RealGM

I know this is just crying over spilt milk and going over what if scenarios but this was probably our only shot at a title

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/238026/Report-Shawn-Marions-Desire-Of-Max-Contract-Blew-Up-Trade-Sending-Kevin-Garnett-To-Suns-In-2007

It would have been better for us if we had traded Amare. Marion was such a versatile defender, solid rebounder, and became a decent three point shooter. We would have had four good to great defenders and one good team defender, but not very good on the ball defender in Nash. Although I think that if Nash had Garnett behind him, he would have gone over screens more than under.

Marion DESERVED Max based on him putting up KG-like numbers as a 6'7 PF...

Kerr was just trying to be philosophical by saying only Duncan, Bryant and KG deserved MAX... well MVP candidates are the only true max players in theory. But market dictates the salaries UNFORTUNATELY...

21/11/2/1.5/1.5 and PERFECT next to Nash was MAX in my book especially compared to others getting huge money at the time... Kerr just tried to talk him into taking a reasonable contract but it back fired.

I understand the concern was Marion relied too much on his athleticism and will not perform towards the end of a max contract... but he has proven he could... he is still a good defender today and was KEY in the championship year for Mavs 2 years after his extension would of finished had he signed the Suns extension. It was a bad GM move by Kerr.. or was is Sarver?

I would say, it was the start of the END of the elite SSOL...

I don't think the Matrix could deserve to get Max given his performance in that season. All of stats were decreasing over the last season and he too much relied on his athleticism. His age was going to 30's at that point. I think Steve Kerr made a right decision not to give the Max to him.

If we sent Marion for KG, Suns would win the NBA Final. KG could lead Suns to get better our defense and also be a formidable weapon particularly when pick and pop with Nash. Nash, Amare, and KG....

Yeah, I posted this link in another thread earlier....we are always could have, should have, would have. I swear it seems like every time we have an opportunity to strike gold, something unlucky or bad happens, or just a bad decision is made.

Whether it be losing the coin toss to get Kareem, getting the 2nd pick when David Robinson was the obvious pick, trading our draft pick when we could have taken Deng or Iguodala, because we had signed Quentin Richardson, which also likely prevented us from extending Joe Johnson for like 6 years 50 million. People seem to overlook this last one because our 2004-5 season was so awesome, but imagine the longevity with JJ locked up for 6 more years, and then Iguodala instead of Q. Plus had we done that we could have re-signed McDyess, who at that point was a good backup big.

I know I've discussed this before, but the above always frustrated me.

Also, of course, the unlucky stuff include JJ breaking his face 2005, Nash bloody nose 2007, Donaghy game 2007, ejections 2007, Raja Bell injury 2006, Kurt Thomas injury 2006. Plus Amare basically missing one and a half season in his absolute prime.

I agree a bit with the crying over spilled milk, and I think many Suns fans come across that way in other forums on occasion, but we can sympathize with one another.

I've stayed up way too late way too many nights thinking about the what its of the last decade. If amare and Kurt never got hurt I think 06 could have been our year. Especially if Joe was locked up.

ATTL wrote:I've stayed up way too late way too many nights thinking about the what its of the last decade. If amare and Kurt never got hurt I think 06 could have been our year. Especially if Joe was locked up.

Oh yeah, with Amare, Kurt and Joe, that would have been a monster team...Nash, JJ, Marion, Amare and Kurt with Raja as 6th man and Barbosa? Even if we don't sign Q and trade for Kurt and use our draft pick, we would have Nash, Raja, JJ (probably a better 2/3 combo than JJ/Q), Marion and Amare, with Iguodala or Deng (if we kept our pick) and possibly McDyess, who signed for like 3/10 with Detroit (that and the draft pick would have been a much better use of our funds than signing Q, and likely would have led to us signing JJ...I think Sarver didn't do it because he just had signed Q)...and McDyess was solid the year he played with Amare....especially as a backup big.

That would've been sick if we were still able to bring in Hill. KG still had 1-2 great years left and was pretty good for another two after that. It's amazing how little things like that can change history. Kerr couldn't deal with the stubbornness from both Shawn and Mike.

Whether it was Marion, Shaq or Garnett we'd still be carrying 3 or more players on defense in Dantoni's system.

Talent, scoring was never the problem.

Mulhollanddrive wrote:Whether it was Marion, Shaq or Garnett we'd still be carrying 3 or more players on defense in Dantoni's system.

Talent, scoring was never the problem.

That's why the best trade for us would have been Amare for KG. plus I would rather have had the two unprotected draft picks go in that deal, than in the KT trade. We would have had to have added Diaw, for the numbers to work, but that would have ruined things until Hill entered the picture.

Honestly, with either KT or Garnett in the middle defending, I think Nash comes off better defensively. He would go over more screens, and help much less leaving his man. Amare's poor defense, and lower IQ, really hurt us.

Oh well.

Mulhollanddrive wrote:Whether it was Marion, Shaq or Garnett we'd still be carrying 3 or more players on defense in Dantoni's system.

Talent, scoring was never the problem.

There is a difference between Garnett carrying a few guys and Kurt Thomas doing so. Garnett was one of the best defenders of his generation. He would have made a huge difference on that end and he also brings an intensity and leadership that would have forced other guys to pick up their effort... like in Boston when Pierce went from a lazy bum on D to a very solid player. Garnett's offensive ability would have also been a phenomenal fit for that team, he was a great passer, had good range and could run.

They had the talent to win, I think in many ways D'Antoni's coaching held them back over the last few years of his reign, but I think throwing Garnett into the mix would have put them well over the top... as long as D'Antoni didn't do something dumb... like play Garnett 47 minutes a game until his tendons exploded... which would certainly have been a possibility.

phrazbit wrote:

Mulhollanddrive wrote:Whether it was Marion, Shaq or Garnett we'd still be carrying 3 or more players on defense in Dantoni's system.

Talent, scoring was never the problem.

There is a difference between Garnett carrying a few guys and Kurt Thomas doing so. Garnett was one of the best defenders of his generation. He would have made a huge difference on that end and he also brings an intensity and leadership that would have forced other guys to pick up their effort... like in Boston when Pierce went from a lazy bum on D to a very solid player. Garnett's offensive ability would have also been a phenomenal fit for that team, he was a great passer, had good range and could run.

They had the talent to win, I think in many ways D'Antoni's coaching held them back over the last few years of his reign, but I think throwing Garnett into the mix would have put them well over the top... as long as D'Antoni didn't do something dumb... like play Garnett 47 minutes a game until his tendons exploded... which would certainly have been a possibility.

You have no clue.

Puff wrote:

phrazbit wrote:

Mulhollanddrive wrote:Whether it was Marion, Shaq or Garnett we'd still be carrying 3 or more players on defense in Dantoni's system.

Talent, scoring was never the problem.

There is a difference between Garnett carrying a few guys and Kurt Thomas doing so. Garnett was one of the best defenders of his generation. He would have made a huge difference on that end and he also brings an intensity and leadership that would have forced other guys to pick up their effort... like in Boston when Pierce went from a lazy bum on D to a very solid player. Garnett's offensive ability would have also been a phenomenal fit for that team, he was a great passer, had good range and could run.

They had the talent to win, I think in many ways D'Antoni's coaching held them back over the last few years of his reign, but I think throwing Garnett into the mix would have put them well over the top... as long as D'Antoni didn't do something dumb... like play Garnett 47 minutes a game until his tendons exploded... which would certainly have been a possibility.

You have no clue.

No need for personal attacks. Personally I think most of his opinions are normally spot on, but I was also a D'Antoni fan (sure he had his weaknesses) because without him SSOL never happens. But there is no doubt KG would have influenced the team defensively in ways Thomas, Marion or Bell couldn't do. Plus he would have added so many other things....I think he averaged like 4 assists during that time.

Puff wrote:

phrazbit wrote:

Mulhollanddrive wrote:Whether it was Marion, Shaq or Garnett we'd still be carrying 3 or more players on defense in Dantoni's system.

Talent, scoring was never the problem.

There is a difference between Garnett carrying a few guys and Kurt Thomas doing so. Garnett was one of the best defenders of his generation. He would have made a huge difference on that end and he also brings an intensity and leadership that would have forced other guys to pick up their effort... like in Boston when Pierce went from a lazy bum on D to a very solid player. Garnett's offensive ability would have also been a phenomenal fit for that team, he was a great passer, had good range and could run.

They had the talent to win, I think in many ways D'Antoni's coaching held them back over the last few years of his reign, but I think throwing Garnett into the mix would have put them well over the top... as long as D'Antoni didn't do something dumb... like play Garnett 47 minutes a game until his tendons exploded... which would certainly have been a possibility.

You have no clue.

A great counter point, rhetoric like this is what I've missed during my sparse presence of late.

phrazbit wrote:A great counter point, rhetoric like this is what I've missed during my sparse presence of late.

Hey, you can post more and you can ignore whoever you think doesn't have relevant opinions. You have always had well thought out ones, between here and espn. No need to let others determine what you feel like contributing.

bwgood77 wrote:

phrazbit wrote:A great counter point, rhetoric like this is what I've missed during my sparse presence of late.

Hey, you can post more and you can ignore whoever you think doesn't have relevant opinions. You have always had well thought out ones, between here and espn. No need to let others determine what you feel like contributing.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

bwgood77 wrote:

Puff wrote:

phrazbit wrote:
There is a difference between Garnett carrying a few guys and Kurt Thomas doing so. Garnett was one of the best defenders of his generation. He would have made a huge difference on that end and he also brings an intensity and leadership that would have forced other guys to pick up their effort... like in Boston when Pierce went from a lazy bum on D to a very solid player. Garnett's offensive ability would have also been a phenomenal fit for that team, he was a great passer, had good range and could run.

They had the talent to win, I think in many ways D'Antoni's coaching held them back over the last few years of his reign, but I think throwing Garnett into the mix would have put them well over the top... as long as D'Antoni didn't do something dumb... like play Garnett 47 minutes a game until his tendons exploded... which would certainly have been a possibility.

You have no clue.

No need for personal attacks. Personally I think most of his opinions are normally spot on, but I was also a D'Antoni fan (sure he had his weaknesses) because without him SSOL never happens. But there is no doubt KG would have influenced the team defensively in ways Thomas, Marion or Bell couldn't do. Plus he would have added so many other things....I think he averaged like 4 assists during that time.

I've sparred with Praz many times, but I don't think his assessment was off at all. (Referring to the "no clue" comment) Garnett would have been stronger and more influential than KT on the defensive end. However, I would have liked to have had them both. Plus I think D'Antoni would have used KG more than he would have used KT, for KG is a perfect player for Mike. One that has the offensive ability, a decent range, can rebound, and you don't have to teach him defense, he already knows it.

I had issues with Mike near the end of his stint here. His distrust (or at least that's what it seemed like) for players, and his stubbornness, caused us to lose games, and series. I don't know know about 47 minutes being a possibility, but I could definitely see 39 minutes a game given to KG by Mike.

Even if we couldn't keep JJ, a starting lineup of Nash, Bell, Hill, Marion, KG would have ran teams off the floor, all while being able to play great defense.

Still remember the rumblings of the possibility back then. I remember one of the initial reports were Marion and fillers to Minny for KG. I remember thinking, "Wow. Nash, Kg, AND, Amar'e together. Has to be a chip."

But nonetheless even if this deal went down then obviously NBA history would be drastically altered. A Nash and KG combo would've definitely been pleasing. If it were up to me, I would've tried nabbing T-Mac around that time as well.

And then of course the TMac rumors. We wouldn't send Marion and JJ, and then ended up losing them both anyway.