Grant Hill Reportedly Leaning Toward Knicks

[PetryJr]

I don't know how Hill would be a "jerk" or "primadonna" to go start on a title contender.

I was referring to the "all-time greats" thing.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

EVERYBODY is only competitive to a degree. Dirk had a chance to leave the Mavs last year. People were saying he'd have a better chance of winning if he left, but he stayed. He didn't know he was going to win, but he stayed and his competitiveness and talent willed his team to the title. For me, that's the competitiveness that matters.

Not comparable. It's obvious that the Mavs were committed to winning a championship, and made the necessary moves to at least have them in the conversation.

Totally different from Nash's situation here where he has zero chance of winning a championship.

 

[PetryJr]

I'm not going to argue about this competitiveness thing anymore. Clearly, we see things differently. All I know is that I want the players on the Suns to be competitive and give their all ON THE FLOOR. Hill and Nash are as competitive as any player I've ever seen in that regard. And that's all that matters. Bill Walton did all it took to keep playing for as long as possible. Look where that got him.

 

[PetryJr]

Not comparable. It's obvious that the Mavs were committed to winning a championship, and made the necessary moves to at least have them in the conversation.

Totally different from Nash's situation here where he has zero chance of winning a championship.

I agree it's not the same, but it is comparable. How many people thought the Mavs had a chance before last season started? Not too many. He could've gone to a contender and had had a better chance. He took a huge risk and it paid off. But the thing is, even if the Mavs hadn't won the title, I'm sure he wouldn't have regretted it. He knew it was unlikely and he stayed anyway.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I saw Nash play against the Spurs with a gashed and broken nose and I also saw him win a playoff series with an eye swollen shut.

Seems competitive to me.

Not bad for a first post. BTW, welcome.

Steve

 

[Mainstreet]

Wow. That is a good first post Bells.

 

[AzStevenCal]

yes, but there ARE players out there who winning a title will make or break them and there have been throughout NBA history, right? That alone means they're not as competitive as everyone else. not sure how you keep arguing this. i mean... you're contradicting yourself in the above unless you're going to tell me there aren't players out there who winning a title is all that matters.

This may be where we differ the most. To me competition and winning are not directly related. To be a competitor means to give everything you have within the rules (written AND spirit of) in order to win. Whether you win or not is immaterial in this regard.

If Nash is convinced this organization is not also doing it's best to win and chooses to go somewhere else to play for a more committed group, I have no problem with that. However, he doesn't need "scoreboard" to show he's a competitor.

Steve

 

[PetryJr]

This may be where we differ the most. To me competition and winning are not directly related. To be a competitor means to give everything you have within the rules (written AND spirit of) in order to win. Whether you win or not is immaterial in this regard.

If Nash is convinced this organization is not also doing it's best to win and chooses to go somewhere else to play for a more committed group, I have no problem with that. However, he doesn't need "scoreboard" to show he's a competitor.

Steve

Couldn't have said it better (although I tried and failed many times) myself.

 

[Griffin]

Not comparable. It's obvious that the Mavs were committed to winning a championship, and made the necessary moves to at least have them in the conversation.

Totally different from Nash's situation here where he has zero chance of winning a championship.

But hold on now. Yes, Mavs had some chance of winning a title, but clearly nowhere near as much as a team like the Lakers or Heat. It wasn't even close. Wouldn't the fact that Dirk didn't try to force a sign-and-trade to one of those teams mean that he is less competitive than a player who would, given the same circumstances, according to your definition of competitiveness?

 

[Bells]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I don't usually post on boards but the concept that Steve Nash wasn't competitive just seemed so wrong...

I personally would trade Nash to the Spurs or the Celts to see if a Nash/Garnett or Nash/Duncan 2 man game could win it all. But if he doesn't want to then that's his choice.

 

[Griffin]

This may be where we differ the most. To me competition and winning are not directly related. To be a competitor means to give everything you have within the rules (written AND spirit of) in order to win. Whether you win or not is immaterial in this regard.

If Nash is convinced this organization is not also doing it's best to win and chooses to go somewhere else to play for a more committed group, I have no problem with that. However, he doesn't need "scoreboard" to show he's a competitor.

Steve

Agreed.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

But hold on now. Yes, Mavs had some chance of winning a title, but clearly nowhere near as much as a team like the Lakers or Heat. It wasn't even close.

The same Lakers team the Mavs swept and Heat team the Mavs beat in the Finals? The Mavs already had a very good team, and pushed all their chips in the middle of the table acquiring Chandler.

Wouldn't the fact that Dirk didn't try to force a sign-and-trade to one of those teams mean that he is less competitive than a player who would, given the same circumstances, according to your definition of competitiveness?

No for the reasons listed above. He already played for a competitive team that made the necessary moves to win a championship. You CANNOT compare that to Nash's situation here with Sarver. Apples and oranges.

 

[AzStevenCal]

See I can buy that argument for guys like Payton and Malone, among other Smeagols that are well past their prime and only latching on to get that elusive ring.

The difference with guys like Nash and Hill is that both are still playing at a very high level, and would be good starters and legitimate pieces to winning a championship, not bench guys that are just "riding coattails". Totally different story.

I mostly agree with this but I don't think demanding a trade to one of those situations is evidence of a competitive spirit. If the Thunder pursue him as a replacement for Westbrook and he talks the organization out of making the deal, perhaps I'd side with you guys but I've yet to see any championship suitors come calling.

But if Boston offers us a 2nd round pick for him to come in and get a few minutes backing up Rondo, I'd have absolutely no problems if his competitive drive prevented him from taking on a smaller role than he believes he's capable of. As I've said before, competition isn't about winning it's about preparing and playing your best. Sitting on a bench for most of the game might not be Steve's idea of playing his best.

Steve

 

[crisper57]

I Hate The Rag That Is The Ny Post

Hill re-signs with Suns after Knicks wait on Chandler

This time, the Knicks left Grant Hill at the altar, not the other way around. According to a source close to Hill, he has agreed to stay in Phoenix...

So first it was all but a done deal, then when he chooses PHX, they left him at the altar? What kind of crap reporting is that?

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/item_WXNDn4i9gNn2EjHGeWCf3M

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I mostly agree with this but I don't think demanding a trade to one of those situations is evidence of a competitive spirit.

Certainly, although the Nash and Hill situations are different due to contract status. I wouldn't begrudge Nash at all for asking for a trade, because he has a limited shelf life at this point, and I wouldn't mind him pursuing a ring on a team that actually cares about winning a championship. It's obvious to anyone who follows hoops that he can't do that here. Hill as well, and he didn't even have to ask!

but I've yet to see any championship suitors come calling.

Maybe not, although Lebron has made overtures. As we fade into irrelevance as the season goes on, I'm sure the whispers will turn into full voice to give him a chance to compete on a good team. I think he can start on the Mavs or Heat, even the Knicks, all teams with a much better chance of getting a ring.

But if Boston offers us a 2nd round pick for him to come in and get a few minutes backing up Rondo, I'd have absolutely no problems if his competitive drive prevented him from taking on a smaller role than he believes he's capable of. As I've said before, competition isn't about winning it's about preparing and playing your best. Sitting on a bench for most of the game might not be Steve's idea of playing his best.

Sure, and I don't anticipate he'd be happy with that role. But there are good teams that have title ambitions out there that could use his services. That's the difference. (That applies to both Nash and Hill)

 

[jagu]

Hill re-signs with Suns after Knicks wait on Chandler


So first it was all but a done deal, then when he chooses PHX, they left him at the altar? What kind of crap reporting is that?

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/item_WXNDn4i9gNn2EjHGeWCf3M

I guess you aren't familiar with the NY Post. At least they didn't say Grant Hill was sleeping with Bat Boy. Progress.

 

[Griffin]

The same Lakers team the Mavs swept and Heat team the Mavs beat in the Finals? The Mavs already had a very good team, and pushed all their chips in the middle of the table acquiring Chandler.

Are you saying that before that season started, when Dirk was making his decision, the Mavs were more probable to win a title that year than the Lakers or Heat? Even after they've added Chandler they still weren't on the same level as the top contenders that year before the season started.

No for the reasons listed above. He already played for a competitive team that made the necessary moves to win a championship. You CANNOT compare that to Nash's situation here with Sarver. Apples and oranges.

But I wasn't comparing that to Nash's situation. I was comparing that to a hypothetical situation where a player like Dirk on a team like the Mavs would have left the team for one that had a much better chance at a title. If winning a title trumps all other considerations, then this hypothetical player would have shown more competitiveness, according to your definition, by willing to maximize his chances of winning a ring. In fact, according to your definition, any player who doesn't join a clear title contender when given the opportunity is less competitive than a player who does.

 

[Mainstreet]

Maybe not, although Lebron has made overtures. As we fade into irrelevance as the season goes on, I'm sure the whispers will turn into full voice to give him a chance to compete on a good team. I think he can start on the Mavs or Heat, even the Knicks, all teams with a much better chance of getting a ring.

The thing is, for both Nash and Hill, the voice has to come from them. If it does, I think the Suns will do whatever it takes to make them happy.

They may both choose to leave next season to go to a contender.

 

[mojorizen7]

Sigh ~ I might have actually watched some games this season without the same old same old tired dog and pony Nashball act.

When is Gentry and his staff going to get a chance to develope players and coach a legit NBA system?

I'm embarrased as a Suns fan. The personnel decisions continue to baffle me.

 

[jagu]

2013: All these one year deals means they are saving up to buy those invisible players next year. Most likely we'll end up trading all our good players away for a contract that someone is trying to dump (ala Andrew Iguodala).

 

[jagu]

I don't see why Paul or Dwight would ever want to play for Sarvar.

 

[Griffin]

In my opinion, Nash and Hill choosing to stay here has nothing to do with their level of competitiveness. In fact, you could argue to the contrary. After all, you'd have to be really competitive, if not overly ambitious or confident, to try to turn this collection of players we have on our roster into something resembling a team even remotely capable of making the playoffs and perhaps winning a series or two.

For Nash, he still has a year left on his contract and you cannot fault a player for not demanding a trade. For Hill, he has his family here, his children in school here, and his friends and teammates here whom he probably doesn't want to abandon. And just because a player doesn't uproot his entire life to chase a ring that he is not likely to win anyway (unless he just happens to pick the right contender) does not mean he isn't competitive enough, imo.

 

[Superbone]

Nash and Hill are as competitive as they come. The fact that they think they can win here as opposed to jumping on some bandwagon team shows me even more competitive drive than somebody like LeBron and Paul.

 

[Cheesebeef]

It's not about being loyal to Sarver. It's about being loyal to the fans, the community and to the fact that HE SIGNED A CONTRACT and it's his job to honor it.

And yeah, Nash and egotistical go hand in hand.

if you think every NBA superstar DOESN'T have an ego the size of the moon, you're living in fantasy land.

 

[Cheesebeef]

EVERYBODY is only competitive to a degree. Dirk had a chance to leave the Mavs last year. People were saying he'd have a better chance of winning if he left, but he stayed. He didn't know he was going to win, but he stayed and his competitiveness and talent willed his team to the title. For me, that's the competitiveness that matters.

Dirk stayed with an owner who will do whatever it takes to win and that just made a big trade to get a legit big-man. The idea that his situation is in any way shape or form close to what Nash and Hill are staying at with a team who didn't make the playoffs last year and has one of the worst owners in the league is lunacy.