Garnett to the Suns?

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]


3. According the HoopsHype, KG has 2 years 46 mil left on his deal (with the last year his player option/highly publicized opt out) 22 mil next year and a player option for 24 for 08/09. Not 3 yrs, 67 mil that you are mentioning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why I thought it was three years. But his trade kicker is $6.75M, so that gets you to $53M for two years. That's a huge risk to take if you can't get a deal done, anyone making a trade for KG now is basically insuring KG's health until his opt out. If he gets hurt you're on the hook for that other year.


And if all things were equal you'd have to trade at least two starters (not that Bynum is a starter yet) for KG, since KG plus a replacement level starter is better than two average starters. Obv, contracts, cap space, and championship windows change the equation a lot. MN has to start thinking about taking less value and getting something, otherwise their 2008+ teams will be barren.

And KG's only expressed an interest in going to Phoenix, and Chicago. Kobe has already called him and lobbied for the trade, but KG would have little reason to sign an extension with the lakers. It's a one man band, and that one man is a psychopath who doesn't like to share. They'd be good, but probably not championship material. So why sign an extension with the lakers when he can opt out and sign with any better team for the mid-level exception? He doesn't need money, he needs a championship.

That's the problem with trading for KG now. You have to put a championship team around him or he's just not going to be staying around.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, you were right about essentially nothing. You basically said the suns would never reach 100 points. Guess which game is the ONLY one the suns didnt reach 100? The Spurs still barely won. You acting like Nash's nose in game 1 and the suspensions had no impact is annoying. You acting like the Suns aren't on the Spurs level is extremely annoying and extremely delusional. The only reason I talk about it like it's 100% is cause of idiotic comments like those that you and other Spurs fans make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game 1: Discussed at the time.

Game 2: Suns score 30 in the 4th against the Spurs 2nd unit in a rout to reach the incredible peak of 101.

Game 3: Amare dunks at the buzzer down by 9 to break 100.

Game 4: SA pulls a patented 4th quarter "cruise->zomg we lose", giving up 32pts, including 4 intentional FTs at the end. PHX gets 104.

Game 5: irrelevant.

Game 6: PHX scores 39 in a 4th quarter where they were down 20 to get to 106.

Maybe I was a tad overambitious in the specific prediction, but it's not like I ever 100% guaranteed anything, and if you look at what happened, I think I did a pretty damn good job. Any game they broke 100 was just by a hair, and at least two of them were blatant situational flukes (3 and 6).

I never said anything remotely resembling, "...Nash's nose in game 1 and the suspensions had no impact...."

In fact, I was the one trying to quantify approximately the impact of Nash's nose. Even granting absurdly favorable premises to PHX, I still couldn't rationally put them any better than a 2:1 dog. If you go back to the thread, you'll notice that your replies stop at that point.

As for the suspensions: throw out game 5, and the Spurs are leading 3-2 with 2 games to play in PHX. If you honestly believe the Suns are a favorite to win both games, then you're simply delusional as charged. Ignore all that, though, and keep the [censored] donkies on the bench. How hard is that? There were plenty of late-game hard fouls as bad or worse as Horry's, and yet nobody else came running off the bench. This is because Amare is not a smart man. It shows up in his defense when he's on the court, and unfortunately it showed up on the bench as well.

Sometimes in sports the better team wins and sometimes they lose. That ratio generally corresponds to how strongly they are favored. In this case, I laid out all the reasons why I felt like the Spurs were slight favorites. If I missed anything, it was probably underrating Ginobili's impact on the later games in the series.

Going into the series, I felt the Spurs were probably something like 55:45 to win. Swap KG for Amare, and it probably flips to 45:55. Outside of PHX and DAL, SA was probably more like 90:10 against anyone else (maybe 95:5 barring a TD injury against CLE). So while in the big picture of all 30 teams, PHX is at SA's level, putting a microscope on the top 2 teams in the league, I feel like SA is ever-so-slightly higher, and Amare-for-KG would be the solution for PHX.

If the only reason you make 100% comments is because of what Spurs fans say, you might want to recheck your priorities before deciding on saying anything.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
Going into the series, I felt the Spurs were probably something like 55:45 to win

[/ QUOTE ]

come on man, this is totally delusional.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This (Spurs vs Suns) is just not a discussion I'm willing to have with historically delusional Suns fans.

[/ QUOTE ]Oh, well too bad for us you're unwilling to have that conversation. Allow me to interject anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't clear, but I meant "historically" as in "history of threads on this board this season." This is mostly related to discussion about this year's playoffs, but also includes the Clarkmeister vs PHX tangent about '93.

[Vyse]

I agree with kbfc for the most part, only disagreeing in semantics (I'd put SA 60/40 entering the series but no more).

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Going into the series, I felt the Spurs were probably something like 55:45 to win

[/ QUOTE ]

come on man, this is totally delusional.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I wasn't 100% convinced that they were 55:45. I felt like they were 3:1 favorites to be a coinflip to be 75:25 to be 55:45. I mean, how much less delusional can one be??

[owsley]

55/45 was way way off from the opening series odds that were given by sportsbooks, you are going to have a really hard time convincing me that the books were off by that much at the start of the series.

[kbfc]

What was the original line? What did the market move it to?

Consider me skeptical that 55:45 was WAY WAY off....anything less than 60:40 Suns, and I see no problem.

[Artdogg]

[ QUOTE ]

As for the suspensions: throw out game 5, and the Spurs are leading 3-2 with 2 games to play in PHX. If you honestly believe the Suns are a favorite to win both games, then you're simply delusional as charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a dumb way to look at it. With the series 2-2 with both teams at full strength the Suns would be favorites in 2 games and dogs in 1 (by roughly the same odds.) The suspensions were enough to shift them from decent sized favorites in the series to decent sized dogs. Once the Spurs won game 5 game 6 became their game 7. How many teams win game 7 on the road after failing to close it out at home at full strength? I don't have to do a search to tell you it's not many. The only recent one I can think of is that Celtics-Nets series, and that's partly because those 2 teams are retarded.

The only reason we are having this discussion is cause of your absurd comment "probably enough to bring them to the Spurs level" which implied that they are not at the Spurs level right now. It looks like you realized it was a dumb thing to say and are backing out of it, which is fine, but now you know where all this came from. Like tuq said, you should just be happy with the title and realize your team had some good fortune along the way.

[Artdogg]

As for my "100%" thing, it's pretty much the same thing as the Nash haters hating too much from the Nash lovers loving too much.