Mike D in pictures

[mkot]

Mkot the only part I can't buy in your post is the Sarver mandate with selling draft picks to get out of guaranteed salary. If you look at when Dantoni made the push to sign Banks it was after the draft that year and he was 24 million worth of guaranteed salary.

It was MikeD's (and Griffin too) mistake to sign Banks. And Sarver was wrong choosing to spent money on FA rather than on draft picks - mistake I hope he can learn from from this year on.

And here's another case of Sarver being penny wise and pound foolish: cutting LJIII before re-signing him because of Hill's injury. I don't doubt Sarver saw LJ3 and his salary as an unneeded luxury. An extra 300k on the payroll? So get rid of him because the guys probably not going to play anyways right? As long as we got the minimum 13 contracts on our roster right? But it's about having that extra body, a match-up guy for bigger 3s or smaller 4s, the depth where we need it most, even after signing GG. I remember you and I agreed on him capable of playing some spot minutes even after we got GG. It just strikes me as the same kind of mentality we have towards rookies, where we'd rather skim off that smaller salary year after year rather than have the depth and youth.

I think Dantoni just flat out missed this one with regards to the talent evaluation and long term $$ savings for that matter with missing out on drafting Rajon Rondo.

If you remember what they had in mind during draft night, you know it was not MikeD's fault that they had to sell the Rondo pick. Their mind set was: trade up; if failed, trade out. That's basically what they said. Trade up or trade out. They had guys they wanted on their list, but its out of their range so they tried to trade up to grab guys like Sefolosha, Brewer or Carney. Sarver had said he's willing to pay for guys who can make IMMEDIATE impact on the team because we were in a win-now mode and our payroll were so high that they only wanted guys who's in the lottery range. If not for those guys, I guess his thinking is 'I'm not going to pay for guys who isn't ready for prime time'. And I'd think Rondo isn't one of those on their short list of impact players that's Sarver wanted to pay for. If that's not Sarver's shortsightedness I don't know what is.

BUT, you see the damage was already done and Dantoni was the one that built our coffin so to speak.

I don't understand why you have to pin everything on Mike when you basically agreed with me that Mike shouldn't be put in that position to fail. So it's the Banks deal that killed us, but I've explained that it wasn't all on Mike. Griffin interviewed the guy and he told Mike, who's in Vegas for the SL league, about it. Sarver was high as well. Mike was more like a figurehead when he was the GM. He said it himself that he still spent most his time coaching and only cares about his guys not Sarver's money.

Sarver is now doing what he needs to do to keep his desired operating budget. The problem is, Sarver is not a basketball mind unlike the Colangelos and this is where we as fans are taking it on the chin I believe.

I don't see how this is unfair for Sarver. Fans aren't happy that the Suns have made moves which make the team weaker for a financial benefit that helps the owners. I don't think that's unfair for the fans to criticize him.

[Arles]

The only remaining issue I have is with the Rondo/Banks situation. According to both comments by Sarver and Mike D (which I've posted in other threads), here's the essence of what happened:
1. Once we couldn't trade up, Mike D wanted to sign another FA to our rotation for the guard spot (he didn't think anyone at our pick could help). His first choice was Salmons (Banks ended up being a griff find - I agree there).
2. Signing a player to the $4-4.5 million contract a player like Salmons would cost put us well over the tax limit.
3. So, if that's the route Mike D wanted to go, Sarver told Mike he would need to sell the Rondo pick to afford the FA.

At any point in time, Mike D could have said "Robert, I think we should hold off on signing an MLE FA and just draft Rondo and Craig Smith with our two picks". Had he done that, we still would have been $2 mil below the net difference with Banks and I doubt Sarver would have commanded Mike to sign a MLE FA and sell the picks so he could spend more money.

IMO, a more forward-thinking coach would have taken Rondo or Williams and worked him into the rotation with an eye on Nash and Bell getting older. Mike D just didn't care about the future. He wanted to win at all costs for the 3-4 years they had Nash and if that meant bankrupting the franchise in regards to picks to offload bad FA signings - so be it. He probably thought one of two things would happen:

1. We would win a title, at which time no one would care we were paying Banks, Piat and Jumaine Jones $6.5 million a season.
2. We wouldn't win a title and he would be fired. Again, no big deal to him as he would go on to the next gig.

That is what bothers me. Mike D had no intention of setting this team up for success over a 5-6 year period. He wanted to take his 3-year shot in an all-or-nothing frame and let someone else deal with the mess if it didn't work. That's why he wanted out this season, he didn't want to deal with this team not making the playoffs (potentially), having no picks and his reputation sullied. So, he jumped.

[ClosAZ]

^ dude I couldn't have said it better myself

[mkot]

The only remaining issue I have is with the Rondo/Banks situation

I've said this before...It's Rondo/Pike. Again, Sarver would rather sign dinosaur players to sit at the end of the bench than getting locked up on rookie deal. He gave Pike two years rather than to Rondo because Rondo can 1) help him get out of Grant's deal and 2) $3M cash to his bank account (and no, Pike isn't Mike's idea, he was Gentry's guy). If Sarver's to sell picks to get some relief on paying the LT, I'd be all for it but he dumped KT to save even MORE money.

We probably just have different views Arles. I look at the Rondo deal as Rondo vs. Pike (similar length, similar amount). You look at it as Rondo vs. Banks. Which I think really can go both ways. Banks, btw, was a risky signing when they signed him, and it was a knee jerk signing after failing to get Salmons. Again, that's where we miss a REAL GM to talk FA into signing with us.

Arles, you're putting all the bad signings and picks selling on MikeD (for the most part) and I disagreed. And I'm not going to keep repeating what I said previously so I think we've reached the proverbial "we'll have to agree to disagree" stage and I would add that if it's not for Sarver's wallet perception - penny-wise, pound foolish, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. No one is innocent here especially Sarver, who's still trying to paint himself white for the most part in all of these bad decisions while, IMO, he should be the first one to be blamed.

That is what bothers me. Mike D had no intention of setting this team up for success over a 5-6 year period.

While the players always get the benefit of the doubt in this players league, I'd give the coach the benefit of the doubt when management making future or financial planning. As a coach, as MikeD always is, he's main focus should be here to guide his team to win ball games. Future? Finance? Not his job. Yes he was put in that position to fail, too bad Kerr wasn't ready for the job when BC left the team. Should I blame Kerr then?

You can point fingers at alot of people. Obviously MikeD isn't innocent. But, IMO, Robert Sarver has to be at the top of the chain.

So, he jumped.

I felt the same way too. Kerr said the Suns need to make defensive adjustments. While that could be interpreted as a slight against MikeD, is that really worth leaving? He has made some more MAJOR adjustments the past few years. Come on. That's being uber-sensitive. Kerr could have handled it better, MikeD may have the right to be irked, BUT QUITTING? Please. Despite disliking each other, I think MikeD probably saw the Spurs as unbeatable and the West getting tougher, and with no future. He bailed. And Amare may have given him a nice nudge on the way out. I really think he had let Nash and Hill down regardless of the situation between him and Kerr.

[Arles]

The only remaining issue I have is with the Rondo/Banks situation

I've said this before...It's Rondo/Pike. Again, Sarver would rather sign dinosaur players to sit at the end of the bench than getting locked up on rookie deal. He gave Pike two years rather than to Rondo because Rondo can 1) help him get out of Grant's deal and 2) $3M cash to his bank account (and no, Pike isn't Mike's idea, he was Gentry's guy). If Sarver's to sell picks to get some relief on paying the LT, I'd be all for it but he dumped KT to save even MORE money.

This is simply not true. Here was the trade:

Rondo + Grant's contract ($1.8m) for the Cav's pick next season. Saved us $1.8m + Rondo ($1.3m per for 3 years guaranteed). So, that saved us $3.1m for that offseason.

The Suns then signed Piatkowski @ $1.2m per for 2 years guaranteed because Tim Thomas left. Then, when Salmons left, we signed Banks to be backup point at $4.1m per for 4 seasons.

So, door (A) would have been keeping Grant's corpse, drafting Rondo and signing a second round pick/summer guy. That would have cost us a total of $3.1m for Rondo+Grant and another 500K for the 2nd rounder/summer guy. Door (B) was doing what we did and it cost us a total of $6.3 million. Here's a better breakdown:

Rondo idea (Rondo+Grant+young player):
Year 1 - $3.6m, Year 2 - $1.8m, Year 3 - $1.6m

What we did (Banks+Piat - selling Grant):
Year 1 - $4.5m (6.3-1., Year 2 - $6.3m, Year 3 - $6.8m

So, what you are saying, is that Sarver PREFERRED to pay $17.6 guaranteed over 3 seasons to sign Piat and Banks over simply paying $7 million guaranteed to hold on to Grant and sign Rondo and another 2nd rounder?

Sarver would have loved to take the Rondo scenario, but Mike D didn't want to develop players and didn't think Rondo and a 2nd rounder could help as well as Banks and Piat. So, he payed double what it would have cost to make Mike D happy. That is hardly, as you state, Sarver being cheap. We had to sell the Rondo pick or we couldn't have afforded the two FA contracts.

Arles, you're putting all the bad signings and picks selling on MikeD (for the most part) and I disagreed. And I'm not going to keep repeating what I said previously so I think we've reached the proverbial "we'll have to agree to disagree" stage and I would add that if it's not for Sarver's wallet perception - penny-wise, pound foolish, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Mike was the coach and GM. Robert was the pocketbook. Blaming Sarver for making Mike D stay within the clear payroll constraints is something you can do, but all owners do it.

It's been how we spent the money and when you look at the Piat signing, Banks, Diaw extending and the comments like "No one available when we chose would have made our top 10. So, it didn't make sense taking the pick." - the buck stops with Mike D. Now, if you want to throw David Griffin and Mark West under the bus with Mike, that's fine. But Mike made the final call on all these moves - not Sarver, not Kerr, not anyone else. And, he did it without the best health of the franchise in mind and that's what bothers me.

What Mike did is akin to a father letting his son who's on the honor roll borrow the car at night, knowing that the dad needs to leave exactly at 9 AM the next morning for a big meeting. Then, the son goes out, cracks a tail light and parks the car the next morning at 8:59 AM with the empty light on the gas lit. Now, you can blame the father (ie, Sarver) for letting an apparently responsible son (Mike D) borrow the car. Or, you can blame the son for knowingly putting the father in a bad situation and just not caring enough to look a little in the future. I choose to blame the son.

While the players always get the benefit of the doubt in this players league, I'd give the coach the benefit of the doubt when management making future or financial planning. As a coach, as MikeD always is, he's main focus should be here to guide his team to win ball games. Future? Finance? Not his job. Yes he was put in that position to fail, too bad Kerr wasn't ready for the job when BC left the team. Should I blame Kerr then?

Mike as the coach should focus on winning ball games and setup the team to have a solid rotation and rested starters to make a postseason run. Mike D the GM should setup the team to have quality depth now and a future after the season. IMO, Mike D failed in half his goals as a coach and all his goals as a GM. Again, if he didn't want to look out for the best of the franchise, he should have recused himself and let Griff, West or someone else more capable take the GM role. But, Mike didn't want that. As we see now with Kerr, he didn't want to have to be responsible to anyone. And, with that kind of power, comes a ton of responsibility. It's a shame for us that Mike wasn't up to the task as the GM that his ego wanted.

[mkot]

This is simply not true. Here was the trade:

Huh? That's simply what I said there in my post. Rondo the draft pick saved us a bunch of money that's why Sarver rather have Pike sitting on the bench than Rondo. The pick we got in the deal also rid us out of James Jones deal and another $3 million in cash. I understand that. Again, that's Sarver shortsightedness where he skimp and save what amounts to a small percentage of your operating costs to simply save some cash in his pocket.

That's Grant's contract + James Jones's contract + $6M cash = around $17M saved and HE STILL DUMPED KT'S $8M. If he could've kept KT on the book and let him expire after this season, I'd be ok with the selling but he DIDN'T.

You don't agree with me about the argument of him having the biggest blame of selling draft picks, fine. I guess we just can't agree on everything, but I'll say this one more time - problem is not a general cheapness, is his shortsightedness. I concede that Robert Sarver has spent money, but that he (to this point) seems incapable of making the right decisions of when to spend the money, and when to save money, while at the same time use whatever there's out there to spin his reasoning of selling draft picks, try to paint himself white. I have been onto Sarver's tricks for a while and defended him. I don't know how many more times you can chalk it up to "rookie owner" or being "fiscally prudent" or "financially responsible" or giving us the "what else do people want me to do?" thinking.

Also, very dishonorable mention should go to the chump in the front office who first told Sarver that selling picks is an option. Like Bill Simmons said, there's no bigger "F you" to the fans than the outright selling of a draft pick, especially when picking a Euro and leaving him overseas is a completely viable option and a nice way to pick up another asset. And who knows, that asset may prove to be worth more than $3M down the line.

Mike was the coach and GM. Robert was the pocketbook.

If you want to paint Sarver lily white and MikeD the evil, then I'll just leave you at that.