D'Antoni Rips Suns (Article)

[The Diesel]

Hey,

I found this article published today which contains an interview with D'Antoni about his exit from Phoenix.

Here is the link:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12122008/sports/knicks/knicks_coach_rips_old_phoenix_bosses_143879.htm

Your thoughts on the article?

[ClosAZ]

Well, I think this article definitely clarifies that Dantoni was on board with the Shaq trade and told the Suns to pull the trigger after getting the thumbs up from Steve Nash. Interesting stuff....I still think there's fault on both sides with Kerr being a new inexperienced GM and Dantoni being ultra stubborn and not wanting to change or adapt at all.

Now, we all need to turn the page. There is no going back!

Go Suns

[lilfishi22]

I had a lot of faith in D'Antoni's system and thought he used Shaq extremely well as a defensive role player. Much like how he used KT. Honestly, I don't think D'Antoni would've been fired/left, if Kerr actually thought things through. It felt like D'Antoni was indirectly let go in the heat of the situation. The first round exit and another loss to the Spurs was definitely a huge issue for Kerr and he felt he needed to make his mark on the Suns team and get rid of our style/identity. Personally, I didn't think we would've went to the WCF regardless if we beat the Spurs or not, but I did think that with a proper training camp, Amare would've continued to become the beast he was last season and Shaq would've been integrated into the offense/defense even better and we would've had a very good chance this season to win it all.

As for D'Antoni not playing his rooks, well right now Dragic is pretty much in Porter's doghouse anyway and Lopez is only getting minutes because Shaq can't play heavy minutes. I think the rooks would be playing the same amount of time under D'Antoni.

However, the only draw back to D'Antoni was that he was way too easy on his players. While it made sure our guys were always in high spirits, it made us weak mentally and undisciplined especially in late game situations. Defensively, I thought Shaq brought enough along to make a significant impact. He grabbed boards and defended the other teams bigs. So I reckon our defense was OK with Shaq, even though they weren't up the Kerr's standards, it was enough to get by.

In the end, I never thought D'Antoni's firing was because he was too stubborn to play defense or whatever however it did play a factor, but more that Kerr needed to blame somebody for making the Shaq trade look bad, and who better than the coach of the team.

[The Diesel]

I had a lot of faith in D'Antoni's system and thought he used Shaq extremely well as a defensive role player. Much like how he used KT. Honestly, I don't think D'Antoni would've been fired/left, if Kerr actually thought things through. It felt like D'Antoni was indirectly let go in the heat of the situation. The first round exit and another loss to the Spurs was definitely a huge issue for Kerr and he felt he needed to make his mark on the Suns team and get rid of our style/identity. Personally, I didn't think we would've went to the WCF regardless if we beat the Spurs or not, but I did think that with a proper training camp, Amare would've continued to become the beast he was last season and Shaq would've been integrated into the offense/defense even better and we would've had a very good chance this season to win it all.

As for D'Antoni not playing his rooks, well right now Dragic is pretty much in Porter's doghouse anyway and Lopez is only getting minutes because Shaq can't play heavy minutes. I think the rooks would be playing the same amount of time under D'Antoni.

However, the only draw back to D'Antoni was that he was way too easy on his players. While it made sure our guys were always in high spirits, it made us weak mentally and undisciplined especially in late game situations. Defensively, I thought Shaq brought enough along to make a significant impact. He grabbed boards and defended the other teams bigs. So I reckon our defense was OK with Shaq, even though they weren't up the Kerr's standards, it was enough to get by.

In the end, I never thought D'Antoni's firing was because he was too stubborn to play defense or whatever however it did play a factor, but more that Kerr needed to blame somebody for making the Shaq trade look bad, and who better than the coach of the team.

Great post. I agree with this.

However, the Shaq trade is looking even worse under Porter because the team would miss the playoffs if the season ended today. Unacceptable considering the talent on this team.

Even Porter said he considered the Suns a contender when he took the job and look what he's done to the team. He's ruined it completely.

It should NEVER have taken Porter this long to figure out that Hill needed to start and that the team needed to run more.

The offense has looked MUCH better recently because they're running more instead of just walking the ball up the court and passing it to Shaq while the rest of the team just stands around watching him.

Also, the team was 5-0 this season when Nash/Bell/Hill/Amare/Shaq started together. The same line-up that won 15 of their last 20 games last year.

The players deserve most of the credit for the offense looking better because many of them spoke of their frustration with the way Porter was running it until he finally let the team run more.

Porter is still a terrible head-coach who hasn't improved the defense one bit since he came and that's what he was hired to do.

He also said he would keep playing an up-tempo style, yet we haven't seen that until recently and he most likely only allowed the team to play up-tempo because so many of the players spoke of their frustration with the offense.

The players deserve the credit, not Porter.

What was Kerr thinking by hiring this guy? Hiring him was an even bigger mistake than making the Shaq trade.

[scootfu602]

good insight...now let's move on.

[rsavaj]

Wow, great article.

[tsherkin]

Great article. Makes me miss D'Antoni even more, and it certainly draws out the deficiencies of the team on D as an alternate POV to his own coaching ability, which is nice (if biased).

And yeah, I miss how he used Shaq and Amare together.

A lot.

[rsavaj]

Great article. Makes me miss D'Antoni even more, and it certainly draws out the deficiencies of the team on D as an alternate POV to his own coaching ability, which is nice (if biased).

And yeah, I miss how he used Shaq and Amare together.

A lot.

I think I need a hug.

[mkot]

If Kerr really had said that to Shawn, he is a complete moron. You definitely don't tell a player they're not worth what they want or they're not as good as what they think they're. If he's trying to get the players salaries in line with their role, he should say look, Shawn your role to this team is similar to those of Josh Howard, Tayshaun Prince, and Josh Smith (although they aren't 20/10 player) and show him their salary structure and our team's salary structure. All those guys got somewhere between 48-60mil over 5 years.

They probably didn't even want to negotiate with Shawn though. If that's the case, if Shawn wasn't part of their future plan, they should've traded him BEFORE training camp even started. You don't want to upset a player and go into a championship run season and expect good things from him. That's just dumb and inexperience management.

[walkingart]

Sarver was on Gambo and Ash today, and talked about the article.

1. Sarver claims Kerr wanted to hire Tom Thibedoue, but Mike said no, and wanted to move his brother to the bench.

2. Kerr never told Shawn he was not as good as he thought, he said you are a great player but that KG, Duncan and Kobe were the only players worthy of a max extension that Shawn wanted. And when Shawn doesn't get half of a max extension next year, he will no what Kerr was trying to say.

3. The players were the ones who wanted the entire team held accountable for the actions, no management.

4. Sarver continued to pay Mike a million dollars a year for being GM, even after Kerr was hired.

5. It took two weeks for Sarver and Mike to talk Kerr into signing off on the Shaq deal.

In Sarver's estimation, Kerr was not hard enough on Mike, and let him do whatever he wanted to the detriment of the team. Also, he tried to talk Mike in to staying after he had interviewed with the Bulls and Knicks with only one request, hire a defensive minded assistant. Also, Mike didn't want to be GM, but he didn't want to answer to one either.

According to Sarver, the most important thing is that all the players and coaches want to be here and play like that is the case. Mike wanted to leave, and Sarver obliged. If you look at player moves he has done the same as well, JJ wanted out (goodbye), Bell wanted out because he didn't get an extension (goodbye), Diaw it seems wasn't happy here either (goodbye) and ofcouse Marion and his ridiculous request of a 3yr/$68M extension (goodbye).

It all sounds fair to me.

[HootieRules]

A few things:

1) Some serious short term memories going on in this thread. Shawn wanted max money. Kerr said there were only a few guys in the league that earned max money and they wouldn't give it to him. Shawn was bitter. He asked for a trade. You know the rest. Come on guys, that's a BIG difference from him telling Shawn he wasn't as good as he thought he was or whatever. As much as I love watching him play I'm sick of everybody but Marion getting blamed for the never ending Marion drama. Nothing was going to be said or not said to make Shawn happy. The only thing that was going to make him happy and shut the hell up was a ridiculous extension that would've handicapped this franchise.

2) It's pretty common knowledge management pushed Mike to hire someone like Thibodeaux and even Thibodeaux himself. Mike took this as an insult to his coaching which I can understand somewhat. What I can't understand is why Mike gave absolutely zero thought to hiring him. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. What's wrong with bringing in a defensive wizard to a team that is so close to getting over the hump? D'Antoni's offensive mind and Thibodeaux's defensive mind? Are you kidding me? That's a match made in heaven.

Mike's stubborness was one of the reasons we didn't get over the hump and is THE reason he isn't here anymore. I'm not saying management didn't screw a lot of stuff either, but it goes both ways. He refused to play the bench. He refused to play KT in that game 5 against the Spurs. He refused to address the defense. He gave a huge, undeserved leash to guys like LB and Boris. He gave out ridiculous contracts to Boris and Banks. For Mike to be portrayed as the innocent one in all of this mess is ludicrous.

[The Diesel]

A few things:

1) Some serious short term memories going on in this thread. Shawn wanted max money. Kerr said there were only a few guys in the league that earned max money and they wouldn't give it to him. Shawn was bitter. He asked for a trade. You know the rest. Come on guys, that's a BIG difference from him telling Shawn he wasn't as good as he thought he was or whatever. As much as I love watching him play I'm sick of everybody but Marion getting blamed for the never ending Marion drama. Nothing was going to be said or not said to make Shawn happy. The only thing that was going to make him happy and shut the hell up was a ridiculous extension that would've handicapped this franchise.

2) It's pretty common knowledge management pushed Mike to hire someone like Thibodeaux and even Thibodeaux himself. Mike took this as an insult to his coaching which I can understand somewhat. What I can't understand is why Mike gave absolutely zero thought to hiring him. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. What's wrong with bringing in a defensive wizard to a team that is so close to getting over the hump? D'Antoni's offensive mind and Thibodeaux's defensive mind? Are you kidding me? That's a match made in heaven.

Mike's stubborness was one of the reasons we didn't get over the hump and is THE reason he isn't here anymore. I'm not saying management didn't screw a lot of stuff either, but it goes both ways. He refused to play the bench. He refused to play KT in that game 5 against the Spurs. He refused to address the defense. He gave a huge, undeserved leash to guys like LB and Boris. He gave out ridiculous contracts to Boris and Banks. For Mike to be portrayed as the innocent one in all of this mess is ludicrous.

Well said.

[mkot]

There's nothing we don't already know, honestly. And I don't see any conflicts with either side (Mike and $arver) either. They just choose to color their stuff differently, putting more emphasis on certain things. The facts remain the same - $arver is dumb and Mike is stubborn. They share the blame, but $arver should shoulder most of it. And I hate it how he still try to paint himself innocent. Yeah right all these guys are bad, they wanted to leave, they didn't like working here At least Mike has expressed his honest feeling about leaving Phoenix and realized that grass isn't greener in NY.

[KJ7]

In Sarver's estimation, Kerr was not hard enough on Mike, and let him do whatever he wanted to the detriment of the team.

I don't understand this. So Sarver sends out his puppet to tell Mike how to do his job? Let both guys do their job, otherwise assign yourself as GM.

Also, he tried to talk Mike in to staying after he had interviewed with the Bulls and Knicks with only one request, hire a defensive minded assistant. Also, Mike didn't want to be GM, but he didn't want to answer to one either.

Makes you think what Sarver and his puppet are thinking now that our D still sucks. It also makes you think why he wasn't assigned as a defensive coach *under* Porter. I mean if he was willing to work under Mike why not under Porter? I think Sarver is extremely naive about how things work in basketball. Sure there couldve been someone better to coach our team defensively but one end affects the other. That's why you can't really split the roles. This isn't Gridiron!

I was never comfortable with Mike becoming GM. It was basically a cost-cutting exercise so that Sarver could wait for Kerr to fulfill his commitments and then come on board.

The different views just tell me that if you don't have a GM and coach on the same page then there's gonna be trouble. That's why BC and Mike worked so well together. They shared the same blueprint for success.

We've missed that ever since BC left. We now have unity at management level but a team that isn't built to do what management what them to do. Ironically their trades have moved them further away from their ideals not closer.

[HootieRules]

Makes you think what Sarver and his puppet are thinking now that our D still sucks. It also makes you think why he wasn't assigned as a defensive coach *under* Porter. I mean if he was willing to work under Mike why not under Porter? I think Sarver is extremely naive about how things work in basketball. Sure there couldve been someone better to coach our team defensively but one end affects the other. That's why you can't really split the roles. This isn't Gridiron!

Which was Mike's whole point. He felt hiring an assistant would undermine him. The most interesting part I found about the article was Mike basically saying he knows defense but he can't go out there and guard guys himself. Mike knew it was a personnel issue and not a scheme issue and really he's right. So I can see where he's coming from.

But on the other hand, it was just another example of Mike's stubborness. It's one thing to not be wanting management breathing down your neck. It's another thing not wanting to listen to any of management's ideas. There has to be some give and take and Mike wasn't receptive to any ideas. He makes it sound like he had Kerr in his ear all the time and I can't see Kerr as the type that was pushy towards Mike about anything. But who knows.

Bottom line, it's a damn shame it turned out this way. Mike is a great coach and I think Kerr is a bright young GM. A lot of this goes back to Sarver and him running BC out of town and getting cheap on us. It's a trickle down effect.

[JohnVancouver]

In the end, I never thought D'Antoni's firing was because he was too stubborn to play defense or whatever however it did play a factor, but more that Kerr needed to blame somebody for making the Shaq trade look bad, and who better than the coach of the team.

--- I think a large part of it is the tendency of any new upper management person to want to put their stamp on things and make their own key hirings. At the major daily paper i worked at 15 years i went through it many times when a new editor in chief was appointed - all the section heads were shuffled and replaced, many of them excellent people with years of experience and contacts in their fields. But the new boss doesn't feel secure unless he has people around him who are beholden to him for the job.
So - it's (D'antoni out, Porter in) just another in along series of PHX blunders.
D'antoni as a coach, great, with some blind spots, as a GM not very good. Replaced by Kerr, who now seems desperate. Moving Diaw's contract is good, getting value for Raja is good, if hard business considering his commitment and service. Trading two of our better defensive players for a scorer when we're focusing on defense, allegedly, is a headscratching move.
In between this we have some terrible moves with draft picks sold off and now haunting us - Rondo, Fernandez, Deng, Rodriguez, etc.
I'm starting to think that all this is just business as usual

[Go7enKs]

Sarver was on Gambo and Ash today, and talked about the article.

1. Sarver claims Kerr wanted to hire Tom Thibedoue, but Mike said no, and wanted to move his brother to the bench.

2. Kerr never told Shawn he was not as good as he thought, he said you are a great player but that KG, Duncan and Kobe were the only players worthy of a max extension that Shawn wanted. And when Shawn doesn't get half of a max extension next year, he will no what Kerr was trying to say.

3. The players were the ones who wanted the entire team held accountable for the actions, no management.

4. Sarver continued to pay Mike a million dollars a year for being GM, even after Kerr was hired.

5. It took two weeks for Sarver and Mike to talk Kerr into signing off on the Shaq deal.

In Sarver's estimation, Kerr was not hard enough on Mike, and let him do whatever he wanted to the detriment of the team. Also, he tried to talk Mike in to staying after he had interviewed with the Bulls and Knicks with only one request, hire a defensive minded assistant. Also, Mike didn't want to be GM, but he didn't want to answer to one either.

According to Sarver, the most important thing is that all the players and coaches want to be here and play like that is the case. Mike wanted to leave, and Sarver obliged. If you look at player moves he has done the same as well, JJ wanted out (goodbye), Bell wanted out because he didn't get an extension (goodbye), Diaw it seems wasn't happy here either (goodbye) and ofcouse Marion and his ridiculous request of a 3yr/$68M extension (goodbye).

It all sounds fair to me.

You know what? I trust D'Antoni much more than Sarver.