The 2016 Offseason Thread

[dremill24]

Why is Booker always wearing short shorts and no socks

? How old are you?

Im 147

[Mulhollanddrive]

Read that 32 of the 34 finalists this century have had a player selected with a top 3 pick.

Pretty mind blowing.

[Jdiddy701]

Kendall Marshall traded lol
Then waived


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[NTB]

Read on Twitter

Dudley's overall is on point IMO.

Now we have 2 players revealed: Chriss (71), Dudley (76).

[batsmasher]

I haven't played 2k in years but Ima make some guesses:

Bled 84
BK 80
Book 81
Len 74
Leandro 74
Ulis 70
TJ 74 (they will do him dirty)
PJ 75
Chandler 77
Williams 63
Jenkins 65
Archie 72
Dragan 74

Not that I agree with the ratings, just what I guess.

[NTB]

I haven't played 2k in years but Ima make some guesses:

Bled 84
BK 80
Book 81
Len 74
Leandro 74
Ulis 70
TJ 74 (they will do him dirty)
PJ 75
Chandler 77
Williams 63
Jenkins 65
Archie 72
Dragan 74

Not that I agree with the ratings, just what I guess.

What I expect:

Bledsoe - 82
Knight - 79
Booker - 80 (D'Angelo is 79)
Len - 75
Barbosa - 74
Ulis - 70
Warren - 76
Tucker - 73
Chandler 77
Williams - 65
Jenkins - 65
Goodwin - 71
Bender - 73

What I want:

Bledsoe - 84
Knight - 79
Booker - 81
Len - 78
Barbosa - 75
Ulis - 73
Warren - 78
Tucker - 75
Chandler - 78
Williams - 68
Jenkins - 67
Goodwin - 72
Bender - 75
Chriss - 73

[NTB]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Mulhollanddrive]

Jennings must be taking the Rudy Gay approach of not looking at stats.

39% career FG and he's complaining about numbers.

[batsmasher]

Jennings must be taking the Rudy Gay approach of not looking at stats.

39% career FG and he's complaining about numbers.

He scored 55 points in a game.

Stats don't lie.

[Mulhollanddrive]

Which makes every other game even worse.

[NavLDO]

But you are basing that on one stat, and ignoring all the others, Teague had more steals, more blocks, higher DWS, and higher DRtg. I understand "RPM" appears to be the gold standard, but there are no 'all encompassing' stats that will tell the entire story.

And the year prior ('14-'15) was the opposite. Teague was ranked 7th (.95), and Hill was ranked 35th (-.87); the year before was opposite, again, with Hill ranked 12th, but Teague was ranked 27th. Point being, how reliable/accurate is that stat when it flip-flops that easily? It's not as if Hill is some lock-down PG, and then when you figure in all the rest of the numbers on both sides of the ball, to me, Teague would've been the better choice. That's really the crux of my side of this debate; that if Utah wanted to 'breakout' this year, I don't see how adding Hill is going to move the needle much, and if the idea is that Utah will 'blow it up' after this season if they don't become a contender, I'd rather go with the PG that is 2 years younger, is a better facilitator of the ball, even if he has some 'iso' in him, his numbers are still better than Hill's in that regard, and if Exum flops, they are left with Hill to mentor a rookie PG next season, and IMO, Teague is better suited for that role.

So it's not just about this season; I would've looked out a bit further to have a plan for the year after. Obviously, I'm wrong on this point, since the Jazz went the way they did; it just doesn't make a ton of sense to me from an outsider's point of view, is all. I hope I'm right; that'd be one less tem to worry about competing with this year!

I guess ultimately it doesn't matter what we think. I was just pointing you to an article written by an nba writer for a national website. Obviously the Jazz experts felt Hill was more the type of player they needed as well. I think Teague WILL have better stats this year, but it isn't all about that. Hill is more the type of player that plays not just because of the numbers he provides, but because of his veteran leadership which is what is needed in Utah,

So, I'll say it again, regarding 'veteran leadership'--What Vet presence does Hill have over Teague? 32 games? In fact, Teague has 58 games MORE starting, so how I fail to see the 'vet' argument.

Teague has started 58 more games than Hill. Hill was selected just one draft class earlier, and only has played in about 1/3 of a season's worth of games over Teague, but again, Teague has started 3/4 of a season worth of games MORE than Hill. Hill has 2000 more minutes, but when you are talking about having 13.5K minutes, I don't see the big difference, there, in 'vet leadership'.

And also, are you trying to say that fewer steals equals better defense?? The situation you present is highly subjective, IMO. Having more steals could just as well be a factor of being a better defender.

and why they signed guys like Diaw and Joe Johnson.

Steals are not really a good indicator of defense (because often this is a case of overgambling often and it costs you defensively more often than not), and I doubt the greater number of blocks amounted to much, them being point guards.

[bwgood77]

But you are basing that on one stat, and ignoring all the others, Teague had more steals, more blocks, higher DWS, and higher DRtg. I understand "RPM" appears to be the gold standard, but there are no 'all encompassing' stats that will tell the entire story.

And the year prior ('14-'15) was the opposite. Teague was ranked 7th (.95), and Hill was ranked 35th (-.87); the year before was opposite, again, with Hill ranked 12th, but Teague was ranked 27th. Point being, how reliable/accurate is that stat when it flip-flops that easily? It's not as if Hill is some lock-down PG, and then when you figure in all the rest of the numbers on both sides of the ball, to me, Teague would've been the better choice. That's really the crux of my side of this debate; that if Utah wanted to 'breakout' this year, I don't see how adding Hill is going to move the needle much, and if the idea is that Utah will 'blow it up' after this season if they don't become a contender, I'd rather go with the PG that is 2 years younger, is a better facilitator of the ball, even if he has some 'iso' in him, his numbers are still better than Hill's in that regard, and if Exum flops, they are left with Hill to mentor a rookie PG next season, and IMO, Teague is better suited for that role.

So it's not just about this season; I would've looked out a bit further to have a plan for the year after. Obviously, I'm wrong on this point, since the Jazz went the way they did; it just doesn't make a ton of sense to me from an outsider's point of view, is all. I hope I'm right; that'd be one less tem to worry about competing with this year!

I guess ultimately it doesn't matter what we think. I was just pointing you to an article written by an nba writer for a national website. Obviously the Jazz experts felt Hill was more the type of player they needed as well. I think Teague WILL have better stats this year, but it isn't all about that. Hill is more the type of player that plays not just because of the numbers he provides, but because of his veteran leadership which is what is needed in Utah,

So, I'll say it again, regarding 'veteran leadership'--What Vet presence does Hill have over Teague? 32 games? In fact, Teague has 58 games MORE starting, so how I fail to see the 'vet' argument.

Teague has started 58 more games than Hill. Hill was selected just one draft class earlier, and only has played in about 1/3 of a season's worth of games over Teague, but again, Teague has started 3/4 of a season worth of games MORE than Hill. Hill has 2000 more minutes, but when you are talking about having 13.5K minutes, I don't see the big difference, there, in 'vet leadership'.

And also, are you trying to say that fewer steals equals better defense?? The situation you present is highly subjective, IMO. Having more steals could just as well be a factor of being a better defender.

and why they signed guys like Diaw and Joe Johnson.

Steals are not really a good indicator of defense (because often this is a case of overgambling often and it costs you defensively more often than not), and I doubt the greater number of blocks amounted to much, them being point guards.

Well, I disagree with you. It's fairly clear the vast majority, if not everyone but you, consider Hill the much better defender. Why do I say vet leadership? Hill came out after 4 years of college, with four years of coaching rather than Teague's two. He is two years older.

Teague, on the other hand, has always been one of the younger guys on his team in the nba, never having really had a chance to mentor, except perhaps Schroeder for a year or two. He also came into the league and only played 10 minutes a game in his first season and 13 mpg in his second. He played a year for Woodson and three for Larry Drew.

Hill, on the other hand, got drafted as a more seasoned player who was two years older, with two more years of college experience, and got to learn under Pop. He always played on great teams and averaged over 16 mpg in year one, often playing over 20 and sometimes 30 minutes a game. In his second year, he averaged over 29 mpg.

He then went to play under who I consider another very good coach, in Vogel, on many very good teams, with the exception of last year when George was out, but they were still fringe playoff. When he got to Indiana, he fit right in as the starter, and by his second year played the 2nd most minutes behind Paul George, but was pretty much the oldest guy on the team who played significant minutes other than David West, so he's been under really good or great coaches, and spent more time mentoring others, is two years older, with two more years experience post high school.

Teague did play for one good coach in Budenholzer, but someone who was still an understudy of Pop and also didn't feel Teague was worth keeping around so they traded him.

Utah wanted Hill. They wanted to add veteran presence and defense, and despite your feelings that Teague is the better defender and is just as much a veteran, I largely disagree on both counts. I don't really want to continue arguing this as we both seem to have our opinions on the matter which are not likely to change.

[NavLDO]

I guess ultimately it doesn't matter what we think. I was just pointing you to an article written by an nba writer for a national website. Obviously the Jazz experts felt Hill was more the type of player they needed as well. I think Teague WILL have better stats this year, but it isn't all about that. Hill is more the type of player that plays not just because of the numbers he provides, but because of his veteran leadership which is what is needed in Utah,

So, I'll say it again, regarding 'veteran leadership'--What Vet presence does Hill have over Teague? 32 games? In fact, Teague has 58 games MORE starting, so how I fail to see the 'vet' argument.

Teague has started 58 more games than Hill. Hill was selected just one draft class earlier, and only has played in about 1/3 of a season's worth of games over Teague, but again, Teague has started 3/4 of a season worth of games MORE than Hill. Hill has 2000 more minutes, but when you are talking about having 13.5K minutes, I don't see the big difference, there, in 'vet leadership'.

And also, are you trying to say that fewer steals equals better defense?? The situation you present is highly subjective, IMO. Having more steals could just as well be a factor of being a better defender.

and why they signed guys like Diaw and Joe Johnson.

Steals are not really a good indicator of defense (because often this is a case of overgambling often and it costs you defensively more often than not), and I doubt the greater number of blocks amounted to much, them being point guards.

Well, I disagree with you. It's fairly clear the vast majority, if not everyone but you, consider Hill the much better defender. Why do I say vet leadership? Hill came out after 4 years of college, with four years of coaching rather than Teague's two. He is two years older.

Teague, on the other hand, has always been one of the younger guys on his team in the nba, never having really had a chance to mentor, except perhaps Schroeder for a year or two. He also came into the league and only played 10 minutes a game in his first season and 13 mpg in his second. He played a year for Woodson and three for Larry Drew.

Hill, on the other hand, got drafted as a more seasoned player who was two years older, with two more years of college experience, and got to learn under Pop. He always played on great teams and averaged over 16 mpg in year one, often playing over 20 and sometimes 30 minutes a game. In his second year, he averaged over 29 mpg.

He then went to play under who I consider another very good coach, in Vogel, on many very good teams, with the exception of last year when George was out, but they were still fringe playoff. When he got to Indiana, he fit right in as the starter, and by his second year played the 2nd most minutes behind Paul George, but was pretty much the oldest guy on the team who played significant minutes other than David West, so he's been under really good or great coaches, and spent more time mentoring others, is two years older, with two more years experience post high school.

Teague did play for one good coach in Budenholzer, but someone who was still an understudy of Pop and also didn't feel Teague was worth keeping around so they traded him.

Utah wanted Hill. They wanted to add veteran presence and defense, and despite your feelings that Teague is the better defender and is just as much a veteran, I largely disagree on both counts. I don't really want to continue arguing this as we both seem to have our opinions on the matter which are not likely to change.

Fair enough. You make some valid points, and I would hope to not ever seem as if I'm too stubborn to have my mind changed on a subject. Like now, you presented fair and valid 'points' as to why George should be considered as being more of a 'vet leader'. I wouldn't say I've completely switched my opinion, but the points you brought out are strong evidence for your case, so I can at least see why Utah would prefer Hill over Teague, which just last week, it made little sense to me.

The proof will be in the pudding, as they say, but maybe Hill does present as the better option for them; they obviously think more along the lines of your thinking, because they likely could have just cut Indy out of the deal, and deal directly with ATL for Teague if they wanted him.

Anyway, I know I can come across as being stubborn, but I really wasn't being stubborn there; I just had not heard or considered the points you just made, and as a forum, isn't this the place to have these types of discussions/debates, even if not directly tied to the Suns?

[bwgood77]

Fair enough. You make some valid points, and I would hope to not ever seem as if I'm too stubborn to have my mind changed on a subject. Like now, you presented fair and valid 'points' as to why George should be considered as being more of a 'vet leader'. I wouldn't say I've completely switched my opinion, but the points you brought out are strong evidence for your case, so I can at least see why Utah would prefer Hill over Teague, which just last week, it made little sense to me.

The proof will be in the pudding, as they say, but maybe Hill does present as the better option for them; they obviously think more along the lines of your thinking, because they likely could have just cut Indy out of the deal, and deal directly with ATL for Teague if they wanted him.

Anyway, I know I can come across as being stubborn, but I really wasn't being stubborn there; I just had not heard or considered the points you just made, and as a forum, isn't this the place to have these types of discussions/debates, even if not directly tied to the Suns?

Sure, it's fair to argue unless it's clear neither will ever change mind and it continues on and on and on and dominates a thread, which has happened. But it's pretty dead right now anyway.

I also think Hill might be more willing to take a back seat and re-sign there if/when Exum is ready and I'm not sure Teague would do the same. Also, they might think it will be easier to retain Hill (they are both FA's next summer) and he will likely be had for a smaller price. Like I mentioned before, I think, in a nutshell, Teague is the better overall PG, but Hill might be more of the guy to accept the role. Teague also more ball dominant and much of the offense runs through Hayward.

[NavLDO]

Since the thread is dead...or at the very least, dying, well, this is when those crazy wheels start turning in my head and I come up with those ever-so thought-provoking trade threads.

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ha37an5

Some may view it as the ultimate 'tank' trade for us, but I view it as the ultimate 'rebuild' trade, and we see what we got in the youngins'. Unfortunately, it requires us to take on Kosta Koufus' 3 years at an avg of $8.5M, and Shumpert for $10M avg for this plus 2 years, but we can call them the addition to the 'vet leadership' crew of Duds, Barbosa, Tucker, and now, Koufus and Shumpert.

We bring back some young guys and let them compete for their place on the team, but also leave a gaping hole at PG, which we will subsequently fill next draft since it's rich with PGs, but we can also utilize Barbosa more in the role of a PG to back-up Ulis/Goodwin for this year if necessary, but I think Booker was able to run the Offense when needed at times as well, so it's not as dire as it looks:

Ulis/Goodwin/Barbosa
Booker/McLemore/Shumpert
Warren/Tucker/Bender
Dudley/Chriss/Labissiere
Len/Koufus/Williams

In this scenario, we'd lose out on Jenkins playing SG for us.

But really, what this trade does is allow Cleveland to 'answer back' at GSW for their addition of Durant by adding Cousins, while swapping out Irving for Bledsoe, adding Gay, and getting a likely better Center for their needs than TT by adding Chandler.

Sacramento would be wise to get something for Cousins while they can, as well as Gay, and getting Irving, TT, Knight, and Frye is quite a haul for Cousins, Gay, McLemore, Labissiere and dumping Koufus.


Or this one, if we can convince SAC to essentially trade all their new rookies for Tucker!!

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=zxo9pal

Anyway, If I don't see more posting going on, I'll continue to subject you all to these 'top-notch' trade ideas!

[bwgood77]

Spoiler:

Since the thread is dead...or at the very least, dying, well, this is when those crazy wheels start turning in my head and I come up with those ever-so thought-provoking trade threads.

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ha37an5

Some may view it as the ultimate 'tank' trade for us, but I view it as the ultimate 'rebuild' trade, and we see what we got in the youngins'. Unfortunately, it requires us to take on Kosta Koufus' 3 years at an avg of $8.5M, and Shumpert for $10M avg for this plus 2 years, but we can call them the addition to the 'vet leadership' crew of Duds, Barbosa, Tucker, and now, Koufus and Shumpert.

We bring back some young guys and let them compete for their place on the team, but also leave a gaping hole at PG, which we will subsequently fill next draft since it's rich with PGs, but we can also utilize Barbosa more in the role of a PG to back-up Ulis/Goodwin for this year if necessary, but I think Booker was able to run the Offense when needed at times as well, so it's not as dire as it looks:

Ulis/Goodwin/Barbosa
Booker/McLemore/Shumpert
Warren/Tucker/Bender
Dudley/Chriss/Labissiere
Len/Koufus/Williams

In this scenario, we'd lose out on Jenkins playing SG for us.

But really, what this trade does is allow Cleveland to 'answer back' at GSW for their addition of Durant by adding Cousins, while swapping out Irving for Bledsoe, adding Gay, and getting a likely better Center for their needs than TT by adding Chandler.

Sacramento would be wise to get something for Cousins while they can, as well as Gay, and getting Irving, TT, Knight, and Frye is quite a haul for Cousins, Gay, McLemore, Labissiere and dumping Koufus.


Or this one, if we can convince SAC to essentially trade all their new rookies for Tucker!!

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=zxo9pal

Anyway, If I don't see more posting going on, I'll continue to subject you all to these 'top-notch' trade ideas!

I'd like to see Kings' fans reactions to that one. It's bad enough for us, but they get really screwed. I can't even see how it helps us, at all? I mean Skal is a wildcard, even much more so than the two we have, and obviously a lot of GMs think so too since he dropped to Sacramento. I mean Sacramento doesn't have the best draft record in the past 5 years, and had taken Papa at 13 that surprised everyone...who knows how far Skal falls if THEY don't take him. Given their desperate need for pg I don't know why they didn't take Dejounte Murray, Jackson, or even Ulis (but obviously they don't like short PGs).

But the three players we are trading out are all better now than any of the players we get would ever be. Skal may have a big upside, but he's a huge wildcard. I wouldn't even just trade Bledsoe for that package. Probably not Knight either. Maybe not even Chandler.

[Damkac]

Terrible.

[OGBAH]

If you google Suns trade rumors this Denver trade is posted a couple of times....
Bledsoe for Faried and Barton :/
I'd like Faried if it was a salary dump for picks

[MrMiyagi]

If you google Suns trade rumors this Denver trade is posted a couple of times....
Bledsoe for Faried and Barton :/
I'd like Faried if it was a salary dump for picks

Why does Denver need more guards? Mudiay, Murray, Gary Harris AND Bledsoe? Doesn't make sense to me.

[bwgood77]

If you google Suns trade rumors this Denver trade is posted a couple of times....
Bledsoe for Faried and Barton :/
I'd like Faried if it was a salary dump for picks

Why does Denver need more guards? Mudiay, Murray, Gary Harris AND Bledsoe? Doesn't make sense to me.

They don't, and they also play Barton as a swing man who is good. They wouldn't trade for Bledsoe. Makes very little sense. People need to find source of rumors and see if they seem the least bit credible. Even if there were credible people talking about rumors, they are still rumors, and the Suns FO doesn't leak much, so if anything, it would have to be coming from the other side.