Sun Scorched wrote:Been lurking, my concise thoughts:
1. People saying we shouldn't be competitive because there are other good teams are pansies. So what GSW is amazing, you put the best product on the floor possible and you compete. You never know what's going to happen. I guaran-damn-tee you NO ONE thought Steve Nash and SSOL was a thing that would work, much less make them one of the most competitive teams in the past two decades.
2. Regardless of your opinion on Kyrie (and it seems there are many....), he can score in ways that are unnatural. Honestly guys, everyone is out there trying to prove their own agendas with Irving, but the simple eye test can tell a lot. Will he take shots away from Booker? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No - offensive efficiency improves with reduced usage AND Kyrie will take defensive pressure off of Booker. Plus, if Warren is included in the trade (as I think he should be the young piece we send out due to contract/JJ) then his shot attempts, Knight's shot attempts and Bledsoe's shot attempts get redistributed quite efficiently - to our two best scorers. Which is where you want them. I mean, that's 38 FGA between those three players... Booker only took 18, in addition to the 38. Someone has to shoot......
3. We are in a position of leverage. You don't use that leverage by caving to popular demand. Bledsoe + Pick/Rookie is the max. There just isn't a precedent for needing to give a top PG, a high pick and a legit rookie for a disgruntled star. It just doesn't happen. And the Suns certainly shouldn't become that team that every other bandwagon fanboy can point to and say "See, PHX gave this great package for Kyrie."
1. Nobody is saying to lose intentionally, so when you say "we shouldn't be competitive" that is very different from saying "try not to be competitive". What a waste of time this misnomer has caused on this board. Everyone here wants to win. People disagree about the way to ultimately win. The debate is about whether to build through youth and the draft vs. trading youth for sure things/vets that will help you win more today but hamper winning efforts for years down the line. The entire first point is a strawman that gets perpetuated on this board and is a giant waste. I don't think we should be competitive with Kyrie for the simple reason that we have not been competitive, most teams this young have 0 chance of being competitive, and the guys we are trading include Bled, who isn't much worse than Kyrie to begin with, plus somebody like Warren who was our best player for much of last year. It's not about effort or desire to win--simply the fact that we don't have the developed talent to go to war with elite teams. And I don't feel like any trade for Kyrie should also include additional trades of youth for vets in win-now type of scenarios. The attractive piece of this team to Kyrie, and the one we should sell, is the promise of the youth on the team.
2. It isn't as small as taking some shots away. Kyrie was something like top 5 of all time in shots per game last season and is complaining about his role on the team. It is a significant factor here. The idea offensively is to be somewhat balanced. Point being, just because some people who take a bunch of shots are leaving does not mean the best thing to do is bring in somebody who will eat up those shots. I am for trading for Kyrie at the right price, but this isn't the most ideal scenario. Also, Booker likely becomes more efficient just by getting older and having another year of practice. Last year was his first year carrying an offense. He was also playing with a nagging injury much of the year, and all at 20 years old. He was plenty efficient given his age and what was asked of him, and I don't think his usage should go down to increase his efficiency. I think we should want him to continue to develop his playmaking skills and take shots, just smarter shots (similar to Harden's development in Houston). That comes with age/experience.
3. I completely agree here. If we trade Jackson or our pick without protection it is a failure, and I think Bledsoe plus something minor ought to be it.
