The big question

[lilfishi22]

I like Kieff better as well, but it would be nice to have another proven player at the 4--someone better than Tolliver and Randolph. But yes, that is probably too much for those two.

And are Dieng and Olynyk really considered "proven propsects"? Ennis and a 1st would be fair for a 2nd year player who's started all of 15 games. (Meant to add a 1st for Olynyk as well) Anyway, that seems fair to me.

I don't think Tristan is any more proven than Keef and we definitely can't have the Morri commited for $52m and have Tristan at $30-40m. You'll need to get rid of one of the Morri to make things work.
Dieng and Olynyk are definitely proven prospects. They've proven they can be productive in the NBA unlike Ennis who's only played garbage minutes thus far. Doesn't matter if Ennis is Steve Nash in practice, until he can prove he can be productive on the court, in minutes which aren't garbage, no one is given up good assets for him.

[Revived]

I don't want Dion Waiters in PHX. Not a fan of his game, I remember I was pissed in that draft when rumors came out that we were targeting Waiters and all that. Thankfully the Cavs picked him before us.

[NavLDO]

I like Kieff better as well, but it would be nice to have another proven player at the 4--someone better than Tolliver and Randolph. But yes, that is probably too much for those two.

And are Dieng and Olynyk really considered "proven propsects"? Ennis and a 1st would be fair for a 2nd year player who's started all of 15 games. (Meant to add a 1st for Olynyk as well) Anyway, that seems fair to me.

I don't think Tristan is any more proven than Keef and we definitely can't have the Morri commited for $52m and have Tristan at $30-40m. You'll need to get rid of one of the Morri to make things work.
Dieng and Olynyk are definitely proven prospects. They've proven they can be productive in the NBA unlike Ennis who's only played garbage minutes thus far. Doesn't matter if Ennis is Steve Nash in practice, until he can prove he can be productive on the court, in minutes which aren't garbage, no one is given up good assets for him.

I agree--I never stated Tristan was more proven than Kieff. But having Kieff committed for $32M and Tristan for $30M isn't out of the realm of possibility. You have to measure Marcus as a SF for now, but if he starts playing more a PF role, than no, Tristan wouldn't be prudent. And another thing, we have $26M, $70M, and soon to be about $70M tied up in PGs, so having $30M locked up per PF isn't that crazy, I don't think.

And I never stated that Ennis was proven or was great in practice and that was the reason he'd be worthwhile in a trade...I'm looking more as the other team is getting two 1st Rd picks, one of which could be used in a backup role now. Dieng and Olynyk have barely one season under their belts...I hardly call that proven. Yes, they proved they could play in the NBA in limited minutes, but it's not like they are superstar starters playing 30min per game or anything...I'm talking about trading for backup-level bigs.

[lilfishi22]

I agree--I never stated Tristan was more proven than Kieff. But having Kieff committed for $32M and Tristan for $30M isn't out of the realm of possibility. You have to measure Marcus as a SF for now, but if he starts playing more a PF role, than no, Tristan wouldn't be prudent. And another thing, we have $26M, $70M, and soon to be about $70M tied up in PGs, so having $30M locked up per PF isn't that crazy, I don't think.

And I never stated that Ennis was proven or was great in practice and that was the reason he'd be worthwhile in a trade...I'm looking more as the other team is getting two 1st Rd picks, one of which could be used in a backup role now. Dieng and Olynyk have barely one season under their belts...I hardly call that proven. Yes, they proved they could play in the NBA in limited minutes, but it's not like they are superstar starters playing 30min per game or anything...I'm talking about trading for backup-level bigs.

The issue is having two players commited for that much playing one position when neither are all-star calibre. Bledsoe/Dragic/IT you could argue there's potentially two all-star players there so you could commit a boatload of money to that one position.

I never said Dieng or Olynyk were superstars but they've both had one productive season under their belt. At least they've shown they can play in the NBA unlike Ennis who has yet to play meaningful minutes. These guys may be career 2nd-3rd tier bigs but they are young and they are still bigs which always come with a premium price tag. Once again, no one will give up good productive bigs for unproven 1st rounders.

[NavLDO]

I agree--I never stated Tristan was more proven than Kieff. But having Kieff committed for $32M and Tristan for $30M isn't out of the realm of possibility. You have to measure Marcus as a SF for now, but if he starts playing more a PF role, than no, Tristan wouldn't be prudent. And another thing, we have $26M, $70M, and soon to be about $70M tied up in PGs, so having $30M locked up per PF isn't that crazy, I don't think.

And I never stated that Ennis was proven or was great in practice and that was the reason he'd be worthwhile in a trade...I'm looking more as the other team is getting two 1st Rd picks, one of which could be used in a backup role now. Dieng and Olynyk have barely one season under their belts...I hardly call that proven. Yes, they proved they could play in the NBA in limited minutes, but it's not like they are superstar starters playing 30min per game or anything...I'm talking about trading for backup-level bigs.

The issue is having two players commited for that much playing one position when neither are all-star calibre. Bledsoe/Dragic/IT you could argue there's potentially two all-star players there so you could commit a boatload of money to that one position.

I never said Dieng or Olynyk were superstars but they've both had one productive season under their belt. At least they've shown they can play in the NBA unlike Ennis who has yet to play meaningful minutes. These guys may be career 2nd-3rd tier bigs but they are young and they are still bigs which always come with a premium price tag. Once again, no one will give up good productive bigs for unproven 1st rounders.

Let me ask you this. Let's pretend the Suns are down to our last PG. Our other PGs are out for a several weeks, and we have Len, Plumlee, and another decent OC. A team offers us Ennis and late-lotto-to-20ish 1st Rd pick for Plumlee. Does McD take it? Plumlee is young, and actually has an extra season of productivity over the other two. Anyway, does McD entertain that trade as it stands? Just curious if you look at it from the other side and we are the team doen to our last PG. Do you take that chance, or do you look to an "ish Smith" level PG to bring in instead.

And I picked Plumlee because his per-36 numbers are very similar to the other two, and he was a mid-to-late 1st rd pick like these two...Olynyk drafted at 13 is the highest of the 3.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=2015

[lilfishi22]

Let me ask you this. Let's pretend the Suns are down to our last PG. Our other PGs are out for a several weeks, and we have Len, Plumlee, and another decent OC. A team offers us Ennis and late-lotto-to-20ish 1st Rd pick for Plumlee. Does McD take it? Plumlee is young, and actually has an extra season of productivity over the other two. Anyway, does McD entertain that trade as it stands? Just curious if you look at it from the other side and we are the team doen to our last PG. Do you take that chance, or do you look to an "ish Smith" level PG to bring in instead.

No. That would be a massive knee jerk trade considering we have 3 starter level pgs and they would only hypothetically be out for a few weeks. Trading a C with starter experience (big men are a premium) for a player who hasn't played meaningful minutes and a late pick would be very disappointing. Also as far as Plumlee goes, he doesn't really have an extra season of productivity over Olynyk or Dieng unless you consider a 55min season advantage productive.

An Ish Smith level PG would be a fine starting PG for a few weeks while our starting PG's are out.

And I picked Plumlee because his per-36 numbers are very similar to the other two, and he was a mid-to-late 1st rd pick like these two...Olynyk drafted at 13 is the highest of the 3.http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=2015

The point isn't what you can or can't get at in the mid-late 1st round, but trading a known for an unknown. We know what Dieng and Olynyk can do and they've confirmed they can do a number of things we expected them to do. We don't know what Ennis can do and he hasn't proven he can do any of the things he was expected to do and mid-late 1st rounders are a massive crap shoot for that matter.

[NavLDO]

OK, But I think the trade would be considered by McD. And also, it might have been worded better had I stated that we didn't have our current stable of PGs...meaning, assuming we had two decent PGs, and one was out for several weeks, that would leave a team with only one PG. But no matter, we disagree on the point overall. I get that Ennis has zero experience, but he's got a lot of promise, and I think he could hold his own on the floor were we to put him out there, if push came to shove, and I think he'd be a better option in the long run than Ish. So it's not just who is better now, but who is btter over the course of a few years, at least, at a decent price tag.

Also as far as Plumlee goes, he doesn't really have an extra season of productivity over Olynyk or Dieng unless you consider a 55min season advantage productive.

So you don't consider the fact that Plumlee has started 70 more games and played in 30-40 more games than the other two roughly equivalent to an extra season of experience? It's at least a half season extra, not 55 minutes extra.

[lilfishi22]

OK, But I think the trade would be considered by McD. And also, it might have been worded better had I stated that we didn't have our current stable of PGs...meaning, assuming we had two decent PGs, and one was out for several weeks, that would leave a team with only one PG. But no matter, we disagree on the point overall. I get that Ennis has zero experience, but he's got a lot of promise, and I think he could hold his own on the floor were we to put him out there, if push came to shove, and I think he'd be a better option in the long run than Ish.

So you're changing your scenario to suit your argument. Of course you'll win this argument if our PGs were Jose Calderon and Jameer Nelson. But the fact is our PG line up is Bledsoe, Dragic and Thomas, that's potentially 2-3 all-star level PG's.

We're also Suns fans so we tend to overrated our own players but I guarantee most other teams wouldn't so easily move a productive big man for an unproven prospect. I can't see McD moving our starting C for an unproven guy playing a position we're particularly deep and a late 1st rounder. Our weakest position is the 5 so it wouldn't make sense to trade one of our bigs for another guard.

So it's not just who is better now, but who is btter over the course of a few years, at least, at a decent price tag.

Obviously Ennis is a better prospect in the long run than an Ish Smith level player but the question is whether giving up a big man for an unproven PG to fill a temporary need is knee jerk trade or not and I believe it is the definition of a knee jerk trade.

So you don't consider the fact that Plumlee has started 70 more games and played in 30-40 more games than the other two roughly equivalent to an extra season of experience? It's at least a half season extra, not 55 minutes extra.

Plumlee has more experience but not by a massive margin and those two guys are younger and have shown they have certain skills they are very good at. Dieng is a good rebounding, shot blocking big man and Olynyk is a fantastic scoring C who has shown 3PT range. Plumlee, after the first half of last season has clearly regressed to the point where his offense is non-existent and his defense/rebounding is inconsistent. Outside of his athleticism, there isn't anything in particular about his game that really stands out.

[NavLDO]

OK, But I think the trade would be considered by McD. And also, it might have been worded better had I stated that we didn't have our current stable of PGs...meaning, assuming we had two decent PGs, and one was out for several weeks, that would leave a team with only one PG. But no matter, we disagree on the point overall. I get that Ennis has zero experience, but he's got a lot of promise, and I think he could hold his own on the floor were we to put him out there, if push came to shove, and I think he'd be a better option in the long run than Ish.

So you're changing your scenario to suit your argument. Of course you'll win this argument if our PGs were Jose Calderon and Jameer Nelson. But the fact is our PG line up is Bledsoe, Dragic and Thomas, that's potentially 2-3 all-star level PG's. -- I didn't think we were having an "argument", and I wasn't, and am not trying to win anything. I was just trying to fit the scenario into the current context of the teams that have lost a PG recently, because those teams don't have 3 starter-worthy PGs on the roster. I'm honestly just trying to gain perspective other than my own, because I understand that just because I believe something, doesn't make it so. If you feel we are having an argument, then I respectfully "bow out". You win.

We're also Suns fans so we tend to overrated our own players but I guarantee most other teams wouldn't so easily move a productive big man for an unproven prospect. I can't see McD moving our starting C for an unproven guy playing a position we're particularly deep and a late 1st rounder. Our weakest position is the 5 so it wouldn't make sense to trade one of our bigs for another guard. -- True, and not trying to "sway" anything, or change the "argument", but these teams with Olynyk and Dieng are deeper at the 5 than we are, so they may not hold them as "can't lose prospects" as we would.

So it's not just who is better now, but who is better over the course of a few years, at least, at a decent price tag.

Obviously Ennis is a better prospect in the long run than an Ish Smith level player but the question is whether giving up a big man for an unproven PG to fill a temporary need is knee jerk trade or not and I believe it is the definition of a knee jerk trade. Yes, it would be a knee-jerk trade, but sometimes teams are left with these unfortunate situations as their depth dwindles to nothing. Most GMs go the "Ish Smith" route for a few weeks, but some MAY be willing to sell $.75 on the dollar. It's at least worthy of "suggesting", if you are a GM and want to take advantage of a situation. Which, if I was McD, I'd at least make the call. It's not anymore crazy than thinking LeBron was going to come to the Suns, and they tried that, right?

So you don't consider the fact that Plumlee has started 70 more games and played in 30-40 more games than the other two roughly equivalent to an extra season of experience? It's at least a half season extra, not 55 minutes extra.

Plumlee has more experience but not by a massive margin and those two guys are younger and have shown they have certain skills they are very good at. Dieng is a good rebounding, shot blocking big man and Olynyk is a fantastic scoring C who has shown 3PT range. Plumlee, after the first half of last season has clearly regressed to the point where his offense is non-existent and his defense/rebounding is inconsistent. Outside of his athleticism, there isn't anything in particular about his game that really stands out. -- One is younger by a year, the other by 3, but Plumlee at 26 is far from a "grandfather". But with that age some additional experience, and is commensurate with his additional age. But I agree, Plumlee doesn't really have one talent that sticks out...his athleticism is his "talent". The other two have shown promise, and I'd say they will more than likely be a better player in the long run, but if you were to look at Plumlee at the point where Dieng currently is at minutes played, you'd think Plumlee was going to turn out to be a good C. But now look at him, he's regressed. So my point is that just because Dieng looks good now, he still hasn't proven enough to say for certain that he'll keep up his current pace. that was my point with these two...they haven't shown enough to know for certain, yet.

So, overall, I'm not trying to win an "internet argument", here. I thought we were having a discussion, but if you need to "win" this discussion, then by all means, you can have the victory. I've learned some things from this, so I appreciate the discussion.

[lilfishi22]

It's not an argument in the shouting tense but an argument in terms of presenting your point of view.

If McD gives the Wolves a call about Dieng's availability and we can at least maintain some dialogue, I would be very happy.