Robert Sarver discusses team struggles

[Cheesebeef]

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.

It's hard to talk realism Chap, when you don't even know your own facts. You talk about JJ breaking his face and that if he didn't, we would have beat Miami and Dallas that year. Well, JJ didn't break his face that year. He broke it when we still had to go through the best Spurs team ever and the defending Champion Pistons... both teams which owned us when we played them in 04-05.

I mean, how can you talk about any definitively when you don't even remember what happened or who was ahead of them to play?

 

[chickenhead]

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.

I don't think it's misguided to attribute Nash to Jerry: it may have been Sarver's plane that took the Colangelos and Amare to Dallas to woo Nash, but it was the Colangelos who sealed the deal. IMO, Sarver paid a contract that every other owner in the NBA would have been happy to pay.

Joe Johnson is an interesting point to bring up. I've aways wondered if Jerry could have gotten him to stay (we'll never know, of course).

 

[Covert Rain]

It's hard to talk realism Chap, when you don't even know your own facts. You talk about JJ breaking his face and that if he didn't, we would have beat Miami and Dallas that year. Well, JJ didn't break his face that year. He broke it when we still had to go through the best Spurs team ever and the defending Champion Pistons... both teams which owned us when we played them in 04-05.

I mean, how can you talk about any definitively when you don't even remember what happened or who was ahead of them to play?

In Chaps defense....I honestly didn't correlate all my Suns years and the exact year JJ broken his face either. I just know, off the top of my head that there was at least one year, where I thought if we had someone of say "Pops" caliber coaching these same players....I think we win at least one title. D'Antoni often looked like whomever Bobby Fischer was playing chess against in the 1st round of a tournament when it came to "chess moves" when it counted.

 

[elindholm]

IMO, Sarver paid a contract that every other owner in the NBA would have been happy to pay.

Uh, not Cuban. The whole reason the Suns were able to get Nash is that Cuban didn't think that he was worth a long-term investment. I wouldn't want to guess whether "every other owner" was more in Colangelo's camp than Cuban's, but Nash's value was not exactly undisputed at that point.

 

[slinslin]

It's hard to talk realism Chap, when you don't even know your own facts. You talk about JJ breaking his face and that if he didn't, we would have beat Miami and Dallas that year. Well, JJ didn't break his face that year. He broke it when we still had to go through the best Spurs team ever and the defending Champion Pistons... both teams which owned us when we played them in 04-05.

I mean, how can you talk about any definitively when you don't even remember what happened or who was ahead of them to play?

Hahaha the "facts" man...

We were 1-1 against the Pistons and in the loss Steve Nash did not play in Detroit.

We were 1-2 against SA with one OT loss.

But sure both teams "owned" us.

In the year Miami won over Dallas Raja Bell getting injured was the reason that the Mavs advanced. And yeah when healthy we were absolutely better than the Mavs not to mention Miami probably one of the weakest champs ever.

 

[Chaplin]

You're right, my dates are a little off. Apologies for that.

But even then, how can you with a straight face say that all the success from 2004-2010 is attributed to Jerry but all the failures are attributed to Sarver? That's ridiculous.

2007 was the year of the suspensions and at the time, we were the highest seed remaining after Golden State eliminated Dallas in the first round. We actually had a pretty nice grip on the Spur series in Game 4 when Nash got checked, but our momentum was completely destroyed by Robert Horry. Utah went on to play San Antonio in the WCF and we definitely could have beaten them. Cleveland would have been tough, but we would have had a chance. They were the East's 2nd seed just as we were the West's 2nd seed.

 

[Chaplin]

In the year Miami won over Dallas Raja Bell getting injured was the reason that the Mavs advanced. And yeah when healthy we were absolutely better than the Mavs not to mention Miami probably one of the weakest champs ever.

Yes, that was it, I got Raja's injury confused with JJ's.

 

[slinslin]

I don't think it's misguided to attribute Nash to Jerry: it may have been Sarver's plane that took the Colangelos and Amare to Dallas to woo Nash, but it was the Colangelos who sealed the deal. IMO, Sarver paid a contract that every other owner in the NBA would have been happy to pay.

Joe Johnson is an interesting point to bring up. I've aways wondered if Jerry could have gotten him to stay (we'll never know, of course).

Joe Johnson was RFA anyone could have gotten him to stay.

 

[Chaplin]

Joe Johnson was RFA anyone could have gotten him to stay.

Sure, Jerry could have gotten him to stay, but probably at the expense of Shawn Marion. Or Amare Stoudemire. JJ wasn't going to stay no matter what.

 

[slinslin]

You're right, my dates are a little off. Apologies for that.

But even then, how can you with a straight face say that all the success from 2004-2010 is attributed to Jerry but all the failures are attributed to Sarver? That's ridiculous.

2007 was the year of the suspensions and at the time, we were the highest seed remaining after Golden State eliminated Dallas in the first round. We actually had a pretty nice grip on the Spur series in Game 4 when Nash got checked, but our momentum was completely destroyed by Robert Horry. Utah went on to play San Antonio in the WCF and we definitely could have beaten them. Cleveland would have been tough, but we would have had a chance. They were the East's 2nd seed just as we were the West's 2nd seed.

If memory serves me right we had a great record vs Lebron.

 

[Catlover]

Colangelo and Sarver operated under significantly different free agency rules. It's not realistic to even begin to compare today's free agency results with the environment that existed when Jerry ran things in Phoenix. That era is over. If it wasn't over, the Lakers wouldn't be stuck in the mud with the rest of us even with the real Buss having passed away.

 

[Covert Rain]

But even then, how can you with a straight face say that all the success from 2004-2010 is attributed to Jerry but all the failures are attributed to Sarver? That's ridiculous.

Who is saying that exactly? Jerry had a huge part in fielding that team and putting together the pieces that attributed to that era. There is no disputing that. Who said that absolves Jerry or Bryan from any of the missteps? Now you're arguing things nobody is saying.

Specifically, the point is that Jerry had a huge hand in the success at the start of Sarver's tenure. If you look at what Sarver has done ON HIS OWN (players, coaches, FO), you can't spin this in anyway to say that Sarver as been a good owner.

Colangelo and Sarver operated under significantly different free agency rules. It's not realistic to even begin to compare today's free agency results with the environment that existed when Jerry ran things in Phoenix. That era is over. If it wasn't over, the Lakers wouldn't be stuck in the mud with the rest of us even with the real Buss having passed away.

Nobody is debating that. However, the league is always changing. Hell even in Jerry's time, FA made significant changes. He still had success while the league was changing around him. That is what a good owner does.

 

[Catlover]

Nobody is debating that. However, the league is always changing. Hell even in Jerry's time, the FA made significant changes. He still had success while the league was changing around him.

Except the changes I'm talking about were specifically designed to reduce free agent movement.

 

[Covert Rain]

Except the changes I'm talking about were specifically designed to reduce free agent movement.

Again...there were lots of changes. The advent of FA, the cap changes, the rookie player salary stuff. Bird Clause....I mean I can go on and on.

All of these changes impact an owners approach to FA, trades and drafts. There are teams in the NBA constantly landing new players, making trades and rebuilding. We see it all the time. It's what separates good owners from bad owners.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Uh, not Cuban. The whole reason the Suns were able to get Nash is that Cuban didn't think that he was worth a long-term investment. I wouldn't want to guess whether "every other owner" was more in Colangelo's camp than Cuban's, but Nash's value was not exactly undisputed at that point.

Correct. nNash even gave Cuban a chance to match.

 

[chickenhead]

Uh, not Cuban. The whole reason the Suns were able to get Nash is that Cuban didn't think that he was worth a long-term investment. I wouldn't want to guess whether "every other owner" was more in Colangelo's camp than Cuban's, but Nash's value was not exactly undisputed at that point.

Ha, good catch. I was thinking in retrospect--as in I don't give Sarver credit for paying Nash throughout the contract.

 

[sunsfan88]

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.

Ok I think he's a major idiot for saying this but this is probably too much. I mean, were we even a prime destination for free agents before he said this or something?