Rumor: Nash gone in the offseason

[cly2tw]

I've noticed that LB has greatly improved his ability to keep his dribble alive and now looks to make some nice passes to the corner when his penetration to the basket is cut off. This is definitely a page from Steve Nash.

I have noticed that LB in all his previous 4 years under DA didn't learn that from Nash, but got it from Nash all of a sudden under Porter's iron rein. Well, his mother's passing away may have made him mature all of a sudden too, to be fair. But still, it's amazing that Nash couldn't teach him anything in the first 4 years together!

 

[Cheesewater]

But also, Barkley was clearly exaggerating when he said that he "in no way" had the tools. He was already putting up good numbers.

There's a lot more to learn about being a successful pro than "putting up good numbers".

And turned him from a scrub into a player, you left out.

I don't know what goes on, and it doesn't matter, because I still haven't been presented with a single example of "mentoring" turning a scrub into a player. They could talk about Socrates and the unified field theory for all I care. Where are the results?

Do you deny that he is a scrub? Seriously? I'm not talking about his "potential." I'm talking about right now. Is he anything more than a marginal NBA player right now?

You never said scrub until you were asked to clarify. You said any two players at any position. And yes, I don't think Dragic is a scrub. To me, he has good raw skills to be a good player. The subject is the future of the PG position so you wanting to know if I think he's more than a scrub right now has absolutely no bearing on this argument.

 

[elindholm]

There's a lot more to learn about being a successful pro than "putting up good numbers".

Don't tell Stoudemire that!

I am going to go insane. My point is that the most important tool -- talent, which includes both physical talent and mental makeup -- was one Barkley already had.

You never said scrub until you were asked to clarify. You said any two players at any position.

I thought it was implied from the discussion, but you're right, that is literally what I said. I'll spell it out more carefully next time.

And yes, I don't think Dragic is a scrub. To me, he has good raw skills to be a good player.

I think someone can be a scrub and have good raw skills at the same time. Dragic is such a case.

The subject is the future of the PG position

No it isn't. The subject is whether keeping Nash around for mentoring purposes is going to make any difference. Maybe Dragic will develop the personality needed to be a real player, but an extra year of Nash won't help the cause. (I'm not saying it will hurt it, either.)

 

[nashman]

Sorry but learning from one of the best PG's in the league the last 5 yrs is in no way a bad thing for Dragic. Nash can clearly help Dragic develop into the NBA game which Dragic knows very little, to think otherwise is kinda silly and not even worth arguing about.

 

[lou_skywalker]

Sorry but learning from one of the best PG's in the league the last 5 yrs is in no way a bad thing for Dragic. Nash can clearly help Dragic develop into the NBA game which Dragic knows very little, to think otherwise is kinda silly and not even worth arguing about.

lol yeah but unfortunately time is running out for Nash if the penny picking Sarver insists to shed his salary.

 

[slinslin]

For rebuilding it is absolutely not worth keeping Nash instead of trading him for rebuilding pieces.

 

[cly2tw]

It's telling to observe that late first-rounders Eisley and Vaughn were very well developed under Stockton back in Utah, while nobody works out nor develops as PG behind Nash anywhere. Del Harris was a failure too. The reason: Stockton doesn't dominate the ball as much as Nash and Sloan has a lot more set plays that made it a little easier for the young PGs.

 

[Cheesewater]

Don't tell Stoudemire that!

I am going to go insane. My point is that the most important tool -- talent, which includes both physical talent and mental makeup -- was one Barkley already had.

There are plenty of players with physical talent and no mental talent, and vice versa. I'm recalling that Barkley indicated mental AND physical aspects of the professional game that did not possess prior to learning from Moses Malone. Of course Barkley had talent. So does Dragic.

I thought it was implied from the discussion, but you're right, that is literally what I said. I'll spell it out more carefully next time.

Please do. Addition of the word "scrub" makes your challenge a different argument.

I think someone can be a scrub and have good raw skills at the same time. Dragic is such a case.

Well there's one of our differences. To me, a scrub is someone who in no way has the word "good" in reference to basketball skills. Mediocre, average, serviceable. Those are words to describe a scrub to me.

No it isn't. The subject is whether keeping Nash around for mentoring purposes is going to make any difference. Maybe Dragic will develop the personality needed to be a real player, but an extra year of Nash won't help the cause. (I'm not saying it will hurt it, either.)

The bolded sentence refers to the future of the PG position. How you don't think Dragic can develop by learning from Nash is hard to understand. At the very least he can learn mental aspects of the game if not the physical.

And finally, saying it "won't help the cause" AND "I'm not saying it will hurt it" ???? What the hell are you arguing for then?

 

[Cheesewater]

For rebuilding it is absolutely not worth keeping Nash instead of trading him for rebuilding pieces.

Absolutely. If the rebuilding pieces are there to be had. Some other team (or two) has to be willing to part with the pieces in exchange for Nash's broke down old butt. Many fans ignore the fact that it takes two to tango. You can't just decide to get Devin Harris for Steve Nash and *poof* it's done.

 

[elindholm]

Of course Barkley had talent. So does Dragic.

Well so do I. But mine is a lot less than Dragic's, and Dragic's is a lot less than Barkley's.

To me, a scrub is someone who in no way has the word "good" in reference to basketball skills. Mediocre, average, serviceable.

I already used "marginal NBA player at best" as a synonym. By NBA standards, Dragic is worse than mediocre, below average, and not serviceable. I don't think that can be disputed.

The bolded sentence refers to the future of the PG position. How you don't think Dragic can develop by learning from Nash is hard to understand.

As I've said for what feels like a hundred times, I have been presented with no case of a veteran "mentoring" a poor player (below average, inexperienced, scrub, use whatever term you want) into a capable one.

At the very least he can learn mental aspects of the game if not the physical.

But why does that have to come from Nash? Can't he learn mental aspects from Barbosa, or Amundson, or Gentry?

And finally, saying it "won't help the cause" AND "I'm not saying it will hurt it" ???? What the hell are you arguing for then?

I can't say for sure that it would hurt it. The impact would be either zero or negative. It's not a difficult concept.

 

[Errntknght]

Eric,

The impact would be either zero or negative. It's not a difficult concept.

Easy concept but almost certainly wrong. In any case, the argument continues because no one can prove much of anything one way or the other. I suspect if you polled all the NBA players well over half of them would say that some older teammate aided their progress in the league - its just human nature to view things that way. Its probably true in many cases though not highly significant - even if the player thinks it was. More likely, the implicit encouragement is what was most helpful.

Overall, I do agree with Eric that keeping Nash around to mentor Dragic is not valuable enough to swing the decision to keep or trade him. Whatever value there was in it has already been achieved and now Dragic needs playing time. I'm hopeful and cautiously optimistic as he's improved a good bit over the course of the year. He's not yet brimming with confidence but the 'deer in the headlight' look is much less frequent and his shooting pct has improved.

 

[elindholm]

Easy concept but almost certainly wrong.

I'm not sure how you can assert this so confidently while acknowledging in the next sentence that no one really knows.

In any case, the argument continues because no one can prove much of anything one way or the other.

Actually no; the argument continues because my position continues to be misrepresented -- partly my own fault from a careless wording several posts earlier.

I suspect if you polled all the NBA players well over half of them would say that some older teammate aided their progress in the league - its just human nature to view things that way.

True, and it's also human nature to speak well of a colleague when the cameras are rolling. But what people say, what they think, and what is true don't have a perfect overlap, as you acknowledge here:

Its probably true in many cases though not highly significant - even if the player thinks it was.

---

I'm hopeful and cautiously optimistic as he's improved a good bit over the course of the year.

I agree both that he has improved and that it is quite unlikely that his continued development hinges on Nash's sustained presence.

 

[Cheesewater]

I already used "marginal NBA player at best" as a synonym. By NBA standards, Dragic is worse than mediocre, below average, and not serviceable. I don't think that can be disputed.

You said a scrub could have good raw skills and I said a scrub has only mediocre, average, or serviceable at best skills. You think Dragic is a scrub and I (and some people who get paid to know basketball) don't think Dragic is a scrub.

As I've said for what feels like a hundred times, I have been presented with no case of a veteran "mentoring" a poor player (below average, inexperienced, scrub, use whatever term you want) into a capable one.

But why does that have to come from Nash? Can't he learn mental aspects from Barbosa, or Amundson, or Gentry?

It doesn't HAVE to come from Nash, but that is the freaking topic of discussion.

Let me spell it out for you. The suggestion was made that Nash should stay in Phoenix for another year to split minutes with Dragic and help tutor him in how to be a successful PG for the Suns. You doubted that situation had ever presented itself in the history of the NBA. I gave you an example. Then you clarified yourself that it had to be a scrub because Dragic is a scrub. I don't see Dragic as a scrub, so thus ends the argument. Now we could have an argument about whether Dragic is a scrub, but you and I don't even agree on what a scrub is.

 

[Cheesewater]

I'm not sure how you can assert this so confidently while acknowledging in the next sentence that no one really knows.

And yet you make a similiar assertion.

I agree both that he has improved and that it is quite unlikely that his continued development hinges on Nash's sustained presence.

Nobody said that his "development hinges" on Nash. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

How about this: You admit Dragic's improvement, with little playing time over the course of not even a whole season. I challenge you to assert that Dragic's improvement has nothing to do with Nash. Let's hear THAT gem. After all, you are positive Nash can't help Dragic, right?

 

[elindholm]

You said a scrub could have good raw skills and I said a scrub has only mediocre, average, or serviceable at best skills. You think Dragic is a scrub and I (and some people who get paid to know basketball) don't think Dragic is a scrub.

These are the same people who thought Robin Lopez would be better than his brother and that Dragic was the second best PG in the draft, right?

Anyway, I've abandoned the word "scrub" since it seems to upset you. I'll stick with "far below average NBA player," which you have not disputed (unless I missed it).

You doubted that situation had ever presented itself in the history of the NBA.

Well no, I didn't mean that there had never been an older player and a younger one on the same team at the same time. For, now, the 101st time, I meant that I've seen no case of an older player's mentoring transforming a terrible player into a good one. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

I don't see Dragic as a scrub, so thus ends the argument.

Wait, so you're telling me now that you don't think he's below average? Of the pool of players currently on NBA rosters, where, pray tell, do you think Dragic ranks? Near the middle? Don't be ridiculous.

Nobody said that his "development hinges" on Nash. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

Then why pay Nash eight figures to be his mentor? Come on!

You admit Dragic's improvement, with little playing time over the course of not even a whole season. I challenge you to assert that Dragic's improvement has nothing to do with Nash. Let's hear THAT gem. After all, you are positive Nash can't help Dragic, right?

Okay, for the 102nd time now: I don't think Nash can mentor Dragic into a real player. Dragic has gone from an abomination to a marginally credible 10th man on a lottery team. Whoopee. Maybe Nash has something to do with it, in which case, great. The progress Dragic has made this year is a drop in the bucket compared to what he would have to do to become a real NBA point guard.

 

[Cheesewater]

These are the same people who thought Robin Lopez would be better than his brother and that Dragic was the second best PG in the draft, right?

Anyway, I've abandoned the word "scrub" since it seems to upset you. I'll stick with "far below average NBA player," which you have not disputed (unless I missed it).

Please don't be condescending. The word "scrub" does not upset me. I believe I wrote that I don't think Dragic is a scrub. How much more dispute of your assessment do you want?

Well no, I didn't mean that there had never been an older player and a younger one on the same team at the same time. For, now, the 101st time, I meant that I've seen no case of an older player's mentoring transforming a terrible player into a good one. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Way to go. Oversimplify one aspect of the conversation, then exaggerate another. I am well aware of your position now. I made clear that the argument is over when we don't identify the elements in the same way. I won't give you an example of an older player transforming a terrible player into a good one because A) that wasn't the initial point and B) Dragic isn't a terrible player in my view. So can stop repeating yourself and you can stop changing what you mean to further the argument.

Wait, so you're telling me now that you don't think he's below average? Of the pool of players currently on NBA rosters, where, pray tell, do you think Dragic ranks? Near the middle? Don't be ridiculous.

Ranks? According to whom or what? Now you are asking me to compare Dragic to all the other players in the league to decide how good he is? There's more to it than that for me. Comparing 400 athletes against each other is not going to yield an appropriate result for me. I've already told you I think he's got good raw skills. Comparing him to Dwyane Wade is a waste of time.

Then why pay Nash eight figures to be his mentor? Come on!

Oh geez I don't know, maybe because he's also a good point guard?

Okay, for the 102nd time now: I don't think Nash can mentor Dragic into a real player. Dragic has gone from an abomination to a marginally credible 10th man on a lottery team. Whoopee. Maybe Nash has something to do with it, in which case, great. The progress Dragic has made this year is a drop in the bucket compared to what he would have to do to become a real NBA point guard.

You've gone off the deep end. An "abomination"? "Lottery team" like they're 16-53 or something.

 

[elindholm]

I believe I wrote that I don't think Dragic is a scrub. How much more dispute of your assessment do you want?

How about a tangible one? You've already pointed out that we don't agree on what "scrub" means (and I agree), so why don't you disagree with what I actually mean -- which is that Dragic is far below average as an NBA player?

So can stop repeating yourself and you can stop changing what you mean to further the argument.

Well, thank you for giving me permission to stop repeating myself. As for my changing the argument, no -- but I've already admitted that I was careless in my original wording. So, if you are trying to "win" something, I'll give you this: My original wording was poor and conveyed an inaccurate idea, and I retract it.

Ranks? According to whom or what? Now you are asking me to compare Dragic to all the other players in the league to decide how good he is?

Let me make it easy for you: Do you think that Dragic is near or above average compared to his peer group along any dimension? Which one?

I've already told you I think he's got good raw skills.

Average or better among the current crop of 22-year-old NBA point guards?

Oh geez I don't know, maybe because he's also a good point guard?

Who cares? The Suns are rebuilding now. Money spent on Nash could be used in a more productive way toward the future. If you put Nash on the trade market, only a few teams would want him, and franchises that are rebuilding would not be on the list. The Suns are rebuilding and they shouldn't want him either. He's not at the right stage of his career to be helpful to a rebuilding team.

An "abomination"? "Lottery team" like they're 16-53 or something.

Do you deny that Dragic was terrible at the start of the season? And the Suns are literally a lottery team; there's simply nothing to argue there.

 

[Errntknght]

Eric,

I'm not sure how you can assert this so confidently while acknowledging in the next sentence that no one really knows.

You said that Nash's effect on Dragic was negative or zero and you wonder how I could confidently contradict that? If Dragic had gotten worse over the course of the year, I could imagine someone attributing it to Nash but since he has improved, and you admit that much, I consider that some evidence that Nash has had a positive effect. Easily enough to contradict something for which there is no evidence at all. (Obviously, I don't claim to know that, otherwise I'd have said 'certainly' instead of 'almost certainly'.)

 

[cly2tw]

Eric,

You said that Nash's effect on Dragic was negative or zero and you wonder how I could confidently contradict that? If Dragic had gotten worse over the course of the year, I could imagine someone attributing it to Nash but since he has improved, and you admit that much, I consider that some evidence that Nash has had a positive effect. Easily enough to contradict something for which there is no evidence at all. (Obviously, I don't claim to know that, otherwise I'd have said 'certainly' instead of 'almost certainly'.)

Another option is that without Nash Dragic might have made much more progress. So, Nash was potentially a negative effect for his development.

 

[Errntknght]

Geez, don't give him ideas!

 

[slinslin]

Another thing, Dragic has not shown anything to put any faith into him as our PG of the future.
Definately not worth keeping Nash at 12M$ on a mediocre team going nowhere instead of trading him for some picks.

 

[Errntknght]

Lets face it, the toughest position in the league is backup to Steve Nash. Wonder why the Suns couldn't sign any of the older guards floating around the last few years? They knew there was no way they were going to succeed trying to run an offense tailored to fit Steve's unique game. Chris Paul was (and is) good enough to force a coach to alter the offense right out of the gate but what other young guards were that good? Maybe Deron Williams after one year. Heck, we've long since agreed that young Nash couldn't have backed up mature Nash.

I don't expect Dragic to prove to be our PG of the future, mainly because its almost impossible to evaluate him playing behind Nash. Earlier in the year, in Porter's system, where one could have gotten a better idea he was playing scared every time he got on the floor. Gentry seems to have gotten him past that to a considerable extent but now the offense is again fine tuned to Steve's game.

Another point against him is that he is almost 23 years old - in May - which Eric reminded us a few days ago. He looks so young that I'd forgotten he wasn't. So we can't hope for simple physical maturation to help him much. Not like Tony Parker who was 18, I think, we he joined the Spurs. Developing him slowly behind Steve is probably a terrible idea - his best hope is for Steve to be traded and him thrown on the floor - make or break.

 

[cly2tw]

Lets face it, the toughest position in the league is backup to Steve Nash. Wonder why the Suns couldn't sign any of the older guards floating around the last few years? They knew there was no way they were going to succeed trying to run an offense tailored to fit Steve's unique game. Chris Paul was (and is) good enough to force a coach to alter the offense right out of the gate but what other young guards were that good? Maybe Deron Williams after one year. Heck, we've long since agreed that young Nash couldn't have backed up mature Nash.

I don't expect Dragic to prove to be our PG of the future, mainly because its almost impossible to evaluate him playing behind Nash. Earlier in the year, in Porter's system, where one could have gotten a better idea he was playing scared every time he got on the floor. Gentry seems to have gotten him past that to a considerable extent but now the offense is again fine tuned to Steve's game.

Another point against him is that he is almost 23 years old - in May - which Eric reminded us a few days ago. He looks so young that I'd forgotten he wasn't. So we can't hope for simple physical maturation to help him much. Not like Tony Parker who was 18, I think, we he joined the Spurs. Developing him slowly behind Steve is probably a terrible idea - his best hope is for Steve to be traded and him thrown on the floor - make or break.

That's what I was thinking too. I see Dragic as better a PG than the likes of Blake, Diener, Alston once he gets confidence for his shot and becomes a better dribbler.

 

[Cheesewater]

How about a tangible one? You've already pointed out that we don't agree on what "scrub" means (and I agree), so why don't you disagree with what I actually mean -- which is that Dragic is far below average as an NBA player?

I disagree that Dragic is far below average as an NBA player.

Let me make it easy for you: Do you think that Dragic is near or above average compared to his peer group along any dimension? Which one?

Average or better among the current crop of 22-year-old NBA point guards?

Of the three rookie point guards currently active on NBA teams with similar number of games played and minutes per game played, Dragic is in the middle, numbers-wise. Amongst all rookie point guards, including players with more game experience, Dragic's per minute numbers are comparable to Bayless, Hill, and Chalmers.

In any case, I don't come to a conclusion on how good a player is simply by comparing him to other players. I watch him. Is he making good decisions, is he playing within the coach's scheme, is he trying hard... Just looking at him play and not thinking "Well he isn't Derrick Rose", I think Dragic is above average.

Who cares? The Suns are rebuilding now. Money spent on Nash could be used in a more productive way toward the future. If you put Nash on the trade market, only a few teams would want him, and franchises that are rebuilding would not be on the list. The Suns are rebuilding and they shouldn't want him either. He's not at the right stage of his career to be helpful to a rebuilding team.

You are dangerously close to accepting getting nothing for Nash. If he's not worth much to other teams in terms of what they will trade to the Suns, you have to measure the worth of his veteran impact by keeping him.

Do you deny that Dragic was terrible at the start of the season? And the Suns are literally a lottery team; there's simply nothing to argue there.

Yes I deny it. Dragic wasn't terrible. The lottery comment is your propensity for being intentionally obtuse again. You're saying Dragic is a marginally credible bench-warmer on a bad team, right? You were using "lottery team" as a synonym for "bad team". I was calling you out on that typically disingenuous exaggeration.

 

[elindholm]

I disagree that Dragic is far below average as an NBA player.

Okay.

In any case, I don't come to a conclusion on how good a player is simply by comparing him to other players. I watch him. Is he making good decisions, is he playing within the coach's scheme, is he trying hard...

Yes, but in the NBA, one team competes against another. The question isn't whether you are "good" in some absolute sense, but whether you are better than the other guy. That's true whether you're talking about individual players or entire teams. When two "good" opponents match up, only one can win. Do you foresee Dragic outplaying his peers at some point down the road, or helping his teammates to outplay theirs?

You are dangerously close to accepting getting nothing for Nash.

A team with spending restrictions never loses a high-salaried player for "nothing." The money can be spent other ways. According to the numbers I've heard, the difference between keeping Nash for next season and buying him out is $8 million. Is keeping him the best way for a rebuilding team to spend that $8 million? I doubt it.

Yes I deny it. Dragic wasn't terrible. The lottery comment is your propensity for being intentionally obtuse again. You're saying Dragic is a marginally credible bench-warmer on a bad team, right?

Here we go again. Whether the Suns are "good" or "bad" requires an absolute standard which is both arbitrary and irrelevant. Right now, as a team, they are about average by NBA standards. Put them in the Italian league and it would be a different story. So yes, I regard Dragic as a marginally credible bench-warmer on an average team, which puts him far below average among NBA players.

You were using "lottery team" as a synonym for "bad team". I was calling you out on that typically disingenuous exaggeration.

I think we disagree on what the meaningful standards are. The Suns have been above average for so long that I believe some have forgotten how competitive the league is.