PDA

View Full Version : Excellent Suns Column (May Simmons Have His Fastball Back?)



JayRedd
05-05-2008, 02:17 PM
I honestly only read about half his stuff nowadays, but this is classic Sport's Guy stuff right here.

It's a year-by-year breakdown of the "critically acclaimed" Nash in Phoenix Era.


Bill Simmons
ESPN.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080501

sweabs
05-05-2008, 02:27 PM
I read it this morning.

It was nice to read someone actually *gasp* criticize Bryan Colangelo. I'm not saying the guy is the next Isiah Thomas, but he certainly has made his share of mistakes that oftentimes go overlooked.

ajbry
05-05-2008, 02:35 PM
I feel his criticism of the JJ-Diaw deal is a little too strong. Obviously JJ turned out to be a far superior player but the Suns really had little choice. Diaw, at the time, was seen as adequate acquisition because he was seemingly the perfect complementary piece - he could distribute, score, had good size, didn't require a lot of shots (now we all know he's a soft, lazy, and overpaid bench player.) The Suns also got the 2 picks and nobody could foresee that they'd just be sold away and the management would have their hands tied for a couple years afterwards.

Unclebuck
05-05-2008, 02:55 PM
I agree with his point that the Suns morphed into a non-Suns like team long before the Shaq trade. They became ordinary offensively - much easier to guard - and that is what killed them.

Hicks
05-05-2008, 04:39 PM
Are the Reggie Pacers, in our neck of the woods at least, a Critically Acclaimed team?

grace
05-05-2008, 09:27 PM
Are the Reggie Pacers, in our neck of the woods at least, a Critically Acclaimed team?

Of course, but the Pacers at least actually made it to the finals one year.

Trader Joe
05-06-2008, 01:17 AM
I wouldn't consider the Reggie Pacers quite the same thing as the Nash Suns mainly because we seemed to be a threat for a longer period of time, plus we were losing to the Jordan Bulls not the Duncan Spurs or even one year the Nowitzki Mavs (seriously PHX?)

SycamoreKen
05-06-2008, 01:34 AM
I feel his criticism of the JJ-Diaw deal is a little too strong. Obviously JJ turned out to be a far superior player but the Suns really had little choice. Diaw, at the time, was seen as adequate acquisition because he was seemingly the perfect complementary piece - he could distribute, score, had good size, didn't require a lot of shots (now we all know he's a soft, lazy, and overpaid bench player.) The Suns also got the 2 picks and nobody could foresee that they'd just be sold away and the management would have their hands tied for a couple years afterwards.


The Suns had a choice to not upset JJ in the first place. They should have just matched the offer and done what they needed to do to smooth things over. What was Johnson going to do, sit out and not collect that cash until they traded him?

rexnom
05-06-2008, 02:58 AM
I just remember everybody criticizing the Hawks as Diaw exploded for giving up those picks.

It wasn't a terrible deal. Imagine if the Hawks get 4th last year, surrender that pick to the Suns, who get Conley to back up Nash, and don't get Horford. Then I imagine we'd be saying that this deal is a bit more even.

NuffSaid
05-06-2008, 12:47 PM
The Suns had a choice to not upset JJ in the first place. They should have just matched the offer and done what they needed to do to smooth things over. What was Johnson going to do, sit out and not collect that cash until they traded him?
One could have used this exact same argument concerning Ron Artest when he demanded to be traded. Part of me still feels that the Pacers organization (Walsh/Bird) didn't show enough patients in how they handled the situation. Another part of me believes too much damage had been done to fix things. Like the Joe Johnson situation for the Suns, I will always wonder what could have been had Artest stayed and was able to clean up his act around these parts. :(

To the article itself, I hope Bird and others caught this line, "What stood out about the Spurs in Round 1 was their infallibility in big moments -- they knew what to do and where to go, and then they did it. You don't get there by accident; you get there by picking a nucleus and building around it. Back in 2005, the Spurs had the right nucleus (Duncan, Ginobili and Parker) and so did the Suns (Nash, Stoudemire, Marion and Johnson), but only one of those teams kept it intact. And that's why the Spurs won two titles (and counting), and that's why the Suns won the title of "critically acclaimed" and that's it.