Sarver's open letter to Suns fans

[RunDogGun]

... yeah, I noticed that as well ...

Also, he tried to take credit for the 2004 summer and suggest that he thus possesses a blueprint for doing it again, but while Sarver player a role, he mainly just facilitated (via his finances) the Colangelos' vision.

And the Colangelos are long gone, in part because Sarver basically froze out Jerry Colangelo after 2004.

Maybe he did not want Jerry to make $200 million debt with his vision? What has Bryan done since leaving the Suns with his vision? I wasn't at the meetings, so I don't know how much involvement Sarver played. I don't think anyone has a blueprint for success in the NBA.

Just wondering though, under which owner did the Mercury win their chip. Jerry did win a World Series though, so I guess both owners can win it all outside of the NBA.

I have long credited Sarver for having paid off the debt that Colangelo had accrued. The vision for the 2004 "rebuild," however, certainly was not Sarver's and had been developed before the sale. Sarver just provided the money and maybe the private jet or whatever.

Bryan Colangelo hardly boasts a Hall of Fame resume, but the way that he rebuilt the Suns over a decade ago is far more impressive than anything that any of Sarver's subsequent general managers or executives have accomplished, especially the contingent of Lon Babby, Lance Blanks, and Ryan McDonough. Bryan Colangelo was the Suns' general manager when Phoenix drafted Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire, traded for a twenty-year old rookie named Joe Johnson, and inked Steve Nash as a free agent. Indeed, Colangelo 'hit' on quite a bit of athletic young talent and eventually found the right point guard (the same one, by the way, that Bryan Colangelo had drafted in the first place in 1996). Sure, he missed on some other things along the way, and he was not a success in Toronto, but he possessed a real feel for the game and could adjust and build based on that feel.

A guy like McDonough can identify talent, but I really do not know if he yet understands what makes a club 'tick' and what does not. And I certainly do not believe that Sarver possesses that understanding at all.

But they also traded Nash, which you left out. You also left out the terrible GMing from D'Angelo, which hindered many choices and future rebuilds/reloading.

I'm not saying Sarver has been perfect, but let's not build up the Colangelos, they have had their issues with this team, bad calls, and issues after the Suns. Some might forget that Bryan claimed to tank while with the Raptors. Which to me is the worst thing someone can say, that they purposely tried to lose games.

[King4Day]

Didn't know where else to post this and didn't want to create a 'what if' thread.

I'm surprised this came back to the surface. Not many fans outside of Phoenix are aware of this but this will bring it further to light.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nba/suns/2016/03/01/bickley-stephen-curry-phoenix-suns-forever-linked/81179746/?hootPostID=f852dcd23c0d2b118ad04553d84e9d75

I'd be lying if I didn't say I was stunned when the Warriors didn't pull the trigger on that deal. Amar'e was in his prime. This was prior to the season where we went to the WCF for Nash's final elite run. So injuries in NY aside, he had about 4-5 more prime years.
They had always been smitten with Amar'e if I recall correctly.
So them not going through with the deal really was something else.

In the end, it's just another notch in the bad luck in the history of this franchise.
Between the coin flip, the Paxton 3, Penny's knee, bad break after bad break during the Nash era (I don't need to explain each one as we know them too well), and what has become the renege of a deal that would have sent a future 'best player in the league' to Phoenix.

Who knows if, had we acquired Curry, we would have come into the same level of success as Golden State is experiencing currently, but we'd at least have a piece to work with and build a contender with so we'd remain relevant for a decade plus.

Instead, we're in the midst of the worst run in franchise history with no end in sight.

I hate to be all gloom and doom but there was always a hope that maybe the rumors of that trade being agreed on weren’t true. Reading this just makes me look back at all the missed opportunities this franchise has had.

[GMATCallahan]

But it's not in a vacuume, the west has been much tougher while Sarver has been owner than before he was owner, right?

... not necessarily. The West has generally constituted the tougher or deeper of the two conferences since 1990. In 1990, Phoenix reached the Western Conference Finals by defeating a 55-win Utah team and a league-best, 63-win Laker team without home-court advantage in either series. In 1991, six different Western Conference squads won at least 52 games and five different Western clubs won at least 54 games for the second consecutive season.

And remember how much stronger the West happened to be for the next few years after Jordan retired from Chicago following the 1998 lockout. From 1997-2001, Jason Kidd never led the Suns to a playoff series victory in the West (in any series where he played in more than 25 percent of the games), but he led New Jersey to consecutive NBA Finals in 2002 and 2003.

We had the heighest possible record and not making the playoffs in the history of the league. 48 wins, and still not mKing the playoffs is not normal. Some while using the missing the playoffs and then looking at those records, puts things into better perspective, than just noting that we missed the playoffs.

I would disagree. Won-loss records are only relevant to the context in which they occur. The fact that the Suns won 48 games in '13-'14 can reflect inflation as much anything else—for instance, Phoenix won two-thirds of its games (20-10) against the weak Eastern Conference. Indeed, the overall disparity between the West and East merely served to inflate the bulk of Western Conference records.

Were the 48-win '13-'14 Suns better than the 47-win '94-'95 Rockets who won the championship by defeating four playoff opponents who had each won at least 57 games? In the abstract, the 48-win '13-'14 Suns almost certainly constituted a worse team than the 41-win '95-'96 Suns with Kevin Johnson and Charles Barkley and the 40-win '96-'97 Suns with Kevin Johnson and (eventually) Jason Kidd. In that era, about two decades ago, the '13-'14 Suns may well have been a 36-win team or a 33-win team, for all that we know.

The value of win totals is always relative to the context of the league, thus rendering playoff appearances a more reliable (if occasionally imperfect) gauge.

Besides, you are cherry-picking one lottery season under Sarver. In almost every one of the other lottery seasons under Sarver (aside from '08-'09), the Suns have clearly been mediocre or worse.

Under Sarver, we have only picked in the top five once so far in the twelve years, and this season, we have had major injuries at key positions.

The lack of high draft picks under Sarver should be an indictment of his management, not an excuse. Missing the playoffs on a perennial basis while only scoring the thirteenth or fourteenth pick in the draft—as has been the case in five of the six lotteries that Sarver's Suns have participated in—is a reflection of abysmal and inept franchise management.

As for injuries, the Suns were on track to be a lottery team before the injuries, and we are talking about a longstanding pattern, not a fluky one-year outcome.

[RunDogGun]

GMAT, you are cherry picking stats as well.lets look at the 2008-2009 and the 81-82 PHX Suns teams one under JC and one under Sarver. Both teams have an identical record of 46-36. One makes the playoffs the other does not. Does that mean that the 81-82 team was far superior because they made the playoffs?

Then the 2010-2011 Suns vs 96-97 Suns, same record at 40-42, one makes the playoffs the other does not.

Out of the seven years of none playoff teams under Sarver three of them were 0.500, 0.561, and 0.585. I wouldn't call those teams mediocre or bad teams.

[GMATCallahan]

But they also traded Nash, which you left out.

The Colangelos traded Nash for the Suns' first lottery selection in eleven years, which Phoenix used to draft Shawn Marion.

Moreover, as I have written recently on this board, Nash forced the Suns to trade him by refusing to ink a contract extension as he entered the final season of his three-year rookie contract. Circa June 1998, he made clear to management that he wanted to run his own team rather than play in Jason Kidd's shadow (even though Nash liked Kidd). Prior to learning of Nash's stance, Phoenix wanted to keep Nash and eventually start him with Kidd in the same back-court. Nash had made ten starts after the 1998 All-Star break, including during the club's final playoff game.

http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1997&b=19980329&tm=phx

http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1997&b=19980415&tm=phx

http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1997&b=19980419&tm=hou

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199804290SAS.html

Jerry Colangelo basically dissuaded Kevin Johnson from returning to the Suns for another season, because the team was going to give even more minutes to Nash—"rightfully so," in K.J.'s publicly expressed opinion. Then Nash pulled the rug out from under the Suns' plan, and Phoenix spent the 1999 post-lockout season without an NBA-worthy reserve point guard while Rex Chapman broke down at shooting guard without a solid backup. The Suns had planned to use Nash as a premium insurance policy at both guard spots, while eventually starting him with Kidd on a full-time basis, but Nash possessed other ideas. Remember, his agent was Bill Duffy, who is also Goran Dragic's agent ...

I am not blaming Nash, by the way, as the Colangelos should have been less gullible and should have done a better job of ascertaining Nash's real ambitions. But the Suns did not trade him because they disliked his game or deemed him especially expendable.

You also left out the terrible GMing from D'Angelo, which hindered many choices and future rebuilds/reloading.

D'Antoni's general manager stint came under Sarver, because the owner refused to pay Bryan Colangelo or give the general manager appropriate autonomy. Thus, ultimately, one must blame Sarver for D'Antoni's GM stint.

I'm not saying Sarver has been perfect, but let's not build up the Colangelos, they have had their issues with this team, bad calls, and issues after the Suns.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that the Colangelos were far from perfect, but their overall track record proved extremely consistent and successful, and it certainly dwarfs Sarver's.

Some might forget that Bryan claimed to tank while with the Raptors. Which to me is the worst thing someone can say, that they purposely tried to lose games.

Do you mean that Bryan Colangelo may have encouraged the Raptors to stage a charade on the court, to play in a manner that would ensure that they lost, rather like the Washington Generals? That innuendo seems like quite a stretch. If you mean that Colangelo made strategic personnel decisions that would help the club lose in order to score a higher draft pick and/or clear salary cap space, teams engage in that practice virtually every season, and sometimes it is necessary for a successful "rebuild."

[RunDogGun]

I have no idea what prompted Bryan to say he was trying to tank in Toronto. You would have to ask him why he said that.

[GMATCallahan]

GMAT, you are cherry picking stats as well.lets look at the 2008-2009 and the 81-82 PHX Suns teams one under JC and one under Sarver. Both teams have an identical record of 46-36. One makes the playoffs the other does not. Does that mean that the 81-82 team was far superior because they made the playoffs?

... no, but in general, making the playoffs offers a better gauge of success relative to the competition. Were the 46-win '08-'09 Suns almost as good a the 47-win '88-'89 Bulls who reached Game Six of the Eastern Conference Finals? Were the 48-win '13-'14 Suns almost as good as the 52-win '86-'87 Pistons who nearly dethroned the Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals before losing by three points in Game Seven? Likewise, do you really believe that the current Warriors are that much better than the 65-win '86-'87 Lakers? Were the 67-win '06-'07 Mavericks really better than the 53-win '87-'88 Mavericks who started Derek Harper, Rolando Blackman, Mark Aguirre, Sam Perkins, and James Donaldson while bringing Brad Davis, Detlef Schrempf, and Roy Tarpley off their bench and pushed the defending champion Lakers to Game Seven of the Western Conference Finals?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOqjGCO3RpM[/youtube]

Comparing records across historical eras represents a wildly unreliable gauge of quality, and making the playoffs offers a better measuring stick in general (not in every single case).

Besides, Jerry Colangelo's clubs often did more than just make the playoffs. Again, not only did the Suns reach the postseason thirteen consecutive times from 1989-2001, but they won over 50 games in ten of those seasons and at least 53 games in nine of them.

[RunDogGun]

I'm a bit confused GMAT, are you saying that Mike's terrible job at GM, where he gave Banks that contract and then didn't play him as coach, is Sarver's fault?

[GMATCallahan]

I'm a bit confused GMAT, are you saying that Mike's terrible job at GM, where he gave Banks that contract and then didn't play him as coach, is Sarver's fault?

... only in the sense that Sarver basically forced D'Antoni into the job by causing the reigning GM of the Year, Bryan Colangelo, to unceremoniously depart in the middle of the 2006 season.

[RunDogGun]

I can play the cherry picking stat game too. Under Jerry, the Suns only reached 60+ wins once, while under the much shorter time under Sarver, they reached that twice.

I still don't think any of this has anything to do with the fact that Jerry's actions forced the sale of the Suns

[RunDogGun]

I'm a bit confused GMAT, are you saying that Mike's terrible job at GM, where he gave Banks that contract and then didn't play him as coach, is Sarver's fault?

... only in the sense that Sarver basically forced D'Antoni into the job by causing the reigning GM of the Year, Bryan Colangelo, to unceremoniously depart in the middle of the 2006 season.

But Sarver didn't force Mike to do a bad job, nor hire Banks and not play him, right. I think "forced" is a loaded term, and I think you are using that.

[saintEscaton]

Well this is a nice exercise in pedantry, some mental gymnastics to avoid outting yourself as a Sarver apologist. Its this unwavering acceptance of the status quo that keeps lining his pockets. Might as well start writing alternative history fanfiction, still living off of the glory of yesteryear. Coulda shoulda woulda, of course JC had his faults but he sure as hell wipes the floor with Bob who inherited his fortune only to squander it away like the pompous trustfund baby that he is

[RunDogGun]

We could also look at where those playoff teams exited. Ten in the first round under JC and then one under RS.

[RunDogGun]

Well this is a nice exercise in pedantry, some mental gymnastics to avoid outting yourself as a Sarver apologist. Its this unwavering acceptance of the status quo that keeps lining his pockets. Might as well start writing alternative history fanfiction, still living off of the glory of yesteryear. Coulda shoulda woulda, of course JC had his faults but he sure as hell wipes the floor with Bob

Wow, thanks for your opinion. Sarver apologist? Big part of being an owner is not putting yourself so far into debt, that you lose that team.

Sarver has made his fair share of mistakes and blunders, and he has done a poor job at times either making some basketball decisions himself, or putting ones in charge to make those decisions. Jerry made some as well. But longing for Jerry when he put the team so far into debt, causing him to have to sell, can not be overlooked or glossed over. It is the whole reason for the change in owners.

[GMATCallahan]

Out of the seven years of none playoff teams under Sarver three of them were 0.500, 0.561, and 0.585. I wouldn't call those teams mediocre or bad teams.

Is a .500 record not the virtual definition of mediocrity?

And two of the clubs, this year's and the one from three years ago ('12-'13) were terrible—a record of futility that Phoenix had not reached (at least in term of win totals and percentages) since their first season of existence, when Richard Nixon took over the White House from Lyndon Johnson. It had been that long.

Then the 2010-2011 Suns vs 96-97 Suns, same record at 40-42, one makes the playoffs the other does not.

Could the difference have been a deeper conference? Yes. The difference just as easily could have been a different context, meaning that 40 wins in '96-'97 proved more impressive and less 'inflated' than in '10-'11.

The '96-'97 Suns began the season 0-13, and for the first eleven of those losses, they were without both Kevin Johnson (their best player and offensive linchpin) and John "Hot Rod" Williams (their best defensive big man), plus big man Mark Bryant. But Phoenix still had the following players available for most of those games: Sam Cassell; Steve Nash (a rookie, yes, but one good enough to record 17 points, 12 assists, and 6 rebounds in his first NBA start while drawing praise from Michael Jordan in another game during the losing streak); Rex Chapman; Wesley Person; Michael Finley; Robert Horry; A.C. Green; Danny Manning; Wayman Tisdale. It was not the D-League/college kid type of roster that the Suns have been running out there in recent weeks while hardly being able to win a game, but that roster still could not win a game. We are talking about a different league and a different context, thus rendering comparisons based on records rather moot and pointless. For all that we know, the '96-'97 Suns might have won 50-55 games in '10-'11, making playoff appearances more reliable as a general gauge.

[RunDogGun]

Out of the seven years of none playoff teams under Sarver three of them were 0.500, 0.561, and 0.585. I wouldn't call those teams mediocre or bad teams.

Is a .500 record not the virtual definition of mediocrity?

And two of the clubs, this year's and the one from three years ago ('12-'13) were terrible—a record of futility that Phoenix had not reached (at least in term of win totals and percentages) since their first season of existence, when Richard Nixon took over the White House from Lyndon Johnson. It had been that long.

Then the 2010-2011 Suns vs 96-97 Suns, same record at 40-42, one makes the playoffs the other does not.

Could the difference have been a deeper conference? Yes. The difference just as easily could have been a different context, meaning that 40 wins in '96-'97 proved more impressive and less 'inflated' than in '10-'11.

The '96-'97 Suns began the season 0-13, and for the first eleven of those losses, they were without either Kevin Johnson (their best player and offensive linchpin) and John "Hot Rod" Williams (their best defensive big man), plus big man Mark Bryant. But Phoenix still had the following players available for most of those games: Sam Cassell; Steve Nash (a rookie, yes, but one good enough to record 17 points, 12 assists, and 6 rebounds in his first NBA start while drawing praise from Michael Jordan in another game during the losing streak); Rex Chapman; Wesley Person; Michael Finley; Robert Horry; A.C. Green; Danny Manning; Wayman Tisdale. It was not the D-League/college kid type of roster that the Suns have been running out there in recent weeks while hardly being able to win a game, but that roster still could not win a game. We are talking about a different league and a different context, thus rendering comparisons based on records rather moot and pointless. For all that we know, the '96-'97 Suns might have won 50-55 games in '10-'11, making playoff appearances more reliable as a general gauge.

Tough to use this season as a direct result of being bad, when we had massive injury issues throughout the season, and without three of our top scorers throughout most of it, and a purposely lacking effort in Markieff, up until the trade deadline.

As far as hypotheticals, one could say we easily make the playoffs during the Porter season had we not lost Amare and LB for a few games, or had we gone with a different coach similar style to maximize our players. There were a few other seasons where we a game away from making the playoffs in one of the toughest Western conferences in a long time.

Again, none of this has anything to do with the net result of bad ownership through creating a debt half the net worth of the team, which resulted in the current owner, who has made his fair share of mistakes, but has yet to make the blunder of putting himself in a position of having to sell.

[silverstyne]

Well this is a nice exercise in pedantry, some mental gymnastics to avoid outting yourself as a Sarver apologist. Its this unwavering acceptance of the status quo that keeps lining his pockets. Might as well start writing alternative history fanfiction, still living off of the glory of yesteryear. Coulda shoulda woulda, of course JC had his faults but he sure as hell wipes the floor with Bob

Wow, thanks for your opinion. Sarver apologist? Big part of being an owner is not putting yourself so far into debt, that you lose that team.

Sarver has made his fair share of mistakes and blunders, and he has done a poor job at times either making some basketball decisions himself, or putting ones in charge to make those decisions. Jerry made some as well. But longing for Jerry when he put the team so far into debt, causing him to have to sell, can not be overlooked or glossed over. It is the whole reason for the change in owners.

How you keep spouting paragraphs defending SARVER and bashing JC when we are in the midst of the longest dry spell in team history is beyond me.. we are in YEAR 6 (more than half a decade) of a playoff drought with this current year ON COURSE for WORST RECORD in team history. If you cant accept how bad weve been under Bobs tenure then i dont know what to tell you.. you are clearly biased.

[RunDogGun]

Well this is a nice exercise in pedantry, some mental gymnastics to avoid outting yourself as a Sarver apologist. Its this unwavering acceptance of the status quo that keeps lining his pockets. Might as well start writing alternative history fanfiction, still living off of the glory of yesteryear. Coulda shoulda woulda, of course JC had his faults but he sure as hell wipes the floor with Bob

Wow, thanks for your opinion. Sarver apologist? Big part of being an owner is not putting yourself so far into debt, that you lose that team.

Sarver has made his fair share of mistakes and blunders, and he has done a poor job at times either making some basketball decisions himself, or putting ones in charge to make those decisions. Jerry made some as well. But longing for Jerry when he put the team so far into debt, causing him to have to sell, can not be overlooked or glossed over. It is the whole reason for the change in owners.

How you keep spouting paragraphs defending SARVER and bashing JC when we are in the midst of the longest dry spell in team history is beyond me.. we are in YEAR 6 (more than half a decade) of a playoff drought with this current year ON COURSE for WORST RECORD in team history. If you cant accept how bad weve been under Bobs tenure then i dont know what to tell you.. you are clearly biased.

What action of Sarver's am I defending? That he bought the team? How am I bashing Colangelo, by saying he created a $200 million debt, which forced him to sell the team?

Our playoff dry spell doesn't have to have anything to do with who our owner is. Jerry had his fair share of dry spells, and I'm not blaming him for them, just pointing out that they happened as well. We have barely missed the playoffs in many of the seasons within the current dry spells, some with above 500 records, and if in the Eastern conference, we'd enjoy a home court advantage.

As far as this season, if you don't think that Markieff and many many injuries was the cause of our record, then "I do t know what to tell you."

Sarver has made his fair share of blunders and mistakes, but I don't see the point in praising Jerry, when his ownership mistakes is what caused the owner change.

[DirtyDez]

The Suns started the 96'-97' season 0-13? Why the hell didn't they keep tanking? That was the Duncan draft!

[silverstyne]

Wow, thanks for your opinion. Sarver apologist? Big part of being an owner is not putting yourself so far into debt, that you lose that team.

Sarver has made his fair share of mistakes and blunders, and he has done a poor job at times either making some basketball decisions himself, or putting ones in charge to make those decisions. Jerry made some as well. But longing for Jerry when he put the team so far into debt, causing him to have to sell, can not be overlooked or glossed over. It is the whole reason for the change in owners.

How you keep spouting paragraphs defending SARVER and bashing JC when we are in the midst of the longest dry spell in team history is beyond me.. we are in YEAR 6 (more than half a decade) of a playoff drought with this current year ON COURSE for WORST RECORD in team history. If you cant accept how bad weve been under Bobs tenure then i dont know what to tell you.. you are clearly biased.

What action of Sarver's am I defending? That he bought the team? How am I bashing Colangelo, by saying he created a $200 million debt, which forced him to sell the team?

Our playoff dry spell doesn't have to have anything to do with who our owner is. Jerry had his fair share of dry spells, and I'm not blaming him for them, just pointing out that they happened as well. We have barely missed the playoffs in many of the seasons within the current dry spells, some with above 500 records, and if in the Eastern conference, we'd enjoy a home court advantage.

As far as this season, if you don't think that Markieff and many many injuries was the cause of our record, then "I do t know what to tell you."

Sarver has made his fair share of blunders and mistakes, but I don't see the point in praising Jerry, when his ownership mistakes is what caused the owner change.

Wait, what?! Did you just say our dry spell has no correlation to our ownership??? Then who should we attribute our franchise misfortunes to? Lady luck?? Lol.. As Bgwood pointed the disparity between our playoff rate between the two eras are so wide that its starting to get laughable.. Winning records aside, There is a huge reason why JC is still held in great esteem by the league (Team USA, etc etc), his body of work is simply admirable. I dont even know what positive things to day about Bobs tenure..