What if Suns took Tyrese Haliburton?

Carolinacacti

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Posts
1,356
Reaction score
378
Location
Charlotte NC
I've heard rumors and conjecture but I've never seen anything that resembles documented fact.

The Suns needed another point guard because it was unknown if Cam Payne would be a solid contributor outside of eight games in the bubble. Whether Haliburton was 2nd or 3rd on the depth charge was a decision for Monty. The point is Haliburton was the BPA at #10 and as a plus, he filled a position of need.

Jalen Smith was one of the physically less ready to play players in the draft. If James Jones wanted an immediate contributor he drafted the wrong player and I like Stix. His body is simply not ready for the NBA pounding.

I believe the Suns brass had complete faith in Payne and Carter. I didn't want Haliburton I wanted a PF. Now if they picked the wrong player that can be argued and played out next year. But to say Haliburton was BPA at 11 in a crap draft is not moving the needle for me
 

JCSunsfan

Registered User
Joined
Oct 24, 2002
Posts
19,613
Reaction score
4,228
The Suns had room for Paul, Payne, Haliburton and Carter on their roster.

I don't think the question of position is relevant. Draft the best player and go with it.

I agree with the commenters like Bill Simmons who think the Suns should have drafted Haliburton. Maybe someday we will find out there was a good reason the Suns passed on Haliburton. Until then, I will stick with the position the Suns should have drafted BPA (Haliburton).
The question is not what should they have done, but what IF they had done it. And I agree they would be on the same roster. The question would be regarding who would be the back up pg—Cam or Hali,who would be getting minutes and would the Suns have gone out and got a pf.
 

Mainstreet

Registered User
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
75,452
Reaction score
20,005
I believe the Suns brass had complete faith in Payne and Carter. I didn't want Haliburton I wanted a PF. Now if they picked the wrong player that can be argued and played out next year. But to say Haliburton was BPA at 11 in a crap draft is not moving the needle for me

Generally speaking, the further down a player falls in the draft, the riskier the pick because they are considered to have more weaknesses. Jalen Smith was considered a later first round pick while Haliburton was projected to go within the top ten picks based on scouting reports.

It's better to get a player that can play than miss on a draft pick. That's why one always hears the phrase, draft best player regardless of position unless the value is equal. Haliburton was considered to be BPA at #10.
 

JCSunsfan

Registered User
Joined
Oct 24, 2002
Posts
19,613
Reaction score
4,228
.


That article is in response to SAS's words about us being a player away but all Smith actually talked about was our lack of playoff experience. Not once did he mention where we lacked, positionally, just that we were too young and not playoff tested.

Almost every team has a position of concern (usually more than one) and we are no exception. But Stephen A is correct, our biggest weakness is likely to be our lack of playoff experience. When another team dials in on your weaknesses, it's a different ballgame. For us, it will likely be aimed at playing Booker and Ayton physically with the intention of frustrating them and getting them into foul trouble. Also, pulling Ayton away from the basket is a concern.

The plus on our side is that good defense doesn't usually go away in the postseason which could help keep us in games long enough for our key players to adjust to the way they are being attacked. I would not make us the favorites but anyone just writing us off is not paying attention.

As I've said before, we can't beat a fully healthy Nets or Lakers team and we might be slightly behind the Clippers and the 76ers but we're right there with a few other teams, any one of which is capable of winning it all with a little luck if the two favorites are at less than full strength.
People look at the team regarding experience, but the experience of the leadership in CP3 and Crowder is huge. Also, the Bubble experience counts for something. I agree about the defense.

I do not see Book disappearing in the playoffs. He always shows up for big games. Mikal has two NCAA championships under his belt. That surely helps. And Monty has lots of playoff experience. Experience is an issue, but maybe not as much as people are making it out to be.
 

elindholm

edited for content
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
24,418
Reaction score
4,338
Location
L.A. area
It’s for sure too early to write him off.

I don't think so. He's very awkward physically, and I don't see that improving. He doesn't run or even stand like an athlete.

Something that gets forgotten in this conversation is that the Suns did not anticipate having one of the league's top records. If they thought that Smith was a better long-term play then Haliburton, he was the right pick. It's not as though Haliburton was a sure thing; lots of players, even guards, who slide on draft night and look like steals end up being relative busts. The issue isn't only that Haliburton now appears to be the much better player than Smith, but that we now have to factor in what either could have brought to the team this year, which originally wasn't a consideration at all.
 

JCSunsfan

Registered User
Joined
Oct 24, 2002
Posts
19,613
Reaction score
4,228
I've heard rumors and conjecture but I've never seen anything that resembles documented fact.

The Suns needed another point guard because it was unknown if Cam Payne would be a solid contributor outside of eight games in the bubble. Whether Haliburton was 2nd or 3rd on the depth charge was a decision for Monty. The point is Haliburton was the BPA at #10 and as a plus, he filled a position of need.

Jalen Smith was one of the physically less ready to play players in the draft. If James Jones wanted an immediate contributor he drafted the wrong player and I like Stix. His body is simply not ready for the NBA pounding.
I don’t think that the drafting principle is the issue. Every fan and gm in their right mind would agree with drafting bpa when there is a clear difference. The difference in this situation is that they valued Stix higher than most others did, valued Haliburton a bit lower than a lot of people did, and had a lot more confidence in Cam than others did.

it is what it is.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
38,991
Reaction score
21,943
Location
SoCal
I don't think so. He's very awkward physically, and I don't see that improving. He doesn't run or even stand like an athlete.

Something that gets forgotten in this conversation is that the Suns did not anticipate having one of the league's top records. If they thought that Smith was a better long-term play then Haliburton, he was the right pick. It's not as though Haliburton was a sure thing; lots of players, even guards, who slide on draft night and look like steals end up being relative busts. The issue isn't only that Haliburton now appears to be the much better player than Smith, but that we now have to factor in what either could have brought to the team this year, which originally wasn't a consideration at all.
Like I said earlier, the early returns aren’t positive on stix, particularly given his poor showing in the g league. But writing off any player who has seen such limited minutes in less than a full season seems shortsighted.
 

Western Font

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 30, 2018
Posts
1,764
Reaction score
1,470
Location
Ontario
Halliburton looks to have been the BPA no question. This year specifically he looks better because he’s contributing while Stix is not (at a position on the Suns roster where there is room). If we had drafted Halliburton he probably wouldn’t have played as much, but while we might still be wishing for a 4 we probably wouldn’t be regretting passing on Stix. We also might have been able to move a PG at the deadline in a package for a PF while moving Halliburton up the depth chart—if Monty thought he was ready to lead the second unit nightly on what is suddenly a top-seeded team.

But we did take Stix, so I’m just going to hope he develops into what the Suns envision. Our PGOF may currently be on another team’s roster, and may come to the Suns via trade or FA at a time when Stix is contributing.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
35,894
Reaction score
6,036
Location
Los Angeles
Halliburton looks to have been the BPA no question. This year specifically he looks better because he’s contributing while Stix is not (at a position on the Suns roster where there is room). If we had drafted Halliburton he probably wouldn’t have played as much, but while we might still be wishing for a 4 we probably wouldn’t be regretting passing on Stix. We also might have been able to move a PG at the deadline in a package for a PF while moving Halliburton up the depth chart—if Monty thought he was ready to lead the second unit nightly on what is suddenly a top-seeded team.

But we did take Stix, so I’m just going to hope he develops into what the Suns envision. Our PGOF may currently be on another team’s roster, and may come to the Suns via trade or FA at a time when Stix is contributing.
The problem is that it's easier to find a good point guard than it is to find a good big man in today's NBA.
 

Western Font

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 30, 2018
Posts
1,764
Reaction score
1,470
Location
Ontario
The problem is that it's easier to find a good point guard than it is to find a good big man in today's NBA.

I’m just observing how it looks this year. Halliburton looks like the BPA and the more likely to contribute or have trade value in the future right now. But I don’t have a problem with them looking for a big and we knew Stix needed development at the outset. If he develops it’ll be great, because I agree we will have more shots at PGs in the interim.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
35,894
Reaction score
6,036
Location
Los Angeles
Like I said earlier, the early returns aren’t positive on stix, particularly given his poor showing in the g league. But writing off any player who has seen such limited minutes in less than a full season seems shortsighted.
And remember how the season started -- no real training camp, no summer league. Just a bad year for a project rookie.
 

JCSunsfan

Registered User
Joined
Oct 24, 2002
Posts
19,613
Reaction score
4,228
Like I said earlier, the early returns aren’t positive on stix, particularly given his poor showing in the g league. But writing off any player who has seen such limited minutes in less than a full season seems shortsighted.
Yup. That's what the Bulls did with Cam Payne and it was short-sighted. He's not a starter--at least not yet--but he has been a really good second pg for us. Every player adjusts differently.
 

SactownSunsFan

Welcome to the Age of Ayton
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Posts
1,925
Reaction score
104
Location
Sacramento, CA
Can't say what the future holds, but short term answer is we absolutely screwed up not taking Haliburton, at least this season and possibly next. He's the guy off the bench we needed to lead our 2nd unit. Carter is a great defender and can get hot. Payne can score at will when he's on, but neither of those guys can be that steady creator for others. Haliburton would have solidified our bench play.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
35,894
Reaction score
6,036
Location
Los Angeles
Can't say what the future holds, but short term answer is we absolutely screwed up not taking Haliburton, at least this season and possibly next. He's the guy off the bench we needed to lead our 2nd unit. Carter is a great defender and can get hot. Payne can score at will when he's on, but neither of those guys can be that steady creator for others. Haliburton would have solidified our bench play.
He’d definitely make an impact but we’d still have our 4/5 problem.
 

SactownSunsFan

Welcome to the Age of Ayton
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Posts
1,925
Reaction score
104
Location
Sacramento, CA
He’d definitely make an impact but we’d still have our 4/5 problem.

True, but it's clear Sticks isn't that guy this year, and may not gonna be ready next year either. With Paul being 35, we need guys who can help win now, not 3-4 years down the line.
 
Top