RealGM

I know, I know, he didn't live up to that max contract he got from New York, but hear me out.

Surely we can all agree signing Amare is a better option than signing Warrick, Childress, Turkey glue, etc. For the same price. All that got us was mediocrity. At least signing Amare to the max would have gotten us at least another playoff run.

Now you're probably thinking our best option was don't pay all those scrubs, AND let Amare walk. Okay, but if you do that you have to trade Nash and rebuild. We clearly were not going to trade Nash at the time, so why not re-sign Amare and see what happens? Amare was an MVP candidate that first year with the Knicks. Yes it would have been bad the later years of his contract, but at least we would have extended Nash's chances at a title. We might have been able to piece together a good enough team to win it all. I mean we had just pushed the eventually champs to 6 games, and we probably beat them if not for the Ron Artest luck of the century put back in game 5.

I think we should have. Amare had a stellar season his first year with NY, I think he was in the running for MVP for most of the year.

Please no more nostalgia threads......

We should have. We were contenders.

MrMiyagi wrote:Please no more nostalgia threads......

Haha fair enough. I have two people saying yes thus far, I thought the consensus was we should have let him walk... did I make a pointless thread late last night? I believe that may be the case

This is my thought - should we have signed Amare to the Max?

Yes - if you are going to be stupid and sign Warrick to a 4 year deal, sign Frye to a 5 year deal, trade for Turkoglu and sign Childress

No - if you are going sign Warrick to a one year deal, not trade for Turkey, not sign Childress, maybe sign Frye but keep your long term cap space


I know, Turkey got the team Gortat and all that. But, Amare with a bunch of "guys" would have been a better team than all that was signed

BobbieL wrote:This is my thought - should we have signed Amare to the Max?

Yes - if you are going to be stupid and sign Warrick to a 4 year deal, sign Frye to a 5 year deal, trade for Turkoglu and sign Childress

No - if you are going sign Warrick to a one year deal, not trade for Turkey, not sign Childress, maybe sign Frye but keep your long term cap space


I know, Turkey got the team Gortat and all that. But, Amare with a bunch of "guys" would have been a better team than all that was signed

Exactly. We had a clear lack of direction. Either sign Amare and contend, or don't sign him or anyone else and rebuild with a youth movement. We did neither.

Makes me worry about right now. I think we can make the playoffs, but in no way do I want to push for them by signing unnecessary players. I want the youth to get us there. But it feels like Sarver wants playoffs regardless of rebuilding status or youth. If he was that misguided about the direction of our team, is he about to do it again? Hopefully not.

in hindsight, absolutely

worst case scenario is you end up with a mediocre to bad team and you don't make the playoffs for the next five years

oh look that's exactly what happened anyways

Absolutely NOT. Even if Amare had a good first year, what about the years after? He became a shell of himself pretty damn quick.

Two wrongs don't make a right -- if given a choice between Amare with the max and what we actually did, I'd go ahead and say screw both those ideas and do neither of them.

SarcasticSun wrote:

BobbieL wrote:This is my thought - should we have signed Amare to the Max?

Yes - if you are going to be stupid and sign Warrick to a 4 year deal, sign Frye to a 5 year deal, trade for Turkoglu and sign Childress

No - if you are going sign Warrick to a one year deal, not trade for Turkey, not sign Childress, maybe sign Frye but keep your long term cap space


I know, Turkey got the team Gortat and all that. But, Amare with a bunch of "guys" would have been a better team than all that was signed

Exactly. We had a clear lack of direction. Either sign Amare and contend, or don't sign him or anyone else and rebuild with a youth movement. We did neither.

Makes me worry about right now. I think we can make the playoffs, but in no way do I want to push for them by signing unnecessary players. I want the youth to get us there. But it feels like Sarver wants playoffs regardless of rebuilding status or youth. If he was that misguided about the direction of our team, is he about to do it again? Hopefully not.

If Sarver would just take his Meds and let McD do his thing - his team will be good for a long time!!

SarcasticSun wrote:I know, I know, he didn't live up to that max contract he got from New York, but hear me out.

Surely we can all agree signing Amare is a better option than signing Warrick, Childress, Turkey glue, etc. For the same price. All that got us was mediocrity. At least signing Amare to the max would have gotten us at least another playoff run.

Now you're probably thinking our best option was don't pay all those scrubs, AND let Amare walk. Okay, but if you do that you have to trade Nash and rebuild. We clearly were not going to trade Nash at the time, so why not re-sign Amare and see what happens? Amare was an MVP candidate that first year with the Knicks. Yes it would have been bad the later years of his contract, but at least we would have extended Nash's chances at a title. We might have been able to piece together a good enough team to win it all. I mean we had just pushed the eventually champs to 6 games, and we probably beat them if not for the Ron Artest luck of the century put back in game 5.

I think it's incredibly generous to call Amare an MVP candidate that year. He finished with 9 more points in the MVP voting than the worst player in the league and just 419 points below the guy who came in 4th in the voting that season. I don't know how that qualifies as "MVP candidate"? Amare was always a ballhog but that year he took it to a new extreme, it made his stats look great but it didn't match up in the W/L column.

I also think you're ignoring some real truths about the Suns team that lost in the Conference finals. The NBA had a down year and we got lucky every step of the way until that final bad break with the Artest put-back. But we weren't really a contending team, we had no business getting out of the 1st round. Even if we'd brought Amare back we'd have been a long-shot just to make the playoffs. And it would have delayed our re-build for a year or two but it would not have delayed our slide into mediocrity. We were already sliding. I think almost anything other than what we did would have been the right thing to do, the only exception IMO would have been bringing Amare back on that insane contract.

MrMiyagi wrote:Please no more nostalgia threads......

This.

Nah
We made the right move.

Sent from my TABLET DL 20130729 using RealGM mobile app

Thinking back on it, a lot of us laughed when NY commited 5 years and $100m for an older Amare with questionable knees. But his first season with the Knicks, prior to MeloBall, he was putting up great stats and carried a pretty weak team. Now he's no Lebron in that he didn't elevate his team mates but he certainly took on a huge scoring responsibility and he did it with flying colours. That said, the MVP talk at the time was a bit ridiculous considering the Knicks were 7 games above .500 at their very best. Hardly a MVP-level effort.

But to answer your question, I still think we did the right thing by letting him go. The narrative that we should've signed Amare to the max because the alternative was to sign Warrick, Turkeyglue and Childress is wrong. The third alternative, the option we should've taken, was to sign no one and rebuild. We should've moved Nash (as much as that would've broken my heart). But I think most would agree that the signing of Amare or the trio had only delayed the inevitable rebuild. The choice was to push back the rebuild 4-5 seasons with Amare or 3 with the trio.

Giving Amare a max deal would have sparked a chain of events. No capspace. No Warrick, No Hedo. No Gortat. No trades for picks. No Len. No Booker. No Bender. No Chriss.

NO.

Based on a "very good" but not "special" Mavericks team winning the west that year would've I rolled the dice. At the time I supported the decision.

Max Amare now one year

OGBAH wrote:Max Amare now one year

If we strike out on the good young players, then I'd do this just for the nostalgia

Did we make the right choice? Yes. But in hindsight and given what we know now, No. It would have been better for us to have had Amare this whole time than the other moves we made. The other moves have not amounted to anything and having Amare teamed up on the fron line with Dragic the year we made our little run to the playoffs would have been pretty fun to watch. Amare drags a lot of attention inside and takes pressure off the outside shooters (Dragic and Green at the time)