| |
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Mar 29, 2007
|
|
Most of you saying this is terribly wrong are not paying attention to what he's saying.
He's not saying it's bad to add a superstar...he's saying it's bad to do it at the expense of trading the rest of your team.
I don't so much blame PHX, because they got better but just ran into the best team in the NBA.
Doyel is trying to say it's not worth trading 3 good players in your rotation for 1 great player, in most cases. And I agree with that. The Lakers got Gasol but really gave up nothing. The Suns basically did a one for one, so t hey came out about the same. But in some instances like the Mavs, they got rid of Harris and Diop, their only post defender in the world. That got exposed when Dirk had to try to stick on the bigs like West and Chandler and well, it didn't work out so well for him.
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 10, 2006
|
|
Umm, did you read the article at all? Nowhere did he say not to trade several players for one, he just said that trading for those superstars was bad, period. I don't know how you can say that Phoenix got better when they were far worse after the trade then they were before. I believe the article said 18-16 with Shaq? That is not getting better or even staying the same, that's getting worse.
|
|
|
Level:Amateur
Since:Feb 14, 2008
|
|
yep i agree
i think most people forgot to read the second page of this article...b/c he clearly states that boston getting garnett was a good thing
difference being garnett is nothing like iverson, kidd, or shaq
so boston does good while mavs, nuggets, suns stink...
i feel suns and mavs waited too late to pull off these trades, maybe if you got these guys before the start of the season you could have had them up to speed but to throw them in mid-season and expect a championship...thats a lil too much
gasol was the only one capable of blending in right away
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 5, 2006
|
|
I agree, but as far as the Nuggets, and Phx are concerned they really had nothing to lose. Andre Miller wouldn't have taken the Nuggets farther in the playoffs than AI. Marion wanted out of PHX and made it publicly known. It was either stick with him and lose him at the end of the season, or try and get something for him. I agree that Shaq didn't really make the Suns that much better, if at all, but what did they really have to lose?
The Lakers are the only team that really benefitted by bringing in a superstar player like Gasol, mainly because they didn't really give up anything, filled a need, and had no where to go but up.
Bottom line is that PHX & Denver & the Mavs for that matter needed more than 1 superstar to get past San Antonio. And something tells me that the Lakers will also find that out as well.
|
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Feb 19, 2007
|
|
He's picking and choosing which facts he uses. He sounds more like a politician in this article than a sports writer. If team USA loses to Germany 98 to 100 then drops Lebron and picks up Primoz Brezerek and then beat Iraq, Samolia, and Antartica, is Primoz better than Lebron? According to Gregg Doyle he is.
Good Article
|
|
|
Reputation:93
Level:All-Star
Since:Jan 14, 2008
|
|
The reason that Kerr traded for Shaq was sound. Knowing what I know now (that the suns would lose in 5 to the Spurs), I still think it was a good trade. Look, Pheonix was not going to beat San Antonio with Shawn Marion, and they were not winning an NBA title. They've tried several times and failed. So, with that in mind, you make a trade and take a risk that will: at best win you a championship; at worst make you a middle of the road playoff team. They happened to lose, but let's get serious, Duncan would have DESTROYED the Suns without Shaq. Anyone who watched the games know that Shaq played him better than any other player (including marion) could. Anyone could also see that Shaq wasn't the problem in the series. After watching all 5 games, the Suns were competitive in 4 of them, and had opportunities (read, were leading in the second half) to win 3 of the four they lost. So what is better? You know with Marion they are good, but not good enough to win it all; when they traded for Shaq they knew the possible downside, but also thought of the upside...and given that the team wasn't good enough to win it with Marion, you take the risk to win the championship. The goal isn't to be an exciting and good (but not good enough) team. The goal is to win championships...something Shaq has done many times.
Now with AI and Kidd, that's a different story. Kidd has been overrated for years. The Nuggets should have been focusing on surrounding Anthony (whose fg percentage during the regular was fantastic), not adding a player who loves to shoot.
|
|
|
Reputation:90
Level:All-Star
Since:Oct 27, 2006
|
some fantastic responses here.
Yes, Doyel is being his usual trouble-maker self and stirring the pot with inflammatory comments. But many of us agree the trades did not work out for the teams that landed the superstar. An attitude change is needed by GMs, yes. But I agree with the previous poster that Shaq was a risk worth taking that got rid of a disgruntled player and gave the Suns a CHANCE to beat the Spurs. Of course the trade itself for Iverson was a solid one, it was not a loss of important players as Dallas was but it was not an EFFECTIVE trade for the Nuggets. They needed to turn Miller into something more suited to what the team needed. Dallas had no business making their trade.
An interesting point brought up about Gasol being integrated into the Laker lineup is that perhaps that has to do with Phil Jackson. He, unlike D'Antoni, Karl, or Johnson, was able to integrate the superstar into the existing team. With that in mind, perhaps there IS justification for firing a coach that has one of these superstars blow up.
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Apr 26, 2008
|
and Shaq was the idiot that left Tim Duncan WIDE open for that three in game 1.
if Manu made that layup, it would be 2 points, but he decided to help do deny 2 points while leaving 3 wide open.
3> 2!
Duncan's average is only so high because he went off in Game 1
you know who really killed the Suns?
Tony Parker.
who was guarding him? I didnt watch the whole series.
hope it wasn't Nash or Barbosa..cus i believe Raja was on Ginobili.
anywho..
I would love to see Paul and Parker go at it. and Chandler vs Duncan.
let them get themselves tired so the Lakers can finish it off.
|
|
|
Reputation:93
Level:All-Star
Since:Dec 6, 2007
|
|
aca is right-on about Shaq.
Before Shaq the Suns were the worst team in the league on the boards. In the games after the Shaq trade Shaq's Suns were rarely out-rebounded. Shaq was not brought to the Suns for the sole purpose of beating the Spurs - he was brought here to not lose to teams like the T-wolves.
Suns unloaded a $6 million a year bench warmer with Marion who would still be on the books (and the bench) next year. Shaq in essence is $14 million dollars. Compare that to any other big guy who can clog the inside like that and Shaq is a solid deal.
Shaq run out at Duncan? Please never coach basketball. Duncan is 19% from behind the line and that was his first hit all season. Shaq was where he was supposed to be - getting the board.
Suns are not the contenders they were last year. But with a full season for Nash to adjust to Shaq, and a better position in the standings and the Suns have as good a shot as any other team in the loaded west.
Some good luck for a change wouldn't hurt either.
|
|
