Robert Sarver discusses team struggles

[slinslin]

Sarver has been an idiot for a very long time. I mean this is what he said when someone asked him about tanking and blowing it up to rebuild and become good again



So Sarver didn't tank was because "it can take 7 to 8 years to get back in the playoffs".....meanwhile, the Suns will now be in its 6th year of not being in the playoffs following Sarver's brilliant alternate plan.

If that doesn't show you that this guy is one of the most incompetent owners in sports history, then I don't know what will.

Sarver is the owner of the team nothing more. He did not do the research, he just quoted what Babby originally stated.

What he said about millenials is true and I don't think it is offensive at all.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Sarver is the owner of the team nothing more. He did not do the research, he just quoted what Babby originally stated.



What he said about millenials is true and I don't think it is offensive at all.

I agree. It's simply a fact and one of the difficulties of working with this younger generation.

This is one of THE conversations in business today. Executives in every industry are struggling with how to run a business with a self-centered, self-entitled, emotionally fragile workforce.

For those that say he is out of touch, they are wrong. He is exactly in touch with were things are in the work world today. Many many articles are being written about it.

http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/millenials.htm

http://fortune.com/2015/06/23/know-your-millennial-co-workers/

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

What he said about millenials is true and I don't think it is offensive at all.

What he said about millennials is true, I agree with that. But, speaking as an executive of a large company that relies heavily on millennials, I would NEVER make such a comment in public. These are millennials. They take that stuff personally and get butt-hurt. Our senior leadership talks about it all the time, but we would never make those comments known to our team members, much less our entire potential employee base. THAT'S sarver's failing in this instance, his inability to recognize that discretion was called for in this instance. He's unwittingly once again damaged the reputation of this franchise and made it a nondestination for free agents.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I agree. It's simply a fact and one of the difficulties of working with this younger generation.

This is one of THE conversations in business today. Executives in every industry are struggling with how to run a business with a self-centered, self-entitled, emotionally fragile workforce.

For those that say he is out of touch, they are wrong. He is exactly in touch with were things are in the work world today. Many many articles are being written about it.

http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/millenials.htm

http://fortune.com/2015/06/23/know-your-millennial-co-workers/

But he's an idiot to make the statement. The best leaders for millennials are those that understand their shortcomings and figure out how to best motivate them. Not those that essentially scream to the press that millennials are babies. That is PRECISELY the tactic that fails with them.

 

[devilalum]

I agree. It's simply a fact and one of the difficulties of working with this younger generation.

This is one of THE conversations in business today. Executives in every industry are struggling with how to run a business with a self-centered, self-entitled, emotionally fragile workforce.

For those that say he is out of touch, they are wrong. He is exactly in touch with were things are in the work world today. Many many articles are being written about it.

http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/millenials.htm

http://fortune.com/2015/06/23/know-your-millennial-co-workers/

Society changes, so what. This isn't the first time in history that older industry leaders have complained about the new generation. Stating the obvious doesn't make Sarver a good owner. Other teams are winning with the same kids. What are they doing to succeed?

Sarver may be right but right now he just sounds like a grumpy old man.
How many Millennials want to play for a grumpy old man?

 

[chickenhead]

Trying to define a generation as a whole is pretty stupid--especially when you try to employ a useless generalization to explain a specific problem. Sarver is on the cusp of the baby boomers and Generation X--does he forget everything said about both generations? I'm gen-x, and last I checked, many of my peers are, and always have been, quite different from each other. You know who's a millennial? Stephen Curry is a millennial. You know who else is a millennial? Kawhi Leonard is a millennial. You know who else is a millennial? Anthony Davis is a millennial.

Sarver keeps putting his foot in his mouth without having any of the gravitas of an owner who can get away with it. Just reminds me of him doing the chicken at the Spurs years ago. Cuban puts his foot in his mouth, but he also gets all the meetings, and is known for incredible support of his players. Sarver only does one of those three things...

 

[Chaplin]

Society changes, so what. This isn't the first time in history that older industry leaders have complained about the new generation. Stating the obvious doesn't make Sarver a good owner. Other teams are winning with the same kids. What are they doing to succeed?

Sarver may be right but right now he just sounds like a grumpy old man.
How many Millennials want to play for a grumpy old man?

If he's paying them millions of dollars, it won't matter. I think we're all underestimating the power of a paycheck to these kids. It's not like Devin Booker, Alex Len or TJ Warren said they wouldn't play for Sarver because he's such a terrible owner. Tyson Chandler's no idiot, yet he signed a contract with us knowing Sarver is the owner.

 

[StreetTruckinTitan]

If he's paying them millions of dollars, it won't matter. I think we're all underestimating the power of a paycheck to these kids. It's not like Devin Booker, Alex Len or TJ Warren said they wouldn't play for Sarver because he's such a terrible owner. Tyson Chandler's no idiot, yet he signed a contract with us knowing Sarver is the owner.

Big difference between draftees and/or broken down players looking for the last big payday and first tier players who have their pick of teams vying for their talents. Saver just needs to shut his mouth. Owners should never be heard.

 

[Chaplin]

Big difference between draftees and/or broken down players looking for the last big payday and first tier players who have their pick of teams vying for their talents. Saver just needs to shut his mouth. Owners should never be heard.

I agree, but I still think you're underestimating the power of millions of dollars. When a player takes less from another team specifically because of Robert Sarver, then we'll talk. But that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Covert Rain]

If he's paying them millions of dollars, it won't matter. I think we're all underestimating the power of a paycheck to these kids. It's not like Devin Booker, Alex Len or TJ Warren said they wouldn't play for Sarver because he's such a terrible owner. Tyson Chandler's no idiot, yet he signed a contract with us knowing Sarver is the owner.

Yet there isn't a long line of tier 1 free agents jumping at the chance to play here either. All though I think it's true that a paycheck says much, clearly it's not the be all end all. I believe twice in Sarver's tenure we have had room for 2 max contract players and we ended up with what exactly during those free agent periods? I loved the signing of Chandler but the possibility of getting Aldridge was a factor on him signing here I am sure. Plus it's hard for players nearing the end of their careers to get a $52 million dollar contract to boot. That's pretty enticing...hey you might get to play with one of the most sought after free agents plus you get $52 million and a 4 year contract verses bouncing around at the end of your career.

Signing Chandler at this stage of his career is a tad different than getting a 26 year old Chandler to sign. No?

 

[Chaplin]

Yet there isn't a long line of tier 1 free agents jumping at the chance to play here either. All though I think it's true that a paycheck says much, clearly it's not the be all end all. I believe twice in Sarver's tenure we have had room for 2 max contract players and we ended up with what exactly during those free agent periods? I loved the signing of Chandler but the possibility of getting Aldridge was a factor on him signing here I am sure. Plus it's hard for players nearing the end of their careers to get a $52 million dollar contract to boot. That's pretty enticing...hey you might get to play with one of the most sought after free agents plus you get $52 million and a 4 year contract verses bouncing around at the end of your career.

Signing Chandler at this stage of his career is a tad different than getting a 26 year old Chandler to sign. No?

You're treating it as if it's isolated to us--tier 1 free agents aren't attracted to half the league right now, not because of their owners, but because their teams stink. We're no different.

And Aldridge came pretty damn close to signing here -- and reports are that he didn't sign here because of a pitch by a Spur player, not because he didn't want to play for Sarver.

 

[Catlover]

Society changes, so what. This isn't the first time in history that older industry leaders have complained about the new generation. Stating the obvious doesn't make Sarver a good owner. Other teams are winning with the same kids. What are they doing to succeed?

Sarver may be right but right now he just sounds like a grumpy old man.
How many Millennials want to play for a grumpy old man?

I didn't take it the way that so many here did. I don't believe he was trying to blame a generation for this year's problems, he was just trying to explain Markieff's behavior.

 

[Covert Rain]

You're treating it as if it's isolated to us--tier 1 free agents aren't attracted to half the league right now, not because of their owners, but because their teams stink. We're no different.

And Aldridge came pretty damn close to signing here -- and reports are that he didn't sign here because of a pitch by a Spur player, not because he didn't want to play for Sarver.

It absolutely isn't isolated to us. How does that absolve us? This team used to be a destination. We can go over the laundry list of top free agents that signed with this organization under Jerry.

Plus, you are also discounting player input during trades. I am sure the Suns fielded tons of calls and made tons of calls during Sarver's tenure. We know that many trades come down to player input (i.e. list of teams they would like to be traded to). Also, at the end of the day Aldridge didn't pick us. This isn't horse shoes.

It's night and day under Sarver versus Jerry.

 

[StreetTruckinTitan]

I agree, but I still think you're underestimating the power of millions of dollars. When a player takes less from another team specifically because of Robert Sarver, then we'll talk. But that hasn't happened yet.

This is true. But if all things being equal in the money game. Why would a player pick Phx over another destination especially after all the past disgruntled players talking smack about the organization and then Saver doing the foolish things he does? The NBA is a small circle and players talk among themselves. Saver is doing himself no favors in attracting FAs with no respect.

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

It absolutely isn't isolated to us. How does that absolve us? This team used to be a destination. We can go over the laundry list of top free agents that signed with this organization under Jerry.

Plus, you are also discounting player input during trades. I am sure the Suns fielded tons of calls and made tons of calls during Sarver's tenure. We know that many trades come down to player input (i.e. list of teams they would like to be traded to). Also, at the end of the day Aldridge didn't pick us. This isn't horse shoes.

It's night and day under Sarver versus Jerry.

Are you sure you are stating this objectively? I am not apologizing for Sarver, and I would love to have the team owned by someone more sports savvy, or who would hire better people; but last I checked, Colangelo and Sarver have won the same amount of championships (Dbacks don't count here). Both owners have had good-to-great teams. Both owners have had bad teams.

 

[Covert Rain]

Are you sure you are stating this objectively? I am not apologizing for Sarver, and I would love to have the team owned by someone more sports savvy, or who would hire better people; but last I checked, Colangelo and Sarver have won the same amount of championships (Dbacks don't count here). Both owners have had good-to-great teams. Both owners have had bad teams.

Again...if you would like we can start a list of top free agents that played for Jerry. Plus, I wasn't talking about titles. If we were, that would be the one knock I have always had on Jerry. However, that is not what we were talking about. I have always knocked this organization for not having a title...even under Jerry. He doesn't get a pass either in relation to titles. So...yes....that is objective.

If you want to switch the conversation to titles that is a different discussion. However, since you went there...how many teams has Sarver fielded (that didn't have any of Jerry imprint) that resulted in at least division banners verses Jerry? How many 100% fielded teams by Sarver has resulted in deep runs into the playoffs?

No matter how you break down Sarver's tenure here it hasn't been good. Look, let me repeat this. Sarver is not the worst owner to ever walk the planet. I honestly believe he is giving this the good old college try. He did the right thing and took a step back. He gets credit for that. However, he is still not a good owner by almost every measuring stick out there.

I personally don't think Sarver is going anyplace anytime soon. So, all I can do is hope he turns things around and put my faith in that. Sarver is all we have for now. I don't wish failure on the guy. I want him to turns things around and succeed.

 

[Chaplin]

Again...if you would like we can start a list of top free agents that played for Jerry. Plus, I wasn't talking about titles. If we were, that would be the one knock I have always had on Jerry. However, that is not what we were talking about. I have always knocked this organization for not having a title...even under Jerry. He doesn't get a pass either in relation to titles. So...yes....that is objective.

If you want to switch the conversation to titles that is a different discussion. However, since you went there...how many teams has Sarver fielded (that didn't have any of Jerry imprint) that resulted in at least division banners verses Jerry? How many 100% fielded teams by Sarver has resulted in deep runs into the playoffs?

No matter how you break down Sarver's tenure here it hasn't been good. Look, let me repeat this. Sarver is not the worst owner to ever walk the planet. I honestly believe he is giving this the good old college try. He did the right thing and took a step back. He gets credit for that. However, he is still not a good owner by almost every measuring stick out there.

He has a point though. For all those great free agents Jerry got, he never won a championship with them. Sarver's formula isn't working just as Jerry's isn't. Maybe it's time to shake it up completely.

 

[Covert Rain]

He has a point though. For all those great free agents Jerry got, he never won a championship with them. Sarver's formula isn't working just as Jerry's isn't. Maybe it's time to shake it up completely.

I never disputed that. Again...different discussion altogether. You have to have the horses to even get in the race. Sarver has not been able to field a team without Jerry's imprint that even comes close to many of the teams fielded by Jerry over his career. We were talking the teams ability to bring in players that can change the face of the franchise (drafting, trading or FA).

If you use the one measuring stick of titles...100% agree. Neither has been able to get it done.

 

[Chaplin]

I never disputed that. Again...different discussion altogether. You have to have the horses to even get in the race. Sarver has not been able to field a team without Jerry's imprint that even comes close to many of the teams fielded by Jerry over his career. We were talking the teams ability to bring in players that can change the face of the franchise (drafting, trading or FA).

Seriously? There was at least one definite year we were going to win the title -- until Joe Johnson broke his face, and another where we were in place to win if not for suspensions. And I know you are going to attribute Nash to Jerry, but I think that is misguided. Sarver had to pay the contract, not Jerry.

 

[StreetTruckinTitan]

You also have to take in account Jerry's world is a lot different from Saver's in the fact of social media. If an owner or anybody said something to a reporter, it usually took a day to be read. Now with twitter or Instagram its instantaneous. In this world you have to choose your words carefully.

 

[Covert Rain]

Seriously? There was at least one definite year we were going to win the title -- until Joe Johnson broke his face, and another where we were in place to win if not for suspensions.

First, you don't know that. You have seen NBA over the years to see a series is a dog fight. Even if you get into the finals it doesn't guarantee anything. Having said that, you have heard me say this before but I think a better coach than D'Antoni probably gets us a title.

However, are you giving Sarver credit for fielding the Amare/Nash era? If not, not sure why this is even relevant to the discussion.

 

[Chaplin]

First, you don't know that. You have seen NBA over the years to see a series is a dog fight. Even if you get into the finals it doesn't guarantee anything. Having said that, you have heard me say this before but I think a better coach than D'Antoni probably gets us a title.

However, are you giving Sarver credit for fielding the Amare/Nash era? If not, not sure why this is even relevant to the discussion.

Come on, we were absolutely better than both Miami and Dallas the year JJ broke his face--we were in a VERY good position to win the title that year.

Amare may have been drafted by Jerry, but Nash had to be signed with Sarver's ok, since he was the one signing the checks and it was Sarver that paid for the rest of that team. So yes, Sarver deserves some of the credit for those teams.

I'm not fan of the guy, but at least be realistic.

 

[JCSunsfan]

I didn't take it the way that so many here did. I don't believe he was trying to blame a generation for this year's problems, he was just trying to explain Markieff's behavior.

Exactly.

 

[Covert Rain]

Come on, we were absolutely better than both Miami and Dallas the year JJ broke his face--we were in a VERY good position to win the title that year.

Amare may have been drafted by Jerry, but Nash had to be signed with Sarver's ok, since he was the one signing the checks and it was Sarver that paid for the rest of that team. So yes, Sarver deserves some of the credit for those teams.

I'm not fan of the guy, but at least be realistic.

Maybe you missed my comment about D'Antoni? Sure there was a possiblity but nothing is gauranteed.

Also, if you don't think that Jerry gets credit for putting to together the Amare/Nash era....dear lord. Go back and read Sarver's own comments about Jerry's influence and part in putting together that team. In fact, I think there is an older thread here somewhere where all of Sarver's comments about Jerry's role were quoted and posted there.

Sarver should be judged on what he has done without Jerry's hand me downs or blue print. Isolating that part of Sarver's tenure...what has he done exactly? In fact, let's include what he inherited.....how did he improve on that?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Seriously? There was at least one definite year we were going to win the title -- until Joe Johnson broke his face, and another where we were in place to win if not for suspensions. And I know you are going to attribute Nash to Jerry, but I think that is misguided. Sarver had to pay the contract, not Jerry.

one "definite" year with JJ? The Spurs owned us all season with JJ and would have owned us then also. Hell, we had JJ for three games of that series, and HCA and we still got whipped 4-1. I mean, MAYBE it's debatable if we beat probably the best Spurs team of all time (which that team was), but DEFINITELY? No way.

And Sarver didn't even want to sign Nash. Jerry talked him into it. Giving Sarver credit for formulating the Nash teams completely ignores the history that went on there.