Season Speculation, Trade Ideas and Discussion

[OnceUponADime]

Read on Twitter

Sometimes I have no idea what Watson's trying to get at when I listen to him talk in interviews, the family talk and his motivational speeches can get a bit dry sometimes like you said, and I'm not a huge fan of his insistence to give PJ Tucker and LB decent playing time off the bench without getting Bender and Ulis out there at times.

I'm not sold on Watson. It's the same thing as when Hornacek first took up the post. A lot of talk about him being a player's coach. He was easy to get along with etc. He took us to one 48-win season and then had a series of underachieving seasons following that.

Watson has a lot to prove and those rookie mistakes he's made shows he has some ways to go.

Regarding Watson's "family" preach.

I mean I understand the importance of creating a positive environment... but he needs to actually calm down with the family angle.
Players get traded, players get waived, new players are signed... its a business... and if needs to happen they will.

Also "family speeches" don't put Wins on the table!... it can, but I don't see championship teams push family all the time.


If Watson don't perform and get wins or get what ever the FO wants to do... his family speech won't help him.

And it's funny it took Suns first win for him to say that the Suns are finally a real family... that's just lol.
So had they lost, what happens to the family??



I'm sceptical with Watson and always will... because he got hired not because of his coaching credential but because he was liked by players. So I will judge him specifically on what I see on the court and the win column.

I like Earl Watson as a person, he's a very smart and philosophical minded person. That said, this constant "family" stuff is growing old too.

The NBA is a business and when someone gets traded, this family stuff will look a little silly.

Plus I hate that his main example for "family" was about Brandon Knight giving Bledsoe props and everyone in the locker room giving Knight props for his sick dunk. Thats cool but I'd wager that kind of stuff happens in every locker room in the league.

Not just that, if he wants to talk about family, isn't family all about sharing and caring? Where's this family stuff when Knight hogs the ball and doesn't pass it to anyone? Or hurts the team by losing focus defensively?

Sometimes I feel like Earl Watson is trying to be a father for the Suns players because their so young. I don't have a problem with that but he's got to get better at the Xs and Os of basketball. His rotations aren't looking good and mix ups like not having Tyson or Len out there with attacking guards like Lillard and McCollum is also worrisome on his judgement part.

I also don't like that he lied after the first game and went back on his word

Read on Twitter

This isn't fair to Bender and Ulis who have still brought that same energy from that game everytime they've stepped foot on the court.

This is his first year as a full time HC so I will give him benefit of the doubt but I do hope he's watching and learning more coaches like Terry Stotts who drew up that brilliant end of 4th qtr play and is integrating plays like into the playbook rather than finding ways to preach philosophy and family all the time.

[bwgood77]

Read on Twitter

Sometimes I have no idea what Watson's trying to get at when I listen to him talk in interviews, the family talk and his motivational speeches can get a bit dry sometimes like you said, and I'm not a huge fan of his insistence to give PJ Tucker and LB decent playing time off the bench without getting Bender and Ulis out there at times.

I'm not sold on Watson. It's the same thing as when Hornacek first took up the post. A lot of talk about him being a player's coach. He was easy to get along with etc. He took us to one 48-win season and then had a series of underachieving seasons following that.

Watson has a lot to prove and those rookie mistakes he's made shows he has some ways to go.

Regarding Watson's "family" preach.

I mean I understand the importance of creating a positive environment... but he needs to actually calm down with the family angle.
Players get traded, players get waived, new players are signed... its a business... and if needs to happen they will.

Also "family speeches" don't put Wins on the table!... it can, but I don't see championship teams push family all the time.


If Watson don't perform and get wins or get what ever the FO wants to do... his family speech won't help him.

And it's funny it took Suns first win for him to say that the Suns are finally a real family... that's just lol.
So had they lost, what happens to the family??



I'm sceptical with Watson and always will... because he got hired not because of his coaching credential but because he was liked by players. So I will judge him specifically on what I see on the court and the win column.

I like Earl Watson as a person, he's a very smart and philosophical minded person. That said, this constant "family" stuff is growing old too.

The NBA is a business and when someone gets traded, this family stuff will look a little silly.

Plus I hate that his main example for "family" was about Brandon Knight giving Bledsoe props and everyone in the locker room giving Knight props for his sick dunk. Thats cool but I'd wager that kind of stuff happens in every locker room in the league.

Not just that, if he wants to talk about family, isn't family all about sharing and caring? Where's this family stuff when Knight hogs the ball and doesn't pass it to anyone? Or hurts the team by losing focus defensively?

Sometimes I feel like Earl Watson is trying to be a father for the Suns players because their so young. I don't have a problem with that but he's got to get better at the Xs and Os of basketball. His rotations aren't looking good and mix ups like not having Tyson or Len out there with attacking guards like Lillard and McCollum is also worrisome on his judgement part.

I also don't like that he lied after the first game and went back on his word

Read on Twitter

This isn't fair to Bender and Ulis who have still brought that same energy from that game everytime they've stepped foot on the court.

This is his first year as a full time HC so I will give him benefit of the doubt but I do hope he's watching and learning more coaches like Terry Stotts who drew up that brilliant end of 4th qtr play and is integrating plays like into the playbook rather than finding ways to preach philosophy and family all the time.

That quote about the 2nd unit being the rookies just bothers the hell out of me.

[NavLDO]

What would people think of this trade? http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=gt355yw

Knight/Len/Tucker for Kanter/Morrow/Christon?

OKC desperately needs a scoring guard, and they could let Tucker go or deal him later, and decide what to do with Len later.

I'd also do a Knight/Tucker for Kanter/Morrow and look to deal Len elsewhere.

This would give us a second unit of Ulis/Morrow/Bender/Chriss and Kanter. Kanter is offense, but on second unit the offense is probably more key than defense. Ulis gets everyone involved instead of Knight dribbling and Len throwing up shots and missing (Kanter great offensively).

Morrow is a career 42% 3 pt shooter and is expiring so could decide what to do in offseason with him, but he could just spot up on perimeter to spread the floor for Kanter in middle.

Sign me up. But what is pitiful, is, I wouldn't have touched that trade with 'a ten-foot stick', as they say, last year at this time. That's how bad Knight, Len, and Tucker have regressed in one year.

I think the same. Not only because bad playing by Len, Knight and Tucker but also because of those crazy contract that big men are geting today. Kanter's contract don't looks so bad now and I would prefer Kanter at 17-18 milions than Len at few milions less.
Good thing is that Chandler's contract don't looks bad anymore. Before this season I would love to gave Chandler for nothing but now I'm not sure if I want him traded at all.

Yeah, I'll gladly pay $13M (ok, well, have Sarver pay $13M ) for 18 TRB per game like he put up last night. Suddenly, I don't care that he's 34, if he keeps playing like he's 24, $13M is a steal when you think that Miles Plumlee is making $12.5 and Mozgov is making $16M. I just hope McD doesn't pay that for Len. Decent 'Box Score' game last night, but I have no idea how he looked, and that's what, 2 of 5 games that were "ok", while the other 3 were abysmal?? If he finds his groove for, say, 80% of the games? Sure, but right now, I think McD is playing it smart and not handing out 'monopoly money' to their young 'bigs' like a bunch of other GMS have done over the past week.

[batsmasher]

Decent 'Box Score' game last night, but I have no idea how he looked, and that's what, 2 of 5 games that were "ok", while the other 3 were abysmal?? If he finds his groove for, say, 80% of the games? Sure, but right now, I think McD is playing it smart and not handing out 'monopoly money' to their young 'bigs' like a bunch of other GMS have done over the past week.

He was way beyond "okay" last night. THROW THAT MAN A MAX CONTRACT.

no but seriously the Church of Len is back in business after that game.

[NavLDO]

Decent 'Box Score' game last night, but I have no idea how he looked, and that's what, 2 of 5 games that were "ok", while the other 3 were abysmal?? If he finds his groove for, say, 80% of the games? Sure, but right now, I think McD is playing it smart and not handing out 'monopoly money' to their young 'bigs' like a bunch of other GMS have done over the past week.

He was way beyond "okay" last night. THROW THAT MAN A MAX CONTRACT.

no but seriously the Church of Len is back in business after that game.

So Len looked as good as, or better than, what his Box Score showed??? That's great if he did--that's his 2nd '3 Blk'-game this year; hopefully he keeps up the rim-protecting, at least.

[batsmasher]

So Len looked as good as, or better than, what his Box Score showed??? That's great if he did--that's his 2nd '3 Blk'-game this year; hopefully he keeps up the rim-protecting, at least.

He attacked all game. He actually had a presence defensively. He only did like 1 stupid fadeaway midranger. He basically did all that damage in the first half and was our primary contributor to half time. The Blazers went small in the second half so we didn't see much of him.

And don't worry, that 3 point attempt was from half court at the Q1 buzzer.

[bwgood77]

So Len looked as good as, or better than, what his Box Score showed??? That's great if he did--that's his 2nd '3 Blk'-game this year; hopefully he keeps up the rim-protecting, at least.

He attacked all game. He actually had a presence defensively. He only did like 1 stupid fadeaway midranger. He basically did all that damage in the first half and was our primary contributor to half time. The Blazers went small in the second half so we didn't see much of him.

And don't worry, that 3 point attempt was from half court at the Q1 buzzer.

Well he had most, if not all of those #s in the first half. So for him, shooting over 50% is great, but 60%, plus 6 boards and 3 blocks, mostly all in a half, is great. The second half we mostly played small ball or a dose of Chandler. Portland played fairly small with 3 guards much of the time as well. Response moreso to Nav than bat.

[DRK]

I like how Len kept it simple last night, and thats how he got his success. No showy, flashy, complicated fadeaways. Youre 7'1, go up strong and make them foul you. On D, contest shots and stop little midgets scoring layups on you

[DRK]

Earl winning on and off the court last night

Read on Twitter

[Zelaznyrules]

Read on Twitter

This isn't fair to Bender and Ulis who have still brought that same energy from that game everytime they've stepped foot on the court.

This is his first year as a full time HC so I will give him benefit of the doubt but I do hope he's watching and learning more coaches like Terry Stotts who drew up that brilliant end of 4th qtr play and is integrating plays like into the playbook rather than finding ways to preach philosophy and family all the time.

That quote about the 2nd unit being the rookies just bothers the hell out of me.[/quote]

It does me too but more that he said it in the first place. Making that kind of change off of one game is too reactionary IMO and is just not good coaching. I kind of liked it at first because I want to watch Bender and Chriss but still, it was far too soon for that move. But I didn't actually hear Watson say it. All I saw was the Dave King claim that he said it, perhaps there was some context that makes it more palatable?

[bwgood77]

If we keep up this current pace, winning 1 out of 5 games, we should finish with around 16 or 17 wins. But with the subpar play of Booker and a fairly tough schedules it should be better and maybe we could win 1 out of 4 and get to 20 wins or more. And if we really overachieve and get to winning 1 in 3 that would put us at 27, which would be great to show some promise, give us an improvement from last year, and still a high pick.

I expect things to get better overall.

[Zelaznyrules]

If we keep up this current pace, winning 1 out of 5 games, we should finish with around 16 or 17 wins. But with the subpar play of Booker and a fairly tough schedule it should be better and maybe we could win 1 out of 4 and get to 20 wins or more. And if we really overachieve and get to winning 1 in 3 that would put us at 27, which would be great to show some promise, give us an improvement from last year, and still a high pick.

I expect things to get better overall.

I don't think we've come anywhere close to our playing level and yet, for the most part, we've been very competitive so far this season. With a little bit of good fortune (mostly health) I don't think it's farfetched to see us win close to half our remaining games. I can't quite decide if that's a good thing or not. I want to see Bender, Chriss and Ulis each playing 20 minutes or more per game and we won't see much of that if we look like a .500 team for most of the season.

[bwgood77]

If we keep up this current pace, winning 1 out of 5 games, we should finish with around 16 or 17 wins. But with the subpar play of Booker and a fairly tough schedule it should be better and maybe we could win 1 out of 4 and get to 20 wins or more. And if we really overachieve and get to winning 1 in 3 that would put us at 27, which would be great to show some promise, give us an improvement from last year, and still a high pick.

I expect things to get better overall.

I don't think we've come anywhere close to our playing level and yet, for the most part, we've been very competitive so far this season. With a little bit of good fortune (mostly health) I don't think it's farfetched to see us win close to half our remaining games. I can't quite decide if that's a good thing or not. I want to see Bender, Chriss and Ulis each playing 20 minutes or more per game and we won't see much of that if we look like a .500 team for most of the season.

Optimism is good. While I am optimistic, and predicted 29, and still hope we can get there, if we can win close to half of the remaining games (say, go 37-40) and get to 38-44, that would be quite an accomplishment, though it would be good for the 10th seed.

Without Knight's shooting so far, or even avg games from Booker, it's very likely we have another win already.

Personally I'd prefer to play the young guys a ton, even if it meant winning 29 games or so, get another nice draft pick, and have them more polished for next year and a great addition.

[Saberestar]

If we keep up this current pace, winning 1 out of 5 games, we should finish with around 16 or 17 wins. But with the subpar play of Booker and a fairly tough schedules it should be better and maybe we could win 1 out of 4 and get to 20 wins or more. And if we really overachieve and get to winning 1 in 3 that would put us at 27, which would be great to show some promise, give us an improvement from last year, and still a high pick.

I expect things to get better overall.

I expect at least 40 wins. We will see.

[bigfoot]

People complaining about Watson's family theme already. Didn't figure it would take long for that one to show up. I'm going out on a limb and saying his philosophy is the right thing to do. All you need to do is think about your work. Most people spend more time at work than at home and if all you have is drama, hate, and negativity at work your not going to do your job very well and not be very happy. Pretty much will spend most of your day bitching about somebody else and how they did something to you or how they are doing stuff all wrong. I imagine most of us are there or have been there.

Now here's the real kicker. If you want to create a family atmosphere and build trust with your players you just don't trade them unless they ask for it. Steve Nash used to complain about the turnover in players during his time with the Suns. Had the Suns kept a consistent team from year-to-year they probably would have won a ring.

Not convinced ... see how many trades the Spurs have executed over the past fifteen years. Not very many trades happened at all. In most cases, the worst they would do is waive players. Think of the stress reduced on the Spurs players when they don't have to worry about being traded, uprooting their families during the school year, selling their homes, and losing their friends. If you knew this was the work culture you were going to be in then wouldn't you work harder so you weren't going to be waived. Wouldn't you feel like a family member instead of a pound of horse flesh.

I've never been a fan of the trade thread. Especially an in-season trade which can really screw up the chemistry. Summer time trades maybe ... but I think you only make a trade if you are getting a star player in return or your player asks for one. Really most of us only want to trade the role players or garbage like PJ and Knight. What are you going to get in return? Really not much and you disrupt your team. It's probably better to just grow your talent, let contracts expire to get rid of players, or just waive low paid players that aren't good enough.

[Saberestar]

That is true, everything is easier when your partner is a friend too. People work harder to stay together, you do not want the boss to make any changes when you are happy and comfortable.

I want this roster for a good period of time, I would only make a trade IF is a big big win for us.

[blee732]

Seeing a few posts expressing some doubt about Watson and some of his coaching decisions. He definitely has a long way to go, but remember he was just a rookie coach last year. It takes time for new coaches to figure out coaching in the NBA.

I remember Doc Rivers was horrible in his first couple years with the Magic. But he improved over time and is now a quality head coach (but still overrated I think from his Boston days where he was gifted 3 HoFs).

I think the most important thing is having a coach who has the respect and trust of his players. I don't think that's something you can learn, it's more about the kind of person you are. I think Watson has that, he just needs to continue learning and I think he'll get there.

[bwgood77]

People complaining about Watson's family theme already. Didn't figure it would take long for that one to show up. I'm going out on a limb and saying his philosophy is the right thing to do. All you need to do is think about your work. Most people spend more time at work than at home and if all you have is drama, hate, and negativity at work your not going to do your job very well and not be very happy. Pretty much will spend most of your day bitching about somebody else and how they did something to you or how they are doing stuff all wrong. I imagine most of us are there or have been there.

Now here's the real kicker. If you want to create a family atmosphere and build trust with your players you just don't trade them unless they ask for it. Steve Nash used to complain about the turnover in players during his time with the Suns. Had the Suns kept a consistent team from year-to-year they probably would have won a ring.

Not convinced ... see how many trades the Spurs have executed over the past fifteen years. Not very many trades happened at all. In most cases, the worst they would do is waive players. Think of the stress reduced on the Spurs players when they don't have to worry about being traded, uprooting their families during the school year, selling their homes, and losing their friends. If you knew this was the work culture you were going to be in then wouldn't you work harder so you weren't going to be waived. Wouldn't you feel like a family member instead of a pound of horse flesh.

I've never been a fan of the trade thread. Especially an in-season trade which can really screw up the chemistry. Summer time trades maybe ... but I think you only make a trade if you are getting a star player in return or your player asks for one. Really most of us only want to trade the role players or garbage like PJ and Knight. What are you going to get in return? Really not much and you disrupt your team. It's probably better to just grow your talent, let contracts expire to get rid of players, or just waive low paid players that aren't good enough.

I agree with everything about your post and have preached that I don't want a revolving door of trading key players and disrupting things. I like PJ and want him to play. I would like to see Bender play as well. And Ulis. Keeping Tucker is fine. I certainly don't think there is a need to re-sign him to our team, in the state we are in right now, after this year, so, if near the trade deadline we can trade him to a place that wants or needs him, good for him and it opens up time for the guy we just drafted for our future.

As for Knight, so far he is costing us by shooting poorly. Had he not, we might be winning. I can't see a team wanting him, but if they did, I would trade him and move on with the continuity you talk about above from there. Knight has been overall a SG who shoots sub 40% for us and costs us games. If family and happiness is more important than winning in the long run, than by all means, lets just have a happy family. I hope he turns it around, but at this point, I've had those hopes for over a year and a half with nothing delivered. The problem is we are likely stuck with him (because I can't imagine who would want him), so I guess if he keeps helping us lose, we can look at the silver lining of another pick. It just sucks that if he continues playing this way for us and we play him a lot he will contribute to that for another three years after this one.

As for Len, I'm fine with keeping him and hoping he improves.

The Spurs don't turn over the roster much because they drafted well, but they did trade George Hill, who Pop loved to IMPROVE the team despite him being a big part of it.

Back in the Nash days, I hated the turnover and wish we had kept that 4-5 team intact.

And by the way, we don't have tremendous chemistry yet. We luckily won a game with a 3 pt shot in OT. We don't have very good ball movement. We need to get to a point where we can get to that chemistry and I don't think Knight will help in that regard and I doubt Tucker is around in the long run so to get rid of them sooner than later and have that core group that we keep together for a long time is what I'd like to see.

[bigfoot]

I agree with everything about your post and have preached that I don't want a revolving door of trading key players and disrupting things. I like PJ and want him to play. I would like to see Bender play as well. And Ulis. Keeping Tucker is fine. I certainly don't think there is a need to re-sign him to our team, in the state we are in right now, after this year, so, if near the trade deadline we can trade him to a place that wants or needs him, good for him and it opens up time for the guy we just drafted for our future.

Or Bender proves he is a better player than PJ and earns his minutes this year. That would be optimal but if you trade PJ then we are thin at SF in the event of a Warren or Bender injury.

As for Knight, so far he is costing us by shooting poorly. Had he not, we might be winning. I can't see a team wanting him, but if they did, I would trade him and move on with the continuity you talk about above from there. Knight has been overall a SG who shoots sub 40% for us and costs us games. If family and happiness is more important than winning in the long run, than by all means, lets just have a happy family. I hope he turns it around, but at this point, I've had those hopes for over a year and a half with nothing delivered. The problem is we are likely stuck with him (because I can't imagine who would want him), so I guess if he keeps helping us lose, we can look at the silver lining of another pick. It just sucks that if he continues playing this way for us and we play him a lot he will contribute to that for another three years after this one.

The same could be said for Booker. His offense is killing us right now. Both Knight and Booker have nearly identical advanced stats. In fact Knight is better in many areas. So we should get rid of Booker (20) versus Knight (24). This is a symptom of revolving players. You'll never establish a rhythm to the offense or ball movement through passing without some consistency in the roster. Let these guys play together and establish it. We end up relying on hero ball and isolation play because the trust as an offensive unit has not matured sufficiently.

And by the way, we don't have tremendous chemistry yet. We luckily won a game with a 3 pt shot in OT. We don't have very good ball movement. We need to get to a point where we can get to that chemistry and I don't think Knight will help in that regard and I doubt Tucker is around in the long run so to get rid of them sooner than later and have that core group that we keep together for a long time is what I'd like to see.

Yet even with poor chemistry we were in close games with the Warriors and Thunder (OT) and with a few more lucky bounces could be 3-2 instead of 1-4. It is certainly possible we go 5-0 in the next week and sit at 6-4. Especially if we see any improvement in shooting out of either Booker or Knight. If both of them get hot then watch out. So really it is premature to think about any trades ... Tucker, Knight, or otherwise until we see how this team meshes. When the first trades are allowed in mid-December we will have a much better idea.

[bwgood77]

I agree with everything about your post and have preached that I don't want a revolving door of trading key players and disrupting things. I like PJ and want him to play. I would like to see Bender play as well. And Ulis. Keeping Tucker is fine. I certainly don't think there is a need to re-sign him to our team, in the state we are in right now, after this year, so, if near the trade deadline we can trade him to a place that wants or needs him, good for him and it opens up time for the guy we just drafted for our future.

Or Bender proves he is a better player than PJ and earns his minutes this year. That would be optimal but if you trade PJ then we are thin at SF in the event of a Warren or Bender injury.

As for Knight, so far he is costing us by shooting poorly. Had he not, we might be winning. I can't see a team wanting him, but if they did, I would trade him and move on with the continuity you talk about above from there. Knight has been overall a SG who shoots sub 40% for us and costs us games. If family and happiness is more important than winning in the long run, than by all means, lets just have a happy family. I hope he turns it around, but at this point, I've had those hopes for over a year and a half with nothing delivered. The problem is we are likely stuck with him (because I can't imagine who would want him), so I guess if he keeps helping us lose, we can look at the silver lining of another pick. It just sucks that if he continues playing this way for us and we play him a lot he will contribute to that for another three years after this one.

The same could be said for Booker. His offense is killing us right now. Both Knight and Booker have nearly identical advanced stats. In fact Knight is better in many areas. So we should get rid of Booker (20) versus Knight (24). This is a symptom of revolving players. You'll never establish a rhythm to the offense or ball movement through passing without some consistency in the roster. Let these guys play together and establish it. We end up relying on hero ball and isolation play because the trust as an offensive unit has not matured sufficiently.

And by the way, we don't have tremendous chemistry yet. We luckily won a game with a 3 pt shot in OT. We don't have very good ball movement. We need to get to a point where we can get to that chemistry and I don't think Knight will help in that regard and I doubt Tucker is around in the long run so to get rid of them sooner than later and have that core group that we keep together for a long time is what I'd like to see.

Yet even with poor chemistry we were in close games with the Warriors and Thunder (OT) and with a few more lucky bounces could be 3-2 instead of 1-4. It is certainly possible we go 5-0 in the next week and sit at 6-4. Especially if we see any improvement in shooting out of either Booker or Knight. If both of them get hot then watch out. So really it is premature to think about any trades ... Tucker, Knight, or otherwise until we see how this team meshes. When the first trades are allowed in mid-December we will have a much better idea.

I'm not sure what you are hoping for but we have plenty of capability at the 3, and Bender has already outplayed Tucker. If he's being played for trade value, fine.

Knight has shot terribly for 1 and a half seasons now and this season. Booker is 20 and is still learning. You probably haven't watched enough if you are not aware of what Knight is. Sure, his shots will fall, but his style of play is about as FAR away from a family or team style as you can get. If you like iso ball, I understand why you might be a fan and hope he improves, but personally that's not the style I am a fan of.

Yes, we were close to the Warriors and I think we were fortunate to be close, and it would have been nice to win, but I think if people feel that we are close to on par with the Warriors that game may have been too deceiving. We could go 5-0. We could win the championship. I don't think so though, personally.

We can make trades at any point. Mid December is when you can trade certain free agents you signed and mid January you can trade certain others, but you can make trades at any point until the trade deadline.

The thing is, I'm not necessarily saying make trades to make them. I'm saying we are a rebuilding team and to get where we need to be we should play our rookies some. I'm not saying play them the whole game. I'm saying give them some experience. In the last game I understand it...it was close...stick to the vets and get the win, but against the Clips, we were out of it. If we are playin PJ 27 minutes for trade value to get his 7 pts, 6 boards and 2 steals for trade value, fine, but if we are for any other reason, that's not my preference.

If we are talking family, you don't sit someone in the corner, particularly your highest draft pick in years when he has shown serious promise every time he has set foot on the floor.