Should Suns should follow Hornets plan?

[Phrazbit]

Our current home jerseys are trash. The road purple are decent but the throwbacks are fresh. Should go back to 80’s or 90’s full time.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the chiseled font. Again, I liked the gradient style font we had on the last set but I think an updated version of the 90s jerseys or the western front jerseys basically exactly as they were, would be the best options.

I suspect we're going to ride the current set, aside from some tweaks, for a while though. They only played in the last set for like 3 years, I don't see them ditching these new ones quickly.

 

[Phrazbit]

And I wish they go back to the vibrant orange and purple. The muted versions they use now are blah. Don’t see the Lakers muting their purple or gold. Don’t see the bulls moving to a brick red. Don’t see the Celtics moving to a pine green.

They didn't mute them but they sure wrecked their purple set.

You must be registered for see images attach

I don't know what they were thinking with that black panel. It's really out of place on its own, but when you factor in that their other 2 uniforms lack side panels entirely... it's a real head scratcher.

 

[slinslin]

This is 100% Sarver. He wanted to distance his tenure as far from the Colangelos as possible. That's why it took 16 years or however long it's been to actually go back to an all purple jersey.

 

[Mainstreet]

This is 100% Sarver. He wanted to distance his tenure as far from the Colangelos as possible. That's why it took 16 years or however long it's been to actually go back to an all purple jersey.

I do think there is an element of truth to this... putting his stamp on the Suns.

 

[gimpy]

I think he has Done that.

 

[AzStevenCal]

This is 100% Sarver. He wanted to distance his tenure as far from the Colangelos as possible. That's why it took 16 years or however long it's been to actually go back to an all purple jersey.

I'm not disagreeing but you didn't make it clear. Do you know something or are you guessing?

 

[Chaplin]

I'm not disagreeing but you didn't make it clear. Do you know something or are you guessing?

Speculation of course, but do you know of a good reason not to think that? Sarver's always been a bit of an egomaniac. It just makes sense.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Speculation of course, but do you know of a good reason not to think that? Sarver's always been a bit of an egomaniac. It just makes sense.

It's not something I know much about. I just wanted to know whether it was opinion or something that's been reported that I missed. I'm quite sure he has someone responsible for research and decisions on the matter. I have no problem if he gave them general direction and then let them do their job. If he overruled them for petty reasons, that's disappointing and runs counter to what I know of him. But it fits perfectly with the "Sarver is a controlling jerk" narrative that we see here so often.

 

[GatorAZ]

I’m guessing negotiations to buy the team got ugly otherwise idk why Sarver has so much resentment about past regime. I do remember the sale being north of $400 mil which was a record at the time.

 

[BC867]

It's not something I know much about. I just wanted to know whether it was opinion or something that's been reported that I missed. I'm quite sure he has someone responsible for research and decisions on the matter. I have no problem if he gave them general direction and then let them do their job. If he overruled them for petty reasons, that's disappointing and runs counter to what I know of him. But it fits perfectly with the "Sarver is a controlling jerk" narrative that we see here so often.

I think it is more than just the opinion of many of us. Sarver's waving the foam finger in the stands, trying to make himself the face of the organization, was certainly egotistical. That was not smooth in handling the transfer from Jerry Colangelo.

And I would say that the following behavior reeks of egotism. Meeting with the GM and Head Coach regularly to micro-manage the starting lineups; taking the place of our GM; jumping into negotiations, which reduces authority from our GM as a decision maker; and hiring neophyte GM's and naming Head Coaches learning on the job, without top-guy experience to stand up to Sarver's NBA inexperience.

From a management perspective, it all adds up to his earning the reputation "controlling jerk" (as you put it). The history is no mystery! Even though he has backed off somewhat (especially in hiring our new Head Coach), better than bad is still not good if you are finally trying to become a very good team.

Eight years out of the playoffs is on Sarver's shoulders.

 

[Hoop Head]

I’m guessing negotiations to buy the team got ugly otherwise idk why Sarver has so much resentment about past regime. I do remember the sale being north of $400 mil which was a record at the time.

It wasn't the negotiations it was the transition period. The plan was for Colangelo to stay with the team for a couple of years after the sale. I think the sale itself was happening over the first full season, with like 80% being paid right away and the rest paid out after the first season but Colangelo was staying on as an advisor for 3 years, I think, and Bryan was still the GM or Team President. After that first year though the relationship wasn't as smooth as anyone anticipated and things started getting rocky. Perhaps the sudden success went to Sarver's head but Bryan was gone within 2 years of the sale, I think, and Jerry left about the same time. Bryan won executive of the year for that first season with Nash but it was all downhill from there.

 

[Yuma]

I know I am the only guy that thinks the opposite about Sarver. I grew up with Bill Bidwill owning a team he essentially seemed to hate. Any time a guy got good on the Cardinals you knew he was not going to be resigned. After that torture it was refreshing to see a guy as an owner who was as big a fan as any of us. Even more. I don't begrudge him getting excited on plays. Celebrating a win as much as us, that's fantastic in my opinion.

People kept getting on him about being cheap, but during that time the Suns were routinely one of the higher payrolls in the league. Like mentioned earlier he spent a record to get the Suns. This is someone who is NOT cheap. Sarver has overspent on some guys who really were not worth it. Close to being a champion, the Joe Johnson debacle was seen as being about the money. It was more about Johnson not being super aggressive, or having that killer instinct.

The exit of the Colangelos was not graceful. It was horrible. Reminded me of how Tex Schram and Tom Landry we unnecessarily disgraced by Jerry Jones. Yeah Sarver makes mistakes, but I find it weird the ones people freak out about.

 

[Chaplin]

This has nothing to do with whether Sarver is/was cheap. This is Sarver taking over a franchise that was essentially run by one guy for its entire existence, and the new owner wanting to put his own mark on it. Instead of purple being one of the two main colors, he decided to try black. It failed but it’s taken a long time for him to finally embrace the franhise’s history.

 

[Mainstreet]

I know I am the only guy that thinks the opposite about Sarver. I grew up with Bill Bidwill owning a team he essentially seemed to hate. Any time a guy got good on the Cardinals you knew he was not going to be resigned. After that torture it was refreshing to see a guy as an owner who was as big a fan as any of us. Even more. I don't begrudge him getting excited on plays. Celebrating a win as much as us, that's fantastic in my opinion.

People kept getting on him about being cheap, but during that time the Suns were routinely one of the higher payrolls in the league. Like mentioned earlier he spent a record to get the Suns. This is someone who is NOT cheap. Sarver has overspent on some guys who really were not worth it. Close to being a champion, the Joe Johnson debacle was seen as being about the money. It was more about Johnson not being super aggressive, or having that killer instinct.

The exit of the Colangelos was not graceful. It was horrible. Reminded me of how Tex Schram and Tom Landry we unnecessarily disgraced by Jerry Jones. Yeah Sarver makes mistakes, but I find it weird the ones people freak out about.

The Joe Johnson situation was a total misjudgement by Sarver over money.

Sarver could have wrapped up Joe Johnson the year before he entered free agency over a difference of $10 million as I recall. Instead Sarver told Johnson to go earn it the following season, which he did, leading Johnson wanting out.

Most Suns fans wanted Sarver to wrap up Johnson before he hit free agency. The Joe Johnson I remember was a budding star. He was initially shy when he was first traded to the Suns from Boston as a rookie but he soon emerged into a young player on the rise.

Actually Sarver had two chances to keep Johnson and failed. The year before he entered free agency and not calling his bluff by matching in free agency.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I know I am the only guy that thinks the opposite about Sarver. I grew up with Bill Bidwill owning a team he essentially seemed to hate. Any time a guy got good on the Cardinals you knew he was not going to be resigned. After that torture it was refreshing to see a guy as an owner who was as big a fan as any of us. Even more. I don't begrudge him getting excited on plays. Celebrating a win as much as us, that's fantastic in my opinion.

People kept getting on him about being cheap, but during that time the Suns were routinely one of the higher payrolls in the league. Like mentioned earlier he spent a record to get the Suns. This is someone who is NOT cheap. Sarver has overspent on some guys who really were not worth it. Close to being a champion, the Joe Johnson debacle was seen as being about the money. It was more about Johnson not being super aggressive, or having that killer instinct.

The exit of the Colangelos was not graceful. It was horrible. Reminded me of how Tex Schram and Tom Landry we unnecessarily disgraced by Jerry Jones. Yeah Sarver makes mistakes, but I find it weird the ones people freak out about.

I don't fall on the opposite side, more like the middle. We're a million miles away judging a man and I'm not comfortable doing it. I don't know him at all. I know people he worked with, I dealt with them closely in the early 90's but I don't know him. I heard mostly great things about him as a person and I know he's heavily involved in multiple communities and he gives a lot. But I don't understand all the things he's done as an owner. Same with Bill Bidwill. On the personal side, he seems to be a good man. As an NFL owner, thank heavens he had a son named Mike.

 

[GatorAZ]

It wasn't the negotiations it was the transition period. The plan was for Colangelo to stay with the team for a couple of years after the sale. I think the sale itself was happening over the first full season, with like 80% being paid right away and the rest paid out after the first season but Colangelo was staying on as an advisor for 3 years, I think, and Bryan was still the GM or Team President. After that first year though the relationship wasn't as smooth as anyone anticipated and things started getting rocky. Perhaps the sudden success went to Sarver's head but Bryan was gone within 2 years of the sale, I think, and Jerry left about the same time. Bryan won executive of the year for that first season with Nash but it was all downhill from there.

If that’s true it was doomed from the start. Maybe Jerry was using that caveat as a negotiating ploy and it rubbed Sarver the wrong way. He was already keeping on Bryan which was also likely a stipulation. Too many factors here for Sarver to be a little bitter.

 

[Yuma]

The Joe Johnson situation was a total misjudgement by Sarver over money.

Sarver could have wrapped up Joe Johnson the year before he entered free agency over a difference of $10 million as I recall. Instead Sarver told Johnson to go earn it the following season, which he did, leading Johnson wanting out.

Most Suns fans wanted Sarver to wrap up Johnson before he hit free agency. The Joe Johnson I remember was a budding star. He was initially shy when he was first traded to the Suns from Boston as a rookie but he soon emerged into a young player on the rise.

Actually Sarver had two chances to keep Johnson and failed. The year before he entered free agency and not calling his bluff by matching in free agency.

From the fans viewpoint its the money thing, just like you said. There was writing in the AZ Republic where Sarver said he just didn't think Joe Johnson was going to take that next step. To be fair, Joe was on the rise, but he didn't quite hit that top tier of player. The money was a factor in that the Suns had a lot of top guys, and if they locked Joe in at his price it meant someone would not be signed later. I get that. If you sign Joe and he doesn't take that higher step, and you have to let a better guy go later, it backfires. It was a judgement call. I think where Sarver made a mistake was being so public about the whole thing. That's why you pay a GM as an owner. You let him take the heat for not resigning a guy. It became Joe versus Sarver in the media. I think that hurt the Suns with free agents after that.

 

[Hoop Head]

If that’s true it was doomed from the start. Maybe Jerry was using that caveat as a negotiating ploy and it rubbed Sarver the wrong way. He was already keeping on Bryan which was also likely a stipulation. Too many factors here for Sarver to be a little bitter.

I don't think so. Colangelo is widely respected around the league, before and after the sale of the Suns. It was just a clash of personalities but Jerry has proven he can work with a number of multi-millionaires in the past and that's largely why he was put in charge of the US Men's Olympic team as well as being placed on the Sixers staff to right their ship by the league after they were busted for tanking too long. I would think a number of first time sports owners would have embraced learning from Colangelo while they took over his old team but there was a clash that happened for reasons unknown to the public. It could be many things.

I don't think Jerry is blameless in it either because he had to take a backseat with the Suns for the first time ever really and that had to be a bit of a change for him, especially if something happened he wasn't entirely in agreement of. It could have even been the Joe Johnson handling that started to strain things because that was basically the opposite of how Jerry would have handled it. So while it could have been a problem, I don't think anyone thought it would be. Perhaps it would have been best if Colangelo was brought in as an advisor on a team he doesn't have a history with though, like the Sixers, so nobody steps on any toes and nothing gets taken personally like what happened with Sarver and JC.

 

[Yuma]

This has nothing to do with whether Sarver is/was cheap. This is Sarver taking over a franchise that was essentially run by one guy for its entire existence, and the new owner wanting to put his own mark on it. Instead of purple being one of the two main colors, he decided to try black. It failed but it’s taken a long time for him to finally embrace the franhise’s history.

I get that. I got off topic a bit. Hey, I like the Chargers. Same thing happened there. Everyone loves the baby blue uniforms, but Spanos comes in and like Navy Blue and Black. Took forever for him to bring the baby blues back. I don't begrudge an owner trying something he wants. The color thing I wasn't too obsessed with. The Suns with the white uniforms and orange suns on the bottom of the shorts is what I remember most. Purple wasn't really that big in the scheme until later.

 

[Hoop Head]

From the fans viewpoint its the money thing. There was writing in the AZ Republic where Sarver said he just didn't think Joe Johnson was going to take that next step. To be fair, Joe was on the rise, but he didn't quite hit that top tier of player. The money was a factor in that the Suns had a lot of top guys, and if they locked Joe in at his price it meant someone would not be signed later. I get that. If you sign Joe and he doesn't take that higher step, and you have to let a better guy go later, it backfires. It was a judgement call. I think where Sarver made a mistake was being so public about the whole thing. That's why you pay a GM as an owner. You let him take the heat for not resigning a guy. It became Joe versus Sarver in the media. I think that hurt the Suns with free agents after that.

I think Sarver is viewed negatively for that too much. I get why people didn't like it, I didn't care for how it was handled either, but from Sarver's perspective it made sense. He just bought the team, wow'd Steve Nash, signed Quentin Richardson, and was preparing for the season and Joe Johnson wants a contract bigger than Q despite not really putting up similar numbers or leading our team to any success. Being told to go earn it should not be a negative when talking to athletes, especially in the NBA world where contracts are guaranteed. If it doesn't work a team can't get out of it like in the NFL. They get trapped and sometimes one bad contract can set a team back a decade or more. Especially at that time when the max length was 7 years for a player resigning with their own team. In hindsight, it's bad but that's because we saw JJ became a legit All-Star level player but that was not guaranteed, especially with 3 All-Stars already on the team in Nash, Stoudemire, and Marion. There are other situations that people can look back and see a player getting paid where things didn't work out well for anyone also and that was a real possibility with the Suns at that time. It's hard to give it a fair look because JJ did become the player we hoped he'd be but that was a bit more than it looked like he would be at that time.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I think Sarver is viewed negatively for that too much. I get why people didn't like it, I didn't care for how it was handled either, but from Sarver's perspective it made sense. He just bought the team, wow'd Steve Nash, signed Quentin Richardson, and was preparing for the season and Joe Johnson wants a contract bigger than Q despite not really putting up similar numbers or leading our team to any success.

Huh?

The season before they signed Q, Q averaged 17.2/6/2 on 40% shooting at the age of 23.

The season before the signed Q, JJ averaged 16.7/5/4 on 43% shooting at the age of 22.

Those are pretty much the EXACT same numbers, with Joe having played one fewer year even at that point.

And Q didn't do jack to lead his previous team to success so not sure why you brought that up as a reason to give him the deal and not JJ.

Being told to go earn it should not be a negative when talking to athletes, especially in the NBA world where contracts are guaranteed. If it doesn't work a team can't get out of it like in the NFL. They get trapped and sometimes one bad contract can set a team back a decade or more. Especially at that time when the max length was 7 years for a player resigning with their own team.

Except the contract JJ wanted wasn't CLOSE to the Max. He wanted 5 years for 50. Sarver wanted 5 years for 45. He balked at a difference of a million dollars per year.

In hindsight, it's bad but that's because we saw JJ became a legit All-Star level player but that was not guaranteed, especially with 3 All-Stars already on the team in Nash, Stoudemire, and Marion. There are other situations that people can look back and see a player getting paid where things didn't work out well for anyone also and that was a real possibility with the Suns at that time. It's hard to give it a fair look because JJ did become the player we hoped he'd be but that was a bit more than it looked like he would be at that time.

he balked at 1 million dollars more per year on a 5 year deal for JJ. It was an idiotic decision then and still is mostly because he was not only going to get JJ, but he was going to get him for what turned out to be a freaking bargain. Even if he stayed just as 16.7/5/4, he would have been well worth 5 years for 50.

 

[Hoop Head]

Huh?

The season before they signed Q, Q averaged 17.2/6/2 on 40% shooting at the age of 23.

The season before the signed Q, JJ averaged 16.7/5/4 on 43% shooting at the age of 22.

Those are pretty much the EXACT same numbers, with Joe having played one fewer year even at that point.

And Q didn't do jack to lead his previous team to success so not sure why you brought that up as a reason to give him the deal and not JJ.



Except the contract JJ wanted wasn't CLOSE to the Max. He wanted 5 years for 50. Sarver wanted 5 years for 45. He balked at a difference of a million dollars per year.



he balked at 1 million dollars more per year on a 5 year deal for JJ. It was an idiotic decision then and still is mostly because he was not only going to get JJ, but he was going to get him for what turned out to be a freaking bargain. Even if he stayed just as 16.7/5/4, he would have been well worth 5 years for 50.

JJ did that on a team that was basically tanking, or had given up on the season. He was thrust into a much bigger role rather than taking on a bigger role naturally or with his style of play. He hadn't proved to be that much better or more than Q and demanding more money than him despite not putting up better numbers and not really taking to a leadership role with the team didn't make sense to a new owner learning about the league.

Everybody wants to talk about $5 million and while that may not appear to be much, we weren't in the room and don't know how things went down. It could have been that much but I don't expect either side to come out be so open about it to the public. Telling an athlete to earn that difference should not be that negative of a thing. If it were truly just $1 million a year, I have a hard time believing they couldn't find a way to make it work somehow with incentives or some way. We've only received word that's been leaked out though and neither JJ or Sarver has addressed the discrepancy in pay being an exact figure as far as I know.

It's not our money that was being spent though so it's easy to say how it should have been done, especially in hindsight. Sarver said he was willing to pay the max that following summer but that didn't matter to JJ, he already made up his mind and wanted out so the relationship ended up being too damaged at that point for a guy who had owned a team for a year to try and call his bluff and match it. He didn't know the NBA then, and he can be knocked for that, but it's not entirely reasonable to hold that against him for 15 years and use that as the reason for disliking him so long after the fact. It's done, it's over. No one's mind is going to be changed about that at this point. Nobody is trying to change to anyone's mind here either, it's just being discussed because that seems to be the thing that started fans distrust or dislike of Sarver and it's been downhill ever since in a lot of people's minds.

 

[SirStefan32]

JJ did that on a team that was basically tanking, or had given up on the season. He was thrust into a much bigger role rather than taking on a bigger role naturally or with his style of play. He hadn't proved to be that much better or more than Q and demanding more money than him despite not putting up better numbers and not really taking to a leadership role with the team didn't make sense to a new owner learning about the league.

Everybody wants to talk about $5 million and while that may not appear to be much, we weren't in the room and don't know how things went down. It could have been that much but I don't expect either side to come out be so open about it to the public. Telling an athlete to earn that difference should not be that negative of a thing. If it were truly just $1 million a year, I have a hard time believing they couldn't find a way to make it work somehow with incentives or some way. We've only received word that's been leaked out though and neither JJ or Sarver has addressed the discrepancy in pay being an exact figure as far as I know.

It's not our money that was being spent though so it's easy to say how it should have been done, especially in hindsight. Sarver said he was willing to pay the max that following summer but that didn't matter to JJ, he already made up his mind and wanted out so the relationship ended up being too damaged at that point for a guy who had owned a team for a year to try and call his bluff and match it. He didn't know the NBA then, and he can be knocked for that, but it's not entirely reasonable to hold that against him for 15 years and use that as the reason for disliking him so long after the fact. It's done, it's over. No one's mind is going to be changed about that at this point. Nobody is trying to change to anyone's mind here either, it's just being discussed because that seems to be the thing that started fans distrust or dislike of Sarver and it's been downhill ever since in a lot of people's minds.

My only takeaway from the JJ situation is that if you have a player you like, just sign him.

 

[Cheesebeef]

JJ did that on a team that was basically tanking, or had given up on the season.

What? No. That team wasn't tanking. They just weren't good. In fact their record was actually BETTER than the Clippers where Richardson was in the same exact position. So, whats good for the goose, should be good for the gander.

JJ
He was thrust into a much bigger role rather than taking on a bigger role naturally or with his style of play. He hadn't proved to be that much better or more than Q and demanding more money than him despite not putting up better numbers and not really taking to a leadership role with the team didn't make sense to a new owner learning about the league.

Okay... I have a problem with the above because now you're moving the goalposts on the discussion.First you said and a I quote "Johnson wants a contract bigger than Q despite not really putting up similar numbers or leading our team to any success.

But now you're saying he didn't deserve the contract because he didn't put up BETTER numbers? Which is it Poop Head... JJ didn't deserve the contract because he didn't put up similar numbers (which he did as evidenced above)... or because he for some reason in your theory above he need to now put up BETTER numbers to get that contract?

And you keep bringing up this "not really taking a leadership role with the team" as the thing that for some reason made Q worth the contract more than JJ... but how does that make sense? Had Richardson, who was a year older than JJ shown those leadership abilities on the Clippers who were WORSE than us? And do you realize that when they traded Marbury, JJ actually started running the point... at the age of 22, and his numbers went from 16/4/4 to 18/5/5.5?

Or that by the end of the season, the team actually started playing some pretty solid ball, finishing the season 8-8 over their last 16 games with everyone healthy? 8-8 isn't tanking.

Everybody wants to talk about $5 million and while that may not appear to be much, we weren't in the room and don't know how things went down. It could have been that much but I don't expect either side to come out be so open about it to the public. Telling an athlete to earn that difference should not be that negative of a thing. If it were truly just $1 million a year, I have a hard time believing they couldn't find a way to make it work somehow with incentives or some way. We've only received word that's been leaked out though and neither JJ or Sarver has addressed the discrepancy in pay being an exact figure as far as I know.

You may find it hard to believe, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Oh... actually... you're right... it wasn't 1 million dollars per year. It was actually only $833,000!

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiret...ll-regrets-allowing-joe-johnson-to-leave-suns

https://www.azcentral.com/story/spo...ns-2004-05-season-franchise-revival/28417913/

"Sarver said his biggest regret of his 11 years as managing partner was not extending Johnson before that 2004-05 season started. Johnson wanted a six-year, $50 million contract. Sarver would not budge from $45 million, a difference of $833,333 per year."

Unless you're saying that the Republic reporter was not only making those figures up out of thin air... while actually getting Sarver to comment on it.

Those were the numbers. Everyone remembers it. The papers reported it. Next.

It's not our money that was being spent though so it's easy to say how it should have been done, especially in hindsight.

Only it wasn't hindsight when a group of us said it was a mistake WHEN IT HAPPENED.

Sarver said he was willing to pay the max that following summer but that didn't matter to JJ, he already made up his mind and wanted out so the relationship ended up being too damaged at that point for a guy who had owned a team for a year to try and call his bluff and match it. He didn't know the NBA then, and he can be knocked for that, but it's not entirely reasonable to hold that against him for 15 years and use that as the reason for disliking him so long after the fact.

You're acting like that decision is the sole reason people dislike him, completely ignoring the fact that for the better part of a decade the team has been atrocious.

It's done, it's over. No one's mind is going to be changed about that at this point.

Especially those who refuse to acknowledge the actual facts of the situation, even when multiple links are provided to them to show why their argument is flawed.

Nobody is trying to change to anyone's mind here either, it's just being discussed because that seems to be the thing that started fans distrust or dislike of Sarver and it's been downhill ever since in a lot of people's minds.

again, you're acting like the Suns haven't been overwhelmingly downhill the last decade and the JJ deal was the only reason people dislike Sarver.

 

[Hoop Head]

What? No. That team wasn't tanking. They just weren't good. In fact their record was actually BETTER than the Clippers where Richardson was in the same exact position. So, whats good for the goose, should be good for the gander.

Like I said, they gave up on the season. They weren't after a draft pick but their record didn't matter and they knew they'd be awful. They only cared about clearing cap space for that summer.

You're just looking to argue and I'm not going to bite this time and indulge you any further. You're nitpicking things that happened 15 years ago and we're largely talking about how certain moves were moved and how we judged them. We don't need to agree.

I've already said my piece and I don't need to justify it to you, of all people, especially when you want to try to break down each and every sentence. You don't do that with anyone else here and I get it, you don't like me, and I don't care because I don't like you either but unlike you I can maintain some civility.