Shaq could be dealt to New Orleans

[Mainstreet]

You stubbornly cling to three absurd fantasies:

1. That the defensive problems on the Suns begin and end with Nash; that his defense is so poor that it prevents anyone else from defending at all, even when he is on the bench; and that if only he were removed from the roster, the Suns could become a good defensive team.

2. That the Suns' offense is so potent as not to need Nash; that the roster is graced with at least one franchise player, or perhaps more, who is or are able and willing at a moment's notice to take over as the main offensive cog; and that it is only poor coaching and overemphasis on Nash that has prevented all of us from seeing this already.

3. That, in short, Nash is everything wrong with this franchise -- and yet, the rest of the league is blind to this, meaning that the Suns would be able to get good value for a 35-year-old point guard with a chronic back problem in the last year of his contract, should only they put him on the trade market.

Needless to say, I disagree with all three of these positions, as would most of the world. Since everything you say rests on those three beliefs, it should not surprise you that you're having a hard time rallying a consensus around your crusade.

Thank you for this most excellent post. Nash may have some defensive problems but the whole team has defensive problems as well.

 

[HooverDam]

Why does CaptainInsano have the same avatar as Elindholm? Its so confusing.

 

[Ninjafish]

Can we just replace cly2tw with a bot that automatically makes a reply to every thread saying Nash needs to be traded because he doesn't play like Stockton?

 

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Even with Billups, we would not be a serious contender. While Billups is no doubt a far superior defensive player to Nash, he is not the same on that side of the court now as he was during the glory days of Detroit. There was a reason he was not guarding CP3 last night.

Also, if we continue to have Shaq and Amare at the 5 and 4, we will not be a great defensive team. It's as simple as that. If you replace one of those guys with a great defender, then, assuming we have better guard play, we could hide them on defense (Shaq more easily). That's why if we're to realize the vision of becoming a better defensive team (if that still is the goal, and with the expected retention of Gentry I don't think it is) we need to trade at LEAST two of the big three, and would be better off trading all of them.

 

[cly2tw]

You stubbornly cling to three absurd fantasies:

1. That the defensive problems on the Suns begin and end with Nash; that his defense is so poor that it prevents anyone else from defending at all, even when he is on the bench; and that if only he were removed from the roster, the Suns could become a good defensive team.

2. That the Suns' offense is so potent as not to need Nash; that the roster is graced with at least one franchise player, or perhaps more, who is or are able and willing at a moment's notice to take over as the main offensive cog; and that it is only poor coaching and overemphasis on Nash that has prevented all of us from seeing this already.

3. That, in short, Nash is everything wrong with this franchise -- and yet, that the rest of the league is blind to this, meaning that the Suns would be able to get good value for a 35-year-old point guard with a chronic back problem in the last year of his contract, should only they put him on the trade market.

Needless to say, I disagree with all three of these positions, as would most of the world. Since everything you say rests on those three beliefs, it should not surprise you that you're having a hard time rallying a consensus around your crusade.

The absurd fantasy is all yours in that you make simplifying conclusions.

1. With Nash on the team, the franchise is going nowhere, whether it's ALL that's wrong as you were trying to put on me. Everybody sees his limitation, it's whether you can cover it or not. We can't now and won't be able to do it with any trades to make the team relevant again. What's your opinion on this of MY argument, instead going off on some fantasies you derived on your part?

2. We never had much chance to see a team without Nash for a whole season, to properly assess whether we already have potent offense or not. That's the reason to ship Nash too, cause unless you really build your future around Nash, you better get used to an offense without Nash sooner than later. Or is your premise that no Nash no offense, to use your method of absurd derivation of implication from your words? I'd be willing to have a non-potent offense of any of the playoff teams in place of Nash led potence, if you really want to say anything here.

3. Nash is not every problem of the defense but is the main one that's hard to cover for, while still having the potential to contend. Again, we need the change to see what gives. I'm willing to take the risk, given the SURE bright future of defense FEATURING Nash.

Your problem seems to be preferring the sure thing of mediocricy with Nash than risking the fundamental change of parting with him and the additional uncertainty associated. Maybe it turns out that Amare is just a role player and the team with say even just Dragic replacing Nash is still the worst defensive team. But then we have the knowledge. Not?

 

[cly2tw]

Even with Billups, we would not be a serious contender. While Billups is no doubt a far superior defensive player to Nash, he is not the same on that side of the court now as he was during the glory days of Detroit. There was a reason he was not guarding CP3 last night.

Also, if we continue to have Shaq and Amare at the 5 and 4, we will not be a great defensive team. It's as simple as that. If you replace one of those guys with a great defender, then, assuming we have better guard play, we could hide them on defense (Shaq more easily). That's why if we're to realize the vision of becoming a better defensive team (if that still is the goal, and with the expected retention of Gentry I don't think it is) we need to trade at LEAST two of the big three, and would be better off trading all of them.

The combination of Shaq/Nash is the killing one. My contention is that Shaq can be a good defender without being constantly exposed by Nash. And his offense is still potent. As somebody said, put Shaq on many of the playoff teams, like Hornets replacing Chandler, Mavs for Dampier, Celtics for Perkins, Blazers for Oden, they'd be true contender. Amare is average defensively, but we need to see one season without Nash to judge him properly.

Oh, Billups not covering Paul is to save energy and they have the defensive specialist in Jones, like Bowen for Spurs. Nobody on NO torched him for anything, did they?

 

[cly2tw]

Can we just replace cly2tw with a bot that automatically makes a reply to every thread saying Nash needs to be traded because he doesn't play like Stockton?

Sorry, I was also asking to trade Marion the last 3 years he was on the Suns too. It's the same this time.

 

[Ninjafish]

Sorry, I was also asking to trade Marion the last 3 years he was on the Suns too. It's the same this time.

And seeing how wrong you were there doesn't give you any pause now? It should.

 

[Covert Rain]

Even with Billups, we would not be a serious contender. While Billups is no doubt a far superior defensive player to Nash, he is not the same on that side of the court now as he was during the glory days of Detroit. There was a reason he was not guarding CP3 last night.

Even an older Billups is still superior to Nash on the defensive end. Not to mention that there is only one CP3 and nobody has proved they can guard the guy.

Also, if we continue to have Shaq and Amare at the 5 and 4, we will not be a great defensive team.It's as simple as that.

In what respect? The Suns are the 4th best in the paint defensive team in the NBA. We are only behind San Antonio, Orlando and Boston. The bigs job is to defend the paint. 4th best means your doing your job. So your right. It's as simple as that.

If you replace one of those guys with a great defender, then, assuming we have better guard play, we could hide them on defense (Shaq more easily).

Shaq is not the one you need to hide. It's Amare at times. It's Nash at times. You get a better defending PF and a guard who can keep guys in front him..problem solved. The Suns were bottom feeders in paint defense pre-Shaq. Now they are #4. Who is anchoring who in the paint? It sure as hell isn't Amare or Nash.

That's why if we're to realize the vision of becoming a better defensive team (if that still is the goal, and with the expected retention of Gentry I don't think it is) we need to trade at LEAST two of the big three, and would be better off trading all of them.

Amare & Nash would be my vote if it wasn't for Shaq's age. I agree, trade all 3. Start over and build a good defensive foundation.

The combination of Shaq/Nash is the killing one. My contention is that Shaq can be a good defender without being constantly exposed by Nash.

I would contend that it's really not killing this defense. Going into zone constantly to protect Nash is killing this defense. Doing the same for Amare is killing this defense. Nash and a couple other guys constantly coughing up the ball with turnovers is killing this defense. Shaq is a good defender with a limitation on pick and rolls. The Phoenix Suns rank #3 in the NBA for Opponent Center Scoring per 48. Again, the Suns were bottom feeders in that statistic too when Amare was our center. Most teams suck at the pick and roll sans a few teams and Shaq's pick and roll weakness is overrated IMO. What Shaq does in the paint on defense, his one on one defense and his offensive game far outweigh anything he doesn't do on the pick and roll.

 

[elindholm]

1. With Nash on the team, the franchise is going nowhere, whether it's ALL that's wrong as you were trying to put on me. Everybody sees his limitation, it's whether you can cover it or not. We can't now and won't be able to do it with any trades to make the team relevant again. What's your opinion on this of MY argument, instead going off on some fantasies you derived on your part?

I think you are correct. I'm in favor of the Suns moving on from Nash as well, but I don't see the big hurry. The things the Suns need to do next year can, perhaps, be accomplished with or without Nash, but it will probably be easier with him. He'll help with some things even while he hurts with others.

2. We never had much chance to see a team without Nash for a whole season, to properly assess whether we already have potent offense or not.

I don't think we need a whole season. Until recently, the Suns have always looked terrible when Nash is on the bench or misses a game due to injury. It was better over the last couple of months because they found a way to execute an "offense by committee," but they never beat any good teams without Nash.

I'd be willing to have a non-potent offense of any of the playoff teams in place of Nash led potence, if you really want to say anything here.

Again, I just don't think it's that critical one way or another for next season. Dragic's not ready and the Suns are still stuck behind O'Neal's contract and Stoudemire's uncertain future. They might as well maintain a little continuity rather than embark on full and immediate chaos.

3. Nash is not every problem of the defense but is the main one that's hard to cover for, while still having the potential to contend.

This roster has zero potential to contend, period. That would also be true if you traded Nash for whatever paltry package another team was willing to give up.

Again, we need the change to see what gives. I'm willing to take the risk, given the SURE bright future of defense FEATURING Nash.

But there's a downside. Cut Nash loose right now and the team will, probably, be awful. Not only will the Suns directly improve an upcoming conference rival (Oklahoma City), but they will alienate their fan base -- quite possibly leading to even more cost-slashing -- and lose whatever credibility they have left with free agents. The risk is far greater than you acknowledge, and there are more important things over the next two or three years than "contending," which the Suns can't possibly do anyway.

Your problem seems to be preferring the sure thing of mediocricy with Nash than risking the fundamental change of parting with him and the additional uncertainty associated.

For now, yes.

 

[Mainstreet]

IMO, Nash can help the Suns transition into the future. It does not have to be a crash and burn scenario. The assumption life gets better without Nash is a very dangerous gamble. I'd rather add another PG through the draft and let things evolve naturally. As of now, Nash is the only rudder guiding the Suns ship. It's not like the Suns have their own 2010 pick to look forward to if they hit rock bottom.

 

[TBaslim]

And seeing how wrong you were there doesn't give you any pause now? It should.

One would think it would...oh well...

 

[cly2tw]

I would contend that it's really not killing this defense. Going into zone constantly to protect Nash is killing this defense. Doing the same for Amare is killing this defense. Nash and a couple other guys constantly coughing up the ball with turnovers is killing this defense. Shaq is a good defender with a limitation on pick and rolls. The Phoenix Suns rank #3 in the NBA for Opponent Center Scoring per 48. Again, the Suns were bottom feeders in that statistic too when Amare was our center. Most teams suck at the pick and roll sans a few teams and Shaq's pick and roll weakness is overrated IMO. What Shaq does in the paint on defense, his one on one defense and his offensive game far outweigh anything he doesn't do on the pick and roll.

Despite Amare being way too easily scored on at lowpost, zone has not been to cover that. And Amare's one-on-one defense is mainly effort issue, IMO.

I don't think we need a whole season. Until recently, the Suns have always looked terrible when Nash is on the bench or misses a game due to injury. It was better over the last couple of months because they found a way to execute an "offense by committee," but they never beat any good teams without Nash.


This roster has zero potential to contend, period. That would also be true if you traded Nash for whatever paltry package another team was willing to give up.

For now, yes.

1. DA's system has been all Nash, the offense was conditioned on him being the dominant guy. That's why the offense sucked with his occasional absence. That's why you need to imagine what working on something else dilligently the whole pre-season to regular season might achieve offensively. With the fire power of Shaq, Amare, Hill, JRich and LB, I don't think we should be any less on offense than the likes of Mavs, Denver, Blazers, Hawks, to mention just a few playoffs teams.

2. I guess related to the above point, we differ at assessment of the potential of the current team without Nash. We can't convince each other for now, other than agreeing to disagree.

 

[cly2tw]

IMO, Nash can help the Suns transition into the future. It does not have to be a crash and burn scenario. The assumption life gets better without Nash is a very dangerous gamble. I'd rather add another PG through the draft and let things evolve naturally. As of now, Nash is the only rudder guiding the Suns ship. It's not like the Suns have their own 2010 pick to look forward to if they hit rock bottom.

That's misconception of my position. Life without Nash is uncertain, sure it is a dangerous gamble. But the sure thing of Nash is so mediocre, that I'd take the gamble.

 

[cly2tw]

And seeing how wrong you were there doesn't give you any pause now? It should.

If I were heard, we'd have gotten Chandler three years ago for Marion. How would that make me wrong? And Shaq for Marion is still a good gamble.

 

[Mainstreet]

Cly2tw, the video of Rubio on another thread is awesome. Figure out a way for the Suns to draft him and we can talk further.

 

[Covert Rain]

Despite Amare being way too easily scored on at lowpost, zone has not been to cover that. And Amare's one-on-one defense is mainly effort issue, IMO.

When Amare's man has taken him to task, I have seen the Suns retreat into zone plenty of times this season to protect him. I am also not one of the guys that buys into the effort thing. I think Amare's basketbal IQ is very low.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

slin,

If the SUNS ever get a top 3 pick this up coming draft, I'll run naked around my street. I dont like to run naked... especially in winter.

But I will, because I know the chances are very slim, if not none.


Suns will need to trade a star to get into that range, if a team offers a top 3 pick for JRich and Suns pick, I do it. If they offer a top 3 pick for Stoudemire, I'd think about it. If those players you mentioned are there at pick 2 or 3, I'd move Stoudemire and call the season a farewell to Nash and O'Neal.

I made this same promise except during the garnett trade soap opera!

 

[Covert Rain]

I made this same promise except during the garnett trade soap opera!

Wouldn't it be great if luck fell on the Suns for once in the lottery?

 

[Folster]

Wouldn't it be great if luck fell on the Suns for once in the lottery?

I'm not holding my breath, but at least we'll know right away. If we don't get the 14th pick, then we'll know we're in the top 3.

To put it in perspective, the Suns have a 1.8% chance of landing a top 3 pick (.5 for #1, .6 for #2, .7 for #3) while they have a 98.2% chance that they'll pick at #14. ("So you're saying there's a chance?")

 

[Austin]

Back on the original topic, I believe this would be a fantastic trade if we can get Chandler and someone else (hopefully someone like Posey), and then maybe deal JRich for someone like Marcus Camby. We'd have solid bigs who can rebound, block and run the pick and roll along with Stat! GET IT DONE!

 

[Folster]

From Coro's season ending blog.

Paul Coro: Ryan, That trade rumor out of New York was summarily squashed in New Orleans. The Hornets are not in a position to take on salary and the move they tried to make in February with Tyson Chandler was a salary dump because Chandler has two more years remaining. But just think of the numbers here: Chandler at $11.9 next season and Shaq at $21. It would have to have other players included. That said, Chandler would seem to be an ideal fit at center for Phoenix and Suns assistant Bill Cartwright was the coach who fostered his growth in Chicago.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

From Coro's season ending blog.

Pretty much echoing the opinions of many of us here. Perfect fit, but Sarver better be willing to bite the bullet on adding contracts, which makes it unlikely.

 

[HooverDam]

I'm not holding my breath, but at least we'll know right away. If we don't get the 14th pick, then we'll know we're in the top 3.

Wait, Im confused, why couldn't the Suns also have 4-13 if they dont get #14?

 

[Folster]

Wait, Im confused, why couldn't the Suns also have 4-13 if they dont get #14?

The lottery is only for the top 3 picks. Since the Suns are currently the last team in the lottery, no team can jump ahead of them and push them back a pick. Here is a link to a table on wiki that shows the odds. It's about halfway down the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Draft_Lottery

I'll do one better. Just ignore the team names.

You must be registered for see images attach