Suns Draft Prospects Who do We Take?

[thegrahamcrackr]

Williams stats:

12 mpg, 4 ppg, 2 bpg, .5 bpg, 12 min


Wilcox (taken #8)

10.5 mpg, 3.7 ppg, 2.3 rpg, .3 bpg


Nachbar (taken 15)

2ppg .8 rpg, 6mpg

Humphrey (taken 19)

1.9 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 9.3 mpg



I did not feel like looking up all stats, but IMO very very few mid first round picks contribute to the level that someone like williams did, especially on a mental level.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr



I did not feel like looking up all stats, but IMO very very few mid first round picks contribute to the level that someone like williams did, especially on a mental level.

I think that's funny, because, and I bet I get a lot of support for this, but Scott Williams played WAAAAY too many minutes this season--you could tell how broken down he got in the playoffs.

Don't get me wrong, I like Williams in the locker room, and because I don't think we can get a free agent that is any better, it might be worth it to try to resign him. But either way, I want that draft pick. Period.

 

[Divide Et Impera]

Trade #17 for.....

BOBBY JACKSON!

He's our primary backup at PG and he's our 6th man....

Marbs/Jackson
Johnson/Hardaway
Marion/FA
Amare/Outlaw/Googs
Tsakalidis/Voskuhl/Williams

Nobody plays out of position, although Jackson and Marbs can run together in the backcourt (Marbs at 2). This would allow us to keep all our players at 40 minutes a game. Actually, in order to accomodate Jackson's playing time, it would REQUIRE that our guys play close to 40mpg max....

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Why is it a gamble? We can get either a good prospect who has time to grow, or a vet FA who will be gone within a year or two. What's better?

A 1 year contract vs. a 3 year.

A person with a feel for a game vs. a good physical specimen

An older person with a good personal track record vs. an unknown kid out of college who might not always be on the right side of the law.

A person who can teach what he can no longer do VS. a person who needs a babysitter and everything explained to them.


I mean we obviosuly have different opinions, which is why this board is great. I just think that we have nothing substantial to gain where there are many POSSIBLE losses. Why risk things without the real chance of a big gain???

 

[Chaplin]

Dude, the guy just won 6th man of the year, there is no way anybody would trade him for the 17th pick in the draft.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr


I mean we obviosuly have different opinions, which is why this board is great. I just think that we have nothing substantial to gain where there are many POSSIBLE losses. Why risk things without the real chance of a big gain???

Why is drafting at #17 a risk? Because the player might not be any good? Well, wasn't that what the deal was when we signed Langhi, or kept Alton Ford on the roster? There's always a possibility of disappoinment, but the possibility exists whether its a 20 year old kid or a 37 year old FA.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by Chaplin
I think that's funny, because, and I bet I get a lot of support for this, but Scott Williams played WAAAAY too many minutes this season--you could tell how broken down he got in the playoffs.

Don't get me wrong, I like Williams in the locker room, and because I don't think we can get a free agent that is any better, it might be worth it to try to resign him. But either way, I want that draft pick. Period.

I think he got way to many miunutes as well. I also think he shot the ball to much when he got his first one to fall. I was a big critic of that. But I also think that Wilcox was a waste of a lottery pick. I think that Nachbar and Humphrey are getting paid a lot to do basically nothing. My point is that a FA like williams, while not very productive is AT LEAST great in the locker room, where the other people get paid for their potential. I think we have enough money dedicated to potential with Amare, JJ and Big Jake.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

a first round pick in the teens outta the lottery doesn't cost a ton, even in a three year contract, so from a sal-cap standpoint it's not a big deal. and the 17 pick could net us a quality player! wasn't artest taken 16th? chemical imbalance aside, we could have really used him this year. to advocate trading the 17th pick for a couple of second rounders just doesn't make sense to me. you've always got to add youthful potential when you have the opp. The kings didn't stop drafting once they had webber, vlade, Peja, and christie, they proceeded to draft Hedo and Gerald Wallance, and Scott Pollard. Bench, man, bench!

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Why is drafting at #17 a risk? Because the player might not be any good? Well, wasn't that what the deal was when we signed Langhi, or kept Alton Ford on the roster? There's always a possibility of disappoinment, but the possibility exists whether its a 20 year old kid or a 37 year old FA.

Langhi and ford where one year contracts for like 500k. A first round pick is 3 years (I am not sure on the amount for the 17 pick)

Which brings up an interesting point, why take a risk on a player you will have to pay for 3 years, when you can do the same thing for a player that you can pay for 1 year, non guaranteed???

 

[Divide Et Impera]

First of all, the trade cannot happen straight up for salary purposes. I don't know what Jackson's salary is, but I'm sure it's around $6.5M. I don't know how it would work, but we'd have to include players to make it work. If Casey progresses over the summer, send JJ and cash to make it work. If Casey doesn't improve, then it's a hard trade to make....

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by Seeds Of Hate
First of all, the trade cannot happen straight up for salary purposes. I don't know what Jackson's salary is, but I'm sure it's around $6.5M. I don't know how it would work, but we'd have to include players to make it work. If Casey progresses over the summer, send JJ and cash to make it work. If Casey doesn't improve, then it's a hard trade to make....

Why would Sacramento make that trade?

 

[Chaplin]

And please, don't even mention the 2nd round. In a year or two, there might not even be a 2nd round.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by Seeds Of Hate
First of all, the trade cannot happen straight up for salary purposes. I don't know what Jackson's salary is, but I'm sure it's around $6.5M. I don't know how it would work, but we'd have to include players to make it work. If Casey progresses over the summer, send JJ and cash to make it work. If Casey doesn't improve, then it's a hard trade to make....

What are you talking about???


Oh wait, I guess you proposed a Jackson for #17 earlier. at least I am being reasonable in what we could get for it.

I am not tlaking about salary cap ramification. Those only matter when you are NEAR the cap IMO. I am talking about fiscal responsibilty. We will be in the tax zone for sure, so for every 1million we pay for a new player next year we are paying 2 million.


BTW, Ron arterst was taken from a pretty strong draft. I am not saying that we couldn't get a player that would make an impact in the years to come. But I AM asking the question if for next year would the draft pick be better then the FA or possible trade could bring?? I mean one of the reasons Artest went to Indy in that trade was because they would have had a hard time paying him along with all the other young players they had after the trade. (Crawford, Fizer, Chandler, Curry, Rose).

We do not have Marc Cuban or Paul Allen as our owner. Salaries matter. Taxes matter. If the player turns out to be as good as people hope, if he has the potential to be good, could we keep him once he became good along with all of other players who we are hoping become good??

 

[Chaplin]

Are you looking strictly at winning a championship next year? I'm just trying to understand. I'd say in 2 years we might be actively challenging for the ring, but next year? And if it's 2 years from now, why get a FA that is just wasting money instead of a good prospect who might be coming into his own by the time the championship run appears?

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by Chaplin
And please, don't even mention the 2nd round. In a year or two, there might not even be a 2nd round.

So what there is a 2nd round this year (Not that I see where you think it will be gone later, but whatever)

PhxSports4life, are you claiming that Luke Walton and Jason Gardener would be a waste? They will probably go 2nd round or undrafted in Jason's case. BTW, I dont watch a lot of college ball expect for UofA and ASU, that is why I do not bring up other people. The bench is a need. But why draft the bench based on potential, which sadly is what the first 20 picks are now. You know what you are getting with seniors, why not take them?? People knew what they got with Boozer for example, he was a second round pick, you think he would be a senseless type of player to draft fot this team????

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
So what there is a 2nd round this year (Not that I see where you think it will be gone later, but whatever)

There has been talk for about a year of eliminating the second round--coming from both the league AND the Player's Union. 2nd Round money isn't guaranteed, so it doesn't seem like it would be worth it except for making the fans salivate for a couple hours--after which we'd all realize that the 2nd rounders usually wouldn't stick anyway.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

i could see where it would come up, but I dont know if they could actually kill it since there are so many trades that have happened with 2nd rd picks in later year (milt for a 2nd round pick in 2008 for example)

.....would make for an interesting off season.....watching college jrs and srs run around as FAs.....I would actually hope they would limit the whole guaranteed contract structure but I guess the union wouldnt allow it.....

 

[elindholm]

There's no reason to give away the #17 pick. You use it to take someone who "might" become a good player. If you look around the league, you can find some very good players who were taken in the high teens of the draft. Not many, but enough to make it worth something.

The amount of money that the #17 pick makes isn't much. Jacobsen makes less than $1 million this year, and he was taken #20. The financial risk is negligible. Even if you put the entire three-year contract in luxury tax territory (which it probably wouldn't be), that's maybe $8 million over three years. Big deal.

As far as the bad attitude goes, if you get someone like that and he doesn't make enough positive contributions to make up for it, you just park him on the IR. Again, not a problem.

One of the reasons I didn't like the Langhi signing was that he had already had the opportunity to demonstrate whether he could play, and he can't. The Suns were trying to find a gem in another team's garbage. That's a waste of everyone's time.

Williams was different, because we all hoped that he would be used sporadically and would be able to hit an occasional shot. Neither of those things panned out, but only one of them was his fault. Gambling on a similar player would be fine, but, as Chaplin says, doing that instead of using the #17 pick doesn't make any sense.

 

[sunsfn]

The 17th pick could be a very good player and with the suns scouting they do well late in the first round.

------------------------------17th pick salary--------------------

Juan Dixon $977,000 $1,050,300 $1,123,500 $1,725,696
-------------------------------------------

I would hope for a big man, but the suns may take the best and that may be another 6' 6" - 6'8" small baller............They will not take an undersized PF again.......like Ford or West 6'8" or Austin 6'8"

They may also join the rest of the NBA and take a foriegn player that is going to stay there for a year or two?

thegrahamcrackr said:
--------------------------------
But I also think that Wilcox was a waste of a lottery pick.
-------------------------------------

I don't think so...........I think the problem is the team that drafted him!!

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I am not advocating "giving away" the pick. I think that 2 second rounders may prove more usefull than the first. You can find plenty on contribution players in the second round.

If 8 million over 3 years isnt a "big deal" then why dont we hire a coach for roughly 3 million a year (about what silas was asking) to teach these kids. I think that 8 million IS a big deal to our ownership, and they would like to see returns on it.

Why is everyone so against 2nd round picks?? Look at the gems that can be found there, both internationally and domestic (boozer, arenas, manu, and I think Jaric)

Many players need a different coaching system and team to prove they are worth it. I had no problem with the langhi signing when it happened. It costed 500k, and the experiment should be over. With your thought process Ford would not be worth a chance from the other 28 teams because he is our garbage. I think given the right situation he could succeed.


Finally,


Gambling on a similar player would be fine, but, as Chaplin says, doing that instead of using the #17 pick doesn't make any sense.

Why would you choose something you know little about, therefor making it a larger gamble then a proven product like a 10 year vet? I would think it would make more sense to gamble less, especially since nno matter high the returns, you dont really need it.

It would be like Cuban winning the powerball....is it great?? Yeah. Does he need it? Not really.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by sunsfn


thegrahamcrackr said:
--------------------------------
But I also think that Wilcox was a waste of a lottery pick.
-------------------------------------

I don't think so...........I think the problem is the team that drafted him!!

That contributes to it being a waste. I actually wanted the suns to take him at #9 if that says anything. If the suns had gotton the number 2 pick and chosen Jay williams, i would have been a waste, that doenst mean Jay didnt deserve to go that high.

Didnt I say drafting a player and letting him mature in international leagues would be a good idea??

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr


Why is everyone so against 2nd round picks?? Look at the gems that can be found there, both internationally and domestic (boozer, arenas, manu, and I think Jaric)

Nice--this is selective memory at its best. Let's look at the last, say, 5 years. In that time, there have been 29 teams x 5 years of second round picks--that equals 145 players that have been chosen in the 2nd round in the last 5 years. Of that number, how many do you think stuck? You've named 4. 4 out of 145. Two 2nd round picks? They are WORTHLESS.

Finally,


Gambling on a similar player would be fine, but, as Chaplin says, doing that instead of using the #17 pick doesn't make any sense.

Why would you choose something you know little about, therefor making it a larger gamble then a proven product like a 10 year vet? I would think it would make more sense to gamble less, especially since nno matter high the returns, you dont really need it.

It would be like Cuban winning the powerball....is it great?? Yeah. Does he need it? Not really.

Again, you don't know what you want. You want a vet that we'll have for a very short amount of time--and not helping us achieve a championship, or a player that can be a contributor when we finally do contend in a couple years. It's very simple--you just refuse to see it.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

no chap, you refuse to see it.

A player we drat in a couple of years we will not b abl e to pay..

If we keep signing vets to fill our bench...we will have the same production as laste teens /low twenties we will have in thedraft...................


IMO it makes no sense to draft an unknwown player when you have no gaps to fill..............


Why not save the money and get a decient FA who wil make a positive impact?? Why cant YOU see it??

Veryt few draftgees make a huge impact in rookie years.

Do you want me to go through the whole 145 player list?? I am sure more than 4 players stuck. You dont think that 1/3 of the NBA semi regrets wasting 3 year s wortth of money on a player that doesnt produce???
I personally think that hte 30th pick is 10x thw value of the 29th pick in the draft........


Again, I know what I want. I do not want another draft pick. If he is good we will not be able to pay him later. If he sucks we waste money. No need IMO........I do want vets to come in for limited amonts of time teahc the young kids a thing or two..and be positve in the locker room....whjy cant this town settle for letting thekifds learn???? no addition will make a HUGE diff. in this team the next 2 years IMO. everyone talks about how the Cs ned a big rade every so often....i think it is the fans that need sumthin to happen..

whatever, i might be a little drunk, but I stick by the main point....let time take its course

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
no chap, you refuse to see it.

A player we drat in a couple of years we will not b abl e to pay..

If we keep signing vets to fill our bench...we will have the same production as laste teens /low twenties we will have in thedraft...................


IMO it makes no sense to draft an unknwown player when you have no gaps to fill..............


whatever, i might be a little drunk, but I stick by the main point....let time take its course

No gaps to fill? Are you crazy? You must be drunk to use that as your reasoning. Oh, and you being drunk makes your arguement that much more believable...

 

[Joe Mama]

Graham, you're reasoning seems to be based on the Phoenix Suns taking somebody they don't really care about and don't really want. If that were the case I would agree with you that they should trade the pick. I think they will find somebody they think fills a specific need.

Joe Mama