:07 or Less Suns in “The Book of Basketball”

I’ve read through enough of “The Book of Basketball” from Bill Simmons to get to the good stuff, or what is better known as the :07 or Less era of Suns basketball.  While I’m a bit disappointed there isn’t more about those teams in this incredibly verbose tome, there’s more than enough to look at in greater detail.

I briefly thought about breaking this post in half (or even quarters) but as the book I’m discussing seems to be devoted as much to writing excess as to basketball, what the hell.  You’re going to need more than a few minutes…

First, one of Simmons’ favorite pastimes, the what-if game:

“What if the Suns didn’t screw up a potential Nash dynasty with some of the cheapest and most perplexing moves ever made?”

I can’t give Simmons’ exact words on the subject, for I’m pretty sure ESPN Special Forces would be kicking down my door in no time, so I’ll quickly summarize in my words each of his five points regarding the Suns numerous missteps, then delve into a few things, including his asking the wrong what if question:

• sign Q > trade the #7 pick to Chicago for cash > trade Q and the #21 pick for Kurt Thomas > trade Kurt Thomas plus two first rounds picks for cap space > holy mother of suck.

• lowball offer to Joe Johnson > trade Joe Johnson > never, ever, stand a chance of replacing Joe Johnson

• pick Rajon Rondo with the 21st pick > trade his rights to Boston > open the vault for Marcus Banks > profit > see Rondo turn into the real deal and watch Marcus Banks ride off into the sunset of mediocrity…$24 million richer.

• extend Diaw for five years

• pass on Rudy Fernandez > sell 24th pick to Portland

As Suns fans, we’ve been over these moves ad nauseam.  It hurts every time we think about it.  The good ol’ game of what if is not fun to play with this particular era of Suns basketball.

The blame game, while less painful, is an equally silly exercise.  For Simmons’ part, he places fault almost squarely on the shoulders of owner Robert Sarver, using the constant selling of draft picks and the insulting, pretty please with sugar on top take a hometown discount offer to Joe Johnson as evidence he didn’t want to pay for a great team.

I don’t know what Sarver and Co. were thinking, but I do  know blame cannot be put on one person for a series of missteps.  The signs certainly point to Sarver as the lone gunman, because after all, he was the only consistent piece of the puzzle throughout, but there are others to tag in the blame game.

Namely, Mike D’Antoni.  If he was your answer to “who was the Suns coach and general manager to sign Boris Diaw and Marcus Banks, and trade Rajon Rondo because he didn’t want to be bothered to teach?” you would be correct.  Coach D played more than a bit part in this era of issues, and Bryan Colangelo shouldn’t come out of things unscathed either.  He couldn’t help but overpay for Q in his summer of free-spending, and was the one to trade the #7 pick in a healthy draft.

The point is this: yes, Robert Sarver definitely screwed the pooch, but don’t think for a second he didn’t have help holding it down.

As for the “cheap” label Sarver will never be able to escape, his teams have consistently been in the top half of league payrolls and he’s paid the luxury tax more than once.  Sure, the signings of Q, Diaw, and Banks were dumb, but it took quite a bit of money from a certain San Diego banker to bring those guys into the fold.

I hate to defend the annual draft pick sale on the corner of Jefferson St. but books have to be balanced and people have to make money.  In the end, everything is a business, even owning a professional basketball team.

Unfortunately, Joe Johnson was the first to feel the wrath of staying in the black.  This is where the Suns train went off the tracks.  Sure, the offer to Johnson was fair, but this is free agency.  No one wants fair  They want money and respect, and too much of it.  We don’t need Paul Harvey to tell us Johnson didn’t get enough of either, or that he’s gone on to become a bona fide stud in Atlanta, while the Suns are still looking for that elusive player who can initiate the offense nearly as fluidly as Nash.

Where Simmons especially fails in his what if exercise is not by incorrectly outlining the stupid moves made by Sarver and Co (he did fail to mention making D’Antoni head coach/general manager…THAT was cheap,) but by asking the wrong what if question.  How about this:

“What if Joe Johnson didn’t break his face on the floor after being fouled from behind by Jerry Stackhouse in the Western Conference Semi-Finals?”

THAT is the question to ask.  Say Joe doesn’t take his nasty fall and the Suns go up against San Antonio with him 100%.  Maybe they don’t win the series, but at the very least it goes another game, right?  What if it goes the distance?  What if (gasp!) the Suns somehow win the series?  Something tells me Amar’e wouldn’t have been the only revelation.

All of a sudden you have a Suns team in the Finals and an owner with enough bonus money from a playoffs run to sign his stud of a 2 guard to an extension, solidifying a Suns a core that as Simmons puts it, wins 57 games a year until Nash breaks down.  Boris Diaw is never traded for, Marcus Banks nevers sniffs the desert, and a draft pick or two stands a chance of warming the bench.

Now there’s a what if to make you wake up in a cold sweat.

A Brief Yet Triumphant Intermission

Our next installment is the Most Valuable Player Award, a subject Simmons devotes 45 pages (no joke) to.  According to Simmons, there are four questions to be answered when voting for an NBA MVP.  Again, I’ll summarize these in my own words:

• how would said MVP candidate’s team be affected if he were replaced with the status quo at his position?
• who’s the alpha dog, your first pick in a pickup game?
• if you were to compile an ownage video of the season, what MVP candidate would appear most?
• can you argue for a candidate without sounding like a complete and utter buffoon?

Answering the above questions, Simmons breaks down the MVP award winners into a handful of categories, one being “outright travesties.”  I’ll give you one guess as to where he slots Steve Nash’s back to back awards.

I won’t argue the 2006 MVP.  My hatred for all things Kobe Bryant is well-documented but even I’ll admit, a guy who averaged 35.4 PPG and shot 45% from the field all while not cornering Kwame Brown and Smush Parker in a Colorado hotel room the locker room for daily beatings deserved the award over Steve Nash.

Save for being at the absolute apex of his douchetastic behavior and capping off his season with refusing to shoot in a pivotal Game 7 playoff game, he was the perfect player.

I will, however, disagree with Simmons’ assertion that Shaq was more deserving than Nash in 2005.

First, replacing Nash with a decent point guard.  The Suns don’t win 62 games, that’s for damn sure.  History is slowly but surely showing us Nash was the engine, conductor, and power behind the :07 or Less team to take the league by storm.  He was the key to it all, the alpha and the omega.  Slap Hinrich back there and the Suns are still successful but not wildly successful.  Nash made the system work, it didn’t make him work.

Next, first pick in a pickup game, a player no one can touch, someone who cannot be reckoned with.  Shaq, of course, but if you’re looking for an alpha dog on that year’s Suns team, it was Steve Nash.  Again, engine and conductor, everyone knew it, even the up and coming Johnson, the young force Stoudemire, and the whiny Shawn Marion.

Now, who owned the season and had the most memorable moments?  I mentioned a video compilation previously and actually think I’ve come up with a good argument (if you’re still reading, bravo.  I’m nearly through.)

Put together a quick highlight reel in your head of Shaq when he was trim and could actually get around a bit.  Dunk, dunk, missed free throws, dunk, talking sh*t, dunk.  For a guy who calls The Dream his idol, he sure doesn’t emulate (or even try) his touch in the post very much.  How about Nash?  Amazing assist, silky touch from the outside, plethora of moves driving to the hole, amazing assist, incredible shooting.  I’d watch the latter video over the former 9 times out of 10, but that’s me.

Last, arguing for Nash and walking away with your intelligence not being questioned.  Nash absolutely had every right to be part of the conversation and arguing otherwise doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.  This wasn’t a wholly undeserving candidate winning out of the blue.  A good argument was made by many and he came out on top.  It isn’t about looking at things just one way or sticking to certain numbers, everyone has different criteria and questions they need answered.

Simmons could move Nash’s 2005 award into his “Fishy and Ultimately Not Okay” category and a better case could be made.  “Fishy and Ultimately Okay” is more than palatable.  Honestly answering Simmons’ four questions as to what makes an MVP and still calling Nash’s award an “Outright Travesty” is insulting and stubborn.

So Long, Farewell

That about does her, wraps her all up.  Thanks for sticking with it.  If you’re somehow in the mood for plenty more words, be sure and grab “The Book of Basketball” from Bill Simmons.  It’s long, tedious at times, and shows less discipline than my kids at Toys R Us, but it’s definitely worth fighting through.  It’s a good book, and there’s a great book in there somewhere.

Subscribe to your favorite Phoenix team or sport or Follow us on Twitter.