Mike D in pictures

[Arles]

Maybe I should have chosen Chicago:

[bjebaz]

[Joe Kleazy]

This will never get old. LOL

[myron]

Maybe thats why he left phoenix, so he could get a draft pick for once

[Arles]

I wouldn't be so sure about that:
http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wireta ... ed_salary/

Donnie Walsh is not ruling out the possibility of trading their first overall pick, which would be a way for the Knicks to rid themselves of large a contract.

Walsh will try to package the pick with either Zach Randolph or Eddy Curry, which would create cap space for the summer of 2010 when LeBron James and Dwyane Wade become free agents.

You know if it's up to Mike and the guy at 6 isn't a top 8 guy in his mind, he'd be cool with selling it. He told that to Sarver both years he was the GM.

[TASTIC]

Barbosa+#15 for


Crawford + #6

DEAL!

We get a guy who will take and make the clutch shot AND can handle the ball while Nash is out. Q proved chucker's can do ok in our system

[albasuna]

d'ant with the knicks... i still cant get over it.

[mkot]

You know if it's up to Mike and the guy at 6 isn't a top 8 guy in his mind, he'd be cool with selling it. He told that to Sarver both years he was the GM.

Yes it was MikeD that told Sarver he would rather have Pike and Marks than Rondo and Rudy so the Suns could save money of Sarver's pocket

[myron]

Poor dantoni. Will he ever get a top 10 pick.

Barbosa for Lee !!!!

[Arles]

-= original quote snipped =-
Yes it was MikeD that told Sarver he would rather have Pike and Marks than Rondo and Rudy so the Suns could save money of Sarver's pocket

Pike = $2.5 m for two years. That's $1.25m per season. And, because the Suns signed him to a 2-year deal, the league pays NONE of it.
Rondo = $3.6 m for 3 years. That's $1.2m per season.

Marks = 770K last season.
Rudy = 0K last season

Sure looks like signing Pike and Marks over Rondo and Rudy saved the Suns money. Let's not also forget that after moving the picks, Sarver opened up his wallet for $16 million to sign Banks - who, obviously, was much cheaper than keeping the draft picks.

It would have been CHEAPER for Sarver to sign Rondo, Rudy and the Sergio pick than to pay Banks. But, I guess Sarver chose to pay Banks $16 million because he was a cheapskate, right? It had nothing to do with Mike D's wishes for the team. I mean, if I want to save money, I would glady pay $16 million for one player over $6 million for 3 - it just makes sense.

I hate that I have to constantly defend Sarver in all these mkot posts, but the information is so silly I have no other choice. Sarver went with some bad moves as an owner (not re-upping JJ, signing Banks, extending Diaw, KT trade). But the architect of nearly every move was Mike D. And, his terrible decisions put us in a position that to stay under budget we had to sell all our picks (hence the KT move).

I understand you liked Mike D as a coach, I did too. But his two+ years as GM were on par with Isiah in terms of hampering this franchise.

[nevetsov]

Pike = $2.5 m for two years. That's $1.25m per season. And, because the Suns signed him to a 2-year deal, the league pays NONE of it.
Rondo = $3.6 m for 3 years. That's $1.2m per season.

Marks = 770K last season.
Rudy = 0K last season

Sure looks like signing Pike and Marks over Rondo and Rudy saved the Suns money. Let's not also forget that after moving the picks, Sarver opened up his wallet for $16 million to sign Banks - who, obviously, was much cheaper than keeping the draft picks.

It would have been CHEAPER for Sarver to sign Rondo, Rudy and the Sergio pick than to pay Banks. But, I guess Sarver chose to pay Banks $16 million because he was a cheapskate, right? It had nothing to do with Mike D's wishes for the team. I mean, if I want to save money, I would glady pay $16 million for one player over $6 million for 3 - it just makes sense.

I hate that I have to constantly defend Sarver in all these mkot posts, but the information is so silly I have no other choice. Sarver went with some bad moves as an owner (not re-upping JJ, signing Banks, extending Diaw, KT trade). But the architect of nearly every move was Mike D. And, his terrible decisions put us in a position that to stay under budget we had to sell all our picks (hence the KT move).

I understand you liked Mike D as a coach, I did too. But his two+ years as GM were on par with Isiah in terms of hampering this franchise.

Arles you forgot to factor in the $3M cash we net from selling each draft pick, and the money we save for ditching James Jones with the pick (and I think Brian Grant with Rondo?)..

Also, keeping Rudy may have cost us $0 to keep him in Europe, but he wouldn't have been on our roster like Marks, and we likely would have needed to sign a Mark-type to take his place.

You could make the same argument about having to replace JJ3 last year, but I think he was earning around $3M for the season. Strawbs took his place on the roster and cost us around half a mill I believe.

[mkot]

But, I guess Sarver chose to pay Banks $16 million because he was a cheapskate, right? It had nothing to do with Mike D's wishes for the team. I mean, if I want to save money, I would glady pay $16 million for one player over $6 million for 3 - it just makes sense.

Pardon me, but please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't call him cheap. I've even defended this calling on this board. But handing out contract to Banks isn't an excuse for ditching draft picks. Signing Banks was a mistake, so he make another mistake of dumping KT with two draft picks? As though a mere mention of some spending immunizes Sarver from any sort of criticism including selling draft picks.

Sarver has not been cheap. He even gave Banks $21M when the payroll was so high.

But he's extremely SHORTSIGHTED and that's all I've been saying of him - SHORTSIGHTED. And in this business, that cost a lot of money and unless you are the Mavs or Knicks, it translates into the obligation of doing moves against the team's chances of winning a title.

Again, there's absolutely no excuse of ditching draft picks. Period.

I hate that I have to constantly defend Sarver in all these mkot posts, but the information is so silly I have no other choice. Sarver went with some bad moves as an owner (not re-upping JJ, signing Banks, extending Diaw, KT trade). But the architect of nearly every move was Mike D. And, his terrible decisions put us in a position that to stay under budget we had to sell all our picks (hence the KT move).

And I hate to defend MikeD on all these Arles posts too, but please, with all due respect, don't act like Sarver is innocent on all these bad moves. Did you ever definitively figure out how much of a GM MikeD was, or if he was just a figurehead, with people behind the scenes like Griffin and West doing the work? From what I remember, Griffin handled all the GM work while MikeD was the GM. He told Banks was available and had contacted him, MikeD then ok-ed it. Sarver then called it a good signing in the press conference. Bottom line: with a rookie GM and a rookie owner, with so little experience and knowledge in the FO, you can't pin bad moves on one person. No one is innocent here, that's include Mike, Griffin, and Sarver.

Cheaping out at draft time is indefensible; the evidence is in the picks that we have sold and the player that they have become. And the developmental thing has been taken way out of context. He did develop JoeJ, LB and Boris, although alot of those should credit to our assistants (Phil, Dan) but don't make it sound like MikeD never play inexperience guys. And giving big contract isn't an excuse. That's a MISTAKE. I've said that the problem of Sarver is not a general cheapness, he has spent money, but that he (to this point) seems incapable of making the right decisions of when to spend the money. And choosing to spend money on free agents rather than draft picks was a mistake I hope he can learn from.

And please don't act like I'd never defend Sarver. I still remember same time last year I was the only few ones to defend the guy.

I understand you liked Mike D as a coach, I did too. But his two+ years as GM were on par with Isiah in terms of hampering this franchise.

Like I said before, he just isn't suppose to be in that position. I once quoted him saying "I don't care it's not my money" that got me so pissed off. I don't think Sarver should leave any financial planning to him, a guy that doesn't care about finance when making financial decision, wtf, he should just be here coaching, not making those kind of GM decision that require financial planning.

[Arles]

I agree with the rookie GM + rookie owner point. Sarver should really have hired a real GM the moment BC left. I guess what frustrates me the most about the attacks on Sarver is the basic argument that "he should have meddled with the basketball people". I like an owner that goes to the people that know his sport and say, "You have a top 10 payroll (~72 mil) to go out and field a team every year. How you want to spend it is your call".

I want my owner to be like that. I don't want my owner coming in and saying "Well, Steve Nash is getting up there in age, maybe this big contract isn't worth it. BC and Mike D, I know that you guys have spent your entire working life in basketball, but I am going to overrule you because I stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night." There is an owner like that - his name is Bill Bidwell.

If you want to rip Sarver for not hiring a "real" GM soon enough after BC left midseason - I'm with you. If you want to question Sarver for allowing the Diaw extension knowing the financial chaos it would cause the next season? I can buy that.

But, when Sarver clearly sets a $72 million limit on the payroll, expecting him to pay $90 mil (ie, keep Kurt+JR and their $20 mil after tax) to make up for terrible moves by Mike D is not a fair expectation. Mike spent money like a drunk sailor on guys he never played (Pike, Banks, Rose, JuJones) because he didn't want to waste time developing rookies and extended Diaw way over market. Those moves made our payroll $82 million going into last year's draft. After tax, it was over $90 million.
Sarver had every right to get the payroll back under the tax limit - it's just a shame it cost us our draft picks.

That's irresponsible leadership by the GM and even a mouth-breathing fool would know that leaving us at $82 mil after the season was going to cause serious issues for the future. But Mike, as the GM, didn't care about the future - he just wanted to win now and at any cost. Then Mike, as the coach, killed chances of that by burning out our top stars with minutes over the last two seasons and never developing a bench. What Mike did is akin to what Jerry did from 1998-2003 to the DBacks - but without winning a title. We will be paying for the next 2-3 seasons for decisions Mike made, but that's OK. It's not his problem anymore - Kerr will have to clean it up.

[mkot]

Sarver had every right to get the payroll back under the tax limit - it's just a shame it cost us our draft picks.

Arles, trust me, I once believed Sarver had every right to trim down the payroll because, well, this is business and according to Forbes, we're still at a financial loss this year. So I'm not going to argue with your opinion of him having the excuse to ditch draft picks since, again, I was saying the EXACT same thing just a year before.

But things had changed.

I understand Sarver is not playing with 'monopoly' money, but me, as a fan, also know that chance of being a legit title contender doesn't come often and easy. We were so close with KT and Marion, then what we do? We dumped one for cash and traded one for an overpaid, overweight and overrated defender in the middle. That KT deal, brought us from being a legit title contender to a mediocre NBA team with no flexibility the next 2 years.

The only way I can explain my take on this is: It's been nearly 40 frigging years and there's no title banners yet - the Suns team with KT and Marion had the best chance of getting one but Sarver decided to go cheap and pull back to half-speed that we're well on the way.

And we're now just seeing the result of it.

Nash ain't gonna last forever and, thus, our window is FINITE. We should strike while the iron is hot. I'm not saying we should be spending $80 million in salary. I'm saying we have a very rare chance that puts us in the top 3 or so teams within reaching distance of a championship. That has happened 2 other times over the last 40 years. You don't skimp and save what amounts to a small percentage of your costs to simply save some cash when you are this close. It sounds great when you say that millions is a lot of money to us and none of us have that amount to spend. But for the organization, you are talking about something around 5% of their operating costs. Why let off the pedal now, when you could do that in two years when you are on the decline? When you're this close, it's not the time to go cheap and dump contracts at all cost. That's all I'm saying.

EDIT: next 2 years, not 3 years...

[Arles]

I'm not saying we should be spending $80 million in salary. I'm saying we have a very rare chance that puts us in the top 3 or so teams within reaching distance of a championship.

I get that point. I guess my question is what would you have had Sarver do when we went into last season's draft with a payroll $10 mil over the tax (~$90 mil in money after tax)? Banks wasn't moveable, nor was Diaw. The only options we had to get back to the tax were:

1. Trade Marion, Nash or Amare for a salary in the $5-8 million range (and with a team that had space).
2. Sell off Kurt + either JR or Piat to a team with space and throw picks in as a sweetener.

That's all Kerr or Sarver can do. If you go under the assumption that we needed to get to $72-75 million, we HAD to take one of the two options. I just don't see any situation involving item 1 as being possible (or better than 2).

It seems the only solution that would have made you happy is if Sarver ponied up $92 million last year in salary. I just don't think that's a fair expectation.

[mkot]

I get that point. I guess my question is what would you have had Sarver do when we went into last season's draft with a payroll $10 mil over the tax (~$90 mil in money after tax)? Banks wasn't moveable, nor was Diaw. The only options we had to get back to the tax were:

Suck up the $8 million and go for the home run. Again, I understand the business side of it, I'd defended Sarver numerous times regarding this too, but at the same time, this is sport, the priority should be to WIN A TITLE. If this isn't his priority, then I have to ask him why the heck is he owning a sport team in the first place. I've even said that I can forgive him selling our draft picks (the Rondo deal and the Rudy deal) IF we kept KT and Shawn. But few weeks later KT got dumped with yet another two unprotected picks. I can't forgive him. If he's to save cash to pay for the LT, I'd understand that and I'll be all for it. But he didn't.

It seems the only solution that would have made you happy is if Sarver ponied up $92 million last year in salary. I just don't think that's a fair expectation.

And how's that fair for the fans watching him trimming payroll and dumping draft picks? How's that fair for the fans watching the team being this close to a title an year ago just to fall back to mediocre because of the owner doesn't want to pay more than whatever the amount that was? Is it not fair for fans to expect nothing less than a title? I don't think so.

Make me happy? No, it's the fans. For the fan, winning is the only thing. The fans are selfish in that regard. For the owner, financial prudence is the most important thing. The owners are selfish in that regard. I'm a fan. I want a title banner raised in Phoenix. No more consolation prize garbage. A sports team that has been in existence 40 years needs to win at least one title. Being close wasn't enough. I want a title! It is not unreasonable to have those 'title or nothing' expectations at that point. What really sucks about Sarver's decisions is the timing.

Again, Arles, don't get me wrong. I undertand your point and I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

[ClosAZ]

I agree with the rookie GM + rookie owner point. Sarver should really have hired a real GM the moment BC left. I guess what frustrates me the most about the attacks on Sarver is the basic argument that "he should have meddled with the basketball people". I like an owner that goes to the people that know his sport and say, "You have a top 10 payroll (~72 mil) to go out and field a team every year. How you want to spend it is your call".

I want my owner to be like that. I don't want my owner coming in and saying "Well, Steve Nash is getting up there in age, maybe this big contract isn't worth it. BC and Mike D, I know that you guys have spent your entire working life in basketball, but I am going to overrule you because I stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night." There is an owner like that - his name is Bill Bidwell.

If you want to rip Sarver for not hiring a "real" GM soon enough after BC left midseason - I'm with you. If you want to question Sarver for allowing the Diaw extension knowing the financial chaos it would cause the next season? I can buy that.

But, when Sarver clearly sets a $72 million limit on the payroll, expecting him to pay $90 mil (ie, keep Kurt+JR and their $20 mil after tax) to make up for terrible moves by Mike D is not a fair expectation. Mike spent money like a drunk sailor on guys he never played (Pike, Banks, Rose, JuJones) because he didn't want to waste time developing rookies and extended Diaw way over market. Those moves made our payroll $82 million going into last year's draft. After tax, it was over $90 million.
Sarver had every right to get the payroll back under the tax limit - it's just a shame it cost us our draft picks.

That's irresponsible leadership by the GM and even a mouth-breathing fool would know that leaving us at $82 mil after the season was going to cause serious issues for the future. But Mike, as the GM, didn't care about the future - he just wanted to win now and at any cost. Then Mike, as the coach, killed chances of that by burning out our top stars with minutes over the last two seasons and never developing a bench. What Mike did is akin to what Jerry did from 1998-2003 to the DBacks - but without winning a title. We will be paying for the next 2-3 seasons for decisions Mike made, but that's OK. It's not his problem anymore - Kerr will have to clean it up.

Bingo, I've said that before myself and echo this sentiment. Everyone from Dantoni to our upper managment has been extremely short sightes the last few years which is why we're in the position we're in. Sarver has drawn a hard line in the sand for our teams' budget and it does stand right at the LT. Dantoni's run as GM, the players he signed (notably Banks and Diaw) and selling draft picks because "he" won't play them are the primary culprits as to why we are where we are. All of management is responsible like I said but I put the majority of the blame on Dantoni.

Karmas a Biatch too. Don't think for one second he would've liked to coach Chicago after they landed the # 1 pick. Job security and the 24 million were the calling cards in NY, I can't blame him there but he'll have his hands full with that squad the next few years. Mkot and Arles you guys can square off again, you guys are both knowledgeable dudes.

[mkot]

Dantoni's run as GM, the players he signed (notably Banks and Diaw)

It wasn't a mistake locking up Boris. In fact it was a 'must' with the uncertainty of Amare's health.

and selling draft picks because "he" won't play them are the primary culprits as to why we are where we are.

Getting rid of the picks was, first and foremost, Sarver's mandate to get out of GUARANTEED SALARY. Sarver just used D'Antoni's words to spin.

Mkot and Arles you guys can square off again

We usually agree on alot of things, just not this time

[ClosAZ]

Mkot the only part I can't buy in your post is the Sarver mandate with selling draft picks to get out of guaranteed salary. If you look at when Dantoni made the push to sign Banks it was after the draft that year and he was 24 million worth of guaranteed salary.

I think Dantoni just flat out missed this one with regards to the talent evaluation and long term $$ savings for that matter with missing out on drafting Rajon Rondo. That sucker was a four year rookie contract versus having to dump Banks in the Shaq trade while we took on Shaq's 20 million dollar a year LT killer salary.

Now if you want to say that Sarver made the mandate last year to sell the pick # 24 and giving the Blazers James Jones and getting the 3 million in cash back I'll buy that, no doubt.

BUT, you see the damage was already done and Dantoni was the one that built our coffin so to speak. Sarver is now doing what he needs to do to keep his desired operating budget. The problem is, Sarver is not a basketball mind unlike the Colangelos and this is where we as fans are taking it on the chin I believe.

[Arles]

Yeah, I think both mkot and I fault Sarver for some of the issues. The difference, IMO, is that I think with a different coach (and Kerr as the GM) that a lot of these issues may go away. I've looked as Sarver as simply "the banker" (pun intended). He will give you $72-74M (ie, to the tax) each season and let you spend it how you wish. If you are a smart GM and have a good coach, you can win a title in that situation. Detroit, SA, Miami and many others have won in the past 10 years under those contraints.

The key here is a willingness to develop young players for the 7-10 spots in your rotation. Mike D the GM was constantly relying on vets for his top 10 (even though Mike the coach still wouldn't play them). So, this gave an "all-in" feeling on every season - where you could say "well, we didn't win, but we got Tucker and DJ a ton of time and that will help us next season". Now, I think the new coach will actually play our #15 pick, Tucker, DJ and maybe even our 2nd rounder a bit. This means that we may not need $4-6 million for a rotation guy (a la Bell, TThomas, KThomas, Banks, ..) and can start building cheap talent through the draft. A good team is setup:

3 top tier salaries/players
2 middle tier salaries/players
1-2 "bargain" vets
3 "bargain" young guys

That's the 10-man rotation for most teams. We have been 3 elite salaries, 4 middle tier salaries and 1-2 bargain vets each season. That, IMO, is why we poop out in the playoffs (combined with the short rotation) and why we always feel we NEED a guy in FA to compete each season. Instead, if we just developed guys like Garcia, Rondo/Marcus Williams, Craig Smith and others available when we pick, we don't need to blow money on Piatkowski, Banks, Brian Grant, huge extensions for Diaw, potentially Tim Thomas and so forth.