Trade Deadline Countdown Pre-Febuary Deadline

[Donald_Trade]

The Googs trade was done by the Colangelo regime.

Also it is far from the worst.

The Iguodala trade coupled with the Q-Rich signing (also Colangelo moves) was the worst. If you remember the #7(Deng but Iggy was on the board too) pick was traded to Chicago for money and a future pick (Chicago made the playoffs with Deng and Rose the next season).
Bryan Colangelo did this to free up about 2M$ more in capspace to go after Q-Rich in addition to signing Nash.

In the end the Suns traded Q-Rich for Kurt Thomas, then used 2 picks to unload Kurt Thomas again. A huge net negative.

Instead the Suns could have drafted Iggy and go into next season with Amare, Nash, Marion, Joe Johnson, Iguodala, Barbosa. They would have been free to trade Shawn Marion for a legit starting center. They would have been in a better cap situation and could have extended Joe Johnson early.

They probably could have gotten at least Tyson Chandler for Shawn Marion, with additional throw ins.

[dremill24]

^^the Iguodala part literally hurts me to this day

[Frank Lee]

Spoiler:

And that's all my point is. At the time, McD did what he needed to do. I never claimed that Knight was our savior, or that I even like his play. But claiming NOW, that somehow we KNEW back then, that McD made a bad deal, is 100% "Hindsight". And by somehow trying to say that IT would be an All-Star were he still on the Suns is ridiculous, too, or that Knight wouldn't likely be better on the Bucks right now. Neither Ennis, nor Plumlee are tearing it up right now, either.

Again, all I'm saying is the Knight was almost an All-Star, and was a better fit than IT was on this team. Dragic forced McD's hand; and while he was able to get good value for Dragic, his haul for Knight wasn't great value. But the draft pick for IT was not a bad deal, and most here liked that deal.

But to act like we knew that getting Knight was a bad deal is MMQBing at it's best. And by trying to combine the deals, as well as the contract Knight signed, is disingenuous as well. They were two separate deals, and again, many were thrilled to get IT off this team. The fact we got a 1st Round Draft pick for the previously 60th overall, 5'10" PG, was viewed by many Suns' as good value.

Knight was also playing pretty well with Bledsoe, overall. In November he was 22pts, .400 3PT%, 6 assts. Since Bledsoe went down, he's fallen off. Why don't we wait to condemn him until Bledsoe is healthy?

I strongly felt it was the wrong trade to make and I know quite a few of us here do as well. Not so much because he's not a better fit next to Bledsoe but because of his style, overall fit with the team, his contract status, what we gave up in the trade for him and his potential. Everything considered, I think I was right to think it was a bad deal then. Sure he looked good early in the season and if anything that just made me think I was wrong about the trade but now that we are where we are, it just confirms what I felt about the trade in the beginning. I didn't think much of IT so I'm happy he's an all-star with the C's but I still don't think he's right for this team going forward.

Understood, and why I said 'many' or 'most', not 'all', when making my assertion. I'm sure there were quite a few fans that had a bad feeling about the trades, or thought Knight was 'over-hyped' when we traded for him. All I was saying was that nobody knew for sure that this is how things would workout, and honestly, knight has more 'good' games with Bledsoe, than 'poor' games with Bledsoe, so we still do not know for a fact, that Knight won't end up being a good fit.

But mostly, my point was that at he time IT was traded, roughly 75% of the fans were 'thank the heavens, IT is traded' and now? It's basically swung the other way around, where more fans are acting like we should've kept IT, vice trading him.

My point? This wasn't aimed at fans that didn't like it from the beginning, it's aimed at those that look back and say: "Yeah, I knew it was a mistake, we should have kept IT." Because that wasn't even CLOSE to the sentiment on these forums, and if we go back and look at the threads/posts from back then, you will see VERY few fans who thought keeping IT was the better move than trading him.

Nobody was given the choice of A B or C here. The **** all hit the fan at once.... and all three turds trades (Dragic,IT,Knight) were pinched off the same loaf. Doesn't diminish the fact that this all was caused by an inexperienced asset-mongering GM who had many here and industry wide scratching their heads....

only time distinguishes the idiot from the visionary.

I mark it as the point where the FO began their nosedive, and now we are dangerously close to auguring in.

[StarMaker]

The Googs trade was done by the Colangelo regime.

Also it is far from the worst.

The Iguodala trade coupled with the Q-Rich signing (also Colangelo moves) was the worst. If you remember the #7(Deng but Iggy was on the board too) pick was traded to Chicago for money and a future pick (Chicago made the playoffs with Deng and Rose the next season).
Bryan Colangelo did this to free up about 2M$ more in capspace to go after Q-Rich in addition to signing Nash.

In the end the Suns traded Q-Rich for Kurt Thomas, then used 2 picks to unload Kurt Thomas again. A huge net negative.

Instead the Suns could have drafted Iggy and go into next season with Amare, Nash, Marion, Joe Johnson, Iguodala, Barbosa. They would have been free to trade Shawn Marion for a legit starting center. They would have been in a better cap situation and could have extended Joe Johnson early.

They probably could have gotten at least Tyson Chandler for Shawn Marion, with additional throw ins.

When we traded Kurt Thomas to Seattle, Colangelo was a GM of Toronto.

In addition, if we chose Iggy instead of Q, we couldn't have seen that 04-05 performance because Iggy was just a rookie and didn't have 3p ability. Moreover, we couldn't hold Joe Johnson anyway owing to Sarver's silly thing. Before the 04-05 season, we had to make a new contract with Joe Johnson. But Sarver didn't want to give him 10mil per year. JJ can't have selected our offer excluding Atlanta following the great performance in the 04-05 season.

[Donald_Trade]

The Googs trade was done by the Colangelo regime.

Also it is far from the worst.

The Iguodala trade coupled with the Q-Rich signing (also Colangelo moves) was the worst. If you remember the #7(Deng but Iggy was on the board too) pick was traded to Chicago for money and a future pick (Chicago made the playoffs with Deng and Rose the next season).
Bryan Colangelo did this to free up about 2M$ more in capspace to go after Q-Rich in addition to signing Nash.

In the end the Suns traded Q-Rich for Kurt Thomas, then used 2 picks to unload Kurt Thomas again. A huge net negative.

Instead the Suns could have drafted Iggy and go into next season with Amare, Nash, Marion, Joe Johnson, Iguodala, Barbosa. They would have been free to trade Shawn Marion for a legit starting center. They would have been in a better cap situation and could have extended Joe Johnson early.

They probably could have gotten at least Tyson Chandler for Shawn Marion, with additional throw ins.

When we traded Kurt Thomas to Seattle, Colangelo was a GM of Toronto.

In addition, if we chose Iggy instead of Q, we couldn't have seen that 04-05 performance because Iggy was just a rookie and didn't have 3p ability. Moreover, we couldn't hold Joe Johnson anyway owing to Sarver's silly thing. Before the 04-05 season, we had to make a new contract with Joe Johnson. But Sarver didn't want to give him 10mil per year. JJ can't have selected our offer excluding Atlanta following the great performance in the 04-05 season.

Iggy had a great rookie season and Q-Rich was even in that season not particularly good. We might have been just flat out better even.

Colangelo was in charge when they made the stupid draft deal with Chicago and responsible for signing Q.

Sarver was willing to pay Joe Johnson the same money Atlanta offered. If he did not commit so much money to Q previously he might have been willing to offer Joe Johnson an extension before he even was RFA.

[8on]

BAM!

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/240630/Tyson-Chandler-Not-Jumping-Ship-From-Suns



LOVE this guy.

It's tough to teach attitude, and he has the right one. If he can produce, I would rather keep another year, and get the super young under his wing.

It's easy to teach effort. And Tyson, until his recent rebounding phenomenon streak, was jogging his lazy ass up the court and barely jumping or moving for passes, all while playing the worst defense on the team (yes, the worst). He was our worst player all year for a reason, and that reason was he couldn't be bothered to play hard. Tyson can say all he wants, but unless he shows he can play with the effort he has the past 2 weeks or so for a full season, it falls on deaf ears to me.

Have you considered the possibility that for a while, he wasn't 100% due to the hamstring injury?

[StarMaker]

The Googs trade was done by the Colangelo regime.

Also it is far from the worst.

The Iguodala trade coupled with the Q-Rich signing (also Colangelo moves) was the worst. If you remember the #7(Deng but Iggy was on the board too) pick was traded to Chicago for money and a future pick (Chicago made the playoffs with Deng and Rose the next season).
Bryan Colangelo did this to free up about 2M$ more in capspace to go after Q-Rich in addition to signing Nash.

In the end the Suns traded Q-Rich for Kurt Thomas, then used 2 picks to unload Kurt Thomas again. A huge net negative.

Instead the Suns could have drafted Iggy and go into next season with Amare, Nash, Marion, Joe Johnson, Iguodala, Barbosa. They would have been free to trade Shawn Marion for a legit starting center. They would have been in a better cap situation and could have extended Joe Johnson early.

They probably could have gotten at least Tyson Chandler for Shawn Marion, with additional throw ins.

When we traded Kurt Thomas to Seattle, Colangelo was a GM of Toronto.

In addition, if we chose Iggy instead of Q, we couldn't have seen that 04-05 performance because Iggy was just a rookie and didn't have 3p ability. Moreover, we couldn't hold Joe Johnson anyway owing to Sarver's silly thing. Before the 04-05 season, we had to make a new contract with Joe Johnson. But Sarver didn't want to give him 10mil per year. JJ can't have selected our offer excluding Atlanta following the great performance in the 04-05 season.

Iggy had a great rookie season and Q-Rich was even in that season not particularly good. We might have been just flat out better even.

Colangelo was in charge when they made the stupid draft deal with Chicago and responsible for signing Q.

Sarver was willing to pay Joe Johnson the same money Atlanta offered. If he did not commit so much money to Q previously he might have been willing to offer Joe Johnson an extension before he even was RFA.

Are you kidding me? Sarver intended to give JJ the same money Atlanta offered? Please, stop lying to me.

I said Iggy had no 3pt, how could he show the same performance that Q did? Steve Nash in the 04-05 season needed a good 3-pointer on the floor. Besides, our coach was Mike D'Antoni, which means if you, a guard, don't have 3pt, then you just must sit on the bench all the time.

[Donald_Trade]

Steve Nash never "needed" a 3pt shooter, besides we had Joe Johnson still.

Q was not good and not "needed" as proven by shipping him away next year.

And yes it was well documented that the Suns were ready to match Atlanta's offersheet. That is how we ended up with the sign and trade.
The Suns did not match in the end only because Joe Johnson asked them not to match and then agreed to a sign and trade.

[letsgosuns]

If anybody does not remember what happened with JJ, this is what happened.

The Suns signed Nash and Q. JJ was one year away from being a restricted free agent and Sarver offered him 5 years, 45 million. JJ countered with 5 years, 50 million. Yes, it was actually only a five million dollar difference overall. Sarver refused to meet the extra one million per year citing his recent spending and that he did not want to commit even one million more per year. The Suns go on to have a great year leading the league in wins and making the WCF. In the offseason, Atlanta offers JJ a max contract. Sarver wants to match the contract but JJ asks Sarver not to and Sarver obliged. The Suns end up doing a sign and trade for Diaw and picks. Sarver goes on record recently saying it was a mistake to let JJ go and he should have matched the contract.

That is what happened. At least the Suns did not lose JJ for nothing though and still got Diaw out of the deal. Diaw was amazing in the 2005-2006 season and pretty good the next couple of years. Then the Suns traded him and Bell for J-Rich and Dudley and that trade worked out pretty well also. However, I guess we will never know what could have been had JJ been re-signed. But whatever, no point in living in the past, the only thing that matters now is what the Suns do from here on out.

[StarMaker]

Steve Nash never "needed" a 3pt shooter, besides we had Joe Johnson still.

Q was not good and not "needed" as proven by shipping him away next year.

And yes it was well documented that the Suns were ready to match Atlanta's offersheet. That is how we ended up with the sign and trade.
The Suns did not match in the end only because Joe Johnson asked them not to match and then agreed to a sign and trade.

So do you think only one 3pt shooter around Nash would be okay especially under D'Antoni? HaHa... Steve Nash and D'Antoni absolutely "needed" a 3pt shooter that made their game better.

And if Sarver let him go just because of his request as you said, he eventually go away anyway. There is nothing changed. I don't think it's not Colangelo's fault but Sarver's.

[JMac1]

What's done is done. This is called the What will we do thread. Not, the What did we do wrong thread and how can we go back in a time machine and change and it, if not, how can we continue to fill miserable about something that happened 10 years ago thread. The crap is over give it a rest.

Knight for the Laker pick was horrible, can't do anything about that now. Who do we trade and where do we draft is all the matters going forward.

[8on]

I'm watching the McD/Earl Watson press conference.

McD seems distressed, out of it, maybe even depressed, desperate, and scared he's gonna lose his job.

Man......clearly this wasn't the plan. He's trying to explain everything under the sun because people don't understand his moves.

At some point, he's gotta let his moves speak for themselves. I really believe they can, but......man, this is rough to watch. Just seems like he's lost all control of the situation.

[8on]

Weird. Earl just came in with this intensity. Feels like McD is completely out of the picture while Earl is talking. "Stole the show," per se. Huge disconnect? Makes McD look a little worse, to be honest.

[Donald_Trade]

Knight for the Lakers pick was not horrible. Sure in hindsight it is easy to say that the trade was not needed since the ultimate goal of the plan failed when Aldridge did not sign here and we struck gold with Booker while Bogdanovic looks great in Europe also making Knight look expendable.

That Lakers pick best case is going to be #4. In other words Kris Dunn who projects to be a player a lot like Knight.

Most likely the Lakers pick won't be conveyed until 2017 and I doubt that the Lakers will remain this bad until then. They will massively spend in free agency this season and actually improve their team knowing they won't have a pick. So in the end the pick is likely top be a #10-20 pick in 2017.

Brandon Knight is worth more than that. Knight was playing very well until Bledsoe went down. His struggles started when he had to move back to Point Guard because IMO he is no point guard. Before he was averaging around 20/5/5 on good efficiency.
It seems to me that Knight struggles with footwork and ballhandling to navigate through a defense and create plays for others.
It might also just be that Hornacek's offensive system is god awful and lacks structure.

[bwgood77]

Speaking of trades, I just came across something that left me feeling a little sick..

Feb 2004:
Phoenix traded Tom Gugliotta, 2004 #1 (Kirk Snyder), 2010 #1 (Gordon Hayward), and a #2 (Alex Acker) for Keon Clark and Ben Handlogten

From post #5 here viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1425341&p=45827950#p45827950

So I HAD to research, and yes....

Utah receives New York's 2010 first-round pick (unproteced) (Tom Gugliotta trade 021904) via Phoenix (Marbury trade) Phoenix receives a 2005 New York Knicks first-round pick. (010504 Marbury trade).

http://www.nbadraft.net/2010draftnotes.html

http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_final_draft/2010

So who says picks WAY in the future like our Miami pick in 2021 can't be valuable? When we traded Marbury in 2004 to NY we got an unprotected 2010 pick from NY, who we traded to dump Goog's contract.

So had we not dumped Goog's and Kurt Thomas' contracts, trading firsts in the process, and taken the same players (the teams who got the picks did), we would have Serge Ibaka and Gordon Hayward on the team.

Excellent.

I wonder if that Goog's dump had anything to do with Sarver getting ready to buy the team.....to avoid paying taxes they couldn't afford as a requirement Sarver buying.

I've brought up the Goog's trade many times. As far as Ibaka, we could have picked him at 15 instead of Lopez, so we can't really cry about not getting him, for we passed on him 11 picks earlier. Now trading three unconditional picks...that was dumb, and shows that we have had dumb moves by previous FOs.

As far as speculating to buying requirements...none of us will probably ever know.

Regardless of us picking Lopez, Ibaka was likely more slated by scouts to go around where he did so had we kept our pick, we still could have picked Ibaka later. But as I prefaced in my statement above, I said (had we taken the same players in those spots). Had we liked both guys and knew Lopez wouldn't last to the second pick, it would make sense to take Lopez first, and at the time, he was likely more nba ready to contribute and we needed a center to help contribute with an immediate interior presence.

[AtheJ415]

Spoiler:

I strongly felt it was the wrong trade to make and I know quite a few of us here do as well. Not so much because he's not a better fit next to Bledsoe but because of his style, overall fit with the team, his contract status, what we gave up in the trade for him and his potential. Everything considered, I think I was right to think it was a bad deal then. Sure he looked good early in the season and if anything that just made me think I was wrong about the trade but now that we are where we are, it just confirms what I felt about the trade in the beginning. I didn't think much of IT so I'm happy he's an all-star with the C's but I still don't think he's right for this team going forward.

Understood, and why I said 'many' or 'most', not 'all', when making my assertion. I'm sure there were quite a few fans that had a bad feeling about the trades, or thought Knight was 'over-hyped' when we traded for him. All I was saying was that nobody knew for sure that this is how things would workout, and honestly, knight has more 'good' games with Bledsoe, than 'poor' games with Bledsoe, so we still do not know for a fact, that Knight won't end up being a good fit.

But mostly, my point was that at he time IT was traded, roughly 75% of the fans were 'thank the heavens, IT is traded' and now? It's basically swung the other way around, where more fans are acting like we should've kept IT, vice trading him.

My point? This wasn't aimed at fans that didn't like it from the beginning, it's aimed at those that look back and say: "Yeah, I knew it was a mistake, we should have kept IT." Because that wasn't even CLOSE to the sentiment on these forums, and if we go back and look at the threads/posts from back then, you will see VERY few fans who thought keeping IT was the better move than trading him.

Nobody was given the choice of A B or C here. The **** all hit the fan at once.... and all three turds trades (Dragic,IT,Knight) were pinched off the same loaf. Doesn't diminish the fact that this all was caused by an inexperienced asset-mongering GM who had many here and industry wide scratching their heads....

only time distinguishes the idiot from the visionary.

I mark it as the point where the FO began their nosedive, and now we are dangerously close to auguring in.

Might be the worst take I've ever read on here.

[AtheJ415]

It's tough to teach attitude, and he has the right one. If he can produce, I would rather keep another year, and get the super young under his wing.

It's easy to teach effort. And Tyson, until his recent rebounding phenomenon streak, was jogging his lazy ass up the court and barely jumping or moving for passes, all while playing the worst defense on the team (yes, the worst). He was our worst player all year for a reason, and that reason was he couldn't be bothered to play hard. Tyson can say all he wants, but unless he shows he can play with the effort he has the past 2 weeks or so for a full season, it falls on deaf ears to me.

Have you considered the possibility that for a while, he wasn't 100% due to the hamstring injury?

Yes, I know that's what he claims, but if that's the case then you respect your teammates enough to sit. Len has outplayed him on the year anyways, particularly up to that point. If you are going to play hurt you have to go as hard as you can. You can't play and then jog around and half ass it. I've played tons of sports with pulled hammys. It was always noticeable but it never appeared like I was jogging, so I don't really buy Tyson's explanation anyways. If it was bothering him you'd see him grabbing at it and it would still appear as if he's trying out there. That simply wasn't the case. Tyson for much of this year has given more effort arguing at the refs than playing basketball. He's been a part of the problem on the whole. It's fine to think he's now turned it around and will be key going forward, but I'm not going to pretend that he's been this great leader or player all year. He just hasn't been. Not on the court. He's still very late on rotations and I keep seeing the guards, who are super young, pointing out when he should move. He's just not getting over at all.

[pidi]

It's tough to teach attitude, and he has the right one. If he can produce, I would rather keep another year, and get the super young under his wing.

It's easy to teach effort. And Tyson, until his recent rebounding phenomenon streak, was jogging his lazy ass up the court and barely jumping or moving for passes, all while playing the worst defense on the team (yes, the worst). He was our worst player all year for a reason, and that reason was he couldn't be bothered to play hard. Tyson can say all he wants, but unless he shows he can play with the effort he has the past 2 weeks or so for a full season, it falls on deaf ears to me.

Have you considered the possibility that for a while, he wasn't 100% due to the hamstring injury?

very good point..

and i think we should move on from now. when i remember right than googs was injured and done and a guy like ama´re took over..

You can´t change history, let´s hope some trades come in and someone will shake up this roster.. we need a superstar, if we can´t land one by free agency than u have to trade up for a star guy. i think we can´t wait til our young guns will develop and i don´t see anyone on this roster ( noone than booker ) that can realy rock this league.. so go on and trade for our own durant, carmelo or kobe like player

[Frank Lee]

Spoiler:

[Spoiler]Understood, and why I said 'many' or 'most', not 'all', when making my assertion. I'm sure there were quite a few fans that had a bad feeling about the trades, or thought Knight was 'over-hyped' when we traded for him. All I was saying was that nobody knew for sure that this is how things would workout, and honestly, knight has more 'good' games with Bledsoe, than 'poor' games with Bledsoe, so we still do not know for a fact, that Knight won't end up being a good fit.

But mostly, my point was that at he time IT was traded, roughly 75% of the fans were 'thank the heavens, IT is traded' and now? It's basically swung the other way around, where more fans are acting like we should've kept IT, vice trading him.
My point? This wasn't aimed at fans that didn't like it from the beginning, it's aimed at those that look back and say: "Yeah, I knew it was a mistake, we should have kept IT." Because that wasn't even CLOSE to the sentiment on these forums, and if we go back and look at the threads/posts from back then, you will see VERY few fans who thought keeping IT was the better move than trading him.

Nobody was given the choice of A B or C here. The **** all hit the fan at once.... and all three turds trades (Dragic,IT,Knight) were pinched off the same loaf. Doesn't diminish the fact that this all was caused by an inexperienced asset-mongering GM who had many here and industry wide scratching their heads....

only time distinguishes the idiot from the visionary.

I mark it as the point where the FO began their nosedive, and now we are dangerously close to auguring in.

Might be the worst take I've ever read on here.

not surprised at your homeboy take. Seems you have dual citizenship shared between Knight and McDerriere's backsides.

[JMac1]

Knight for the Lakers pick was not horrible. Sure in hindsight it is easy to say that the trade was not needed since the ultimate goal of the plan failed when Aldridge did not sign here and we struck gold with Booker while Bogdanovic looks great in Europe also making Knight look expendable.

That Lakers pick best case is going to be #4. In other words Kris Dunn who projects to be a player a lot like Knight.

Most likely the Lakers pick won't be conveyed until 2017 and I doubt that the Lakers will remain this bad until then. They will massively spend in free agency this season and actually improve their team knowing they won't have a pick. So in the end the pick is likely top be a #10-20 pick in 2017.

Brandon Knight is worth more than that. Knight was playing very well until Bledsoe went down. His struggles started when he had to move back to Point Guard because IMO he is no point guard. Before he was averaging around 20/5/5 on good efficiency.
It seems to me that Knight struggles with footwork and ballhandling to navigate through a defense and create plays for others.
It might also just be that Hornacek's offensive system is god awful and lacks structure.

I agree. It wasn't horrible. Poor choice of words.