Simmons on the Suns

[AzStevenCal]

The question is, do you take that in a heartbeat because he is integral to getting that first championship, or do you take him simply because there aren't many better options?

If you're going to spend 100m, then whoever you spend it on better lead you to a championship, period. Not sure Amare is that kind of player.

I don't really understand your reasoning. First off, there are no guarantees because we're talking about a future event. Secondly, without exception, there is no one single player that can elevate a bad team to a championship in today's game. Amare is capable of being a critical part of a championship team and he is a better player than a lot of guys in this game that draw max or near max money.

Actually, I wouldn't agree with you even if we were dealing from hindsight. If, without any health concern whatsoever, we had signed him to that contract and then 6 years later we were still without a championship, I wouldn't point to his contract and call him unworthy or overpaid. Barkley didn't win us a championship either but it didn't make his stay in Phoenix a waste (IMO).

Steve

 

[elindholm]

Amare is capable of being a critical part of a championship team

That claim rests on your definition of "critical part." The Suns have had some extremely talented teams the last few years, and Stoudemire's alleged greatness hasn't been enough to get them over the hump. I don't believe Stoudemire can win a title without having two superior teammates, and there's almost no way that can happen at his present salary.

and he is a better player than a lot of guys in this game that draw max or near max money.

That's true, but irrelevant. If 3/4 of the league signs second-tier talent to humongous contracts, it's still a mistake. There are reasons that the NBA title keeps getting won by the same few franchises over and over.

Barkley didn't win us a championship either but it didn't make his stay in Phoenix a waste (IMO).

True, but he was in Phoenix just over three years, and he drew a very modest salary (even by standards of the time). Make him one of the league's top-paid players and double or triple his tenure with the Suns, and his weaknesses become a lot more difficult to look past.

 

[AzStevenCal]

That claim rests on your definition of "critical part."

In that every conversation depends on the manner in which words are used, I agree. However, in the instance that I used it I believe they stand fairly well defined. I think you'd be hard pressed to seriously contend that he is incapable of being "a critical part". I chose the indefinite article hoping to avoid disagreement or confusion.

The Suns have had some extremely talented teams the last few years, and Stoudemire's alleged greatness hasn't been enough to get them over the hump. I don't believe Stoudemire can win a title without having two superior teammates, and there's almost no way that can happen at his present salary.

I don't think any player can win the NBA title without 2 superior teammates. Detroit might have been lacking a little in the superstar category but even as the exception they were a team loaded with stars and near-stars. Garnett, Pierce and Allen were all high paid superstars and they probably don't win it without Rajon Rondo and his meager contract.

That's true, but irrelevant. If 3/4 of the league signs second-tier talent to humongous contracts, it's still a mistake. There are reasons that the NBA title keeps getting won by the same few franchises over and over.

Sure, there are reasons that the same franchises account for most of the championships. And Amare is certainly not at the level of a Kobe or an MJ but IMO he's as good as any player on the Boston or Detroit championship team. Also, there is more to this league than just winning a championship. Along the way, you need to attract and keep fans and letting a star like Amare walk is counter-productive to that end.

I'd also put Amare as something less than 1st tier but that's because it is such a very narrow level. He's better, IMO, than almost everyone else that I'd leave off that top tier. Perhaps the crux of this disagreement though has to do with the max salary itself. What level of player do you consider deserving of that consideration? Is it just the top 5 or 6 players or is it the top 30 to 40 players?

True, but he was in Phoenix just over three years, and he drew a very modest salary (even by standards of the time). Make him one of the league's top-paid players and double or triple his tenure with the Suns, and his weaknesses become a lot more difficult to look past.

Not to be contentious, but do you have some numbers on this? I wasn't able to dig up much other than he was 8th highest among all-star players his last year in Phoenix (his highest paid year in Phoenix). I really don't know what I'm going to argue here about Barkley. I loved him when we first acquired him but by the time we traded him to Houston I was glad to see him go. In the long run, I feel much the same about Amare. In his case though it was driven not as much by his obvious shortcomings as it was by his risk of serious injury.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

I don't think any player can win the NBA title without 2 superior teammates.

Sorry, I meant "superior" in the relative sense. Stoudemire can't win a title as anything more than his team's third-best player.

Also, there is more to this league than just winning a championship. Along the way, you need to attract and keep fans and letting a star like Amare walk is counter-productive to that end.

Let's look at what kind of record the Knicks post over the next couple of years and ask whether Phoenix fans would support that level of team. Stoudemire isn't a difference-maker in terms of long-term fan enthusiasm. Heck, even what little reading I've done on Knicks boards already suggests that their fans are already becoming skeptical of Stoudemire's defense and rebounding.

What level of player do you consider deserving of that consideration? Is it just the top 5 or 6 players or is it the top 30 to 40 players?

If you give the 20th best player in the league a top-five salary, your team will suffer, period. At least, that's my contention. (The exception is a team with an unlimited bankroll, but there are few in that category now, and there will probably be even fewer with the next CBA.) I don't get into the "deserve" question, because it's not a moral issue to me.

Not to be contentious, but do you have some numbers on this? I wasn't able to dig up much other than he was 8th highest among all-star players his last year in Phoenix (his highest paid year in Phoenix).

No; I just remember numerous reports that his salary was fairly modest by superstar standards.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Sorry, I meant "superior" in the relative sense. Stoudemire can't win a title as anything more than his team's third-best player.

I'm not sure about that. It's difficult to break something like that down. I'm sure I could create a "winning" scenario where he was second best and perhaps even the best but it's hard to say how likely that would be in the real world.

Let's look at what kind of record the Knicks post over the next couple of years and ask whether Phoenix fans would support that level of team. Stoudemire isn't a difference-maker in terms of long-term fan enthusiasm. Heck, even what little reading I've done on Knicks boards already suggests that their fans are already becoming skeptical of Stoudemire's defense and rebounding.

I think the deck is stacked against Amare in New York. They feel like they've waited a long time for their promised land and it's going to be tough to keep anyone happy in that situation. If their point guard can become a real threat as a shooter I think they'll have a decent year but yeah, they need to add at least one more all-star level player.

Even if Amare excels there I doubt he'll be enough to satisfy New York. They had their hearts set on Lebron and let's face it, warts and all, Lebron is a much more dominant force than Amare.

If you give the 20th best player in the league a top-five salary, your team will suffer, period. At least, that's my contention.

You're a lot better off paying the 5th best player the 5th highest salary (and so on) but unfortunately that's about as likely as everyone waking up tomorrow and deciding to never make war again. Unless the league figures out a way to slot each and every player there will always be competition to acquire or keep a player and in the process salaries get driven upward.

And from an overall perspective, I suspect a team is better off paying the 20th best player the 5th best salary than they would be by settling for the 100th best player at the 100th best salary. This is still a star driven league.

Steve

 

[Cheesebeef]

I'm not sure about that. It's difficult to break something like that down. I'm sure I could create a "winning" scenario where he was second best and perhaps even the best but it's hard to say how likely that would be in the real world.

I've got to agree. I know people are going to DESTROY me for this, but as #1s go, Steve Nash, while brilliant, isn't in the league of a Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Duncan (in his prime), Shaq in his prime and maybe even Dirk. If Amare was the second to any of the first three guys and you threw in another really solid player, they would win titles IMO.

Nash is a great leader... UNBELIEVABLE leader, but the thing this team ALWAYS missed was the one guy who literally unstoppable at the end of games. Every title team needs this... Amare's a number 2, but a FANTASTIC number 2... problem was our number 1 was a very good #1, but not a fantastic closer who could get his shot whenever or wherever he wanted.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I've got to agree. I know people are going to DESTROY me for this, but as #1s go, Steve Nash, while brilliant, isn't in the league of a Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Duncan (in his prime), Shaq in his prime and maybe even Dirk. If Amare was the second to any of the first three guys and you threw in another really solid player, they would win titles IMO.

Nash is a great leader... UNBELIEVABLE leader, but the thing this team ALWAYS missed was the one guy who literally unstoppable at the end of games. Every title team needs this... Amare's a number 2, but a FANTASTIC number 2... problem was our number 1 was a very good #1, but not a fantastic closer who could get his shot whenever or wherever he wanted.

Especially true once the postseason rolls around. If you're lucky to draw a group of refs that call the game the way it's supposed to be called Nash is as good as anyone. Unfortunately, refs tend to lose their whistles at the end of games and even more so in May and June.

On an almost related note, I feel like throwing something through my TV every time I hear one of the NBA TV experts talk about how great a job Derek Fisher did last season once the games really mattered. They acknowledge that he couldn't guard a paper cup during the regular season but as the playoffs rolled on he became a shutdown defender. Not once did they acknowledge what really happened. As the playoffs rolled along he was allowed to hold, grab, push, shove, pull, trip and bludgeon his way through the game.

Steve

 

[BC867]

The difference between the Chuckster and Amare is that Barkley was never used at Center or as the only big on the floor for us. If anything, he played lighter as alternate-Point, though holding the ball with his back to the basket, which pissed off KJ.

On defense, he never had to guard the opposing Center. At 6'7" (actually 6'4 1/2"), that was not an option, no matter how big his butt was.

Amare was constantly played out of position at Center and was usually our only big on the floor at 6'9" (I mean 6'10", so he could be listed as Center on the all-star ballot).

It has never been about championships. It's about creating excitement or publicity during the regular season to keep revenue at reasonable levels.

The Colangelo philosophy lives on. Put on a show at home, don't embarrass yourself on the road and make an appearance in the playoffs. And if a little luck pushes you farther (without any additional expenditure, like last year), that's a bonus.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I've got to agree. I know people are going to DESTROY me for this, but as #1s go, Steve Nash, while brilliant, isn't in the league of a Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Duncan (in his prime), Shaq in his prime and maybe even Dirk. If Amare was the second to any of the first three guys and you threw in another really solid player, they would win titles IMO.

Nash is a great leader... UNBELIEVABLE leader, but the thing this team ALWAYS missed was the one guy who literally unstoppable at the end of games. Every title team needs this... Amare's a number 2, but a FANTASTIC number 2... problem was our number 1 was a very good #1, but not a fantastic closer who could get his shot whenever or wherever he wanted.

Agreed.

But when you commit to Nash as your #1, you NEED to get that closer player you described as a #2. Amare wasn't that guy.

It wouls also help if that #2 played hard defense and rebounded. But what there are like 2-3 of those guys in the league? And no ones letting them go.

Unfortunately it will likely be a self fulfilling prophecy until Nash retires.

 

[elindholm]

If you're lucky to draw a group of refs that call the game the way it's supposed to be called Nash is as good as anyone. Unfortunately, refs tend to lose their whistles at the end of games and even more so in May and June.

But we know that isn't going to change, so it's pointless to frame it as bad luck. It's how the league is designed.

On an almost related note, I feel like throwing something through my TV every time I hear one of the NBA TV experts talk about how great a job Derek Fisher did last season once the games really mattered... As the playoffs rolled along he was allowed to hold, grab, push, shove, pull, trip and bludgeon his way through the game.

The media's love affair with Fisher is a perpetual mystery to me, but I've long since given up hope that any of the so-called TV experts will be able to see things objectively. Well, there are a couple that I like, with Doug Collins heading the list, but unfortunately he has moved on to another job.

 

[elindholm]

But when you commit to Nash as your #1, you NEED to get that closer player you described as a #2. Amare wasn't that guy.

It wouls also help if that #2 played hard defense and rebounded. But what there are like 2-3 of those guys in the league? And no ones letting them go.

Unfortunately it will likely be a self fulfilling prophecy until Nash retires.

I don't think Nash is the obstacle. Bring in Bryant or Duncan or Howard, and Nash would happily be a #2. He was the #1 by default because none of his teammates -- specifically, neither Joe Johnson nor Stoudemire -- had #1 potential. We see that now with Johnson in Atlanta, and we're about to see it with Stoudemire in New York.

Having Nash as your #1 isn't a weakness with Nash, but with the rest of your roster.

 

[TJ]

I've got to agree. I know people are going to DESTROY me for this, but as #1s go, Steve Nash, while brilliant, isn't in the league of a Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Duncan (in his prime), Shaq in his prime and maybe even Dirk. If Amare was the second to any of the first three guys and you threw in another really solid player, they would win titles IMO.

Nash is a great leader... UNBELIEVABLE leader, but the thing this team ALWAYS missed was the one guy who literally unstoppable at the end of games. Every title team needs this... Amare's a number 2, but a FANTASTIC number 2... problem was our number 1 was a very good #1, but not a fantastic closer who could get his shot whenever or wherever he wanted.

Im not going to destroy you, but Steve Nash has to be mentioned with some of the most elite PGs in the history of the league simply for being a brilliant passer, excellent leader and one of the best statistical shooters (FG, 3PFG, FT) ever. And I do believe he is capable of getting his shot off whenever, wherever, but that's not necessarily his job. The team does not do well when he has to take over as the primary scorer. It does better when he gets people involved. That's why Id rather have Nash have 15 points 15 assists than 29 points 6 assists. The latter means the opponent has latched on to the other four players and forced him to be the only offensive threat. He has come through in those situations, but again, his clutch play has been passing the rock to the spot where only his teammate can get it and rely on him to score.

Also, it's hard to dispute his elite status when the man wins back-to-back MVPs, while most of the aforementioned have only one in their trophy case.

It certainly isnt Nash's fault that this team has never won a title. It's because the D'Antoni era consisted of one-dimensional play and no rotation, which meant our guys were dragging knuckles by the time the playoffs began. The old adage is "defense wins championships." We have not played good defense in a long long long long long time.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I don't think Nash is the obstacle. Bring in Bryant or Duncan or Howard, and Nash would happily be a #2. He was the #1 by default because none of his teammates -- specifically, neither Joe Johnson nor Stoudemire -- had #1 potential. We see that now with Johnson in Atlanta, and we're about to see it with Stoudemire in New York.

Having Nash as your #1 isn't a weakness with Nash, but with the rest of your roster.

I agree with this too.

But those guys aren't easy to get. Likely only through the draft. And with Nashty, your going to win your 50 games but fall just short. And out of the lottery.

Again its a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[elindholm]

And with Nashty, your going to win your 50 games but fall just short. And out of the lottery.

This is a very common complaint, but I don't see what the hurry is. The team will suck soon enough. Let's go ahead and give Nash another couple of decent seasons first. There's no way the Suns can get to the Thunder's or Heat's level within five years anyway, so they might as well wait until the next wave and try to tank their way into a franchise player then.

Edit: Look at the Nuggets. They were bad enough to get Anthony, and they surrounded him with some pretty good talent, supported by a big-name coach. What did it get them? One conference finals appearance. And now they're disintegrating and Anthony wants out. Is their situation any better than the Suns' has been?

 

[cly2tw]

Simmons is spot on.

First, Hedo is not of much use, as well as the signing of Frye, Warrick, without Amare. While Nash always provides the foundation of a good team, the last year's team's pivotal player was Amare. Gentry held Nash back and gave Amare more roles on offense, after the ASB. Suns'd still be a contender if they signed him, giving him a measly 20 mil more than Boozer and Lee, in place of Frye, Warrick and Childress.

The whole summer actions were simply dumb. Without Amare, you rebuild and don't give out bad contracts like Frye and Hedo.

As to Amare injury, if not counting his freak eye surgery induced rest, he missed less games due to injuries than many other elite bigmen, Boozer, Brand, Bosh. It's always risky.

 

[cly2tw]

I've got to agree. I know people are going to DESTROY me for this, but as #1s go, Steve Nash, while brilliant, isn't in the league of a Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Duncan (in his prime), Shaq in his prime and maybe even Dirk. If Amare was the second to any of the first three guys and you threw in another really solid player, they would win titles IMO.

Nash is a great leader... UNBELIEVABLE leader, but the thing this team ALWAYS missed was the one guy who literally unstoppable at the end of games. Every title team needs this... Amare's a number 2, but a FANTASTIC number 2... problem was our number 1 was a very good #1, but not a fantastic closer who could get his shot whenever or wherever he wanted.

Exactly.
Dirk and JJ proved they could be more than what they were under Nash. We are yet to say whether the same happens with Amare. People on here hate Amare for the game 6 loss last year. But has he ever had another game with similar burden/responsibility for our offense like that ever? In contrast, Bosh, Ewing, Yao had always been used to play like a #1 in every game. Oh, right, Amare has no #1 potential like Dirk and JJ before him, thus it was right decision by the coach not to give him more chances.

 

[Mainstreet]

What I found interesting when the Suns played the Jazz in Utah, Matt Harpring kept referring to plays by Nash as "Stocktonesque." I thought this was quite a compliment coming from a Utah announcer.

As a side note, I liked Harpring as a player because he played really hard nosed basketball.

 

[SirStefan32]

What I found interesting when the Suns played the Jazz in Utah, Matt Harpring kept referring to plays by Nash as "Stocktonesque." I thought this was quite a compliment coming from a Utah announcer.

As a side note, I liked Harpring as a player because he played really hard nosed basketball.

He was one of the toughest players I have ever seen.

 

[Superbone]

What I found interesting when the Suns played the Jazz in Utah, Matt Harpring kept referring to plays by Nash as "Stocktonesque." I thought this was quite a compliment coming from a Utah announcer.

As a side note, I liked Harpring as a player because he played really hard nosed basketball.

I feel bad for Ron Boone though. Boone has been the long time color guy on the Jazz announcing team. As soon as they find a white guy to replace him, boom!