Page 1 of 1

Sarver = Fool

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:57 pm
by arenas809
"It does kind of bother me, because it's not true," Robert Sarver said of the frugal label. "The fact that people will look at the team and say, 'I disagree that they did this or that,' is totally understandable. Some decisions we make are good ones and some aren't. To think it's about money and that we're not competitive and we don't have a strong desire to win is completely inaccurate.

"A lot of the people's frustrations have come from selling the draft picks. In those cases, it's not so much about the money. It's about, 'Are we going to get someone who's in our rotation?' If you draft a player who spends their whole three years on the bench and doesn't play, is that really a good move vs. taking some of that money and signing Grant Hill or having the money to bring in Gordan Giricek?"



This guy is going to argue that for the franchise it was better to be able to sign Gordan Giricek (or even Grant Hill, although hell they got Hill at a bargain bin price) vs. drafting Rajon Rondo, Rudy Fernandez, David Lee, Kyle Lowry, Josh Boone, and a host of other guys that would still be playing and producing on small rookie scale contracts?

Re: Sarver = Fool

Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:59 am
by DanTown8587
arenas809 wrote:
"It does kind of bother me, because it's not true," Robert Sarver said of the frugal label. "The fact that people will look at the team and say, 'I disagree that they did this or that,' is totally understandable. Some decisions we make are good ones and some aren't. To think it's about money and that we're not competitive and we don't have a strong desire to win is completely inaccurate.

"A lot of the people's frustrations have come from selling the draft picks. In those cases, it's not so much about the money. It's about, 'Are we going to get someone who's in our rotation?' If you draft a player who spends their whole three years on the bench and doesn't play, is that really a good move vs. taking some of that money and signing Grant Hill or having the money to bring in Gordan Giricek?"



This guy is going to argue that for the franchise it was better to be able to sign Gordan Giricek (or even Grant Hill, although hell they got Hill at a bargain bin price) vs. drafting Rajon Rondo, Rudy Fernandez, David Lee, Kyle Lowry, Josh Boone, and a host of other guys that would still be playing and producing on small rookie scale contracts?


Here is the weird thing: first round picks are the best value in the league, and instead of having Rondo as Nash's backup and heir apparent, he overpays Marcus Banks. He can draft Rudy Fernandez (a top PG prospect he doesn't have to pay) but instead sells the rights. He could have had a starting lineup of Nash-JJ-Marion-Amare-Thomas with Rondo, Deng, as his top seven, but instead went another way.