Merged: Would you trade for Steve Nash? (and what would it take to get him)?

[hasoos]

If the deal was right, yes. Steve Kerr finally made his first good deal when he sent out Diaw and Bell for Richardson, and that one was only marginally good. The rest of his moves have been pretty bad IMO. If he wants to have a fire sale, show up for the sale and shop.

 

[MARIS61]

Since I'm not a Suns fan, why would I want to sacrifice to make them better than us?

Bake it!

 

[Nikolokolus]

Re: Would you trade for Steve Nash? (and what would it take to get him)?

Our 3 would have to guard the best playmakers, but I think that's doable. We'd be a more pesky type of D for sure, lots of zones (which Nate likes already). Fact is our improvement on offense would dwarf any more deficient our defense is.

You realize we already have one of the most efficient offenses in the league and one of the poorest defensively? Not to mention Terry Porter runs a similar style of offense that Nate does and Nash has floundered badly in it.

As far as Brandon playing off the ball, he needs to do that in order to take his game to the next level. At this point he only makes his teammates better by getting them open shots, but not attracting the defense to him w/o the ball (letting them create easy looks). This is something D-Wade and Lebron have both added incredibly well and it's made them better teammates and got them much more easy points. Brandon's up next. Brandon's not the only scorer on the team at this point (as Lebron and Wade are on theirs).

I find it funny you mention Wade and James who play on the ball constantly because they are similar to Brandon in their ability to facilitate the offense ... seriously, neither of them play off ball as much as you seem to think, just look at their insanely high usage rates, assist rates and the kinds of players that seem most effective playing with them.

Lebron + Mo Williams (a scoring point guard)
Wade + Chalmers (a defensive minded point guard)
Joe Johnson + Bibby (another scoring point guard)
Kobe + Fisher (also more of a scoring point who plays off ball and scores a ton on kickouts)

And Brandon playing off the ball has everything to do with our bigs, have you ever watched a game of basketball? You don't think Kobe got easy points off of Shaq, Parker off of Duncan, or Wade off of Shaq. Brandon can get much easier looks if he plays off the ball also, and if he continues to only score on the ball he'll risk injury and impede the development of our other players.

Brandon facilitates meaning he has the option of passing to the bigs or scoring himself, him playing off the ball more means he's reliant on the point guard to get him the ball and would be scoring more off of cuts, which means ultimately it would take away from his ability to play a two man game with LMA or Greg ... so yes, it has nothing to do with the bigs, it has everything to do with the backcourt being able to blend -- In my opinion Nash and Roy together would be a disaster for Brandon and disaster for the team defensively.

 

[shamelessblazer]

you act is if each team in the NBA runs one play and that's it. Leron, D-Wade, and others iso a ton, I did not say otherwise (though you act like I did), the point is when they're not iso'd they're looking to cut and get easy buckets most of the time and it helps their teammates on the occasions they get the ball. The other players aren't all just catch and shoot guys other them, and that's what Branon/Nate do, everyone else on the floor is catch and shoot when he's out there. I know he's capable because he did it well at Washington playing off NateRob.

I'm not saying Brandon shouldn't be our main weapon, but on the plays that he isn't (do you think he should iso 80% of the time) he needs to put more effort into moving w/o the ball.

As an aside, Brandon will/(maybe does) have a better supporting cast than Lebron ever has and Wade has the last couple of years.

Don't take me out of context again and stop thinking so simplistically, a third grader could see the holes in your limited logic.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm not saying Brandon shouldn't be our main weapon, but on the plays that he isn't (do you think he should iso 80% of the time) he needs to put more effort into moving w/o the ball.

I agree with this statement. I think Brandon relies on the iso, the pick and roll, and taking his man off the dribble too much. I wish he would spot up more, and move without the ball. It would encourage better ball movement/player movement (I miss the snapper)

 

[Nikolokolus]

you act is if each team in the NBA runs one play and that's it. Leron, D-Wade, and others iso a ton, I did not say otherwise (though you act like I did), the point is when they're not iso'd they're looking to cut and get easy buckets most of the time and it helps their teammates on the occasions they get the ball. The other players aren't all just catch and shoot guys other them, and that's what Branon/Nate do, everyone else on the floor is catch and shoot when he's out there. I know he's capable because he did it well at Washington playing off NateRob.

I'm not saying Brandon shouldn't be our main weapon, but on the plays that he isn't (do you think he should iso 80% of the time) he needs to put more effort into moving w/o the ball.

As an aside, Brandon will/(maybe does) have a better supporting cast than Lebron ever has and Wade has the last couple of years.

Don't take me out of context again and stop thinking so simplistically, a third grader could see the holes in your limited logic.

This has nothing to do with faulty logic or simplistic thinking, but the answer to whether or not I want Nash on this team is simple; the answer is emphatically, "no."

Here's why and it's not complicated: Both Brandon and Nash need the ball in their hands A LOT to be effective, having them both on the court together means neither are able to play up to their full potential on offense and Nash's weakness on defense just leads to the same kind dribble penetration we already see against the team on an almost nightly basis -- currently our guards get murdered on picks and almost all of them (aside from Jerryd) have enormous difficulty keeping their man in front of them. We need a point who can run the point as needed, play off the ball comfortably and perhaps most importantly play good to very good perimeter defense. That is not Steve Nash.

There's a reason Zach Randolph and Eddy Curry couldn't coexist in New York; they both occupied the same roles on offense and possessed the same weaknesses on defense, I see strong potential for a repeat of that disaster by acquiring Nash and attempting to shoe-horn a bad fit (Nash does not play well in a slow paced offense and for Brandon who would have to give up a large part of his game with no guarantee that he'd be nearly as effective as primarily a cutter and spot up shooter).

 

[Natebishop3]

This has nothing to do with faulty logic or simplistic thinking, but the answer to whether or not I want Nash on this team is simple; the answer is emphatically, "no."

Here's why and it's not complicated: Both Brandon and Nash need the ball in their hands A LOT to be effective, having them both on the court together means neither are able to play up to their full potential on offense and Nash's weakness on defense just leads to the same kind dribble penetration we already see against the team on an almost nightly basis -- currently our guards get murdered on picks and almost all of them (aside from Jerryd) have enormous difficulty keeping their man in front of them. We need a point who can run the point as needed, play off the ball comfortably and perhaps most importantly play good to very good perimeter defense. That is not Steve Nash.

There's a reason Zach Randolph and Eddy Curry couldn't coexist in New York; they both occupied the same roles on offense and possessed the same weaknesses on defense, I see strong potential for a repeat of that that disaster by acquiring Nash and attempting to shoe-horn a bad fit (Nash does not play well in a slow paced offense and for Brandon who would have to give up a large part of his game with no guarantee that he'd be nearly as effective as primarily a cutter and spot up shooter).

You could be right Nik, but if we had Chris Paul what would happen? Paul needs the ball in his hands, do you think it would negatively effect Brandon? I think Brandon would adapt and he would still be an effective scorer. He managed to put up 17 points (if I remember correctly) in the All-Star game, with Paul running the show. Brandon can spot up, we just choose to run most of our offense through him.

 

[Nikolokolus]

You could be right Nik, but if we had Chris Paul what would happen? Paul needs the ball in his hands, do you think it would negatively effect Brandon? I think Brandon would adapt and he would still be an effective scorer. He managed to put up 17 points (if I remember correctly) in the All-Star game, with Paul running the show. Brandon can spot up, we just choose to run most of our offense through him.

I put Chris Paul in another category, because of a couple of factors. A) he's better than Brandon, so it's OK that Brandon adapts to suit Paul's style. B) Paul is still insanely young and is a long term solution, so I'd be willing to let the two of them work it out or trade Brandon if it didn't. C) Paul is a very good defender and would plug a hole where we are very weak.

Nash is A) breaking down and pretty old, B) arguably no more of an impact player than Brandon at this stage of his career, and C) is so weak on defense I wouldn't even want him for the one or two year rental.

I see this is sort of as an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[Natebishop3]

I put Chris Paul in another category, because of a couple of factors. A) he's better than Brandon, so it's OK that Brandon adapts to suit Paul's style. B) Paul is still insanely young and is a long term solution, so I'd be willing to let the two of them work it out or trade Brandon if it didn't. C) Paul is a very good defender and would plug a hole where we are very weak.

Nash is A) breaking down and pretty old, B) arguably no more of an impact player than Brandon at this stage of his career, and C) is so weak on defense I wouldn't even want him for the one or two year rental.

I see this is sort of as an apples to oranges comparison.

I hear what you're saying, but I just wanted to point out that the "brandon needs the ball in his hands" argument doesn't always apply. I think he's capable of playing with a real point guard, but that point guard isn't Steve Nash. I'm with you on Nash. I think he's done. Period. I'm sure he'd be okay on a team like the Celtics, but not the Blazers.

Andre Miller on the other hand...

 

[Nikolokolus]

I hear what you're saying, but I just wanted to point out that the "brandon needs the ball in his hands" argument doesn't always apply. I think he's capable of playing with a real point guard, but that point guard isn't Steve Nash. I'm with you on Nash. I think he's done. Period. I'm sure he'd be okay on a team like the Celtics, but not the Blazers.

Andre Miller on the other hand...

Yeah, I don't mind a ball dominant point guard so much, as I don't want a point guard who is basically useless unless he has the ball (Nash) and I put a huge premium on the ability to cut of dribble penetration and fight through picks ... which I see as being especially important with the current hand-checking rules.

Andre Miller would be ... interesting ...

 

[Natebishop3]

Yeah, I don't mind a ball dominant point guard so much, as I don't want a point guard who is basically useless unless he has the ball (Nash) and I put a huge premium on the ability to cut of dribble penetration and fight through picks ... which I see as being especially important with the current hand-checking rules.

Andre Miller would be ... interesting ...

I'm torn on Miller because it would be pointless to trade for him during the season when you could possibly sign him in the offseason. Still, he's a guy I would like to see on this team.

 

[BengalDuck]

Bayless to me is untouchable. IMHO he's shown as much upside as any rookie in this draft including Rose, Mayo, and Oden. I'm not unconvinced that if given the minutes and in the same role as Rose, he wouldn't have the very same statistics. A penetrating guard who can get to the FT line is such a rarity in the league, and combine that with a penetrating two-guard like Roy and it's a very promising combination.

Realistically, our window opens as players like Garnett, Pierce, and Allen, Duncan and Manu, and potentially even Kobe decline. That's 2ish years from now where I believe we should be able to go in to a season expecting or projectiing to win a series or two and be a contender in June.

Acquiring Nash does nothing to really further that window in any way. Getting rid of a Bayless, Batum, Webster... players who potentially could have big roles on those teams when our window is open, for a vet who doesn't help us in two years, is illogical.

IMHO our main trading pieces are Raef's contract and Outlaw (or Webster, but Outlaw is more productive and I'd assume would be more attractive to another team... and I like Webster's game for our team more).

 

[Natebishop3]

Getting rid of a Bayless, Batum, Webster... players who potentially could have big roles on those teams when our window is open, for a vet who doesn't help us in two years, is illogical.

IMHO our main trading pieces are Raef's contract and Outlaw (or Webster, but Outlaw is more productive and I'd assume would be more attractive to another team... and I like Webster's game for our team more).

Unless they bring back another young player who fits our window, but I'm with you. I don't want to trade Bayless or Batum. I would prefer to keep Webster over Outlaw because Webster can play shooting guard and small forward. Outlaw can play small forward and power forward. I'd rather have Webster.

With that said, I'd trade Webster, Outlaw, Frye, Sergio, and/or Diogu with RLEC to get players who will fit our window. We need to consolidate our talent just a little bit. If we can make a solid trade without getting rid of Batum, Bayless, Roy, Oden, Aldridge, or Rudy.... do it. I'd like to hold onto Joel, but if the right deal came along... he might have to go too.

 

[BengalDuck]

In order of "touchableness," for me...

Oden/Roy/Aldridge (all three are equally untradeable unless you're talking LeBron or Dwight Howard. That's it.)

Bayless/Joel

Batum/Webster

Outlaw

everyone else

 

[Natebishop3]

In order of "touchableness," for me...

Oden/Roy/Aldridge (all three are equally untradeable unless you're talking LeBron or Dwight Howard. That's it.)

Bayless/Joel

Batum/Webster

Outlaw

everyone else

I would put Batum above Joel because I think he has a much bigger future here. Joel is great, and I hope he sticks around long enough to help us win a title, but I also think that Oden will eventually play 35 minutes a game, making Joel much less important in the grand scheme of things. Batum could be the answer we've been looking for at small forward.

 

[gambitnut]

In order of "touchableness," for me...

Oden/Roy/Aldridge (all three are equally untradeable unless you're talking LeBron or Dwight Howard. That's it.)

Bayless/Joel

Batum/Webster

Outlaw

everyone else

You'd put Rudy with everyone else?

 

[Natebishop3]

You'd put Rudy with everyone else?

Rudy is in a tier all his own

 

[Minstrel]

In order of "touchableness," for me...

Oden/Roy/Aldridge (all three are equally untradeable unless you're talking LeBron or Dwight Howard. That's it.)

Bayless/Joel

Batum/Webster

Outlaw

everyone else

Hmm. Mine would go:

Tier 1: Oden/Roy

Tier 2: Aldridge

Tier 3: Bayless/Fernandez/Batum

Tier 4: Outlaw/Przybilla

Then everyone else.

 

[Natebishop3]

Hmm. Mine would go:

Tier 1: Oden/Roy

Tier 2: Aldridge

Tier 3: Bayless/Fernandez/Batum

Tier 4: Outlaw/Przybilla

Then everyone else.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[BengalDuck]

Rudy is similar to me with Outlaw. Solid NBA player and will have a role on a team for another decade, but he's not essential to Portland and therefore can be used as trade-bait. I guess I'd put him slightly above Rudy because maybe it'd be more difficult to convince a Euro to come over if we've traded them in the past, but thats the only reason IMO.

 

[Natebishop3]

Rudy is similar to me with Outlaw. Solid NBA player and will have a role on a team for another decade, but he's not essential to Portland and therefore can be used as trade-bait. I guess I'd put him slightly above Rudy because maybe it'd be more difficult to convince a Euro to come over if we've traded them in the past, but thats the only reason IMO.

Rudy is only in his first season, and he is so much more valuable to this team than Outlaw. Quick talked about it yesterday. His passing, his ability to create his own shot, and the fact that he's one of the only guys who will move without the basketball, makes him very valuable to our team. I think he's going through a bit of the rookie wall, but over the next couple seasons he will be very valuable to this team.