The Suns are done

[Foulzilla]

While it's not over for the Suns, one must wonder if Shaq had spent half as much time getting himself in better shape over his whole career (instead of ballooning up like he did) as he does time practicing those lame ass skits to do during the intros and warmups, that the Suns might have been in a much better position than they currently are.

I dunno, I don't think he would be a whole lot better at this point if he had (though Im sure he'd be a bit better). He's just getting old. However, I do think he'd clearly be the "Most Dominant Ever" if he had done so (and fixed his free throws...). Instead, he's merely in the argument for it.

Also, as someone else said, he wouldn't be a Sun anyways. I bet he'd still be a Laker if he had kept himself in better shape. They'd probably have a lot more titles too.

 

[mook]

A broken down Steve Nash is still a much better passer, shooter and leader than anything we currently have at PG. I definitely wouldn't mind swapping Blake out for him. Yeah, he's a crappy defender, but really good teams can always live with one bad defender, provided he brings something else.

That said, it's hard to imagine paying that much for a guy who would basically be a role player.

 

[Uther TheGardener]

just say no to nash he is on his last legs his style of play will mean a fast decline,.,,,

 

[andalusian]

A broken down Steve Nash is still a much better passer, shooter and leader than anything we currently have at PG. I definitely wouldn't mind swapping Blake out for him. Yeah, he's a crappy defender, but really good teams can always live with one bad defender, provided he brings something else.

That said, it's hard to imagine paying that much for a guy who would basically be a role player.

Steve Nash's A/TO ratio is worse than Blake's this year. His usage% is higher - meaning that he needs the ball more in his hands to achieve these higher assists - and the only way this happens on this team is by taking the ball away from Brandon Roy - which is a bad idea.

Add the fact that the slower the pace is - the worse Nash is - and this team plays a lot slower than the Suns - even a lot slower than the Terry Porter era Suns where Nash was even worse than he is right now.

We would get a worse A/TO ratio, worse defense and someone that needs the ball in his hands to be effective thus taking it away from our best player - all while playing in a system that exposes him much more.

He is a terrible fit on this team - and the only place where he is/was effective was in the entertaining but futile style imposed by D'antoni.

Fool's gold comes to mind.

 

[Masbee]

A broken down Steve Nash is still a much better passer, shooter and leader than anything we currently have at PG.

"better", yes. "much better", not so sure.

I definitely wouldn't mind swapping Blake out for him. Yeah, he's a crappy defender, but really good teams can always live with one bad defender, provided he brings something else.

Yes, I agree. He is a crappy defender. Much worse (yes "much") than even Blake, and we all complain about Blake's defense constantly.

Yes, I agree. A team can live with one bad defender.

So, do we sit Brandon (a poor defender) or Nash (currently a horrifingly bad defender)? What do we do with Sergio and Outlaw?

Nash was at his best when paired with a top 5 guard defender / role player to be his sidekick.

Brandon is not Raja Bell.

Brandon could use his own Raja Bell equivalent. (I think that might be Batum in a couple of years.)

Nash use to bring such an enormous advantage on the offensive end, that he still gave the team a "plus" after deducting for his give backs on the defensive end. However, during the playoffs, with schemes and scouting coupled with the talent of the best teams, some of Nash's offense was stifled (a bit), and Nash was more consistently attacked on the defensive end, reducing his net plus contribution.

Now, Nash has lost a step, and thus is not as good an offensive player and is an even worse defensive player. And going forward his minutes would need to be very limited.

Your plan is to trade our starting PG for a part timer? What starting quality PG then splits time with Nash? Who starts when Nash sits out for 10 games nursing this or that injury that is slow to heal?

I am not feeling the Nash to Portland (mini) bandwagon.

I prefer to take a flyer on a youngin' that may pan out or bring in an end-prime (not past prime) vet.

 

[GoBlazersGo]

Shoot. Now that the Suns are getting a lotto pick, they're not as likely to sell it.

Says who? If I remember correctly, the last time they had a lotto pick--which I think was the #7 pick (Luol Deng)--they traded it to the Bulls for a first the next season (which ended up being in the early 20's).

 

[Minstrel]

The Suns also dumped a panned-out Joe Johnson because they didn't want to pay him. The Suns definitely have precedent for ditching highly valuable assets for financial reasons, not just low first-round picks.

 

[Reep]

A broken down Steve Nash is still a much better . . . shooter and leader than anything we currently have at PG.

Currently, Nash is #13 in 3pt% and Blake is #15 while making 24 more threes. They are 0.2% apart. I'm not sure that is much better. Taking Blake's volume into account, I would rather have Blake taking the shots.

Nash is a great (but inconsistant) offensive leader, but not on the other end of the court. I would say no mainly because Nash has to dominate the ball and that would remove it from Brandon. Nash is on his way down and out and will not be available for a title window.

 

[rocketeer]

Currently, Nash is #13 in 3pt% and Blake is #15 while making 24 more threes. They are 0.2% apart. I'm not sure that is much better. Taking Blake's volume into account, I would rather have Blake taking the shots.

Nash is a great (but inconsistant) offensive leader, but not on the other end of the court. I would say no mainly because Nash has to dominate the ball and that would remove it from Brandon. Nash is on his way down and out and will not be available for a title window.

of course when you look at actual fg% and free throw % along with 3pt%, nash clearly is a much better shooter.

and i don't have any doubt that nash could play well off the ball when roy needs it.

but i still don't think nash would be someone the blazers should look to acquire.

 

[mook]

The Suns also dumped a panned-out Joe Johnson because they didn't want to pay him. The Suns definitely have precedent for ditching highly valuable assets for financial reasons, not just low first-round picks.

Is there an NBA team that has squandered more assets over the past 3-4 years? I can't think of one.

They could have a lineup of Nash, Fernandez, Johnson, Marion and Amare. That is an insanely good offense (although defensively not so much).

 

[mook]

Your plan is to trade our starting PG for a part timer? What starting quality PG then splits time with Nash? Who starts when Nash sits out for 10 games nursing this or that injury that is slow to heal?

I am not feeling the Nash to Portland (mini) bandwagon.

I prefer to take a flyer on a youngin' that may pan out or bring in an end-prime (not past prime) vet.

Meh, it's not really my plan, because like I said it'd be paying too much salary for a small upgrade.

 

[Reep]

of course when you look at actual fg% and free throw % along with 3pt%, nash clearly is a much better shooter.

I would agree that Nash is a better scorer. I still don't want him in Portland for the tiny amount of career he has left.

 

[rocketeer]

I would agree that Nash is a better scorer. I still don't want him in Portland for the tiny amount of career he has left.

nash is better than blake at everything but defense. that includes both shooting and scoring. but there really is no reason for portland to give up anything to acquire him.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Is there an NBA team that has squandered more assets over the past 3-4 years? I can't think of one.

They could have a lineup of Nash, Fernandez, Johnson, Marion and Amare. That is an insanely good offense (although defensively not so much).

They also gave away (sold) Rajon Rondo to the Celts. Man, it must totally suck to have a cheap ass/cash strapped owner. Their championship window was way too short, and was never fully opened, due to the fact that they gave away so many valuable young assets. Ironically, they brought in a vastly overpaid Shaq in a desparate hope of extending their window and all it did was shorten their window further. Imagine how much better their team would be in they'd just kept Rondo and Rudy to give them some fresh young legs so they wouldn't have to rely on their trio of senior citizens so much.

BNM

 

[axs88]

Is there an NBA team that has squandered more assets over the past 3-4 years? I can't think of one.

They could have a lineup of Nash, Fernandez, Johnson, Marion and Amare. That is an insanely good offense (although defensively not so much).

Don't forget Iguodala/Deng (or whoever they would have used their 2004 #7 pick on). It truly is head-scratching.

 

[Minstrel]

Had they added Iguodala, Fernandez and Rondo to a core of Amare, Nash, Johnson, Marion and Barbosa...they'd be just a nightmare, in the present and future.

 

[hasoos]

I am actually surprised nobody has really brought up the fact that Nash is much more effective if in a run and gun system. As opposed to Nate's system.

 

[axs88]

Had they added Iguodala, Fernandez and Rondo to a core of Amare, Nash, Johnson, Marion and Barbosa...they'd be just a nightmare, in the present and future.

I just checked, and it really could have been EITHER Iggy, Rondo or Rudy. They traded the 2004 #7 (Iguodala) for a future pick that turned out to be Rondo, which they traded for the #24 in 2007 (Rudy) which they sold to Portland. I don't know if it looks better or worse this way (seeing that they had 2 chances to redeem themselves but they ended up with nothing but cash).

Bill Simmons wrapped it all up pretty nicely:

Mistake No. 1: For financial reasons, they traded the No. 21 pick (Rajon Rondo) to Boston along with Brian Grant's contract (chopping $1.9 million from their 2007 payroll) for the rights to Cleveland's 2007 first-round pick. This was a double whammy because they acquired that Rondo pick two years before by giving up the No. 7 pick in the 2004 draft (for luxury tax reasons). So if you're scoring at home, they downgraded from "Luol Deng or Andre Iguodala in 2004" to "Rondo in 2006" to "selling the No. 24 pick in 2007 for cash" (we'll get to that in a second) ... which means that, effectively, they traded a No. 7 pick in a loaded draft for $4.9 million. Phoenix fans, you may now light yourselves on fire.

(What makes that one even more painful: Instead of signing Richardson before the 2004-05 season to a six-year, $42.6 million deal, they could have drafted Deng or Igoudala that summer and paid one of them two-fifths as much as Richardson over that same time frame. One year later, they swapped Richardson and the No. 21 pick in 2005 for Kurt Thomas, who they dumped on Seattle last summer along with two more No. 1's just to get him off their cap. As astounding as this sounds, Bryan Colangelo's decision to sign Richardson instead of drafting Deng or Iguodala -- which was dumb at the time, by the way -- ended up costing them a whopping FOUR FIRST-ROUND PICKS! Would you rather have Richardson, or would you rather have the No. 7 pick in 2004, the No. 21 pick in 2005, and your first-rounders in 2008 and 2010? Hold on, this gets better. Your 2005 NBA Executive of the Year? That's right, Mr. Bryan Colangelo! I love the NBA.)

 

[andalusian]

I am actually surprised nobody has really brought up the fact that Nash is much more effective if in a run and gun system. As opposed to Nate's system.

Ugh. Post #34...

 

[shamelessblazer]

Steve Nash's A/TO ratio is worse than Blake's this year. His usage% is higher - meaning that he needs the ball more in his hands to achieve these higher assists - and the only way this happens on this team is by taking the ball away from Brandon Roy - which is a bad idea.

Add the fact that the slower the pace is - the worse Nash is - and this team plays a lot slower than the Suns - even a lot slower than the Terry Porter era Suns where Nash was even worse than he is right now.

We would get a worse A/TO ratio, worse defense and someone that needs the ball in his hands to be effective thus taking it away from our best player - all while playing in a system that exposes him much more.

He is a terrible fit on this team - and the only place where he is/was effective was in the entertaining but futile style imposed by D'antoni.

Fool's gold comes to mind.

Nash has proven he can play slower playoff ball in the playoffs before and that's 10X what you can say about Blake. Nash would (and has) looked tremendously better playing with good defenders in the post as teams don't abuse the pick n roll then. He's not a lock down perimeter defender, but he's fine against the weaker of a team's PG/SG IF you have good defensive bigs who can rotate behind him (like Aldridge/Oden/Pryz or Marion/Diaw/Thomas).

Nash looked good to me in his 'slow' matchups against the spurs in the playoffs, and he was a damn fine PG in a slower Dallas system before.

As for him and Roy, Nash could use the reduced wear and tear on his body, he's one of the top ten best 3pt% shooters in NBA history so I think he'd spread the floor fine off the ball, and Roy (and the team) is better when occasionally moving off the ball (he's done better lately w/Blake) instead of Iso's all day.

 

[andalusian]

Nash has proven he can play slower playoff ball in the playoffs before and that's 10X what you can say about Blake. Nash would (and has) looked tremendously better playing with good defenders in the post as teams don't abuse the pick n roll then. He's not a lock down perimeter defender, but he's fine against the weaker of a team's PG/SG IF you have good defensive bigs who can rotate behind him (like Aldridge/Oden/Pryz or Marion/Diaw/Thomas).

Nash looked good to me in his 'slow' matchups against the spurs in the playoffs, and he was a damn fine PG in a slower Dallas system before.

As for him and Roy, Nash could use the reduced wear and tear on his body, he's one of the top ten best 3pt% shooters in NBA history so I think he'd spread the floor fine off the ball, and Roy (and the team) is better when occasionally moving off the ball (he's done better lately w/Blake) instead of Iso's all day.

Nash has proven that even at his peak - with a great system that maximizes his effectiveness, and with great team-mates - he could never make it to the finals.

While the pace was slower in the playoffs - it was still faster than the typical Blazers pace and Nash is pretty much running on fumes.

He will be a marginal upgrade on offense (if he stays the same next year - but at this point in his career - it is more likely that he will continue to decline next year), a downgrade on defense and his window of effectiveness is very short. He is just the wrong player for this Blazers team at this junction in history.

 

[rocketeer]

Nash has proven that even at his peak - with a great system that maximizes his effectiveness, and with great team-mates - he could never make it to the finals.

nash didn't ever make the finals but he also didn't prove that he is completely unable of ever making the finals.

 

[shamelessblazer]

Nash has proven that even at his peak - with a great system that maximizes his effectiveness, and with great team-mates - he could never make it to the finals.

While the pace was slower in the playoffs - it was still faster than the typical Blazers pace and Nash is pretty much running on fumes.

Was he really playing with GREAT players that whole time? Let's be honest here, a lot of the guys he had to play with were very 1 dimensional. Marion Nash made and that's been proven since his departure, Diaw was inconsistent, Amare plays on 1 side of the ball, Bell was very limited, and Thomas was old and no offensive threat. C'mon man you know a surrounding cast of Roy, Rudy, LMA, and Oden is much better than his Phoenix surrounding cast ever was.

And he definitely would've made it to the finals if not for some terrible officiating.

He will be a marginal upgrade on offense (if he stays the same next year - but at this point in his career - it is more likely that he will continue to decline next year), a downgrade on defense and his window of effectiveness is very short. He is just the wrong player for this Blazers team at this junction in history.

Yeah it wouldn't make any sense to bring in a great PG in transition to help our worst in the league fast break offense. He can definitely do what Blake does (sit in the corner and not make any passes to cutters) and a ton more to help our offense, and all of our PG's suck on defense anyways. Bring in Nash and you'd see Batum, Aldridge, and Oden's games explode while Roy's might take a short-term hit, he'd be better for it in the long-term.

Roy isos constantly = a short career

 

[shamelessblazer]

Currently, Nash is #13 in 3pt% and Blake is #15 while making 24 more threes. They are 0.2% apart. I'm not sure that is much better. Taking Blake's volume into account, I would rather have Blake taking the shots.

Nash creates them and shoots them under pressure, Blake shoots them when the defense leaves him wide open, because he's such a limited offensive threat.

 

[southnc]

C'mon! Blake has owned Nash this year. Prior to the recent game where neither played much, the previous 2 games had Blake spanking Nash all over the place. In addition to out-scoring Nash, take a good look at the TOs for both in those 2 games.

Nash does not play defense and turns the ball over - especially in the 4th, which costs games. This is terminal for the playoffs. He is not the answer for this team. Andre Miller is a much better option if you want to bring in a vet.

 

[rocketeer]

C'mon! Blake has owned Nash this year. Prior to the recent game where neither played much, the previous 2 games had Blake spanking Nash all over the place. In addition to out-scoring Nash, take a good look at the TOs for both in those 2 games.

Nash does not play defense and turns the ball over - especially in the 4th, which costs games. This is terminal for the playoffs. He is not the answer for this team. Andre Miller is a much better option if you want to bring in a vet.

head to head matchups between nash and blake really mean almost nothing as far as comparing the two players. nash is much better and likely will continue to be much better for at least a couple more years.

and andre miller is a terrible option for the blazers. it seems like some people here have fallen in love with the idea of getting him(or at least like the option), but i just don't see it at all.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

It isn't like Blake doesn't turn it over in the 4th as well, and he misses crucial free throws. He also has the great ability to not be able to inbound the ball effectively on a consistent basis.