Should Suns should follow Hornets plan?

OP
OP
GatorAZ

GatorAZ

feed hopkins
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Posts
24,247
Reaction score
16,392
Location
The Giant Toaster
I don’t have a problem with making Joe prove it on a good team before paying him even if they were only off by 5 mil. The problem was giving Q the same exact contract. They should’ve saved the cap space and just drafted Iguodala or Deng. I believe the Q contract pissed off JJ as much as being lowballed. He wanted out after that and had a great contract year. Pretty brutal to let a guy that young go who could shoot, play PG and create his own shot. He also led the 04’-05’ team in minutes and then...

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
112,537
Reaction score
51,772
From the fans viewpoint its the money thing, just like you said. There was writing in the AZ Republic where Sarver said he just didn't think Joe Johnson was going to take that next step. To be fair, Joe was on the rise, but he didn't quite hit that top tier of player. The money was a factor in that the Suns had a lot of top guys, and if they locked Joe in at his price it meant someone would not be signed later. I get that. If you sign Joe and he doesn't take that higher step, and you have to let a better guy go later, it backfires. It was a judgement call. I think where Sarver made a mistake was being so public about the whole thing. That's why you pay a GM as an owner. You let him take the heat for not resigning a guy. It became Joe versus Sarver in the media. I think that hurt the Suns with free agents after that.

I realize there is another viewpoint, but Sarver could have had Joe Johnson on a reasonable salary if he had not quibbled over $10 million... the difference in extending Joe Johnson before he hit free agency. It's hard to understand why Sarver held his ground on this amount of money unless he was not basketball smart or penny wise and pound foolish

There have been other basketball moves Sarver has made to save money such as the Kurt Thomas trade and selling draft picks.

Also one could argue Sarver might have been better off paying Amare $100 million instead of making bad signings in Childress, Turoglu and Warrick.

I'm hoping Sarver has turned the corner as an owner with the hire of Ryan McDonough.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
88,096
Reaction score
60,385
Like I said, they gave up on the season. They weren't after a draft pick but their record didn't matter and they knew they'd be awful. They only cared about clearing cap space for that summer.

You're just looking to argue and I'm not going to bite this time and indulge you any further. You're nitpicking things that happened 15 years ago and we're largely talking about how certain moves were moved and how we judged them. We don't need to agree.

You're right... we don't need to agree on opinion, but in order to have substantive discussion, we do need to agree on facts, which is why I list/link them after arguments you make that I believe fly in the face of them.

I've already said my piece and I don't need to justify it to you, of all people, especially when you want to try to break down each and every sentence.

I break down sentences that I believe aren't based on facts. It's not my fault there's so many of them in your arguments.

You don't do that with anyone else here and I get it,

No you don't. I don't do that with anyone else here because to be honest, I don't see anyone one else here get their facts as wrong as you do, IMO. And that kind of thing bothers me in a discussion. So, if you post an argument with a bunch of facts that don't exist, I'm going to probably disagree and then painstakingly show exactly where I don't disagree with facts/links so you can see I'm not just making some general statement with nothing to back it up.

you don't like me, and I don't care because I don't like you either but unlike you I can maintain some civility.

Jesus... pointing out where your facts are wrong isn't uncivil. Again, it ain't my fault there's so many of them.
 

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
15,976
Reaction score
10,862
Location
Tempe, AZ
You're right... we don't need to agree on opinion, but in order to have substantive discussion, we do need to agree on facts, which is why I list/link them after arguments you make that I believe fly in the face of them.



I break down sentences that I believe aren't based on facts. It's not my fault there's so many of them in your arguments.



No you don't. I don't do that with anyone else here because to be honest, I don't see anyone one else here get their facts as wrong as you do, IMO. And that kind of thing bothers me in a discussion. So, if you post an argument with a bunch of facts that don't exist, I'm going to probably disagree and then painstakingly show exactly where I don't disagree with facts/links so you can see I'm not just making some general statement with nothing to back it up.



Jesus... pointing out where your facts are wrong isn't uncivil. Again, it ain't my fault there's so many of them.

If you tried talking to people like you do here in a sports bar it would only happen once or twice before either you'd learn better or you wouldn't be welcome back. Oh yeah, you have mentioned about being thrown out of various games before for making drunken scenes. Perhaps that's why you post here now. It's starting to make sense.
 

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
15,976
Reaction score
10,862
Location
Tempe, AZ
I've already mentioned this is all talk of what happened in the past and how we perceived it. Everyone else is commenting the same way, agreeing with certain things and disagreeing with others but every one else is looking at the same picture. You're trying to contort that for some reason. It's childish. I've stated my piece, no one else has an issue with it. It's all perception.

We're not talking about facts, there is no fact of what makes a player worth a certain amount of money because some players get overpaid, others underpaid, and some get signed to relatively fair deals. How a player is it paid isn't something that is set in stone outside of the contract they sign and no play determines he's worth X amount, the market sets a value and teams pay it or they don't, for numerous reasons. You can say JJ was worth more and he should have been paid, that doesn't make it so. Where are the facts you keep babbling about? Q made X amount? Sarver and company deemed his style of play, production, and role earned him that. You can disagree with that but there really isn't a right or wrong. He did average more than JJ and JJ wanted to be paid more than Q. It may not have been much of a difference but it was a difference. We weren't in the room, we don't know why they valued one of them one way and the other differently. It's all assumptions.

For god sake, you're whining like a child because I said JJ didn't produce like Q in Sarver's eye's and he wasn't willing to pay him more. What's the big deal? Did Sarver pay him? No. Why? We're not entirely sure but he told him to earn the raise and JJ did but he wanted out. What's the issue? Is that not essentially how things happened? No one else is disputing that. Again, a lot of that is perception and how one is valued by one person isn't the same as how someone else views them.

And why are you complaining? Because you're looking to pick a fight for some stupid reason. It's ridiculous. Again, you let everything else said in this thread go, even when people have stated similar points of view. I can only assume as to why but I don't really know and have given up caring. Go pound some salt.
 
Last edited:

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
88,096
Reaction score
60,385
I've already mentioned this is all talk of what happened in the past and how we perceived it. Everyone else is commenting the same way, agreeing with certain things and disagreeing with others but every one else is looking at the same picture. You're trying to contort that some reason. It's childish. I've stated my piece, no one else has an issue with it. It's all perception.

We're not talking about facts, there is no fact of what makes a player worth a certain amount of money because some players get overpaid, others underpaid, and some get signed to relatively fair deals. How a player is it paid isn't something that is set in stone outside of the contract they sign and no play determines he's worth X amount, the market sets a value and teams pay it or they don't, for numerous reasons. You can say JJ was worth more and he should have been paid, that doesn't make it so. Where are the facts you keep babbling about? Q made X amount?

WTF? This was pretty clear in my first post. Both guys put up the same stats. You said they didn't. That's all.

You also said you doubt the difference in $ was 1 million dollars per year. I provided links to say it was. That's all.

Sarver and company deemed his style of play, production, and role earned him that. You can disagree with that but there really isn't a right or wrong. He did average more than JJ and JJ wanted to be paid more than Q. It may not have been much of a difference but it was a difference. We weren't in the room, we don't know why they valued one of them one way and the other differently. It's all assumptions.

And I'm not arguing any of that. YOUR argument was a) Sarver made the right call because Q was superior to JJ. The facts don't bear that out. And then another argument was you didn't believe it was only 1 million dollar difference and that if it was Sarver would have worked it out. The facts don't bear that out.

That's all.

For god sake, you're whining like a child because I said JJ didn't produce like Q in Sarver's eye's and he wasn't willing to pay him more.

Whining like a child? I'm responding to your arguments with facts that refute them. You're responding to those by saying "I get it you don't like me! I don't like you! But at least I'm civil!"

And then calling me a child.

What's the big deal? Did Sarver pay him? No. Why? We're not entirely sure but he told him to earn the raise and JJ did but he wanted out. What's the issue? Is that not essentially how things happened? No one else is disputing that. Again, a lot of that is perception and how one is valued by one person isn't the same as how someone else views them.

And why are you complaining? Because you're looking to pick a fight for some stupid reason. It's ridiculous. Again, you let everything else said in this thread go, even when people have stated similar points of view. I can only assume as to why but I don't really know and have given up caring. Go pound some salt.

Again, in previous posts, I pointed out where your facts were wrong as reasons for disagreeing with your argument and in response you've gone on to change your argument multiple times, tell me to "pound sand", say that I'm "babbling", "whining", childish and ridiculous.

But I'm the one looking to pick a fight. :thumbup:

Look Poop Head... if I bother you so much, why don't you do everyone a solid and just put me on ignore. If not, try not to accuse me of being uncivil while simultaneously calling me a whining/ridiculous/babbling child every time I dare question you.
 
Last edited:

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
15,976
Reaction score
10,862
Location
Tempe, AZ
Look Poop Head... if I bother you so much, why don't you do everyone a solid and just put me on ignore. If not, try not to accuse me of being uncivil while simultaneously calling me a whining/ridiculous/babbling child every time I dare question you.

Why don't you just put me on ignore, because I'm only replying to you because you started overanalyzing every little thing I said because YOU took issue with it. I don't have a problem, you do. I could have chosen to ignore you entirely but I didn't. I tried to dismiss you quickly though and you seemed to take exception to that by continuing on picking apart everything I said, again. When someone does that continuously, I think it's pretty immature, which is why I said you were being childish. Do you expect to be able to needle someone incessantly while throwing in slightly veiled insults with them keeping their composure? Surely you're not that socially inept.

I did tell you to "pound salt" and I mean it in the most sincere way possible. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I was trying to avoid one but you kept nagging on and on. You can only push at someone so much before they tell you to stop and that was essentially what I did. If you can't see that or didn't take it that way, maybe I should have been clearer. I thought saying I didn't need to justify what I said to you was enough but you continued to seek that justification and needle on.
 

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
15,976
Reaction score
10,862
Location
Tempe, AZ
So...how 'bout them Suns.:)

I don't think they need to follow the Hornet's lead but I wouldn't be disappointed if they did. Have the jerseys and court design for this season already get released? I know some teams have released theirs but I wasn't sure if the Suns had yet.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
44,675
Reaction score
14,119
Location
Round Rock, TX
I don't think they need to follow the Hornet's lead but I wouldn't be disappointed if they did. Have the jerseys and court design for this season already get released? I know some teams have released theirs but I wasn't sure if the Suns had yet.
As far as I know, the jerseys aren’t changing this year. At least, the bastion of prognostication, NBA 2K 2019, bears that out. :)
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
112,537
Reaction score
51,772
Huh?

The season before they signed Q, Q averaged 17.2/6/2 on 40% shooting at the age of 23.

The season before the signed Q, JJ averaged 16.7/5/4 on 43% shooting at the age of 22.

Those are pretty much the EXACT same numbers, with Joe having played one fewer year even at that point.

And Q didn't do jack to lead his previous team to success so not sure why you brought that up as a reason to give him the deal and not JJ.


Except the contract JJ wanted wasn't CLOSE to the Max. He wanted 5 years for 50. Sarver wanted 5 years for 45. He balked at a difference of a million dollars per year.


he balked at 1 million dollars more per year on a 5 year deal for JJ. It was an idiotic decision then and still is mostly because he was not only going to get JJ, but he was going to get him for what turned out to be a freaking bargain. Even if he stayed just as 16.7/5/4, he would have been well worth 5 years for 50.

If the difference was only $5 million and not $10 million (as I thought) in getting the extension done for Joe Johnson, it makes matters even worse. It's hard to believe Sarver drew the line at $5 million. I'm not sure what one calls it but it was a terrible basketball decision.
 

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
15,976
Reaction score
10,862
Location
Tempe, AZ
As far as I know, the jerseys aren’t changing this year. At least, the bastion of prognostication, NBA 2K 2019, bears that out. :)

I hope they improve the city jersey, at least. A few teams have very cool versions of that but the Suns was underwhelming. This was last years. I remember the Miami one was very cool.
You must be registered for see images attach
 

Hoop Head

ASFN Icon
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
15,976
Reaction score
10,862
Location
Tempe, AZ
The Miami one was probably the best in the league, it has a Miami Vice vibe. Every team had a version and they were supposed to reflect the history of the city the team played in. That's part of why the Suns is so disappointing.

You must be registered for see images attach
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
88,096
Reaction score
60,385
If the difference was only $5 million and not $10 million (as I thought) in getting the extension done for Joe Johnson, it makes matters even worse. It's hard to believe Sarver drew the line at $5 million. I'm not sure what one calls it but it was a terrible basketball decision.

yup. and it was actually a six years deal for 50, not 5/50 that I remembered, which makes it even worse.
 
OP
OP
GatorAZ

GatorAZ

feed hopkins
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Posts
24,247
Reaction score
16,392
Location
The Giant Toaster
yup. and it was actually a six years deal for 50, not 5/50 that I remembered, which makes it even worse.

I always crack up when I think of what max deals were like back then. Joe was 21-22 when he turned down 6/50 and Booker at the same age just got 5/160.

Diaw would’ve been more important in 06’ but with Amare back in 07’-10’ with Nash and prime-JJ that’s 2-3 titles.
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
19,562
Reaction score
10,283
I realize there is another viewpoint, but Sarver could have had Joe Johnson on a reasonable salary if he had not quibbled over $10 million... the difference in extending Joe Johnson before he hit free agency. It's hard to understand why Sarver held his ground on this amount of money unless he was not basketball smart or penny wise and pound foolish

There have been other basketball moves Sarver has made to save money such as the Kurt Thomas trade and selling draft picks.

Also one could argue Sarver might have been better off paying Amare $100 million instead of making bad signings in Childress, Turoglu and Warrick.

I'm hoping Sarver has turned the corner as an owner with the hire of Ryan McDonough.

It is hard to defend any aspect of the Joe Johnson situation, but letting Amare go was the right move, but the rebuild should have started right then and there. Yeah, signing Childress and Warrick and trading for Turkoglu was an abject distaster... but a disaster easier to recover from than Amare's contract, we just lacked competent leadership.

It's been talked about repeatedly, but the worst thing to happen to McD was the stunning success of the 13/14 team, that team was meant to suck, but Bledsoe and Dragic were a waaaaay better partnership than anyone imagined. I think McD is pretty good at evaluating talent, he's good at working out contracts, he's good at the draft... he's bad at understanding that his players are people and... so far... I'm unsure that he knows how to construct a cohesive roster.

But, regardless, I'm pretty sure I'd prefer the disaster we suffered through than the abomination we would have dealt with if we'd extended Amare. We probably make the playoffs in 10/11 and then we probably suffer through a stretch even more depressing than what we actually saw. I just don't see Sarver being willing to accept the sunk cost that the roster would have represented. IMO, had we extended Amare then the rebuild would have only finally actually started in the last year or 2, and one could only pray we hadn't dealt our own picks in an effort to keep the sinking ship afloat. I honestly think we could have swapped roles with the Nets, dealing away years and years worth of picks, in an effort to throw one more sad toss at a title.
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
112,537
Reaction score
51,772
It is hard to defend any aspect of the Joe Johnson situation, but letting Amare go was the right move, but the rebuild should have started right then and there. Yeah, signing Childress and Warrick and trading for Turkoglu was an abject distaster... but a disaster easier to recover from than Amare's contract, we just lacked competent leadership.

It's been talked about repeatedly, but the worst thing to happen to McD was the stunning success of the 13/14 team, that team was meant to suck, but Bledsoe and Dragic were a waaaaay better partnership than anyone imagined. I think McD is pretty good at evaluating talent, he's good at working out contracts, he's good at the draft... he's bad at understanding that his players are people and... so far... I'm unsure that he knows how to construct a cohesive roster.

But, regardless, I'm pretty sure I'd prefer the disaster we suffered through than the abomination we would have dealt with if we'd extended Amare. We probably make the playoffs in 10/11 and then we probably suffer through a stretch even more depressing than what we actually saw. I just don't see Sarver being willing to accept the sunk cost that the roster would have represented. IMO, had we extended Amare then the rebuild would have only finally actually started in the last year or 2, and one could only pray we hadn't dealt our own picks in an effort to keep the sinking ship afloat. I honestly think we could have swapped roles with the Nets, dealing away years and years worth of picks, in an effort to throw one more sad toss at a title.

I was trying to point out the Suns to a poor job of replacing Amare. Signing Childress, Warrick and Turoglu was almost as bad as keeping Amare.
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
112,537
Reaction score
51,772
@Yuma

What's your point with putting "I" inside my post?
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
35,866
Reaction score
14,554
@Yuma

What's your point with putting "I" inside my post?

I doubt it was intentional. Extra letters and words, it happens to me all the time. But I usually catch it before I post or soon enough afterwards to still edit it out before the ASFN world sees it.
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
112,537
Reaction score
51,772
I doubt it was intentional. Extra letters and words, it happens to me all the time. But I usually catch it before I post or soon enough afterwards to still edit it out before the ASFN world sees it.

I'm really bad at editing before I post so I understand what you are saying. Sometimes I only catch it after I post. The preview function is a bit awkward from my perspective. It seemed the older tab was more readily available.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
33,983
Reaction score
11,798
Location
Arizona
I'm really bad at editing before I post so I understand what you are saying. Sometimes I only catch it after I post. The preview function is a bit awkward from my perspective. It seemed the older tab was more readily available.

Between being a fast typer and with autocorrect that is me in a nutshell. Plus I like to get my thoughts on paper so to speak before any proof reading. I just don’t catch things until after. Especially when autocorrect has changed things I didn’t notice. I know some people won’t finish a sentence until they proof read but that’s not me.

It’s weird though. Because I am in a leadership position at work I proof read the crap out of my emails before I send them out. Forums and social media? I just let it flow more like a conversation so I am nowhere near as meticulous.
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
35,866
Reaction score
14,554
I'm really bad at editing before I post so I understand what you are saying. Sometimes I only catch it after I post. The preview function is a bit awkward from my perspective. It seemed the older tab was more readily available.

Yeah, I'm kind of anal about the readability of my posts so I double and occasionally triple check before hitting the button. And I still mess up sometimes.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
534,775
Posts
5,246,122
Members
6,273
Latest member
sarahmoose
Top