Trade Deadline Countdown....What will we do? What should we do?

[carey]

Right. Giving up all of our assets for Blake (not that the Clippers would ever consider it) would be like the Knicks trading for Carmelo. They gave up everything they had of value except Amare for 26-year-old Anthony and have largely been irrelevant since. They had a couple of weak playoff runs in the East. I think if you're building a championship team you have to be methodical and accumulate sustainable talent that can play together long term. You have to keep a guy like Booker who looks like the next Klay Thompson.If we can add Simmons/Ingram/Rabb to the Booker/Warren core we might be alright in a few years.We have to start spending wisely and stop going for the quick fix which which landed us in this position. The whole rebuild while being competitive is a bill of goods.

[Mulhollanddrive]

Griffin is the star player McDonough would go after.

I know this board has said no to including Goodwin for George or Booker for Harden or Len for Cousins etc...

I'm personally not sure which road is better.

[Frank Lee]

......, so I find it funny that now that he's gone east, upped his numbers a little bit with a more expanded role (expected since he's the only guy at PG there), that people wish we could've kept him. He was always really good.

You keep IT... you don't trade for Knight. You don't trade for Knight, you retain what could be a top pick. You also don't spend 70mil on a 23yr old with hopes he 'gets it' one day.

So its basically

IT at 7 mill X 3 plus fLaker pick (with protection)
or
Knight at 14 mil x 5 plus Cleve pick (likely 25+)

at least acknowledge its much more than just Thomas vs Knight. Don't vacuum pack your opinions for convenience.

Furthermore, if you had to trade the above packages, which one would have more value ? Which one would be easier to trade ?

I have a feeling we will be keeping Knight for a while, and it may not be entirely by choice. He certainly hasn't lived up to the shining armor some here suit him in. Definitely needs more polish.


PS... a Griffin trade is for the pipers. We don't have the pieces to swing a block buster right now. We might be able to coat tail a big deal as a third party facilitator, but even that is unlikely to produce much.

[SideSwipe]

Right. Giving up all of our assets for Blake (not that the Clippers would ever consider it) would be like the Knicks trading for Carmelo. They gave up everything they had of value except Amare for 26-year-old Anthony and have largely been irrelevant since. They had a couple of weak playoff runs in the East. I think if you're building a championship team you have to be methodical and accumulate sustainable talent that can play together long term. You have to keep a guy like Booker who looks like the next Klay Thompson.If we can add Simmons/Ingram/Rabb to the Booker/Warren core we might be alright in a few years.We have to start spending wisely and stop going for the quick fix which which landed us in this position. The whole rebuild while being competitive is a bill of goods.

One problem with above analysis on Griffin trades-not just Carey's. PHX would have a lot left after grabbing Griffin. this would not be a repeat of the Knicks who only had Amare. We would have Bled, Knight, Chandler, Tucker, Warren and Len in the scenario I posted above. There are plenty of assets there to grab additional players from other teams via trade, or grab during the offseason with $20 million in FA dollars (Batum, Barnes, Conley....) I think that team could be well ahead of the Knicks and depending on how the chips fall would have a chance to be much better.

I love potential, but winning teams and championship teams are made from players that know how to play the game. Griffin knows how to play the game. He has gotten better every year. He has added a very consistent mid-range game and shoots threes pretty well too. He has adapted. He would also have the affect of attracting additional FA's, I think. His biggest weakness is his defense, but if he improved in other areas, there is no reason why he wouldn't continue there. I think McD would pull the trigger if Griffin is available, and I would applaud him for taking the risk.

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Right. Giving up all of our assets for Blake (not that the Clippers would ever consider it) would be like the Knicks trading for Carmelo. They gave up everything they had of value except Amare for 26-year-old Anthony and have largely been irrelevant since. They had a couple of weak playoff runs in the East. I think if you're building a championship team you have to be methodical and accumulate sustainable talent that can play together long term. You have to keep a guy like Booker who looks like the next Klay Thompson.If we can add Simmons/Ingram/Rabb to the Booker/Warren core we might be alright in a few years.We have to start spending wisely and stop going for the quick fix which which landed us in this position. The whole rebuild while being competitive is a bill of goods.

One problem with above analysis on Griffin trades-not just Carey's. PHX would have a lot left after grabbing Griffin. this would not be a repeat of the Knicks who only had Amare. We would have Bled, Knight, Chandler, Tucker, Warren and Len in the scenario I posted above. There are plenty of assets there to grab additional players from other teams via trade, or grab during the offseason with $20 million in FA dollars (Batum, Barnes, Conley....) I think that team could be well ahead of the Knicks and depending on how the chips fall would have a chance to be much better.

I love potential, but winning teams and championship teams are made from players that know how to play the game. Griffin knows how to play the game. He has gotten better every year. He has added a very consistent mid-range game and shoots threes pretty well too. He has adapted. He would also have the affect of attracting additional FA's, I think. His biggest weakness is his defense, but if he improved in other areas, there is no reason why he wouldn't continue there. I think McD would pull the trigger if Griffin is available, and I would applaud him for taking the risk.

I strongly agree with Carey's statement generally. And I'm starting to think that Booker alone might be too high a price to pay for Griffin, much the way that Thompson was too high a price to pay for Love, and Curry to high a price to pay for Amare. I certainly wouldn't give up Booker *and picks* for Griffin. But I also think it's interesting that we finally appear to have assets sufficiently valuable to trade for a superstar.

Much depends on what McD thinks might be coming his way in the draft. Booker's a solid building block, as are some of our other young players. Another one is likely coming our way in the draft.

Now, I think it's essentially unfathomable that the Clippers would trade Griffin this season. We'd be in a stronger bargaining position by the time the draft rolls around, especially if it's clear that the Clippers are prepared to rebuild. Would we be interested then? Well, if Simmons is coming our way, probably not. Overall, it's probably not a good idea for us in most cases. But this would be the first superstar since Love to be available in trade, so we'd obviously talk to the Clippers about it.

[kennydorglas]

With Doc Rivers being their GM, anything can happen. Seriously.
I wouldnt be surprised if they sell low on Griffin just because Rivers fell in love with some scrub.
This can definitely happen.

[saintEscaton]

With Doc Rivers being their GM, anything can happen. Seriously.
I wouldnt be surprised if they sell low on Griffin just because Rivers fell in love with some scrub.
This can definitely happen.

You would think he learnt a lesson after being fleeced as a willing sucka by McD. Don't see him dealing with us

[NavLDO]

Spoiler:

I am not a fan of the line of thinking that there is no reason to compete now because of the Warriors or Spurs.

First off, the Spurs do not scare me at all. I watched them get annihilated against the Warriors and smoked tonight by the Cavaliers. Both games they did not have Duncan and looked nothing like the Spurs of old. I am not sure people realize how important Duncan is to the team. He is everything. Without him, they are not the same. LaMarcus Aldridge is nowhere near the player Duncan is. He is not even in the same stratosphere. Sure the Spurs will probably be a top team but the overpowering, greatest power forward of all time is most likely soon to be retired, as is Ginobili. It is hard to stay a championship contender when two of your most important players are old and/or retired. Even Parker is starting to get up there in age.

The Warriors are amazing but so what. Are the Suns supposed to concede the next decade because of Steph Curry? Screw that. All it takes is one or two lucky moves to get the Suns back into contention. The Suns will hopefully have a top three draft pick. They have some young players with big potential. Idk what kinds of trades will be made but there most likely will be some big ones. I do not want to sit around and watch terrible basketball for five more years. I want the Suns to get better much sooner than that. I think it can be done as long as no stupid moves are made ala pretty much everything that happened last offseason.

No one is really saying be terrible for 5 years... no, I dont want the Suns to be 76ers and just tank year after year.

But the point is, you have to BUILD a team. Either via FA or Draft. FA wise, the Suns are limited, no one wants to come to the Suns.. well no one in their prime, Suns reputation is currently in the bottom rung of the NBA, you have to build that up slowly.
By having assets (picks), young GOOD players, ability to make more moves etc... thats attractive to stars. They are not idiots, they can gauge how a team will do by looking at its assets and player list.


2ndly, the Spurs doesnt scare you.. fair enough. But they still destroyed the Suns by 20 points WITHOUT Duncan and their starters playing average. So they arent scary to you but they are a much much better TEAM than the Suns.

You mentioned the Warriors... Well... their basketball style, their location (San Francisco), their ownership, their fans... they have the recipe to be the modern-day Lakers... they are revolutionizing the game. The Spurs have been a 60% win team for 20 years... 5 championships... they arent going away easily... Warriors are potentially a team on a similar path...

So yes, there IS NO POINT waiting for the Warriors or Spurs to drop off, because another team will just join them if they drop off a bit from the top... but the Suns should be laying down the foundation this season for a great decade or 2.

Hence Sarver rushing the Suns is detrimental to the future.... McD wants a long term solution when he joined only to be told to rush.. and the team you see today is the results of that.

The best move is to continue to develop the youth, get a high pick in the 2016 draft.... keep salary space for 2017 and beyond.... either develop a team from the under 23 list or trade the picks for All-Stars. But EVERY team aims to get All-Stars... hence you have to strategically gauge the market and what teams are doing.


2017, should be the Suns pushing for 35-45 wins... via young players.
2018, use the space and assets to push for a top 4-5 Western position.... then go from there.

I agree with your sentiment; the problem is, half the fans are of the 'win now' mentality as well; it's not only Sarver. Sarver is in the business of making money, and no one wants to watch a 20-62 team, thus they aren't going to PAY to see a 20-62 team. That's why it's so hard to convince an owner to build slowly. They see some other teams that end up being 'overnight' successes, and reason to themselves, 'why can't that be us?' As has been mentioned on this forum before, us going 48-34 a couple of years ago was probably the worst thing that could've happened. It takes all the 'patience mode' away, and everyone is all in for a 'win now' team. Problem was, we overachieved that season, tried to add to the 'house of cards' that was the Suns, and it all came tumbling down.

But now, we have fans that want to 'Fire Hornacek !!' or 'Fire McD !!' because we stink. But had we been like this 2 seasons ago, more fans would've been receptive to giving them a couple of seasons to build a team. But thanks to that 48-34 team, we tried to build on it with IT, Knight, and now Chandler. Now, we are stuck with $14M and $13M contracts for three, non-premium players in Bledsoe, Knight, and Chandler. Some posters try to say that these aren't overly bad contracts thanks to the increase in Salary Cap. But when we have $41M tied up in 3 players, which leaves $29M for the other players for this season, and leaves MAYBE $45ishM for next season, it's still almost half the Salary Cap. So yes, $14M for a non-all-star-level player like Knight and Bledsoe is a bad contract; $13M per for a 33YO non-all-star is also bad contract. Having one of those? OK, but THREE? Not ok. We are in a bad spot right now, and had we not had that 48-34 season, I'd lay bets on the fact that we don't give Knight and/or Chandler those contracts.

IMO, we need to build upon: Booker, Len, Warren, Goodwin (as a bench combo guard), Bledsoe, Bogdanovic, and Leuer, and if McRae shows he's worth it, bring him on a cheap contract. We allow Tucker to 'finish' his contract next season. That's 8 players under the age of 27, and one 'cagey vet' in Tucker. Are any of them All-Stars? No, they aren't...yet. But somehow, we need to dump Knight, Chandler, Kieff, Weems, Price, and let Tele finish his season.

Then, we build upon those 8 players. The problem lies in how to get rid of Chandler, Knight, and Kieff. We need to convince a team to take on Chandler, and another team to take on Knight. We take on two expirings, or two players that have contracts that don't last beyond 2017. IF we can do this, we can target our '17-'18 as the FIRST year of our being an 8th-Seed-level team.

Players we should target?

Celtics--Lee - $15.5M Expiring, Johnson - $12M Expiring (Team Option '16)
Hawks--Horford - $12M Expiring
Nets--Johnson - $25M Expiring
Hornets--Jefferson - $13.5M Expiring; Batum - $13M Expiring
Bulls--Noah - $13.4M Expiring
Cavs--Varajao - $9.6M Expiring (Team Option '16 and '17)
Mavs--Parsons - $15.5M, ($16.3M 16'-17'); Zaza $5.2M Expiring
Detroit--Ilyasova - $8.4M (TO '16); Jennings - $8.3M Expiring
Warriors--Iguodala - $11.7M, $11.1M in '16
Houston--Howard - $22.3M, $22.3M in '16; Lawson - $12.4M (TO '16)
Pacers--Hill - $8M, $8M in '16; Budinger, Mahinmi, Hill all Exprirings, $5M, $4M, $4M
Clippers--Redick $7.1M, $7.4M in '16
Hibbert--$15.6M Expiring
Memphis--Conley - $9.6M; Green - $9.2M; Lee - $5.7M -- ALL Expirings
Heat--Deng - $10.1M Expiring; Anderson - $5M Expiring
Bucks--Mayo - $8M Expiring; Vasquez - $6.6M Expiring
Minny--KMart - $7.1M, $7.4M in '16
Nawlins'--Gordon - $15.5M; Anderson - $8.5M
Knicks--Afflalo - $8M, $8M PO in '16; Calderon - $7.4M, 7.7M in '16
OKC--Ibaka - $12.3M, $12.3M in '16 (Though, this would likely cost us a young player or two)
Orlando--Jason Smith - $4.3M (ORL is heavily invested in quite a few players; maybe they 'sell' Oladipo on the cheap?)
Blazers--Henderson - $6M Expiring; Kaman - $5M Expiring
Kings--Rondo - $9.5M Expiring
Spurs--Diaw - $7.5M ($7M and $7.5M TO in '16 and '17)
Raptors--DeRozan - $10.1M, $10.1M PO in '16 ; Patterson - $6.3M, $6.1M in '16
Utah--T. Booker - $4.8M Expiring
Wizards--Nene - $13M Expiring

Whew...OK...so I know that WE wouldn't be interested in a good number of these guys long-term, and I know the other team won't necessarily be interested in any one of Knight, Chandler, or Kieff. What I do THINK, however, is that at least one of these teams will likely be interested in one of these 3 by the trade deadline.

Thoughts?

[bwgood77]

Spoiler:

I am not a fan of the line of thinking that there is no reason to compete now because of the Warriors or Spurs.

First off, the Spurs do not scare me at all. I watched them get annihilated against the Warriors and smoked tonight by the Cavaliers. Both games they did not have Duncan and looked nothing like the Spurs of old. I am not sure people realize how important Duncan is to the team. He is everything. Without him, they are not the same. LaMarcus Aldridge is nowhere near the player Duncan is. He is not even in the same stratosphere. Sure the Spurs will probably be a top team but the overpowering, greatest power forward of all time is most likely soon to be retired, as is Ginobili. It is hard to stay a championship contender when two of your most important players are old and/or retired. Even Parker is starting to get up there in age.

The Warriors are amazing but so what. Are the Suns supposed to concede the next decade because of Steph Curry? Screw that. All it takes is one or two lucky moves to get the Suns back into contention. The Suns will hopefully have a top three draft pick. They have some young players with big potential. Idk what kinds of trades will be made but there most likely will be some big ones. I do not want to sit around and watch terrible basketball for five more years. I want the Suns to get better much sooner than that. I think it can be done as long as no stupid moves are made ala pretty much everything that happened last offseason.

No one is really saying be terrible for 5 years... no, I dont want the Suns to be 76ers and just tank year after year.

But the point is, you have to BUILD a team. Either via FA or Draft. FA wise, the Suns are limited, no one wants to come to the Suns.. well no one in their prime, Suns reputation is currently in the bottom rung of the NBA, you have to build that up slowly.
By having assets (picks), young GOOD players, ability to make more moves etc... thats attractive to stars. They are not idiots, they can gauge how a team will do by looking at its assets and player list.


2ndly, the Spurs doesnt scare you.. fair enough. But they still destroyed the Suns by 20 points WITHOUT Duncan and their starters playing average. So they arent scary to you but they are a much much better TEAM than the Suns.

You mentioned the Warriors... Well... their basketball style, their location (San Francisco), their ownership, their fans... they have the recipe to be the modern-day Lakers... they are revolutionizing the game. The Spurs have been a 60% win team for 20 years... 5 championships... they arent going away easily... Warriors are potentially a team on a similar path...

So yes, there IS NO POINT waiting for the Warriors or Spurs to drop off, because another team will just join them if they drop off a bit from the top... but the Suns should be laying down the foundation this season for a great decade or 2.

Hence Sarver rushing the Suns is detrimental to the future.... McD wants a long term solution when he joined only to be told to rush.. and the team you see today is the results of that.

The best move is to continue to develop the youth, get a high pick in the 2016 draft.... keep salary space for 2017 and beyond.... either develop a team from the under 23 list or trade the picks for All-Stars. But EVERY team aims to get All-Stars... hence you have to strategically gauge the market and what teams are doing.


2017, should be the Suns pushing for 35-45 wins... via young players.
2018, use the space and assets to push for a top 4-5 Western position.... then go from there.

I agree with your sentiment; the problem is, half the fans are of the 'win now' mentality as well; it's not only Sarver. Sarver is in the business of making money, and no one wants to watch a 20-62 team, thus they aren't going to PAY to see a 20-62 team. That's why t's so hard to convince an owner to build slowly. They see some other teams that end up being 'overnight' successes, and reason to themselves, 'why can't that be us?' As has been mentioned on this forum before, us going 48-34 a couple of years ago was probably the worst thing that could've happened. It takes all the 'patience mode' away, and everyone is all in for a 'win now' team. Problem was, we overachieved that season, tried to add to the 'house of cards' that was the Suns, and it all came tumbling down.

But now, we have fans that want to 'Fire Hornacek !!' or 'Fire McD !!' because we stink. But had we been like this 2 seasons ago, more fans would've been receptive to giving them a couple of seasons to build a team. But thanks to that 48-34 team, we tried to build on it with IT, Knight, and now Chandler. Now, we are stuck with $14M and $13M contracts for three, non-premium players in Bledsoe, Knight, and Chandler. Some posters try to say that these aren't overly bad contracts thanks to the increase in Salary Cap. But when we have $41M tied up in 3 players, which leaves $29M for the other players for this season, and leaves MAYBE $45ishM for next season, it's still almost half the Salary Cap. So yes, $14M for a non-all-star-level player like Knight and Bledsoe is a bad contract; $13M per for a 33YO non-all-star is also bad contract. Having one of those? OK, but THREE? Not ok. We are in a bad spot right now, and had we not had that 48-34 season, I'd lay bets on the fact that we don't give Knight and/or Chandler those contracts.

IMO, we need to build upon: Booker, Len, Warren, Goodwin (as a bench combo guard), Bledsoe, Bogdanovic, and Leuer, and if McRae shows he's worth it, bring him on a cheap contract. We allow Tucker to 'finish' his contract next season. That's 8 players under the age of 27, and one 'cagey vet' in Tucker. Are any of them All-Stars? No, they aren't...yet. But somehow, we need to dump Knight, Chandler, Kieff, Weems, Price, and let Tele finish his season.

Then, we build upon those 8 players. The problem lies in how to get rid of Chandler, Knight, and Kieff. We need to convince a team to take on Chandler, and another team to take on Knight. We take on two expirings, or two players that have contracts that don't last beyond 2017. IF we can do this, we can target our '17-'18 as the FIRST year of our being an 8th-Seed-level team.

Players we should target?

Celtics--Lee - $15.5M Expiring, Johnson - $12M Expiring (Team Option '16)
Hawks--Horford - $12M Expiring
Nets--Johnson - $25M Expiring
Hornets--Jefferson - $13.5M Expiring; Batum - $13M Expiring
Bulls--Noah - $13.4M Expiring
Cavs--Varajao - $9.6M Expiring (Team Option '16 and '17)
Mavs--Parsons - $15.5M, ($16.3M 16'-17'); Zaza $5.2M Expiring
Detroit--Ilyasova - $8.4M (TO '16); $8.3M Expiring
Warriors--Iguodala - $11.7M, $11.1M in '16
Houston--Howard - $22.3M, $22.3M in '16; Lawson - $12.4M (TO '16)
Pacers--Hill - $8M, $8M in '16; Budinger, Mahinmi, Hill all Exprirings, $5M, $4M, $4M
Clippers--Redick $7.1M, $7,4M in '16
Hibbert--$15.6M Expiring
Memphis--Conley - $9.6M;Green - $9.2M; Lee - $5.7M -- ALL Expirings
Heat--Deng - $10.1M Expiring; Anderson - $5M Expiring
Bucks--Mayo - $8M Expiring; Vasquez - $6.6M Expiring
Minny--KMart - $7.1M, $7.4M in '16
Nawlins'--Gordon - $15.5M; Anderson - $8.5M
Knicks--Afflalo - $8M, $8M PO in '16; Calderon - $7.4M, 7.7M in '16
OKC--Ibaka - $12.3M, $12.3M in '16 (Though, this would likely cost us a young player or two)
Orlando--Jason Smith - $4.3M (ORL is heavily invested in quite a few players; maybe they 'sell' Oladipo on the cheap?)
Blazers--Henderson - $6M Expiring; Kaman - $5M Expiring
Kings--Rondo - $9.5M Expiring
Spurs--Diaw - $7.5M ($7M and $7.5M TO in '16 and '17)
Raptors--DeRozan - $10.1M, $10.1M PO in '16 ; Patterson - $6.3M, $6.1M in '16
Utah--T. Booker - $4.8M Expiring
Wizards--Nene - $13M Expiring

Whew...OK...so I know that WE wouldn't be interested in a good number of these guys long-term, and I know the other team won't necessarily be interested in any one of Knight, Chandler, or Kieff. What I do THINK, however, is that at least one of these teams will likely be interested in one of these 3 by the trade deadline.

Thoughts?

Sounds reasonable to me, but I'd be a little surprised if Knight was traded this soon, since he gave up what he did to get him. Chandler not as much, because I think he might rather play for a playoff team if one wants him. The main one we HAVE to get rid of his Kieff.

[NavLDO]

Spoiler:

No one is really saying be terrible for 5 years... no, I dont want the Suns to be 76ers and just tank year after year.

But the point is, you have to BUILD a team. Either via FA or Draft. FA wise, the Suns are limited, no one wants to come to the Suns.. well no one in their prime, Suns reputation is currently in the bottom rung of the NBA, you have to build that up slowly.
By having assets (picks), young GOOD players, ability to make more moves etc... thats attractive to stars. They are not idiots, they can gauge how a team will do by looking at its assets and player list.


2ndly, the Spurs doesnt scare you.. fair enough. But they still destroyed the Suns by 20 points WITHOUT Duncan and their starters playing average. So they arent scary to you but they are a much much better TEAM than the Suns.

You mentioned the Warriors... Well... their basketball style, their location (San Francisco), their ownership, their fans... they have the recipe to be the modern-day Lakers... they are revolutionizing the game. The Spurs have been a 60% win team for 20 years... 5 championships... they arent going away easily... Warriors are potentially a team on a similar path...

So yes, there IS NO POINT waiting for the Warriors or Spurs to drop off, because another team will just join them if they drop off a bit from the top... but the Suns should be laying down the foundation this season for a great decade or 2.

Hence Sarver rushing the Suns is detrimental to the future.... McD wants a long term solution when he joined only to be told to rush.. and the team you see today is the results of that.

The best move is to continue to develop the youth, get a high pick in the 2016 draft.... keep salary space for 2017 and beyond.... either develop a team from the under 23 list or trade the picks for All-Stars. But EVERY team aims to get All-Stars... hence you have to strategically gauge the market and what teams are doing.


2017, should be the Suns pushing for 35-45 wins... via young players.
2018, use the space and assets to push for a top 4-5 Western position.... then go from there.

I agree with your sentiment; the problem is, half the fans are of the 'win now' mentality as well; it's not only Sarver. Sarver is in the business of making money, and no one wants to watch a 20-62 team, thus they aren't going to PAY to see a 20-62 team. That's why t's so hard to convince an owner to build slowly. They see some other teams that end up being 'overnight' successes, and reason to themselves, 'why can't that be us?' As has been mentioned on this forum before, us going 48-34 a couple of years ago was probably the worst thing that could've happened. It takes all the 'patience mode' away, and everyone is all in for a 'win now' team. Problem was, we overachieved that season, tried to add to the 'house of cards' that was the Suns, and it all came tumbling down.

But now, we have fans that want to 'Fire Hornacek !!' or 'Fire McD !!' because we stink. But had we been like this 2 seasons ago, more fans would've been receptive to giving them a couple of seasons to build a team. But thanks to that 48-34 team, we tried to build on it with IT, Knight, and now Chandler. Now, we are stuck with $14M and $13M contracts for three, non-premium players in Bledsoe, Knight, and Chandler. Some posters try to say that these aren't overly bad contracts thanks to the increase in Salary Cap. But when we have $41M tied up in 3 players, which leaves $29M for the other players for this season, and leaves MAYBE $45ishM for next season, it's still almost half the Salary Cap. So yes, $14M for a non-all-star-level player like Knight and Bledsoe is a bad contract; $13M per for a 33YO non-all-star is also bad contract. Having one of those? OK, but THREE? Not ok. We are in a bad spot right now, and had we not had that 48-34 season, I'd lay bets on the fact that we don't give Knight and/or Chandler those contracts.

IMO, we need to build upon: Booker, Len, Warren, Goodwin (as a bench combo guard), Bledsoe, Bogdanovic, and Leuer, and if McRae shows he's worth it, bring him on a cheap contract. We allow Tucker to 'finish' his contract next season. That's 8 players under the age of 27, and one 'cagey vet' in Tucker. Are any of them All-Stars? No, they aren't...yet. But somehow, we need to dump Knight, Chandler, Kieff, Weems, Price, and let Tele finish his season.

Then, we build upon those 8 players. The problem lies in how to get rid of Chandler, Knight, and Kieff. We need to convince a team to take on Chandler, and another team to take on Knight. We take on two expirings, or two players that have contracts that don't last beyond 2017. IF we can do this, we can target our '17-'18 as the FIRST year of our being an 8th-Seed-level team.

Players we should target?

Celtics--Lee - $15.5M Expiring, Johnson - $12M Expiring (Team Option '16)
Hawks--Horford - $12M Expiring
Nets--Johnson - $25M Expiring
Hornets--Jefferson - $13.5M Expiring; Batum - $13M Expiring
Bulls--Noah - $13.4M Expiring
Cavs--Varajao - $9.6M Expiring (Team Option '16 and '17)
Mavs--Parsons - $15.5M, ($16.3M 16'-17'); Zaza $5.2M Expiring
Detroit--Ilyasova - $8.4M (TO '16); $8.3M Expiring
Warriors--Iguodala - $11.7M, $11.1M in '16
Houston--Howard - $22.3M, $22.3M in '16; Lawson - $12.4M (TO '16)
Pacers--Hill - $8M, $8M in '16; Budinger, Mahinmi, Hill all Exprirings, $5M, $4M, $4M
Clippers--Redick $7.1M, $7,4M in '16
Hibbert--$15.6M Expiring
Memphis--Conley - $9.6M;Green - $9.2M; Lee - $5.7M -- ALL Expirings
Heat--Deng - $10.1M Expiring; Anderson - $5M Expiring
Bucks--Mayo - $8M Expiring; Vasquez - $6.6M Expiring
Minny--KMart - $7.1M, $7.4M in '16
Nawlins'--Gordon - $15.5M; Anderson - $8.5M
Knicks--Afflalo - $8M, $8M PO in '16; Calderon - $7.4M, 7.7M in '16
OKC--Ibaka - $12.3M, $12.3M in '16 (Though, this would likely cost us a young player or two)
Orlando--Jason Smith - $4.3M (ORL is heavily invested in quite a few players; maybe they 'sell' Oladipo on the cheap?)
Blazers--Henderson - $6M Expiring; Kaman - $5M Expiring
Kings--Rondo - $9.5M Expiring
Spurs--Diaw - $7.5M ($7M and $7.5M TO in '16 and '17)
Raptors--DeRozan - $10.1M, $10.1M PO in '16 ; Patterson - $6.3M, $6.1M in '16
Utah--T. Booker - $4.8M Expiring
Wizards--Nene - $13M Expiring

Whew...OK...so I know that WE wouldn't be interested in a good number of these guys long-term, and I know the other team won't necessarily be interested in any one of Knight, Chandler, or Kieff. What I do THINK, however, is that at least one of these teams will likely be interested in one of these 3 by the trade deadline.

Thoughts?

Sounds reasonable to me, but I'd be a little surprised if Knight was traded this soon, since he gave up what he did to get him. Chandler not as much, because I think he might rather play for a playoff team if one wants him. The main one we HAVE to get rid of his Kieff.

What you say makes sense. I hope it comes to fruition. I could live with Knight and Bledsoe at $28-$29M for another couple of years, I guess. $29M for Bledsoe/Knight is much more palatable than $50M for Bledsoe/Knight/Chandler/Kieff during that same time. Think about that for a minute. This season, the Cap is set at $70M. We invested $48M in 4 players; that's roughly equivalent to 70%; and that' roughly equivalent to 25% of our roster eating up 70% of our Salary Cap. That would be ok if we had a couple of current All-NBA players; the problem, of course, is that is not the case. Which is why, IMO, we need to 'dispose of' at least two of those contracts prior to the beginning of this next season. If those contracts are 'replaced' by two contracts that expire by the end of next season, we'll be better off for sure. If we can 'dump' those contracts by the end of this season, we'll be in really good shape heading into next season; so long as McD doesn't bury us again in another bad contract that goes beyond the end of next season.

[thamadkant]

Spoiler:

I am not a fan of the line of thinking that there is no reason to compete now because of the Warriors or Spurs.

First off, the Spurs do not scare me at all. I watched them get annihilated against the Warriors and smoked tonight by the Cavaliers. Both games they did not have Duncan and looked nothing like the Spurs of old. I am not sure people realize how important Duncan is to the team. He is everything. Without him, they are not the same. LaMarcus Aldridge is nowhere near the player Duncan is. He is not even in the same stratosphere. Sure the Spurs will probably be a top team but the overpowering, greatest power forward of all time is most likely soon to be retired, as is Ginobili. It is hard to stay a championship contender when two of your most important players are old and/or retired. Even Parker is starting to get up there in age.

The Warriors are amazing but so what. Are the Suns supposed to concede the next decade because of Steph Curry? Screw that. All it takes is one or two lucky moves to get the Suns back into contention. The Suns will hopefully have a top three draft pick. They have some young players with big potential. Idk what kinds of trades will be made but there most likely will be some big ones. I do not want to sit around and watch terrible basketball for five more years. I want the Suns to get better much sooner than that. I think it can be done as long as no stupid moves are made ala pretty much everything that happened last offseason.

No one is really saying be terrible for 5 years... no, I dont want the Suns to be 76ers and just tank year after year.

But the point is, you have to BUILD a team. Either via FA or Draft. FA wise, the Suns are limited, no one wants to come to the Suns.. well no one in their prime, Suns reputation is currently in the bottom rung of the NBA, you have to build that up slowly.
By having assets (picks), young GOOD players, ability to make more moves etc... thats attractive to stars. They are not idiots, they can gauge how a team will do by looking at its assets and player list.


2ndly, the Spurs doesnt scare you.. fair enough. But they still destroyed the Suns by 20 points WITHOUT Duncan and their starters playing average. So they arent scary to you but they are a much much better TEAM than the Suns.

You mentioned the Warriors... Well... their basketball style, their location (San Francisco), their ownership, their fans... they have the recipe to be the modern-day Lakers... they are revolutionizing the game. The Spurs have been a 60% win team for 20 years... 5 championships... they arent going away easily... Warriors are potentially a team on a similar path...

So yes, there IS NO POINT waiting for the Warriors or Spurs to drop off, because another team will just join them if they drop off a bit from the top... but the Suns should be laying down the foundation this season for a great decade or 2.

Hence Sarver rushing the Suns is detrimental to the future.... McD wants a long term solution when he joined only to be told to rush.. and the team you see today is the results of that.

The best move is to continue to develop the youth, get a high pick in the 2016 draft.... keep salary space for 2017 and beyond.... either develop a team from the under 23 list or trade the picks for All-Stars. But EVERY team aims to get All-Stars... hence you have to strategically gauge the market and what teams are doing.


2017, should be the Suns pushing for 35-45 wins... via young players.
2018, use the space and assets to push for a top 4-5 Western position.... then go from there.

I agree with your sentiment; the problem is, half the fans are of the 'win now' mentality as well; it's not only Sarver. Sarver is in the business of making money, and no one wants to watch a 20-62 team, thus they aren't going to PAY to see a 20-62 team. That's why it's so hard to convince an owner to build slowly. They see some other teams that end up being 'overnight' successes, and reason to themselves, 'why can't that be us?' As has been mentioned on this forum before, us going 48-34 a couple of years ago was probably the worst thing that could've happened. It takes all the 'patience mode' away, and everyone is all in for a 'win now' team. Problem was, we overachieved that season, tried to add to the 'house of cards' that was the Suns, and it all came tumbling down.

But now, we have fans that want to 'Fire Hornacek !!' or 'Fire McD !!' because we stink. But had we been like this 2 seasons ago, more fans would've been receptive to giving them a couple of seasons to build a team. But thanks to that 48-34 team, we tried to build on it with IT, Knight, and now Chandler. Now, we are stuck with $14M and $13M contracts for three, non-premium players in Bledsoe, Knight, and Chandler. Some posters try to say that these aren't overly bad contracts thanks to the increase in Salary Cap. But when we have $41M tied up in 3 players, which leaves $29M for the other players for this season, and leaves MAYBE $45ishM for next season, it's still almost half the Salary Cap. So yes, $14M for a non-all-star-level player like Knight and Bledsoe is a bad contract; $13M per for a 33YO non-all-star is also bad contract. Having one of those? OK, but THREE? Not ok. We are in a bad spot right now, and had we not had that 48-34 season, I'd lay bets on the fact that we don't give Knight and/or Chandler those contracts.

IMO, we need to build upon: Booker, Len, Warren, Goodwin (as a bench combo guard), Bledsoe, Bogdanovic, and Leuer, and if McRae shows he's worth it, bring him on a cheap contract. We allow Tucker to 'finish' his contract next season. That's 8 players under the age of 27, and one 'cagey vet' in Tucker. Are any of them All-Stars? No, they aren't...yet. But somehow, we need to dump Knight, Chandler, Kieff, Weems, Price, and let Tele finish his season.

Then, we build upon those 8 players. The problem lies in how to get rid of Chandler, Knight, and Kieff. We need to convince a team to take on Chandler, and another team to take on Knight. We take on two expirings, or two players that have contracts that don't last beyond 2017. IF we can do this, we can target our '17-'18 as the FIRST year of our being an 8th-Seed-level team.

Players we should target?

Celtics--Lee - $15.5M Expiring, Johnson - $12M Expiring (Team Option '16)
Hawks--Horford - $12M Expiring
Nets--Johnson - $25M Expiring
Hornets--Jefferson - $13.5M Expiring; Batum - $13M Expiring
Bulls--Noah - $13.4M Expiring
Cavs--Varajao - $9.6M Expiring (Team Option '16 and '17)
Mavs--Parsons - $15.5M, ($16.3M 16'-17'); Zaza $5.2M Expiring
Detroit--Ilyasova - $8.4M (TO '16); Jennings - $8.3M Expiring
Warriors--Iguodala - $11.7M, $11.1M in '16
Houston--Howard - $22.3M, $22.3M in '16; Lawson - $12.4M (TO '16)
Pacers--Hill - $8M, $8M in '16; Budinger, Mahinmi, Hill all Exprirings, $5M, $4M, $4M
Clippers--Redick $7.1M, $7.4M in '16
Hibbert--$15.6M Expiring
Memphis--Conley - $9.6M; Green - $9.2M; Lee - $5.7M -- ALL Expirings
Heat--Deng - $10.1M Expiring; Anderson - $5M Expiring
Bucks--Mayo - $8M Expiring; Vasquez - $6.6M Expiring
Minny--KMart - $7.1M, $7.4M in '16
Nawlins'--Gordon - $15.5M; Anderson - $8.5M
Knicks--Afflalo - $8M, $8M PO in '16; Calderon - $7.4M, 7.7M in '16
OKC--Ibaka - $12.3M, $12.3M in '16 (Though, this would likely cost us a young player or two)
Orlando--Jason Smith - $4.3M (ORL is heavily invested in quite a few players; maybe they 'sell' Oladipo on the cheap?)
Blazers--Henderson - $6M Expiring; Kaman - $5M Expiring
Kings--Rondo - $9.5M Expiring
Spurs--Diaw - $7.5M ($7M and $7.5M TO in '16 and '17)
Raptors--DeRozan - $10.1M, $10.1M PO in '16 ; Patterson - $6.3M, $6.1M in '16
Utah--T. Booker - $4.8M Expiring
Wizards--Nene - $13M Expiring

Whew...OK...so I know that WE wouldn't be interested in a good number of these guys long-term, and I know the other team won't necessarily be interested in any one of Knight, Chandler, or Kieff. What I do THINK, however, is that at least one of these teams will likely be interested in one of these 3 by the trade deadline.

Thoughts?

Players I would target.

Chandler for Noah, Noah is expiring.
Chandler, 2019 Heat pick for Whiteside, Deng (assuming Pat Riley wants to make a run at the ECF against James before he retires)
Chandler for Nene and a 2nd rounder.

Basically, I want to get rid of Chandler's contract, the Suns are not contending and his productivity is dependent on motivation and minutes.
Although, I think Chandler actually has better chemistry with Booker and Goodwin... those 3 make an effort to pass to each other.
Leuer, Teletovic come in and jack shot when they get a second to look at the ring, kills ball movement IMO.

[thamadkant]

I like the potential of this lineup.

C: Whiteside
PF: Simmons
SF: Warren
SG: Booker
PG: Goodwin
PF/C: Len
SF: Jerami Grant
PF: Leuer
PG/SG: McRae
PF/C: Jefferson

[saintEscaton]

I like the potential of this lineup.

C: Whiteside
PF: Simmons
SF: Warren
SG: Booker
PG: Goodwin
PF/C: Len
SF: Jerami Grant
PF: Leuer
PG/SG: McRae
PF/C: Jefferson

Archie as our longterm starting PG, really? I guess having Simmons as your primary ballhandler gives you more lineup flexibility to play three wings but still...

[thamadkant]

I like the potential of this lineup.

C: Whiteside
PF: Simmons
SF: Warren
SG: Booker
PG: Goodwin
PF/C: Len
SF: Jerami Grant
PF: Leuer
PG/SG: McRae
PF/C: Jefferson

Archie as our longterm starting PG, really? I guess having Simmons as your primary ballhandler gives you more lineup flexibility to play three wings but still...

I dont know, I think Goodwin can eventually replicate Bledsoe's numbers.
The thing is, Suns can indeed keep Bledsoe, but I think his effectiveness is time limited, as in he is 27 next season, but his style of play... he may regress sooner than later.

But I will see how he is next season.

I just really like what I see with the "BIG" back court, with more confidence and a defensive coach, they could be the answer against the 3pt shooting era.

[bwgood77]

I like the potential of this lineup.

C: Whiteside
PF: Simmons
SF: Warren
SG: Booker
PG: Goodwin
PF/C: Len
SF: Jerami Grant
PF: Leuer
PG/SG: McRae
PF/C: Jefferson

Archie as our longterm starting PG, really? I guess having Simmons as your primary ballhandler gives you more lineup flexibility to play three wings but still...

Exactly, but put Bledsoe in that spot, or if we did have Simmons running point, even Knight as purely a spot up shooter if he can ever accept that, then it looks good. Theoretically, since most all those guys are on rookie contracts, we could even keep both and have Knight as 6th man.

But a starting lineup with three guys that can't shoot will get murdered against the teams that can shoot.

[AtheJ415]

......, so I find it funny that now that he's gone east, upped his numbers a little bit with a more expanded role (expected since he's the only guy at PG there), that people wish we could've kept him. He was always really good.

You keep IT... you don't trade for Knight. You don't trade for Knight, you retain what could be a top pick. You also don't spend 70mil on a 23yr old with hopes he 'gets it' one day.

So its basically

IT at 7 mill X 3 plus fLaker pick (with protection)
or
Knight at 14 mil x 5 plus Cleve pick (likely 25+)

at least acknowledge its much more than just Thomas vs Knight. Don't vacuum pack your opinions for convenience.

Furthermore, if you had to trade the above packages, which one would have more value ? Which one would be easier to trade ?

I have a feeling we will be keeping Knight for a while, and it may not be entirely by choice. He certainly hasn't lived up to the shining armor some here suit him in. Definitely needs more polish.


PS... a Griffin trade is for the pipers. We don't have the pieces to swing a block buster right now. We might be able to coat tail a big deal as a third party facilitator, but even that is unlikely to produce much.

The Lakers pick is far from guaranteed to be a top pick. You keep discussing it as if the protection doesn't matter. It matters a hell of a lot.

[AtheJ415]

Heat and Suns...

Chandler + Tucker + 2019 Heat pick for Whiteside + Deng + Andersen

I know Len and Whiteside has history but they can patch it up.

Suns offer max to Whiteside in the off season.



Then...
Knight + Morris + Warren for Griffin (out fot 4 weeks)

Suns
C: Whiteside / Len / Andersen (expiring)
PF: Griffin (Out for 4 weeks) / Leuer / Jefferson
SF: Deng (expiring) / Booker / Weems
SG: Booker / Weems / McRae
PG: Goodwin / McRae / Price

Still a bottom 5 team but with expirings.

There's 0 point in trading for Whiteside. He has no bird rights. So we could just sign him in the offseason. Giving up the heat pick isn't worth it.

Miami can't even keep Whiteside in all likelihood. You have to make max space under the cap to sign him (for any team since no bird rights), so he's going to go to a team with a full $25 mil under the cap. He has almost no trade value.

[saintEscaton]

......, so I find it funny that now that he's gone east, upped his numbers a little bit with a more expanded role (expected since he's the only guy at PG there), that people wish we could've kept him. He was always really good.

You keep IT... you don't trade for Knight. You don't trade for Knight, you retain what could be a top pick. You also don't spend 70mil on a 23yr old with hopes he 'gets it' one day.

So its basically

IT at 7 mill X 3 plus fLaker pick (with protection)
or
Knight at 14 mil x 5 plus Cleve pick (likely 25+)

at least acknowledge its much more than just Thomas vs Knight. Don't vacuum pack your opinions for convenience.

Furthermore, if you had to trade the above packages, which one would have more value ? Which one would be easier to trade ?

I have a feeling we will be keeping Knight for a while, and it may not be entirely by choice. He certainly hasn't lived up to the shining armor some here suit him in. Definitely needs more polish.


PS... a Griffin trade is for the pipers. We don't have the pieces to swing a block buster right now. We might be able to coat tail a big deal as a third party facilitator, but even that is unlikely to produce much.

The Lakers pick is far from guaranteed to be a top pick. You keep discussing it as if the protection doesn't matter. It matters a hell of a lot.

Its only Top 3 protected for two more years and will become unprotected by 2018. The pick will likely be conveyed in a much better draft class

[AtheJ415]

You keep IT... you don't trade for Knight. You don't trade for Knight, you retain what could be a top pick. You also don't spend 70mil on a 23yr old with hopes he 'gets it' one day.

So its basically

IT at 7 mill X 3 plus fLaker pick (with protection)
or
Knight at 14 mil x 5 plus Cleve pick (likely 25+)

at least acknowledge its much more than just Thomas vs Knight. Don't vacuum pack your opinions for convenience.

Furthermore, if you had to trade the above packages, which one would have more value ? Which one would be easier to trade ?

I have a feeling we will be keeping Knight for a while, and it may not be entirely by choice. He certainly hasn't lived up to the shining armor some here suit him in. Definitely needs more polish.


PS... a Griffin trade is for the pipers. We don't have the pieces to swing a block buster right now. We might be able to coat tail a big deal as a third party facilitator, but even that is unlikely to produce much.

The Lakers pick is far from guaranteed to be a top pick. You keep discussing it as if the protection doesn't matter. It matters a hell of a lot.

Its only Top 3 protected for two more years and will become unprotected by 2018. The pick will likely be conveyed in a much better draft class

So now you're assuming the Lakers will be this bad for a couple more years, even though Kobe is leaving and they'll have buckets of cap space. LA, without Kobe, will sign some guys that will put them in late lotto land.

[NavLDO]

You keep IT... you don't trade for Knight. You don't trade for Knight, you retain what could be a top pick. You also don't spend 70mil on a 23yr old with hopes he 'gets it' one day.

So its basically

IT at 7 mill X 3 plus fLaker pick (with protection)
or
Knight at 14 mil x 5 plus Cleve pick (likely 25+)

at least acknowledge its much more than just Thomas vs Knight. Don't vacuum pack your opinions for convenience.

Hindsight's a beautiful thing, Frank. Much easier to condemn after the fact, than it is to decide to make the deal at the time.

Let's also not forget that Knight was 4th in All-Star voting, while IT wasn't anywhere close, and IT is 2 years, 10 months older. Also, IT is 5'10', with a 6'2" Wingspan and 7'8" Reach, whereas Knight is 6'3", with a 6'8" Wingspan and 8'3" Reach--he's got a 5"-7" advantage in all aspects. And IT is purely a PG, whereas Knight is more SG than PG, and I a better 'fit' next to Bledsoe. Of course the pick tied to IT is going to be better, as on paper Knight is the better prospect. And IT had a lot of issues on this team, we didn't know then, that Knight was going to have issues. Leave IT on this team, and leave Brandon Knight on the Bucks, and any guesses who would look better this year, right now? I don't. People would be bashing IT just like last year for the same issues he had last year, and give fans the knowledge that we almost traded for Knight, and they would be pining for Knight, wishing we would've signed him and traded IT.

Again, hindsight is 20/20; a lot harder to project these issues than it is to look back and say "Wow, that was a horrible deal."