Maligzar wrote:

---

You saw what happened when Shaq had to sit, and we needed to rely on Stoudemire to stop Duncan.

You can't blame our poor perimeter defense on Shaq. We brought him in to secure the post, which is what he has done. We brought him in to increase our team rebounding, which he has done. The other guys were suppose to pickup the slack on the perimeter defense and up until last game had failed.

I'm not blaming the poor perimeter defense on Shaq. I am blaming it on the SHAQ TRADE. You seem to not be able to see the difference between the two.

In trading for Shaq, the Spurs gave away their most versatile defender in Marion, and a player that was much more valuable than they thought. Remember what happened when Raja Bell was in foul trouble against the Lakers? Grant Hill got his lunch handed to him by Kobe. Now you saw what Tony Parker can do against a piss-poor defender like Steve Nash.

The Suns made a nice adjustment in putting Diaw on Parker, but I have no doubt that the Spurs will adjust, just as they always do. They're not the most consistently great team of the last decade for no reason. The thing is, even with the Spurs adjustments in the past, you had Marion's elite lateral movement, quick vertical, and great hands to mess with Parker regardless. Diaw isn't even close to being as capable as the Matrix on that end of the floor.

No one expects the Suns to come back from 3-1, but only a fool would count them out.

False. Considering no team has ever come back from 0-3 in NBA History, much less against the defending champions, I think it is more than reasonable to assume that the Spurs will hang on. Doesn't matter whether the games were close or not. You're just not going to beat the Spurs 4 times in the playoffs. The Lakers of the past were good enough to do it, and even then it took a miraculous shot from Fisher in one of the series (they actually did it twice). The Suns are not nearly as good as those Lakers.

Again, regarding the trade, most of the time you have to trade something to get something. Very rarely do you find a team that wants to devalue itself by dumping its top player so its easier to sell the team. Memphis bailed out the Lakers, grats to you. Don't sit there and act like it was a stroke of genious, when it was simply a matter of luck and opportunity.

I don't recall ever stating that the Lakers' FO was better than the Suns' FO based on the Shaq/Gasol trades. The Gasol trade was a no-brainer that any GM would have made if given the opportunity. However, the Shaq trade was not only a big gamble, but a big gamble in which I felt the Suns overpaid. Marion is still an All-Star caliber player, and perhaps the most versatile defender in the NBA behind KG. Shaq was not only over the hill, but he had $60M remaining on his contract for the next three years (still counting this year as it was still midway when he got moved). Not only did the Heat WANT to move him, but they were DESPERATE to move him. Riley would have gladly traded him for expiring picks somewhere if given the chance. To get an All-Star player in return? I think he fell out of his chair when he heard that proposal.

What's funny is that, a lot of times, players like Shaq that have greatly declined and are on the back end of their huge deals are "throw-ins" for other high-profile trades. Like, if there a disgruntled star, he is only traded if the other team takes the bad contract along with him. The team trading the star doesn't really want to trade him, but they are willing to let him go if they are also able to unload one of their awful contracts and aid in the rebuilding. What's amazing is that, in this case, Shaq was the horrible contract, but the Suns thought that he was the star.

If all trades had to be judged on a team's ability to beat the Spurs then there wouldn't be many successful trades in the NBA.

Except when the team was already on the verge of beating the Spurs, made a trade that mortgaged their future, and still weren't able to beat them. That's the definition of an unsuccessful trade.

Cafu07 wrote:

---

Seanen wrote:

---

The fact of the matter is, the trade's going to be judged a failure, barring an absolute miracle.

It really depends on your perspective. From the Heat perspective this trade was a huge success, further cementing the reputation of Pat Riley as a genius.

20 million a year in 2009, 20 million a year in 2010.

Obviously he meant from the Suns' perspective. :) The trade would have been a huge success for Miami if they got rid of Shaq for an expiring contract, period. Instead, they got an all-star forward. I don't know whether I should praise Riley for being a genius or Kerr for being a complete imbecile.

In any case, the Suns are officially done. Stick a fork in 'em. Window's closed. Time to rebuild and try again in another decade or so.


Edit: Thanks Seanen.