RealGM

The rotation could look something like this

Nash/Dragic
JRich/Dudley
Hedo/Childress
Frye/Warrick
Lopez/Frye

(I realize I left hill off we're just overloaded with roleplayer wings)

Frye can run the pick and pop with Nash and Hedo, is a better defender than given credit for (bit late with his rotations which is why he fouls so much), helps us spread the floor giving us four three point shooters in our starting lineup, and makes us a pretty big team

Frye is the only natural 4 on the roster, besides Lawal. It would make sense for him to start, particularly based on the spacing he provides, and because Lopez is likely to be our best pick and roll finisher if he's healthy.

Hedo's not a 4, and Warrick's so undersized and so weak, he's a 4 in name only (basically, a SF sized player without any of the skills required to play either position effectively)

However, you nailed the issue on the head: where does Hill go if we move Hedo to the 3 spot primarily? Or Dudley for that matter? Where will Childress get his minutes with JRich ahead of him at SG, and Hedo, Hill, and Dudley competing for minutes at the 3?

Right now, we've got 11 rotation quality players. Practically speaking, you don't ever need more than 10. What complicates this further is that most of that depth is centered around SFs and undersized PFs. We have one legit center (Lopez), 2 legit PFs (Frye, Lawal), 8 players whose size makes SF their most natural position, (Hill, Hedo, Dudley, Childress, Clark, Warrick, JRich, Griffin), and two point guards.

Either we play guys out of position a lot (bad idea), or we make a move to balance the roster.

Wormwood74 wrote:
Either we play guys out of position a lot (bad idea), or we make a move to balance the roster.

this is how I see it as well

and as much as I love the guy and hate to say this I think Hill is the wing id be looking to dump (im sure some young under cap teams needing leadership would take him)

its a question of whether our FO is smart enough to
1. start frye at the 4 and not try to play gimmick ball, we run pick and pop with him or pick and roll with rolo, hedo at the 4 really limits our pnr options because he's a playmaker not the finisher
2. move one of our wings

im seriously worried we're just gonna keep the roster as is and run gimmick ball

like the looks of the starting 5 a lot more with frye in there. More of a traditional look, while keeping our untraditional style of play (4 players who shoot the 3 ball). Makes the starting 5 better defensively too.

bimmer_class wrote:like the looks of the starting 5 a lot more with frye in there. More of a traditional look, while keeping our untraditional style of play (4 players who shoot the 3 ball). Makes the starting 5 better defensively too.

This is Channing Frye we are talking about... I think Warrick would make the team better defensively if he started because of his effort to go for the block. his defense isnt as bad as everyone thinks.

Da_Reel_Kboy wrote:

bimmer_class wrote:like the looks of the starting 5 a lot more with frye in there. More of a traditional look, while keeping our untraditional style of play (4 players who shoot the 3 ball). Makes the starting 5 better defensively too.

This is Channing Frye we are talking about... I think Warrick would make the team better defensively if he started because of his effort to go for the block. his defense isnt as bad as everyone thinks.

right... i understand we're talking about channing frye - not sure why you needed to re-clarify.

all i said was it makes our starting 5 better defensively, which it would. or are you trying to tell me nash, jrich, hill, turkey, lopez is a better defensive five? I think hill should be coming off the bench this year. helps balance out our roster, and will put less minutes on him over the course of the year. not saying this is 100% the best options, just pointing out the positives.

besides, warrick starting? c'mon doooooooooood.

I personally dont see a porblem with Warrick starting, I believe he would do a good job. The reason why I cant see Frye starting is because I feel Gentry would rather use him off the bench as a spot-up 3-pt shooter.

Hill will Not come off the bench. Guarantee.

Da_Reel_Kboy wrote:I personally dont see a porblem with Warrick starting, I believe he would do a good job. The reason why I cant see Frye starting is because I feel Gentry would rather use him off the bench as a spot-up 3-pt shooter.

Hill will Not come off the bench. Guarantee.

agree to disagree on the warrick issue. I just don't think he has what it takes, at least not yet, to be any sort of value in our starting line-up. Plus, hes not all that big.

and unfortunately i think you're right about Hill...although PHX should atleast have it in conisderation as i think it will pay major dividends in the long run

bimmer_class wrote:

Da_Reel_Kboy wrote:I personally dont see a porblem with Warrick starting, I believe he would do a good job. The reason why I cant see Frye starting is because I feel Gentry would rather use him off the bench as a spot-up 3-pt shooter.

Hill will Not come off the bench. Guarantee.

agree to disagree on the warrick issue. I just don't think he has what it takes, at least not yet, to be any sort of value in our starting line-up. Plus, hes not all that big.

and unfortunately i think you're right about Hill...although PHX should atleast have it in conisderation as i think it will pay major dividends in the long run

You never know.. im sure Nash will feed him a few easy passes for him to score. IMO, what Warrick lacks in size, he makes up for in his athletic leaping ability.

Grant Hill is the generic NBA starter. He does everything he needs to do and a little bit more. If you are talking about paying dividends in the long run, start Clark and Lawal.

Edit: I almost forgot... Welcome to the board my friend!

This is Channing Frye we are talking about... I think Warrick would make the team better defensively if he started because of his effort to go for the block. his defense isnt as bad as everyone thinks.

No...Warrick's defense is actually that bad. Looking at his last few years a defensive efficiency ratings from 82games.com, Warrick made his teams a LOT worse defensively when he was on the court.

2009-2010 MIL: 4.2 points per 100 possessions worse on defense with Warrick on the court
2009-2010 CHI: 6.2 points worse
2008-2009 MEM: 1.5 points better (Keep in mind, Memphis was 20th in defensive efficiency)
2007-2008 MEM: 5.1 points worse
2006-2007: MEM: 3.1 points worse
2005-2006: MEM: 5.9 points worse

To put this in perspective of how severe a swing in points per 100 possessions a number like 6.2 or 5.9 is, for 2009-2010, the lowest team points per 100 possessions in the NBA last year was 100.2, the highest (worst) was 110.2. Putting Warrick on the court, in most years he's played, is enough to send a good defensive team to the the lower end of the bottom half of the pack.

For additional perspective, here's how our frontcourt did in terms of net defensive effect last year:

Frye made us 0.3 points per 100 possessions worse
Stoudemire made us 3.3 points worse
Amundson made us 3.2 points better
Lopez made us 0.5 points worse

Wormwood74 wrote:

This is Channing Frye we are talking about... I think Warrick would make the team better defensively if he started because of his effort to go for the block. his defense isnt as bad as everyone thinks.

No...Warrick's defense is actually that bad. Looking at his last few years a defensive efficiency ratings from 82games.com, Warrick made his teams a LOT worse defensively when he was on the court.

2009-2010 MIL: 4.2 points per 100 possessions worse on defense with Warrick on the court
2009-2010 CHI: 6.2 points worse
2008-2009 MEM: 1.5 points better (Keep in mind, Memphis was 20th in defensive efficiency)
2007-2008 MEM: 5.1 points worse
2006-2007: MEM: 3.1 points worse
2005-2006: MEM: 5.9 points worse

To put this in perspective of how severe a swing in points per 100 possessions a number like 6.2 or 5.9 is, for 2009-2010, the lowest team points per 100 possessions in the NBA last year was 100.2, the highest (worst) was 110.2. Putting Warrick on the court, in most years he's played, is enough to send a good defensive team to the the lower end of the bottom half of the pack.

For additional perspective, here's how our frontcourt did in terms of net defensive effect last year:

Frye made us 0.3 points per 100 possessions worse
Stoudemire made us 3.3 points worse
Amundson made us 3.2 points better
Lopez made us 0.5 points worse

+1

by those stats we shoulda offered the sweetness that is LOU a $100 milion contract



seriously though, going to miss that sweet ass..

^ Good post. I think I may have over-estimated Warrick's defence quite significantly. o.o

If he developes a few post moves and flat out if crashes the boards i'd be okay with it. I like the idea of Turk at SF with Hill coming off the bench. If Warrick starts we basically have a huge liability on offense and defense. I like JC/Lawal getting more minutes than Hakim honestly.

Da_Reel_Kboy wrote:^ Good post. I think I may have over-estimated Warrick's defence quite significantly. o.o

you're forgiven

BRING BACK LOU FOR AS LITTLE MONEY AS POSSIBLE!!


It wouldn't be the same without you Lou!

I agree with starting Frye at PF if our roster stays as it is. But I think this just proves how badly we need to make a trade for a starting PF. I know people have been saying this over and over, but I think our best option would be to somehow trade JRich for a quality PF. Unfortunately, I think the signing of Warrick makes it somewhat unlikely that we will trade for another forward. I'm happy enough with the signing of Childress and the trade for Turkoglu, but Warrick just looks like a bad signing right now. I would have rather kept Sweet Lou as a backup PF and trade for a starter. Something like:

Nash/Dragic
Childress/Dudley
Turkoglu/Hill
(PF via JRich trade)/Lou
Lopez/Chandler

Childress and Dudley are more natural at SF, but I think they can both do a good job at SG.

My dream is that we manage to turn JRich into David West, but the signing of Warrick makes me think that we aren't looking for another PF. Small ball continues...

It's better than seeing Warrick start. At least there will be some semblance of chemistry.


Hill can play backup minutes at the 4/3/2. I don't see why so many are excited about Childress, he's a player that can't do anything very well & called "versatile" for it.




And i'm all for JRICH staying and not trading him. He EXPLODED during the playoffs. We're gambling he'll get it together on the defensive end, but what do the Suns really have to risk? We're a 4 seed at best.

I've always wanted to see how things go if Frye started along with Nash, J-Rich, Hedo and Lopez. I think it'll work out. I'm not too sure about Warrick starting or Hedo playing the 4 to be honest.

i love grant, but having him on this roster now is causing major problems, i would be all for trading hill but only to a contender though, just my two cents

How is hill a problem??? Our best defender, our best midrange shooter, versatile, playmaker, smart vet.

He will slide to SG if we get a PF and its not like he is demanding 40 minutes or something...