Sarver's league wide reputation--hang head low

[ASUCHRIS]

The Kerr exit is a perfect example. We're on the outside looking in but it's pretty much taken as gospel here (despite a lack of evidence) that Kerr left because Sarver was cheap or Sarver was petty or Sarver is an idiot etc. For all we know, Sarver might have forced him out the door because he was displeased over the Thomas trade or the Porter hiring etc.

See, here is an example where there is pretty concrete evidence that Sarver was behind it. Not only were there multiple interviews done before the playoffs where Kerr himself made an extension seem as only a formality, but this article, which explains in pretty frank terms what happened:

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PaulCoro/87062

 

[AzStevenCal]

See, here is an example where there is pretty concrete evidence that Sarver was behind it. Not only were there multiple interviews done before the playoffs where Kerr himself made an extension seem as only a formality, but this article, which explains in pretty frank terms what happened:

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/PaulCoro/87062

I remember that article but I don't take from it what you do, apparently. It was widely reported that Kerr was asked to take a pay cut but there were reports (rumors, speculation, whatever) that suggested there was a real reason he was asked to take a pay cut. There was reason to believe that Sarver was not entirely satisfied with Steve's performance probably because of the time and money wasted on Kerr's hiring of Porter but it's quite possible the trade with Seattle also factored in.

Steve

 

[Cheesebeef]

And I don't know if there's a single thing said here about Sarver that isn't true. He really could be every bit as bad as most here make him out to be. But, it seems to me, that every time anything can be interpreted negatively and applied to Sarver, it's routinely done as such.

The Kerr exit is a perfect example. We're on the outside looking in but it's pretty much taken as gospel here (despite a lack of evidence) that Kerr left because Sarver was cheap or Sarver was petty or Sarver is an idiot etc. For all we know, Sarver might have forced him out the door because he was displeased over the Thomas trade or the Porter hiring etc.

sorry, but we know exactly what happened here as it's been reported as fact that Sarver asked for big cuts to a lot of people in the FO, scaling their contracts back a couple years after the team just had a miraculous turnaround from the 2009 lotto team.

and if Sarver DID fire Kerr based on the Thomas trade/Porter move... does that make him any better that he fired the guy who actually improved from these two blunders well enough to rally the team into position to contend for a title?

I mean... either way... the Kerr thing is the perfect example of what's wrong with Sarver... not what might not be.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

but there were reports (rumors, speculation, whatever) that suggested there was a real reason he was asked to take a pay cut.

Perhaps my memory fails me, but I don't remember any of this speculated on at the time. Maybe you have some resources that would indicate this?

Regardless, not only was Kerr able to drop salary, but he had just led a team to within 2 wins of the Finals. To ask him to take a performance based on performance would be insanely idiotic.

but it's quite possible the trade with Seattle also factored in.

You honestly believe that the Seattle trade was a Kerr, not Sarver initiated move? Really? Get rid of our only interior defender and a solid player, and while we're at it, get rid of several first round picks?

 

[Griffin]

We're in a tough spot and if Sarver is as bad as you and many others believe, we're never going to get out of that tough spot until he divests himself of control. If you guys are right, there's very little reason to continue investing time and money in this team until that occurs.

There was an article on AzCentral recently speculating that Sarver might look to sell the team in a few years. Reportedly, the team has only gone up about $10M in value since the current ownership group purchased it seven years ago, and since many of the owners are investors, they haven't got much for their money.

But there is another way out of our predicament. If the new CBA implements a hard cap or even a flex cap like the one proposed and the owners agree on a better revenue sharing system that includes television profits, then it will be a lot easier (cheaper) for owners like Sarver and for teams in smaller markets to field a competitive team (and a lot more difficult for owners like Cuban to outspend everyone).

 

[AsUdUdE]

You honestly believe that the Seattle trade was a Kerr, not Sarver initiated move? Really? Get rid of our only interior defender and a solid player, and while we're at it, get rid of several first round picks?

yeah.. If Kerr made that Seattle trade on his own without Sarver's demand it would (and lets be fair it STILL DOES) go down as the single worst trade in the history of the franchise.. (NBA?)

seriously can someone name a worse trade in history? We traded 2 first round picks so sarver could save luxury tax money, not even cap room...

So IIIIFFFF Sarver tried to use that trade as an excuse to fire Kerr he is even worse than I thought...

 

[AzStevenCal]

yeah.. If Kerr made that Seattle trade on his own without Sarver's demand it would (and lets be fair it STILL DOES) go down as the single worst trade in the history of the franchise.. (NBA?)

seriously can someone name a worse trade in history? We traded 2 first round picks so sarver could save luxury tax money, not even cap room...

So IIIIFFFF Sarver tried to use that trade as an excuse to fire Kerr he is even worse than I thought...

I think, with the benefit of hindsight, it's one of the worst trades ever made. However, viewed at the moment it happened, it stands alone as the single dumbest decision of any franchise, any sport, ever, IMO. I'd love to know whether that was all on Sarver - maybe someday the truth will come out.

Steve

 

[AsUdUdE]

btw to just rub the salt a little deeper, one of those picks traded turned out to be Serge Ibaka...

yup... this is our reality..

 

[AzStevenCal]

Perhaps my memory fails me, but I don't remember any of this speculated on at the time. Maybe you have some resources that would indicate this?

Regardless, not only was Kerr able to drop salary, but he had just led a team to within 2 wins of the Finals. To ask him to take a performance based on performance would be insanely idiotic.

You honestly believe that the Seattle trade was a Kerr, not Sarver initiated move? Really? Get rid of our only interior defender and a solid player, and while we're at it, get rid of several first round picks?

I'm as resource-less as they come. However, it has been discussed before on this board. I don't think anyone came into the conversation with proof one way or the other but it was discussed. That trade made no sense regardless of who put it into play. No matter what though, I hold Kerr at least partially responsible. He should have fought tooth and nail against that move and had he failed, he should have walked. I know, easy for me to say but that was one incredibly damaging move and you know all you need to know about your boss and your job if that decision is forced on you.

It's interesting that you say the buck stops with Sarver (my wording but you said something to that effect earlier in this thread) and yet you're willing to give Kerr credit for the WCF appearance while holding him harmless for the Thomas and Porter decisions. Maybe it's justified, perhaps Sarver is responsible for everything bad that happens and someone else (anyone else) is responsible for the good things but it's been my experience that that's rarely the case. Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this conversation as I really don't know that you guys are wrong.

Steve

 

[Covert Rain]

I remember that article but I don't take from it what you do, apparently. It was widely reported that Kerr was asked to take a pay cut but there were reports (rumors, speculation, whatever) that suggested there was a real reason he was asked to take a pay cut. There was reason to believe that Sarver was not entirely satisfied with Steve's performance probably because of the time and money wasted on Kerr's hiring of Porter but it's quite possible the trade with Seattle also factored in.

Steve

I don't recall that. I do recall though that KTAR reported that what happened was that Kerr not only asked for a pay increase for himself but the entire front office because of the team's success. Supposedly Sarver was shell shocked as he planned to seek pay cuts. It caused tension and exodus began.

 

[Skratchy_Seal]

There was an article that came out a few months back talking about a specific meeting between the owners and the Players Association.

During the meeting, Sarver suggested that they should try to have a discussion strictly between the players and owners. Basically, he suggested that Stern, Billy Hunter, and other reps leave.

He was overruled, and then after the NBPA left, Stern ripped into Sarver in front of the other owners, basically yelling at him to not say anything like that ever again.

 

[Mainstreet]

There was an article that came out a few months back talking about a specific meeting between the owners and the Players Association.

During the meeting, Sarver suggested that they should try to have a discussion strictly between the players and owners. Basically, he suggested that Stern, Billy Hunter, and other reps leave.

He was overruled, and then after the NBPA left, Stern ripped into Sarver in front of the other owners, basically yelling at him to not say anything like that ever again.

Good catch. I recall something to this effect. I just can't remember when it happened though. I'll give Sarver points for this when I'm not criticizing him.

 

[Skratchy_Seal]

Here's the article, and it's the same source.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-sternhunter021811

When the NBA owners and players joined for a brief, acrimonious meeting on All-Star weekend a year ago, Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver had a big idea: Why don’t the commissioner and the union reps leave the room, and let the owners and players speak directly on the matter of a collective-bargaining agreement?

The suggestion was met with resounding rejection from Players Association executive director Billy Hunter, but commissioner David Stern spared his anger until union officials and players left the room. With the rest of the NBA’s owners watching, sources told Yahoo! Sports that Stern berated Sarver with an expletive-riddled diatribe demanding that he never, ever ask him to leave one of his negotiating sessions again. This was the Stern mostly hidden from the public eye: belligerent, controlling and forever staking his territory.

 

[elindholm]

I don't know, it seemed like Kerr was the one getting all of the credit back then.

I'm sure you understand that I'm not suggesting that Sarver would get the credit. Instead the attitude would be, "Yeah, he's a boob, but he's our boob, and he made this possible."

 

[Bufalay]

I'm sure you understand that I'm not suggesting that Sarver would get the credit. Instead the attitude would be, "Yeah, he's a boob, but he's our boob, and he made this possible."

I was thinking the attitude at the time was "I can't believe what Kerr has accomplished in spite of Sarver." Although, I guess that probably would've shifted towards what you wrote had they won.

 

[MrYeahBut]

Even though I have followed the Suns since the 80's I would still be classified as a casual fan. I don't have the insight into the game as most people here do, but I like watching it and I don't root for other teams.

Back in the day when I worked in Phx for about a year, I would even pay money to watch James Edwards loaf his happy ass up and down the court. Now I come over a couple times a year for vacation and have paid north of a buck fifty for scalped tickets just because I enjoyed it.

The last 2 years or so, I just couldn't bring myself to spend the money to go to a game. I watch them on tv when I can, but that's about it, other than read this board occasionally to keep up with things.

Because of the way things are right now with the team that's about as deep as I can go at this point.

ps...still bitter that Edwards got a ring with the Pistons

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I am an optimist with my teams. In fact should the Cardinals trade for Kevin Kolb like is seeming like a safe bet at this point, I am the only one I know picking them to win 10 games and the division.

Saying that I see no such fortune for the Suns. Robert Sarver is the worst thing to happen to Arizona sports in decades and to go from Jerry to Bob is like going from Mark Cuban to Ted Stepian. JC had his flaws but he "got it" and was very well respected among his peers. That is unassialable.

Even when Sarver makes a good move (hirng Kerr) he botches that too. Suns are in the worse spot they have been in two decades and I don't see anything on the horizon that makes me feel better about it.

Thats why I am kind of okay with a season being cancelled by lockout. I don't want to have him continue to embarrass our team and city with his antics, penny pinching, and overal douchery.

Man that guy is a clown. Like Cheese said, I don't detest many, but I DETEST Sarver. Even if we have won a championship I would be giving him little credit. He just strikes me as that arrogant wingbag with money that everyone tolerates but hates inside.

Not the guy I want running my team. Even if he somehow would have pulled a ring out of his you know what.

 

[carey]

More Suns windbaggage, this time from Ken Berger.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/...t-drag-heels?ttag=gen10_on_all_fb_na_txt_0001

Prediction: The pressure begins to build on both sides, but particularly among owners, who will have to confront the very real possibility of losing an entire season if they don't begin to soften their demands. We could see a shift in which owners are leading the charge in the negotiating room as the threat of losing more than $1.5 billion (roughly their share of league revenues) from a lost season begins to dwarf the $300 million in annual stated losses -- a significant portion of which is concentrated among the worst-performing teams. Will the more reasonable owners (Peter Holt, Glen Taylor, Herb Simon) and the big-market ones (James Dolan, Jerry Buss, Jerry Reinsdorf, Micky Arison) become fed up with the hard-liners (Dan Gilbert, Robert Sarver, Wyc Grousbeck, Ted Leonsis, the Kroenke family, etc.) and take control of the negotiations? The added pressure of the NFL solving its problems and kicking off a new season shouldn't be underestimated. By a vote of 29-1, the Board of Governors approves a proposal by Stern to create a "Sarver Button" in the Omni conference room, by which the commissioner can deliver a jarring but non-lethal dose of electricity to the Suns' windbag owner every time he speaks.

 

[Mainstreet]

More Suns windbaggage, this time from Ken Berger.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/...t-drag-heels?ttag=gen10_on_all_fb_na_txt_0001

I often think that if Sarver had paid the going rate for a top GM the Suns would be much further ahead as a franchise rather than throwing away money by making poor player personnel decisions. The Suns would likely not only be younger and more talented but Sarver would not be in the position of pinching every penny. IMO, he is his own worst enemy by making penny wise pound foolish decisions.