2021-22 Season/Offseason Speculation

[Ghost of Kleine]

Valley of the Suns (@ValleyoftheSuns) Tweeted:
Ranking the NBA's best backcourts. How do the @Suns stack up against the rest of the league? https://t.co/90xjVTg4tU

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[Puff]

Been seeing this trade "rumor" and wanted to see the boards opinion of it...

Suns get-
Brandon Ingram

Pelicans get-
Jae Crowder
Cam Johnson
Dario Saric
Jalen Smith
2024 1st Round pick
2025 1st Round pick swap
2026 1st Round pick

Saw it on a FB page, and thought it was interesting. Funny because I thought the comments would be filled with how the Pelicans wouldn't do it, but most of the comments are about how lazy Ingram is and how the Suns shouldn't do it. :lol:
Seeing how it's the off-season, what do you all think? Personally... I'd love for the Suns to get another go-to scorer and I think Ingram would be ideal, but man I don't want to lose Cam Johnson. I'd probably do it, though no way Sarver would be okay doing this financially with Bridges and Ayton also likely getting a huge deal.

I do not like the proposed trade at all.

What has Ingram done to be worth this much?

The Lakers traded him now the Pelicans want to trade him?

I know the Lakers traded him for Davis but why would you break up the Ingram/Zion (the 2nd coming) combo?

I like our team as is. I am anxious to see Cam Johnson, Crowder and Stix play for OUR team this coming season.

I doubt we can afford to add Ingram to the Ayton, Booker, CP3 and Mikal payroll.

[Revived]

Read on Twitter

To think this is a man the Suns gave a $70M contract to…looks like that money may be running low though.

[thamadkant]

Read on Twitter

To think this is a man the Suns gave a $70M contract to…looks like that money may be running low though.

Hence why professional athletes should really consider risks of injuries when not accepting offers.

Sure you can bank on yourself and hold off for super big contracts. But if you are a borderline high value player who is an injury away from being minimum contract... You should consider taking a fair value contract...

Noel and Schroeder and even Isaiah Thomas comes to mind.

[Walt_Uoob]

Read on Twitter

To think this is a man the Suns gave a $70M contract to…looks like that money may be running low though.

Ha! I really tried to believe in Knight but wow, his career has basically been the inverse of Payne's. To think he went from a borderline all-star season (granted in a weak year in the East) to now desperately trying to get a roster spot. What a league!

Sent from my moto x4 using RealGM mobile app

[Saberestar]

I still don't see the three players I've mentioned as being worse than the the ones you've mentioned, Or Nader for that matter either. All are also very good athletes, strong multipositional defenders, And productive on offense. So at the very least they'd provide equitable value to that of Nader or any of the above mentioned, if not more in certain situations.

The players that I listed have been in the league a good amount of years for a reason.

We are contenders, we are not trying to develop players or tryingto to experiment with G-League players. We have enough of that with Jalen Smith and T. Alexander.

I would prefer a known commodity over an unproven guy because we need reliable players with Saric out. We will have only 14 players on our roster and this season will have 82 games...and then tough playoffs.

[lilfishi22]

Been seeing this trade "rumor" and wanted to see the boards opinion of it...

Suns get-
Brandon Ingram

Pelicans get-
Jae Crowder
Cam Johnson
Dario Saric
Jalen Smith
2024 1st Round pick
2025 1st Round pick swap
2026 1st Round pick

Saw it on a FB page, and thought it was interesting. Funny because I thought the comments would be filled with how the Pelicans wouldn't do it, but most of the comments are about how lazy Ingram is and how the Suns shouldn't do it.
Seeing how it's the off-season, what do you all think? Personally... I'd love for the Suns to get another go-to scorer and I think Ingram would be ideal, but man I don't want to lose Cam Johnson. I'd probably do it, though no way Sarver would be okay doing this financially with Bridges and Ayton also likely getting a huge deal.

Talent is always the factor the tips the scale. Sure health, chemistry and all those other things matter but talent wins championships and Ingram is as talented as they come.

But I'm going to say no even though I actually think it's a slightly underpay. If I wasn't a Suns fan and I saw this on a trade board, I'd be like hell yeah, it's giving up so so talent and future assets for an all-star now and for the next few years. The reason I say no is because I don't think the fit and the loss of depth would hurt. Ingram might not be a go-to guy but in his mind, that's what he is and I don't think you can have two guys who have that mindset and also don't play a ton of D on the same team in the last 5min of a playoff game. I also think from a salary cap standpoint, we would have basically 3 guys making 4 guys making $30m+ and that point, it's an overkill on the talent and you won't have enough chips to pay a supporting cast because these 4 guys can't play 45mpg.

So just from a fit and sustainability standpoint, I just don't think it makes sense. From a value standpoint, I think it's there

[lilfishi22]

Read on Twitter

To think this is a man the Suns gave a $70M contract to…looks like that money may be running low though.

Kinda feel bad for the guy. Maybe it's a hot take but I'd take him as our 3rd guard over Elf for sure. He's certainly a more capable shooter/scorer and when you're talking about 3rd guard off the bench, you kind of want a gunner who can also pass a little bit.

[bwgood77]

Read on Twitter

To think this is a man the Suns gave a $70M contract to…looks like that money may be running low though.

And that he was the main piece in the Brandon Jennings for him swap back in the day, which was though of as a pretty big trade since they were both high picks on rookie contracts. But the funniest thing about those being the main pieces was that Khris Middleton was more or less a throw in.

[bwgood77]

IMO, your 11 thru 15 benchers need not get much playing time at all, except in the case of injury. These slots need to be filled with promising youngsters you are cultivating. Not pay checking laststopping vets (see Moore,Galloway, Shank fn again and in a timely manner, GoKs list above ) These longtoothers have little to no value in trade land and are such marginal contributors on the court. Seems the only thing Jones wants is for them to mediocrely fill the minutes. And as far as the youngguns go….their stay should be brief if they do not show out. No reason why we haven’t retained the summer league big Alexander, or signed Perry, or even kept a second drat pick and had a dude like Sandro. This ‘Pet the Vet’ conservatism from Jones leaves his cupboards bare to make trades and keeps the prospect ceiling low. Right now, we don’t have any prospects who are actively pushing for playing time or ones that other teams would actually want. And it looks as if Jones is holding a spot for another washed elder. We have a fairly solid 1-10, Ateam Bteam rotation, but 11-15 (excluding Saric here) is like vegamite on toast… nobody wants it, but there’s always a few who’ll swear it’s good.

Yeah, I don't mind having 11 or 12 vets (or young key rotation guys) but I would always use 3-4 in addition to your 2 ways on developmental players. With Saric, I would consider him 12th vet and possibly have 11 but that would leave 3 developmental guys. Unless you had like 3+ injuries, you wouldn't even have to worry about playing them.

If somehow after Paul is done and we possibly regress a bit, Booker decides to leave (like Amare did, but that was even after a WCF appearance-though I know it was due to money), we are not going to have any young developing rotational pieces. It will be Ayton, Mikal and Cam (maybe Payne and Smith). I guess there is a chance we keep Shamet if we can trade Saric before or during next offseason...not sure if we'd keep both with the pending tax.

All that being said, I don't expect Booker to go anywhere, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't always continue developing guys for the future who can be nice cheap roster pieces with upside, and guys who should play within a couple years while making near minimum money but not journeymen.

[Revived]

Read on Twitter

To think this is a man the Suns gave a $70M contract to…looks like that money may be running low though.

And that he was the main piece in the Brandon Jennings for him swap back in the day, which was though of as a pretty big trade since they were both high picks on rookie contracts. But the funniest thing about those being the main pieces was that Khris Middleton was more or less a throw in.

There was another big trade where the “throw-in” guy ended up being better than everyone else but can’t remember right now.

And yeah I never liked Knight’s game. Right when he was traded here, Bucks fans were celebrating it extremely hard. That was telling especially since he was having an almost All Star caliber season with them.

[Revived]

Read on Twitter

To think this is a man the Suns gave a $70M contract to…looks like that money may be running low though.

Kinda feel bad for the guy. Maybe it's a hot take but I'd take him as our 3rd guard over Elf for sure. He's certainly a more capable shooter/scorer and when you're talking about 3rd guard off the bench, you kind of want a gunner who can also pass a little bit.

I may be proven wrong on this but I think Payton has better vision and passing ability. That will probably be more valuable from a 3rd PG. Shamet, Payne, Johnson etc should provide us with plenty of bench scoring so scoring/shooting shouldn’t be an issue.

[RunDogGun]

I don't mean to be rough on Knight, but it would be funny to see at the timeout, Knight running out checking everyone's shoes to see if they are tied.

[Jdiddy701]

No thanks to Brandon Ingram. I don’t even think BI is that much better then TJ Warren (if he’s ever healthy). That proposed trade is ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lilfishi22]

Read on Twitter

To think this is a man the Suns gave a $70M contract to…looks like that money may be running low though.

Kinda feel bad for the guy. Maybe it's a hot take but I'd take him as our 3rd guard over Elf for sure. He's certainly a more capable shooter/scorer and when you're talking about 3rd guard off the bench, you kind of want a gunner who can also pass a little bit.

I may be proven wrong on this but I think Payton has better vision and passing ability. That will probably be more valuable from a 3rd PG. Shamet, Payne, Johnson etc should provide us with plenty of bench scoring so scoring/shooting shouldn’t be an issue.

Elf is definitely the better passer for sure with better vision. Maybe with a higher pace off the bench, Elf's lack of shooting won't matter as much. Probably was too hot of a take....I like redemption stories, sue me

[bwgood77]

Read on Twitter

To think this is a man the Suns gave a $70M contract to…looks like that money may be running low though.

Kinda feel bad for the guy. Maybe it's a hot take but I'd take him as our 3rd guard over Elf for sure. He's certainly a more capable shooter/scorer and when you're talking about 3rd guard off the bench, you kind of want a gunner who can also pass a little bit.

I may be proven wrong on this but I think Payton has better vision and passing ability. That will probably be more valuable from a 3rd PG. Shamet, Payne, Johnson etc should provide us with plenty of bench scoring so scoring/shooting shouldn’t be an issue.

Yeah, Payton's without a doubt the better passer with better court vision. They both get themselves into situations where they get flustered and have dumb turnovers. I still cringe at Brandon Knight only having to like in bounds the ball to win against Detroit against Morris I think and I even remember saying in the thread..."all you have to do is not turn it over" and he did. I think he also tried to pass once and hit Morris in the head.

He had two blown turnover games it seems in a matter of a few back then...I think maybe in year one of his big new contract.

I mean we are scraping the bottom of the barrel with the comparison but at least Elf has played and can pass even though he's a huge negative on the court overall these days...but as a 3rd string guy probably getting no minutes for the majority of the season barring injuries, he shouldn't play much. Even if one of our 4 top guards are out, I think he still probably only gets 15 minutes tops.

[Ghost of Kleine]

I still don't see the three players I've mentioned as being worse than the the ones you've mentioned, Or Nader for that matter either. All are also very good athletes, strong multipositional defenders, And productive on offense. So at the very least they'd provide equitable value to that of Nader or any of the above mentioned, if not more in certain situations.

The players that I listed have been in the league a good amount of years for a reason.

We are contenders, we are not trying to develop players or tryingto to experiment with G-League players. We have enough of that with Jalen Smith and T. Alexander.

I would prefer a known commodity over an unproven guy because we need reliable players with Saric out. We will have only 14 players on our roster and this season will have 82 games...and then tough playoffs.

No, I really get all that man!
But again, we're talking about vet minimum depth players. So it's not like they're a huge risk to our cores' success. The premise is to add further depth around the edges, But at a discount if at all possible to our imminent bloated payroll will otherwise not allow us a broader range of options. These players by the way have played in the league, Maybe not for as long as some of the players that you've mentioned, But to their credit they also don't have as much wear and tear or are as worn down/ washed over the years either. They basically still have much more left in the tank. So in that regard, You get more value on your minimal investment anyways.

I also get what your saying about preferring a known commodity too. But that can also be a double edged sword again in that the NBA's littered with known commodities that at one point had an impact, But have lingered around the league with little to no remaining value due to being washed or extensive wear/ tear and age related deficits. If you're looking to bring in such players in a mentoring capacity, then that makes more sense. But if your looking go add tangible depth and impact throughout your rotation, it's better to take a gamble on upside. This again is especially important for contending teams with bloated contracts and restrictive payroll implications in order to maintain a balance of value throughout the roster.

These "known commodity" players that you've mentioned for comparison are now in their current classification as vet minimum/ still unsigned players because it's known that they can no longer impact games as they previously did due to age , wear and tear, regression over time. This is why their value is diminished so. At least with these younger players, They still maintain their upside, high end athleticism, speed and strength that can impact a game. For a minimal investment, as a 14th player or whatever, it's only good business to invest on these players potential impact and upside as their value can actually increase in terms of being a tradable asset to be included for a more premium returning piece. And their low contractual cost only furthers their percieved value to potential trade suitors.

Also the premise of these known players being reliable or consistent based upon their tenure in the league is obviously not a legitimate guarantee though. Over the years, there have been countless veteran nba players that regardless of their years of experience offered little to no reliability and consistency when it matters most. We've had more than our share of those players already (tenured vets by the way). Players such as Jared Dudley, Chris Andersen, Tyler Johnson, Jamal Crawford, and more recently even in Saric and Kaminsky, Wherrin you have no legitimate idea of what to expect in terms of production and impact from game to game. So using years/ tenure and being a known commodity just isn't a reliable or accurate barometer for impact/ production either.

So for my part, If considering best value on the fringe of the rotation, I'm choosing to bank on potential, upside, durability, athleticism to promote depth, As well as to accumulate ( percieved) higher value tradable assets that can be flipped upon increased value percieved upside for other rotation pieces in a restrictive payroll environment. That's just my preference though.

[SunsLyf3]

I still don't see the three players I've mentioned as being worse than the the ones you've mentioned, Or Nader for that matter either. All are also very good athletes, strong multipositional defenders, And productive on offense. So at the very least they'd provide equitable value to that of Nader or any of the above mentioned, if not more in certain situations.

The players that I listed have been in the league a good amount of years for a reason.

We are contenders, we are not trying to develop players or tryingto to experiment with G-League players. We have enough of that with Jalen Smith and T. Alexander.

I would prefer a known commodity over an unproven guy because we need reliable players with Saric out. We will have only 14 players on our roster and this season will have 82 games...and then tough playoffs.

No, I really get all that man!
But again, we're talking about vet minimum depth players. So it's not like they're a huge risk to our cores' success. The premise is to add further depth around the edges, But at a discount if at all possible to our imminent bloated payroll will otherwise not allow us a broader range of options. These players by the way have played in the league, Maybe not for as long as some of the players that you've mentioned, But to their credit they also don't have as much wear and tear or are as worn down/ washed over the years either. They basically still have much more left in the tank. So in that regard, You get more value on your minimal investment anyways.

I also get what your saying about preferring a known commodity too. But that can also be a double edged sword again in that the NBA's littered with known commodities that at one point had an impact, But have lingered around the league with little to no remaining value due to being washed or extensive wear/ tear and age related deficits. If you're looking to bring in such players in a mentoring capacity, then that makes more sense. But if your looking go add tangible depth and impact throughout your rotation, it's better to take a gamble on upside. This again is especially important for contending teams with bloated contracts and restrictive payroll implications in order to maintain a balance of value throughout the roster.

These "known commodity" players that you've mentioned for comparison are now in their current classification as vet minimum/ still unsigned players because it's known that they can no longer impact games as they previously did due to age , wear and tear, regression over time. This is why their value is diminished so. At least with these younger players, They still maintain their upside, high end athleticism, speed and strength that can impact a game. For a minimal investment, as a 14th player or whatever, it's only good business to invest on these players potential impact and upside as their value can actually increase in terms of being a tradable asset to be included for a more premium returning piece. And their low contractual cost only furthers their percieved value to potential trade suitors.

Also the premise of these known players being reliable or consistent based upon their tenure in the league is obviously not a legitimate guarantee though. Over the years, there have been countless veteran nba players that regardless of their years of experience offered little to no reliability and consistency when it matters most. We've had more than our share of those players already (tenured vets by the way). Players such as Jared Dudley, Chris Andersen, Tyler Johnson, Jamal Crawford, and more recently even in Saric and Kaminsky, Wherrin you have no legitimate idea of what to expect in terms of production and impact from game to game. So using years/ tenure and being a known commodity just isn't a reliable or accurate barometer for impact/ production either.

So for my part, If considering best value on the fringe of the rotation, I'm choosing to bank on potential, upside, durability, athleticism to promote depth, As well as to accumulate ( percieved) higher value tradable assets that can be flipped upon increased value percieved upside for other rotation pieces in a restrictive payroll environment. That's just my preference though.

How can you develop said potential and upside if they're not going to get PT? That's why I understand the point about going for a vet. With a vet you already know what you're going to get and the reason they're signed is in case of emergency.

[TeamTragic]

Did I just see someone suggest we trade Cam Johnson?

I guess either you are bored or want to get perma banned.

[lilfishi22]

The players that I listed have been in the league a good amount of years for a reason.

We are contenders, we are not trying to develop players or tryingto to experiment with G-League players. We have enough of that with Jalen Smith and T. Alexander.

I would prefer a known commodity over an unproven guy because we need reliable players with Saric out. We will have only 14 players on our roster and this season will have 82 games...and then tough playoffs.

No, I really get all that man!
But again, we're talking about vet minimum depth players. So it's not like they're a huge risk to our cores' success. The premise is to add further depth around the edges, But at a discount if at all possible to our imminent bloated payroll will otherwise not allow us a broader range of options. These players by the way have played in the league, Maybe not for as long as some of the players that you've mentioned, But to their credit they also don't have as much wear and tear or are as worn down/ washed over the years either. They basically still have much more left in the tank. So in that regard, You get more value on your minimal investment anyways.

I also get what your saying about preferring a known commodity too. But that can also be a double edged sword again in that the NBA's littered with known commodities that at one point had an impact, But have lingered around the league with little to no remaining value due to being washed or extensive wear/ tear and age related deficits. If you're looking to bring in such players in a mentoring capacity, then that makes more sense. But if your looking go add tangible depth and impact throughout your rotation, it's better to take a gamble on upside. This again is especially important for contending teams with bloated contracts and restrictive payroll implications in order to maintain a balance of value throughout the roster.

These "known commodity" players that you've mentioned for comparison are now in their current classification as vet minimum/ still unsigned players because it's known that they can no longer impact games as they previously did due to age , wear and tear, regression over time. This is why their value is diminished so. At least with these younger players, They still maintain their upside, high end athleticism, speed and strength that can impact a game. For a minimal investment, as a 14th player or whatever, it's only good business to invest on these players potential impact and upside as their value can actually increase in terms of being a tradable asset to be included for a more premium returning piece. And their low contractual cost only furthers their percieved value to potential trade suitors.

Also the premise of these known players being reliable or consistent based upon their tenure in the league is obviously not a legitimate guarantee though. Over the years, there have been countless veteran nba players that regardless of their years of experience offered little to no reliability and consistency when it matters most. We've had more than our share of those players already (tenured vets by the way). Players such as Jared Dudley, Chris Andersen, Tyler Johnson, Jamal Crawford, and more recently even in Saric and Kaminsky, Wherrin you have no legitimate idea of what to expect in terms of production and impact from game to game. So using years/ tenure and being a known commodity just isn't a reliable or accurate barometer for impact/ production either.

So for my part, If considering best value on the fringe of the rotation, I'm choosing to bank on potential, upside, durability, athleticism to promote depth, As well as to accumulate ( percieved) higher value tradable assets that can be flipped upon increased value percieved upside for other rotation pieces in a restrictive payroll environment. That's just my preference though.

How can you develop said potential and upside if they're not going to get PT? That's why I understand the point about going for a vet. With a vet you already know what you're going to get and the reason they're signed is in case of emergency.

Player development occur during practice as well. A lot of opportunities to develop where we don't see so not having playing time doesn't mean development is at a standstill. And if the said end of bench guy isn't likely to play anyway, it's fine to take a punt on youth. Alex Caruso for example barely played in his first two seasons in the league and turned into a solid contributor for the Lakers. Another example would be THT, he played even fewer minutes than Stix in his rookie year and this past season, he's been halfway decent in some games

For me, if we're talking about the 14th man, I think a young player with some upside is fine in that position. If we're talking 9th man, 10th man or 11th man then I probably would lean towards some experience and competency that would come with a smart vet who can come in and do work if called upon.

Also every team, from lotto teams to contenders have one or two young guys you've never even heard of that rides the pine for basically all but maybe a handful of games a season. They are just practice players mostly but depending on how they play in practice, there could be potential. I mean, no team brings in a young guy with zero potential.