Looks like the signing of Chandler backfired

[GMATCallahan]

Honestly I was 100% sure LA will sign with Spurs. Can't imagine him wasting the perfect opportunity. But the fact that he considered Suns to the last moment was surprising.
Could Chandler lure other star to come to Phoenix? I doubt it after this nightmare season. But I wish at least he will start playing good agains so his contract don't look so terrible like it looks now.

Yeah, me too. Otherwise, you have to question why he would have even left Portland, where he could have made more money, retained a dominant role, and played with an up-and-coming guard in a situation that proved familiar to him. Sure, the Suns may have become more attractive to him than the Blazers by the end of the process, but the reason why Aldridge was set on leaving Portland was to join a certain championship contender, and one in his home state at that.

[WeekapaugGroove]

It was a dumb move the minute they made it. You just don't sign an old center to a big deal on a rebuilding team. Especially when you had a young guy in len who needed minutes. They pitched this "leadership" angle which is also dumb. You want leaders that's fine but you can get guys like Zaza or perk for far less money and years.

It's a dumb move if you don't consider why he was signed in the first place. It put us right at the top of the list of teams Aldridge was considering and we ended up being a very close runners up. You can say, well we didn't end up getting Aldridge so my point is valid. Well no, because if we didn't have a shot at Aldridge, we were never going to sign Chandler. The leadership pitch/spin was after we lost out on Aldridge.

Knowing how things played out, it was a bad move but hindsight is 20/20. Had we signed Aldridge, we would've had a competitive team.

Paying 50 million for a recruiting tool is simply irresponsible. Sure have a meeting with both guys and say we would love to sign you together. If it works great if not suns keep rebuilding and chandler signs with a contender. Seems like a better situation for everyone.

And I get that chandler was a good player last year but come on now alone he wasn't going to put this team in true contender level even if this season wouldn't have gone to poop. Just another example of Sarver not having a realistic view of his team.

[Mulhollanddrive]

Just a symptom of the problem.

We will sign another Brandon Knight / Tyson Chandler type player this off-season and aim for 8th seed.

If it's not him, it'll be Rudy Gay or someone like that.

[lilfishi22]

It was a dumb move the minute they made it. You just don't sign an old center to a big deal on a rebuilding team. Especially when you had a young guy in len who needed minutes. They pitched this "leadership" angle which is also dumb. You want leaders that's fine but you can get guys like Zaza or perk for far less money and years.

It's a dumb move if you don't consider why he was signed in the first place. It put us right at the top of the list of teams Aldridge was considering and we ended up being a very close runners up. You can say, well we didn't end up getting Aldridge so my point is valid. Well no, because if we didn't have a shot at Aldridge, we were never going to sign Chandler. The leadership pitch/spin was after we lost out on Aldridge.

Knowing how things played out, it was a bad move but hindsight is 20/20. Had we signed Aldridge, we would've had a competitive team.

Paying 50 million for a recruiting tool is simply irresponsible. Sure have a meeting with both guys and say we would love to sign you together. If it works great if not suns keep rebuilding and chandler signs with a contender. Seems like a better situation for everyone.

And I get that chandler was a good player last year but come on now alone he wasn't going to put this team in true contender level even if this season wouldn't have gone to poop. Just another example of Sarver not having a realistic view of his team.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because I feel this is a biased view due to what went down afterwards and the sour taste it's left with many of us. Had we signed Aldridge, I think we would be at least as good as Clippers right now. Maybe not contender status but this would just be the first year of a contender-level core which we would build on.

Look I agree it would be great if we got both guys in the same room and say we would like to sign both but good luck getting Chandler to agree to come along do us a favor like that.

[Fan from Dade]

Chandler will be fine, its just a really ugly year that started off poorly after his hamstring pull. For a big like him that lingers. Add in chemistry issues and questionable coaching and you get inconsistent results. Also I'd call the guy averaging 20,5,4 an impact player. You guys are so quick to dismiss the start he and Bledsoe had when folks were calling them one of the best backcourts in the league. I think they are still that.

Both of their assists-to-turnover ratios are substandard for a playmaker, something that the media ignored. (But then, the NBA media is largely defined by ignorance.)

His assist to turnover ratio doesn't mean he isn't a good guard or an impact player. Guys is this league turn the ball over. Be nice if he reduced them but the turnovers also went up quite a bit as the injury got worse.

(By the way, hamstring injuries can linger for any player, regardless of size.)

Well thanks, I'm well aware. My point was that Chandler specifically relies on his athleticism to compete so it will likely impact him more. Depending on how you play, even if it lingers the impact can be very different.

Knight's "counting stats" averages in the three major categories look nice, but the question of "impact" is relative. Value largely derives from the ability to combine volume with efficiency, and Knight is an inefficient field goal shooter, an inefficient scorer, and an inefficient playmaker. He is not worthless, but he is not necessarily valuable, either. Frankly, there is a case to be made that Knight is essentially a "zero sum" player right now. The good news is that having just turned twenty-four, he remains young, maintaining a greater window for the future.

I could make the same case. Stack his numbers up; percentages (even though there is a sharp drop after the injury) included against most of the young guards in this league and you will see they are very close. Difference is those guys are considered great and Knight gets highlighter. I'd love to see all of them shoot a better percentage; truth is most guys that take lots of shots for their teams at the guard position shoot in the 42-44 range.

Kemba 42.3 36 from 3
Kyrie 46.4 29 from 3
Lillard 41.8 36 from 3
Westbrook 45.6 (highest of his career) 29 from 3
Lowry 42.5 and 39 from 3
Carter-Williams 41.8 and 29 from 3
Reggie Jackson 44.2 and 37 from 3
Knight 42.4 and 33 from 3

We could all pull stats that paint the picture that we want. Main stats will always be PPG, RBDS, and Assist. Not many players in this league average 20,5,and 4. Mind you these numbers dipped the past month and it can be correlated with an injury.

He played for a month with a sports hernia; not sure many players would've done that.

I am not negating your point, but Kevin Johnson played four years with a [undiagnosed] sports hernia, including two sports hernias by the end of that time. And his hernias required surgery to heal properly, not just rest. Just saying ...

Knight's willingness to play through an injury is commendable enough, but it does not say anything about whether the Suns' roster is properly structured moving forward.

A sports hernia limits movement, burst, speed, leaping, shooting, everything. It creates sharp pains and Knight is on record saying it limited his game but he tried to play through it until he just couldn't. And yes it should at least say what type of player he is. In addition, I assure you the team knew he was playing hurt and they preferred him playing hurt to everything else on the roster.

Tyson will give you great games and some poor games but Len is the future so I think the averages will work out; this year is just ugly.

I do not have a problem with Chandler, but given his age and mileage (he is in his fifteenth season), where is he going to be two or three years from now? The issue was always the length of the deal.

His salary won't amount to much in a few years given the cap and he will me movable if the wheels fall off.

[Frank Lee]

defending the over payment of players by anticipating the future over payment of players is tiresome. I can't quite follow that logic. No matter what happens to the cap, production still remains the most important characteristic in regards to a players value..... but thats just my old school opinion.

[Fan from Dade]

defending the over payment of players by anticipating the future over payment of players is tiresome. I can't quite follow that logic. No matter what happens to the cap, production still remains the most important characteristic in regards to a players value..... but thats just my old school opinion.

Value is based on production for payment. Value is derived from the market; guys are worth what they are paid. You have to consider the cap to make the determination for the future if you anticipate a players production may drop year to year.

[Frank Lee]

..... guys are worth what they are paid. ......

So everyone breaks even ???? There are no bad contracts ???

I'll stick to old school... this new math is a tool of convenience

[RunDogGun]

Chandler is overpaid right now. He seems to have lost quite a bit of his hops. But I don't know what sort of effect he has had on Len. They looked pretty good starting together, and if having Chandler helps Len develop quicker, I'm not too worried about the contract.

With that said, I could see us moving Chandler either at the deadline, or in the offseason.

[GMATCallahan]

Well thanks, I'm well aware. My point was that Chandler specifically relies on his athleticism to compete so it will likely impact him more. Depending on how you play, even if it lingers the impact can be very different.

I could make the same case. Stack his numbers up; percentages (even though there is a sharp drop after the injury) included against most of the young guards in this league and you will see they are very close. Difference is those guys are considered great and Knight gets highlighter. I'd love to see all of them shoot a better percentage; truth is most guys that take lots of shots for their teams at the guard position shoot in the 42-44 range.

Kemba 42.3 36 from 3
Kyrie 46.4 29 from 3
Lillard 41.8 36 from 3
Westbrook 45.6 (highest of his career) 29 from 3
Lowry 42.5 and 39 from 3
Carter-Williams 41.8 and 29 from 3
Reggie Jackson 44.2 and 37 from 3
Knight 42.4 and 33 from 3

We could all pull stats that paint the picture that we want. Main stats will always be PPG, RBDS, and Assist. Not many players in this league average 20,5,and 4. Mind you these numbers dipped the past month and it can be correlated with an injury.

A sports hernia limits movement, burst, speed, leaping, shooting, everything. It creates sharp pains and Knight is on record saying it limited his game but he tried to play through it until he just couldn't. And yes it should at least say what type of player he is. In addition, I assure you the team knew he was playing hurt and they preferred him playing hurt to everything else on the roster.

His salary won't amount to much in a few years given the cap and he will me movable if the wheels fall off.

If the wheels fall off, Chandler may lose all value and the Suns may be stuck with him.

A sports hernia is certainly a serious injury, but playing through a mild one for a few weeks is not some historic achievement, hence my point. I accept your point that Knight showed a commitment to the team, for whatever that is worth.

Many, and perhaps all, of those guards that you cited are indeed overrated, and not many are considered "great." By that logic, almost any decent starting guard in the NBA in "great." Points, rebounds, and assists without any means of measuring efficiency—and thus value—present a very limited picture. Sure, the media hyperventilates over them with its simplistic celebration of "triple doubles," but that is another sign that the NBA media hardly knows what it is talking about most of the time.

More significantly, Westbrook and Lowrie (and even Carter-Williams to some extent) rate very highly on defense according to Defensive Real Plus-Minus, whereas Knight rates terribly.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM/position/1

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/2/sort/DRPM/position/1

Besides, Knight is hardly a terrific rebounder or a terrific passer. Again, his assists must be measured against his turnovers.

[GMATCallahan]

Chandler is overpaid right now. He seems to have lost quite a bit of his hops. But I don't know what sort of effect he has had on Len. They looked pretty good starting together, and if having Chandler helps Len develop quicker, I'm not too worried about the contract.

With that said, I could see us moving Chandler either at the deadline, or in the offseason.

One negative to an aging Chandler is that his lack of shooting ability means that he cannot smoothly convert himself from a pick-and-roll threat to a pick-and-pop threat. I mean, he tries occasionally, but ...

[GMATCallahan]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because I feel this is a biased view due to what went down afterwards and the sour taste it's left with many of us. Had we signed Aldridge, I think we would be at least as good as Clippers right now. Maybe not contender status but this would just be the first year of a contender-level core which we would build on.

Look I agree it would be great if we got both guys in the same room and say we would like to sign both but good luck getting Chandler to agree to come along do us a favor like that.

The issue, though, is that signing Aldridge was always a shot in the dark. Or, to put it another way, inking Chandler gave the Suns a shot in the dark ... but that is all. The chances were extremely slim.

Now, let us imagine that Phoenix had constituted a good team a year ago: 45-50 wins, playoffs, something like that. In that case, Aldridge might have envisioned the Suns as a championship contender with the additions of himself and Chandler. In the actual situation, though, the incentives were not strong enough.

[lilfishi22]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because I feel this is a biased view due to what went down afterwards and the sour taste it's left with many of us. Had we signed Aldridge, I think we would be at least as good as Clippers right now. Maybe not contender status but this would just be the first year of a contender-level core which we would build on.

Look I agree it would be great if we got both guys in the same room and say we would like to sign both but good luck getting Chandler to agree to come along do us a favor like that.

The issue, though, is that signing Aldridge was always a shot in the dark. Or, to put it another way, inking Chandler gave the Suns a shot in the dark ... but that is all. The chances were extremely slim.

Now, let us imagine that Phoenix had constituted a good team a year ago: 45-50 wins, playoffs, something like that. In that case, Aldridge might have envisioned the Suns as a championship contender with the additions of himself and Chandler. In the actual situation, though, the incentives were not strong enough.

Once again, agree to disagree. I don't think it was a shot in the dark. The Spurs were a favourite and rightfully so but we were on his radar from the beginning and inking Chandler let him know we were serious about him. He had reservations about playing the 5 and we structured our meeting with him on the notion that we've signed a former DPOY to play C so he can focus at the 4. I thought we had compelling young and productive pieces which we were selling him on and to an extent, he was probably sold. It wasn't until that last ditch effort by Udoka which got it done for the Spurs.

Going for Lebron the offseason before I would consider a shot in the dark. I honestly don't believe McD signed Chandler to $52m for a shot in the dark.

[GMATCallahan]

Once again, agree to disagree. I don't think it was a shot in the dark. The Spurs were a favourite and rightfully so but we were on his radar from the beginning and inking Chandler let him know we were serious about him. He had reservations about playing the 5 and we structured our meeting with him on the notion that we've signed a former DPOY to play C so he can focus at the 4. I thought we had compelling young and productive pieces which we were selling him on and to an extent, he was probably sold. It wasn't until that last ditch effort by Udoka which got it done for the Spurs.

Going for Lebron the offseason before I would consider a shot in the dark. I honestly don't believe McD signed Chandler to $52m for a shot in the dark.

Pursuing James represented an indulgence in pure fantasy.

The Suns were on Aldridge's radar before Phoenix inked Chandler? Do we know that for a fact?

My issue would be that the Spurs constituted the favorites at the start of the process and simply offered a much more compelling and logical case. Even with Chandler, the best that Phoenix could potentially offer Aldridge was a replay of his Portland years—for less money than he could have made by remaining a Blazer.

[lilfishi22]

Pursuing James represented an indulgence in pure fantasy.

The Suns were on Aldridge's radar before Phoenix inked Chandler? Do we know that for a fact?

My issue would be that the Spurs constituted the favorites at the start of the process and simply offered a much more compelling and logical case. Even with Chandler, the best that Phoenix could potentially offer Aldridge was a replay of his Portland years—for less money than he could have made by remaining a Blazer.

I certainly don't claim to be able to read his mind but what I do know is that from the beginning of FA the Suns were a legit contender for Alridge. Make no mistake, San Antonio always made a lot of sense but to say it was a shot in the dark would be factually inaccurate. We right up there with San Antonio.

“It was very close,” said Aldridge, who was initially reluctant to discuss the Suns’ chances with him. “It came down to the final minute, to the final day of me trying to make a decision of coming here or going to San Antonio.”

[…]

“It came down, neck and neck, between Phoenix and San Antonio. It wasn’t overplayed. That was accurate.”

This is why I think we were on his radar prior because we would've had some information that signing with the Spurs weren't a forgone conclusion before we signed Chandler to his deal. Then when we did meet him

[tweet]https://twitter.com/WojVerticalNBA/status/616400386765619200[/tweet]

[GMATCallahan]

I certainly don't claim to be able to read his mind but what I do know is that from the beginning of FA the Suns were a legit contender for Alridge. Make no mistake, San Antonio always made a lot of sense but to say it was a shot in the dark would be factually inaccurate. We right up there with San Antonio.

“It was very close,” said Aldridge, who was initially reluctant to discuss the Suns’ chances with him. “It came down to the final minute, to the final day of me trying to make a decision of coming here or going to San Antonio.”

[…]

“It came down, neck and neck, between Phoenix and San Antonio. It wasn’t overplayed. That was accurate.”

This is why I think we were on his radar prior because we would've had some information that signing with the Spurs weren't a forgone conclusion before we signed Chandler to his deal. Then when we did meet him

[tweet]https://twitter.com/WojVerticalNBA/status/616400386765619200[/tweet]

We are probably just debating phraseology. One could argue that in free agency, nothing is a "foregone conclusion"—that is why free agency is what it is. But once Aldridge seemed committed to leaving Portland in hopes of playing for a more credible championship contender, the Spurs became the heavy favorite, and other clubs—Houston, perhaps Dallas—would have easily ranked ahead of Phoenix prior to the Chandler signing.

My point about the Suns constituting "a shot in the dark" is about the gambit from the starting point, not the concluding point. You can take a shot in the dark and actually hit—or come close to hitting, as Aldridge claims was the case. But the chances were still slim. My feeling is that Aldridge would have never seriously considered Phoenix if not for the Chandler signing (plus inking Earl Watson as a developmental assistant). Oh, he may have taken a meeting with the Suns just for the sake of courtesy and fully experiencing the free agent process, but the notion that Aldridge would have left Portland to sign with Phoenix—taking less money to join a club that had not made the playoffs in five years and that, despite some talent, was in a sketchy state—seems extremely far-fetched and a virtual impossibility. Inking Chandler got the Suns in the gym and allowed them to take a shot at the hoop—but even if they came close, I still feel that it constituted a Michael Jordan/Larry Bird/McDonald's shot.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1shK-j_u6LI[/youtube]

Because if Aldridge had joined the Suns, would he have been in a better position to win than what he had experienced in Portland over the last couple of years? Probably not. And given Aldridge's motivation in leaving the Blazers, he wanted something better than what Phoenix could offer even with Chandler in tow. If I had been running an investment firm based on NBA free agent destinations, I would have advised my investors to bet on San Antonio by a 90/10 margin. Even if matters were "neck and neck" at the end, what is clear is that Aldridge's default position was to sign with the Spurs, because they represented the reason why he had determined to leave Portland in the first place—to play for a ring right away. Joining Phoenix would have defeated that purpose. Aldridge could have turned the Suns into a playoff team, but they still would have had a ways to go to reach a championship level. And when matters are "neck and neck," overruling your default position is very difficult. To overrule your default position in life, matters usually have to not be close—the alternative has to be overwhelming you.

Observing matters in life, that has been my experience, anyway.