Cutter wrote:NTB wrote:Cutter wrote:I recently saw a thread going around about which teams have the best "core". Some had the Suns ranked as the 2nd best core, others had Suns as low as the #4 core. I don't have the Suns core ranked at all as I don't believe the Suns even have a core. The Suns have a collection of very young players, of which hardly any project to be more than serviceable rotation players and more than likely bench contributors. The term core implies you have group of young players who, if properly developed, can lead your team to the playoffs and eventually a conference championship appearance or finals appearance.
Outside of Booker we do not have a single young player who has yet to show he can be a #1,#2 or #3 contributor on a top 5 team in the NBA. And I'm not yet convinced that Booker has the talent to be a top player on a championship team.
I say the statements above as a Suns homer. I always hope for the best from front office decisions, and always root for our young players to develop into all stars. However at the end of this recent few years of tanking I am not seeing much to give me hope that we are going to be relevant in the next 5 years.
Maybe Devin Booker and Josh Jackson develop into those top players that every top 5 team needs. Rant over, let me slip my Suns homer glasses back on, they fit me very well.
So Philadelphia has a core besides Embiid? (which played 30ish games) Simmons and Fultz both played 0 NBA games.
Lakers has a core?
Kings?
Denver?
Only Bucks, Celtics and Portland made the playoffs with their "core".
IMO Lakers do not have a core. They have Brandon Ingram who had a terrible rookie year and Lonzo Ball who has yet to play a regular season game. Just because you are young, and drafted with a high pick, doesn't mean you are automatically part of a core.
Kings. What core do they have that can reasonably make them a top 5-10 team? Buddy Hield? Maybe Fox develops but again he hasn't played a regular season game yet. WCS isn't getting you anywhere.
Denver - same
I think you are discounting Denver quite a bit. Jokic is a top 15-20 player in this league, Harris shot 42% for 3 last year, and they just upgraded from Gallinari to Millsap, and yes, I know they play different positions, but that now gives room for Juancho to 'spread his wings'--oh, and then there's Jamal Murray, who I've read looks to be the real deal, and should progress nicely from hi 'ok' rookie season last year. I think Denver is executing their plan well, and they have some nice depth in Mudiay, Faried, Lyles, Hibbert, Barton, and Chandler; with the possibility of Plumlee and Gee as well.
I think Denver might have the best 'overused word in the NBA' of any of the teams to make a move this season, and my goodness, if Mudiay ever 'pulls his head out', they'll have -- Jokic, Murray, Mudiay, Juancho, Harris--all under 25. Then add in Millsap, and that's darn good team...better than what we have. Then, they have Lydon who may, or may not, turn into something.
But the point is, I see Denver as being a year ahead of us; we should take a 'page out of their playbook', IMO, but instead of trading back, just trade out all-together, yet it now and get us a 'Jokic'...like Drummond, Capela or heck, even Jordan, though he's a bit older, but he's not ancient either. Or, I'd be perfectly happy with Porzingis as well. SOMETHING to jumpstart this team, and no, not a rookie...someone who's already 'NBA-vetted'.
