Suns get lottery pick from Lakers if they miss playoffs

[95pro]

You must be registered for see images

goodtimes

 

[95pro]

wow it must suck to be a laker fan. they have a lot of big name players, but yet our records are almost identical at this point in the season. i know its still young, but think about it if you had dhoward and kobe on your team and to have this record. its sucks bad enough with our current set of guys lol

 

[AzStevenCal]

wow it must suck to be a laker fan. they have a lot of big name players, but yet our records are almost identical at this point in the season. i know its still young, but think about it if you had dhoward and kobe on your team and to have this record. its sucks bad enough with our current set of guys lol

Maybe but besides the obvious advantage they have in banners they also have played a slightly tougher schedule than we have, have done better against that schedule than we have and have done it without their starting point guard and without their backup point guard. We're not a good team but could you imagine us without Dragic and Telfair?

On one hand I love the fact that the Lakers (and fans) are supposedly in panic city but on the other hand, I hate the fact that even when they are as close to irrelevant as a Lakers team can get, the sports world is still talking about them non-stop. I want to live in a world free from meaningless chatter about the Lakers, the Cowboys and the Yankees. Anyone know where that world is?

Steve

 

[jagu]

Maybe but besides the obvious advantage they have in banners they also have played a slightly tougher schedule than we have, have done better against that schedule than we have and have done it without their starting point guard and without their backup point guard. We're not a good team but could you imagine us without Dragic and Telfair?

On one hand I love the fact that the Lakers (and fans) are supposedly in panic city but on the other hand, I hate the fact that even when they are as close to irrelevant as a Lakers team can get, the sports world is still talking about them non-stop. I want to live in a world free from meaningless chatter about the Lakers, the Cowboys and the Yankees. Anyone know where that world is?

Steve

The Yankees aren't even that talked about anymore. Dodgers/Lakers all day all night.

 

[95pro]

seems like the cowboys are more of a joke too

 

[AzStevenCal]

The Yankees aren't even that talked about anymore. Dodgers/Lakers all day all night.

My point was that there are certain teams that get an unwarranted amount of media attention and it occurs at the expense of all the other teams. The Yankees are certainly one of those teams even if someone gets a little more play occasionally. Right now, the Lakers should be a footnote but instead they're headliners.

Steve

 

[jagu]

seems like the cowboys are more of a joke too

Well not right now..

 

[sunsfan88]

Maybe but besides the obvious advantage they have in banners they also have played a slightly tougher schedule than we have, have done better against that schedule than we have and have done it without their starting point guard and without their backup point guard. We're not a good team but could you imagine us without Dragic and Telfair?

On one hand I love the fact that the Lakers (and fans) are supposedly in panic city but on the other hand, I hate the fact that even when they are as close to irrelevant as a Lakers team can get, the sports world is still talking about them non-stop. I want to live in a world free from meaningless chatter about the Lakers, the Cowboys and the Yankees. Anyone know where that world is?

Steve

Injuries happen to every team though. I'm sure we would be much better with Frye as well.

 

[Phrazbit]

Injuries happen to every team though. I'm sure we would be much better with Frye as well.

I'm not. While Scola is no great player he is much better than Frye, and if Frye had been healthy I doubt they claim Scola. And Frye has been an awful player when he didnt have Nash feeding him open looks... and even with Nash feeding him last year Frye was horrible.

 

[SunsTzu]

I'm not. While Scola is no great player he is much better than Frye, and if Frye had been healthy I doubt they claim Scola. And Frye has been an awful player when he didnt have Nash feeding him open looks... and even with Nash feeding him last year Frye was horrible.

Frye is overpaid but he isn't nearly as bad as you make him seem. Also Scola was claimed 2 months prior to Frye being diagnosed.

 

[Phrazbit]

Frye is overpaid but he isn't nearly as bad as you make him seem. Also Scola was claimed 2 months prior to Frye being diagnosed.

But Frye was already expected to miss time with his shoulder injury.

And Frye was really bad last year. He shot 40% from the field and it was maddening how often he hesitated and pass up wide open looks then passed it to someone else resulting in a broken play.

He shot 35% when Nash was not on the court with him last year, and he shot 36% without Nash the year before... a season where he was perfectly healthy. If he isnt getting fed wide open looks he cant shoot worth a damn and it would be really hard to get him open looks with this team.

 

[hcsilla]

But Frye was already expected to miss time with his shoulder injury.

And Frye was really bad last year. He shot 40% from the field.

It was 41.6% which is not that terrible if you pay attention to the fact that almost the half of his attempts were 3-pointers.

Besides, he is long and can defend PF's while Scola is short and he can't.

 

[Phrazbit]

It was 41.6% which is not that terrible if you pay attention to the fact that almost the half of his attempts were 3-pointers.

Besides, he is long and can defend PF's while Scola is short and he can't.

41% from a power forward (and 35% when Nash is out of the game) is pretty stinkin bad.

And Frye is anything but a defense force. He and Scola are both inept defensively but at least Scola is a passable rebounder.

 

[hcsilla]

41% from a power forward (and 35% when Nash is out of the game) is pretty stinkin bad.

If you deduct 3-pointers from Frye's last season stats, his FG% is 46,9 %.

Since Scola doesn't take 3-pointers it is comparable to his actual FG%, which is 47,5.

I guess that then Scola's FG% is also pretty stinking bad, at least there is barely a difference.

And Frye is anything but a defense force. He and Scola are both inept defensively but at least Scola is a passable rebounder.

They are equal as rebounders. Frye is the better defender between these two, IMO. Plus he blocks shots.

 

[sunsfan88]

I'm not. While Scola is no great player he is much better than Frye, and if Frye had been healthy I doubt they claim Scola. And Frye has been an awful player when he didnt have Nash feeding him open looks... and even with Nash feeding him last year Frye was horrible.

Frye is better than whatever trash we have at PF now which speaks volumes of how bad our PFs are....

 

[AzStevenCal]

41% from a power forward (and 35% when Nash is out of the game) is pretty stinkin bad.

And Frye is anything but a defense force. He and Scola are both inept defensively but at least Scola is a passable rebounder.

Frye had a bad year last season, that's hard to dispute. But, he was still a much better defender than Scola IMO. I think Scola is a slightly more consistent offensive player than Channing and I think he's much more clutch than Channing but all told, I'd take Frye between the two. But, your point that we don't really miss Channing is probably correct. I don't think he'd have helped us much this season although I don't think Scola helps us much either. I'd have much rather we passed Luis by and outbid everyone for Blatche instead.

Steve

 

[AzStevenCal]

Injuries happen to every team though. I'm sure we would be much better with Frye as well.

Very few teams lose their starting point guard AND their backup point guard for any extended period and when they do, they generally fail. Injuries are a part of the game but they have a lot to do with which teams succeed and which teams fail. You can generally make up for the loss of a key player over the short haul but it's pretty rare to thrive over a longer stretch of games. This isn't like football where it's "next man up", the NBA is a star driven league and losing a star almost always puts a dent in your record.

Steve

 

[SunsTzu]

If you deduct 3-pointers from Frye's last season stats, his FG% is 46,9 %.

Since Scola doesn't take 3-pointers it is comparable to his actual FG%, which is 47,5.

I guess that then Scola's FG% is also pretty stinking bad, at least there is barely a difference.

And if you look at TS% Scola is scoring at the same efficiency this season as Frye did last. I think overall they have similar impact on the team, Scola being more versatile on offense and Frye being the better defender. Frye's length also makes him better suited to play C if something were to happen with Gortat or O'Neal.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Frye struggled last year because of the shoulder injury but he is still a player a LOT of teams would like to have. He is long, he makes an effort to defend and is not horrible, and he stretches the floor. Hopefully he comes back healthy because he and Scola become tradeable assets for promising younger pieces or picks.

 

[elindholm]

Hopefully he comes back healthy because he and Scola become tradeable assets for promising younger pieces or picks.

With Frye's health issues, no one is touching him at his salary. He's nowhere near a "tradeable asset."

 

[slinslin]

41% from a power forward (and 35% when Nash is out of the game) is pretty stinkin bad.

And Frye is anything but a defense force. He and Scola are both inept defensively but at least Scola is a passable rebounder.

The self-proclaimed stats guru fails to see that Scola last season had a lower rebounding rate than Frye.

Oh and Frye's eFG% was 49 same as Scola's who is down to 47 this year.

 

[Phrazbit]

Frye had a bad year last season, that's hard to dispute. But, he was still a much better defender than Scola IMO. I think Scola is a slightly more consistent offensive player than Channing and I think he's much more clutch than Channing but all told, I'd take Frye between the two. But, your point that we don't really miss Channing is probably correct. I don't think he'd have helped us much this season although I don't think Scola helps us much either. I'd have much rather we passed Luis by and outbid everyone for Blatche instead.

Steve

Agreed. My point was not to say Scola is great, merely that I dont think Frye would make a noticeable difference.

The self-proclaimed stats guru fails to see that Scola last season had a lower rebounding rate than Frye.

Oh and Frye's eFG% was 49 same as Scola's who is down to 47 this year.

And his rebounding rate right now is higher than Frye's ever was in a Suns uniform. And Frye's offense was a product of Nash. I dont care what Frye's eFG% was last year with Nash spoon feeding him wide open looks (that he passed up at a maddening rate), because I know when Nash was not on the court Frye became an absolutely miserable player.

And I never proclaimed myself a stats guru but if you want to bestow the title on me thats fine.

 

[sunsfan88]

Very few teams lose their starting point guard AND their backup point guard for any extended period and when they do, they generally fail. Injuries are a part of the game but they have a lot to do with which teams succeed and which teams fail. You can generally make up for the loss of a key player over the short haul but it's pretty rare to thrive over a longer stretch of games. This isn't like football where it's "next man up", the NBA is a star driven league and losing a star almost always puts a dent in your record.

Steve

Agreed but I personally hardly consider 40 year old Nash a "star"

And teams can overcome injuries. Just look at the Bulls. Hey haven't had their best player Derrick Rose for nearly 2 years now but yet they have maintained to be top 5 in their conference during all those years.

Also, why aren't we getting the sympathy then for losing Frye?

 

[AzStevenCal]

Agreed but I personally hardly consider 40 year old Nash a "star"

And teams can overcome injuries. Just look at the Bulls. Hey haven't had their best player Derrick Rose for nearly 2 years now but yet they have maintained to be top 5 in their conference during all those years.

Also, why aren't we getting the sympathy then for losing Frye?

Because Frye doesn't change us dramatically. The Bulls are a very talented, well-coached team that had dreams of winning it all. Losing Rose puts them in a different league. If you ask anybody that's won a championship and they'll all say the same thing, you need a little luck - mostly with injuries.

Steve

 

[Phrazbit]

Agreed but I personally hardly consider 40 year old Nash a "star"

And teams can overcome injuries. Just look at the Bulls. Hey haven't had their best player Derrick Rose for nearly 2 years now but yet they have maintained to be top 5 in their conference during all those years.

Also, why aren't we getting the sympathy then for losing Frye?

Nearly 2 years? He got hurt on April 28th, during the playoffs. And it certainly had a huge effect on them because they went on to lose the series to the 8th seeded Sixers. Last year they were 33-7 when Rose played, when he didnt play they were 13-13 (including the playoffs). That is a significant difference.

And Frye isnt a star... he isnt even a starting quality player. Had Frye been healthy or not the Suns would still have been projected as a 25-30 win team.