Suns Board Myths: Busting and Clarifying

[Budden]

There are a lot of myths on this board that are becoming increasingly irksome. The worst of these myths are the ones that are not only just plain wrong, but are somehow accepted as truths. Many lengthy threads have been centered around arguments that wouldn't even exist if these myths weren't accepted. Trade discussions involving Steve Nash are prime examples of how a misbegotten idea can spawn countless gripes, theoretical trade situations, anger, etc. Other pervasive myths are more implied rather than explicitly stated. When people complain about Shannon Brown, they are implying that the Shannon Brown we've seen thus far is a well-conditioned Shannon Brown. This is less of a "myth" than it is a "prejudgment", and tonight's Knicks game epitomized just how dubious an assumption this is.

First of all, the "trade Steve Nash" hogwash, which is riddled has so many incorrect assumptions, I don't even know where to begin a real discussion about it. I've heard people say that "the Suns should've traded Steve Nash a few seasons ago," which stops making sense the moment you bring reality into the discussion. The Suns signed Steve Nash in the first place because the Mavericks didn't believe he had enough good years left in his tank. That was 7 years ago. Could we have traded him when after his first MVP season? No, because a) you don't trade a reigning MVP, and b) even if we wanted to, we weren't going to get a player of comparable value in return, because Nash was at the peak of his career and only had a couple of great seasons left. That logic proved false the next year, when he followed it up with an even better season that won him another MVP award. Then he had his best year as a Phoenix Sun, and he arguably should've won the MVP award again. At that point, he was one of the most underpaid players in the modern era. And paradoxically, every year that he improved, his trade value was actually decreasing, because he was one year closer to being "over the hill". So, not only did Nash impact the game most favorably of any player on our roster, but he was also the best bargain on our roster. In normal situations, you can argue that it makes sense to trade your best player for a handful of role players/expiring contracts if you want to rebuild, but in Nash's unique situation, that never applied. If we wanted to free up cap space via trade, it would've made infinitely more sense to trade Shawn Marion or Boris Diaw, because they were both grossly overpaid.

On the second myth, I don't know how good Shannon Brown will be for us, but I highly doubt that what we're seeing on the court is close to what we will see when he gets into a mid-season rhythm. It's not just a matter of regaining 3-4 inches on his vertical leap. It's about making the plays that he has been conditioned to make, through years of practice. At the NBA level, players who rely on athleticism in addition to skill have a very small margin of error. The offensive player has the advantage for a split second, but when your rhythm is off, the time that it takes to go from seeing an opportunity and seizing that opportunity becomes just long enough for the defense to adjust. That's part of the reason why Shannon Brown has displayed an uncanny ability to turn every scoring opportunity into a bad shot. Tonight, against the Knicks, I saw the same type of problem with Amar'e. If he was a half-step quicker, he would've been able to get to the hoop. If his rhythm was in-tune, he would've been able to pull up for a 5 footer instead of ramming into Marcin Gortat.

Make no mistake: this Phoenix Suns team is really bad. But I think a lot of our players will get considerably better (or get injured) as the season progresses. We all knew that we were going to see a lot of sloppy, ugly basketball across the league to start the season. Now that those expectations are coming true, it's very illogical to find that so many people are surprised.

 

[AzStevenCal]

There are a lot of myths on this board that are becoming increasingly irksome. The worst of these myths are the ones that are not only just plain wrong, but are somehow accepted as truths. Many lengthy threads have been centered around arguments that wouldn't even exist if these myths weren't accepted. Trade discussions involving Steve Nash are prime examples of how a misbegotten idea can spawn countless gripes, theoretical trade situations, anger, etc. Other pervasive myths are more implied rather than explicitly stated. When people complain about Shannon Brown, they are implying that the Shannon Brown we've seen thus far is a well-conditioned Shannon Brown. This is less of a "myth" than it is a "prejudgment", and tonight's Knicks game epitomized just how dubious an assumption this is.

First of all, the "trade Steve Nash" hogwash, which is riddled has so many incorrect assumptions, I don't even know where to begin a real discussion about it. I've heard people say that "the Suns should've traded Steve Nash a few seasons ago," which stops making sense the moment you bring reality into the discussion. The Suns signed Steve Nash in the first place because the Mavericks didn't believe he had enough good years left in his tank. That was 7 years ago. Could we have traded him when after his first MVP season? No, because a) you don't trade a reigning MVP, and b) even if we wanted to, we weren't going to get a player of comparable value in return, because Nash was at the peak of his career and only had a couple of great seasons left. That logic proved false the next year, when he followed it up with an even better season that won him another MVP award. Then he had his best year as a Phoenix Sun, and he arguably should've won the MVP award again. At that point, he was one of the most underpaid players in the modern era. And paradoxically, every year that he improved, his trade value was actually decreasing, because he was one year closer to being "over the hill". So, not only did Nash impact the game most favorably of any player on our roster, but he was also the best bargain on our roster. In normal situations, you can argue that it makes sense to trade your best player for a handful of role players/expiring contracts if you want to rebuild, but in Nash's unique situation, that never applied. If we wanted to free up cap space via trade, it would've made infinitely more sense to trade Shawn Marion or Boris Diaw, because they were both grossly overpaid.

On the second myth, I don't know how good Shannon Brown will be for us, but I highly doubt that what we're seeing on the court is close to what we will see when he gets into a mid-season rhythm. It's not just a matter of regaining 3-4 inches on his vertical leap. It's about making the plays that he has been conditioned to make, through years of practice. At the NBA level, players who rely on athleticism in addition to skill have a very small margin of error. The offensive player has the advantage for a split second, but when your rhythm is off, the time that it takes to go from seeing an opportunity and seizing that opportunity becomes just long enough for the defense to adjust. That's part of the reason why Shannon Brown has displayed an uncanny ability to turn every scoring opportunity into a bad shot. Tonight, against the Knicks, I saw the same type of problem with Amar'e. If he was a half-step quicker, he would've been able to get to the hoop. If his rhythm was in-tune, he would've been able to pull up for a 5 footer instead of ramming into Marcin Gortat.

Make no mistake: this Phoenix Suns team is really bad. But I think a lot of our players will get considerably better (or get injured) as the season progresses. We all knew that we were going to see a lot of sloppy, ugly basketball across the league to start the season. Now that those expectations are coming true, it's very illogical to find that so many people are surprised.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying here but it seems to me you're confusing myth with opinion. And you're also painting with a very broad brush. Very few of us have advocated for a Nash trade until fairly recently. I became convinced it was the right move the day we lost Stat but I can't see moving him anytime earlier. Now, I'm not sure I'd move him at all. We seem to be a bad enough team with him here so we don't need it for the ping pong balls and we're not likely to get much in return for him anyway. Unless he's the reason this team is not willing to make a fundamental shift in the way we approach the game, we're much better off with him than without him.

As for Shannon Brown, I don't really have a problem with the guy. He's stuck on a team that is sorely lacking in scorers and shooters. I see no reason not to give him the green light the second he steps on the court. We really don't have anyone else with a scorer's mentality out there unless you count Warrick and I NEVER count Warrick.

Steve

 

[jagu]

It's very hard to sit through Shannon Brown's infinite green light. That said, he has a scorer's mentality and considering the guard play we have seen this year from the SG position at least he's confident in himself and he has significant athletic ability. I wouldn't mind seeing him as the SG. If he chucks us to a loss, so be it.

 

[TucsonDevil]

It seems that your "Myth Busting Argument" is based on a lot of Myth as well.

The Myth that Nash wasn't traded isn't really true. Trading Nash was always, on only, a proposition for teams that were in the "WIN NOW" mentality - therefore his longevity didn't factor in the equation, nor did his 'long-term' contract, since he didn't have one at the time others called for his trade.

Secondly, your theory on Shannon Brown could also be a Myth. Who is to say that his FG% is going to increase in this offense, regardless of the shape he is in. And who says he is out of Shape today? Are you on the training staff?

My point is this, don't laugh at other opinions because they don't agree with your own, or your perspective. Saying someone's opinion is a myth is akin to making fun of them.

 

[Cheesebeef]

There are a lot of myths on this board that are becoming increasingly irksome. The worst of these myths are the ones that are not only just plain wrong, but are somehow accepted as truths. Many lengthy threads have been centered around arguments that wouldn't even exist if these myths weren't accepted. Trade discussions involving Steve Nash are prime examples of how a misbegotten idea can spawn countless gripes, theoretical trade situations, anger, etc. Other pervasive myths are more implied rather than explicitly stated. When people complain about Shannon Brown, they are implying that the Shannon Brown we've seen thus far is a well-conditioned Shannon Brown. This is less of a "myth" than it is a "prejudgment", and tonight's Knicks game epitomized just how dubious an assumption this is.

First of all, the "trade Steve Nash" hogwash, which is riddled has so many incorrect assumptions, I don't even know where to begin a real discussion about it. I've heard people say that "the Suns should've traded Steve Nash a few seasons ago," which stops making sense the moment you bring reality into the discussion. The Suns signed Steve Nash in the first place because the Mavericks didn't believe he had enough good years left in his tank. That was 7 years ago. Could we have traded him when after his first MVP season? No, because a) you don't trade a reigning MVP, and b) even if we wanted to, we weren't going to get a player of comparable value in return, because Nash was at the peak of his career and only had a couple of great seasons left. That logic proved false the next year, when he followed it up with an even better season that won him another MVP award. Then he had his best year as a Phoenix Sun, and he arguably should've won the MVP award again. At that point, he was one of the most underpaid players in the modern era. And paradoxically, every year that he improved, his trade value was actually decreasing, because he was one year closer to being "over the hill". So, not only did Nash impact the game most favorably of any player on our roster, but he was also the best bargain on our roster. In normal situations, you can argue that it makes sense to trade your best player for a handful of role players/expiring contracts if you want to rebuild, but in Nash's unique situation, that never applied. If we wanted to free up cap space via trade, it would've made infinitely more sense to trade Shawn Marion or Boris Diaw, because they were both grossly overpaid.

this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this board. no one was advocating trading Nash until AFTER Amare walked and it was clear that the era was over. seriously... were you drinking drano before you posted the above?

 

[ASUCHRIS]

this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this board. no one was advocating trading Nash until AFTER Amare walked and it was clear that the era was over. seriously... were you drinking drano before you posted the above?

I just thought it was too ridiculously stupid to respond to.

 

[mojorizen7]

Steve Nash fact: If you continue to build around him six years after his second MVP trophy he won at the age of 32, your team will wallow in a lukewarm pool of suck.

 

[carey]

I think this board is too old to embed video, but here's my response to the OP, a little NSFW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck

 

[AzStevenCal]

Steve Nash fact: If you continue to build around him six years after his second MVP trophy he won at the age of 32, your team will wallow in a lukewarm pool of suck.

Nah, I'd put that in the opinion or myth category especially if you're suggesting that today's team supports your position. I don't think they've built around Nash in quite some time. Nobody with any basketball sense at all would give him a wing player that can't shoot from distance (Hill) AND a wing player that can't shoot from anywhere (Childress) AND a wing player that is only effective with the ball in his hand (Hedo) AND a tweener forward that can't shoot from distance and has absolutely no post-up game (Warrick).

I'm not suggesting that we had the opportunity to do this but you could build around Nash quite effectively if you surrounded him with something like Eric Gordon at the 2, Hill at the 3, Dirk at the 4 and Gortat at the 5 and added someone like Crawford to come off the bench along with a good backup PG and center.

I agree it stopped making sense to bring in players that could only function in the SSOL offense and that it also made no sense to bring in players that would only be effective with Nash at the helm. That doesn't mean you couldn't have kept Nash and brought in quality players while building for the future. Unfortunately, they brought in players that wouldn't mesh in just about any system.

Steve

 

[mojorizen7]

Nah, I'd put that in the opinion or myth category especially if you're suggesting that today's team supports your position. I don't think they've built around Nash in quite some time.

Of course they have. Teams build around their franchise player. A franchise player is a guy the team aquires and subsequentally hands the car keys to...and becomes the focal point of the team. They bring in players that compliment that guy(and the style of basketball that your franchise player plays well). Who's that guy here in Phoenix if it isn't Nash? Come on Steven...if this is your attempt at a "yeah but" argument you're going to look pretty silly trying to sell to anybody that Nash isn't still:
a) the franchise player
b) the focal point of this team in terms of the type of basketball being played.
c) the best player on the team(@ 38 yrs old)
d) the one player on this team who can influence what "other" players are brought in.

Nobody with any basketball sense at all would give him a wing player that can't shoot from distance (Hill) AND a wing player that can't shoot from anywhere (Childress) AND a wing player that is only effective with the ball in his hand (Hedo) AND a tweener forward that can't shoot from distance and has absolutely no post-up game (Warrick).

Right. The Suns don't have a clue anymore i agree,but aren't we talking about the key guys here? Hill was brought in because he was a cheap option and the Suns' gamble payed off(great signing). Turk was the big guy who could score to replace Amare and run the pick n roll with Nash. Those other guys you mentioned are exactly the type of scrubs that only become legit NBA players because by playing with a Nash they find themselves in position to score where otherwise(playing w/out a Nash) they couldnt find the rim alone in a gym.
Frye was brought in to score too...bottom line is all these guys are here to recieve MVP passes from Nash.....still.

I'm not suggesting that we had the opportunity to do this but you could build around Nash quite effectively if you surrounded him with something like Eric Gordon at the 2, Hill at the 3, Dirk at the 4 and Gortat at the 5 and added someone like Crawford to come off the bench along with a good backup PG and center.

I won't get into what kind of hypothetical team could contend with a 38 yr old Nash and Hill at this point.

I agree it stopped making sense to bring in players that could only function in the SSOL offense and that it also made no sense to bring in players that would only be effective with Nash at the helm.

But thats exactly what i'm talking about. Thats what we've got here in 2012. You honestly dont think that this is still a team resembling a SSOL reclamation project for the most part?

Many here think i simply dont like Steve Nash.....completely untrue.Its a matter of whats best for the franchise in the future. If Nash wasn't Nash,and the offense wasn't dictated by his unique talents then hanging on to him into his 40's wouldn't be a big deal. Lets assume that Amare was the guy who was still here instead of Nash and we remained loyal to Amare into his late 30's(assuming he was still effective). No problem. You groom his replacement and in the meantime you slowly reduce his minutes and are still able to give him touches. Nash IS the offense,without Nash this entire roster(for the most part) is completely helpless on a basketball court. THAT is a huge problem when your talking about hanging on to a franchise player that is clearly declining due to age IMO.

Love Nash,love the Suns,but we the fans are cleary being held hostage by both parties at this point.

 

[AzStevenCal]

But thats exactly what i'm talking about. Thats what we've got here in 2012. You honestly dont think that this is still a team resembling a SSOL reclamation project for the most part?

Well, I guess this is what it all boils down to. I think you can make a case that Frye was brought in because of the SSOL/Nash style but I can't see it with any of the other guys the past several years. Nash works best with a shooting guard that can score and shoot, we don't have one. Nash works best with a small forward that can shoot from distance, we don't have one. And Nash works best with a true backup point guard that can spell him enough to keep his minutes under 30. Guess what, we've never had one.

If they were really building around Steve's strengths and weaknesses we wouldn't have the mishmash of players we currently have. This team has been put together without foresight. If we didn't have Nash, I suspect Sarver and company would have brought in pretty much what we have now and we'd still be a bad team with little or no future.

Now, once we draft a guy with true superstar potential, this can all start to change around in a hurry but in most drafts, it's a crapshoot after the first pick or two. And it takes being both bad and lucky to get that high of a pick. Without Nash, we'd definitely be that bad but we'd still need to be lucky. Moving Nash at midseason increases our chances of improving for the future and it's definitely the way I would go, it's just too bad that we've probably waited past the point he'd have any return value of note.

Steve