Suns updates and discussion for the 2020-21 season

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
38,962
Reaction score
21,924
Location
SoCal
I don't even want to think about next season yet. However, after seeing what CP3 and Crowder's decisions to join the team have meant? Can you imagine if we start getting a regular diet of players who want to come here via trade or free agency? Can you imagine if the Suns from here on out get a chance to field some "super teams" knowing that we have young core in Booker, Ayton plus CP3 for a bit???

I mean if teams like the Nets etc. can do it....maybe we can?
I suspect we will have an opportunity or two to add a nice piece this offseason.
 

cheesebeef

Registered User
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
68,647
Reaction score
26,757
I suspect we will have an opportunity or two to add a nice piece this offseason.

and if we're in the running again next season, I suspect we'll be a very attractive destination for buyout players.

I'll assume the people who were in an uproar about those type of guys going to the Nets/Lakers for minimum and demanding league changes for buyouts will be for us as well if that happens.:mrgreen:
 

cheesebeef

Registered User
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
68,647
Reaction score
26,757
Ugh... so much.

Hated the abandon "evil" technology, only to have their future generations do the same thing.
Starbuck was, I don't know, an angel!?! I mean what the...?
The "other" Baltar and the "other" Six were messengers from the future... seriously?
The Final Five Cylons was beyond the stretch. Saul Tigh a cylon? Too much.

Before all that nonsense, one of the coolest series I've ever seen.

Saul's wife... HELEN?! That entire last season was an abomination... which was a shame because the rest of the show was downright amazing.
 

Hoop Head

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Posts
11,139
Reaction score
5,232
Location
Tempe, AZ
and if we're in the running again next season, I suspect we'll be a very attractive destination for buyout players.

I'll assume the people who were in an uproar about those type of guys going to the Nets/Lakers for minimum and demanding league changes for buyouts will be for us as well if that happens.:mrgreen:


I think we lucked out this year with some of our bench signings. Guys like Galloway and Etwaun Moore could have signed elsewhere and been rotation players. We just dont have any size. So seeing Aldridge, Boogie, Blake, and Dieng all sign elsewhere was off putting. Turns out we've done well. Hopefully we can add a legit backup C this offseason though.
 

Yuma

Working from home. Missing my free coffee!
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Posts
12,534
Reaction score
1,785
Location
Laveen, AZ
I like we basically didn't trade anyone arguably of value, except Rubio for Paul, who we didn't need after getting Paul. We picked up Torrey Craig for a dream. All these guys helped get us here over the course of a season. Only our draft picks were not relied upon. All our veterans helped us a LOT over the course of a season.
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN Lifer
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
29,627
Reaction score
6,737
and if we're in the running again next season, I suspect we'll be a very attractive destination for buyout players.

I'll assume the people who were in an uproar about those type of guys going to the Nets/Lakers for minimum and demanding league changes for buyouts will be for us as well if that happens.:mrgreen:


For me it will depend. The buyouts like Drummond and Griffin? I'll still have a problem with those. It won't be with Drummond, Griffin, The Nets or the Lakers though, it will be with the league. It's something they need to fix, it was never intended to work the way it is and it allows the rich teams to circumvent the cap (short term). Instead of allowing aging veterans to find a home where with a relevant team, it's created a situation that allows agents to exploit the rules.
 

cheesebeef

Registered User
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
68,647
Reaction score
26,757
For me it will depend. The buyouts like Drummond and Griffin? I'll still have a problem with those. It won't be with Drummond, Griffin, The Nets or the Lakers though, it will be with the league. It's something they need to fix, it was never intended to work the way it is and it allows the rich teams to circumvent the cap (short term). Instead of allowing aging veterans to find a home where with a relevant team, it's created a situation that allows agents to exploit the rules.

did you have a problem with Colangelo signing the #1 FA on the market in back to back years (AC Green and Danny Manning) for only 1 million dollars each, with secret agreements to then sign them to bigger contracts in year 2 when we had their Bird Rights?
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN Lifer
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
29,627
Reaction score
6,737
did you have a problem with Colangelo signing the #1 FA on the market in back to back years (AC Green and Danny Manning) for only 1 million dollars each, with secret agreements to then sign them to bigger contracts in year 2 when we had their Bird Rights?
You're talking about two very different things. No, I didn't have a problem with it. None of us did back then, the Salary Cap meant little to us fans. Keep in mind we were still pretty early in the salary cap age, it didn't even exist until Stern took over in the mid 80's. And we didn't have the internet to keep us informed on things like this, just a little bit of NBA coverage on ESPN.

But if the JC situation happened today, yes, I'd have an issue with it. Keep in mind JC didn't do it under the table, it was right out in the open. Even the sports media raved about the way he was handling it especially once he held to his word by paying an injured Manning despite not being contractually obligated. When Stern went public that he was going to go after teams that violated the intent of the Salary Cap, we never went there again.

The current situation we're talking about is the midseason buyouts. It was intended to allow older veterans to escape rebuilding situations and land some place where they could still be relevant. But agents and teams now are using it as a salary cap workaround to get marketable players to better markets.

I'm not stomping my feet and crying about how unfair it is, I just think it's bad for the league. And if it's not bad for the league than they ought to dump the Salary Cap, and forget about their supposed quest for league-wide parity.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
25,142
Reaction score
4,502
Location
Arizona
For me it will depend. The buyouts like Drummond and Griffin? I'll still have a problem with those. It won't be with Drummond, Griffin, The Nets or the Lakers though, it will be with the league. It's something they need to fix, it was never intended to work the way it is and it allows the rich teams to circumvent the cap (short term). Instead of allowing aging veterans to find a home where with a relevant team, it's created a situation that allows agents to exploit the rules.
The biggest problem I see in the league is still all these Super teams. The league prevented a Chris Paul trade but since that time I don't think they have blocked any trades have they? Seems like they wanted to start doing something about it then dropped the ball.

Seems like the only way to stop this is that all players need to be ranked. Not just general designations of "veteran". If you are a top 10 player your minimum salary should be required to be X dollars based on your ranking. So if you are a top 10 player you can't sign a one year for the minimum or something dumb.

It's tough though without a hard cap to stop these super teams from forming. The luxury tax was supposed to be a deterrent but it's not for big market teams. It ended up being a much bigger deterrent for small market teams. The bigger teams don't care. So you need to change the system closer to a hard cap IMO or you need to be harsher with the luxury tax based on market size.
 

AzStevenCal

ASFN Lifer
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Posts
29,627
Reaction score
6,737
The biggest problem I see in the league is still all these Super teams. The league prevented a Chris Paul trade but since that time I don't think they have blocked any trades have they? Seems like they wanted to start doing something about it then dropped the ball.

Seems like the only way to stop this is that all players need to be ranked. Not just general designations of "veteran". If you are a top 10 player your minimum salary should be required to be X dollars based on your ranking. So if you are a top 10 player you can't sign a one year for the minimum or something dumb.

It's tough though without a hard cap to stop these super teams from forming. The luxury tax was supposed to be a deterrent but it's not for big market teams. It ended up being a much bigger deterrent for small market teams. The bigger teams don't care. So you need to change the system closer to a hard cap IMO or you need to be harsher with the luxury tax based on market size.
That was a unique situation. Whether it was the real reason or simply an excuse (as many Lakers fans insist) doesn't matter, the situation was used as justification by Stern to a powerful group of owners that would have gone ballistic if it had been done without cause. Remember there was no owner in place at the time, it was in the process of being sold and the League had taken over the management of the franchise.

I don't even have a problem with the rich getting a little richer in the way you describe. Players should have the right to sign one year for less than their full value. It's the high target players with years remaining on their contracts whose agents force (or manipulate) the team into agreeing to a buyout so they can be brought in without causing a salary cap problem.

I'm against the Super Teams but I don't see a real solution to it except for closing up the loopholes they can. I agree that getting closer to a hard cap is the right way to go but the genie's been out of the bottle for awhile, I can't imagine the players will accept less freedom than they currently have unless things explode.

Unfortunately, I won't be surprised if things do explode down the line somewhere. Issues such as the Super Max, the frequent blackouts and ridiculous prices are going to come back to bite them I believe.
 
Top