Sarver on playoffs: 'It still hurts, but time heals everything'

[azirish]

If they're going to have a budget, though, it would be nice to see them stop pretending otherwise, as they did when they signed Banks.

You could make a much stronger case if you talked about the Diaw extension. Why obsess about Banks making $3.9 million who is not worth that much, but ignore a guy making $9 million who would not get a full MLE offer this summer as an RFA if the team had waited?

 

[Chaplin]

I'm with Eric--at this point, we're in the same boat financially as the Clippers and the Spurs...which is fine (if a bit disappointing).

If they're going to have a budget, though, it would be nice to see them stop pretending otherwise, as they did when they signed Banks. And it would certainly be a pleasant change if they brought a less Stepien-esque approach to the draft.

Hindsight is 20/20. You gotta realize that the front office had no idea that Banks would be that ineffective. At the time, it seemed like a good investment. We now know it wasn't, but last year the FO didn't think that.

 

[F-Dog]

We now know it wasn't, but last year the FO didn't think that.

People knew last year that Banks wasn't the FO's first or second choice with that money. What they didn't know was that the team was constrained by a fixed budget and wouldn't be "toughing it out" and paying the luxury tax this year. In fact, the Banks signing was greeted as proof the Suns were going to absorb that tax hit.

If we knew then what we know today (that the Banks signing would cost the team two first-round picks plus James Jones, and the bleeding isn't over yet), nobody on this board would have supported it, regardless of what they expected from Marcus.


Since the team did know this in advance, what could they possibly have been thinking? Why was Sarver encouraging them to spend money with such profligacy?

 

[F-Dog]

You could make a much stronger case if you talked about the Diaw extension. Why obsess about Banks making $3.9 million who is not worth that much, but ignore a guy making $9 million who would not get a full MLE offer this summer as an RFA if the team had waited?

As (probably) the only guy here who wasn't in favor of re-signing Diaw last summer, I disagree.

With Diaw, you could have argued he's a 'core player' and a key piece of the team's future, and therefore re-signing him was worth having the team dump salary later, losing draft picks and role players in the bargain. Banks was always going to be a role player (at best), so what's the rationale? Aside from giving the team an excuse to sell more draft picks, that is?

 

[Joe Mama]

People knew last year that Banks wasn't the FO's first or second choice with that money. What they didn't know was that the team was constrained by a fixed budget and wouldn't be "toughing it out" and paying the luxury tax this year. In fact, the Banks signing was greeted as proof the Suns were going to absorb that tax hit.

If we knew then what we know today (that the Banks signing would cost the team two first-round picks plus James Jones, and the bleeding isn't over yet), nobody on this board would have supported it, regardless of what they expected from Marcus.


Since the team did know this in advance, what could they possibly have been thinking? Why was Sarver encouraging them to spend money with such profligacy?

I'm having trouble following your logic here. They signed Marcus Banks because they thought he was a good player and worth the money. I'm sure they figured he gave them... here it comes... flexibility. If they had any idea he was going to end up as an asset with negative value they would not have signed him.

If Marcus Banks had played well, which is I'm sure what the front office was expecting, it would have given them all sorts of options. They'd be able to use him as a positive value piece in a trade or maybe the flexibility (there I go again) to move somebody else.



Joe

 

[Chaplin]

I'm having trouble following your logic here. They signed Marcus Banks because they thought he was a good player and worth the money. I'm sure they figured he gave them... here it comes... flexibility. If they had any idea he was going to end up as an asset with negative value they would not have signed him.

If Marcus Banks had played well, which is I'm sure what the front office was expecting, it would have given them all sorts of options. They'd be able to use him as a positive value piece in a trade or maybe the flexibility (there I go again) to move somebody else.



Joe

Exactly.

We needed a point guard to alleviate Steve Nash. Again, hindsight is 20/20, but in theory, getting Marcus Banks was a positive step last summer.

 

[elindholm]

I suspect that Sarver gave the go-ahead to gun for last year's title, finances be damned. So they signed Diaw, who appeared to be critical, and did what they could to address the backup PG need. I think that everyone in the organization believed that the Suns would win last year's title as long as they stayed healthy.

They didn't, and now Sarver has said "You had your chance, sorry, but I have to draw the line." So they're folding up the tent and letting the chips fall where they may.

That's my read on it, anyway.

 

[F-Dog]

I'm having trouble following your logic here. They signed Marcus Banks because they thought he was a good player and worth the money. I'm sure they figured he gave them... here it comes... flexibility. If they had any idea he was going to end up as an asset with negative value they would not have signed him.

If Marcus Banks had played well, which is I'm sure what the front office was expecting, it would have given them all sorts of options. They'd be able to use him as a positive value piece in a trade or maybe the flexibility (there I go again) to move somebody else.

Since the Suns have a strict budget, it wouldn't have been enough for Banks to have neutral value (meaning they're able to trade him for an expiring contract). They'd need to be able to trade him for nothing, which is much tougher.

Even if Banks has neutral value, his presence reduces flexibility, because the Suns will have to sell off assets to get down to the lux tax line before they can make a trade that improves the team.

 

[F-Dog]

I suspect that Sarver gave the go-ahead to gun for last year's title, finances be damned. So they signed Diaw, who appeared to be critical, and did what they could to address the backup PG need.

I can see that. (Diaw was under contract for last season either way, though.)

It's also possible that the Suns believed they wouldn't be able to re-sign Barbosa for what they thought he was worth.



Either way, I think the team's FO comes off looking bad.

 

[Chaplin]

I suspect that Sarver gave the go-ahead to gun for last year's title, finances be damned. So they signed Diaw, who appeared to be critical, and did what they could to address the backup PG need. I think that everyone in the organization believed that the Suns would win last year's title as long as they stayed healthy.

They didn't, and now Sarver has said "You had your chance, sorry, but I have to draw the line." So they're folding up the tent and letting the chips fall where they may.

That's my read on it, anyway.

I think that's a fair assessment, however I think it is a little over-extreme.

 

[azirish]

I think Sarvre is in a "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation.

First, he fails to sign JJ when he was cheap but not clearly an elite player. That blows up.

Second he signs Diaw for more than he's worth to avoid a repeat of the JJ fiasco.

The Suns tried to jump the team into the elite by signing free agents. Home run with Nash, but foul out with Q Richardson (can you image what it would cost unload him now?) and an apparent strike out with Banks. Jones was a neutral signing but too expensive for a team in the LT region.

Oddly enough, the biggest blunder was clearly not Sarver's fault. BC traded out of the 2004 draft in order to get cap space but then could not get what the second guy he was hoping for and settled for Q. In retrospect, it turned out to be a disasterous decision.

With 20-20 hindsight it is easy to say they messed up. Still, they've done enough things right to have an elite team. It's just frustating that they just don't seem to have the kind of Omniscience that we all possess.

 

[Mainstreet]

I suspect that Sarver gave the go-ahead to gun for last year's title, finances be damned. So they signed Diaw, who appeared to be critical, and did what they could to address the backup PG need. I think that everyone in the organization believed that the Suns would win last year's title as long as they stayed healthy.

They didn't, and now Sarver has said "You had your chance, sorry, but I have to draw the line." So they're folding up the tent and letting the chips fall where they may.

That's my read on it, anyway.

IMO, your read is correct. Sarver was willing to pay the LT this season if the Suns had won a Championship last season. However, I did think Sarver would hold on at least one more year before he started dropping major salary. KT's salary would have come off after this coming season anyway. I just though Sarver would be willing to pay the LT at least for this season. IMO the Suns just needed tweaking. I know the Suns will still be paying some LT this season but I just do not like the way they have handled this off season thus far. Maybe there is still time, but not without the money. If the Suns could sign a couple of bigs on the cheap like Skinner and/or PJ... or some big that can play a role I can understand it better.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Oddly enough, the biggest blunder was clearly not Sarver's fault. BC traded out of the 2004 draft in order to get cap space but then could not get what the second guy he was hoping for and settled for Q. In retrospect, it turned out to be a disasterous decision.

this is a complete joke. The biggest problem all stems back to the JJ deal, plain and simple. Getting Q helped push us to 62 wins, getting KT for Q helped us push us to another division title and without the suspensions, we'd probably have a title this year. Not having an absolute stud-multi-dimensional player at a 50/6 year deal is what was disasterous, plain and simple.

 

[RedStorm]

24th does seem a bit unrealistic, but even Sarver wouldn't throw out a number that is inherently easy to disprove. As far as we're concerned, we shouldn't make him responsible--it's the consulting firm the NBA uses that provided the number, not Sarver.

So, maybe Sarver had more than one and just cherry picked the lowest to make him look good in cutting payroll. I hope it pays off but I am not certain it will.