Suns updates and discussion for the 2022-23 season

95pro

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 10, 2007
Posts
12,338
Reaction score
3,923
You can’t argue that we can’t give up picks because they’re too important then turnaround and say they’d be nothing of use to the Blazers.

Again, changing someone else’s argument to further your own is nothing but gaslighting crap that continually ruins this board.

Thank you

I don't know why he started all this Ayton for Grant talk...
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
35,382
Reaction score
13,776
Location
Arizona
Thank you

I don't know why he started all this Ayton for Grant talk...
Uh...because it was suggested? Because that deal can't be done without giving up a major piece like Ayton? You have something to say, you don't need to go around me. I am a big boy.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
89,498
Reaction score
63,103
Thank you

I don't know why he started all this Ayton for Grant talk...
And then changed the argument even more by not acknowledging in the trade he was supposedly arguing against, that it would have been not just Grant coming back but ignoring that Simons and Nurstic were involved as well in that hypothetical…

Which again, Promixo wasn’t even arguing for.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
89,498
Reaction score
63,103
Uh...because it was suggested? Because that deal can't be done without giving up a major piece like Ayton? You have something to say, you don't need to use the third person. Just say it.
Uh… He just did.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
35,382
Reaction score
13,776
Location
Arizona
And then changed the argument even more by not acknowledging in the trade he was supposedly arguing against, that it would have been not just Grant coming back but ignoring that Simons and Nurstic were involved as well in that hypothetical…

Which again, Promixo wasn’t even arguing for.
Dear Lord. I never said it would be just Grant. Just like it wouldn't be just one of our best players going back the other way, plus Crowder plus two picks. Then you accuse me of gaslighting. LOL.

Uh… He just did.
Not to me.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
45,484
Reaction score
15,462
Location
Round Rock, TX
So, trying to get away from the poster-vs-poster attacks, but what will the board think when Jae Crowder doesn't get traded? Which is looking like the most likely scenario.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
35,382
Reaction score
13,776
Location
Arizona
So, trying to get away from the poster-vs-poster attacks, but what will the board think when Jae Crowder doesn't get traded? Which is looking like the most likely scenario.
It would suck for all parties involved. I have a feeling they will move him no matter what even if we get peanuts in return unfortunately.
 

95pro

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 10, 2007
Posts
12,338
Reaction score
3,923
Uh...because it was suggested? Because that deal can't be done without giving up a major piece like Ayton? You have something to say, you don't need to go around me. I am a big boy.

Guy you have some reading comprehension issues, and I'll leave it at that.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
35,382
Reaction score
13,776
Location
Arizona
Guy you have some reading comprehension issues, and I'll leave it at that.
Yes because I didn't link the suggested trade with Ayton referenced earlier?!?! LMAO. What does that say about you? Yeah....I will leave THAT at that.
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
19,972
Reaction score
10,892
Per 36

Player A: 20.9 points, 4.4 rebounds, 2.4 assists, 1.7 turnovers. 60% TS%.

Player B: 20.0 points, 5.4 rebounds, 2.2 assists, 0.7 turnovers, 62% TS%

Player B is also a superior defender.

Player A would, hypothetically, cost us 2 firsts and probably 30 million, per year, to extend.

Player B would cost us nothing.
 

95pro

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 10, 2007
Posts
12,338
Reaction score
3,923
Per 36

Player A: 20.9 points, 4.4 rebounds, 2.4 assists, 1.7 turnovers. 60% TS%.

Player B: 20.0 points, 5.4 rebounds, 2.2 assists, 0.7 turnovers, 62% TS%

Player B is also a superior defender.

Player A would, hypothetically, cost us 2 firsts and probably 30 million, per year, to extend.

Player B would cost us nothing.

Aren't they both up for extension?

Also Grant maybe has come to terms with where he is, maybe re-upping for 20-25M?
 

Proximo

ASFN Icon
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Posts
12,320
Reaction score
10,010
Per 36

Player A: 20.9 points, 4.4 rebounds, 2.4 assists, 1.7 turnovers. 60% TS%.

Player B: 20.0 points, 5.4 rebounds, 2.2 assists, 0.7 turnovers, 62% TS%

Player B is also a superior defender.

Player A would, hypothetically, cost us 2 firsts and probably 30 million, per year, to extend.

Player B would cost us nothing.
Who is B who would cost us nothing??? Cause that sounds like a fairy tale.
 

Proximo

ASFN Icon
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Posts
12,320
Reaction score
10,010
It's a lot easier to keep an RFA.

I also don't get how the guy people are claiming is the exact kind of power forward we need is, statistically and defensively, a lesser version of our current power forward.
So B is Cam Johnson?

Who said anything about letting him go.

We have a deep pockets owner now, Cam will be resigned and would be our 6th man.
 

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
89,498
Reaction score
63,103
So B is Cam Johnson?

Who said anything about letting him go.

We have a deep pockets owner now, Cam will be resigned and would be our 6th man.
Yeah… that’s a false choice. God forbid this team actually spend big money to really make it deep/formidable.
 

Proximo

ASFN Icon
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Posts
12,320
Reaction score
10,010
So I know this is a longshot but - if you combine these two tweets - maybe it means a Durant deal is going to go down, as it looks like they are clearing a roster spot.
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
35,382
Reaction score
13,776
Location
Arizona
So I know this is a longshot but - if you combine these two tweets - maybe it means a Durant deal is going to go down, as it looks like they are clearing a roster spot.
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
Depends on WHOSE PR guy. If it's the team's I wouldn't put much into it. If it's Kevin's and he demands a trade that would make more sense. Kevin might have to deal with the circus again.
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
19,972
Reaction score
10,892
So B is Cam Johnson?

Who said anything about letting him go.

We have a deep pockets owner now, Cam will be resigned and would be our 6th man.
Yeah… that’s a false choice. God forbid this team actually spend big money to really make it deep/formidable.

You guys are saying that Grant is the ideal PF for us, when statistically he is a lesser version of our current PF.

Trading multiple firsts would be a real sacrifice of our future ability to make trades and add to the roster and yeah, it makes us deeper, but does it improve our "best 5" lineup... no.

Unless we plan on running with "point Book" in the clutch, Grant wouldn't even be on the court at the end of games.
 

Phrazbit

ASFN Icon
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
19,972
Reaction score
10,892
So I know this is a longshot but - if you combine these two tweets - maybe it means a Durant deal is going to go down, as it looks like they are clearing a roster spot.
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Durant has always been cold and dismissive to the press... that sounds more like par for the course.
 

Proximo

ASFN Icon
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Posts
12,320
Reaction score
10,010
You guys are saying that Grant is the ideal PF for us, when statistically he is a lesser version of our current PF.

Trading multiple firsts would be a real sacrifice of our future ability to make trades and add to the roster and yeah, it makes us deeper, but does it improve our "best 5" lineup... no.

Unless we plan on running with "point Book" in the clutch, Grant wouldn't even be on the court at the end of games.
I didn't say he was ideal. I am saying he would be a great addition and absolutely improve the team

Cam Johnson is great as a 6th man. We cannot afford to wait around, this deadline is pretty much it as we will not have CP3 or a good replacement for him next year IMO.
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
35,382
Reaction score
13,776
Location
Arizona
You guys are saying that Grant is the ideal PF for us, when statistically he is a lesser version of our current PF.

Trading multiple firsts would be a real sacrifice of our future ability to make trades and add to the roster and yeah, it makes us deeper, but does it improve our "best 5" lineup... no.

Unless we plan on running with "point Book" in the clutch, Grant wouldn't even be on the court at the end of games.
Yep and if they trade Grant, they are going to want a young starting piece in return. No? If we give up a starter Grant makes us better? I don't think he does. Maybe they would take Cam Johnson. I agree two 1sts is too much if they are also getting Crowder. If they could get away with one? It might be worth the risk IMO. I like Grant but I don't love Grant.
 
Last edited:
Top