Just So We Can Pick at the Scabs One More Time

JohnVancouver · Post #1 » by **JohnVancouver** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:23 pm

from http://howtowatchsports.com/2009/09/the ... he-stupid/

...."Phoenix Suns – If you’re a Suns fan, I warn you. This might make you a little queasy.

You see, Suns owner Robert Sarver was notorious for years for staying well below the luxury tax. He ran his team like a business, and while he was able to sign Nash and draft people like Stoudemire and Marion, he also always had his eye on the bottom line.

Circa, 2004-2006, the Suns were a blast to watch. They were scoring 120 a game, and though they weren’t putting on any defensive clinics, they were the most entertaining team in the league to watch.

If you’re Robert Sarver, you’ve already got the product on the court, so why not save some dough? How do you save some dough? Well, you don’t pay those pesky first-round drat picks, that’s for sure.

So Sarver did one of the worst things an owner can do: he sold his first round draft picks. In the 2004 draft, the Suns had the seventh pick. They sold it to Chicago for a second-rounder (who wouldn’t have a guaranteed contract) a future first-rounder and $3 million.

That pick was Luol Deng. It could have also been Al Jefferson (a center who can run, unlike Shaq), Andre Iguodala, Josh Smith or Jameer Nelson. Ouch.

Fast forward to 2006. Phoenix has the 21st pick, Rajon Rondo. They sold the pick to Boston for cash and a 2007 first round pick. The 2009 Suns have a problem with who is going to succeed Nash, but they sold Rondo for a few million, and now Rondo has a ring in Boston. Not to mention Rondo is one of the best defensive point guards in the game today, something that Phoenix needs at that position more than ever. Double ouch.

What did Phoenix do with that 2007 first rounder? They picked Rudy Fernandez, and sold him to the Trailblazers.

Then there’s Kurt Thomas, a veteran with a great low post defensive game, something that the Suns lack with Stoudemire down there. But sure enough, Thomas would have put them over the luxury tax, so he was traded to the then-Seattle Sonics for an $8 million trade exception and a second-round future draft pick.

But as we all know, Sarver finally decided to go into the luxury tax in February 2008. By doing so ironically enough, it ushered the end of the “Fun and Gun” Suns, by bringing Shaquille O’Neal into the mix.

And since they traded Shawn Marion for Shaq, they’ve had a gaping hole at small forward. If only there was some way that they could have had a small forward. Hmm…maybe Luol Deng? Or Josh Smith? How about Rudy Fernandez? All can run, shoot the three and are decent defenders.

Instead, Robert Sarver has an extra $10 million or so in his pocket. But then again, why let basketball get in the way of money?"

It doesn't get any easier to read, does it?

Post #2 » by **rsavaj** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:25 pm

Deng for Q was worth it at the time and nobody thought CHI would do so well the next season, so I'm not TOO ticked at that. Trading RONDO for RUDY, then trading RUDY+JAMES JONES for CASH....that's unforgivable.

MaryvalesFinest · Post #3 » by **MaryvalesFinest** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:28 pm

I agree that Sarver runs it like a business but it's also partly the fans fault also. The Suns sold out what was it like 160 consecutive games? If people keep going of course Sarver will keep things the way they are. If people just stayed home and watched games on the TV and the arena was half empty every night I don't think he would be pulling these types of things anymore.

Sun Scorched · Post #4 » by **Sun Scorched** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:29 pm

Never does...

But Portland took Sam Bowie before Michael Jordan... the NBA draft is riddled with such travesties.

Honestly, out of all of this, I just wish we had Rudy Fernandez... that made NO SENSE to me.

Post #5 » by **Miklo** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:30 pm

Thanks John for the enlightening read. I needed something to brighten my day.

Sun Scorched · Post #6 » by **Sun Scorched** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:42 pm

Think about this:

PG - Nash ($13.1m - PER 19.5)
SG - Johnson ($14.9m - PER 18.3) / Barbosa ($6.6m - PER 19.4) / Fernandez ($1.1m - PER 15.5)
SF - Hill ($3m - PER 15.3)
PF - Smith ($10.8m - PER 17.3) / Clark (1.7m - PER NA)
C - Stoudemire ($16.3m - PER 20.4)

Granted, your only sitting about $2.5m below the luxury tax with that team and you're 5 short, but still.... you wouldn't need many more than those 8 on the floor.

*EDIT: I've updated to include the individual PER of each player... obviously with all of those guys on the same team it might decrease a little, but the point is still there, isn't it?

RunDogGun · Post #7 » by **RunDogGun** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 9:09 pm

Miklo wrote:Thanks John for the enlightening read. I needed something to brighten my day.

I was going to say, "Thanks for the kick to the groin." But your way sounds nicer.

The article over simplified many situations. The Rondo deal had many other issues. First Mike wasn't going to play him anyway, and Rondo would never had developed as quickly if he wasn't on that poor Boston team at the time. Plus we had to cover up the crappy signing of Brian Grant. So we actually made out with $7-8 mil for that trade. Which isn't bad for a player we were never going to play.

Rudy was unfortunate, but he wasn't coming over that year, and we were in a win it now situation. Which was totally moronic to waste our future for money.

And wasn't the Deng trade made so we could get rid of/(make room for) another contract? So again it was a bandage situation.

KT was one of the dumbest moves this FO has done in a while. Jumping the gun on Diaw's contract, and then over paying (and then under using) Banks, forced us to get rid of a good player. That was all Mike D's fault. He did all the signing that year, and all the mismanagement of the players. Not only that, we gave away two first rounders, which still could be even worse next year.

Nando88 · Post #8 » by **Nando88** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 10:40 pm

don't we already know all this stuff? lol and sarver didn't draft amare and matrix... lol who wrote that?

nashrambler13 · Post #9 » by **nashrambler13** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:24 am

The Bill simmons article about the same thing was the best...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ons/080501

bill simmons makes ur pain sound slightly funny...

Post #10 » by **Miklo** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:47 am

Nando88 wrote:ol and sarver didn't draft amare and matrix... lol who wrote that?

hahaha that's a pretty good point you got there. I missed that.

raff · Post #11 » by **raff** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:15 am

nope still sucks a whole heap...

Post #12 » by **lilfishi22** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:45 am

MaryvalesFinest wrote:I agree that Sarver runs it like a business but it's also partly the fans fault also. The Suns sold out what was it like 160 consecutive games? If people keep going of course Sarver will keep things the way they are. If people just stayed home and watched games on the TV and the arena was half empty every night I don't think he would be pulling these types of things anymore.

If there was no fans there would be no Suns franchise in Phoenix.

Post #13 » by **Miklo** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:45 pm

lilfishi22 wrote:
MaryvalesFinest wrote:I agree that Sarver runs it like a business but it's also partly the fans fault also. The Suns sold out what was it like 160 consecutive games? If people keep going of course Sarver will keep things the way they are. If people just stayed home and watched games on the TV and the arena was half empty every night I don't think he would be pulling these types of things anymore.

If there was no fans there would be no Suns franchise in Phoenix.

Well then Sarver had better watch out. I'm from North Carolina, so believe me I know what it takes to get a franchise kicked out of town (read: Charlotte Hornets). The Suns have a rich history and a strong fan base so this is not on the horizon, but Sarver has been putting some downward pressure on the line between saving money and keeping fans. The question is what is the elasticity of demand here? Say we have 100% fan base/attendance with a potential lineup that includes Amar'e, Nash, JoeJ, etc...and a 50% fan base with a starting lineup of Dragic/Barbs/Dudley/Amundson/Frye (I know,

)...at a certain point you will start losing money instead of saving it.

Basically a complicated way of saying the more costs Sarver cuts, the closer he gets to a damaging decrease in ticket sales. To recover ticket sales and regain fans who jumped the bandwagon, he would have to pump a large lump sum into restoring a contending roster.

MaryvalesFinest · Post #14 » by **MaryvalesFinest** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:50 pm

lilfishi22 wrote:
MaryvalesFinest wrote:I agree that Sarver runs it like a business but it's also partly the fans fault also. The Suns sold out what was it like 160 consecutive games? If people keep going of course Sarver will keep things the way they are. If people just stayed home and watched games on the TV and the arena was half empty every night I don't think he would be pulling these types of things anymore.

If there was no fans there would be no Suns franchise in Phoenix.

Yeah I guess that could happen, I mean Seattle was one of the largest markets in the country and the Sonics had alot of history and they moved but the thing that distinguishes both the teams are that if the Suns are doing bad people will come to watch the other team play since alot of people in Phx are from somewhere else. So I guess the argument can be made that people still come to watch the Suns when they do bad and that's good and all for keeping basketball here but it also shows ownership can cut corners and alot of the fans wont complain.

MaryvalesFinest · Post #15 » by **MaryvalesFinest** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:55 pm

Miklo wrote:
lilfishi22 wrote:
MaryvalesFinest wrote:I agree that Sarver runs it like a business but it's also partly the fans fault also. The Suns sold out what was it like 160 consecutive games? If people keep going of course Sarver will keep things the way they are. If people just stayed home and watched games on the TV and the arena was half empty every night I don't think he would be pulling these types of things anymore.

If there was no fans there would be no Suns franchise in Phoenix.

Well then Sarver had better watch out. I'm from North Carolina, so believe me I know what it takes to get a franchise kicked out of town (read: Charlotte Hornets). The Suns have a rich history and a strong fan base so this is not on the horizon, but Sarver has been putting some downward pressure on the line between saving money and keeping fans. The question is what is the elasticity of demand here? Say we have 100% fan base/attendance with a potential lineup that includes Amar'e, Nash, JoeJ, etc...and a 50% fan base with a starting lineup of Dragic/Barbs/Dudley/Amundson/Frye (I know, )...at a certain point you will start losing money instead of saving it.

Basically a complicated way of saying the more costs Sarver cuts, the closer he gets to a damaging decrease in ticket sales. To recover ticket sales and regain fans who jumped the bandwagon, he would have to pump a large lump sum into restoring a contending roster.

Yeah I brought up a similar point before. Here alot of people are from somewhere else so when the Suns start to do bad they go and root for their other team. You also have casual fans that go to games and all but when the Suns are bad they do it for the other team. Like right now we have one of the worse teams in baseball with the Diamondbacks, they don't sell out or anything but alot of nights the place is more than half full and you see alot of fans from other teams. The same can be said about the Cardinals before they went to the superbowl. In the end though Sarver is all about money so he knows he has to put at least an above average product on the floor if he wants to make money,

Superhuman · Post #16 » by **Superhuman** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:26 am

Sun Scorched wrote:Never does...

But Portland took Sam Bowie before Michael Jordan... the NBA draft is riddled with such travesties.

Honestly, out of all of this, I just wish we had Rudy Fernandez... that made NO SENSE to me.

The Blazers picked Bowie(a center) because they drafted according to current need. Not out of most potential. They already drafted Drexler in 83' so to get another two guard wouldn't make sense. Well, of course they didn't know MJ would be the most dominant figure ever to play the game :noway:

JohnVancouver · Post #17 » by **JohnVancouver** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:59 pm

Sun Scorched wrote:Think about this:

PG - Nash ($13.1m - PER 19.5)
SG - Johnson ($14.9m - PER 18.3) / Barbosa ($6.6m - PER 19.4) / Fernandez ($1.1m - PER 15.5)
SF - Hill ($3m - PER 15.3)
PF - Smith ($10.8m - PER 17.3) / Clark (1.7m - PER NA)
C - Stoudemire ($16.3m - PER 20.4)

Granted, your only sitting about $2.5m below the luxury tax with that team and you're 5 short, but still.... you wouldn't need many more than those 8 on the floor.

*EDIT: I've updated to include the individual PER of each player... obviously with all of those guys on the same team it might decrease a little, but the point is still there, isn't it?

Wow - I know it's not that simple to actually achieve but just ... wow

and sh*t

JohnVancouver · Post #18 » by **JohnVancouver** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:00 pm

Miklo wrote:Thanks John for the enlightening read. I needed something to brighten my day.

I know, I know, but I ran across it and had to read it, and then I wanted to share the misery

Seriously, I know it's not as cut and dried as all that but still .... sweet geebus

JohnVancouver · Post #19 » by **JohnVancouver** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:03 pm

RunDogGun wrote:KT was one of the dumbest moves this FO has done in a while. Jumping the gun on Diaw's contract, and then over paying (and then under using) Banks, forced us to get rid of a good player. That was all Mike D's fault. He did all the signing that year, and all the mismanagement of the players. Not only that, we gave away two first rounders, which still could be even worse next year.

I agree this is the Cliff Notes version but you're absolutely right in your analysis of this last one. Many of us have a tendency to canonize Mike D but he made some spectacularly bad moves as gm.

Post #20 » by **rsavaj** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:14 pm

He made some bad moves but at the time they weren't as bad as they appear now. We needed a strong, quick, defensive guard after we got torched by Parker, and theoretically Banks appeared to be a strong fit for that kind of player, and he was coming off a decent half-season in Minnesota. I was all in favor of locking up Diaw ASAP and I still think that was a good move. Pike was useless but that signing hardly hurt us.