Suns to trade Marbury, according to KDUS

[elindholm]

Joe Mama:

Besides, I still don't understand why the signing could not have worked out either way.

As it turns out, it did. But it is the severity of the moves that I find so alarming. It's one thing to do constant tinkering by moving players like Del Negro, Outlaw, White, Harvey, whoever. But the Suns have been positively dizzying in the violence of their transactions.

In the past three years, they have traded both of the league's top two point guards. Going back just a bit further, they have made enormous financial commitments to the likes of Hardaway, Gugliotta, Marion, and Marbury based on little more than giddy optimism -- maybe he'll stay healthy, maybe he'll return to All-Star form, maybe he'll keep improving, whatever. They've changed coaches every other year. The Suns must lead the league in headline-making transactions over the past several seasons.

And all for what? The team is getting worse, not better. The fan base is shrinking, not growing. At least the financial problems will now likely be addressed, and that is something. But from a basketball standpoint, this team is spinning its wheels, flailing in random directions, maniacally alternating between self-love and self-hatred. It's just like struggling in quicksand -- all it does it make you sink faster.

Has any winner ever been built this way? No. When other teams have had their problems in the past, they've found a coherent, well thought-out plan, with necessary flexibility with respect to salaries and draft picks, and they've worked within that plan for a number of years. Well, either that, or they've sucked.

The Suns backed themselves into a corner with the massive contracts handed out to so many players. The plan was to see what the core of Marbury/Stoudemire/Marion/Johnson/Cabarkapa could accomplish. They had no margin for error, but they at least should have given the plan a chance. Now, after only a few months, it's already back to the drawing board, the team having sold its heart for relative financial security.

 

[Chaplin]

Great post, Eric, one of your better ones. But your negativity from earlier posts still stands out as someone who is definitely not happy (nothing wrong with that), but unwilling to find anything good. (There's the problem)

But I think IF we can figure out a way to get a Kobe Bryant, things might start to come together. With the exception of Barkley maybe, we have never been able to say we had the best player in the NBA. But that's beside the point right now.

If we don't get Kobe, and we overpay for a free agent, or just not get a free agent and wait till McGrady the year after, then next year will be brutal.

Potentially, this summer could be the most important offseason in Phoenix Suns history. I hope the C's realize that and do what's right for the team, the players, and the city.

 

[elindholm]

Chaplin:

That is EXTREMELY premature. It was his first start, and you're condemning him for not having more than 4 assists? Already?

Come on, be fair. I said he might get better. My point was that it's also premature to declare him the Suns' PG of the future, as some on this board seem ready to do.

BEERZ:

Tony Delk?!?!? My opinion of the guy who said that just dropped abit.

Why? Delk once scored 53 points in a Suns uniform, and games in the upper 20s weren't uncommon at all. And my memory is that most people on this board (including me!) really liked him until his act wore thin.

In what ways in Barbosa clearly better than Delk?

schutd:

Why is that little ole Elindholm is still convinced the Colangelos thought the signing was a mistake? Ive never heard anything from them that explicity stated anything other than we loved Steph, it was hard to let him go

Doesn't every executive say that about every player that ever gets traded away?

You can't convince me that, when the Suns extended Marbury, they didn't think they were doing it for themselves. And you don't agree to pay someone an additional $80 million over four years, or whatever it was, unless you think that that person is a pretty damn important part of what you want to do as a franchise.

Didn't the Colangelos come out grinning, "This will make Marbury the highest-paid athlete in Arizona history"? Why in the world would they brag about that unless they really believed that he was going to lead the team to great things? And if they did believe that, how could they trade him away after just half of a bad season and not be acknowledging that they were wrong?

 

[Chaplin]

You just don't get it. This trade actually, at its core, isn't about Marbury--it's ALL about Penny Hardaway.

The Knicks damn sure weren't going to trade for just Penny, so Isaiah wanted Marbury. When BC saw what they were offering, he couldn't say no.

For someone who is so into the monetary reasons for Suns transactions, I would think you would be appreciative of that, instead of angry and argumentative.

 

[slinslin]

Tony Delk was a ball hog. I never saw that from Barbosa.

Barbosa played very well at PG against the Bulls. Mike Bibby doesn't average a lot of assists, would you not call him a PG?

The Suns as a team got a good amount of assists against the Bulls that is the most important thing.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by slinslin
Tony Delk was a ball hog. I never saw that from Barbosa.

Barbosa played very well at PG against the Bulls. Mike Bibby doesn't average a lot of assists, would you not call him a PG?

The Suns as a team got a good amount of assists against the Bulls that is the most important thing.

Yeah, JJ has turned into a terrific passer, for all his faults. And you have to think that Amare's passing numbers will also improve with no Stephon Marbury on the floor.

 

[schutd]

Originally posted by elindholm

schutd:

Why is that little ole Elindholm is still convinced the Colangelos thought the signing was a mistake? Ive never heard anything from them that explicity stated anything other than we loved Steph, it was hard to let him go

Doesn't every executive say that about every player that ever gets traded away?

You can't convince me that, when the Suns extended Marbury, they didn't think they were doing it for themselves. And you don't agree to pay someone an additional $80 million over four years, or whatever it was, unless you think that that person is a pretty damn important part of what you want to do as a franchise.

Didn't the Colangelos come out grinning, "This will make Marbury the highest-paid athlete in Arizona history"? Why in the world would they brag about that unless they really believed that he was going to lead the team to great things? And if they did believe that, how could they trade him away after just half of a bad season and not be acknowledging that they were wrong?

I wouldnt try and convince you of that, Becasue I believe that when they did sign him they truly believed that they were investing that 80 or so million in the teams future, for their own benefit. However, and this goes back to a previous point I tried to make, that the league is a living breathing thing and an unforseeable situation developed with regard to Marbury, that when it hit the right spot, the Colangelos felt they couldnt say no. I know I cant argue the benefits of it. It will be years til we can determine how this plays out. But you seem to be able to see no justfiable reason for the decision that was made, and I can. Thats all. Make sense?

 

[elindholm]

But I think IF we can figure out a way to get a Kobe Bryant, things might start to come together.

Oh, I completely agree with you there. Of course, I wish I knew more about Bryant's guilt in the rape case, but stipulating for the moment that he will be acquitted, I think he's clearly the most valuable long-term player in the league. For me he is a big step ahead of McGrady, because of McGrady's back problems.

Unfortunately, I just can't imagine that Bryant would come to Phoenix. The simple question is, why would he want to? The fans are apathetic, endorsement opportunties are weak, and the roster -- to put it charitably -- is thin.

I've heard all the arguments about how Bryant wants his own team, so that he can step out from behind O'Neal's shadow and blah blah blah. Maybe. But if he leaves the Lakers (which I regard as unlikely), I think he'll look for a team that already has most of the pieces in place -- where he can win quickly, not having to wait for several years.

When Barkley came, the Suns were already good, and they already had three players (Johnson, Chambers, Majerle) who were at or near All-Star level. Furthermore, the Suns didn't have a recent history of blowing up their franchise over and over, a revolving door in the coach's office, serious finanical woes, and tepid fan support. In short, the 1992 Suns were a hell of a lot more attractive to a star player than the 2004 Suns will be.

But I'll give you this right now: If the Suns manage to acquire Bryant in the off-season, I will change my opinion on this trade "360 degrees." A Bryant/Stoudemire/Marion core would be fantastic.

 

[schutd]

Originally posted by elindholm


But I'll give you this right now: If the Suns manage to acquire Bryant in the off-season, I will change my opinion on this trade "360 degrees." A Bryant/Stoudemire/Marion core would be fantastic.

BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh that wonderfully quotable Jason Kidd!

 

[elindholm]

an unforseeable situation developed with regard to Marbury, that when it hit the right spot, the Colangelos felt they couldnt say no.

What was unforseeable? That the Suns would struggle with two "bigs" injured and constant chemistry changes?

This trade was prompted by the fact that the Suns are losing. The financial incentives and draft picks are nice, but I seriously doubt that this trade would have been made if the Suns were at or above .500. So the generous offer from the Knicks, if we want to characterize it that way, isn't really what made the trade happen. What made it happen is that the Suns were playing like crap.

And if that was "unforseeable," then I don't see how we can stay confident in the Colangelos. Chemistry is fragile, people get hurt, things happen. If your "foresight" is that all you have to do is sign your stars to huge contracts and then nothing will ever go wrong, you need to find a different line of work.

Right now, it looks like, "We love Marbury as our franchise player through the end of the decade, unless for some reason the team sucks this year, in which case all bets are off." And that just looks clueless to me.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by elindholm


Right now, it looks like, "We love Marbury as our franchise player through the end of the decade, unless for some reason the team sucks this year, in which case all bets are off." And that just looks clueless to me.

And that's what it boils down to. The above statement is just not true. Stephon Marbury wasn't traded because the Suns sucked this year.

 

[elindholm]

Stephon Marbury wasn't traded because the Suns sucked this year.

So this trade would have gone down even if the Suns were in playoff position?

I don't believe that for an instant, and I doubt you do either.

 

[Chaplin]

Originally posted by elindholm
Stephon Marbury wasn't traded because the Suns sucked this year.

So this trade would have gone down even if the Suns were in playoff position?

I don't believe that for an instant, and I doubt you do either.

There's probably a certain amount of truth to that, but I honestly feel that Penny's contract was really a major problem with this team, and after figuring out all the money issues (and the possibility, however remote, of Kobe Bryant), how could we say no? What would you have rather happen?

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

It wouldn't have happened if they were int he playoffs, but it didn't cause the trade.

The financial aspects were so appealing, that is what caused the trade. The fact that we were loosing is what allowed the Cs to pull the trigger. (Did that make any sense?)

 

[schutd]

Originally posted by elindholm
an unforseeable situation developed with regard to Marbury, that when it hit the right spot, the Colangelos felt they couldnt say no.

What was unforseeable? That the Suns would struggle with two "bigs" injured and constant chemistry changes?

This trade was prompted by the fact that the Suns are losing. The financial incentives and draft picks are nice, but I seriously doubt that this trade would have been made if the Suns were at or above .500. So the generous offer from the Knicks, if we want to characterize it that way, isn't really what made the trade happen. What made it happen is that the Suns were playing like crap.

And if that was "unforseeable," then I don't see how we can stay confident in the Colangelos. Chemistry is fragile, people get hurt, things happen. If your "foresight" is that all you have to do is sign your stars to huge contracts and then nothing will ever go wrong, you need to find a different line of work.

Right now, it looks like, "We love Marbury as our franchise player through the end of the decade, unless for some reason the team sucks this year, in which case all bets are off." And that just looks clueless to me.

I see where youre coming from. I however am disagreeing with what I termed unforseeable. What I meant by that was an Isaiah Thomas led Knicks org pursuing Marbury and continuing to sweeten the pot until the C's couldnt say no. Had the KNicks not come calling, I dont think trading Marbury would have ever been considered. Thats what I mean as unforseeable. not our particular situation, but the offer we received fro him.

I will agree that if this team was above .500 that most likely it wouldnt have happened either, but I still think the offer from the Knicks was the driving force that caused the Cs to pull the trigger.

So I wont address the final two paragraphs of your point, because I obviously disagree with the notion that led you to those. But I appreciate the back and forth.

 

[elindholm]

What would you have rather happen?

Fine question. I would have rather that the Suns not put themselves in this situation in the first place.

Imagine for a moment that Marbury hadn't been extended and that the Suns had held out on Marion, getting him to take a couple million dollars per year less. At the time, some felt that these "business"-oriented moves would run the risk of damaging chemistry, but it now appears that the chemistry couldn't have been much worse anyway, so that's a wash.

The Suns would then have been able to do this:

Try to survive the rest of the season without mutiny, establish roles for Stoudemire and Cabarkapa when they return, and gear up for 2004-05.

In the summer of 2004, add a free agent for the MLE or perhaps slightly less. This is now possible because the Suns have a smaller commitment to Marion and haven't tipped their hand with respect to Marbury. Also, by the summer of 2004, more will be known about what form the next CBA is likely to take. Will the luxury tax continue? How will that change the financial dynamics of the league?

Approach the 2004-05 season as the make-or-break year. Marbury is in the last year of his deal. Joe Johnson is in his option year. The only bad contract remaining is Hardaway's. Does this core have it, or not?

If it does, try to extend Marbury. If he insists on leaving, then bully for him -- maybe he wasn't the franchise's future anyway. Good players can be brought back in a sign-and-trade. But if the team looks good in 2004-05, Marbury will probably take an extension. Then the Suns are in basically the same situation that they would have been in "real life," with the main difference being that they gave themselves two more years to be sure they were doing the right thing.

If the 2004-05 season is a bust, blow the team up then. Do a sign-and-trade with Marbury, or let him walk. Send Joe Johnson packing. Consider trading Marion. Hardaway will be approaching the last year of his deal; depending on the structure of the new CBA -- and Hardaway's health, for that matter -- someone might be willing to take him on in exchange for some mediocre role players.

What actually happened was that the Suns made a succession of rash, premature moves, and got themselves into a situation where they had only two choices: gut it out with the team that they'd set in stone (as the Knicks have done now), no matter how ugly it got; or declare the last two and a half years a total failure and start all over. Those were two pretty ugly options. But with a more careful approach, the Suns could have avoided this crisis and bought two more years to figure out what the best course of action was.

 

[scotsman13]

for one reason or another this team wasnt living up to what it should have. JC and BC trying a couple quick fixes, fired the coach, bring in white and trading for harvey. nothing was working. the play on the court was very poor, the team wasnt working together it wasnt just amare and zarko being gone it was the way that this team acted since the season started. whatever else happened there was some problem, i not going to blame anyone but we know that something wasnt working and we know that it had something to do with the core of this team. was it amare and marbury, or marion and amare, or marion and marbury? we dont know but it wasnt something that was going away. so went this overwelming deal came up that would help this deal with a problem and clear some much money off the team payroll i think that they suns manage saw it as a chance to move forward with the team and not move back.

 

[George O'Brien]

The other scenerio is that the Suns tanked this year. Their two best veterans opt for free agency and leave. They are stuck with an untradable Penny Hardaway and no real bait to get someone to take him of their hands.

 

[elindholm]

Their two best veterans opt for free agency and leave.

This is the last time I'm going to tell you: Marbury's original deal was through 2005. And Marion would have been extended last summer in my proposed scenario.

 

[SweetD]

Marbury did have an option for the last year he could have just gone into the market after having a very good year.

 

[schutd]

Originally posted by elindholm
What would you have rather happen?

Fine question. I would have rather that the Suns not put themselves in this situation in the first place.

Good post. You make it much easier to see where youre coming from on the current deal when you lay it out like that. I cant really argue that. I am looking at the deal from the standpoint of purely where we were at the momet the deal went down.

Nice work.

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by elindholm
Their two best veterans opt for free agency and leave.

This is the last time I'm going to tell you: Marbury's original deal was through 2005. And Marion would have been extended last summer in my proposed scenario.

I would really like to see this confirmed. Marbury signed the same contract as Hardaway the same summer. Hardaway could opt out of his contract this summer of 2004. Also, I thought I remembered that Marbury's contract was only one year longer than Kidd's if in fact Marbury opted out. At the time of the Kidd/Marbury trade I didn't think Marbury would opt out of his contract because I didn't think he was worth the Super max. I still don't.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by Joe Mama
I would really like to see this confirmed. Marbury signed the same contract as Hardaway the same summer. Hardaway could opt out of his contract this summer of 2004. Also, I thought I remembered that Marbury's contract was only one year longer than Kidd's if in fact Marbury opted out. At the time of the Kidd/Marbury trade I didn't think Marbury would opt out of his contract because I didn't think he was worth the Super max. I still don't.

Joe Mama

That was certainly my understanding. I admit I don't like long term contracts such as Googs or Grant Hill that can destroy a team if the guys gets injured or just loses something.

On the other had, I find it hard to believe the Colangelos would do an extension two years in advance.

 

[elindholm]

Well, it was a four-year extension, and he's now signed through 2009. So that means it was through 2005. I don't remember HoopsHype showing an opt-out before the extension (i.e. for the 2004-05 year), but I could be wrong. But I thought one whole point of the Marbury/Kidd trade was that Marbury had two more guaranteed years on his deal, not only one.

 

[elindholm]

Good post. You make it much easier to see where youre coming from on the current deal when you lay it out like that.

No problem. Thanks for asking for a clarification of what I was thinking.