Overall, we've had a good offseason. Right Kerr/Sarver bashers? - Page 7

SteelDog · August 20th, 2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesebeef

how many of those guys drafted are expected to MAJOR roles on a Title Contending team(or what the Suns and some fans believe to be a Title contending team)? It's about expectations. I think what Steel is saying that for a team that has one year at most left in it's window of opportunity for a title, that getting guys with no experience to man unbelievably instrumental positions isn't something that he can get excited about

Exactly. If we had instead traded for or signed proven veterans filling those roles then I would have said "A" in a heartbeat. We have no clue what we are getting in Lopez and Dragic. Many of you have stated we needed those positions filled to compete for a title. Filling those positions with unproven rookies is not exactly my idea of shoring up your title contending team.

That's why I say "C".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaplin

The Suns came into the offseason with specific goals. They met those goals, however much fans whine about what those goals are.

I seriously doubt the Suns goal was to just simply fill spots (like backup PG). The Suns have done that before (i.e. Marcus Banks). The very reason the Suns are still searching is because that goal was not met.

Their goals were to get a legit PG who can back up Nash and contribute. If goals being met was simply a matter of filling your roster spot in the offseason with whatever you can get your hands on then no GM should ever be fired.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaplin

You can't fault them for achieving their goals. You can fault them, however, for not having very lofty goals, if that's your opinion.

Your right. So as soon as the Suns have a legit backup PG who proves he can actually contribute....I will agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesebeef

man, I don't get this at all. chap, doesn't a team only meet goals they set if the moves actually work? I mean, the Suns needed to get a backup PG for Nash two years ago and signed a PG named Marcus Banks. Does that mean in your mind that they achieved their goal of getting a backup PG? Or last year, when again, they needed a backup PG, and they drafted a PG DJ Strawberry? I mean, if we lost out on Dragic (who hasn't proven he can play at this level yet) and ended up signing Wilks (who has proven he pretty much can't play at this level for any team worth a damn) as our backup PG, would you have still said they accomplished their goals... simply because Wilks was a PG? It's like saying we accomplished our goal last year in replacing our backup C because we signed Skinner to replace KT. Do you really think think that goal was met?

Well said.

If you had polled this entire board in the offseason and asked "Do you want the Suns to draft rookies to fill our needs or get proven veterans to fill those roster spots", the poll would not have been close. After all people have posted a million trade scenarios for veteran players. Now all of the sudden we draft Lopez and Dragic and all is fine in the world? I don't get it.

There is a huge difference between people whining and people being critical of Suns choices as of late. Hopefully, these latest ones work out. Nobody wants this team to win more then I do.

Irish · August 20th, 2008, 03:18 PM

Read my tag line. We have absolutely no evidence that there was a quality PG available for what the Suns have to offer.

The problem is that most teams don't have one guy who would be a good backup for the Suns and far fewer with two guys. So exactly how many teams have three guys? If the Suns had a quality backup for Nash, would they trade him for Barbosa? If not, why would some other team do it?

nowagimp · August 20th, 2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish

Obviously you have never tried to evaluate a startup company.

Does the business plan make sense? Are the steps outlined in the plan being implemented? Are there contingency plans and what steps are being prepared to plan for bad things?

Kerr appears to have a coherent plan: hire a defense oriented coach who wants to push the ball, draft energetic defense oriented players, add younger players to roster, add depth to the team, and get the message across to the esisting players that the team philosophy has changed.

Will it all work? Like with a startup company, there are often factors that cannot be controlled from interest rates to overall economic condiitions. A good plan does not have guarantees. But I'd rather invest in a company that has a good plan than one that has had success but only due to dumb luck.

1) You couldnt possibly be more off base, as I have worked in a startup company for the past 10 years and regularly evaluate the the technical merits of other startups for our investors. The lack of solid technical merit often kills any good business plan. I am also well aware of business plans, but at some point the plan has to work or the company will become an "unfunded" startup company. The days of selling a company without a proven product/assets are over, there will be no more dot coms. Investors now want to see much more than a good plan, plans are easy, results are tougher.

2) If the plan set out by Kerr doesnt work, as in the team isnt notably better, then there is no real evidence that it was even a good plan. There are plenty of good defensive teams in the NBA that dont win titles every year. Good defense is no guarantee of anything, just perhaps a necessary condition of a championship team. With so few examples to work with its even possible that a mediocre defensive team like the lakers wins a championship9last years lakers team wasnt far away). Kerrs plan is under test, many other good defensive teams had a dominant defender, TD with the spurs, KG with the celtics, Ben Wallace with the pistons, kerr does not have that dominant defensive big guy. The most likely successful plan based on the recent historical record in the NBA is that you must have a dominant big guy defender to patrol the lane. Shaq is a little long in the tooth to be that guy.

3) the suns are not a a startup company, not even close. Big companies with revenue and sales operate differently. If the CEO and executive staff dont provide the stockholders with result$, he/she will be gone asap.

I have worked for both big companies like Exxon, and siebe corp as well as startups and there is a huge difference. Where they are similar is in the need to reduce the exposure/risks of investors and keep them low. Plans either work or they find someone else to make new plans to work. the appearance of a good plan is not success by any real measure.

Cheesewater · August 20th, 2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelDog

Exactly. If we had instead traded for or signed proven veterans filling those roles then I would have said "A" in a heartbeat. We have no clue what we are getting in Lopez and Dragic. Many of you have stated we needed those positions filled to compete for a title. Filling those positions with unproven rookies is not exactly my idea of shoring up your title contending team. That's why I say "C".

Who? And don't say "Someone like..." I want names of who the Suns could have actually traded for or signed that would satisfy you. Remember, just because the Suns want Chris Paul doesn't mean the Hornets would take Alando Tucker for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelDog

If you had polled this entire board in the offseason and asked "Do you want the Suns to draft rookies to fill our needs or get proven veterans to fill those roster spots", the poll would not have been close. After all people have posted a million trade scenarios for veteran players. Now all of the sudden we draft Lopez and Dragic and all is fine in the world? I don't get it.

Again, who? If you polled me and said "Who do you want: Goran Dragic or Tyronn Lue?" I'm going with Dragic. "Brian Skinner or Robin Lopez?" It's Lopez. I don't have any doubt that Lopez can give at least what Skinner did...that's not setting the bar very high. By the way, posting a trade scenario doesn't make it possible. Just making the numbers work isn't all there is to it.

nowagimp · August 20th, 2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesewater

There are many CEOs with both long, multi-million dollar salaried careers and poor track records of results. Idiots, morons, dullards, and poor managers last for ages in the upper reaches of business management.

CEOs are mostly jettisoned for poor financial performance(results) in my experience. Stockholders dont accept failure for very long. Poor managers will last as long as the investors are happy and they typically dont care about how managers get along with their subordinates, so long as it doesnt obviously hurt the bottom line. Anyone who thinks CEO's arent evaluated by their results, must also believe that investors are stupid and like to lose money. You have your own little world there, if thats what you think. A fledgling GM like Steve Kerr has much more pto prove to his bosses than say a greg popovich or phil jackson. History says those guys know how to win a championship, the jury is out on kerr until he does something. Just copying greg popovich(without Tim Duncan of course) doesnt make steve kerrs plan or knowledge legitimate. When steve kerr does something he will get the credit and the latitude of a good GM, for now he is just a big ?, like lopez or dragic. The difference is that lopez and dragic cant kill the franchises competitiveness for years, a bad GM can.

SteelDog · August 20th, 2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesewater

Who? And don't say "Someone like..." I want names of who the Suns could have actually traded for or signed that would satisfy you. Remember, just because the Suns want Chris Paul doesn't mean the Hornets would take Alando Tucker for him.

There are endless trade scenarios. You can't be serious. Are you inferring that the Suns exhausted every trade scenario? Even trading someone for cap space so you could sign someone was a possibility. Depending on who they traded for cap space I could not answer that question. I am not a trade generator.

Plus I have commented on enough trade scenarios on this very forum for guys that I like or would have liked for them to pursue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesewater

Again, who? If you polled me and said "Who do you want: Goran Dragic or Tyronn Lue?" I'm going with Dragic. "Brian Skinner or Robin Lopez?" It's Lopez. I don't have any doubt that Lopez can give at least what Skinner did...that's not setting the bar very high. By the way, posting a trade scenario doesn't make it possible. Just making the numbers work isn't all there is to it.

I was not referring specifically to that scenario. Besides, if the Suns were determined on getting veteran players do you think we would have kept those pics?

Also, the question would have been asked pre-draft. There were no abundance of "Draft Lopez" or "Draft Dragic" threads on this board. So to say you would have taken Lopez or Dragic post draft to some guys we were pusuing is complete hind site. Your missing the point.

People if given a choice would not have chosen untested rookies over veteran guys. ESPECIALLY because pre-draft we had no idea who would be up there or where we would draft. I have a hard time believing the majority of folks were thinking "I will take player X" no matter who we draft over any veterans out there. That would have been a huge leap of faith pre-draft not knowing who was there...oh and by the way them being untested rookies on top of that.

The posted trade suggestions were endless on this board. If people really had 100% faith in the draft and preferred those guys to fill our spots, nobody would have cared about the free agent list or trades scenarios.

Cheesewater · August 20th, 2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nowagimp

CEOs are mostly jettisoned for poor financial performance(results) in my experience. Stockholders dont accept failure for very long. Poor managers will last as long as the investors are happy and they typically dont care about how managers get along with their subordinates, so long as it doesnt obviously hurt the bottom line. Anyone who thinks CEO's arent evaluated by their results, must also believe that investors are stupid and like to lose money. You have your own little world there, if thats what you think. A fledgling GM like Steve Kerr has much more pto prove to his bosses than say a greg popovich or phil jackson. History says those guys know how to win a championship, the jury is out on kerr until he does something. Just copying greg popovich(without Tim Duncan of course) doesnt make steve kerrs plan or knowledge legitimate. When steve kerr does something he will get the credit and the latitude of a good GM, for now he is just a big ?, like lopez or dragic. The difference is that lopez and dragic cant kill the franchises competitiveness for years, a bad GM can.

Hasn't General Motors been losing billions every year? Isn't General Motors' CEO a guy who makes millions a year and has been in his job since 2000? Sure he'll lose his job...maybe...but hasn't he been captaining a sinking ship for nearly a DECADE? Maybe those General Motors investors ARE stupid. And when he does walk...it will be with a smile and a handshake and a gold watch and an enormous severance...with no mention of how much he might suck.

Cheesewater · August 20th, 2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelDog

There are endless trade scenarios. You can't be serious. Are you inferring that the Suns exhausted every trade scenario? Even trading someone for cap space so you could sign someone was a possibility. Depending on who they traded for cap space I could not answer that question. I am not a trade generator.

Plus I have commented on enough trade scenarios on this very forum for guys that I like or would have liked for them to pursue.

No, there are NOT endless trade scenarios. You can only get who is available. The player has to fit the system. The player's team has to want what you are giving. THEN...the numbers have to work. And yes, I'll bet WAAAAAAYYY before the draft, Kerr and Griffin and Sarver and whoever else sat down and looked at all the possiblilites at the time. Why wouldn't they? Don't they want to win? There has to be a guy out there they wanted more than Robin Lopez and that they actually had a chance of signing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelDog

I was not referring specifically to that scenario. Besides, if the Suns were determined on getting veteran players do you think we would have kept those pics?

Also, the question would have been asked pre-draft. There were no abundance of "Draft Lopez" or "Draft Dragic" threads on this board. So to say you would have taken Lopez or Dragic post draft to some guys we were pusuing is complete hind site. Your missing the point.

People if given a choice would not have chosen untested rookies over veteran guys. ESPECIALLY because pre-draft we had no idea who would be up there or where we would draft.

Insert "Guy available at #15 to play Skinner's position" instead of Lopez then. Yes, still. If there is a guy who looks like he can do what Skinner does and perhaps MORE and is a building block for the future...yes. Don't the Suns have enough broken down old guys, I'm sorry, veteran guys? To say "I'm giving the Suns a C for the offseason because I would much rather have had Tyronn Lue than Goran Dragic" at this point is ludicrous to me. If anyone is actually thinking that.

HooverDam · August 20th, 2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesewater

No, there are NOT endless trade scenarios. You can only get who is available. The player has to fit the system. The player's team has to want what you are giving. THEN...the numbers have to work. And yes, I'll bet WAAAAAAYYY before the draft, Kerr and Griffin and Sarver and whoever else sat down and looked at all the possiblilites at the time. Why wouldn't they? Don't they want to win? There has to be a guy out there they wanted more than Robin Lopez and that they actually had a chance of signing.

You're intentionally setting up impossible scenarios for people arguing with you. How the heck are we supposed to know who the Suns received calls about? Or what deals the Suns nearly pulled the trigger on? You know damned well that we don't have that kind of information, so its hard to pinpoint specific players and say "the Suns should've gotten him." All we can do is look at past deals Steve Kerr has made (i.e. moving KT and TWO picks for nothing) and deduce that from his track record, he probably didn't act quickly or creatively enough.

SteelDog · August 20th, 2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesewater

No, there are NOT endless trade scenarios. You can only get who is available. The player has to fit the system. The player's team has to want what you are giving. THEN...the numbers have to work. And yes, I'll bet WAAAAAAYYY before the draft, Kerr and Griffin and Sarver and whoever else sat down and looked at all the possiblilites at the time. Why wouldn't they? Don't they want to win? There has to be a guy out there they wanted more than Robin Lopez and that they actually had a chance of signing.

I am sure they didn't. Despite rumors it appears that Suns were not as willing to get rid of Barbosa or Diaw as was being reported. Depending on which stories you believe. So if that is the case there were probably many trade scenarios not even considered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesewater

Insert "Guy available at #15 to play Skinner's position" instead of Lopez then. Yes, still. If there is a guy who looks like he can do what Skinner does and perhaps MORE and is a building block for the future...yes. Don't the Suns have enough broken down old guys, I'm sorry, veteran guys? To say "I'm giving the Suns a C for the offseason because I would much rather have had Tyronn Lue than Goran Dragic" at this point is ludicrous to me. If anyone is actually thinking that.

Again hind site. Pre-draft you had no clue who player X was, let alone if that player could play Skinners position. I can play the hind site game too. If Lopez was gone and Dragic was gone there was a huge drop off. Kerr even stated himself there was no other guard left of the board but Dragic at the time worth drafting. So, if those players were gone, this could have been tragic to say the least. So, if those players were gone and you can still say you honestly would have taken Player X over veterans.......wow.

Plus, I didn't say TL versus Dragic was the reason. I said the reason is because I think the Suns could have made some moves to get some veteran guys in here who can play those same positions.

To say lets give these guys an "A" for adding 2 untested pieces to team playing such crucial depth positions seems even more ludicrous. I agree these guys might be good future pieces. However, this team is trying to win the title this coming season.

Cheesewater · August 20th, 2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooverDam

You're intentionally setting up impossible scenarios for people arguing with you. How the heck are we supposed to know who the Suns received calls about? Or what deals the Suns nearly pulled the trigger on? You know damned well that we don't have that kind of information, so its hard to pinpoint specific players and say "the Suns should've gotten him." All we can do is look at past deals Steve Kerr has made (i.e. moving KT and TWO picks for nothing) and deduce that from his track record, he probably didn't act quickly or creatively enough.

Just pick a player for goodness sake. I'm not setting any impossible scenarios up. It is absolutely reasonable for me to ask "If you'd rather have a veteran back-up point guard than an untested rookie, who is it and can the Suns get him?" If anything I made it more specific. I wrote out the basic points to consider before choosing a veteran player's name. If it seems impossible to you to answer the question, maybe it's because there is no easy answer. Isn't that what an NBA GM has to face?

SteelDog · August 20th, 2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesewater

Just pick a player for goodness sake. I'm not setting any impossible scenarios up. It is absolutely reasonable for me to ask "If you'd rather have a veteran back-up point guard than an untested rookie, who is it and can the Suns get him?"

Yes it is impossible because you have no idea who was being offered or if the Suns were willing to pay the price. If the Suns said no, that does not mean the player was unavailable. Since, we will never know what the Suns were or were not willing to give up, that is an impossible question. Plus there are players shopped all the time who's names you never hear because they are being shopped under the table. Teams deny it all the time.

Look no further then our own Shawn Marion. I am convinced he was being shopped well before his trade to Miami despite being "unavailable".

HooverDam · August 20th, 2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesewater

Just pick a player for goodness sake. I'm not setting any impossible scenarios up. It is absolutely reasonable for me to ask "If you'd rather have a veteran back-up point guard than an untested rookie, who is it and can the Suns get him?" If anything I made it more specific. I wrote out the basic points to consider before choosing a veteran player's name. If it seems impossible to you to answer the question, maybe it's because there is no easy answer. Isn't that what an NBA GM has to face?

I didn't say being a NBA GM is an easy job, if it was, Steve Kerr might be good at it.

Further, since when did the debate become 'veteran PG or untested rookie'? All along the Suns said they wanted to get a veteran PG and have Dragic be the #3 guy. Right? We all knew that was the case, they failed (so far) at making the happen? Would you agree thats an accurate assessment of the situation?

Cheesewater · August 20th, 2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelDog

I am sure they didn't. Despite rumors it appears that Suns were not as willing to get rid of Barbosa or Diaw as was being reported. Depending on which stories you believe. So if that is the case there were probably many trade scenarios not even considered.

You're sure, huh? Maybe nobody else wanted Barbosa or Diaw. Or maybe what was being reported was hogwash. Why should they consider wildly unlikely trade scenarios?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelDog

Again hind site. Pre-draft you had no clue who player X was, let alone if that player could play Skinners position. I can play the hind site game too. If Lopez was gone and Dragic was gone there was a huge drop off. Kerr even stated himself there was no other guard left of the board but Dragic at the time worth drafting. So, if those players were gone, this could have been tragic to say the least. So, if those players were gone and you can still say you honestly would have taken Player X over veterans.......wow.

You absolutely have a clue who player X is. You've got at least one guy doing nothing all year but watching draftable players. You've spent hours researching the draftees and sorting them, ordering them for your team's needs and allowing for all the draft order contingencies. Then when that is complete, you look at what veterans might be available for your needs. Then you decide what to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelDog

Plus, I didn't say TL versus Dragic was the reason. I said the reason is because I think the Suns could have made some moves to get some veteran guys in here who can play those same positions.

But wasn't Lue one of the veterans available? All I'm asking is who would you have been able to get?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelDog

To say lets give these guys an "A" for adding 2 untested pieces to team playing such crucial depth positions seems even more ludicrous. I agree these guys might be good future pieces. However, this team is trying to win the title this coming season.

Agreed. That's why I never said give them an "A".