Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
Moderators: bwgood77, Qwigglez, lilfishi22
Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,711
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 07, 2005
Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
Even though this post is really old, I will just edit it because the more I think about their decision to trade Shaq, the more I agree with it.
The teams that were already better got better, so there was no point in keeping him.
I initially disagreed with the decision to trade him, but now I agree with it.
The teams that were already better got better, so there was no point in keeping him.
I initially disagreed with the decision to trade him, but now I agree with it.
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
- rsavaj
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 24,863
- And1: 2,767
- Joined: May 09, 2007
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
+1 man....keep this roster, add chandler and we're effing set
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
- Risensun
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 752
- And1: 26
- Joined: Jun 26, 2009
- Location: The Grave...
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
Because these changes put is in a spot where we're worse but therefore have a more valuable draft pick. Which Sarver can then sell for more money...
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
- MaryvalesFinest
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,326
- And1: 3
- Joined: Jul 23, 2008
- Location: Back
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,975
- And1: 2
- Joined: Apr 17, 2007
- Location: Salt Lake City, UT
- Contact:
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
that big foam hand helps him keep a grip on the money leaving his pocket.
The Phoenix Suns - 54-28. Projected Record: 54-28 3rd Seed
The Phoenix Suns - 2010-2011 Projected Record: 30-52 3rd lottery pick.
The Phoenix Suns - 2010-2011 Projected Record: 30-52 3rd lottery pick.
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,711
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 07, 2005
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
And I think Amare will have an MVP-type year next season because he'll want to show he is worth a max contract.
Are people forgetting how dominant he was under D'Antoni after Shaq came to Phoenix?
He averaged TWENTY EIGHT points per game after the trade!!
Amare is the most unstoppable big-man in the NBA who is only 26 years old. He is worth a max contract, in my opinion.
They should have kept this team together one more year.
I still think Ben Wallace will fail his physical and the trade will fall through...didn't he break his leg towards the end of the season?
Are people forgetting how dominant he was under D'Antoni after Shaq came to Phoenix?
He averaged TWENTY EIGHT points per game after the trade!!
Amare is the most unstoppable big-man in the NBA who is only 26 years old. He is worth a max contract, in my opinion.
They should have kept this team together one more year.
I still think Ben Wallace will fail his physical and the trade will fall through...didn't he break his leg towards the end of the season?
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
- rsavaj
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 24,863
- And1: 2,767
- Joined: May 09, 2007
- Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
diesel you can waive physicals man....the trade is DONE
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,711
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 07, 2005
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
But the team needs Ben Wallace because of the lack of big-men on the roster.
Amare/Lopez/Amundson isn't enough...
Even though the Lakers just won the championship, I think the Suns match up very well with them...
Shaq/Amare are better than Gasol/Bynum
Hill is better than Ariza
Nash is better than Fisher
Kobe is better than Richardson
The Suns match-up very well with them and they beat the Lakers last season WITHOUT Nash/Amare and Shaq had 33 points in that game.
Amare/Lopez/Amundson isn't enough...
Even though the Lakers just won the championship, I think the Suns match up very well with them...
Shaq/Amare are better than Gasol/Bynum
Hill is better than Ariza
Nash is better than Fisher
Kobe is better than Richardson
The Suns match-up very well with them and they beat the Lakers last season WITHOUT Nash/Amare and Shaq had 33 points in that game.
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
- Risensun
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 752
- And1: 26
- Joined: Jun 26, 2009
- Location: The Grave...
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
rsavaj wrote:+1 man....keep this roster, add chandler and we're effing set
Exactly... Go at it with Amare and Chandler that front court is 10 times better than any crap the warriors are offering...
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,711
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 07, 2005
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
Just play Lopez more minutes next year so the Suns don't get killed on the pick and roll play all the time because Lopez is a very good pick and roll defender.
Reduce Shaq's minutes and touches, play Lopez more, go back to seven seconds or less, and the Suns will be VERY dangerous as long as they stay healthy.
Reduce Shaq's minutes and touches, play Lopez more, go back to seven seconds or less, and the Suns will be VERY dangerous as long as they stay healthy.
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,674
- And1: 1
- Joined: Nov 28, 2001
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
I would have liked to see this team get a full year under Gentry, but with all the dynamics at play here I fully understand why they've taken the approach they have. I don't like it though.
When I breeze past, breathe fast, on point like Steve Nash
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Suns Forum College Scout
- Posts: 17,165
- And1: 6,895
- Joined: Jun 25, 2009
- Location: the Arizona desert
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
The Diesel wrote:But the team needs Ben Wallace because of the lack of big-men on the roster.
Amare/Lopez/Amundson isn't enough...
Even though the Lakers just won the championship, I think the Suns match up very well with them...
Shaq/Amare are better than Gasol/Bynum
Hill is better than Ariza
Nash is better than Fisher
Kobe is better than Richardson
The Suns match-up very well with them and they beat the Lakers last season WITHOUT Nash/Amare and Shaq had 33 points in that game.
Hill better than Ariza? There's a reason Ariza will make about 10 times more $ than Grant Hill next year
fromthetop321 wrote:I got Lebron number 1, he is also leading defensive player of the year. Curry's game still reminds me of Jeremy Lin to much.
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,711
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 07, 2005
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
The only thing Ariza does better than Hill is shoot 3 pointers.
Hill is a better player.
Hill is a better player.
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Suns Forum College Scout
- Posts: 17,165
- And1: 6,895
- Joined: Jun 25, 2009
- Location: the Arizona desert
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
The Diesel wrote:The only thing Ariza does better than Hill is shoot 3 pointers.
Hill is a better player.
Hill is decent, Ariza is essential... Damn i wish we could get him, can you imagine having a lock-down defender like him on ur squad who can shut down 4 positions? Kinda like a poor-mans Marion with more upside
fromthetop321 wrote:I got Lebron number 1, he is also leading defensive player of the year. Curry's game still reminds me of Jeremy Lin to much.
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Freshman
- Posts: 72
- And1: 4
- Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
Yeah plus the addition of Earl Clark will help. I agree with TC.
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,334
- And1: 4,054
- Joined: Dec 02, 2006
-
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
It's not fair that last season's squad was not given another year to see if it would work.
Amare was out a big chunk of the season and Barbosa went down a bit too, take into account Porters ineptitude and I don't think we have really seen what this team could have done given a whole season.
I'm just waiting for Kerr to surprise me and show me that he is not a total moron but I doubt he will be able to reconstruct the glory days of the 7 seconds or less era.
Amare was out a big chunk of the season and Barbosa went down a bit too, take into account Porters ineptitude and I don't think we have really seen what this team could have done given a whole season.
I'm just waiting for Kerr to surprise me and show me that he is not a total moron but I doubt he will be able to reconstruct the glory days of the 7 seconds or less era.
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
- TXSun
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,953
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 03, 2008
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
i think there was way more to the shaq trade than just getting rid of his contract. we will never know.
"This is some bull $hit"
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
- KJ7
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 10,004
- And1: 2
- Joined: Aug 06, 2004
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
Personally I think we wouldve been a much-improved team but we wouldnt have gone past the Wester Conference Finals. Just too weak defensively on the PnR with Nash and Shaq at the end of the day.
You can't just say "reduce Shaq's mins". He's just too much of a personality to do that to. Like it or not he's just the type of player you have to keep happy on your team otherwise severely risk lockeroom mutiny.
When we had Kurt and Marion ... that's when we *shouldve* had the "just one more year" mentality IMO espec after how things played out in that SanAn series. While we got towelled up by some post-up players if we had single-cover (Kurt) at least it meant that they weren't getting their other players involved. Just so frustrating espec after selling the picks that he wouldn't stump up some lux tax just for one more year. I could handle selling the picks if it meant the money would be used for paying for the lux tax. But he sells the picks *and* makes that god-awful Kurt trade ...
You can't just say "reduce Shaq's mins". He's just too much of a personality to do that to. Like it or not he's just the type of player you have to keep happy on your team otherwise severely risk lockeroom mutiny.
When we had Kurt and Marion ... that's when we *shouldve* had the "just one more year" mentality IMO espec after how things played out in that SanAn series. While we got towelled up by some post-up players if we had single-cover (Kurt) at least it meant that they weren't getting their other players involved. Just so frustrating espec after selling the picks that he wouldn't stump up some lux tax just for one more year. I could handle selling the picks if it meant the money would be used for paying for the lux tax. But he sells the picks *and* makes that god-awful Kurt trade ...

Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,711
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 07, 2005
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
I think this team could put up with one more bad year and completely rebuild in 2010 when they have a lot of cap space.
It would have been better to keep this team together one more year.
They would have been competitive and would have had a lot of cap space in 2010 when Shaq/Amare/Nash's contracts expire.
I don't understand the timing of this deal.
I mean, what team can stop Shaq/Amare/Hill/Richardson/Nash/Barbosa when the Suns play up-tempo?
They would have been the highest scoring team in the NBA.
It would have been better to keep this team together one more year.
They would have been competitive and would have had a lot of cap space in 2010 when Shaq/Amare/Nash's contracts expire.
I don't understand the timing of this deal.
I mean, what team can stop Shaq/Amare/Hill/Richardson/Nash/Barbosa when the Suns play up-tempo?
They would have been the highest scoring team in the NBA.
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
- KJ7
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 10,004
- And1: 2
- Joined: Aug 06, 2004
Re: Why Not a Full Year Under Gentry?
The problem wouldn't have been scoring. It wouldve been defending. Hill's the only player on that list whose a good defender at the end of the day. The rest have serious short-comings.
