Ric Bucher on B.S. Report: Insight on Sarver

[The_Matrix]

Bucher: "It's all about the money at the end of the day. This is the biggest misnomer: that every team is doing everything it can to win as many games as possible, or to vye for a championship. IT'S JUST NOT TRUE. You can name ten teams in this league that are entertaining... can sell a certain number of tickets... you know, the heat is off and they can stay somewhere in the middle. Hey, we're all good cause the money is rolling in."

Simmons: Look at the biggest casualty there, it's the Suns. They could have Rajon Rondo, and Luol Deng, and two first round picks this year.

Bucher: Could have had Sergio Rodriguez this year, he wouldn't have been a good backup guard?

Simmons: The owner... he would have lost money every year, so, it's not like you can say, "look dude you should lose 14 million a year because it's for the best."

Bucher: "No, look, it's his money. I'm not gonna tell him he's wrong... he's made more money than you and I, so he's smart about something. But, just don't sell me on the idea that you got Shaquille O'Neal because you thought it would make you more of a championship team. You did that because you thought he would sell more tickets than Shawn Marion, and he would sell more merchandise than Shawn Marion. And, between not having to re-up Marion and Marcus Banks' contract, he was thinking, This is actually a moneymaker! 'Our defense is gonna be better?' COME ON! Just don't insult my intelligence, that's all I ask."

 

[elindholm]

I like Simmons, but in my experience Bucher is wrong about almost everything.

 

[The_Matrix]

Can you refute any of the points Bucher makes here about the Suns?

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

I like Simmons, but in my experience Bucher is wrong about almost everything.

And I think we have discussed how cheap Sarver is enough by now.

I really dont mind cutting costs like moving big salary players, but draft picks for cash makes me nauseous.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Can you refute any of the points Bucher makes here about the Suns?

Yes. Just about everyone else in the media thinks that the Suns have a better chance to win the championship with Shaq than Marion....

Even more than the media, ask players from other teams....they'll tell you what they think of this trade, and the Suns got the better end of it.

 

[az1965]

Ah, but what good Rondon, Deng, and Rodriguez be warming the bench...

 

[newfan101]

First off, I can't stand Sarver. I also think JC was an outstanding owner who never got the breaks to help bring us a championship ... starting with the Kareem Coin flip.

However, if we are to be fair, there are a few things that need to be pointed out:

1. Sarver did not "sell" that 2004 lottery pick. It was also not a financial move. It was a basketball move intended to clear cap space in order to go full blast at the free agent market. They also got a future first, which for a while looked great until Chicago took fire. It was dumb, shortsighted, and panicky to make that trade before seeing who was available. But as much as it pains me to say, that one was all on BC, not Sarver.

2. I think the Shaq trade was signed off by Sarver ONLY because of the merchandise, TV, and ticket revenue potential. However, I don't think Kerr and D'Antoni's hands were forced. While it was risky, it did make some basketball sense, and on paper could make this team scary come playoff time.

I still think once the Suns are free from the JC influence, you'll unfortunately see a Bidwillian team take shape for years to come. Selling low salaried picks for cash and giving away important players during a highly profitable championship run is inexcusable. But while Sarver shouldn't take credit for the tremendous team that was handed to him, he also shouldn't receive the blame for the terrible moves that were made in 2004.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

First off, I can't stand Sarver. I also think JC was an outstanding owner who never got the breaks to help bring us a championship ... starting with the Kareem Coin flip.

However, if we are to be fair, there are a few things that need to be pointed out:

1. Sarver did not "sell" that 2004 lottery pick. It was also not a financial move. It was a basketball move intended to clear cap space in order to go full blast at the free agent market. They also got a future first, which for a while looked great until Chicago took fire. It was dumb, shortsighted, and panicky to make that trade before seeing who was available. But as much as it pains me to say, that one was all on BC, not Sarver.

2. I think the Shaq trade was signed off by Sarver ONLY because of the merchandise, TV, and ticket revenue potential. However, I don't think Kerr and D'Antoni's hands were forced. While it was risky, it did make some basketball sense, and on paper could make this team scary come playoff time.

I still think once the Suns are free from the JC influence, you'll unfortunately see a Bidwillian team take shape for years to come. Selling low salaried picks for cash and giving away important players during a highly profitable championship run is inexcusable. But while Sarver shouldn't take credit for the tremendous team that was handed to him, he also shouldn't receive the blame for the terrible moves that were made in 2004.

If you want to believe that "Foam Finger" does not want to see this team win, and that he didn't think that Shaq could help make this team a winner, I feel for you. Yes, I can understand the revenue that you can potentially earn from Shaq, but Shaq has been a winner everywhere he has gone.

 

[newfan101]

If you want to believe that "Foam Finger" does not want to see this team win, and that he didn't think that Shaq could help make this team a winner, I feel for you. Yes, I can understand the revenue that you can potentially earn from Shaq, but Shaq has been a winner everywhere he has gone.

Did you read what I wrote? I said that he signed off on the trade because of the income potential, but didn't force anyone's hand, as Rick Bucher implied. I was actually defending him ... sort of.

Shaq has an additional 20 million dollar year on his contract compared to Marion, and is at the end of his career. The trade could work, and Shaq is a winner, but come on; you have to know the marquee value of Shaq played a huge role in Sarver agreeing to this trade. If you think otherwise, than I feel for you.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Did you read what I wrote? I said that he signed off on the trade because of the income potential, but didn't force anyone's hand, as Rick Bucher implied. I was actually defending him ... sort of.

Shaq has an additional 20 million dollar year on his contract compared to Marion, and is at the end of his career. The trade could work, and Shaq is a winner, but come on; you have to know the marquee value of Shaq played a huge role in Sarver agreeing to this trade. If you think otherwise, than I feel for you.

Yes, you said that he signed off on the trade, ONLY for earning potential, not for the chance to bring us a championship.

 

[Gaddabout]

Can you refute any of the points Bucher makes here about the Suns?

Considering Bucher was at the front of line of the "Suns will revolutionize the NBA" campaign, he's definitely a little bitter about the Marion trade.

I think the move was more out of desparation than money. It made long-term basketball sense to trade Marion now rather than give him another contract in the range he was asking. The Suns weren't going to win a championship with Marion without adding another low-post element, and Marion's contract would handicap any attempts to do so.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Considering Bucher was at the front of line of the "Suns will revolutionize the NBA" campaign, he's definitely a little bitter about the Marion trade.

I think the move was more out of desparation than money. It made long-term basketball sense to trade Marion now rather than give him another contract in the range he was asking. The Suns weren't going to win a championship with Marion without adding another low-post element, and Marion's contract would handicap any attempts to do so.

Agreed. I think it is hard to say that this move was made for montetary reasons when you look at the final year of Shaq's contract.

 

[nowagimp]

Can you refute any of the points Bucher makes here about the Suns?

First, yes the suns have blown alot of draft picks and potential. Part of the reason they didnt get luol deng is because they had shawn marion. The suns were looking at big stiffs alot, not necessarily the best talent. Alot of teams have goofed on the draft. How many teams passed on brandon roy? The hawks passed up CP3, then DWill. Chicago got ty thomas instead of lamarcus aldrige? Eight teams passed amare by before the suns took him. The lakers gave away caron butler for kwame, are you kidding? Its easy to say what everyone should have done after all has been proven, but often its not that obvious at the time.

As for the expense, shaqs contract has 2 more years at 20mil after this season. Isnt that more than the remaining obligations on banks and marions contracts? Oh yeah and the better "defense comment" by Bucher. He's about to be exposed as an idiot, again. The spurs shot 35% FG's and the celtics 38% against the suns. Both KG and TD scored less than 20 points in those games. Im sure we all remember KG's 40 point games against the previous suns team, and TD's gaudy 28ppg average against the suns. This team will be a better defensive team(not that hard), no doubt about it, but it may take another 10 games to get everyone clicking.

 

[D-Dogg]

Yes. Just about everyone else in the media thinks that the Suns have a better chance to win the championship with Shaq than Marion....

Even more than the media, ask players from other teams....they'll tell you what they think of this trade, and the Suns got the better end of it.

I think you have a better chance against slow it down, lock it up teams like the Spurs and Pistons, absolutely.

I'm still very curious how the new-look Suns would be in a 7 game series with a team that plays like the old-look Suns, such as Golden State.

Bucher is also full of crap...this move was made to deal with the Spurs and the Lakers, not for merchandising. When the Lakers went to a (potential) frontline of Bynum, Gasol, Lamar it was clear that the counterpunch of Amare, Marion, Hill would be torn to shreds. Now it is addressed with Shaq, Amare, Hill. Much better matchup.

I still think Shaq's going to fall apart and be ineffective overall, and that the tradeoff for interior D vs. perimeter D is going to be glaring, but from a strict "matching up for the playoffs" perspective, the deal for Shaq was a gutsy move that probably had to be done...not to make more money.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I think you have a better chance against slow it down, lock it up teams like the Spurs and Pistons, absolutely.

I'm still very curious how the new-look Suns would be in a 7 game series with a team that plays like the old-look Suns, such as Golden State.

Bucher is also full of crap...this move was made to deal with the Spurs and the Lakers, not for merchandising. When the Lakers went to a (potential) frontline of Bynum, Gasol, Lamar it was clear that the counterpunch of Amare, Marion, Hill would be torn to shreds. Now it is addressed with Shaq, Amare, Hill. Much better matchup.

I still think Shaq's going to fall apart and be ineffective overall, and that the tradeoff for interior D vs. perimeter D is going to be glaring, but from a strict "matching up for the playoffs" perspective, the deal for Shaq was a gutsy move that probably had to be done...not to make more money.

I think a lot of us see the "domino" effect from the Pau trade......

 

[D-Dogg]

I think a lot of us see the "domino" effect from the Pau trade......

That alone refutes Bucher's claim. And IMO, it justifies what I still think was a bad trade. At least it made a "panic decision" as I've heard it called, an understandable one. I get the logic of the trade, and it works for matchups. Gamble, yes, but the Suns are probsibly* a better playoff squad because of it.

Bottom line, Ric Bucher is an idiot.


*somewhere between possibly and probably

 

[dreamcastrocks]

we should have a worst sports announcer/sports writer kumite

 

[HooverDam]

Anyone who thinks the Suns made the Shaq deal for merchandising is ridiculous and ought to be beaten over the head with various deli meats.

Does Shaq increase ticket sales? No, all the games were already sell outs. He may increase the price of a scalped ticket, but that doesn't help the Suns?

Does Shaq increase merchandise sales? Probably a bit, but how much more merchandise can the Suns sell? There's purple and orange jerseys in every arena across the country. Furthermore, I'm nearly positive that merchandise sales are divided up across the league, so it doesn't matter so much if your particular team is selling lots of jerseys.

Does getting Shaq put the Suns on National TV more? Yes, but they were already on National TV a ton. I don't think they get any extra money for being on national tv (not directly anyhow), so again, this seems like a not very strong argument.

The Suns were doing amazingly well in selling anything they wanted to sell, so I don't think they got Shaq for sales purposes. They (D'Antoni, Kerr, Sarver) really thought it made the team better.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Can you refute any of the points Bucher makes here about the Suns?

Aren't merchandise sales split evenly around the league? If so, that obviously makes that point wrong.

Also, it isn't like the Suns were having a hard time selling out games. So you can't really say it was done for ticket sales....

 

[JCSunsfan]

First, yes the suns have blown alot of draft picks and potential. Part of the reason they didnt get luol deng is because they had shawn marion. The suns were looking at big stiffs alot, not necessarily the best talent. Alot of teams have goofed on the draft. How many teams passed on brandon roy? The hawks passed up CP3, then DWill. Chicago got ty thomas instead of lamarcus aldrige? Eight teams passed amare by before the suns took him. The lakers gave away caron butler for kwame, are you kidding? Its easy to say what everyone should have done after all has been proven, but often its not that obvious at the time.

As for the expense, shaqs contract has 2 more years at 20mil after this season. Isnt that more than the remaining obligations on banks and marions contracts? Oh yeah and the better "defense comment" by Bucher. He's about to be exposed as an idiot, again. The spurs shot 35% FG's and the celtics 38% against the suns. Both KG and TD scored less than 20 points in those games. Im sure we all remember KG's 40 point games against the previous suns team, and TD's gaudy 28ppg average against the suns. This team will be a better defensive team(not that hard), no doubt about it, but it may take another 10 games to get everyone clicking.

I do believe that Sarver would NEVER have made this trade if it weren't for Shaq's marketability. It doesn't mean that there wasn't "basketball thinking" involved too. But everything Sarver does is conditioned by the numbers.

Estimates are that the value of the franchise increased by $20 million the moment Shaq hit town. He is still one of the most marketable players in the league. Believe me, Sarver will come out ahead financially on this trade.

It doesn't mean I don't like the trade. It might be the answer in the end.

The trade that really chaps me is the Kurt Thomas trade. The unprotected picks is just a stupid move.

 

[Bufalay]

The trade that really chaps me is the Kurt Thomas trade. The unprotected picks is just a stupid move.

And now Kurt is on the Spurs? Did Seattle have to give some draft picks to the Spurs to unload Kurt? Stupid stupid stupid trade.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

And now Kurt is on the Spurs? Did Seattle have to give some draft picks to the Spurs to unload Kurt? Stupid stupid stupid trade.

Kerr didn't understand when the luxury tax is calculated. If he would have waited, we would have gained something from the KT trade, not lost it. Costly, rookie mistake.

 

[Mainstreet]

And I think we have discussed how cheap Sarver is enough by now.

I really dont mind cutting costs like moving big salary players, but draft picks for cash makes me nauseous.

I'd buy into this philosophy about Sarver if he weren't going to pay a third year of a 20 million dollar contract for Shaq and the Suns already have a high payroll. I think part of the equation is also D'Antoni. In one of the recent articles from azcentral, D'Antoni remarked something to the effect, he is not here to develop players. I don't think D'Antoni has any patience for developing rookies unless they have outstanding talent and that philosophy carries over to the draft.

See excerpt from article from arizonacentral dated March 8th, 2008 by Paola Boivin

"We're here to win a championship," he said. "We're not here to develop players."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/0308boivin0308.html

IMO, D'Antoni's philosophy differs from conventional philosophy of building a team through the draft. Thus I can see D'Antoni more prone to trading draft picks or giving Sarver the okay to use them as chips. I don't like it but it's hard to argue with success. Now if D'Antoni cannot win a Championship soon, it becomes another matter when the Suns have to rebuild and the cupboard is bare.

 

[newfan101]

I do believe that Sarver would NEVER have made this trade if it weren't for Shaq's marketability. It doesn't mean that there wasn't "basketball thinking" involved too. But everything Sarver does is conditioned by the numbers.

Estimates are that the value of the franchise increased by $20 million the moment Shaq hit town. He is still one of the most marketable players in the league. Believe me, Sarver will come out ahead financially on this trade.

It doesn't mean I don't like the trade. It might be the answer in the end.

The trade that really chaps me is the Kurt Thomas trade. The unprotected picks is just a stupid move.

I Agree 100%.

Look, Bucher implies that Sarver forced this deal for the merchandising, TV, and other revenue streams brought on by Shaq. I don't buy that. I think there were genuine basketball interests being served by Kerr and D'Antoni in dealing for Shaq. But the trade is salary cap suicide. Kerr could talk till he's blue in the face about how the team needed a center, locker room presence, etc, and Sarver would say no 100 out of 100 times if you go simply by the salary #'s. JC is right ... everything Sarver does is conditioned by the numbers.

Nobody here thinks Sarver wants to lose. I'm sure he hopes this trade will bring them a championship, and is riding his hopes on Kerr's advice. But there is absolutely no way he would have agreed to this trade without the huge money streams that are virtually guaranteed by adding Shaq to the roster.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

I do believe that Sarver would NEVER have made this trade if it weren't for Shaq's marketability. It doesn't mean that there wasn't "basketball thinking" involved too. But everything Sarver does is conditioned by the numbers.

Estimates are that the value of the franchise increased by $20 million the moment Shaq hit town. He is still one of the most marketable players in the league. Believe me, Sarver will come out ahead financially on this trade.

It doesn't mean I don't like the trade. It might be the answer in the end.

The trade that really chaps me is the Kurt Thomas trade. The unprotected picks is just a stupid move.

Wasn't the Utah deal essentially AK and Gurcheck?

I think they would have done that if Utah was willing to take on Banks.