two years?

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by scotsman13
this year the suns are being outrebounded in almost every game. do you feel like giving up another 2 to 3 rebounds per game by moving down to the next best rebounding small forward? how about a block a game? almost a steal a game? how about a free throw out of 10 to miss? to give you an idea this is just some of the differances between marion and lewis.

right now nba.com ranks marion as the 10th most efficience player in the nba that ranking is Efficiency Formula: ((PTS + REB + AST + STL + BLK) - ((FGA - FGM) + (FTA - FTM) + TO)) / G. this places him above pierce, kidd and even kobe. so give shawn a little credit.

Don't bother. The main gripe against Marion is that he is not very good at making his own shot, the usual criteria for a first option offensive player. Since Marion needs to get the ball on the move to be effective, he shouldn't get a big contract.

There is no point in debating this because it is an opinion not a fact that can be refuted. The fact that most NBA GM's disagree with this opinion is irrelvant here, except that they are the ones bidding on players.

 

[Joe Mama]

I don't want to get into this whole Shawn Marion argument again. None of the Phoenix Suns shot the ball very well tonight. Shawn Marion did not get all of his shots on opportunities created by other players. Many of his baskets came because he ran the open court well. Don't forget that he also has to get himself into position to score. That's not something all of the Phoenix Suns players do.

You guys know I don't believe the Shawn Marion is a maximum contract player. However for me this has to do as much with his defensive deficiencies as his offensive limitations. Every other night Shawn Marion needs help defensively because he is undersized.

That said, I am happy with the we Shawn Marion is playing right now. Of course I would have preferred that he should the ball better tonight, but that's going to happen some nights. I also think his play will continue to improve throughout the rest of the season, and the coaches will work with him over the summer. I think we will see a very good Shawn Marion next season. He might never be aware that maximum contract, but I hope it isn't by much.

Joe Mama

 

[scotsman13]

you know there is another player out there who most would have thought to be one of the best shooters in the nba who couldnt creat his own shot. reggie miller. he had to run through 3 or 4 screens just to get himself open for all of the big shots that he made.

 

[SunsTzu]

Originally posted by scotsman13
you know there is another player out there who most would have thought to be one of the best shooters in the nba who couldnt creat his own shot. reggie miller. he had to run through 3 or 4 screens just to get himself open for all of the big shots that he made.

Funny since thats Shawn's favourite player.

Anyway I've expressed concern over Marion's game but it seems that some fans wanna run him out of town and seem to enjoy it when he has a bad game. Even when he has a good game like tonight some people only want to look at his short comings. Much the same way JJ was treated before the Marbury trade. I guess I don't understand all the animosity towards some of the players.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by SunsTzu
Funny since thats Shawn's favourite player.

Anyway I've expressed concern over Marion's game but it seems that some fans wanna run him out of town and seem to enjoy it when he has a bad game. Even when he has a good game like tonight some people only want to look at his short comings. Much the same way JJ was treated before the Marbury trade. I guess I don't understand all the animosity towards some of the players.

It's the money. If he were making $3 million I suspect that there would be less kvetching.

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by George O'Brien
It's the money. If he were making $3 million I suspect that there would be less kvetching.

Well of course people wouldn't complain about him if he only made $3 million. Some of you guys act as if the money doesn't matter. Will it does. If a team is going to be competing for a championship they need to be financially responsible or have an owner with the very deep pockets.

I'm not going to complain every time Shawn Marion has a poor game. In fact last night I thought he was just fine. But I can see both sides of this issue.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by Joe Mama
Well of course people wouldn't complain about him if he only made $3 million. Some of you guys act as if the money doesn't matter. Will it does. If a team is going to be competing for a championship they need to be financially responsible or have an owner with the very deep pockets.

I'm not going to complain every time Shawn Marion has a poor game. In fact last night I thought he was just fine. But I can see both sides of this issue.

Joe Mama

Economists have a concept known as "sunk costs". This means that what you paid for something has nothing to do with its value. For example, the decision to sell a stock whose price has gone down should have nothing to do with the price originally paid for it, except for tax purposes. Refusal to sell until the price goes up to the original price is an issue of ego not good economics.

The same holds true with player contracts. Once the contract is signed, the only issue is whether to keep the player or not. It is not whether signing the player in the first place was a good decision. What's done is done.

Did the Suns overpay Marion? Probably? Does this fact change what needs to be done in the future. No.

There are a few Marion critics that seem to be saying that Marion is so terrible that the Suns should just give him away to clear the cap space. Personally, I find this to be an absurd position, but at least it is dealing with future transactions and not just worrying about what should have been.

 

[cly2tw]

Hi, fellow economist George!

In NBA, even if some costs, like someone's contract, are sunk, you can increase the costs even more by keeping that contract on your team taking the undue cap room.

There is another notion in economics called "opportunity costs". What can you do with the cap room and the players in return if you get rid of that "sunk" contract by trading it to another team, at which other costs like adding picks to sweeten the deal?

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by cly2tw
Hi, fellow economist George!

In NBA, even if some costs, like someone's contract, are sunk, you can increase the costs even more by keeping that contract on your team taking the undue cap room.

There is another notion in economics called "opportunity costs". What can you do with the cap room and the players in return if you get rid of that "sunk" contract by trading it to another team, at which other costs like adding picks to sweeten the deal?

What can you do? Assuming you get rid of a player who is too expensive, can you replace his productivity for less money? If yes, then sure, go ahead. If no, then it you need to treat the costs as sunk.

Compare White and Eisley. White might be replaced by someone making maybe $2.5 to $3 million, but not with the same stats. For example, last summer Eldon Campbell signed for $4 million, but he is playing fewer minutes and producing less than White.

By contrast, there are quite a number of backup point guards with very low salaries putting up better numbers than Eisley. Eisley is makig $5.8 million and is no where close to doing as well as Boykins at $2.5 million, Claxton at $3 million, or Armstrong at $2.7 million -- all of whom were signed this past summer.

My guess is that the opportunity cost of Eisley is at least $4 million, while White may be no more than $1 to $1.5 million.

What is the opportunity cost of Marion? The answer requires looking at the available free agent small forwards. I can name some guys I might trade Marion for straight up, but they are under long term contracts and unlikely to be available.

Cap space only has value if there are free agents worth taking. Otherwise, it's like trading Babe Ruth for cash.

 

[cly2tw]

Originally posted by George O'Brien
What is the opportunity cost of Marion? The answer requires looking at the available free agent small forwards.

So, your focus is on SF only when considering opportunity cost of Marion?

What a team of coherent talents you can assamble with all the cap you have is most important. What's your idea of a contender team with Marion on it for the Suns? I'd claim I could replace Marion with a Marshall, Jim Jachson, Harbring, or some other MLE type players, which makes the team no less competitive, if not even more so.

 

[elindholm]

I don't love Marion at this salary, but I do think he's a solid notch better than all three of those "budget" alternatives.

 

[cly2tw]

Originally posted by elindholm
I don't love Marion at this salary, but I do think he's a solid notch better than all three of those "budget" alternatives.

Assuming Kobe/Amare/JJ core stands, does it matter much to the team's eventuel success that the FOURTH option on offense who is only a mediorc defender is a notch better, not to mention 50 mil dollars more expensive?

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by cly2tw
Assuming Kobe/Amare/JJ core stands, does it matter much to the team's eventuel success that the FOURTH option on offense who is only a mediorc defender is a notch better, not to mention 50 mil dollars more expensive?

In other words, this has less to do with Marion than with Kobe.

Assume for a moment that the Suns will not be able to get Kobe (hardly a reach), then is Marion still excessively overpaid?


We've discussed innumerable other strategies to get Kobe including:

1. Give the Bobcats $3 million to take White

2. Give the Bobcats $3 million and a lottery pick to take Eisely

3. Wait until 2005 when White's contract comes off contract and trade Eisley when he has only one year on his contract.

There are innumerable problems in offloading Marion to get cap space for Kobe, even if the Suns did not receive much in value in exchange. The only teams with enough cap space to take Marion's salary are the Jazz, Nuggets, Clippers, and Sonics. None of them are in the market for an SF.

The Suns could leave Marion available to the Bobcats, but that would be long before they would could even talk to Kobe. Just giving away a guy who is worth at least $7-8 million (and maybe more) on the outside chance that the money could be used for someone better, is a really risky bet.

 

[cly2tw]

Originally posted by George O'Brien
The Suns could leave Marion available to the Bobcats, but that would be long before they would could even talk to Kobe. Just giving away a guy who is worth at least $7-8 million (and maybe more) on the outside chance that the money could be used for someone better, is a really risky bet.

First, I think Amare and JJ are far from proven to be sure that a Amare/JJ/Marion core would win anything. Amare is still a lot of hype. JJ is to be tested under pressure first and in all likelihood will become a Pippen type, and hopefully the same level, player in his prime. But if you need to add another at least close to franchise type player next to the potential one in Amare, you either have to trade for one which is very unlikely, or sign one with enough cap room available. A market is a market, which makes complementary players easily replaced. In short, if you trade Marion away, you can always replace his contribution to the team with the cap he left free and even do better, as long as you agree he is overpaid! All the while, you have the flexibility to sign the franchise player via FA when they become available.

 

[cly2tw]

George,

the Lakers team is good example for understanding the concept of opportunity cost. With Shaq/Kobe/Malone all healthy and in place, is Payton at 4.5mil per really underpaid? Compared to his previous stats and his absolute talent, he definitely is. But for the Lakers, they might already be overpaying him. Because if they sign one or two other FAs with this money, their total chance of winning the champion wouldn't decline much if at all!

Now, what'd be Marion's value to that Lakers team with Shaq/Kobe/Malone already in place? No way 7-8 mil per year you were willing to give him on the current Suns team. Normally, only franchise players have consistent high value, since by definition you build a team by selecting talents to fit with that franchise player's.

Think in team concept!

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by cly2tw
A market is a market, which makes complementary players easily replaced. In short, if you trade Marion away, you can always replace his contribution to the team with the cap he left free and even do better, as long as you agree he is overpaid!

Actually it's not true that really good complementary players can be easily replaced.

All the while, you have the flexibility to sign the franchise player via FA when they become available.

Other than Kobe, who might that be?

I have said from day #1 I do not believe Kobe will come to the Phoenix. I don't see any reason to weaken the team on the remote chance that Kobe will decide he wants to save lottery team in a small market. Unless getting rid of Marion creates an extremely high probability of getting Kobe, I think it makes no sense.

 

[SirStefan32]

I don't think Kobe will come to Phoenix either, but don't you think that a combo of two $6M players would be better than Marion at his current salary?

 

[scotsman13]

no chance sirstefen. where else are we going to get the points, rebounds, blocks, and steals in the playing time that only one player can play in. so how to you think we can get someone who will bring these numbers from the small forward spot in 41 minutes with only the same number of touches that marion gets?

 

[SirStefan32]

Well, let's say we sign Ginobilli and Okur. Now, I understand their respective teams will overpay them and would match any offer the Suns put on the table, but let me use them as an example.

Put Manu on 2, move Johnson on 3, put Okur on 4 while moving Amare to 5.

I am sure they would produce as much as Marion, and we would have depth.

The problem is really that there are no good FA's this summer.

Stefan

 

[Chaplin]

Read my lips:

Amare will NOT play center regularly. At least he BETTER not.

And there is no way we would be able to get Okur for under 7 million a year.

 

[scotsman13]

no chance, if you move amare to center you still are not going to pick the 3 rebounds that you loose by moving marion. mino isnt a good rebounder hack Emanuel Ginobili wont even replace the scoring of jj how do you think that you are going to be picking up anything there and then with okur you would be picking up maybe 1 broad and a couple points over jake. but you are still loosing blocks and steals and the ability to run the floor well and somewhere around 5 points a game. on top of everything else you are going to be loosing points with amare in the middle because he isnt a center.

 

[George O'Brien]

As a rule of thumb, free agents only go other teams for less money than their original team can offer if the player is extremely unhappy with that team. Otherwise, it appears that players will actually sign for less money than they could get in the open market (Magaloire of the Hornets signed an extension that is well below what he could expect to get in the open market this summer).

I am guessing that Okur will get a minimum of $7 million and probably closer to $8 million. He's not really worth that much, but both the Jazz and Nuggets would like to upgrade their center position and both would have the cap space. For the Jazz, Okur is an improvement over Ostertag and for the Nuggets an improvement over the injury prone Camby. Okur might stay with the Pistons for less, but will not go elsewhere for less.
(BTW, he will NOT get $11 million).

The Spurs have cleared enough cap space to ensure Manu will be re-signed. He will certainly not get moved for reasonable price. Also, I might note that Manu benefits from playing with Duncan. Look at how much less Stephon Jackson productive is with the Hawks than he was in San Antonio.

 

[SirStefan32]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Read my lips:

Amare will NOT play center regularly. At least he BETTER not.

And there is no way we would be able to get Okur for under 7 million a year.

Dude, calm down, I specifically said this was just an example and that it will not happen.

I still mantain that two role players for $6M each are much better than one role player is for $12M.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by SirStefan32
I still mantain that two role players for $6M each are much better than one role player is for $12M.

I guess it depends on how you define your terms. To me a "role player" is someone how can do only one or two things well. I do not see Marion as merely a role player. He's an all round player who does a lot to help teams win.

Our biggest difference is the value you place on certain skills. To me, you put too much emphasis on "one on one" offensive skills at the expense of the other things it takes to win. To be honest, I was not all that enamored with Marbury because his overall game was not that great outside of his "one on one" skills. (Most of his assists come from drive and kick out plays which are part of his one-on-one).

It is important to have guys with those skills, but it is also important to have players who can make steals, block shots, rebound, score off passes, and defend. Historically, Shawn has been a decent catch and shoot player. His scoring last season was 21.2 ppg and he is still scoring 18.7 ppg this year.

Do think Iverson is a "role player"? He scores a lot of points, 27.2 ppg and certainly can make his own shot. But he is hitting only 39.1% from the field (Marion is at 43%). Iverson's career shooting percentage is 41%. He gets more assists but no where near the number of rebounds, steals, and blocked shots of Marion.

Iverson makes about $3 million a year more than Marion. Do you think that the Sixers would be better off with two role players than Iverson?

 

[elindholm]

One problem with using FG% as the primary judge of an offensive player's efficiency is that the circumstances under which each player shoots are much different. When defenses clamp down or the shot clock is running dry, someone on the team is going to have to find a way to get a difficult shot off. In general no one can be too happy about having a 40% shooter fire away, but if that same 40% shooter can be almost as effective even when the going gets tough, then he starts looking a little better.

That's one of the reasons that Marbury's indiscriminate three-point bombing becomes a more fearsome weapon late in the game -- if the team isn't all that likely to get a good shot off anyway, then someone who can shoot in the low 30s from 25+ feet, with no warning, really isn't that bad an option.

We've all seen Marion's FG% plummet at the ends of games, when more physical defense is permitted and everyone gets a bit tighter. It's great that he is able to pad his percentage by getting dunks and layups, but that doesn't mean he is a good shooter. And regarding his three-point percentage, my impression from watching games is that he shoots them much better from the corners than from elsewhere along the arc -- which is perfectly fine, as long as he sticks to the corners, but it doesn't really provide additional evidence of how good an overall shooter he is.

I didn't think much of Iverson until I started watching him more, starting with the 2001 (?) Finals. He attracts so much defensive attention that, even when he misses, his teammates have great opportunities to clean up the mess with easy buckets. I don't pretend that this is any great insight, but I think you really have to watch it for a while to appreciate how dramatic the effect is.

In "short" (heh), I think Iverson is a unique case. I don't consider him a top-ten player (er, at least probably not, I'd have to think about it), but I do think he brings more to a team than Marion does.

All that said, it's true that one should be careful not to overvalue the ability to create one's own shot. Marion's weakness in this regard means that he will never be a superstar, but I agree that he makes up for it in other ways. You could look at someone like Desmond Mason and say that he can create his own shot, but I'd much rather have Marion on the team than one or even two Desmond Masons.