The only problem with having TWO good point guards, history with Suns!

[Yuma]

I remember we NEEDED a B/U PG for Jason Kidd and drafted a kid named Steve Nash. After becoming a fan favorite for his play, the Suns moved him supposedly as a favor to Nash because he was starter material and it would be unfair to make him play behind Kidd forever since Kidd was definatly the big dog around the Suns! i was just reading about how the Suns are coveting some really good PGs in the draft. I'm not saying we shouldn't get one of those guys, but why in the hell do you draft a good guy like Nash, then trade him? Especially when you eventually trade the starter anyway? I know we eventually probably got someone good in return, but if we traded Kidd back then instead of Nash, we would have at least probably gotten a good two guard in return, or PF, which means the Penny or Googs signing may never have occured, etc. (We got both guys expressly to play with Kidd.) Probably would have still got the pick or better we may have had in the Nash trade. I don't remember who we traded for or what we got, but I hope our GM is getting better at this game than he has been in the past. I hope if we draft a good back up PG we don't turn around and trade the guy in two years as a favor to him. Let's keep some of these good draft picks we have been making. It seems, with the exception of Alton Ford, that lately we have been drafting good players. I would like us to stick with these guys for awhile.

 

[Chaplin]

I'm confused. Does this post say that you don't want to draft a point guard? Or that you do, and just don't want to trade him?

 

[Yuma]

Under the BC era it seems we are doing way better with the draft than with the free agent acquisistions. I don't want us to get a good PG and then trade him. Actually, we have been doing better in the Western Conference by trying to draft athleticism over need players, so I guess whoever is the best athlete on the board is who I want at 17. I don't like the tone of the recent Suns article in the rebuplic suggesting we may move up for a b/u PG. I say we stay at 17, keep our picks for next year, and get the best athlete available. I would move up if there was a big man worth a couple picks, but I don't think there is one in the draft, other than Darko MAYBE, and no way is Detroit moving out of their spot.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I didnty really feel like reading it...but we got the Mavs first round unprotected lottery pick in 1999 which turned out to be shawn marion.

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
I didnty really feel like reading it...but we got the Mavs first round unprotected lottery pick in 1999 which turned out to be shawn marion.

Also, the biggest reason Steve Nash was traded was that he was most valuable at that time. He most likely would have left as soon as he was eligible for free agency, but she can't wait until he is almost a free agent to trade him because he is less valuable at that point. It's hard to argue that then move hasn't worked out well for the Phoenix Suns. They essentially traded Steve Nash for Shawn Marion.

Joe Mama

 

[JCSunsfan]

Originally posted by Joe Mama
They essentially traded Steve Nash for Shawn Marion.

Joe Mama

And thats not bad at all. It was a good move at the time. We also got another player didn't we?

Remember also that it was an unprotected lotto pick. So the pick had the potential of being even a #1 pick.

If drafting a pg will produce that kind of return in trade, then draft away.

The Nash pick is a very good argument for picking the best available player. Even if he isn't exactly what you need, you have opportunity to trade him for what you want.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I agree that it is a good arguement, however the draft is much different now than it was like 7 years ago. There are to many unknowns now. How will these HS kids be able to adjust, and how fast? How good are these Euro players? Teams just didnt have to consider all these things as much as they do now. Even the American college kids are usually coming out after a freshman or sophomor year, so it is difficult enough to judge their talent.

In the middle of the draft it is usually a good rule of thumb to take the best player, reguardless of position......but how do you determine who the best player is??

 

[PhxGametime]

Suns drafted Nash to be future PG - the Suns traded for Kidd at half-way mark... I'd be happy with best available... not too high on Collison though and I'm not too sure on Zarko now but Suns draft well

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Steve Nash was traded for Pat Garrity and the Mavs unprotected pick.

Garrity was crucial for trading for Penny.

 

[green machine]

Lets see here...What would I rather do??? Leave Nash to rot on the bench until he's a free agent so he could leave, or trade him, get someone like Shawn Marion, and move on? Hmmm. It's good to have a solid backup at any position, but if given the chance, you trade that backup for help at another position.

adam

 

[Yuma]

You guys are completly missing the point of my post. I am suggesting we would have been better off trading Kidd not Nash. We would have got MORE for Kidd than we did for Nash. We should have stayed with our draft pick and moved the free agent Kidd. We would have ended up with a lower cap number at the time, would probably still have gotten an unrestricted first, and have gotten a better player than Garrity. Plus as the chain of events went, we signed Penny and Googs to play expressly with Kidd. There could be an argument made that those two trades don't happen if Kidd was dealt instead of Nash. If Nash succeeds then the front office sees the importance of the draft over filling their needs on the FA market. However, you keep Kidd and then the front office thinks, well that FA acquisition worked, who else can we get? Instead of developing talent like Nash.

 

[elindholm]

Sometimes teams trade good players. No draft pick is a sure thing, so I'd guess that often a team thinks, "Well, we have our starter at this position, but maybe this guy can be the backup." A small fraction of the time, the new player turns out to be better than expected, and then the team is in a position to trade in order to fill a greater need.

In 1987, Cleveland drafted point guard Kevin Johnson. He turned out to be a better player than they needed to back up Mark Price, so they traded him with two lesser players to Phoenix for Larry Nance. Nance was a cornerstone of their franchise for many years afterward.

I don't think it's accurate to say it was a mistake to retain Kidd in favor of Nash. The Kidd/Hardaway/Gugliotta/Marion team could have been pretty good if they had ever been healthy. Sure, the signings of Gugliotta and Hardaway were highly suspect, but I don't think those signings were "forced" by the presence of Kidd on the team.

 

[Chaplin]

And at the time, Jason Kidd was a much better player. Steve Nash has become one of the best point guards in the league, but only within the last few years.

 

[green machine]

Originally posted by Chaplin
And at the time, Jason Kidd was a much better player. Steve Nash has become one of the best point guards in the league, but only within the last few years.

Nash is overrated. He's a good shooter. His assist numbers aren't great, and on that team they should be. He's a nice player, but I wouldn't rank him near the top of the point guard list.

adam

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by green machine
Nash is overrated. He's a good shooter. His assist numbers aren't great, and on that team they should be. He's a nice player, but I wouldn't rank him near the top of the point guard list.

adam

Steve Nash is one of the better point guards in the NBA, but you are right. He is overrated. If you put Marbury on a team with players who can shoot like the Mavericks he would average at least 10 assists per game. And he is selfish!

Nash is also an average to below-average defender.

Don't forget Yuma that if the Phoenix Suns had not traded Steve Nash they wouldn't have Shawn Marion.

Joe Mama

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Originally posted by elindholm
Sometimes teams trade good players. No draft pick is a sure thing, so I'd guess that often a team thinks, "Well, we have our starter at this position, but maybe this guy can be the backup." A small fraction of the time, the new player turns out to be better than expected, and then the team is in a position to trade in order to fill a greater need.

In 1987, Cleveland drafted point guard Kevin Johnson. He turned out to be a better player than they needed to back up Mark Price, so they traded him with two lesser players to Phoenix for Larry Nance. Nance was a cornerstone of their franchise for many years afterward.

I don't think it's accurate to say it was a mistake to retain Kidd in favor of Nash. The Kidd/Hardaway/Gugliotta/Marion team could have been pretty good if they had ever been healthy. Sure, the signings of Gugliotta and Hardaway were highly suspect, but I don't think those signings were "forced" by the presence of Kidd on the team.

dammit, you said everything i wanted to say. the only thing i'll add is this, i don't think kj ended up being better than cleveland expected 'cuz he was taken with the 7th selection in the draft. he was a "take the best player available" selection by the cavs. turned out that by taking the best player available they were able to then package him with mark "big daddy" west and ty corbin for a player they really needed, nance, and his faithful sidekick, mark sanders. if we can get a top pg to backup marbs and then eventually trade him for another need position, then by all means do so!