Trade & FA Ideas & Discussion

[AtheJ415]

Golden States drafted Klay, Curry, traded Monta for Bogut, gave up two picks to get cap space for Iggy, drafted Barnes and I think Green, than filled in around that with role players; got Durant.

so, it truly was a combination of drafting, free agency, trades, good identification of role players. I actually think Mark Jackson helped building a culture that Kerr took over

So, I don't think the Suns need to tank - they should try to win with the group they have. But understand, they probably will not make play-offs - which is okay. But enough tanking - teams need to learn how to win.

It is stupid, impatient, and short sighted to try and be anything but at the bottom of the west this year. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to get us to shortcut our way to mediocrity which will just result in another decade of frustration. And to be clear, this Suns team has only been "tanking" for one year.

I'm for rebuilding thru the draft, but you are making it sound like the team should play Mike James 48 mins just to be sure we end at the bottom. This is probably what irritates the anti-tanking fans and I can understand them.

There is a good chance the Suns end in the 7-10 range. Then you have the Miami pick/other assets to try to get in the top 5.

There is not a good chance the Suns end in the 7-10 range. The east has some bad teams but the West has drastically better and deeper teams throughout, meaning we aren't going to be winning many conference games.

The only teams I can buy for sure being worse than us is Indiana and maybe Brooklyn. With who the Kings signed, who the Hawks have at head coach, and the conference that both the Hawks and Bulls are in, I can easily see us out-tanking them. In fact, Vegas has us as the 2nd least likely to win the championship (500/1), tied with Sacramento. They have Brooklyn as the only team below us, but I think Brooklyn will do better than expected next year.

We are, by all measures (Vegas, stat predictions, age group of team, quality of head coach), going to be back in the top 5 next year, and that is probably the best thing for this team. Adding Ayton, Porter, Doncic, or Bamba to our core is a big freaking deal. Getting the Miami pick to add another lotteryish talent is also good.

[n4th4n4]

I understand we have a young team. But ... I think most true fans would be very happy to see this team, as constructed, do well this year. By well I mean anything north of 32 wins. That means our youngsters are contributing and learning how to win and if we don't get a top 5 pick that's too bad. On the other hand, if we only win in the high-teens to mid-twenties that really means our young guns aren't where they need to be and may never be a decent starter (e.g., Len).

Another sub-.300 year is not what this team needs. Sadly it is what tankers are already rooting for without a single game played in the 2017/2018 season. Tanking shouldn't start until January at the earliest. Last year it happened after the all-star break in March and we still got our top five pick.

I fully expect training camp to be a competition for playing time and starting spots. Bledsoe and Chandler will likely be two of the starters. Dudley, Knight, James, and Milsap should be allowed to compete for playing time too. Teams should put the best product on the floor at the beginning of the season and see what happens. Right now I am expecting a starting five of

Bledsoe
Booker
Jackson
Warren
Chandler

with a bench of

Ulis or James
Knight or Reed or DJJ
Bender or Dudley or Milsap
Chriss or Bender
Williams or Bender

We should improve a bit if we play Bledsoe and Chandler all season, and everyone stays healthy. If we play our youngsters more and the vets like Dudley and Chandler less, it might be a bit tougher. But yes, I think if everyone improves quite a bit we could win 32 or so and get the 8th pick maybe...Sacramento finished with 32, slotted 8th, but jumped to 3rd and Philly got the swap.

Like I said earlier, I think we could finish anywhere in the bottom 8, but likely not in the bottom 2-3 or at 7-8 but maybe in between. It may depend on just how bad those bottom east teams are....there are at least 4-5 pretty bad ones, but they will have to each win against each other.

Adding Jackson, adding age to Booker, Ulis, Chriss, Bender, adding Bledsoe and Chandler for the whole year. That should be a 10 game improvement I would think.

Neither Chriss or Bender are anywhere close to adding wins to a team. In fact, every minute they play will contribute to the losing. Rookies almost never contribute to winning. Chandler is a replacement level center. Booker only plays on one side of the ball. The only way we add 10 wins is by FEASTING on the Eastern Conference. I don't see that happening.

[AtheJ415]

.......

It is so incredibly alarming to me the amount of fans that think adding Boogie means we can contend with Golden State. We are nowhere close to contending with any of the West's super teams. Why not move forward knowing that and build for 3-5 years from now.

You have such a myopic approach to your rebuttals... selecting one facet and hammering ...

so ... you really think McDo would get Boogie then just close up the swap shop and not make any other adjustments ? Im not so naive to think this steam pile needs just one superstar and next stop title town. Yet you imply that any acquisition like this is a quick fix in a vacuum. That is sure to fail because oh my, mighty GS has all the crowns sewn up for the next 5 years, and there fore we should tailor make our team to wait till they are done. We cant be good till they are not.

Furthermore, what are the guarantees in 3 yrs your group of choir boys will still be here? Suppose KAT 'recruits Booker and/or D'Lo to Minny to come 'win' with him? Suppose Warren gets fed up loosing and being sidestepped so he goes elsewhere? Wouldn't it be a serious blow if Chris or Bender followed the Len pathway to mediocrity? If Jackson was the next Cory Brewer?

Your long term development plans have just as many twists and turns... may be even more since you are projecting the talent levels out to all-nba levels. Why is it so difficult to grasp a combination approach to winning? One incorporating successful drafting, smart free agent acquisitions, and a impact trade here and there? In 3 to 5 years we should be competing? Where does that put Bledsoe in the picture? In 5 yrs Boogie will be 32... Too old ? Dude... you have to start somewhere.

what is 'incredibly alarming' is your steadfast DRAFT your way to the top approach. Not exactly a proven path.

I actually rebut you point for point frequently. You just aren't very good at comprehending.

1. To your first bolded--the CBA. Unless Booker chooses to take the QO, he is a restricted FA, meaning we get to keep him, and only people who sign up for the agent that doesn't understand math (Rich Paul) take the QO, because doing otherwise is an insane amount of money to lose out on.

2. For Warren, see point 1. You should really understand how free agency works. Maybe that is why you think it's the answer--because you don't understand that teams can match players coming off of rookie contracts.

3. My long-term development plan doesn't have twists and turns. It has always been the same. Tank until the group shows enough promise to contend, which would be when they are about 23 at least. Until then, only add players who fit that timeline (ages 19-25). There aren't twists and turns in there. Once they are ready they can go for broke in FA for aging vets, but doing so now just to get a higher win total is nonsense. What you want is Boogie and Love and think you will contend with the greatest team in the history of basketball.

4. To the 3rd bolded point--I have. Consistently. I just recognize how drafting works and that, in the current environment given where our team and other teams are, you should proceed in a certain order. You think that loading up on expensive middling vets who prevent us from playing the youngsters while getting late picks is the way to attract a bunch of stars to dethrone the warriors. I advocate for a more realistic and sensible approach to go for FA when the timing makes sense and for only actual stars. You sit here wanting Boogie and Milsap and Love. Only one of those might be a true guy who moves the needle, but his emotional status leaves that up for question.

5. To the 4th. Yes, you have to start somewhere. I advocate for starting with Booker and Jackson and Bender and one of Porter or Bamba or Ayton or Doncic. You want to start with trading many of them for Love or Boogie, and praying they re-sign here for $40 million a year when the team is filled with Tyson Chandler-level role players with no prayer of getting better and little to no cap space.

6. For the 1,000,000th time, NOBODY IS ADVOCATING TO IGNORE FA INDEFINITELY. All anybody is advocating here is to go after FA's who fit the age group of this team so that they could possibly be a part of the future of the team, and to not give up the future to cobble together a few middle-aged veteran stars who would never beat a super team. Boogie is an FA NEXT YEAR, not this year. Getting him in FA makes some sense. Trading people for him makes none. As would trading for Paul George or Jimmy Butler. Going after FA's this year (Milsap, KCP, whoever the hell you think would have moved the needle in some delusional fantasy) makes no sense.

7. Even if we had gone for all of your moves this season, in which you apparently believe we could've traded for all of Butler, George, and Cousins (which still wouldn't be enough to contend with the Warriors and probably even Houston), we can still sign 2 of those guys FOR NOTHING BUT CAP SPACE next season. If they want to be here that option is available. Why would winning with vets get them here though? That is no guarantee, and we already tried that move with Tyson Chandler and Aldridge. Guess where that left us?

[bwgood77]

I understand we have a young team. But ... I think most true fans would be very happy to see this team, as constructed, do well this year. By well I mean anything north of 32 wins. That means our youngsters are contributing and learning how to win and if we don't get a top 5 pick that's too bad. On the other hand, if we only win in the high-teens to mid-twenties that really means our young guns aren't where they need to be and may never be a decent starter (e.g., Len).

Another sub-.300 year is not what this team needs. Sadly it is what tankers are already rooting for without a single game played in the 2017/2018 season. Tanking shouldn't start until January at the earliest. Last year it happened after the all-star break in March and we still got our top five pick.

I fully expect training camp to be a competition for playing time and starting spots. Bledsoe and Chandler will likely be two of the starters. Dudley, Knight, James, and Milsap should be allowed to compete for playing time too. Teams should put the best product on the floor at the beginning of the season and see what happens. Right now I am expecting a starting five of

Bledsoe
Booker
Jackson
Warren
Chandler

with a bench of

Ulis or James
Knight or Reed or DJJ
Bender or Dudley or Milsap
Chriss or Bender
Williams or Bender

We should improve a bit if we play Bledsoe and Chandler all season, and everyone stays healthy. If we play our youngsters more and the vets like Dudley and Chandler less, it might be a bit tougher. But yes, I think if everyone improves quite a bit we could win 32 or so and get the 8th pick maybe...Sacramento finished with 32, slotted 8th, but jumped to 3rd and Philly got the swap.

Like I said earlier, I think we could finish anywhere in the bottom 8, but likely not in the bottom 2-3 or at 7-8 but maybe in between. It may depend on just how bad those bottom east teams are....there are at least 4-5 pretty bad ones, but they will have to each win against each other.

Adding Jackson, adding age to Booker, Ulis, Chriss, Bender, adding Bledsoe and Chandler for the whole year. That should be a 10 game improvement I would think.

Perhaps, but most teams are saying the same, as their young guys get older and a great new draft class comes in. The only ones that won't are those that lost stars, but those stars should make their new teams better. I guess it depends on how much we play Bledsoe, Dudley and Chandler, if we keep them all, and if they all stay healthy.

[bigfoot]

.......

It is so incredibly alarming to me the amount of fans that think adding Boogie means we can contend with Golden State. We are nowhere close to contending with any of the West's super teams. Why not move forward knowing that and build for 3-5 years from now.

You have such a myopic approach to your rebuttals... selecting one facet and hammering ...

so ... you really think McDo would get Boogie then just close up the swap shop and not make any other adjustments ? Im not so naive to think this steam pile needs just one superstar and next stop title town. Yet you imply that any acquisition like this is a quick fix in a vacuum. That is sure to fail because oh my, mighty GS has all the crowns sewn up for the next 5 years, and there fore we should tailor make our team to wait till they are done. We cant be good till they are not.

Furthermore, what are the guarantees in 3 yrs your group of choir boys will still be here? Suppose KAT 'recruits Booker and/or D'Lo to Minny to come 'win' with him? Suppose Warren gets fed up loosing and being sidestepped so he goes elsewhere? Wouldn't it be a serious blow if Chris or Bender followed the Len pathway to mediocrity? If Jackson was the next Cory Brewer?

Your long term development plans have just as many twists and turns... may be even more since you are projecting the talent levels out to all-nba levels. Why is it so difficult to grasp a combination approach to winning? One incorporating successful drafting, smart free agent acquisitions, and a impact trade here and there? In 3 to 5 years we should be competing? Where does that put Bledsoe in the picture? In 5 yrs Boogie will be 32... Too old ? Dude... you have to start somewhere.

what is 'incredibly alarming' is your steadfast DRAFT your way to the top approach. Not exactly a proven path.

I actually rebut you point for point frequently. You just aren't very good at comprehending.

1. To your first bolded--the CBA. Unless Booker chooses to take the QO, he is a restricted FA, meaning we get to keep him, and only people who sign up for the agent that doesn't understand math (Rich Paul) take the QO, because doing otherwise is an insane amount of money to lose out on.

2. For Warren, see point 1. You should really understand how free agency works. Maybe that is why you think it's the answer--because you don't understand that teams can match players coming off of rookie contracts.

3. My long-term development plan doesn't have twists and turns. It has always been the same. Tank until the group shows enough promise to contend, which would be when they are about 23 at least. Until then, only add players who fit that timeline (ages 19-25). There aren't twists and turns in there. Once they are ready they can go for broke in FA for aging vets, but doing so now just to get a higher win total is nonsense. What you want is Boogie and Love and think you will contend with the greatest team in the history of basketball.

4. To the 3rd bolded point--I have. Consistently. I just recognize how drafting works and that, in the current environment given where our team and other teams are, you should proceed in a certain order. You think that loading up on expensive middling vets who prevent us from playing the youngsters while getting late picks is the way to attract a bunch of stars to dethrone the warriors. I advocate for a more realistic and sensible approach to go for FA when the timing makes sense and for only actual stars. You sit here wanting Boogie and Milsap and Love. Only one of those might be a true guy who moves the needle, but his emotional status leaves that up for question.

5. To the 4th. Yes, you have to start somewhere. I advocate for starting with Booker and Jackson and Bender and one of Porter or Bamba or Ayton or Doncic. You want to start with trading many of them for Love or Boogie, and praying they re-sign here for $40 million a year when the team is filled with Tyson Chandler-level role players with no prayer of getting better and little to no cap space.

6. For the 1,000,000th time, NOBODY IS ADVOCATING TO IGNORE FA INDEFINITELY. All anybody is advocating here is to go after FA's who fit the age group of this team so that they could possibly be a part of the future of the team, and to not give up the future to cobble together a few middle-aged veteran stars who would never beat a super team. Boogie is an FA NEXT YEAR, not this year. Getting him in FA makes some sense. Trading people for him makes none. As would trading for Paul George or Jimmy Butler. Going after FA's this year (Milsap, KCP, whoever the hell you think would have moved the needle in some delusional fantasy) makes no sense.

7. Even if we had gone for all of your moves this season, in which you apparently believe we could've traded for all of Butler, George, and Cousins (which still wouldn't be enough to contend with the Warriors and probably even Houston), we can still sign 2 of those guys FOR NOTHING BUT CAP SPACE next season. If they want to be here that option is available. Why would winning with vets get them here though? That is no guarantee, and we already tried that move with Tyson Chandler and Aldridge. Guess where that left us?

You can't go after good free agents that fit your age grouping (19-25) because most of them are RFA and the offer will be matched. Getting Porter would never happen based on your argument on #1 and #2 for Booker and Warren. People do understand the CBA around here. Signing an older (27-31) all-star free agent has shown to be a great move in the past. We had a very young team and signed Chambers at 29. That pushed us up a notch into serious playoff contention and eventually netted us Barkley and a window at championships for 4-5 years. We were really unlucky with untimely injuries to Ceballos, Manning, KJ, and Barkley during that span.

So going strictly for "great" young guys that fit your age window really isn't going to work. You have to go for the older guys, win, and then attract another round of free agents when your young core is in their late 20's.

[Revived]

Anyone know what's going on with Noel? Surprised he hasn't been signed yet. Guessing the Mavs are stuck on a number and Noel's agent wants a ton more.

The Mavericks' negotiations with Nerlens Noel remain far apart and the representative for the fourth-year center said Tuesday that the situation could drag on well into the summer.

Noel, 23, is a restricted free agent, meaning the Mavericks can match any offer he might get from another team.

However, agent Happy Walters said the Mavericks have yet to come up with a realistic contract offer.

"We're very disappointed with where things stand," Walters said. "Nerlens loves Dallas and spent June there working out, but we're still waiting on a serious offer."

Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban said only that he cannot go into details about the negotiations.

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-mavericks/mavericks/2017/07/18/agent-noel-disappointed-negotiations-stand-mavericks

[bigfoot]

We should improve a bit if we play Bledsoe and Chandler all season, and everyone stays healthy. If we play our youngsters more and the vets like Dudley and Chandler less, it might be a bit tougher. But yes, I think if everyone improves quite a bit we could win 32 or so and get the 8th pick maybe...Sacramento finished with 32, slotted 8th, but jumped to 3rd and Philly got the swap.

Like I said earlier, I think we could finish anywhere in the bottom 8, but likely not in the bottom 2-3 or at 7-8 but maybe in between. It may depend on just how bad those bottom east teams are....there are at least 4-5 pretty bad ones, but they will have to each win against each other.

Adding Jackson, adding age to Booker, Ulis, Chriss, Bender, adding Bledsoe and Chandler for the whole year. That should be a 10 game improvement I would think.

Neither Chriss or Bender are anywhere close to adding wins to a team. In fact, every minute they play will contribute to the losing. Rookies almost never contribute to winning. Chandler is a replacement level center. Booker only plays on one side of the ball. The only way we add 10 wins is by FEASTING on the Eastern Conference. I don't see that happening.

Yes, Rookies do contribute to winning. Top picks in the 1-5 range often make a big difference ... unfortunately we have swung and missed for too many years in a row. Here's a list for you to look at of rookies since 2000 that have made a big impact in wins. My hope is Jackson fits in the top 50 next year ... Suns have not had a rookie since Amare that contributed significantly.

http://bkref.com/tiny/W3hAS

[BobbieL]

Anyone like Terrance Ferguson? Here is an offer where we shed some vets and end up with him as the best asset coming back. I don't think I'd do it since I don't mind Chandler or Dudley on the team, but wondered what others would think.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1596953

When it was noted that the Thunder were over the luxury tax - I tried to figure out trades with OKC for Kanter - but there lack of assets other than Ferguson was really not there.

So, with that think the Thunder would want to do Kanter , Grant Huestis and Ferguson for Chandler alone -- they would - about 7m of cap space but in luxury tax world, that's 10m less in penalties. BUT, that is 17m in cash savings for the Thunder. Grant and Huestis are expiring, Kanter expires, next year so that keeps it clean in 2019 or have a large expiring for next summer.

Ferguson is a first rounder - so it would be like taking on Teletovic for Milwaukees first but knowing the player you are getting

The deal you mention: Chandler and Dudley for those players only saves the Thunder about 1.5m on the cap - so not sure they would take Dudley because it may just not save them money. Granted, if they are willing to spend the luxury tax - it really does make the Thunder better. In fact, I think it would make them the second best team in the West.

I am not saying the Suns take Kanter, Ferguson, Huestis and Grant for Chandler but I think the Thunder do.

[AtheJ415]

You have such a myopic approach to your rebuttals... selecting one facet and hammering ...

so ... you really think McDo would get Boogie then just close up the swap shop and not make any other adjustments ? Im not so naive to think this steam pile needs just one superstar and next stop title town. Yet you imply that any acquisition like this is a quick fix in a vacuum. That is sure to fail because oh my, mighty GS has all the crowns sewn up for the next 5 years, and there fore we should tailor make our team to wait till they are done. We cant be good till they are not.

Furthermore, what are the guarantees in 3 yrs your group of choir boys will still be here? Suppose KAT 'recruits Booker and/or D'Lo to Minny to come 'win' with him? Suppose Warren gets fed up loosing and being sidestepped so he goes elsewhere? Wouldn't it be a serious blow if Chris or Bender followed the Len pathway to mediocrity? If Jackson was the next Cory Brewer?

Your long term development plans have just as many twists and turns... may be even more since you are projecting the talent levels out to all-nba levels. Why is it so difficult to grasp a combination approach to winning? One incorporating successful drafting, smart free agent acquisitions, and a impact trade here and there? In 3 to 5 years we should be competing? Where does that put Bledsoe in the picture? In 5 yrs Boogie will be 32... Too old ? Dude... you have to start somewhere.

what is 'incredibly alarming' is your steadfast DRAFT your way to the top approach. Not exactly a proven path.

I actually rebut you point for point frequently. You just aren't very good at comprehending.

1. To your first bolded--the CBA. Unless Booker chooses to take the QO, he is a restricted FA, meaning we get to keep him, and only people who sign up for the agent that doesn't understand math (Rich Paul) take the QO, because doing otherwise is an insane amount of money to lose out on.

2. For Warren, see point 1. You should really understand how free agency works. Maybe that is why you think it's the answer--because you don't understand that teams can match players coming off of rookie contracts.

3. My long-term development plan doesn't have twists and turns. It has always been the same. Tank until the group shows enough promise to contend, which would be when they are about 23 at least. Until then, only add players who fit that timeline (ages 19-25). There aren't twists and turns in there. Once they are ready they can go for broke in FA for aging vets, but doing so now just to get a higher win total is nonsense. What you want is Boogie and Love and think you will contend with the greatest team in the history of basketball.

4. To the 3rd bolded point--I have. Consistently. I just recognize how drafting works and that, in the current environment given where our team and other teams are, you should proceed in a certain order. You think that loading up on expensive middling vets who prevent us from playing the youngsters while getting late picks is the way to attract a bunch of stars to dethrone the warriors. I advocate for a more realistic and sensible approach to go for FA when the timing makes sense and for only actual stars. You sit here wanting Boogie and Milsap and Love. Only one of those might be a true guy who moves the needle, but his emotional status leaves that up for question.

5. To the 4th. Yes, you have to start somewhere. I advocate for starting with Booker and Jackson and Bender and one of Porter or Bamba or Ayton or Doncic. You want to start with trading many of them for Love or Boogie, and praying they re-sign here for $40 million a year when the team is filled with Tyson Chandler-level role players with no prayer of getting better and little to no cap space.

6. For the 1,000,000th time, NOBODY IS ADVOCATING TO IGNORE FA INDEFINITELY. All anybody is advocating here is to go after FA's who fit the age group of this team so that they could possibly be a part of the future of the team, and to not give up the future to cobble together a few middle-aged veteran stars who would never beat a super team. Boogie is an FA NEXT YEAR, not this year. Getting him in FA makes some sense. Trading people for him makes none. As would trading for Paul George or Jimmy Butler. Going after FA's this year (Milsap, KCP, whoever the hell you think would have moved the needle in some delusional fantasy) makes no sense.

7. Even if we had gone for all of your moves this season, in which you apparently believe we could've traded for all of Butler, George, and Cousins (which still wouldn't be enough to contend with the Warriors and probably even Houston), we can still sign 2 of those guys FOR NOTHING BUT CAP SPACE next season. If they want to be here that option is available. Why would winning with vets get them here though? That is no guarantee, and we already tried that move with Tyson Chandler and Aldridge. Guess where that left us?

You can't go after good free agents that fit your age grouping (19-25) because most of them are RFA and the offer will be matched. Getting Porter would never happen based on your argument on #1 and #2 for Booker and Warren. People do understand the CBA around here. Signing an older (27-31) all-star free agent has shown to be a great move in the past. We had a very young team and signed Chambers at 29. That pushed us up a notch into serious playoff contention and eventually netted us Barkley and a window at championships for 4-5 years. We were really unlucky with untimely injuries to Ceballos, Manning, KJ, and Barkley during that span.

So going strictly for "great" young guys that fit your age window really isn't going to work. You have to go for the older guys, win, and then attract another round of free agents when your young core is in their late 20's.

Exactly, which is why I am happy we sat out FA this year. Porter would have been literally the only FA who made sense, and even then it wasn't ideal, so why waste our money on guys who aren't going to move the needle, wasting cap space for next offseason or the one after, all while glutting up our PT and winning more games to ensure a later lottery pick.

EXACTLY MY POINT. Now is not the time for FA for us. In a few years, that age window moves forward and you get guys who actually make sense for the team. It doesn't work now because FA doesn't make sense for this team now. It isn't that difficult to comprehend.

As for the rest of what you put there--the past is not the present. The present has the Warriors, the greatest team of all time that then also added Kevin Durant due to a fluke in the CBA, and other superteams in better position to contend. We can either mortgage our main advantage (young talent) going forward to become mediocre now, or we can turn into that advantage and double down to give us a big advantage when those teams age out.

[AtheJ415]

Adding Jackson, adding age to Booker, Ulis, Chriss, Bender, adding Bledsoe and Chandler for the whole year. That should be a 10 game improvement I would think.

Neither Chriss or Bender are anywhere close to adding wins to a team. In fact, every minute they play will contribute to the losing. Rookies almost never contribute to winning. Chandler is a replacement level center. Booker only plays on one side of the ball. The only way we add 10 wins is by FEASTING on the Eastern Conference. I don't see that happening.

Yes, Rookies do contribute to winning. Top picks in the 1-5 range often make a big difference ... unfortunately we have swung and missed for too many years in a row. Here's a list for you to look at of rookies since 2000 that have made a big impact in wins. My hope is Jackson fits in the top 50 next year ... Suns have not had a rookie since Amare that contributed significantly.

http://bkref.com/tiny/W3hAS

This is simply not true. Most rookie of the years are below average NBA players as rookies across most every stat, including last year's. This isn't college basketball where freshmen win you titles. What you have pointed to included some older rookies also (Luis Scola was 27 as a rookie), and the simple fact that guys like Greg Monroe, Luis Scola, Rudy Fernandez, Carlos Boozer, Nikola Mirotic, and Jamario Moon make up the top 25 makes me pretty certain that this doesn't really mean rookies help you win.

[bigfoot]

I actually rebut you point for point frequently. You just aren't very good at comprehending.

1. To your first bolded--the CBA. Unless Booker chooses to take the QO, he is a restricted FA, meaning we get to keep him, and only people who sign up for the agent that doesn't understand math (Rich Paul) take the QO, because doing otherwise is an insane amount of money to lose out on.

2. For Warren, see point 1. You should really understand how free agency works. Maybe that is why you think it's the answer--because you don't understand that teams can match players coming off of rookie contracts.

3. My long-term development plan doesn't have twists and turns. It has always been the same. Tank until the group shows enough promise to contend, which would be when they are about 23 at least. Until then, only add players who fit that timeline (ages 19-25). There aren't twists and turns in there. Once they are ready they can go for broke in FA for aging vets, but doing so now just to get a higher win total is nonsense. What you want is Boogie and Love and think you will contend with the greatest team in the history of basketball.

4. To the 3rd bolded point--I have. Consistently. I just recognize how drafting works and that, in the current environment given where our team and other teams are, you should proceed in a certain order. You think that loading up on expensive middling vets who prevent us from playing the youngsters while getting late picks is the way to attract a bunch of stars to dethrone the warriors. I advocate for a more realistic and sensible approach to go for FA when the timing makes sense and for only actual stars. You sit here wanting Boogie and Milsap and Love. Only one of those might be a true guy who moves the needle, but his emotional status leaves that up for question.

5. To the 4th. Yes, you have to start somewhere. I advocate for starting with Booker and Jackson and Bender and one of Porter or Bamba or Ayton or Doncic. You want to start with trading many of them for Love or Boogie, and praying they re-sign here for $40 million a year when the team is filled with Tyson Chandler-level role players with no prayer of getting better and little to no cap space.

6. For the 1,000,000th time, NOBODY IS ADVOCATING TO IGNORE FA INDEFINITELY. All anybody is advocating here is to go after FA's who fit the age group of this team so that they could possibly be a part of the future of the team, and to not give up the future to cobble together a few middle-aged veteran stars who would never beat a super team. Boogie is an FA NEXT YEAR, not this year. Getting him in FA makes some sense. Trading people for him makes none. As would trading for Paul George or Jimmy Butler. Going after FA's this year (Milsap, KCP, whoever the hell you think would have moved the needle in some delusional fantasy) makes no sense.

7. Even if we had gone for all of your moves this season, in which you apparently believe we could've traded for all of Butler, George, and Cousins (which still wouldn't be enough to contend with the Warriors and probably even Houston), we can still sign 2 of those guys FOR NOTHING BUT CAP SPACE next season. If they want to be here that option is available. Why would winning with vets get them here though? That is no guarantee, and we already tried that move with Tyson Chandler and Aldridge. Guess where that left us?

You can't go after good free agents that fit your age grouping (19-25) because most of them are RFA and the offer will be matched. Getting Porter would never happen based on your argument on #1 and #2 for Booker and Warren. People do understand the CBA around here. Signing an older (27-31) all-star free agent has shown to be a great move in the past. We had a very young team and signed Chambers at 29. That pushed us up a notch into serious playoff contention and eventually netted us Barkley and a window at championships for 4-5 years. We were really unlucky with untimely injuries to Ceballos, Manning, KJ, and Barkley during that span.

So going strictly for "great" young guys that fit your age window really isn't going to work. You have to go for the older guys, win, and then attract another round of free agents when your young core is in their late 20's.

Exactly, which is why I am happy we sat out FA this year. Porter would have been literally the only FA who made sense, and even then it wasn't ideal, so why waste our money on guys who aren't going to move the needle, wasting cap space for next offseason or the one after, all while glutting up our PT and winning more games to ensure a later lottery pick.

EXACTLY MY POINT. Now is not the time for FA for us. In a few years, that age window moves forward and you get guys who actually make sense for the team. It doesn't work now because FA doesn't make sense for this team now. It isn't that difficult to comprehend.

As for the rest of what you put there--the past is not the present. The present has the Warriors, the greatest team of all time that then also added Kevin Durant due to a fluke in the CBA, and other superteams in better position to contend. We can either mortgage our main advantage (young talent) going forward to become mediocre now, or we can turn into that advantage and double down to give us a big advantage when those teams age out.

Getting Blake would have been a good move us this summer. He would definitely move the needle.

[AtheJ415]

You can't go after good free agents that fit your age grouping (19-25) because most of them are RFA and the offer will be matched. Getting Porter would never happen based on your argument on #1 and #2 for Booker and Warren. People do understand the CBA around here. Signing an older (27-31) all-star free agent has shown to be a great move in the past. We had a very young team and signed Chambers at 29. That pushed us up a notch into serious playoff contention and eventually netted us Barkley and a window at championships for 4-5 years. We were really unlucky with untimely injuries to Ceballos, Manning, KJ, and Barkley during that span.

So going strictly for "great" young guys that fit your age window really isn't going to work. You have to go for the older guys, win, and then attract another round of free agents when your young core is in their late 20's.

Exactly, which is why I am happy we sat out FA this year. Porter would have been literally the only FA who made sense, and even then it wasn't ideal, so why waste our money on guys who aren't going to move the needle, wasting cap space for next offseason or the one after, all while glutting up our PT and winning more games to ensure a later lottery pick.

EXACTLY MY POINT. Now is not the time for FA for us. In a few years, that age window moves forward and you get guys who actually make sense for the team. It doesn't work now because FA doesn't make sense for this team now. It isn't that difficult to comprehend.

As for the rest of what you put there--the past is not the present. The present has the Warriors, the greatest team of all time that then also added Kevin Durant due to a fluke in the CBA, and other superteams in better position to contend. We can either mortgage our main advantage (young talent) going forward to become mediocre now, or we can turn into that advantage and double down to give us a big advantage when those teams age out.

Getting Blake would have been a good move us this summer. He would definitely move the needle.

We tried. His team could give him a boatload more money, and so he stayed. Pulling the meeting with Milsap and embracing the tank was and is the right move.

[n4th4n4]

Neither Chriss or Bender are anywhere close to adding wins to a team. In fact, every minute they play will contribute to the losing. Rookies almost never contribute to winning. Chandler is a replacement level center. Booker only plays on one side of the ball. The only way we add 10 wins is by FEASTING on the Eastern Conference. I don't see that happening.

Yes, Rookies do contribute to winning. Top picks in the 1-5 range often make a big difference ... unfortunately we have swung and missed for too many years in a row. Here's a list for you to look at of rookies since 2000 that have made a big impact in wins. My hope is Jackson fits in the top 50 next year ... Suns have not had a rookie since Amare that contributed significantly.

http://bkref.com/tiny/W3hAS

This is simply not true. Most rookie of the years are below average NBA players as rookies across most every stat, including last year's. This isn't college basketball where freshmen win you titles. What you have pointed to included some older rookies also (Luis Scola was 27 as a rookie), and the simple fact that guys like Greg Monroe, Luis Scola, Rudy Fernandez, Carlos Boozer, Nikola Mirotic, and Jamario Moon make up the top 25 makes me pretty certain that this doesn't really mean rookies help you win.

Ya, this is garbage. Just look at the top 5 players there. KAT's 2016 Twolves finished with 29 wins, Pau's 2002 team finished with 23 wins, and Yao's Rockets did finish with 43 wins, but he joined a team with Cuttino Mobely and Steve Francis, and Griffin's team finished with 32 wins. I will give you Chris Paul though. He, one of the greatest point guards of all time, had a major impact on winning in his rookie season. So ya, like 1 out of every few hundred rookies does have a real impact on winning. Do you think that is Josh Jackson? I love the dude, but I can tell you right now, he ain't going to be that guy.

[n4th4n4]

Exactly, which is why I am happy we sat out FA this year. Porter would have been literally the only FA who made sense, and even then it wasn't ideal, so why waste our money on guys who aren't going to move the needle, wasting cap space for next offseason or the one after, all while glutting up our PT and winning more games to ensure a later lottery pick.

EXACTLY MY POINT. Now is not the time for FA for us. In a few years, that age window moves forward and you get guys who actually make sense for the team. It doesn't work now because FA doesn't make sense for this team now. It isn't that difficult to comprehend.

As for the rest of what you put there--the past is not the present. The present has the Warriors, the greatest team of all time that then also added Kevin Durant due to a fluke in the CBA, and other superteams in better position to contend. We can either mortgage our main advantage (young talent) going forward to become mediocre now, or we can turn into that advantage and double down to give us a big advantage when those teams age out.

Getting Blake would have been a good move us this summer. He would definitely move the needle.

We tried. His team could give him a boatload more money, and so he stayed. Pulling the meeting with Milsap and embracing the tank was and is the right move.

My biggest problem with all of these "Never Tankers" is that they never manage to propose an alternative strategy that would be any better.

[n4th4n4]

I am very glad Athej415 is here to add a dose of sanity to this discussion.

[bigfoot]

Neither Chriss or Bender are anywhere close to adding wins to a team. In fact, every minute they play will contribute to the losing. Rookies almost never contribute to winning. Chandler is a replacement level center. Booker only plays on one side of the ball. The only way we add 10 wins is by FEASTING on the Eastern Conference. I don't see that happening.

Yes, Rookies do contribute to winning. Top picks in the 1-5 range often make a big difference ... unfortunately we have swung and missed for too many years in a row. Here's a list for you to look at of rookies since 2000 that have made a big impact in wins. My hope is Jackson fits in the top 50 next year ... Suns have not had a rookie since Amare that contributed significantly.

http://bkref.com/tiny/W3hAS

This is simply not true. Most rookie of the years are below average NBA players as rookies across most every stat, including last year's. This isn't college basketball where freshmen win you titles. What you have pointed to included some older rookies also (Luis Scola was 27 as a rookie), and the simple fact that guys like Greg Monroe, Luis Scola, Rudy Fernandez, Carlos Boozer, Nikola Mirotic, and Jamario Moon make up the top 25 makes me pretty certain that this doesn't really mean rookies help you win.

I don't know about you but I would love to see Booker, Bender, or Chriss in the top of that list ... or even the first page. They are way down the list.

[bigfoot]

Getting Blake would have been a good move us this summer. He would definitely move the needle.

We tried. His team could give him a boatload more money, and so he stayed. Pulling the meeting with Milsap and embracing the tank was and is the right move.

My biggest problem with all of these "Never Tankers" is that they never manage to propose an alternative strategy that would be any better.

Hey dingleberry ... we do! It's called trades and free agency. You have to do all three where as pro-tankers

1) only want to lose to get a top pick
2) don't want free agents because that might ruin our chances of losing and getting a top pick
3) don't want to make trades because the players are too old and don't fit our young core and might cause us to win and lose out on a top pic
4) only want young players because older players might make us win and we will lose out on a top pick.

The problem with pro tankers is it is a one way strategy ... lose to get a good pick which only has a 30% chance of panning out. Right now it is not looking good with Bender or Chriss and Booker is a one way player until he proves otherwise.

[King4Day]

This time of year is fun.
As we're mostly friends (even if it's just from a website), the summer is when there's nothing to talk about so we really start drilling into different dynamics of the team and we find things we truly do or don't agree with and delve into that.

People get mad at each other for silly things like we each did individually with our close friends growing up. If we were all in a room right now, we'd be joking around, talking Suns, and talking real life and it wouldn't be weird or awkward. It helps make the friendship stronger.

Love you guys. You're my outlet from the real world

[AtheJ415]

Yes, Rookies do contribute to winning. Top picks in the 1-5 range often make a big difference ... unfortunately we have swung and missed for too many years in a row. Here's a list for you to look at of rookies since 2000 that have made a big impact in wins. My hope is Jackson fits in the top 50 next year ... Suns have not had a rookie since Amare that contributed significantly.

http://bkref.com/tiny/W3hAS

This is simply not true. Most rookie of the years are below average NBA players as rookies across most every stat, including last year's. This isn't college basketball where freshmen win you titles. What you have pointed to included some older rookies also (Luis Scola was 27 as a rookie), and the simple fact that guys like Greg Monroe, Luis Scola, Rudy Fernandez, Carlos Boozer, Nikola Mirotic, and Jamario Moon make up the top 25 makes me pretty certain that this doesn't really mean rookies help you win.

I don't know about you but I would love to see Booker, Bender, or Chriss in the top of that list ... or even the first page. They are way down the list.

I wouldn't. Win shares are a stat that is literally sharing a team's wins. It is very good in specific instances, but is horrible in other ones. For instance, it makes role players on good teams (Harrison Barnes of the world) look better than stars on bad teams. I am not worried about any of those guys winning games at this stage because age is one of the biggest factors in winning in the NBA. I am more worried about their other advanced stats (shooting, defensive metrics, etc). Those are what I want to see improve next year, because they are individual-based and not team-based, and because if they improve those individual numbers, the wins will eventually come. Growth in skill and awareness is what we should be looking for.

[n4th4n4]

We tried. His team could give him a boatload more money, and so he stayed. Pulling the meeting with Milsap and embracing the tank was and is the right move.

My biggest problem with all of these "Never Tankers" is that they never manage to propose an alternative strategy that would be any better.

Hey dingleberry ... we do! It's called trades and free agency. You have to do all three where as pro-tankers

1) only want to lose to get a top pick
2) don't want free agents because that might ruin our chances of losing and getting a top pick
3) don't want to make trades because the players are too old and don't fit our young core and might cause us to win and lose out on a top pic
4) only want young players because older players might make us win and we will lose out on a top pick.

The problem with pro tankers is it is a one way strategy ... lose to get a good pick which only has a 30% chance of panning out. Right now it is not looking good with Bender or Chriss and Booker is a one way player until he proves otherwise.

You can say "trades and free agency" all you want, but all you are doing is reporting a fantasy. If you want to support your strategy, you have to actually mention real moves that would move the needle for us. Over the last few years, those moves just flat out haven't been there. Signing Griffin MAY have been such a move. He is legitimately one of the best players in the NBA. But he is also a massive injury risk. If you lose that gamble, you set the franchise back 5 years. At a minimum.

As for your next points, they just show that your profoundly misunderstand the strategy. Tanking is a means to an end. We are not doing it just to "get a top pick." We are doing it because it is the most reliable way to achieve meaningful, long-term, sustainable success.

We have no problem signing free agents when the time is right. That time will come in the next 1-2 years. Over the last two years, there has not been a single free agent we could have realistically signed that would have made an appreciable difference in winning. If you sign a mid-range free agent, there is a massive opportunity cost. Not only do you hinder your flexibility, but you undermine the growth of your younger players. Those players are what you have spent the last few years investing in. All for what, 5-8 more wins? 10, MAX? The opportunity to draft 14th or to get swept by Golden State?

We need to accept the fact that the best way to be great in the future, is to be bad this year. We can use this year to grow and evaluate our young players. Most of whom are still FAR away from being meaningful NBA contributors. Then, we add a top 5 pick in what is going to be a very top heavy draft.

The time to add a difference maker in free agency or through trade happens when you are ready to make the leap. Similarly to what the Timberwolves did this summer. You take the 2-3 young players you believe in and make them the core of your team. You consolidate the rest of your assets in a trade to grab a difference maker. And you use the cap space you have so carefully preserved to sign a high-level talent before you start paying big dollars to your young talent. Now, you have a team that can make some legitimate noise for the next 3-5 years. And if this do this intelligently, we will retain a few assets and some flexibility to augment and adjust that roster as needed.