Here's more from the espn writers
[FONT=Arial,Hevetica,sans-serif]
3. Who is your pick (so far) for NBA MVP?[/FONT]
Bucher: Steve Nash. Just because the voters screwed up and didn't recognize
Kobe Bryant last year doesn't mean Nash should pay the price this year, when he deserves it more than ever before. The arguments I hear for Dirk is that he's the best player on the best team and that "he's due," as if he's accrued brownie points over the years.
[FONT=Arial,Hevetica,sans-serif]
4. Are the Mavs better because of the departure of Steve Nash?[/FONT]
Anthony: They are. As great as Nash was, he was doing in Dallas the same things he's doing in Phoenix. A perimeter-oriented, high-flying offense is not going to win you a title. They're better off being apart. In sports, sometimes you get addition by subtraction. Dirk learned to have more of an impact this year by playing like the 7-footer he is.
Broussard: It's very hard to say the Mavericks are better without Steve Nash, but that seems to be the case. With Nash, they almost certainly would not be the defensive powerhouse they have become, and that's the very reason the Mavericks are legit contenders. We probably saw the best the Mavs could do with Nash during his stint there. Nash is without question the best point guard in the league, but he's not the most versatile (in terms of defense and style of play), and that lack of versatility would hinder the Mavs' move to the type of hard-nosed, defensive-minded team they've become.
Bucher: No. They're better because they've created a better fit between their coach and their personnel and they've stopped making major changes every year, which was the case when Nash was there. The argument that they couldn't play their current brand of D with Nash is superfluous; they never tried while he was there, so we'll never know. This we do know: No one tries harder than Nash to be a good team defender and team D is what the Mavs play so well.
Hollinger: Of course not. But they did enough good things once they lost Nash -- trading
Antoine Walker for Jason Terry, signing
Erick Dampier and
DeSagana Diop, trading
Antawn Jamison for
Jerry Stackhouse and
Devin Harris -- that they're a better team now than when Nash played there.
Sheridan: They're better because the rest of the team has matured, and the pieces brought in around Nowitzki have fit. But if they had kept Nash instead of giving that money to Dampier, we might be talking about a 73-to-75-win team.
Stein: No. They're better than they were because they've made a string of home run roster decisions since Nash's departure to reload around Nowitzki and because Avery Johnson has forced the new Mavs -- starting with Dirk -- to be more accountable defensively than they've ever been before. I will always believe that if Nash had stayed and played for Avery, helped along by the new rules curtailing defensive contact on the perimeter and the presence of Josh Howard as their starry wingman, that the Mavs would have at least one championship and be feared every year. I reject the notion that Nowitzki and Nash had to separate to get this good, as they're two guys who get better every year and who would have been challenged like never before by the Lil' General.
[FONT=Arial,Hevetica,sans-serif]
6. Will the Suns win it all?[/FONT]
Anthony: I don't think so. They don't have enough "effort" players -- that's what separates the Spurs and Mavs from the Suns. San Antonio showed this two years ago when it eliminated Phoenix in five games in part because of the Spurs' ability to make effort plays.
Broussard: Suns will not win it all. Not enough D, baby!
Bucher: Yes. Because Steve Nash looks like a man on a mission. Because, had they stayed healthy, they were good enough to win it last year
without Amare Stoudemire. Because this is as close to the Bulls' last dance as any team in recent memory has been.
Because everyone says you can't win without defense, ignoring that Phoenix's has improved mightily. And because injuries, not the opposition, put the brakes on last year's offense in the postseason.
Hollinger: Phoenix has a much tougher road because of two things: (1) the Suns aren't as deep as Dallas and thus are more susceptible to injury problems, and (2) they have to beat San Antonio and Dallas in succession. I wouldn't be shocked if they won, but right now they're the league's third-best team and have to beat Nos. 1 and 2 to win it all.
Sheridan: Again, if I'm going with the Spurs, I have to count these guys out somewhere along the way. I'd like to see San Antonio get an opportunity to beat both Dallas and Phoenix to prove my point.
Stein: Having to beat San Antonio
and Dallas just to get to the Finals is the biggest issue Phoenix faces, not that well-worn hogwash about the Suns' style of play not working in the playoffs. They've reached the conference finals two years running in spite of major injuries both years (
Joe Johnson in 2005; Amare Stoudemire and
Raja Bell in 2006). I won't be surprised in the least if they go all the way this time. As the Suns' coaches like to say, they've got "seven starters." The best top-seven players in the league, in other words. With good health in the 2007 playoffs, why not?
