Sundamental wrote:lilfishi22 wrote:I'm still waiting to see why you think the trade was bad, real bad.
OK, here goes. Look at this list of past NBA champions and runners-up.
....
Los Soles in an earlier post advocated to bring back SSOL. It a good point but really for the Suns to be relevant, they needed to bring back SSOL on steroids. Go way beyond what even D'Antoni established. Really establish that identity. And this trade took them towards traditional. Poorer, slower shooters and not really a benefit in defense.
THe Suns aren't a big market team but we certainly aren't small either. Unlike other smaller market teams, we have been a luxury tax payer for a while and despite some cheap moves to cut salary (during crucial times) here and there, we've been pretty big spenders.
My problem with going back to SSOL is that our old gimmick offense only worked because it was during a time when it was so unconventional and teams couldn't play against it and instead tried to run with us. The death of SSOL came around (imo) came around when the Lakers made that Gasol trade to get bigger. That led to other teams getting bigger and they just became better equipped to play against SSOL. The Achilles Heel of the SSOL system was always on the rebounding/defensive end and as teams controlled the boards, they controlled the game.
This is why I liked the trade. I thought it was a step in the right direction in improving Gentry's SSOL + defense system, which got us to the WCF's. We're still going to go out there and run but now we're going to be better defensively and on the boards. It's moving in teh direction Gentry would've liked to see us move towards I believe. Unlike the stubborn D'Antoni, Gentry recognized that we couldn't win in this era with just offense, we had to play at least satisfactory defense and compete on the boards. I think with the new additions, we're about the same if not better offensively but we're also much better defensively.
Sundamental wrote:As I said, I take my time and I'd get to more if you'd like. So, in answer to that, here goes.
Sure, they can (although of the people you mentioned Nash is the only one I consider to be truly exceptional). Anythings possible. But, when I'm planning for the future, I'd like to compete with a good plan, not just luck. That's why I say the Suns need to maintain their identity. It's unrealistic to think that trades or the draft will meet their needs because, like it or not, the Suns are a small market team with an especially small market minded owner. Until the ownership changes, they have to operate under that guideline.
So, how does this trade change Phoenix' identity as a fast paced team?
First, central to my belief is that the three point shot is vital. And it must be shot effectively. On paper many will say we traded two equal threats. But that's not really the case. We got two lesser quality shooters by about two or three percent. Think that's not significant consider this. Generally the league leading team shoot threes about 4.5 % better than average. So, if you reduce your % by 2 or 3 points, you've given away half your benefit.
I'll look at the players involved next if anyones interested.
I think we've largely maintained our identity while getting better defensively. We do lose some accuracy in our 3PT shooting but I don't think it's a big enough loss to affect our game completely. Whatever we've lost in the few % points from our 3PT shooting, I think we're sure to make up for it by being a better defensive and rebounding team. Just as we put up points with JRich and Hedo, we gave up even more on the defensive end and quite frankly, JRich was already playing as well as he could and there's no way he could've played any better to offset what we gave up defensively. No, it isn't as unconventional as the no-D, no-rebound SSOL offense, but our offense will still work and will still be as potent.
Sundamental wrote:And here's the part your missing under my theory. The Suns ultimately can't compete against the big money teams. The big money teams eventually win that game. look at the list. They always win. You want to play the same game and somehow beat them at the game How? That's my point and you're missing it. You think, "Well, now we just need a point guard and then we need a forward" By the time you get those pieces, the big money teams have more. Almost always. History shows that. So you have to be different but you're proposing what everybody does. And it doesn't work. Sorry.
I don't think this is true. We were competitive against the big market/money teams during the SSOL era and all that's changed since then is we're gotten better defensively. We're still not a tradional team. We still shoot a heck of a lot 3's. We still run more than other teams. We still have the PnR game (not to the extent with Amare but still). Even during the prime of SSOL we wanted a guy who can rebound and defend while not being a liability offensively, to cover Amare on the defensive end. It doesn't mean we wanted to get more traditional, it just means we wanted to fix problems in the system.
The trade is as good as it gets in terms of keeping the system flowing while adding to it offensively. We're not more traditional, we're just better defensively. Offensively we're still better than 95% of the teams in the league.
