2025-26 Season News & Discussion

[sunskerr]

Trading Brooks for whatever you can get should be priority 1

Would you do Brooks for CamJo straight up?

I know Cam misses more games and he's in a big time slump right now but I much prefer his shot profile over Brooks, he's a better rebounder and a better shooter overall.

If Green takes a step then consider it heavily. But like others pointed out right now our team is running on actual culture with the departure of KD and Beal. Do you risk upsetting that? How much better do we get with Johnson and is that worth the risk trading a tone setter in Brooks. My guess is the team bloody loves Dillon and even if you hate his 38%fg or whatever it is (and it's pretty bad lol) somebody still has to take shots. I don't necessarily mind trading for CamJo and then dumping the usage into Booker though. It's pretty sound meta strategy.

But also consider from Denver's side I don't think they have any use for Dillon. CamJo is probably a big part of their plans even with the struggles - they need that spacing around Jokic.

Ok here's a bit of a cheeky thing: the answer of tank or not to tank when you have no picks is not actually a yes or no answer. The answer is that it doesn't actually matter whether you're tanking or not because, well, you don't have picks!

I disagree with 1 point of bigfoot's and that is targeting 3-4 years of college experience. I think this, depending on context, can be unwise. Youngest players coming into the league at 18-19, and we have our picks back in 6 years (after this season). That puts drafting 18-19 year olds at like 24-26 years old when we get our picks back, and then let's say 2-3 years of waiting for the picks to develop...so 26 to 29 years old when you're fighting in the playoffs

If you draft 22 year olds you're looking at 27-29 when you get your picks back and then 30-32 when you're in the playoffs again.

Also this might seem strange to hear but I'm not sure there is any data to support the idea that drafting experienced players is "safer" or they have less "bust" potential (as much as late 1sts, 2nds can even "bust"). As a rule of thumb young players of similar talent level to older players are just better prospects (because they have learned a similar amount of skills in a shorter amount of time). They tend to go earlier in the draft but even so they are often available late.

Well, whatever. If you just target best player available with every pick you have (a wise strategy especially in our position) the end result is going to look something like some older rookies and some younger rookies anyway . Bottom line we all agree is to just get good players that's really all we can do.

[AtheJ415]

Trading Brooks for whatever you can get should be priority 1

Would you do Brooks for CamJo straight up?

I know Cam misses more games and he's in a big time slump right now but I much prefer his shot profile over Brooks, he's a better rebounder and a better shooter overall.

If Green takes a step then consider it heavily. But like others pointed out right now our team is running on actual culture with the departure of KD and Beal. Do you risk upsetting that? How much better do we get with Johnson and is that worth the risk trading a tone setter in Brooks. My guess is the team bloody loves Dillon and even if you hate his 38%fg or whatever it is (and it's pretty bad lol) somebody still has to take shots. I don't necessarily mind trading for CamJo and then dumping the usage into Booker though. It's pretty sound meta strategy.

But also consider from Denver's side I don't think they have any use for Dillon. CamJo is probably a big part of their plans even with the struggles - they need that spacing around Jokic.

Ok here's a bit of a cheeky thing: the answer of tank or not to tank when you have no picks is not actually a yes or no answer. The answer is that it doesn't actually matter whether you're tanking or not because, well, you don't have picks!

I disagree with 1 point of bigfoot's and that is targeting 3-4 years of college experience. I think this, depending on context, can be unwise. Youngest players coming into the league at 18-19, and we have our picks back in 6 years (after this season). That puts drafting 18-19 year olds at like 24-26 years old when we get our picks back, and then let's say 2-3 years of waiting for the picks to develop...so 26 to 29 years old when you're fighting in the playoffs

If you draft 22 year olds you're looking at 27-29 when you get your picks back and then 30-32 when you're in the playoffs again.

Also this might seem strange to hear but I'm not sure there is any data to support the idea that drafting experienced players is "safer" or they have less "bust" potential (as much as late 1sts, 2nds can even "bust"). As a rule of thumb young players of similar talent level to older players are just better prospects (because they have learned a similar amount of skills in a shorter amount of time). They tend to go earlier in the draft but even so they are often available late.

Well, whatever. If you just target best player available with every pick you have (a wise strategy especially in our position) the end result is going to look something like some older rookies and some younger rookies anyway . Bottom line we all agree is to just get good players that's really all we can do.

You are giving way too much credit to Brooks. Goodwin plays as hard on D. Does he set the tone for hero ball offense by mediocre shooters? Brooks is easily expendable imo

[sunskerr]

You are giving way too much credit to Brooks. Goodwin plays as hard on D. Does he set the tone for hero ball offense by mediocre shooters? Brooks is easily expendable imo

I give proper credit

[lilfishi22]

Would you do Brooks for CamJo straight up?

I know Cam misses more games and he's in a big time slump right now but I much prefer his shot profile over Brooks, he's a better rebounder and a better shooter overall.

If Green takes a step then consider it heavily. But like others pointed out right now our team is running on actual culture with the departure of KD and Beal. Do you risk upsetting that? How much better do we get with Johnson and is that worth the risk trading a tone setter in Brooks. My guess is the team bloody loves Dillon and even if you hate his 38%fg or whatever it is (and it's pretty bad lol) somebody still has to take shots. I don't necessarily mind trading for CamJo and then dumping the usage into Booker though. It's pretty sound meta strategy.

But also consider from Denver's side I don't think they have any use for Dillon. CamJo is probably a big part of their plans even with the struggles - they need that spacing around Jokic.

Ok here's a bit of a cheeky thing: the answer of tank or not to tank when you have no picks is not actually a yes or no answer. The answer is that it doesn't actually matter whether you're tanking or not because, well, you don't have picks!

I disagree with 1 point of bigfoot's and that is targeting 3-4 years of college experience. I think this, depending on context, can be unwise. Youngest players coming into the league at 18-19, and we have our picks back in 6 years (after this season). That puts drafting 18-19 year olds at like 24-26 years old when we get our picks back, and then let's say 2-3 years of waiting for the picks to develop...so 26 to 29 years old when you're fighting in the playoffs

If you draft 22 year olds you're looking at 27-29 when you get your picks back and then 30-32 when you're in the playoffs again.

Also this might seem strange to hear but I'm not sure there is any data to support the idea that drafting experienced players is "safer" or they have less "bust" potential (as much as late 1sts, 2nds can even "bust"). As a rule of thumb young players of similar talent level to older players are just better prospects (because they have learned a similar amount of skills in a shorter amount of time). They tend to go earlier in the draft but even so they are often available late.

Well, whatever. If you just target best player available with every pick you have (a wise strategy especially in our position) the end result is going to look something like some older rookies and some younger rookies anyway . Bottom line we all agree is to just get good players that's really all we can do.

You are giving way too much credit to Brooks. Goodwin plays as hard on D. Does he set the tone for hero ball offense by mediocre shooters? Brooks is easily expendable imo

Maybe a bit early in the season to definitively say it's Ott or Brooks or a combination of guys who have helped build this play hard culture but from what I've seen, he's definitely one of the leaders on this team in bringing that energy. And as much as Goodwin plays hard on D, the guy plays 16mpg, he's not the one leading this gritty, all out defense style of play. If I look up and down the roster of candidates, it's guys like Dunn, it's guys like Gillespie and it's Brooks who plays the most minutes. I obviously share your dislike for his brand of basketball on the offensive end and wished he didn't have the greenlight he seems to have but defensively, he's definitely revving this team up. Watching this team, it's no surprise we're 4th in the league in steals and 6th in the league in "stocks" and he's leading the Suns in steals at 1.9 a game, good for 7th in the league.

[sunskerr]

Maybe a bit early in the season to definitively say it's Ott or Brooks or a combination of guys who have helped build this play hard culture but from what I've seen, he's definitely one of the leaders on this team in bringing that energy. And as much as Goodwin plays hard on D, the guy plays 16mpg, he's not the one leading this gritty, all out defense style of play. If I look up and down the roster of candidates, it's guys like Dunn, it's guys like Gillespie and it's Brooks who plays the most minutes. I obviously share your dislike for his brand of basketball on the offensive end and wished he didn't have the greenlight he seems to have but defensively, he's definitely revving this team up. Watching this team, it's no surprise we're 4th in the league in steals and 6th in the league in "stocks" and he's leading the Suns in steals at 1.9 a game, good for 7th in the league.

Yeah honestly that's a really nice adjustment. People underrate the value of steals massively. Thunder proved last year that steals are amazing which iirc is something stat heads had been saying for years.

There is an optimum amount of gambling on defensive you can do to maximize your total steals. But also there are defensive strategies now that teams are implementing to try to force steals. Then of course steals are a really good way of minimizing height disadvantage for smaller players.

It's a really neat facet of modern basketball. I think people should adjust their sentiments towards steals - steals are (mostly) good defense.

Watch on YouTube

Ott is probably taking a page from the Thunder here. My head says we will regress a little bit but that's ok. We're much more fun to watch.

[sunsbum]

The fact that we were even in that game without GA and Green speaks volumes. Wish we could have got the win but still feeling good about our team.

[KdoubleDees23]

Trading Brooks for whatever you can get should be priority 1

Would you do Brooks for CamJo straight up?

I know Cam misses more games and he's in a big time slump right now but I much prefer his shot profile over Brooks, he's a better rebounder and a better shooter overall.

If Green takes a step then consider it heavily. But like others pointed out right now our team is running on actual culture with the departure of KD and Beal. Do you risk upsetting that? How much better do we get with Johnson and is that worth the risk trading a tone setter in Brooks. My guess is the team bloody loves Dillon and even if you hate his 38%fg or whatever it is (and it's pretty bad lol) somebody still has to take shots. I don't necessarily mind trading for CamJo and then dumping the usage into Booker though. It's pretty sound meta strategy.

But also consider from Denver's side I don't think they have any use for Dillon. CamJo is probably a big part of their plans even with the struggles - they need that spacing around Jokic.

Ok here's a bit of a cheeky thing: the answer of tank or not to tank when you have no picks is not actually a yes or no answer. The answer is that it doesn't actually matter whether you're tanking or not because, well, you don't have picks!

I disagree with 1 point of bigfoot's and that is targeting 3-4 years of college experience. I think this, depending on context, can be unwise. Youngest players coming into the league at 18-19, and we have our picks back in 6 years (after this season). That puts drafting 18-19 year olds at like 24-26 years old when we get our picks back, and then let's say 2-3 years of waiting for the picks to develop...so 26 to 29 years old when you're fighting in the playoffs

If you draft 22 year olds you're looking at 27-29 when you get your picks back and then 30-32 when you're in the playoffs again.

Also this might seem strange to hear but I'm not sure there is any data to support the idea that drafting experienced players is "safer" or they have less "bust" potential (as much as late 1sts, 2nds can even "bust"). As a rule of thumb young players of similar talent level to older players are just better prospects (because they have learned a similar amount of skills in a shorter amount of time). They tend to go earlier in the draft but even so they are often available late.

Well, whatever. If you just target best player available with every pick you have (a wise strategy especially in our position) the end result is going to look something like some older rookies and some younger rookies anyway . Bottom line we all agree is to just get good players that's really all we can do.

Are you all blind or just horrible GMs? You realize the reason we are winning and have a winning culture who hustles and works hard is Brooks. Brooks is vocal, may be too vocal, but he is a leader. If you trade him for CamJo who is not a good basketball player, he just is a good shooter. What Brooks did last night and the ability to defend, score 30 + is a lot better value than a CamJo! Stop with the fascination of one of the twins. The only twin I would trade for Brooks would be bridges.

[KdoubleDees23]

If Green takes a step then consider it heavily. But like others pointed out right now our team is running on actual culture with the departure of KD and Beal. Do you risk upsetting that? How much better do we get with Johnson and is that worth the risk trading a tone setter in Brooks. My guess is the team bloody loves Dillon and even if you hate his 38%fg or whatever it is (and it's pretty bad lol) somebody still has to take shots. I don't necessarily mind trading for CamJo and then dumping the usage into Booker though. It's pretty sound meta strategy.

But also consider from Denver's side I don't think they have any use for Dillon. CamJo is probably a big part of their plans even with the struggles - they need that spacing around Jokic.



Ok here's a bit of a cheeky thing: the answer of tank or not to tank when you have no picks is not actually a yes or no answer. The answer is that it doesn't actually matter whether you're tanking or not because, well, you don't have picks!

I disagree with 1 point of bigfoot's and that is targeting 3-4 years of college experience. I think this, depending on context, can be unwise. Youngest players coming into the league at 18-19, and we have our picks back in 6 years (after this season). That puts drafting 18-19 year olds at like 24-26 years old when we get our picks back, and then let's say 2-3 years of waiting for the picks to develop...so 26 to 29 years old when you're fighting in the playoffs

If you draft 22 year olds you're looking at 27-29 when you get your picks back and then 30-32 when you're in the playoffs again.

Also this might seem strange to hear but I'm not sure there is any data to support the idea that drafting experienced players is "safer" or they have less "bust" potential (as much as late 1sts, 2nds can even "bust"). As a rule of thumb young players of similar talent level to older players are just better prospects (because they have learned a similar amount of skills in a shorter amount of time). They tend to go earlier in the draft but even so they are often available late.

Well, whatever. If you just target best player available with every pick you have (a wise strategy especially in our position) the end result is going to look something like some older rookies and some younger rookies anyway . Bottom line we all agree is to just get good players that's really all we can do.

You are giving way too much credit to Brooks. Goodwin plays as hard on D. Does he set the tone for hero ball offense by mediocre shooters? Brooks is easily expendable imo

Maybe a bit early in the season to definitively say it's Ott or Brooks or a combination of guys who have helped build this play hard culture but from what I've seen, he's definitely one of the leaders on this team in bringing that energy. And as much as Goodwin plays hard on D, the guy plays 16mpg, he's not the one leading this gritty, all out defense style of play. If I look up and down the roster of candidates, it's guys like Dunn, it's guys like Gillespie and it's Brooks who plays the most minutes. I obviously share your dislike for his brand of basketball on the offensive end and wished he didn't have the greenlight he seems to have but defensively, he's definitely revving this team up. Watching this team, it's no surprise we're 4th in the league in steals and 6th in the league in "stocks" and he's leading the Suns in steals at 1.9 a game, good for 7th in the league.

Are you in the locker room? Are you at practice? Nope not at all. My buddy works for the Suns and said that Brooks is the vocal leader that we have always needed since Barkley. From his chirping, to hustling, it feeds off on the younger players. So trading Brooks, I guarantee we would fall back to the team with Booker leading (Silent Leader like KD)

[KdoubleDees23]

I am in complete shock that we have a fun team, with a 29 year old Brooks who is the player the Suns have always needed with Booker. And yall are trying to come up with trade ideas. This fan base confuses me sometimes.