Rumor: Nash gone in the offseason

[Errntknght]

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.

I doubt that he will become much better at dribbling - I hope he develops a better sense of when he has a lane or a seam to penetrate because he keeps driving into more traffic than he can deal with. I imagine he's trying to create something for someone ala Nash but he mainly creates TOs. Trading Steve should go a good ways toward alleviating the pressure to do that, assuming that is what he's trying to do.

 

[CaptainInsano]

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.

I have to disagree, in my opinion the suns just flat out didn't give barely any effort in trying to find an even semi-servicable backup PG.

When D'antoni was "gm" as I will call it in quotations because of his terrible job, he singed an almost completely unproven (at the PG position) Marcus Banks probably based purely on his hussle and energy (which actually seemed to be a negative when translated onto an nba floor and not a practice floor) and not based on any type of actual point guard skills.

We didn't do pretty much jack else, and even dodged drafting Rajon Rondo.

Yes, getting a PG that runs the floor like Steve Nash is impossible, but that is not what we absolutely had to have IMO. We just needed a semi-decent servicable PG with specifically PG skills. I still believe we could have easily gotten Steve Blake from the Bucks if the suns had any real capable management and gm'ing during that time which unfortunately they obviously didn't.

 

[CaptainInsano]

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.

That would be great and all but I am EXTREMELY doubtful of that.

 

[Cheesewater]

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.

Absolutely false. It's a team game. You don't get anything for having your players individually better than other guys at their position.

Is keeping him the best way for a rebuilding team to spend that $8 million? I doubt it.

If the alternative is not worth it then yes.

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.

Average is not "bad" and you are trying to make them sound like the Sacramento Kings.

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.

Yes, we disagree. You have no grey area in your assessment. Double-talk all you want but the Suns have the 13th best record in the NBA. That is above the median. So over half the league is more of a "lottery team" right?

 

[elindholm]

Absolutely false. It's a team game. You don't get anything for having your players individually better than other guys at their position.

Come on. I knew that the way I worded it was open to misinterpretation, which is why I clarified it in the very next sentence, which you were devious enough to leave out of your quote.

Average is not "bad" and you are trying to make them sound like the Sacramento Kings.

I don't think I said the Suns were "bad," since I'm trying to steer clear of words implying absolute judgments.

You have no grey area in your assessment.

Sure I do -- it's just that you keep reading extra meaning into objective language.

Double-talk all you want but the Suns have the 13th best record in the NBA. That is above the median. So over half the league is more of a "lottery team" right?

Oh good grief. Your entire argument now hinges on whether the Suns are 13th in the league instead of 17th?

 

[Cheesewater]

Come on. I knew that the way I worded it was open to misinterpretation, which is why I clarified it in the very next sentence, which you were devious enough to leave out of your quote.

That was clarification? You just went back to questioning Dragic outplaying his peers.

I don't think I said the Suns were "bad," since I'm trying to steer clear of words implying absolute judgments.

What did you mean by labeling the Suns a lottery team then?

Sure I do -- it's just that you keep reading extra meaning into objective language.

It's not "reading extra meaning." You write sentences with extra whitewash to make YOUR perspective seem reasonable when actually you are just clouding your point. Instead of saying "I think Dragic hasn't improved enough" you say something like "he's improved to be a marginal 10th man on a bad team so that's not much to be proud of." Then I have to point out to you that you are exaggerating a point that isn't even part of the initial discussion.

Oh good grief. Your entire argument now hinges on whether the Suns are 13th in the league instead of 17th?

Actually no. It's YOUR argument. You are the one that derailed a discussion about Nash helping Dragic.

 

[elindholm]

That was clarification? You just went back to questioning Dragic outplaying his peers.

You can't be serious. Just after the comma in the same sentence, I wrote, "or helping his teammates to outplay theirs." The same sentence!!!

You've turned this into a game where you deliberately misconstrue my words in order to try to find something you can correct. It is a tedious waste of time and I am through with it.

 

[Cheesewater]

You can't be serious. Just after the comma in the same sentence, I wrote, "or helping his teammates to outplay theirs." The same sentence!!!

That's still boiling it down to individual players. Do you not understand your own sentence?

You've turned this into a game where you deliberately misconstrue my words in order to try to find something you can correct. It is a tedious waste of time and I am through with it.

You are wrong. Unlike you, I am not being intentionally misleading for dramatic effect.

By the way, Dragic looked pretty good last night, huh? I wonder if he's learning anything from two-time league MVP Steve Nash.

 

[BC867]

Are you actually asking for an example of a veteran player tutoring a younger player?

Moses Malone and Charles Barkley is the one that came to mind first.

I know that many posts have transpired since this one.

But it should be noted that Moses Malone and Barkley, although both big men, did not play the same position.

A Center developing a Power Forward is to his benefit. A Center developing a young Center may be to the detriment of his own playing time.

Speaking about the Chuckster, he had a great career (a 6'4 1/2 Power Forward becoming one of the greatest ever), but it was because his focal points did not include defense.

Great teams are not built around that type of player. But if he had tried to be a defender at that undersized height, he probably would not have been one of the greatest NBA players 100 ever.

More like a Wes Unseld, who played undersized Center alongside Elvin Hayes.

Barkely's approach was good for him. Good for ticket sales. Not good for Championship aspirations.

 

[Mainstreet]

As I recall, Barkley was effective in guarding David Robinson when thrust into this role. Charles was only limited by his ability to stay in shape.

 

[elindholm]

Barkley even tried his hand at guarding O'Neal once or twice that I remember. Barkley was not, all things considered, a particularly poor defensive player; his weaknesses were of a spotty work ethic (again, by NBA standards) and in not embracing the value of every possession.

 

[cly2tw]

Barkley even tried his hand at guarding O'Neal once or twice that I remember. Barkley was not, all things considered, a particularly poor defensive player; his weaknesses were of a spotty work ethic (again, by NBA standards) and in not embracing the value of every possession.

true. Barkley has a low center of gravity when operating on the court, which is the foremost quality a good defender needs to have. he just too much used to pace it on defense to save energy which he could have had with more off the court work. Too bad for the Suns.