Scola trade to Pacers Imminent

[AzStevenCal]

It's kind of interesting that the Suns are looking for like a star like the Hawks back then.

A little different though. The Hawks had been a bad franchise for quite some time. They were bad in the stands too even when they enjoyed a little success on the court and that was during far happier economic times.

Steve

 

[Covert Rain]

Joe Johnson would have been the difference in winning a title IMO. It still pains me that we lost him.

 

[Suns_fan69]

If I remember, we WERE going to match the offer until JJ point blank told Sarver he didn't want to be on the team and be second fiddle anymore.

 

[Mainstreet]

If I remember, we WERE going to match the offer until JJ point blank told Sarver he didn't want to be on the team and be second fiddle anymore.

The gist of it when JJ decided to leave.

However, JJ was interested in an extension the season prior (somewhere around 50M) before Sarver told him to go prove himself. I'm thinking JJ started to think about leaving after that.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The gist of it when JJ decided to leave.

However, JJ was interested in an extension the season prior (somewhere around 50M) before Sarver told him to go prove himself. I'm thinking JJ started to think about leaving after that.

I'm thinking it got even worse when he lowballed JJ AGAIN right after the season also, making him go out and get the deal with the Hawks before we said we'd match it.

 

[elindholm]

Although playing the jilted lover with respect to Joe Johnson is a favorite pastime on this board, I say good riddance. He hasn't done squat since he left the Suns, except be named as the 12th man to the Eastern Conference All-Stars a couple of time for no compelling reason, and the Nets would be thrilled to give him away for free if they could find a taker.

 

[SirStefan32]

Although playing the jilted lover with respect to Joe Johnson is a favorite pastime on this board, I say good riddance. He hasn't done squat since he left the Suns, except be named as the 12th man to the Eastern Conference All-Stars a couple of time for no compelling reason, and the Nets would be thrilled to give him away for free if they could find a taker.

I never understood the love affair this board has with Joe Johnson either.
I diagnose this as the John Greenleaf Whittier syndrome ("It might have been.")

 

[95pro]

He would have put us over the top. We had a center, pg, and sf. Just needed that sg who was a solid ball handler, shooter, and defender.
He broke his face and then we were short handed and lost out in those playoffs.

But since he's left Phoenix I dont understand the paydays he's received and love affair from other teams. He and Dwill are two of the most overrated and overpaid guards in this league and just so happens they're on the same team.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Although playing the jilted lover with respect to Joe Johnson is a favorite pastime on this board, I say good riddance. He hasn't done squat since he left the Suns, except be named as the 12th man to the Eastern Conference All-Stars a couple of time for no compelling reason, and the Nets would be thrilled to give him away for free if they could find a taker.

This is ludicrously stupid. The Hawks hasn't made the playoffs in EONS before JJ got there and his arrival along with a couple other decent pieces turned them into a multiple 2nd round playoff team, not to mention SIX Allstar games AND a spot on the US National Team. The idea that that is "not doing squat" is frankly idiotic.

Now signing him to a 20 mill per year contract? That was idiotic, but at 15 million he was worth every penny to that team and would have been MORE then worth it to the Suns.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

This is ludicrously stupid. The Hawks hasn't made the playoffs in EONS before JJ got there and his arrival along with a couple other decent pieces turned them into a multiple 2nd round playoff team, not to mention SIX Allstar games AND a spot on the US National Team. The idea that that is "not doing squat" is frankly idiotic.

Now signing him to a 20 mill per year contract? That was idiotic, but at 15 million he was worth every penny to that team and would have been MORE then worth it to the Suns.

Or the 10 mil he should have gotten. (and easily could have been paid) JJ was a perfect fit for a DA team, could do everything offensively and was arguably our best defender. Sure, he's not a #1, but when he was with us, could have been a decent 2 and a great #3 guy.

Losing JJ wasn't the end of the world, but he never should have left in the first place.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Or the 10 mil he should have gotten. (and easily could have been paid) JJ was a perfect fit for a DA team, could do everything offensively and was arguably our best defender. Sure, he's not a #1, but when he was with us, could have been a decent 2 and a great #3 guy.

Losing JJ wasn't the end of the world, but he never should have left in the first place.

It was as much JJ' s fault as Sarvers. Everyone would have thought it was a great trade though if Atlanta had not lucked out in the lottery the next year, it's one the reasons I hate protected picks.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

It was as much JJ' s fault as Sarvers.

Revisionist history. He was available for 5 and 50, and Sarver cheaped out over 5 million. Joe ended up with 5 and 72 in the offseason, which seems to quite clearly indicate that $50 mil was more than fair.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Revisionist history. He was available for 5 and 50, and Sarver cheaped out over 5 million. Joe ended up with 5 and 72 in the offseason, which seems to quite clearly indicate that $50 mil was more than fair.

Sarver told him to prove he was worth it and he'd pay it. Joe proceeded to have BY FAR his best season. He worked hard on his outside shot in the summer and he came back a much more efficient shooter. Sarver congratulated him on the great season and offered him market value but Joe made it clear, he wanted out.

Steve

 

[PDXChris]

Think back to Michael's dynasty. He always had two or three role playing Centers on the roster. One in at all times. 'True centers'!

They didn't have to be studs. Just legitimate Centers. You are half-right. It is logic. What part of it do you consider 'bent'?

1990-91 Bill Cartwright, Will Perdue, Stacey King(Played PF and C)
1991-92 Bill Cartwright, Will Perdue, Stacey King(Played PF and C), Scott Williams (Played PF and C)
1993-93 Bill Cartwright, Will Perdue, Stacey King(Played C), Scott Williams (Played PF and C)


1995-96 Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, James Edwards (Longley and Wennington average 41 mintues a game together)
1996-97 Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, Robert Parish (Longley and Wennington average 37 mintues a game together)
1997-87 Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, Joe Kleine (Longley and Wennington average 38 mintues a game together)


I saw someone question this and just wanted to help you here as the resident Bulls fan. I had totally forgotten that James Edwards and Robert Parish both played for the Bulls after retiring.

 

[Mulli]

1990-91 Bill Cartwright, Will Perdue, Stacey King(Played PF and C)
1991-92 Bill Cartwright, Will Perdue, Stacey King(Played PF and C), Scott Williams (Played PF and C)
1993-93 Bill Cartwright, Will Perdue, Stacey King(Played C), Scott Williams (Played PF and C)


1995-96 Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, James Edwards (Longley and Wennington average 41 mintues a game together)
1996-97 Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, Robert Parish (Longley and Wennington average 37 mintues a game together)
1997-87 Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, Joe Kleine (Longley and Wennington average 38 mintues a game together)


I saw someone question this and just wanted to help you here as the resident Bulls fan. I had totally forgotten that James Edwards and Robert Parish both played for the Bulls after retiring.

Da Bulls!!!

You may be the resident Bulls' fan, but my wife has met Scottie Pippen, stole a beer glass MJ drank out of, and told off Rodman when she was his waitress.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Sarver told him to prove he was worth it and he'd pay it. Joe proceeded to have BY FAR his best season. He worked hard on his outside shot in the summer and he came back a much more efficient shooter. Sarver congratulated him on the great season and offered him market value but Joe made it clear, he wanted out.

Steve

C'mon Steve...if you're willing to offer $45, then $50 doesn't really seem like a bridge too far, no? There was no animosity between Joe and the team, and nothing wrong until after Sarver made the choice not to extend him.

Sarver took a gamble, and it completely backfired, as Johnson proved he was worth far more than the 45. (or 50 for that matter)

 

[AzStevenCal]

C'mon Steve...if you're willing to offer $45, then $50 doesn't really seem like a bridge too far, no? There was no animosity between Joe and the team, and nothing wrong until after Sarver made the choice not to extend him.

Sarver took a gamble, and it completely backfired, as Johnson proved he was worth far more than the 45. (or 50 for that matter)

No it doesn't seem like a bridge too far but where does it stop, with any player? They all ask for more than the owner wants to give them. My point, it wasn't carved in stone that he was worth that salary. It was very questionable. The guy was horrible from distance and there were concerns about his lack of work ethic dating back to at least his college days. During his time with us (and Boston) he was notorious for looking great one game and completely disappearing the next. We wanted him to play with consistent effort and to improve his outside shot. He did both of those things his last season with us but it was a first for him. Yes, I wish Sarver had stepped up and yes, it's reasonable to think he should have. I just don't think it's reasonable to say he was being unreasonable for not doing so.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

C'mon Steve...if you're willing to offer $45, then $50 doesn't really seem like a bridge too far, no?

I don't understand this argument. If the maximum I'm willing to spend is $45 million, then that's the maximum. If you are willing to go over your maximum just because someone asks you to, it's not a maximum, and you'll get the reputation for being soft in negotiations. We can fault Sarver for undervaluing Johnson, but I can't fault him at all for sticking to his price.

I remember selling a used car for $2300. The first prospective buyer asked if I would take $2000. I said no, the price is $2300. If I'd been willing to sell it for $2000, I would have said so in the first place. If no one buys it for $2300, then I've priced it wrong, but I'd done my research and knew that $2300 was a fair price. And sure enough, the first guy bought it for $2300. Figure out your price and stick to it.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

No it doesn't seem like a bridge too far but where does it stop, with any player? They all ask for more than the owner wants to give them. My point, it wasn't carved in stone that he was worth that salary. It was very questionable. The guy was horrible from distance and there were concerns about his lack of work ethic dating back to at least his college days. During his time with us (and Boston) he was notorious for looking great one game and completely disappearing the next. We wanted him to play with consistent effort and to improve his outside shot. He did both of those things his last season with us but it was a first for him. Yes, I wish Sarver had stepped up and yes, it's reasonable to think he should have. I just don't think it's reasonable to say he was being unreasonable for not doing so.

Steve

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I (among many others) saw Johnson as a young star, who had finally figured it out and was a vital part of our sucess.

Was there some risk involved in signing him to a long term deal? Of course, but if you're comfortable paying $45 million is adding 1 million per year going to prevent you from retaining one of your young stars? Penny wise, pound foolish to me.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I don't understand this argument. If the maximum I'm willing to spend is $45 million, then that's the maximum. If you are willing to go over your maximum just because someone asks you to, it's not a maximum, and you'll get the reputation for being soft in negotiations. We can fault Sarver for undervaluing Johnson, but I can't fault him at all for sticking to his price.

So, in spite of the fact that the results of his decision were a failure, we're giving Sarver a pass for "sticking to his guns"? His insistence on not making a minor concession (10%) in the grand scheme cost us one of our best young assets. Sticking to your guns and being hard headed in negotiations is great when you're right, but not so good when you're not. In this case, Sarver was not.

I remember selling a used car for $2300. The first prospective buyer asked if I would take $2000. I said no, the price is $2300. If I'd been willing to sell it for $2000, I would have said so in the first place. If no one buys it for $2300, then I've priced it wrong, but I'd done my research and knew that $2300 was a fair price. And sure enough, the first guy bought it for $2300. Figure out your price and stick to it.

Apples and oranges.

Although it's not a perfect analogy for a variety of reasons, it would be more like if he believed the car was worth $2000, you wanted $2300, then later, you both finding out the car was actually worth $3500. Wouldn't you agree that it would have been better for him to bite the bullet and spend the extra $300?

 

[Mainstreet]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I (among many others) saw Johnson as a young star, who had finally figured it out and was a vital part of our sucess.

Was there some risk involved in signing him to a long term deal? Of course, but if you're comfortable paying $45 million is adding 1 million per year going to prevent you from retaining one of your young stars? Penny wise, pound foolish to me.

We feel the same.

I thought JJ was worth every bit of the 50M extension. This was proved the following season when Atlanta signed him for 70M. If the owner mistakes the market price, it's on him. Setting an arbitrary 45M maximum limit was the owner not understanding the market value and the player. I can see why JJ was upset and did not want to return to the Suns. Who would, when another team valued you at 70M the next season without having to persuade the Suns owner to bump up his value. Sarver gambled, Sarver lost.

 

[BC867]

I saw someone question this and just wanted to help you here as the resident Bulls fan. I had totally forgotten that James Edwards and Robert Parish both played for the Bulls after retiring.

Thanks, bb. I remembered that, at the time, Michael's dominant years always included at least two role-playing Centers as the 5th piece of the lineup.

During the Suns 50-and-fade seasons over the decades, they were lucky to have more than one traditional Center. Especially when you consider that, even if they did on paper, Mark West was in foul trouble by the 4th quarter.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Thanks, bb. I remembered that, at the time, Michael's dominant years always included at least two role-playing Centers as the 5th piece of the lineup.

During the Suns 50-and-fade seasons over the decades, they were lucky to have more than one traditional Center. Especially when you consider that, even if they did on paper, Mark West was in foul trouble by the 4th quarter.

Hardly. Neither one of them played anywhere close to a full season for the Bulls and Edwards didn't even play half a season. As Bulls, Parish played 18 minutes total in the playoffs and Edwards logged a grand total of 28. Hardly the stuff of legends or even "5th piece of the lineup". And we had plenty of stiffs on our bench the equal of Parish and Edwards at that stage of their careers. In 76 for example we had Dennis Awtrey and Dale Schlueter, both legit sized role playing centers. Also, notice he said they played for the Bulls AFTER they retired.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

So, in spite of the fact that the results of his decision were a failure, we're giving Sarver a pass for "sticking to his guns"? His insistence on not making a minor concession (10%) in the grand scheme cost us one of our best young assets. Sticking to your guns and being hard headed in negotiations is great when you're right, but not so good when you're not. In this case, Sarver was not.

That's true. But what people tend to blame Sarver for is not mis-judging Johnson's value, but getting stingy with "only $5 million." The argument is usually, "If they're asking only $5 million more than your best offer, go ahead and pay it," and that's what I take issue with. Sarver was wrong, but he was consistent. Any owner/GM is going to make mistakes in assessing player values, but taking a consistent stand in negotiations is, over the long run, going to be a good strategy.

if he believed the car was worth $2000, you wanted $2300, then later, you both finding out the car was actually worth $3500. Wouldn't you agree that it would have been better for him to bite the bullet and spend the extra $300?

No. He needs to go into negotiations with his best idea of what the car is worth, and not pay more than that. If it turns out later that his assessment was way off, that's an assessment error, but not a negotiation error. They're different skills. If you make negotiation errors in order to try to offset assessment errors that you may or may not have made, you'll never have any idea what you're doing. If you screw up, figure out exactly where you screwed up, and try to learn from the mistake.

 

[SunsTzu]

Revisionist history. He was available for 5 and 50, and Sarver cheaped out over 5 million. Joe ended up with 5 and 72 in the offseason, which seems to quite clearly indicate that $50 mil was more than fair.

Actually it was 6 years 50mil. Annual difference of about 800k, or 1 Diante Garrett.