Official Trade Thread: The Block Is Hot!!

[In Len We Trust]

As Alec Brown enters Phoenix’s D-League affiliate, the Suns are expected to discuss an NBA deal with their 2014 second-round draft pick to join the 2015-16 roster, a league source told RealGM.

Is this a joke?!

Plumlee replacement

[RunDogGun]

As Alec Brown enters Phoenix’s D-League affiliate, the Suns are expected to discuss an NBA deal with their 2014 second-round draft pick to join the 2015-16 roster, a league source told RealGM.

Is this a joke?!

Are you sayings we shouldn sign our own drafts picks? 7'1" shooting big? Why the heck not?

[RunDogGun]

Plus it makes sense that Brown was drafted in case Frye left. They probably expected him to stay overseas for two years, hence the Tolliver signing for two.

[JTrain]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Schultz_Report/status/565280152654209026[/tweet]

I really don't get why the suns would bring in Amare. Seems like a pointless move at this point. It's not like the Suns are going anywhere this year so just deal some of the vets like Green or maybe even Dragic and start looking towards next year. All Amare does is take minutes from young guys I'd rather see play the last 30 games.



On a completely unrelated note. I HATE that you can't see embedded tweets in posts on the mobile app. It's so f-ing annoying and they really need to fix that.

Wanted to And 1 this but couldn't figure out how on the mobile app

[Saberestar]

As Alec Brown enters Phoenix’s D-League affiliate, the Suns are expected to discuss an NBA deal with their 2014 second-round draft pick to join the 2015-16 roster, a league source told RealGM.

Is this a joke?!

Are you sayings we shouldn sign our own drafts picks? 7'1" shooting big? Why the heck not?

Alec Brown it wasn't good enough to be on this year's roster but he will be here next year? I want my team to get better, not to waste roster spots on a second round player senior with no real upside. We have a ton of players under contract for next year, we have to use very carefully our roster spots.
I hope it is only his agent putting his name on the map.

[Revived]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AZSports/status/565643571567792129[/tweet]
Damn right its your fault.

[Frank Lee]

Is this a joke?!

Are you sayings we shouldn sign our own drafts picks? 7'1" shooting big? Why the heck not?

Alec Brown it wasn't good enough to be on this year's roster but he will be here next year? I want my team to get better, not to waste roster spots on a second round player senior with no real upside. We have a ton of players under contract for next year, we have to use very carefully our roster spots.
I hope it is only his agent putting his name on the map.

Guess you got it all figured out... I mean next yrs roster ? Jesus... every team has a # 14 and #15

[lilfishi22]

I don't dislike Tucker at all. And I agree he is an important part of our success. I just don't view his contract as some sort of "steal" that others are portraying it as. Stephen Curry is a "steal"; Markieff is a "steal"; Tucker's is, as I mentioned, "ok". So please don't confuse my characterization of his contract as some sort of 'dislike' for the player, because that's not what I'm saying at all.

You also said you don't think he's on a good deal and i wanted to know why you think that. I didn't say you think he's on a bad deal because you don't like him as a player.

As far as Goran deserving a Bledsoe-level contract, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Now, if they backload it as they did with Bledsoe's, so that he makes his money when the cap goes up, then sure, pay him $13M next season and have it progress by $.5M each year. $13M next season will probably roughly equate to a $12M this year, cap %-wise. I still feel it would be too much, though, but not crippling. And using Dragic's sole season as a 3rd team All-NBA as proof that he's worth an EB-level contract, when he's clearly regressed, is a rather weak argument. He's had ONE season as an ALL-NBA player. Until he proves to be more consistent at that level, I don't see how anyone can use that as justification. So far this season, he's about the average of the previous 2 seasons, and is struggling to maintain that. That level of production is a $10-$12M player, IMO. And blaming that all on IT is a copout, IMO. EB is likely just as much to blame as IT, but everyone wants to blame IT. And Dragic has to take responsibility for his play, which he has, but he's also complained about the system as well. I'm not defending IT here; I'm just not blindly jumping on the "it's all IT's fault" bandwagon.

I just don't get the regressed argument. If you're getting less minutes, less opportunities to create and coming off the back of a season where you were virtually the focus of the Suns league leading offense, you're going to see a drop in production. Whereas the last few seasons Goran was our main offensive option, this season it's been spread amongst 3 ball handlers. He's still shooting roughly the same amount of shots (14.7fga vs 14.1fga) but because we still rely on his points, he's getting them quite a lot differently. We see he's taking spot up shots and being more of a finisher rather than a creator and that's backed up by the drop in assist rate, FTA's and big increase in assisted shot attempts (28% vs 49%). Basically he's had his role as the guy with the ball in his hands dramatically reduced and offloaded to two other ball handlers who aren't natural passers. Also FWIW, his efficiency is still there (#19 in TS% and #9 in eFG%). Regressed would be if he's given the same opportunities, same touches and producing less but that isn't the case.

Let's say we pay Dragic $14M, and dump IT, and Dragic continues to play at this level. What then? We are now stuck with 2 PGs making nearly $30M, and of which, neither is a star player. Let's say they both explode next year and both are All-NBA players. We are still investing quite a bit of money in the two, all the while having little wiggle room to upgrade other positions.

And honestly, who hear thinks Dragic will be the better player next season as compared to Bledsoe? Who thinks Dragic has a better chance to progress to an All Star-level player over Bledsoe? If you believe Dragic is the answer to both of those questions, then sure, pay the man. But if it's Bledsoe, then we can't justify the same level contract. That's all I'm really saying, and since most here watch a lot more than I do, you all are probably better suited to say than I am. But I think if we're being honest, the answer to those two questions are likely Bledsoe.

That's an issue I've questioned before and it appears the FO is in support of having $30m+ invested in one position (or two). That said, we still have plenty of room to move with the rising salary cap and easily moveable contracts so I'm not too worried about our cap situation. Dragic deserves a Bledsoe-level contract because he's proven to be a legit 17/6 (average last 3 seasons) player on great efficiency. He's having a down year numbers-wise but the difference between his All-NBA level season where he averaged 20/6 on ridiculous efficiency is 4ppg and 2apg and that can be explained by his reduced role and less touches. So if IT goes next season and we bring in another floor spacer, he could conceivably return to 20/6. There's certainly no injury history or physical decline to say he can't physically do it. So at this point in a player's career where they've hit their prime and you know what you are likely to get from him, you pay him based on what he's been able to do leading up to this point and what he is likely able to give you going forward.

[RunDogGun]

Is this a joke?!

Are you sayings we shouldn sign our own drafts picks? 7'1" shooting big? Why the heck not?

Alec Brown it wasn't good enough to be on this year's roster but he will be here next year? I want my team to get better, not to waste roster spots on a second round player senior with no real upside. We have a ton of players under contract for next year, we have to use very carefully our roster spots.
I hope it is only his agent putting his name on the map.

Yep those darn second round bigs always suck. f*ck off Marc Gasol and Gortat!

I want your source that says Brown wasn't good enough to make the team? More like, McD didn't want to add four rookies, so he picked two guys he could stash overseas. Only problem was Brown got injured and couldn't play for his Euro team, hence the reason he is trying to get on the Bakersfield team. I'm not sure the rules on draft right players not on a roster but playing in the DLeague. They probably have to have an agreement to be on next year's roster. So there is your headline.

[Sunsdeuce]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AZSports/status/565643571567792129[/tweet]

[BobbieL]

McD also made Frank Lee's day by answering Gambo's "Are Goran and Green struggling bc of IT's presence on the roster?" with "This roster is unbalanced with too many backcourt scorers, and it's my fault."

Also said that while they are open to signing buyout guys, he's not interested in 2 month rental players. Emphasized building a sustainable model for the future over making the playoffs this season.

I heard part of the Ryan with Gambo/Burns and my takes are these

-renting out a guy for two months like Amare after a buyout is to me is different than Gasol. That was giving up an asset. This might just be filling a roster spot if a guy like Green or Plumlee is traded. I mean, I wouldn't dump Warren, Ennis or Bullock to sign a 'buyout rental" like Amare or a Caron Butler from the past - but if Green is gone, since he is expiring, that's fine.

--the lineup imbalance comment: that was just "ding ding ding, we are making a trade and its going to be a guard named Isiah Thomas or Goran Dragic." Gerald Green is more a true 2 guard - he is not the cause of the imbalance. IT, Bledsoe and Goran are the cause of the imbalance. And since I think IT has jacked with both GG and Goran, I say trade him. And like others have said, he just cost Sarver money and the team cap space. So if you get a player back, a big, that's good. IF you get a TPE back and no money, that's fine. IF you get back an expiring, that's fine. Granted, if trade Goran nets either a big or a true 2 guard, I am okay with that.

--finally, Alex Brown: just another body to the bench that right now is 15 deep without Bogdanovich, the draft pick the Suns own and possibly the Lakers. I get Green is expiring - but that signals to me, whether next week or this summer, Ryan McDonough is going to do a 5 for 1

[RunDogGun]

We probably have to commit to him next year to get him on the Bakersfield Jam. He is a second rounder, so we don't have to guarantee his contract. Some of you guys are making a big deal out of nothing.

[Revived]

I hate, hate, hate when people disregard statistics in order to rely on what their eyes tell them. You do realize that stats are derived from the games you are watching, right?
You bring up points allowed, but you did not bring up pace. The Suns are second in pace, meaning possessions per game. Because of the pace, both teams will score more due to the added possessions. That's why defensive rating is important, it negates the issue of pace.
You do have an argument on point in the paint but please don't tell me that your eyes see something the stats don't. It's the other way around (stats see what you don't).

If you're using points allowed, you're either living in 1995 or trying to find a stat that fits YOUR narrative. You know full well that points allowed doesn't adjust for pace, so why are you pointing to that as the be all end all? You can't make up some hilarious BS about this being A) a HORRIBLE defensive team and B) the "worst defensive team in franchise history" and then not expect to get called out on that nonsense.

I never said we were a good defensive team. We're below average using the eye test, and we're below average using defensive rating AND defensive FG%. Funny how that works, eh?

One of us is sticking to the facts, and it's not you. You're clearly biased trying to tear down Horny, and now you're straight up inventing things to do it.

The funny thing is that you probably think I think this team is perfect and has no flaws, when that couldn't be further from the truth. I only seem like a delusional optimist in your eyes because you're skewed so far the other way that anybody sitting in the middle seems extreme to you.

Oh, and you can't find a stat that says Nash was the best PG of all time, because stats actual reflect reality, unlike whatever you're trying to do.

I was gonna respond to this but the greatest Suns player of all time and top 20 big man of all time both did it for me

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWqYMqapuXQ&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

I don't agree with it completely that stats should be ignored completely but I think Chuck makes a good point in that some people only use stats to make their judgement/observations. We even have posters on here who do that.

Even McD today when he said that he doesn't rely on stats only or even rely on stats mostly and that he uses it 50/50 basically.

My thoughts on this can be here because I 100% agree with these two posts below:

Stats are a tool. Every good scout will tell you that stats/advanced stats are a tool to help in player evaluation but should never be the sole reason in player evaluation. They are an aide nothing more. A whole picture has to be used for real assessment (game tape, live games, stats).

There is a reason scouts, GMs, coaches go to games of players they want through the draft or trade. They want to get a visual perspective of the player.

He's not wrong to a certain extent. Analytics are a useful tool to view the results based on specific variables in a vacuum. They allow you to create situations and to manipulate variables to determine how that affects outcomes, which is all great stuff to boast about in statistics. I just don't think it applies universally and even with tweaks I think these models lack a lot of objectivity and sense of reality and that's why they're often wrong. Of course they are bound to be right a lot too because they run through so many trials, but the efficiency and effectiveness of analytic's can and should be questioned.

Really, two things happen when something new is introduced. There is a large group of people who completely denies it and prefers the old way. There is another large group who immediately accepts everything this new invention brings and wishes to utilize it in everything they do. I think that is the issue here. Since the invention and the rise of computers, we have tried to use them in just about every way possible and they've done a lot to help us in almost every field. I just think there comes a point where some things don't apply universally and I feel like analytics falls into that category, especially when used in sports. I think most analytical tools in sports should be taken with a grain of salt, and that is not to say that they are useless in sports but I think they have limited valuable abilities.

Back to Chuck's point, I do agree that in sports, all that really matters is the talent, the coaches and how those two factors fit together to perform on the court. That is all (not counting injuries & off-court issues). It's unfair to attribute coaching changes to analytics completely. Watching tape can and has achieved similar results (ie. figuring out a players shooting spots, where they are more successful, where players need to be for the play to be most effective) in the past and would continue to do so regardless of whether or not some sophisticated models were applied to the information/footage. Essentially, it makes some of these things easier but it is in no means completely new or a ground breaking phenomenon that has changed the NBA landscape. It is indeed a way to make front offices' seem more competent. Putting together the team can be easier with the use of analytics, especially when drafting or signing young talents, but the impact is trivial when you talk about established players because you know what they are regardless of analytics. So yes, they can be extremely useful in certain situations but the accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness of such models should be in question, not the tool itself.

Most people will probably write this off as Chuck being Chuck which is fine, but he does have a point and he's at least partially correct.
Don't think he needed to say it the way he did, but that's expected from Chuck.
Sorry about my rant, I doubt I made much sense, I'll be happy if even one person understands what I'm trying to convey.

I'm glad to know that I'm not the only who feels this way as most people in this thread agreed or sided with the point that Chuck's not completely wrong and that he's most right than wrong in his rant.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1372057#start_here

[nevetsov]

If we trade a player for a guy who is already deemed out for the season, we can't apply for a disabled player exception (extra roster spot) can we? (Because the extent injury was known about at the time of the transaction..)

[WeekapaugGroove]

If we trade a player for a guy who is already deemed out for the season, we can't apply for a disabled player exception (extra roster spot) can we? (Because the extent injury was known about at the time of the transaction..)

no. You can only get the roster exemption if you have 4 or more players out for an extended time.

Sent from my SM-G900V using RealGM Forums mobile app

[baubo]

And Traxxe has been awfully quiet......

He said a couple days ago that he won't be releasing any info this trade season.

Atleast that's what I got out of it.

That sucks. I’m kind of interested to hear any updates on Dragic given that he’s one of the PGs the Rockets are I assume looking at. And our insiders have also kind of gone silent.

Last real bit was looking at a deal with Milwaukee, which supposedly had Henson and perhaps Knight. So perhaps the Rockets are going after someone else now.

[lilfishi22]

I was gonna respond to this but the greatest Suns player of all time and top 20 big man of all time both did it for me

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWqYMqapuXQ&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

I don't agree with it completely that stats should be ignored completely but I think Chuck makes a good point in that some people only use stats to make their judgement/observations. We even have posters on here who do that.

Even McD today when he said that he doesn't rely on stats only or even rely on stats mostly and that he uses it 50/50 basically.

My thoughts on this can be here because I 100% agree with these two posts below:

Stats are a tool. Every good scout will tell you that stats/advanced stats are a tool to help in player evaluation but should never be the sole reason in player evaluation. They are an aide nothing more. A whole picture has to be used for real assessment (game tape, live games, stats).

There is a reason scouts, GMs, coaches go to games of players they want through the draft or trade. They want to get a visual perspective of the player.

Chuck also says some incredibly stupid things.

I don't listen to refs, I don't listen to anyone that makes less money than I do

I don't care what people think. people are stupid.

I'd never buy my girl a watch... she's already got a clock over the stove.

He came from an era where front offices did not use advanced analytics so it's reasonable he doesn't believe in it. I think he just has a very ignorant or at the very least ill-informed idea of what analytics is. Most people use analytics to prove or validate an idea or opinion from watching the game and using it in isolation would be mostly useless.

[Sunsdeuce]

Barkley will not hold back. I love that man. He tells it how he sees it. Some people don't agree with him and many people agree with. And he is 100% right, talent wins championships, analytics wins.....a few games.

Bottomline, the beauty of barkley is he does not give a $&@? what people think of him. He is going to speak his mind. Too me he is the most "real" person that is a celebrity. Arians fits that mold too. I have a genuine respect for people who don't care what people think of them, don't try to "fit in", and they are geniune. There are very few celebrities that I would love to have a beer with. Barkley and arians are definitely two of them.

The king of all analytics in all of sports: Oakland athletics = Last championship 1989. Billy bean and his analytics haven't won $&@&!

[thamadkant]

If Bonner is good enough in the NBA, Alec Brown cant be too far off..

Remember, he just needs to camp out at the 3 line, follow some Xs and Os, challenge his man... and he'd be useful... a 7'1 shooter will get looks at the rim...

[SSOL]

I hate, hate, hate when people disregard statistics in order to rely on what their eyes tell them. You do realize that stats are derived from the games you are watching, right?
You bring up points allowed, but you did not bring up pace. The Suns are second in pace, meaning possessions per game. Because of the pace, both teams will score more due to the added possessions. That's why defensive rating is important, it negates the issue of pace.
You do have an argument on point in the paint but please don't tell me that your eyes see something the stats don't. It's the other way around (stats see what you don't).

If you're using points allowed, you're either living in 1995 or trying to find a stat that fits YOUR narrative. You know full well that points allowed doesn't adjust for pace, so why are you pointing to that as the be all end all? You can't make up some hilarious BS about this being A) a HORRIBLE defensive team and B) the "worst defensive team in franchise history" and then not expect to get called out on that nonsense.

I never said we were a good defensive team. We're below average using the eye test, and we're below average using defensive rating AND defensive FG%. Funny how that works, eh?

One of us is sticking to the facts, and it's not you. You're clearly biased trying to tear down Horny, and now you're straight up inventing things to do it.

The funny thing is that you probably think I think this team is perfect and has no flaws, when that couldn't be further from the truth. I only seem like a delusional optimist in your eyes because you're skewed so far the other way that anybody sitting in the middle seems extreme to you.

Oh, and you can't find a stat that says Nash was the best PG of all time, because stats actual reflect reality, unlike whatever you're trying to do.

I was gonna respond to this but the greatest Suns player of all time and top 20 big man of all time both did it for me

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWqYMqapuXQ&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

I don't agree with it completely that stats should be ignored completely but I think Chuck makes a good point in that some people only use stats to make their judgement/observations. We even have posters on here who do that.

Even McD today when he said that he doesn't rely on stats only or even rely on stats mostly and that he uses it 50/50 basically.

My thoughts on this can be here because I 100% agree with these two posts below:

Stats are a tool. Every good scout will tell you that stats/advanced stats are a tool to help in player evaluation but should never be the sole reason in player evaluation. They are an aide nothing more. A whole picture has to be used for real assessment (game tape, live games, stats).

There is a reason scouts, GMs, coaches go to games of players they want through the draft or trade. They want to get a visual perspective of the player.

He's not wrong to a certain extent. Analytics are a useful tool to view the results based on specific variables in a vacuum. They allow you to create situations and to manipulate variables to determine how that affects outcomes, which is all great stuff to boast about in statistics. I just don't think it applies universally and even with tweaks I think these models lack a lot of objectivity and sense of reality and that's why they're often wrong. Of course they are bound to be right a lot too because they run through so many trials, but the efficiency and effectiveness of analytic's can and should be questioned.

Really, two things happen when something new is introduced. There is a large group of people who completely denies it and prefers the old way. There is another large group who immediately accepts everything this new invention brings and wishes to utilize it in everything they do. I think that is the issue here. Since the invention and the rise of computers, we have tried to use them in just about every way possible and they've done a lot to help us in almost every field. I just think there comes a point where some things don't apply universally and I feel like analytics falls into that category, especially when used in sports. I think most analytical tools in sports should be taken with a grain of salt, and that is not to say that they are useless in sports but I think they have limited valuable abilities.

Back to Chuck's point, I do agree that in sports, all that really matters is the talent, the coaches and how those two factors fit together to perform on the court. That is all (not counting injuries & off-court issues). It's unfair to attribute coaching changes to analytics completely. Watching tape can and has achieved similar results (ie. figuring out a players shooting spots, where they are more successful, where players need to be for the play to be most effective) in the past and would continue to do so regardless of whether or not some sophisticated models were applied to the information/footage. Essentially, it makes some of these things easier but it is in no means completely new or a ground breaking phenomenon that has changed the NBA landscape. It is indeed a way to make front offices' seem more competent. Putting together the team can be easier with the use of analytics, especially when drafting or signing young talents, but the impact is trivial when you talk about established players because you know what they are regardless of analytics. So yes, they can be extremely useful in certain situations but the accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness of such models should be in question, not the tool itself.

Most people will probably write this off as Chuck being Chuck which is fine, but he does have a point and he's at least partially correct.
Don't think he needed to say it the way he did, but that's expected from Chuck.
Sorry about my rant, I doubt I made much sense, I'll be happy if even one person understands what I'm trying to convey.

I'm glad to know that I'm not the only who feels this way as most people in this thread agreed or sided with the point that Chuck's not completely wrong and that he's most right than wrong in his rant.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1372057#start_here

You realize that Chuck's comments were HEAVILY mocked today, right? He made ZERO sense. The Rockets don't care that they gave up the 118...BECAUSE THEY WON. They are in the upper echelon of defensive teams in this league. If you consider points given up as a metric indicative of whether a team is good or bad defensively, you are way, way behind. I feel sorry for you. To be clear, stats are a tool and need to be used in a marriage with the eye test. However, you simply choose to create a conclusion (Suns are bad because they give up points) when I directly negated your point by adding pace to the equation. When you can negate the fact that pace accounts for more possessions, which equates to more shot attempts, which equates to MORE POINTS, let me know. The Suns could be a bad defensive team, but don't tell me they are because they give up a lot of points. Not, when they are 2nd in the league in pace.