, this argument makes no sense to me.

I don't think that's true. In 2005, the last year before the new age rule, there were 3 high school players drafted in the first round and 1 freshman. This year, there are 9 freshman prospects projected to go in the first round. This rule has really changed the landscape, players are entering the NBA at a younger age and there is much less relevant data to use when analyzing these kids. In 2005, there were a total of 8 (U.S.) kids that had yet to reach their junior year. This year, of the top 35 prospects, there are 22 underclassmen.

this team needs good solid players as well as stars. They just flat out need to accumulate assets at this point and unlike a lot of other teams they really cannot afford to wiff with this draft pick. I mean I know this is common sense, but it just depends on how strongly they feel about a guy like Jones if he falls to them.

It's not all that hard to find "good solid players". Our team is devoid of stars and with Sarver in charge we may well find it difficult to attract that level of player through free agency (I'm not convinced about this but it seems to be the accepted position on this board). We can put 9 solid players on the court and possibly contend for the playoffs every year. I think you can make a case that this is the safest way for the organization to go. But, we're still going to remain a couple of stars away from winning it all and I think the fan base has reached the point where they need to see an effort being made to reach that goal. It's possible that my time on this board has skewed my thinking in this regard but as I don't live in the valley it's about all I have to go on.

The one scout I've spoken to so far thinks he is a bust. One of these nights I'll go and watch a lot of his video as well as some other players. Other than him and maybe one or two other players there aren't a lot of high risk/high reward choices in this draft anyways. You won't find anybody saying this draft has a lot of star potential. That's not the way it's deep. It's deep with guys who should be good but probably not spectacular players. It's deep with contributors.

I'm going to assume you're talking about Perry Jones here. If so, at no time have I insisted he will not be a bust. I think it's highly likely that he will fall well short of his potential. I'd draft him because in the long run I think we're better off completely missing on this pick than we would be if we just grabbed another decent rotational player. And, if he does hit his full stride, we're one superstar closer to being a true contender. It's a lot easier to bring in a star to a team that is 1 star short of being a championship contender, IMO.

Steve

 

[jagu]

The bucks have not yet extended him and the Bucks need a starting center. Phoenix could trade Gortat for Jennings.

Haven't posted in a while but had to...

OMG What a dumb trade idea.

 

[sunsfan88]

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Joe Mama]

I don't think that's true. In 2005, the last year before the new age rule, there were 3 high school players drafted in the first round and 1 freshman. This year, there are 9 freshman prospects projected to go in the first round. This rule has really changed the landscape, players are entering the NBA at a younger age and there is much less relevant data to use when analyzing these kids. In 2005, there were a total of 8 (U.S.) kids that had yet to reach their junior year. This year, of the top 35 prospects, there are 22 underclassmen.

This makes no sense. Why would a rule that increases the age at which you can apply for the draft encourage more younger, unprepared players to enter. I mean if you are arguing it hurts the college game I can understand.

Did you bother to look at 2004? There were 8 high school players taken in the first round as well as a couple freshmen. The difference of course is that unlike all the freshmen who are complaining about now who have contributed significant minutes on major college programs those high school players had no experience against decent competition.

2011 - 6 freshman
2010 - 7 freshman
2009 - 5 freshman (including Jennings)
2008 - 10 freshman
2007 - 9 freshman
2006 - 2 freshman
2005 - 3 HS, 1 freshman
2004 - 8 HS, 2 freshman
2003 - 3 HS, 2 freshman
2002 - 1 HS, 1 freshman
2001 - 4 HS, 4 freshmen
2000 - 2 HS, 3 freshman

39 freshman in the six years since the rule change. Prior to that there were 21 high schoolers and 13 freshman for a total of 34. So since the "screwy" rule started we've had an average of not quite one more player drafted in the first round who had more than one year of college experience. Of course in those six years before the rule 21 of the 34 younger players were high schoolers for whom your scouting consisted of a workout or two and watching them a handful of times against other high school players. And I would also argue that there were about 20 times as many international players getting drafted in the first round prior to the rule otherwise you might have seen more younger players declaring. And again, it makes absolutely no sense that this rule would cause more players to declare for the draft earlier.

It's not all that hard to find "good solid players". Our team is devoid of stars and with Sarver in charge we may well find it difficult to attract that level of player through free agency (I'm not convinced about this but it seems to be the accepted position on this board). We can put 9 solid players on the court and possibly contend for the playoffs every year. I think you can make a case that this is the safest way for the organization to go. But, we're still going to remain a couple of stars away from winning it all and I think the fan base has reached the point where they need to see an effort being made to reach that goal. It's possible that my time on this board has skewed my thinking in this regard but as I don't live in the valley it's about all I have to go on.

When we are drafting at #13 in a draft relatively void of real star potential we are more likely to get star players by having assets including salary cap space than by praying that our scouting department hits a homerun on one of these few players with high potential that fall to us.

I'm going to assume you're talking about Perry Jones here. If so, at no time have I insisted he will not be a bust. I think it's highly likely that he will fall well short of his potential. I'd draft him because in the long run I think we're better off completely missing on this pick than we would be if we just grabbed another decent rotational player. And, if he does hit his full stride, we're one superstar closer to being a true contender. It's a lot easier to bring in a star to a team that is 1 star short of being a championship contender, IMO.
Steve

If I want to rebuild through the draft which is what I think you are basically proposing I think they should draft one of these good, solid guys at #13, not re-sign Steve Nash, and definitely not overpay for a bunch of marginal talent. I would love to see them pick up another pick by paying directly, absorbing a bad contract, etc. since this draft is deep with seemingly good but unspectacular talent. That right there probably gives them a good shot at a top three draft pick. Of course even if we had the most chances I have little doubt this team would at best get the #4 pick. No luck

like I said earlier though, I have every confidence that the Phoenix Suns front office is going to bring in a bunch of players I don't like this summer and spend too much doing it.

Joe

 

[AzStevenCal]

This makes no sense. Why would a rule that increases the age at which you can apply for the draft encourage more younger, unprepared players to enter. I mean if you are arguing it hurts the college game I can understand.

Did you bother to look at 2004? There were 8 high school players taken in the first round as well as a couple freshmen. The difference of course is that unlike all the freshmen who are complaining about now who have contributed significant minutes on major college programs those high school players had no experience against decent competition.

I'll admit, I didn't go back any further than the last year under the old rules. I found evidence that supported my position and made the classic mistake of assuming I had a large enough sampling to draw a conclusion. High School players aside though, I watch a lot of college ball and the announcers are always talking about how the new rule has influenced the makeup of the college game. If you have any talent at all you pretty much have to leave prior to your junior year or you're in trouble when draft night comes around. I've just assumed these guys knew what they were talking about when they complained about all the young talent leaving too early since the rule change. Maybe I'll get industrious and see if they're correct or if they're just parroting what some other idiot told them.

Steve

 

[Joe Mama]

I'll admit, I didn't go back any further than the last year under the old rules. I found evidence that supported my position and made the classic mistake of assuming I had a large enough sampling to draw a conclusion. High School players aside though, I watch a lot of college ball and the announcers are always talking about how the new rule has influenced the makeup of the college game. If you have any talent at all you pretty much have to leave prior to your junior year or you're in trouble when draft night comes around. I've just assumed these guys knew what they were talking about when they complained about all the young talent leaving too early since the rule change. Maybe I'll get industrious and see if they're correct or if they're just parroting what some other idiot told them.

Steve

yeah, a lot of people associated with college basketball don't like the current NBA rules for draft eligibility. I can see where they are coming from on a lot of that. Much of the time the players care even less about school than the guys who stay in school a couple seasons. I think because of the way college eligibility set up they can get away with taking almost no classes that first year, so it's an even bigger joke to call them college athletes than before. But the rules definitely make it better for the NBA. I mean without going back and looking my guess is that teams still strike out at roughly the same rate, but it's not because of that rule change. That definitely helps with their scouting.

I'm not sure the NBA "punishes" players for staying in school. Usually if they slip in the draft it's because they didn't live up to that potential they showed earlier, or there was something with their measurable's that teams don't like (too short, too slow, not athletic enough). IMO, the latter group (guys who are really productive in college but slipped because teams don't feel it will translate the NBA) are the most likely to slip in the draft and still have really good NBA careers. Those are the guys I would target in the late first and second rounds.

But back to the topic of this thread, I have no interest in Brandon Jennings just about regardless of the cost.

Joe