Wow dragic

[JCSunsfan]

it really kinda sucks that we had the PG of the future on the team and instead of rebuilding with a really good young piece, we decided to ride trade him for a shot at 8 seed glory which we didn't get... and another year of 8 seed glory which we might not get...

At the moment we traded him, he looked like a bust, and Brooks looked like the better candidate for being the pgof. That trade was not just about that season. It turned out wrong in the end but the reasoning is not as you cast it.

 

[waltcoogan]

At the moment we traded him, he looked like a bust, and Brooks looked like the better candidate for being the pgof. That trade was not just about that season. It turned out wrong in the end but the reasoning is not as you cast it.

It hasn't necessarily turned out wrong; rather, the grade would need to be incomplete. Dragic in a reserve role wouldn't be doing what he's currently doing as a starter in Houston and unfortunately, we haven't seen Brooks this season. But long-term, everything remains unsettled and we're far from "the end."

 

[leclerc]

We gambled away youth and obvious talent plus a 2nd round draft pick. The possible profit was not all that much or...?

 

[jagu]

Dragic was utter trash when we traded him. Anyone who says otherwise must have not been watching Suns basketball.

 

[AzStevenCal]

We gambled away youth and obvious talent plus a 2nd round draft pick. The possible profit was not all that much or...?

Despite my earlier post, it was a first round pick (23rd) as Chris pointed out. But, it wasn't obvious talent. It was a guy who was playing at a level that would have embarrassed the average NBDL team.

Steve

 

[Phrazbit]

Dragic was playing poorly... but we traded him and a 1st for someone who was playing even worse.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Dragic was playing poorly... but we traded him and a 1st for someone who was playing even worse.

Brooks was not playing well but he was showing signs of returning to form and unlike Dragic, he had a legit reason (injury/recovery) for his poor play. And, IMO, there wasn't a guard in the NBA that was playing at a lower level than Dragic. Look at the threads from last season. Goran was playing so poorly that we brought in an NBDL castoff who clearly outplayed Goran, night in and night out.

Steve

 

[slinslin]

Dragic was playing poorly... but we traded him and a 1st for someone who was playing even worse.

He wasn't playing worse. Dragic might have been the worst rotation player in the entire league at the time.

 

[Phrazbit]

Goran was struggling, but as others have pointed out, he was put in a horrible situation trying to run the offense with that complete joke of a 2nd unit.

Brooks was playing dreadful, shooting under 35%, he was shooting even worse during the month we traded for him.

I realize its in the past but that trade killed me. Trading a young player with promise AND a pick for an older player on an expiring deal, who is nothing but a no defense chucking scrub.

I could understand making a move, they were desperate for a playoff push, but I dont understand trading assets for trash.

 

[Phrazbit]

He wasn't playing worse. Dragic might have been the worst rotation player in the entire league at the time.

... might have been... if not for Brooks and his 35% shooting and doormat defense.

 

[AzStevenCal]

... might have been... if not for Brooks and his 35% shooting and doormat defense.

Eat the stats, watch the games. I think it's impossible to watch the two of those players for the 20 or so games prior to the trade and come up with any way to put Dragic above Brooks (or anybody). Plus, Brooks had a pretty good season prior to his injury and Dragic had a handful of pretty good games prior to his disappearance. I have no problem with anyone who hated this trade because they didn't think it was worth chasing a playoff spot but I'd strongly disagree with anyone that felt Dragic was showing anything that season that indicated he was worth keeping.

Steve

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Eat the stats, watch the games. I think it's impossible to watch the two of those players for the 20 or so games prior to the trade and come up with any way to put Dragic above Brooks (or anybody). Plus, Brooks had a pretty good season prior to his injury and Dragic had a handful of pretty good games prior to his disappearance. I have no problem with anyone who hated this trade because they didn't think it was worth chasing a playoff spot but I'd strongly disagree with anyone that felt Dragic was showing anything that season that indicated he was worth keeping.

Steve

If you don't count defense, then yes. However, Dragic is a FAR superior defender than Brooks.

 

[Phrazbit]

Eat the stats, watch the games. I think it's impossible to watch the two of those players for the 20 or so games prior to the trade and come up with any way to put Dragic above Brooks (or anybody). Plus, Brooks had a pretty good season prior to his injury and Dragic had a handful of pretty good games prior to his disappearance. I have no problem with anyone who hated this trade because they didn't think it was worth chasing a playoff spot but I'd strongly disagree with anyone that felt Dragic was showing anything that season that indicated he was worth keeping.

Steve

Look, I am not claiming Dragic was playing well, but Brooks was utter dog crap and on an expiring deal. And yes, I honestly think Dragic was playing better than Brooks. Brooks is a chucker who couldnt hit the broadside of a barn. Dragic was struggling, but was, even at the time, a superior player to Brooks.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

I guess your opinion of the trade will depend on your satisfaction with mediocrity.

If you are happy watching a team of aging veterans carry a team to the 6th to 8th seed if they are very lucky, then yeah the trade makes a ton of sense.

If you actually want to develop a roster that is built for the future and has enough assets that if you wanted to play for now you could, then you probably aren't a fan of the trade.


There is simply no way that Brooks was worth a first round pick. He was a cancer who had been banned from his team for pete's sake. He would have been cut if we had just been patient.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Look, I am not claiming Dragic was playing well, but Brooks was utter dog crap and on an expiring deal. And yes, I honestly think Dragic was playing better than Brooks. Brooks is a chucker who couldnt hit the broadside of a barn. Dragic was struggling, but was, even at the time, a superior player to Brooks.

Everyone forgets he had been perma benched too.

This was 2 weeks before we traded for him:

HOUSTON -- Houston Rockets point guard Aaron Brooks apologized to coach Rick Adelman and general manager Daryl Morey for leaving the bench late in Saturday's win over Memphis because he was frustrated with his playing time.

The team suspended Brooks for Monday's win in Denver, and Brooks was back in uniform for Tuesday's 112-108 loss to Minnesota, coming off the bench for five points, one rebound and one assist in 20 minutes of action.

Stupid front office is as stupid front office does.

 

[AzStevenCal]

If you don't count defense, then yes. However, Dragic is a FAR superior defender than Brooks.

Yes, usually. However, Dragic was not playing good defense for us last season. Seriously, go watch some of those games. He simply wasn't the same player he had been for us previously. He didn't disappear every night but his total game was so weak he really was beat out by a scrub.

I don't think there was a single fan on this board last season that was still in support of Goran especially when it came to playing time. This team played much better with Dowdell on the court than it did with Goran (and once the Suns didn't want Dowdell there was no place for him in the NBA). If I sound a little bitter on this subject it's because I was one of Dragic's bigger supporters and even I had to give up on him. I wish we had a player of his ability on our roster right now but given the way he sold us out last year, I never want to see him in a Suns uniform again.

Steve

 

[AzStevenCal]

I guess your opinion of the trade will depend on your satisfaction with mediocrity.

If you are happy watching a team of aging veterans carry a team to the 6th to 8th seed if they are very lucky, then yeah the trade makes a ton of sense.

If you actually want to develop a roster that is built for the future and has enough assets that if you wanted to play for now you could, then you probably aren't a fan of the trade.


There is simply no way that Brooks was worth a first round pick. He was a cancer who had been banned from his team for pete's sake. He would have been cut if we had just been patient.

I doubt it. He'd played well before the injury and it's not the end of the world to discover he falls in that spoiled young player group that believes you're disrespecting him if you don't start him. I wasn't in love with the trade but I thought it was a reasonable gamble given their goal. Their goal was to make the playoffs and it was clear that we weren't going to make it without a decent backup for Nash. Personally, I'd have rather seen us dump everybody and start all over again.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

I can't believe anyone is lamenting the loss of a 20-somethingth pick in last year's draft as a "valuable asset for the future."

 

[95pro]

who really knows what happened to dragic when he was here with the suns. obviously he wasn't the same guy we saw him becoming. all of sudden he went flat.

 

[elindholm]

There is simply no way that Brooks was worth a first round pick. He was a cancer who had been banned from his team for pete's sake. He would have been cut if we had just been patient.

There were numerous reports that Minnesota was offering Flynn for Brooks, which is why the Suns had to include the pick to beat the offer. They wouldn't have gotten him for less.

 

[Phrazbit]

I can't believe anyone is lamenting the loss of a 20-somethingth pick in last year's draft as a "valuable asset for the future."

As opposed to having absolutely nothing? And dumping 1st round picks, regardless of draft slot, is symptomatic of all this teams problems.

There were numerous reports that Minnesota was offering Flynn for Brooks, which is why the Suns had to include the pick to beat the offer. They wouldn't have gotten him for less.

Khan wants every lousy point guard in the league. That Minnesota was pursuing him is not a sign of his market value.

 

[elindholm]

As opposed to having absolutely nothing?

The Suns paid a reasonable price for a player they wanted. If Brooks didn't pan out, it's because the Suns did a poor job of assessing his potential, not because it was a mistake to sell a draft pick.

And dumping 1st round picks, regardless of draft slot, is symptomatic of all this teams problems.

I think it's more useful to consider each deal on its own. It does no good to fly into a panic every time the Suns trade away a draft pick. Obviously the Suns have made a lot of very bad moves involving draft picks in recent years, but that does not mean that every move involving a draft pick is bad.

Khan wants every lousy point guard in the league. That Minnesota was pursuing him is not a sign of his market value.

The Suns had good reason to believe that Brooks would provide more than Dragic. (He was, after all, the league's reigning Most Improved Player.) Every trade has some guesswork involved. The Suns gave up two assets that appeared to be of minimal value for one that appeared to have higher potential. I wouldn't want to discourage them from making a similar trade in the future.

 

[AzStevenCal]

As opposed to having absolutely nothing? And dumping 1st round picks, regardless of draft slot, is symptomatic of all this teams problems.



Khan wants every lousy point guard in the league. That Minnesota was pursuing him is not a sign of his market value.

Trading a pick in an effort to upgrade your roster is far different than dumping a draft pick in an attempt to save a few bucks. It will be a long time before we recover from the decision to give away draft picks in order to get a guy off the books or to save a few dollars come draft night but I believe we've seen the end of that business practice.

Steve

 

[Chris_Sanders]

There were numerous reports that Minnesota was offering Flynn for Brooks, which is why the Suns had to include the pick to beat the offer. They wouldn't have gotten him for less.

If that is the case (which I certainly don't recall), then they should have passed because he wasn't worth that.

That "late pick" could have been a key piece for the Suns in Marshon Brooks.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Trading a pick in an effort to upgrade your roster is far different than dumping a draft pick in an attempt to save a few bucks.

Not when it is for an expiring contract. It was and is functionally the same.