PDA

View Full Version : Well-written "Nash for MVP" article by Skip Bayless


vjz
04-18-2006, 02:40 PM
Nash is your MVP
By Skip Bayless

Link (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2412400&type=story)

For most of this NBA season, you heard almost nothing but resigned MVP sighs from analysts and columnists: "Well, it looks like you have to give it to Steve Nash again."

But a month or so ago, you began to hear another ball start rolling: Dwyane Wade's. Then D-Wade's deflated and here came Dirk Nowitzki's. Then Dirk's was suddenly dwarfed by LeBron's! Remember? Just two weeks ago you kept hearing, "That's it. LeBron James has to be MVP."

But now the giant bowling ball you hear thundering down the lane toward the MVP pins is … Kobe's!

Over the last four days, you heard several analysts on ESPN and TNT make a case-closed case for Kobe Bryant. You read a number of NBA columnists and beat writers joining the Kobe chorus. And you figure Kobe clinched it when Page 2's Bill Simmons, who knows his NBA as astutely as he does his sports movies, forgave and forgot and gave his MVP to the player who flew like an Eagle this season.

I'm a big fan of Kobe the basketball player. Was before all that ugly business in Eagle, Colo. Remained so even after Kobe ratted out Shaq to the investigators.

No doubt Kobe proved to be the most talented and driven player on the planet this season. But the most valuable?

Only if basketball games are won by the team with the highest scorer.

That's why, I suppose, Kobe has beaten Steve Nash 81-0 in the MVP race.

Kobe, of course, went Terrell Owens on the Toronto Raptors, scoring 81, mostly on jump shots. This would have been astonishing even if the Raptors had played H.O.R.S.E defense, which was pretty much all they played. It was tough to tell who was more mesmerized by this Jan. 22 performance at Staples, Jack Nicholson or the Raptors.

Then on March 27 at New Jersey, Nash disappeared like Jimmy Hoffa. Five shots, zero makes. Zero free-throw attempts. Zero points.

The Nets led by 19 at the half on the way to a 110-72 wipeout. And voters finally had their excuse. That was the end of the "Nash again" talk. No way was this Nash Rambler going to win a second straight MVP with a goose egg on his résumé.

But he should.

In fact, big picture, that game should strengthen Nash's MVP case. Before the season started, a lot of analysts and columnists expected Nash's Suns to suffer some blowout road losses -- especially against teams that had won eight in a row, as the Nets had. After all, the Suns had lost Amare Stoudemire to injury and Joe Johnson and Quentin Richardson to free agency. Heck, by March 27, they had lost their only legitimate post defender, Kurt Thomas, who wound up playing only 53 games.

And Nash's Suns have won 53 games and the Pacific Division! They're the 53-28 second seed in the still-tougher Western Conference! If they hadn't clinched so early, and Nash hadn't rested his battered body of late, they would have come even closer to last year's NBA-best 62-20 record!

I'm sorry, but Nash's 53 wins are even more astonishing than Kobe's 81.

Nash didn't play Sunday against Kobe's team at Staples. Kobe's team leaped to a 16-1 lead and won easily. Kobe, MVP? Wait a second, with Nash, the Suns won the season's first three games against Kobe's seventh-seeded Lakers.

Case closed … for Nash.

For the record, I picked Kobe's team to make the playoffs. I did not pick Nash's. Honestly, did you? I couldn't imagine how, even with Shawn Marion, Nash's team could finish even .500 with Raja Bell and Boris Diaw and Leandro Barbosa and Eddie House and James Jones playing significant minutes.

Now, you say, "Diaw's turning into a player." But did you think that last season when Diaw played in Atlanta? No, Nash is turning him into a player.

A Western Conference GM warned me after his team played Nash's in a preseason game -- and I didn't listen. He said: "I'm telling you, the Suns are going to be good. That damn Nash is at it again."

Now I believe.

One year ago, I wrote that Shaquille O'Neal deserved the MVP over what appeared to be the cuddly little runaway bandwagon choice, Nash. How, I asked, could Nash be MVP when it was unclear whether he was the best player on his own team? Stoudemire, of course, was emerging as the strongest force in Arizona this side of the noon sun.

But Nash won.

And now, averaging a career-high 19 points and a league-leading 10.5 assists, Nash (without Stoudemire) clearly has had an even better season than last year's. But the MVP should come from the West's seventh seed?

Book it: If Nash had played for the Lakers this season, and Kobe had played for the Suns, the Lakers would be the second seed and the Suns would have missed the playoffs.

Nash would turn Lamar Odom into Marion (if not more) and all of a sudden Smush Parker and Devean George and Luke Walton and Sasha Vujacic would start running and spotting up and draining 3s, and Kwame Brown and Brian Cook would outsprint other postmen for thundering dunks, and the Lakers would actually look like they were having fun playing basketball.

When you play with Nash, you know you're going to consistently get the ball exactly where you're best with it -- and when you're most open. Nash is a 12-man team. Kobe is a one-man show. Nash needs teammates. Kobe needs a stage.

A Suns source said: "Do not underestimate the leadership impact Nash has. He routinely organizes team dinners on the road -- and guys actually like it! You don't see that very often in the NBA."

Certainly not with Kobe's team.

If Kobe were a Sun, Marion would feel as if he were on the dark side of the moon. Marion would split time between waving unsuccessfully for the ball and complaining to the media. Kobe would take one look at House and Jones and shoot.

Heck, in Los Angeles, Nash would be making Jim Jackson look like an integral cog -- as Nash did last season in Phoenix.

It's as if Nash's teammates believe he'll make them better than they have a right to be. They know Nash is like some ambidextrous mutant life form with eyes set so wide that he can see 360 degrees. They know he can change directions while dribbling or flying the way nobody in the league can. They know Nash -- who's a mere 6-foot-3 -- can make forests of much taller defenders look hapless.

They can't keep him out of the lane or his team off the scoreboard. And they can't keep him from finding a teammate wide open for a 3-pointer.

Think about this: The Phoenix Suns have made an NBA record 824 3s. And they lead the league in 3-point percentage at 39.8. So they're making 3s almost as well as a lot of teams make 2s.

That's mostly because of Nash.

No, he isn't capable of playing lock-down, man-to-man defense. On the fifth game of that trip that began in Jersey, Nash couldn't begin to control Detroit's Chauncey Billups, who went for 35. Yet Nash's goal is for his team to outscore yours -- and that night at the Palace, the Suns made the Pistons sweat by scoring 102. Detroit hung on to win by seven.

That's Nash.

John Stockton was a little better on the pick-and-roll. Magic Johnson was better running the break and, obviously, at creating mismatches because he was 6-9. Yet even Magic couldn't run this Phoenix attack quite as magically as Nash does.

I started watching his Amare-less games early this season and got addicted. Nash has this in common with Michael Jordan: Almost every night he does something you've never seen before.

In three fewer games, Nash has 115 more assists than Billups and 142 more than Jason Kidd. Nash's team leads the league by far in scoring at 108.4 a game. Seattle is next at 102.5.

Yet Kobe suddenly seems to be the MVP front-runner because he's leading the league in scoring at 35.4 a game. I spoke Monday to two media members with votes who said they were going with Kobe -- and that they'd spoken with several others who were doing likewise.

Voters are human. They talk to each other. Sometimes it works out that they pass around the MVP to make sure a deserving candidate gets at least one trophy. During Jordan's reign, he arguably should have won seven of the last eight years he played. But Charles Barkley won one and, somehow, Karl Malone won two.

This had a little something to do with how accessible and entertaining Charles and Karl were for media interviewers. That was a small reason Nash won last season. And that might be a small factor in the new, more open and media-friendly Kobe's turning into this season's front-runner.

But this is the season Nash deserves MVP strictly on single-season achievement. This isn't a "good guy" award or a "white guy" award. It is no longer Nash's "turn."

He's simply the most valuable, by far. In what has been billed as the most wide open race ever, this one shouldn't even be close.

sixeightmkw
04-18-2006, 02:53 PM
it's nice to throw in some big words and stuff like that, but dude has to get out of Nash's jock before he smells like cock. The entire premise behind the Nash for MVP arguement is that no one could run the Phoenix offense like Nash can. And this makes him an MVP? WTF. Nash couldn't do what Dirk does in a million years, he couldn't do what Lebronm does in a million years, he couldn't do what Kobe does in a million years, and you know why? Cause each offense is set up totally around those guys. Geez dude, please get out of Nash's freakin jock strap.

sixeightmkw
04-18-2006, 02:56 PM
"No, he isn't capable of playing lock-down, man-to-man defense. On the fifth game of that trip that began in Jersey, Nash couldn't begin to control Detroit's Chauncey Billups, who went for 35. Yet Nash's goal is for his team to outscore yours -- and that night at the Palace, the Suns made the Pistons sweat by scoring 102. Detroit hung on to win by seven."

I just loved this little snippet. They made Detroit sweat and made them score 102 points.

Big Boy Laroux
04-18-2006, 03:44 PM
bayless is HORRIBLE.

Hitman
04-18-2006, 03:46 PM
I agree that Nash is more of an MVP than Kobe.

Hitman
04-18-2006, 03:48 PM
I can't wait until the give it to Kobe and the Lakers get swept out of the first round.

sixeightmkw
04-18-2006, 03:58 PM
I also love this little quote.

"And Nash's Suns have won 53 games and the Pacific Division! They're the 53-28 second seed in the still-tougher Western Conference! If they hadn't clinched so early, and Nash hadn't rested his battered body of late, they would have come even closer to last year's NBA-best 62-20 record!"

And how many games behind Dallas are they?

nah-vit-ski
04-18-2006, 05:30 PM
Man every single commentator and sports show host is saying, "....And they lost Joe Johnson, Quentin Richardson, and Amare Stoudemire!"

Shit, i don't mind losing those guys if I get Boris Diaw, Leandro Barbosa, Raja Bell, Tim Thomas, And Kurt Thomas.

Not that Nash hasn't done anything to help those guys but you have to give them some credit too.

u2sarajevo
04-18-2006, 05:41 PM
Rock me!!!!!

Shot clock got me!!!!!

I cheered for at least a week when Skip left the Ticket. No more Skip shots, life was good.

dude1394
04-18-2006, 07:25 PM
I just could not put nash up with bird, jordan as a multiple mvp winner, I just could not do it. So two season in Phoenix and he's an automatic HOF'r? I guess so but I certainly don't think so.

dude1394
04-18-2006, 07:27 PM
the statement about winning the division drives me about the nuttiest. Marc Stein said the same thing... Suns won their division but Mavs didn't, so dirk gets less credit. As if the suns would have won it in the midwest.

I like Stein, but that one made me take him down a peg or two. He might as well have picked denver, they won the division as well????

grndmstr_c
04-18-2006, 07:37 PM
No MVP article that makes only a token mention of Dirk should be considered well-written.

Five-ofan
04-18-2006, 08:00 PM
Anyone from dallas should know that bayliss is an idiot. Nash has made diaw a player? How exactly is it then that diaw has had 2 triple doubles without nash? I made the same argument in another thread but to shorten it up here goes. You cant make players better, you can only put them in easier positions to succeed. Dirk does this to almost the same extent nash does largely do to the mismatches he creates as well as the doubles. The mismatches lead to teams guarding jho with a 4(tim duncan is an example.) which puts marion in an easier position to succeed just the same as nash does by hitting jump shooters for jumpers. With all that said Nash is leading an at least equally talented team to less wins with lesser individual numbers. You have to either have more wins or better numbers to have a case for mvp.

chumdawg
04-18-2006, 10:07 PM
What a tremendously compelling article. He made several points that I had not considered before. Before reading this, I was thinking Dirk would have my virtual vote for MVP. Now I am changing over to Nash.

Nash is a twelve-man team. Nash does things every night that you have never seen before.

So true, so true. It may well be the case that we are witnessing the ascent of the best player to play the *game* of basketball in the last ten years. The game. No one, not since Jordan and Stockton in their primes, plays the game as well as Nash does.

Murphy3
04-18-2006, 10:12 PM
Chum, you would like Skip Bayless.. Only you would find anything that he would say 'compelling'. It speaks very poorly of you.

chumdawg
04-18-2006, 10:32 PM
Care to challenge any of the (very compelling) points Bayless made in his article?

Or does your ad hominem argument stand?

Thespiralgoeson
04-18-2006, 10:52 PM
So true, so true. It may well be the case that we are witnessing the ascent of the best player to play the *game* of basketball in the last ten years. The game. No one, not since Jordan and Stockton in their primes, plays the game as well as Nash does.

Chum, please explain to me what your definition of the *game* of basketball is. Because I really have no clue what you're saying. Because as far as I'm concerned, the *game* of basketball has seen an assload of players over the past ten years who were a hell of a lot better than Nash.

chumdawg
04-18-2006, 11:20 PM
I'm sorry for being vague. What I meant was five-on-five play, versus one-on-one play. clear enough?

TVI
04-18-2006, 11:23 PM
I agree. This was a very well-written article. I haven't heard anything (beyond sheer homerism) that challenges Skip's points. This should not be so easily dismissed.

Thespiralgoeson
04-18-2006, 11:27 PM
Not really, no. If you're talking about who has the best understanding of how to run an offense and seeing the floor, sure, I'll concede that he's probably the best since Stockton, although I think you could make an equally strong case for Kidd.

chumdawg
04-18-2006, 11:32 PM
Not really, no. If you're talking about who has the best understanding of how to run an offense and seeing the floor, sure, I'll concede that he's probably the best since Stockton, although I think you could make an equally strong case for Kidd.Doubtless they are in a class by themselves. (And isn't it shocking to think how far back third place is?) The intangibles probably go to Nash, though. For one thing, he has had to overcome Don Nelson's circus-tent systems and the absence of Amare Stoudemire this year. And of course, he does have that MVP award.

Then again, Kidd did make a conference final.

But Nash has been far more durable than Kidd.

I'll agree, that's an interesting debate. I think Nash has the better of it thus far. But all things considered, I'd probably be okay with either one of them when it comes to that distinction, with the nod going to Nash for offensive prowess and for staying on the court.

Thespiralgoeson
04-18-2006, 11:47 PM
Then again, Kidd did make a conference final.


As well as back-to-back finals appearances. Of course his conference has been appallingly weak, but it's still no small accomplishment.

Five-ofan
04-19-2006, 07:58 AM
What point does he make that makes you consider nash? That he is leading a team without amare to the 3rd best record in the west??? Dirk is leading a team without amare to the second best record in the west. Nash isnt in the top 30 players of the last 10 years let alone the best. Exactly what does he do that we havent seen before? He runs an extremely up tempo offense very well and hes the best pick and roll point since stockton. Yeah that is great but it doesnt make him close to the best player of the last 10 years. As for the argument that you changed it to afterwards i would argue that kidd and a young gp were better pgs than nash. Nash is a better distributor than gp was but overall its pretty clear that payton was better in his prime. Nash is not the mvp. He shouldnt finish higher than 4th or 5th at best.

madape
04-19-2006, 09:57 AM
Nash has proven his detractors wrong time and time again. First they said "without Dirk, he's nothing". Then they said "without Amare, he's nothing". now what is it? Did someone actually contribute his success this year to the presense of Boris Diaw?

The guy is inarguably the best at his position in the game. He's a franchise player that does nothing but with games with whoever he plays with. He makes stars out of mediocre players. He makes superstars out of good ones. He is in the process of revolutionalizing the way offenses work in the NBA. No one is better at running an offense, and when all is said and done I think you can probably say that no point guard has ever run an offense as well in the history of the NBA. Nash is a special kind of player.

His critics already look like fools. Yet they won't shut up. Perhaps 2 MVP trophys and a championship ring will. He's my vote for MVP. And if the Mavs get knocked off but the Spurs or Grizz, I'll be pulling for the Suns to win the championship.

Five-ofan
04-19-2006, 10:04 AM
No the 2 mvp trophies wont prove anyone wrong except that idiots picked him to win an award that is becoming increasingly bad. By the argument that him getting there is what made marion better then why doesnt terry get credit for dirks improvement? I mean hell the nash backers make it seem like no one can ever improve on their own so it must mean that jason terry is solely responsible from dirks improvement from the twan year to the last 2. i mean it couldnt have had anything to do with the team just fitting together better and dirk working his ass off to make himself a better player. No that couldnt be it. I mean if that is the case than you could make an argument that maybe boris diaw actually did get better or that shawn marion might have gotten better and not that the all mighty steve nash made them into what they are. Good lord if steve makes everyone around him SOOOOO much better, shouldnt dirk have gone to like 12 and 8 after steve left considering that we all know jet isnt a true pg?

sike
04-19-2006, 01:27 PM
"rock me".........*sigh*...........oh...and Troy is gay....

u2sarajevo
04-19-2006, 01:38 PM
Troy is gay....genius.... I forgot about that debacle.

Skip has proven himself to be a moron in the past. Not saying Nash isn't good, but I think that this article will only be held in high regard by those that "worship" Nash. It changed nothing in regards to my opinion of Nash, but again I know for a fact that Skip is a joke.

harsh euro barge
04-19-2006, 02:05 PM
Here's a much better MVP article...

http://www.nysun.com/article/31235

By John Hollinger
April 19, 2006
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Here's all you need to know about how close this year's NBA MVP race is: Up until about 24 hours ago, I didn't know who I was picking.

Given that today is the last day of the season, however, I finally had to make up my mind. But it isn't easy choosing among the several worthy candidates for this year's award. In particular, there are four players - Cleveland's LeBron James, Dallas's Dirk Nowitzki, the Lakers' Kobe Bryant, and Miami's Dwyane Wade - who seem to have almost nothing separating them.

Somehow, I had to split hairs among these four, and so do the voters (I don't have a ballot), which should make this one of the closest MVP votes in memory. And unlike other close votes - such as Steve Nash vs. Shaquille O'Neal last season - this one figures to be a six-car pile-up. In addition to the four players I mentioned, Nash and Detroit's Chauncey Billups have all earned serious MVP talk around the country.

Let's start by eliminating the two obvious pretenders - Nash and Billups. Billups has been the best player on the best team (Detroit), but saying he's more valuable than anyone else in basketball is just batty. Detroit's strength stems from the combined effect of five quality starters rather than a single dominant one, and even in a career year, Billups didn't sustain nearly the quality of play that the Jameses and Bryants of the world did.

Then there's Nash. He was a questionable choice when he won last year's award, and may end up winning again this year. If so, it would be about the worst vote in league history.

For starters, an MVP should, at the very least, be the best player on his own team, and it's unclear that Nash qualifies in that department. Teammate Shawn Marion leads the Suns in points, rebounds, minutes, blocks, steals, field goals, field-goal attempts, and 2-point field-goal percentage. And for all the talk of how the Suns are doomed without Nash, Marion actually has a much greater on-court vs. off-court differential, which measures what happens to a team's scoring when its star leaves the floor (+8.6 points per 48 minutes for Marion, +4.8 for Nash).

Nash's candidacy is a triumph of emotion over reason. As super as he's been, and as surprisingly well as Phoenix has played without Amare Stoudemire, we can't just give Nash all the credit for every good thing that happens to every Phoenix player - but that's the step that people are taking in anointing him MVP.

The most frequently made argument in Nash's favor is that seven Suns are having career-highs in scoring, but this one is an obvious red herring. For starters, one of those seven is Nash himself. One of the others is Marion, barely squeaking past his previous career-high (21.7 to 21.2). And four of the other five players - Raja Bell, Leandro Barbosa, James Jones, and Boris Diaw - are getting so much more playing time than they every saw before that it would be shocking if they weren't averaging career bests.

The seventh player, Eddie House, has legitimately boosted his scoring. We could attribute his improvement to Nash were it not for one problem: House is Nash's backup. The two are almost never on the court at the same time.

Moreover, Nash is nowhere near the top of the leaderboard in Player Efficiency Rating (PER), my per-minute rating of a player's effectiveness. He ranks 14th, well behind the legitimate MVP candidates and Marion.

Thus, while Nash has been great, and the Suns remarkable, the leap of faith required to anoint him the most valuable player in the entire league doesn't hold water.

Eliminating the two point guards leaves us with James, Nowitzki, Bryant and Wade. On the court, the best player of the four was probably Bryant. In addition to his historic 81-point game, he's also the best defensive player of the four and single-handedly carried the Lakers to a playoff spot.

Nevertheless, I can't place him higher than fourth on my ballot. One of the reasons L.A. was so talent-starved in the first place was because Bryant couldn't get along with Shaq, which kind of subtracts from the "most valuable" argument. Plus, I've yet to see a shred of evidence that any of his teammates can stand him.

The next one to eliminate is Wade. Statistically, he's been just as good as Nowitzki and James. He ranks a close fourth in PER, and despite Shaq's presence, he had the greatest on-court off-court differential in the league (a whopping +15.5). On the other hand, Wade slumped a bit down the stretch, shot 13-of-76 from three-point range on the season, and one can't help but assign him at least a smidgen of the blame for Miami's slightly disappointing campaign.

That leaves us with Dirk and Le-Bron. As you can see in the chart, they rank first and second in my PER rankings (taking it to another decimal, Le-Bron leads 28.18 to 28.16). Both also led teams that generally outperformed expectations. Dallas won 60 games despite several injuries and a lack of superstar talent beyond Nowitzki. The Cavs, meanwhile, could win their 50th game tonight despite missing Larry Hughes for half the season and getting horrendous seasons from several supporting players (Damon Jones in particular.)

James has the edge in on-court offcourt differential, +13.0 to +7.7, but we would expect that. Nowitzki was backed up by the relatively competent Keith Van Horn, while James had lowlifes like Ira Newble and Luke Jackson replacing him, so the dropoff in Dallas was much less severe.

How can I decide between these two, then? Well, if I can't differentiate on quality, I have to go with quantity. James played 42.5 minutes per game, compared to 38.1 for Nowitzki. During the course of the season, he played nearly eight full games more than Nowitzki, and there's value in that.

Add in the fact that James came up the biggest down the stretch - right when Cavs fans were wondering if they would have another late-season collapse - and that he made several plays to win games in the final seconds, and you have a recipe for a Most Valuable Player. Let's hope the voters see it the same way.

sixeightmkw
04-19-2006, 02:10 PM
good except for the last part aabout Lebron.

EricaLubarsky
04-19-2006, 02:21 PM
Nash's candidacy is a triumph of emotion over reason

I'd say that about the statement, Add in the fact that James came up the biggest down the stretch - right when Cavs fans were wondering if they would have another late-season collapse - and that he made several plays to win games in the final seconds, and you have a recipe for a Most Valuable Player."

LeBron is definitely most important to his team, but just because he came back from a half-season of absolutely miserable late-game performances to put a couple of nice performances together at the end does not lock him up for the MVP. It's also a triumph of emotion to say that LeBron deserves the MVP because his team didnt collapse like last year.

I still would give my vote to 1) Dirk, 2) LeBron, 3) Chauncey, 4) Marion, 5) Kobe, 6)someone else, 10-12) Nash. LeBron is right there-- his PER, his efficiency, his raw stats are all phenomenal.

dalmations202
04-19-2006, 02:41 PM
I still would give my vote to 1) Dirk, 2) LeBron, 3) Chauncey, 4) Marion, 5) Kobe, 6)someone else, 10-12) Nash. LeBron is right there-- his PER, his efficiency, his raw stats are all phenomenal.

Bingo.... nicely said and thought out.

nashtymavsfan13
04-19-2006, 02:58 PM
I'm sorry for being vague. What I meant was five-on-five play, versus one-on-one play. clear enough?

Nash is clearly the best fundamental basketball player in my mind. He does play the game how it should be played. He's awesome to watch, and he's a fantastic player. Definetly one of the top PG's of all time in my mind, but I don't think he's this years' MVP. Dirk really does deserve it this year, but Lebron will probably get it.

Thespiralgoeson
04-19-2006, 07:11 PM
His critics already look like fools. Yet they won't shut up. Perhaps 2 MVP trophys and a championship ring will. He's my vote for MVP. And if the Mavs get knocked off but the Spurs or Grizz, I'll be pulling for the Suns to win the championship.

Well I'm glad to see you're still here, cheering on your Mavs!!!

No, ape, his critics are the people that actually have some objective fucking opinions. His supporters are the same bunch of hypocritical idiots that spout out mindless bullshit like "defense wins championships" and then tell us that Phoenix and Detroit are going to break the Bulls' record for regular season wins.

2 MVP trophies will prove SOMETHING to me, ape. It will prove that the MVP award is truly worthless these days. Championship ring? Yeah, that would prove something, but it won't because it ain't gonna happen. Not this year anyway. The Suns don't have a snowball's chance in hell against the Spurs or the Mavs.

Steve Nash hasn't proven a goddamn thing to me this year that he didn't prove last year. I honestly don't have problem with him winning it last year, but this year the idea of him being the most valuble player in the NBA is just comical

FreshJive
04-19-2006, 07:59 PM
You cant make players better, you can only put them in easier positions to succeed.

Putting players in easier position to succeed is what is meant by the statement "he makes players better". What definition are you arguing against?

madape
04-19-2006, 08:41 PM
Well I'm glad to see you're still here, cheering on your Mavs!!!

No, ape, his critics are the people that actually have some objective fucking opinions. His supporters are the same bunch of hypocritical idiots that spout out mindless bullshit like "defense wins championships" and then tell us that Phoenix and Detroit are going to break the Bulls' record for regular season wins.

2 MVP trophies will prove SOMETHING to me, ape. It will prove that the MVP award is truly worthless these days. Championship ring? Yeah, that would prove something, but it won't because it ain't gonna happen. Not this year anyway. The Suns don't have a snowball's chance in hell against the Spurs or the Mavs.

Steve Nash hasn't proven a goddamn thing to me this year that he didn't prove last year. I honestly don't have problem with him winning it last year, but this year the idea of him being the most valuble player in the NBA is just comical

wow, sounds lke someone offended you. Your hatred overwhelms you. How can anyone expect logic and reason out of someone who goes on a cursing fit every time someone compliments Steve Nash?

The Suns have an easy path to the conference finals. They're playing just as well, if not better, than the Mavs or the Spurs have over the last month. I'm not going to say that they're the favorites to win it all, but they have a decent shot. They didn't have that before Steve Nash came. In fact, the Suns were one of the worst teams in the NBA. Nash has had a HUGE part in turnign them from absolute shit to one of the best teams in the NBA.. just like he had a HUGE part in turning this franchise from abslute shit to a championship contender.

He won the MVP last year. He's a favorite to win it this year. So fine, it's an objective award voted on my experts in basketball. You can dismiss if you want by claiming that everyone else in the world isn't as smart as you. But you can't dismiss winning and you can't dismiss playoff success (although some Mav fans like to do exactly that with the 02/03 Mavs). But a word of warning: If the Suns improve on their amazing season from last year by advancing even further into the playoffs this year, you'll just be left looking stupid again.

chumdawg
04-20-2006, 12:19 AM
Remember all the talk about the Mavs being better off without Nash? Well...

Obviously we have seen Dirk improve his game in the two years since Cuban's embarrassing miscalculation that the Suns could only offer him $8MM per year and his decision not to match that was driven by personal grudge in lieu of basketball sense.

Equally obviously, we have seen Nash mature just as much if not more so.

We are left to consider a Mavericks team that won 60 games, went to the Western Conference Finals, and gave the all-universe Spurs everything they wanted and then some before Dirk went down with injury--a team that was on the rise, that had steadily improved each and every season, and that contained two All-NBA players, two MVP candidates, whose games were just beginning to reach the next level.

Whoever wins the MVP this year, if it's either Dirk or Nash, the sheer folly of that decision will be underlined--in a big, fat red marker. If Nash wins it, the Mavericks will have decided against a two-time MVP on the basis of a couple million bucks a year and the idea that Nash was getting ready to more injury prone than Devin Harris.

If Dirk wins it, then we are reminded that the '03 team, that team stuck on a steady ascent, comprised not one but two MVPs! Teams don't typically break up such combos.

But then again, something can be salvaged if the Mavs can win a championship this year.

Thespiralgoeson
04-20-2006, 12:26 AM
wow, sounds lke someone offended you. Your hatred overwhelms you. How can anyone expect logic and reason out of someone who goes on a cursing fit every time someone compliments Steve Nash?

Read through a few of my posts. I'm pretty sure this is the only time I've gone on a "cursing fit." And I don't have any problem whatsoever about someone complimenting Nash, as clearly indicated by my agreeing with Chum that he's probably the best PG since Stockton.

The Suns have an easy path to the conference finals. They're playing just as well, if not better, than the Mavs or the Spurs have over the last month. I'm not going to say that they're the favorites to win it all, but they have a decent shot. They didn't have that before Steve Nash came. In fact, the Suns were one of the worst teams in the NBA. Nash has had a HUGE part in turnign them from absolute shit to one of the best teams in the NBA.. just like he had a HUGE part in turning this franchise from abslute shit to a championship contender.

He was the missing piece, no doubt. But keep in mind that they didn't have any point guard whatsoever before he came in. A fast-breaking team that's completely dependent on its ability to run the pick and roll is bound to be completely ineffective if it doesn't have a penetrating PG who can do so. But it's not like that team didn't have talent. That team was loaded with young, atheletic, offensively talented players last year, and it still is this year. And as I clearly stated above, I was fine with him winning it last year. And I firmly believe that he was the best player in the playoffs last year. But people act like every single thing that goes right with Phoenix is because of him. It's just not true.

He won the MVP last year. He's a favorite to win it this year. So fine, it's an objective award voted on my experts in basketball. You can dismiss if you want by claiming that everyone else in the world isn't as smart as you.

I never said any such thing whatsoever. I never stated that my IQ was higher than anyone else's, merely that I have an objective opinion.

But you can't dismiss winning and you can't dismiss playoff success (although some Mav fans like to do exactly that with the 02/03 Mavs). But a word of warning: If the Suns improve on their amazing season from last year by advancing even further into the playoffs this year, you'll just be left looking stupid again.

No, I can't dismiss playoff success, especially when there's not much to dismiss in the first place. You wanna talk about the 03 team, lets do it in another thread, because that debate has MUCH less to do with Steve Nash than it does with the team as a whole. Last year, the Suns made the Mavs look like chickens with their heads cut off, no question. But still, they got slaughtered by the Spurs like the Mavs got slaughtered by the Kings in 02 and in 04. I'm not diminishing what they accomplished, because it was quite amazing that their team was able to win that many games and advance to the conference finals. But still, they haven't proven anything that the Mavericks haven't proven, and none of their success last year makes Steve Nash the MVP this year. And sure, I'll look stupid if the Suns win the title, but if they couldn't beat the Spurs last year, I'm betting they won't do it this year. And if it's the Suns and the Mavs, you best believe I'm picking the Mavs.

And no, I can't dismiss winning games either. Which is why I'm not dismissing the Mavericks, and I'm not dismissing Dirk Nowitzki. The only remotely logical argument for Nash winning the award over Dirk this year is that Dirk had a better supporting cast, and I'm not buying it. You know, Dirk didn't have Amare Stoudemire either. The criteria for MVP seems to have changed from last year. You see, it was apparently clear to the voters last year that Dirk wasn't the MVP because having the third best record in conference simply wasn't good enough. Yet somehow, this year, it is... the Mavs of course being the lone exception in which even 2nd best in the conference is somehow less impressive than the Suns winning six fewer games in a weaker division with about a third of the injury problems. Yeah, they didn't have Amare, but in the latter part of the season, Dirk was missing 4 players from his supporting cast. Stack up the injuries from each teams, and I guarantee the Mavs' were at least as significant as the Suns', yet the Mavs still won more games anyway. And yet, Steve Nash is once again the favorite to win the award, and Dirk barely gets token respect from the so-called experts.

That's what I'm pissed about, Ape. I've no problem with people complimenting Nash. But I have a big problem with people overrating him so.

chumdawg
04-20-2006, 01:07 AM
That team was loaded with young, atheletic, offensively talented players last year, and it still is this year.Here's the deal, Spiral. EVERY team in the NBA is loaded with young, athletic, offensively talented players. It's the pro league, dude. You don't get there without having the goods. But that doesn't guarantee you success within the league. To have success within the league, it requires extraordinary players who transcend the high level of talent that everyone else has.

And of course, we all know this. We always talk about ill-fitting parts. We all see teams that have players of the highest caliber but that for one reason or another do not play well together.

Nash's teams always play well together. His Mavericks teams did, and his Suns teams do. If you like you can continue looking for other reasons those teams had such tremendous success. Or you can just accept it, and grant that Nash is the straw that stirs the drinks.

One other thing. The Suns were in NO WAY "slaughtered" at the hands of the Spurs. You did watch that series, right? (I'm sure that you did.) The Suns were either leading, tied, or within a basket in the final two minutes of every game in that series, save one. Trust me, with different bounces it could have gone the other way.

Thespiralgoeson
04-20-2006, 01:17 AM
Here's the deal, Spiral. EVERY team in the NBA is loaded with young, athletic, offensively talented players. It's the pro league, dude. You don't get there without having the goods. But that doesn't guarantee you success within the league. To have success within the league, it requires extraordinary players who transcend the high level of talent that everyone else has.

Bull honkey. No team had anywhere near as much raw offensive firepower as the Suns.

Nash's teams always play well together. His Mavericks teams did, and his Suns teams do. If you like you can continue looking for other reasons those teams had such tremendous success. Or you can just accept it, and grant that Nash is the straw that stirs the drinks.

"Straw that stirs the drinks" for the Suns? Absolutely. Most Valuble Player in the NBA? No.

One other thing. The Suns were in NO WAY "slaughtered" at the hands of the Spurs. You did watch that series, right? (I'm sure that you did.) The Suns were either leading, tied, or within a basket in the final two minutes of every game in that series, save one. Trust me, with different bounces it could have gone the other way.

The exact same can be said of the Mavs/Kings in 04. Didn't three of those 5 games go down to the last possession? Or was it four? I don't remember. But regardless, the Kings won that series 4-1. The Mavs got slaughtered. Same goes for the Suns last year.

madape
04-20-2006, 01:39 AM
Its yet to be seen who will have the last laugh...

but Nash was laughing pretty damn hard when he Mark Cuban and the Mavericks in last year's playoffs.

dirno2000
04-20-2006, 01:46 AM
For the record, I picked Kobe's team to make the playoffs. I did not pick Nash's. Honestly, did you? I couldn't imagine how, even with Shawn Marion, Nash's team could finish even .500 with Raja Bell and Boris Diaw and Leandro Barbosa and Eddie House and James Jones playing significant minutes.

I hate this argument. Skip didn't realize that Raja Bell has been a three point marksman for the last few years...it didnt' just happen this year. Skip didn't realize that Eddie House and James Jones were deadly 3-point shooters who would flourish in a wide open system. Skip didn't pay attention when Boris Diaw was probably the 2nd best player at Eurobasket 2005 (right behind Dirk) and the Suns play a European style of ball.

So because skip doesn't follow the league closely enough to make informed predictions Nash and his team overachieved.

According to Vegas' over/under the Suns aren't overachieving, they're doing what they were supposed to do.

Five-ofan
04-20-2006, 11:55 AM
Look at KJs 1988 season and tell me exactly what steve nash does as well as he did let alone better than him and then we can talk about steve nash being a back to back mvp winner. As to the question previously mentioned about what im arguing against when i said that you dont make people better you just put them in an easier position to succeed, i think dirk does it to almost the same extent nash does while being miles better himself.

orangedays
04-20-2006, 12:18 PM
I just looked at his stats...

The best Johnson ever made was All-NBA Second Team, with stats that are around 22 ppg, 11 apg, 4 rpg, 1.3 spg, on 50% shooting from 1988-1991.

The times, they are a-changing.

Five-ofan
04-20-2006, 12:30 PM
My point exactly. KJ was better than nash and he never got first team all nba let alone mvp consideration.

orangedays
04-21-2006, 04:12 PM
This is unrelated, but I saw Bayless on ESPN this afternoon talking about the playoffs (he had us losing to the Spurs) - the guy is a complete clown. Acts like your average fan - he even said that Kobe would win the MVP. Eh.

nashtymavsfan13
04-21-2006, 04:37 PM
I've always disliked Skip Bayless. He's very opinionated, and his opinions are always horrible and very rarely right.

u2sarajevo
04-21-2006, 05:00 PM
Skip Bayliss refuses to believe Troy Aikman is married. Or rather, that his marriage is a cover-up for his homosexual tendencies.

nashtymavsfan13
04-21-2006, 05:20 PM
Skip Bayliss refuses to believe Troy Aikman is married. Or rather, that his marriage is a cover-up for his homosexual tendencies.


cuz he's stupid. he has no buisness being a commentator/sportswriter, he really doesnt know what he's talking about.

Nemesis
04-21-2006, 07:18 PM
His side-kick on ESPN is just about as dumb as Bayliss. There are actually posters on this site that I would rather see hosting Cold Pizza than those two morons! Unfortunately, that is not saying alot.

dude1394
04-21-2006, 09:58 PM
One other thing. The Suns were in NO WAY "slaughtered" at the hands of the Spurs. You did watch that series, right? (I'm sure that you did.) The Suns were either leading, tied, or within a basket in the final two minutes of every game in that series, save one. Trust me, with different bounces it could have gone the other way.

Dude 4-1 is slaughtered! SCOREBOARD.

dude1394
04-21-2006, 10:00 PM
Its yet to be seen who will have the last laugh...

but Nash was laughing pretty damn hard when he Mark Cuban and the Mavericks in last year's playoffs.

This looks like the point you are really trying to make here.

chumdawg
04-21-2006, 10:12 PM
Dude 4-1 is slaughtered! SCOREBOARD.If you're the kind of guy who knows all he needs to know about a series and the way it is played by simply looking at the game count and not having to watch the games, then yeah, I guess you're right.

You will forgive me, I hope, for seeking a deeper analysis.

dude1394
04-21-2006, 10:15 PM
If you're the kind of guy who knows all he needs to know about a series and the way it is played by simply looking at the game count and not having to watch the games, then yeah, I guess you're right.

You will forgive me, I hope, for seeking a deeper analysis.

All it sounds like is coulda', woulda', shoulda'. It's the scoreboard man. At the end of the day they couldn't win more than 1 game. Slaughtered is very apt.

If it was 4-0 then murdered might befit it better. Funny how the pistons didn't get beat 4-1. Those games were close as well if I recall.

chumdawg
04-21-2006, 10:51 PM
Are you saying that all series that finish 4-1 are equally played? In the sense that the beaten team got beaten equally bad in all games?

Thespiralgoeson
04-22-2006, 12:28 AM
Are you saying that all series that finish 4-1 are equally played? In the sense that the beaten team got beaten equally bad in all games?

I don't know about Dude, but that's certainly not what I was implying. In both series' (Mavs/Kings in 04 and Suns/Spurs in 05) the opponents were very closely matched, and easily could have gone 7 games. Hell, even the outcome could have been different. But as Dude pointed out, when it was all said and done, the Mavs and Suns couldn't win more than 1 game in those respective series'. When it game to crunch time, when the games were on the line, the Kings and Spurs came out on top 4 out of 5 times. That qualifies as ownership, as in the Kings owned the Mavs, and the Spurs owned the Suns. Those individual games may have been very closely contested, but in the end, the series' were lop-sided.

chumdawg
04-22-2006, 12:33 AM
If we decide to toss a coin for twenty bucks, and you win the coin toss, you are more than welcome to the twenty dollars but you are stretching things to get in my face and tell me I had no chance, that I was slaughtered. It may well have happened another way.

Thespiralgoeson
04-22-2006, 12:44 AM
If we decide to toss a coin for twenty bucks, and you win the coin toss, you are more than welcome to the twenty dollars but you are stretching things to get in my face and tell me I had no chance, that I was slaughtered. It may well have happened another way.

Well forgive me, but I hardly consider an NBA playoff series, no matter how closely the opponents are matched, to be a coin toss.

MFFL
04-23-2006, 03:57 PM
a team that was on the rise, that had steadily improved each and every season, and that contained two All-NBA players, two MVP candidates, whose games were just beginning to reach the next level..

What? Nash was NOT a MVP player in Dallas. He wasn't even an All-Star his last year here. Maybe if Nellie had used Nash properly then Cuban would have known what he had and would have given him the money. Plus didn't Nash QUIT playing international ball once he signed with Phoenix - something the Mavs had wanted him to do for years? And was the Nash who played for Dallas in the same physical condition as he is now? Didn't Nellie constantly worry about Nash breaking down because of his frail physique?

And as for Nash's MVP chances this season, it hinges on two things. One - he makes his teammates better.

Hollinger said "The most frequently made argument in Nash's favor is that seven Suns are having career-highs in scoring, but this one is an obvious red herring. For starters, one of those seven is Nash himself."

FIVE Mavs are having career-highs in scoring this season (Dirk, Howard, Daniels, Harris, & Diop). Using the same logic, Dirk is making his teammates better too.

The second part of the Nash MVP argument is the fact the Suns survived the Amare injury. Well the Mavs have survived a PLAGUE of injuries this year and Dirk doesn't get any credit for it at all. In fact most coaches would rather have a player go out before the start of the year and miss the season rather than have one, two, and even three players miss long stretches of games. Its easier to gameplan rather than having to make up stuff on the fly all the time. Amare is the better player but the Mavs had an injury list that is really difficult to comprehend. For the Mavs to win 60 games was amazing. Dirk was the MVP this year despite what the voters will ultimately decide.

chumdawg
04-24-2006, 12:20 AM
What? Nash was NOT a MVP player in Dallas.At that time, Dirk wasn't either.

orangedays
04-24-2006, 08:24 AM
Apparently Shawn Marion wasn't only the most valuable player on the Suns, he was the runaway most valuable player in the League. Fantasy League that is.

Marion's #1, Dirk's #7, Nash is #9. Next closest Mav is Jet at #38.

Here. (http://www.nba.com/fantasy/features/statratrankings_060422.html)

MFFL
04-24-2006, 08:52 AM
At that time, Dirk wasn't either.

With Dirk an MVP was in the realm of possibility. He improves his game every year and is a multiple year All-Star.

There is not ONE person on the face of the earth who could have predicted that Nash had an MVP in him. Nobody. Nash didn't even make the All-Star team his final year in Dallas.

So either Nellie blew it by not showing Mark the kind of player that Nash was OR Nash dramatically improved himself after signing with Phoenix. Neither is the fault of Cuban.

chumdawg
04-24-2006, 10:36 AM
There is not ONE person on the face of the earth who could have predicted that Nash had an MVP in him. Nobody.What about that contingent of folks who showed up on his doorstep one July 1, to roll out the red carpet all the way back to Phoenix? Think they had an inclination?

What about Donnie Nelson, who said losing Nash felt like getting punched in the gut?

What about Nellie, whose heart was no longer in it after that colossal flub by Cuban?

Remember, it's not that Cuban decided the Mavs would be better off without Nash. No, not at all. He wanted Nash. Only he wanted Nash at his price, and when he couldn't get him for that he balked and whined like a teenage girl about Nash's agent.

Five-ofan
04-24-2006, 11:32 AM
That signing was ridiculed by everyone at the time. I will give phoenix props. They did a great job identifying the perfect player for their system and then doing everything possible to get him. The only problem is that we dont run their system. Their is no reason to suspect that we would have started running it and honestly even if we had, we didnt have the athletes to do so(we have the athletes but not the shooters now) I love steve nash. He is my second favorite non maverick. I give off the impression of being a nash hater because i do think he has become possibly the most overrated player in the nba. That is not the case. I love watching him play. I wish him the best except when he plays the mavs. The problem is there is no feasible objective argument for him as mvp. There was one last year because his team had the best record. Whoever is considered the mvp of the best team always has an argument because that is in and of itself an argument. Honestly i didnt think he should have won it last year but if he wins it this year it will be the worst selection in nba history. Yes HE is having a better year than HE had last year but he didnt win the mvp because of the year he had last year. He won it because of the year the SUNS had and the SUNS arent having as good a year as they had last year. Some people say Nash should win it because he is having a better year than he had last year. That is true. The only problem is there were at least 10 guys who had a better year than steve did last year, last year. Essentially the arguments that led to his being mvp last year preclude him from mvp this year.

dalmations202
04-24-2006, 02:08 PM
I guess I'll give my opinion on this one -- one last time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If any DUMB### media writer can give Steve Nash a first place vote after getting shut out in a game that he played over half the minutes in, and his team got blown out by 40+, then someone needs to B@!#$slap him into the real world.

Has any other MVP been shut out in any game during their MVP year, unless it was for injury?

Nash for MVP should be ended by the Media, period.

Not the best team. Not the only All-Star. Not the best scorer. Not a defender. Not the most dominant. Not a two way player. Not a leading scorer. Not a leader in steals (a PG that is 87th). Not Not NOT........

I am tired of hearing that Nash is a contender for MVP. All that does is make the MVP title look rigged, political, and worthless.

MFFL
04-24-2006, 02:33 PM
What about that contingent of folks who showed up on his doorstep one July 1, to roll out the red carpet all the way back to Phoenix? Think they had an inclination?

We rolled out the red carpet for Rashard Lewis - how many MVPs has he won? Doesn't every organization roll out the red carpet for prime free agents?

If the Suns thought Nash was a MVP type player then they would have offered him a max-dollar and max-year contract. That's what MVPs make. Since the Suns didn't, they must have thought a LOT of Nash but not at a MVP level.

What about Donnie Nelson, who said losing Nash felt like getting punched in the gut?

Maybe because Nash had said that money wasn't the deciding factor and then made it all about the money?

What about Nellie, whose heart was no longer in it after that colossal flub by Cuban?

If Nellie had run an offense that maximized Nash's talents then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm glad the fat-assed quiter is gone.

chumdawg
04-24-2006, 03:27 PM
If Nellie had run an offense that maximized Nash's talents then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm glad the fat-assed quiter is gone.I do not understand. Nash had gaudy stats in Dallas, and so did the offense and the team when he was here. Hell, Nash had a higher PER in '03 than he did last year.

It is nothing less than humorous that you would say Nellie's offense didn't maximize Nash's talents. Hell, Nellie's offense CREATED Nash's talents.

FINtastic
04-24-2006, 03:45 PM
I'm not saying that Nellie's offense didn't cater to Nash's ability because it obviously did, but I don't see anything wrong with MFFL's statement that it didn't maximize his ability. I mean seriously, chum, you can't argue every angle pro-Nash. You act like he's always been MVP caliber, and that he was in a system that maximized his talent? Well, then why wasn't he ever considered an MVP in Dallas? Like I said, this isn't a bash on Nellie because he put Nash in a very good system to succeed in, but it didn't fit Nash perfectly like this Phoenix system seems to. I mean seriously, is there any talk of Nash being an MVP on a team like Chicago or Indiana? No way because they don't have coaches that would be willing to run a crazy scheme like D'Antoni is (and to a lesser extent, Nellie).

MFFL
04-24-2006, 04:11 PM
I do not understand. Nash had gaudy stats in Dallas, and so did the offense and the team when he was here. Hell, Nash had a higher PER in '03 than he did last year.

It is nothing less than humorous that you would say Nellie's offense didn't maximize Nash's talents. Hell, Nellie's offense CREATED Nash's talents.

14.5 points and 8.8 assists are "gaudy"? That was his last year in Dallas. Those are "nice" stats, not gaudy. Those are the stats of a man who couldn't crack the All-Star game. Those certainly aren't the stats of someone who you suspect has MVP talent.

And you have a weird sense of humor if you don't see that a jump of almost 3 assists per game as something dramatic. Nash jumped from a 47% shooter to a 50% shooter. An extra half board per game. If Nellie had maximized Nash's ability then why the big jump? Either Nellie was doing something wrong or Nash has reinvented himself. Cuban was offering money for a product that was mislabeled.

rabbitproof
04-24-2006, 04:41 PM
Honestly, if people really saw some MVP in Nash in 2003, his jock would've been sweated by many more then Phoenix and probably for more then was actually offered by Phoenix. It would've been an open season for a Tim Duncan/Kevin Garnett/Shaq type sweepstakes. We're talking maximum deal.

It is what it is. Forward ho!

Credit to Nash for securing the deal and winning a MVP.
Credit to Phoenix for its foresight and incredible turnaround.
Credit to Dallas for overcoming the loss of a future MVP.

Edit: Stock analogy- Google at 85 bux per on the open auction. A lot of people said no way, it's overpriced. It's skyrocketed since and that 85 is looking pretty darn good. Some lost out and some got rich. Today, it's still a good stock but the price is so high that a few even say it's overrated. That doesn't mean it wasn't a good buy then and it also doesn't mean that everybody who didn't invest was an idiot or penny-pinchin'. Just the way a cookie crumbles sometimes.

madape
04-24-2006, 05:04 PM
I'm not saying that Nellie's offense didn't cater to Nash's ability because it obviously did, but I don't see anything wrong with MFFL's statement that it didn't maximize his ability. I mean seriously, chum, you can't argue every angle pro-Nash. You act like he's always been MVP caliber, and that he was in a system that maximized his talent? Well, then why wasn't he ever considered an MVP in Dallas? Like I said, this isn't a bash on Nellie because he put Nash in a very good system to succeed in, but it didn't fit Nash perfectly like this Phoenix system seems to. I mean seriously, is there any talk of Nash being an MVP on a team like Chicago or Indiana? No way because they don't have coaches that would be willing to run a crazy scheme like D'Antoni is (and to a lesser extent, Nellie).

He didn't maximize Nash's talent becasue this team's franchise player is Dirk. That being said, Dirk and Nash's games work pretty damn well together. After all, they combined to create what is is arguably the greatest offensive teams in the history of the NBA (those teams are certainly unmatched in the modern era).

FINtastic
04-24-2006, 06:08 PM
Exactly, Nellie didn't center his team around Nash because he realized Nash wasn't even the best player on his team at the time. That's a big reason why I don't think Steve Nash is an MVP.

MFFL
04-24-2006, 06:10 PM
He didn't maximize Nash's talent becasue this team's franchise player is Dirk.

Amare is the franchise player for the Suns, not Nash.

So why couldn't Nellie get an MVP performance out of Nash?

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 12:22 AM
Amare is the franchise player for the Suns, not Nash.

So why couldn't Nellie get an MVP performance out of Nash?By that metric, Nash could have NEVER won an MVP in Dallas. Never, as in: not EVER. And, or course, we both know that is true.

We both understand what is going on with MVP voting. But one of us (me) wants to say: hey, look at that Nash, he's so good that when he goes to another team he gets declared the most valuable player of the entire league! And another of us (you) wants to say: that Nash isn't that good a player, he wasn't even the best player on this team.

Point is--bottom line--Steve Nash is damn good. Damn good. We can argue all night about who is more valuable and all the rest, but the point remains that Nash is (rightfully) IN the argument. And he's a guy that Mark Cuban either could not afford or thought he was better off without. If that inspires you, all the devastating injuries that Nash may or may not withstand, like, tomorrow regardless--more power to you. Proudly buy your seat on the Mark Cuban alternative-reality bandwagon!

But if you realize that Steve Nash knows a little something about basketball, and can play a little basketball, at a very, very, very high level...then please...would you please...pretty please, with sugar on top...stop riding Cuban's jock for making such an egregious error?

I know, I know...trust me, I know. He wrote a blog entry afterward. He let you in to the innner workings of an NBA team you know and love. He showed you how he thought Nash was due to break down sooner rather than later. I know all that. I know it made you feel grateful as a fan. But please, if you please, try to retain a sense of objectivity.

Try to recongnize that Cuban was hoodwinked by an agent more clever than he. Try to recognize that Cuban set this franchise back at least one year and, now it looks like, several because of the way he was pwned in those contract negotiations.

Just try to recognize it for what it is.

Thespiralgoeson
04-25-2006, 12:39 AM
Oh he does know a little something about basketball, and he does play at a very high level.... Not MVP level... but a high level. ;)

dirno2000
04-25-2006, 12:51 AM
Chum why is everyone that thinks letting Nash walk was a sound decision riding Cuban’s nuts? I remember driving to Ft. Worth a couple of years ago to watch our summer league team play China when I heard the news…Steve Nash had agreed to sign with PHX. Needless to say I was shocked that it happened so quickly. Then I heard the contract terms and my first thought was “I’d have let his ass go too”. This was before well before tthe blog and any disparaging comments about Bill Duffy. The player that I saw in 03-04 wasn’t worth that contract. You make decisions based on the available information…sometimes it doesn’t work out. You just hope that in the end you make more good decisions than bad. We’re coming of our most successful regular season in franchise history so I’d say the subsequent decisions have worked out ok.

As for setting the team back, I don’t see it. We had a better regular season and a better playoff run after he left. If anything set us back it was having a coach whose heart wasn’t in it but still showed up to work everyday to collect a paycheck. It’s no coincidence that the team improved when it had a coach that gave a damn.

Thespiralgoeson
04-25-2006, 12:55 AM
Edit: Stock analogy- Google at 85 bux per on the open auction. A lot of people said no way, it's overpriced. It's skyrocketed since and that 85 is looking pretty darn good. Some lost out and some got rich. Today, it's still a good stock but the price is so high that a few even say it's overrated. That doesn't mean it wasn't a good buy then and it also doesn't mean that everybody who didn't invest was an idiot or penny-pinchin'. Just the way a cookie crumbles sometimes.

Excellent analogy, rabbitproof. Props to you!

FINtastic
04-25-2006, 01:00 AM
chum, I fail to see what any of that has to do with why Steve Nash deserves MVP.

Did Cuban make the right move on that fateful day in July? It's looking like he didn't although Nash's deal isn't even to the point where it was half over so there is still time for Cuban to look okay on the deal. I'm willing to admit though that Cuban may have made the wrong move. At the same time, we tied for the most wins and franchise history and are one of the top contenders for the title so I think we are doing okay for ourselves.

Regardless, I still don't think Nash is an MVP in this league. I just don't. For some reason, every positive thing that happens to the Suns is something Nash did, while any negative thing that happens to the Suns is proof that Nash is MVP. Seriously, shouldn't Mike D'Antoni get some credit for boosting the scoring averages of his players? What about Shawn Marion who does everything for that team (scores, rebounds, blocked shots, you name it) and gets unnoticed. And I'm sorry but after watching Boris Diaw this year (and I've monitored his stats closely because he is on my fantasy team), but that dude can play. I don't think he was "created" by Nash, he was just badly poorly used by Atlanta. The reason he is being widely considered one of the Most Improved Players isn't just because he is scoring more, it's because he also rebounds and passes very well. That's not nash's doing - nash may be good, but he ain't that good. Not mention, Raja Bell had two very solid years in Utah before coming to Phoenix. He's not mincemeat either. So I don't think Phoenix's solid year is all Nash's doing, even though for some reason, Nash is the only one the media wants to give credit for the success of Phoenix.

Try to recognize that Cuban set this franchise back at least one year and, now it looks like, several

Huh? I don't see necessarily how we are set back this year, when we could very well be poised to make a run for the championship. So you are giving up on this year already because of your Nash-love?

bernardos70
04-25-2006, 01:15 AM
There's no telling whether Nash would be playing the way he is now if he was still in Dallas, BTW. I think he was out to prove something to Mark Cuban when Mark decided not to give him the contract he was looking for. This point was not made originally by me, but I don't remember who made it. Please feel free to let me know if it was you.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 01:20 AM
Chum why is everyone that thinks letting Nash walk was a sound decision riding Cuban’s nuts? I remember driving to Ft. Worth a couple of years ago to watch our summer league team play China when I heard the news…Steve Nash had agreed to sign with PHX. Needless to say I was shocked that it happened so quickly. Then I heard the contract terms and my first thought was “I’d have let his ass go too”. This was before well before tthe blog and any disparaging comments about Bill Duffy. The player that I saw in 03-04 wasn’t worth that contract. You make decisions based on the available information…sometimes it doesn’t work out. You just hope that in the end you make more good decisions than bad. We’re coming of our most successful regular season in franchise history so I’d say the subsequent decisions have worked out ok.

As for setting the team back, I don’t see it. We had a better regular season and a better playoff run after he left. If anything set us back it was having a coach whose heart wasn’t in it but still showed up to work everyday to collect a paycheck. It’s no coincidence that the team improved when it had a coach that gave a damn.Well, Dirno, because that's exactly what it was. If I could give you an analogy, it would be this: After the 1994 season, Troy Aikman's contract was up. GM Jerry Jones carefully analyzed who would be likely to offer Aikman a contract, and how much they could offer. He determined that Pittsburgh was the only team that would come after Aikman. Further, he determined that with their cap space left, Pittsburgh wanted to sign not just one guy, but in fact two. He ran all these numbers and decided just how low a number he could offer Aikman and still be the highest bidder. Yes, Aikman had performed admirably and all of that. But there was no loyalty in this discussion. This was all about how cheaply Jones could negotiate this contract.

So he meets with Aikman on the first day of free agency, and he gives his offer. It seems okay with Aikman. It's a shitload of money, that's for sure. But then, here comes Pittsburgh. They are offering a bit more, and they are putting on a hard sales pitch.

You want to stay with the team that you have helped build from the ground up. But, man, you want to be recognized also. Your own team doesn't want you as much as an outside team does? You call Jones to tell him what you have been offered, and Jones says "See you later, cowboy. Best of luck to you."

You go on to win a championship at the hands of those same Cowboys. It's not Neil O'Donnell throwing balls to Larry Brown. It's Troy Aikman throwing balls for touchdowns.

Does that sting your Cowboys heart a little bit? Well, that's what happened when Mark Cuban dropped his pants and showed his white ass on July 1, 2004.

And to me, it stings.

There are bad decisions, and there are the kind of God-awful BAD decisions that set a franchise back for years and even decades. Cuban's hubris in the Nash negotiations was one of those.

I fully believe that there is a Cuban Curse on these Mavericks, and that they won't win anything during his ownership. I hope I'm wrong, because I would sure love to celebrate a Mavericks championship. But I recognize that bad karma like that does not go unrewarded. We saw it last year, when Nash near singlehandedly dismissed us from the playoffs. We have it waiting for us, if we see Finley in another series.

These Mavs are doomed at the hands of Mark Cuban. They have sacrificed integrity and the chance to win for the almight dollar, for a couple million per year on a loyal employee's desserved contract.

Karma lasts a long time.

Thespiralgoeson
04-25-2006, 01:25 AM
Also, if Cuban had re-signed Nash, who would've been our starting center last year?

Some people have very short memories. It wasn't that long ago when the one thing that kept us from being legit in the eyes of most fans (including mine) was a center who could defend and rebound. We had DESPERATELY needed a center for something like four years, and the problem was made that much more hard to ignore after the failure that was the 03-04 season. So let's step into Mark Cuban's shoes. We just lost in the first round after going to the conference finals, and we still can't guard anybody in the paint or on the perimeter. You have every intention of re-signing Nash and you have an idea of how much it will cost you. However, your top priority is to acquire a center. Erick Dampier looks to be the kind of guy that meets the team's needs, you pay what you need to for him. Remember, he's a bigman, and a sought-after one at that, so he ain't cheap. But surprise! Before you can do that Nash gets an offer nobody thought he would. So now you have a dilemma. Do you keep Nash, and TRY to get another center through trade or free agency, even though there doesn't seem to be anyone else available that can give your team what it needs? OR, do you get the center you need and want, let Nash walk, and take your chances by drafting Devin Harris and trading for Jason Terry?

I'm not saying we Maverick fans got the better end of the deal, but Chum and the rest are sorely mistaken when they pretend that there was no logic in Cuban's decision. It was a calculated risk, and one could say it backfired. I, however, am not one of those people because I see a team that improved afterward, and is closer to a championship now than it ever was when Nash was here. But that's just me.

Edit: Chum is also sorely mistaken when he accuses people who saw the logic in his thinking of "riding cuban's nuts." Chum, I have never in my life ridden anyone's nuts, especially not Mark Cuban's. I wanted what was best for the team, and I agreed with the decision. I might have been wrong, although it's certainly not impossible to make a case that it wasn't ultimately in the team's best interests. And I sure as hell wasn't riding Cuban's nuts when we traded for Antoine Walker and let Raja Bell walk.

Thespiralgoeson
04-25-2006, 01:33 AM
You go on to win a championship at the hands of those same Cowboys. It's not Neil O'Donnell throwing balls to Larry Brown. It's Troy Aikman throwing balls for touchdowns.

Does that sting your Cowboys heart a little bit? Well, that's what happened when Mark Cuban dropped his pants and showed his white ass on July 1, 2004.


Chum, if Nash had won a championship last year, or he wins won before we do, I'll consider that a valid analogy. But to date, Phoenix and Dallas are even when it comes to championships, so the analogy is completely invalid. If the Mavs win the title this year, or any year for that matter as long as the Suns don't win one first, I can't justify saying Cuban's decision making was anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 01:36 AM
But remember, Spiral, Nash wasn't traded for Dampier. It was Najera and Laettner and draft picks who were traded for Dampier.

If you are saying that Cuban had to ditch Nash's salary in order to be able to take on Dampier long-term, that is one thing. But all that does it put Cuban squarely in the class of most other owners in the league.

I'm sure Cuban enjoys looking like Daddy Warbucks, and I'm sure he would resent that.


Let's quit kidding everyone here, if we can. Cuban wishes for all the world that he could re-live July 1, 2004. He was PAINED beyond belief when Nash's Suns sent the Mavs home last spring. He KNEW that he had been bettered. And that bothered him.

But in his way, it didn't bother Cuban that much. Because now he is no longer trying to win a championship at all costs, as he was when we first began with the Mavericks. Now he is trying to win at a profit. And he will be satisfied with either.

Recognize that, and you will truly know who owns and runs this team. It doesn't mean we can't win, and it certainly doesn't mean we will. It only means that Mark Cuban is no different than at least 20 of the other 29 owners in this league.

So can we stop the Cuban nut-sucking? I'd be glad if we did.

MFFL
04-25-2006, 01:36 AM
By that metric, Nash could have NEVER won an MVP in Dallas. Never, as in: not EVER. And, or course, we both know that is true.

We both understand what is going on with MVP voting. But one of us (me) wants to say: hey, look at that Nash, he's so good that when he goes to another team he gets declared the most valuable player of the entire league! And another of us (you) wants to say: that Nash isn't that good a player, he wasn't even the best player on this team.

Point is--bottom line--Steve Nash is damn good. Damn good. We can argue all night about who is more valuable and all the rest, but the point remains that Nash is (rightfully) IN the argument. And he's a guy that Mark Cuban either could not afford or thought he was better off without. If that inspires you, all the devastating injuries that Nash may or may not withstand, like, tomorrow regardless--more power to you. Proudly buy your seat on the Mark Cuban alternative-reality bandwagon!

But if you realize that Steve Nash knows a little something about basketball, and can play a little basketball, at a very, very, very high level...then please...would you please...pretty please, with sugar on top...stop riding Cuban's jock for making such an egregious error?

I know, I know...trust me, I know. He wrote a blog entry afterward. He let you in to the innner workings of an NBA team you know and love. He showed you how he thought Nash was due to break down sooner rather than later. I know all that. I know it made you feel grateful as a fan. But please, if you please, try to retain a sense of objectivity.

Try to recongnize that Cuban was hoodwinked by an agent more clever than he. Try to recognize that Cuban set this franchise back at least one year and, now it looks like, several because of the way he was pwned in those contract negotiations.

Just try to recognize it for what it is.

Can you TRY to be more condescending?

First my opinion is "humorous". Now I need a "seat on the Mark Cuban alternative-reality bandwagon" and I'm "riding Cuban's jock". The biggest kicker is that I need to "retain a sense of objectivity".

I'm tearing your argument apart piece by piece and you are sadly resorting to personal attacks.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 01:39 AM
Chum, if Nash had won a championship last year, or he wins won before we do, I'll consider that a valid analogy. But to date, Phoenix and Dallas are even when it comes to championships, so the analogy is completely invalid. If the Mavs win the title this year, or any year for that matter as long as the Suns don't win one first, I can't justify saying Cuban's decision making was anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be.Oh, if the Mavs win this year, I'll be the first to say mea culpa.

If they lose to Nash again, this time in the WCF, will you say that Cuban was withoiut question the most inept general manager in ALL of sports?

MFFL
04-25-2006, 01:42 AM
Well, Dirno, because that's exactly what it was. If I could give you an analogy, it would be this: After the 1994 season, Troy Aikman's contract was up.

Invalid analogy. Troy had won TWO superbowls by the '94 season. Cuban would have spent whatever it would have taken to keep Nash if we had won two championships before he went into free agency. You might argue against it but Cuban wants a winner BAD and IMO he would have kept a club together that had won multiple championships.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 01:46 AM
Can you TRY to be more condescending?

First my opinion is "humorous". Now I need a "seat on the Mark Cuban alternative-reality bandwagon" and I'm "riding Cuban's jock". The biggest kicker is that I need to "retain a sense of objectivity".

I'm tearing your argument apart piece by piece and you are sadly resorting to personal attacks.My apologies if you took it as personal. I hardly know who you are.

Your substantive arguments seemed to be predicated upon the 2004 season, at the expense of the seasons that came before. By the same measure, Dirk Nowitzki wouldn't have shone in so bright a light. (We all know what happned in the '04 season, if we are informed Mavericks fans.)

It was my understanding that you claimed Steve Nash was substantively a better player in his MVP year than he was in any of his Mavericks years. (And further, that no one could ever have imagined that he could have attained MVP status based on the skill set he possessec in his Mavericks days.)

I thought that my pointing out that his PER was actually higher as a Maverick in 2003 than as a Sun in 2005 would have put those theories to rest.

Please tell me, why do you proceed?

rabbitproof
04-25-2006, 01:47 AM
It sucks to dump your girl and have her win the lotto and go from a 7 to a 10 right before your eyes. It doesn't get any better if she hooks up with your coworker right before she became a dime and a millionaire. It sucks the royal flush.

But all this lamenting and coulda bidness reminds me of the guy who can't stop talking about his ex. That dude who has seemingly moved zero inches since that fateful day.

Well, @#$% that skank. We're doing all right without her, and I really do respect Nash the baller, but we got a regular MVP contender, a newly-minted COY, a record-tying 60-win team and the season is just getting started! 95% of the fans in the league would kill to have those tags. Plus, we're set to be nasty for about the next ~5 years.

It's all in your perspective and attitude. Forward or backward? What coulda or what can be? Besides, God made the offseason so we could talk about what we should've done differently.

Let's go Mavericks!

dirno2000
04-25-2006, 01:47 AM
Chum your comparing a team that was a year removed from winning the Superbowl to a team that had just lost in the first round of the playoffs...largely because of Nash. I don't think that analogy works.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 01:55 AM
Invalid analogy. Troy had won TWO superbowls by the '94 season. Cuban would have spent whatever it would have taken to keep Nash if we had won two championships before he went into free agency. You might argue against it but Cuban wants a winner BAD and IMO he would have kept a club together that had won multiple championships.The difference being that Cuban has, and still does not have, any championship pedigree to fall upon. By your logic, Josh Howard is gone to the highest bidder this offseason. (Or whenever he is up.)

You hang on to your players. You hang on even when you don't get the whole way. You don't get rid of Aikman when you lose in the playoffs in 1991, any more than you get rid of Howard now or you get rid of Nash then. You just don't get rid of your of your players, if you can afford it.

MFFL
04-25-2006, 01:57 AM
My apologies if you took it as personal. I hardly know who you are.

What an out. So because you don't KNOW something you think it's OK to call them a jock rider?

Your substantive arguments seemed to be predicated upon the 2004 season, at the expense of the seasons that came before.

Nash's 8.8 assists per game in his last year in Dallas were a CAREER HIGH. His shooting percentage was higher than the year before. So you are incorrect yet again.

It was my understanding that you claimed Steve Nash was substantively a better player in his MVP year than he was in any of his Mavericks years. (And further, that no one could ever have imagined that he could have attained MVP status based on the skill set he possessec in his Mavericks days.)

I thought that my pointing out that his PER was actually higher as a Maverick in 2003 than as a Sun in 2005 would have put those theories to rest.

PER is just another stat. Do you think MVP voters weighed the various PER ratings of each player and based their decision on that?

Please tell me, why do you proceed?

Why do you? My POW is at least as valid as yours.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 01:58 AM
Chum your comparing a team that was a year removed from winning the Superbowl to a team that had just lost in the first round of the playoffs...largely because of Nash. I don't think that analogy works.Largely because of Nash? Largely becuase of Nash??

It was a team of terribly ill-fitting parts. Both Nash and Nowtizki saw their individual numbers go down. It was a horribly assembled team.

And as soon as Nash got out of there, he won the MVP.

Try again.

Thespiralgoeson
04-25-2006, 02:02 AM
Oh, if the Mavs win this year, I'll be the first to say mea culpa.

If they lose to Nash again, this time in the WCF, will you say that Cuban was withoiut question the most inept general manager in ALL of sports?

Well, considering that this means the Mavericks will in fact reach the Western Conference Finals which would require us first to defeat the defending champions, I'm going to say, no.

And I really REALLY don't appreciate the "nut sucking" comments.

Chum, read what I said. I said that Cuban may have turned out to be wrong, but his thinking at the time wasn't without logic, and it wasn't.

But remember, Spiral, Nash wasn't traded for Dampier. It was Najera and Laettner and draft picks who were traded for Dampier.

If you are saying that Cuban had to ditch Nash's salary in order to be able to take on Dampier long-term, that is one thing.

That's exactly what I was saying, and I thought everyone already knew that. Cuban let Nash walk because we were already too far over the salary cap to have any kind of flexibility, let alone the kind to sign a center like Damp. I thought that was common knowledge. It seems to me like you're suggesting that he just all of a sudden had a change of heart and just got greedy; that his financial decisions had absolutely nothing to do with helping the team win.

But all that does it put Cuban squarely in the class of most other owners in the league.

Again, I think that decision as well as every other decision he's made as owner was made to help the team win, in the long run or in the short run. He realized that all of his overspending in the past had come back to bite him in the ass by restricting his ability to improve the team in the offseason, so now he thinks the smart thing to do is to try to be a little more rational when it comes to handing out expensive long-term contracts.

Call it "nutsucking" if you want, but if there's anything I think one can say about Cuban is that he will do whatever is in his power to bring a championship to Dallas.

You dispute that because he let Nash walk. So you're saying that letting Nash walk was only about saving money, and that he knowingly sacrificed the greater good of this team for his wallet. I'm telling you that's bullshit. I'm saying he made the decision that he ultimately thought was best for the team. I'm not saying he was right, but merely what his goal was; it was the same as it was before and still is today.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 02:05 AM
What an out. So because you don't KNOW something you think it's OK to call them a jock rider?I only meant that it wasn't personal, as you suggested. From what I do know of you, I certainly wouldn't engage in any personal attacks (as you accused me of doing). I respect your opinion.


Nash's 8.8 assists per game in his last year in Dallas were a CAREER HIGH. His shooting percentage was higher than the year before. So you are incorrect yet again.I'm not sure how I am "incorrect," but still and all, there is very little to be gained by comparing Nash's stats from one team to the other. I mean, c'mon, we all know Nash is going to get more assists over there than he did here. Doesn't necessarily make him a better ballplayer, but it's the truth.

PER is just another stat. Do you think MVP voters weighed the various PER ratings of each player and based their decision on that?If you think PER is "just another stat, why do you expect me to take seriously any argument you would make?

Why do you? My POW is at least as valid as yours.Of course it is. At least as much. Only it would seem these days, on this board, that the anti-Nash faction gets a leg up. Heil Cuban, and all that.

MFFL
04-25-2006, 02:05 AM
The difference being that Cuban has, and still does not have, any championship pedigree to fall upon.

You think Jerry Jones had a pedigree? He has been the GM of the Boys since the day he bought the team.

You hang on to your players. You hang on even when you don't get the whole way. You don't get rid of Aikman when you lose in the playoffs in 1991, any more than you get rid of Howard now or you get rid of Nash then. You just don't get rid of your of your players, if you can afford it.

Aikman was 24 (25 maybe?) in 1991. Nash was 30 when he was a free agent. THIRTY.

Pick a better analogy.

And I agree that you should try to hang onto your better players. But Nash left us. Let me repeat that - NASH LEFT US! He didn't give Cuban even 24 hours to talk to Nellie and Donnie. Nash chose the money.

dirno2000
04-25-2006, 02:09 AM
Largely because of Nash? Largely becuase of Nash??

Yea largely because if Nash...he got his ass chewed up in the playoffs again.

Based on what I'd seen I wouldn’t' have given him that contract either and it has nothing to do with the blog.

You can disagree and that's fine. It's become a circular argument and all the angels have been dissected. I just don't like the implication that if you think it was ok to let Nash walk then you’re a mindless homer that worships at the alter of Cuban. It’s not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

MFFL
04-25-2006, 02:10 AM
Only it would seem these days, on this board, that the anti-Nash faction gets a leg up. Heil Cuban, and all that.

And that's fine. Nash is the little traitor who quit the team over money when he said that it wasn't about the money. He deserves all the abuse he gets.

And you don't have to like or admire Cuban to hate Nash.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 02:15 AM
Call it "nutsucking" if you want, but if there's anything I think one can say about Cuban is that he will do whatever is in his power to bring a championship to Dallas.

You dispute that because he let Nash walk. So you're saying that letting Nash walk was only about saving money, and that he knowingly sacrificed the greater good of this team for his wallet. I'm telling you that's bullshit. I'm saying he made the decision that he ultimately thought was best for the team. I'm not saying he was right, but merely what his goal was; it was the same as it was before and still is today.Spiral, I like you, so I am going to refrain from any venom, but do you realize what you are saying?

Cuban MADE AN OFFER to Nash on the dawn of free agency. He WANTED Nash. And, over MONEY, he did NOT get the player he WANTED.

I hate to use caps like that, but how else will you understand. Cuban wanted Nash, and he didn't get Nash. And the ONLY think standing in the way was money.

Now, if you want to say: Wow, look how well Cuban responded after he on the Nash negotiations, that's okay with me! That's certainly where I am now.

If you want to give him a pass for his God-awful GM'ing in the summer of '04, perhaps because he explaained himself to you in his blog, I'm cool with that. But recognize it for what it is.

He wanted Nash to be his point guard, for several years. When he learned that Nash wouldn't be, he worried about his first-round draft pick being unprotected.

Has he recovered decently? Yes, he has. But please, don't give the idiot credit for his bonehead decision.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 02:19 AM
Yea largely because if Nash...he got his ass chewed up in the playoffs again.

Based on what I'd seen I wouldn’t' have given him that contract either and it has nothing to do with the blog.

You can disagree and that's fine. It's become a circular argument and all the angels have been dissected. I just don't like the implication that if you think it was ok to let Nash walk then you’re a mindless homer that worships at the alter of Cuban. It’s not as clear cut as you make it out to be.I am so, SO loathe to resort to the dude-esque retort of "scoreboard," but hey, the guy we thought wasn't worth another million a year did go on and win the MVP the next season and--far, FAR more importantly--bounce out of of the playoffs near single-handedly in the midst of a 58-win season.

What more could Nash have done?

Thespiralgoeson
04-25-2006, 02:22 AM
Chum, there's a reason for the "anti-Nash faction" and "heil Cuban" movement.

In my case, it's because the "pro-Nash" faction and the 02-03 Mav-lovers are one and the same.

Every argument about Cuban's decision and Nash's worth rests upon the success that this team enjoyed while Nash was here. And you and all the rest will point to that 03 team and go on pointing at it until you're rotting in your graves. You'll talk about how great that team was, how it was on the verge of a championship and so on, until Mark Cuban threw it all away by letting Steve Nash walk.

And I'm on the other side. The side that, inspite of how much I loved that team, never believed in it. I sincerely do NOT want to get into another debate about the 03 team, but I honestly didn't think that team was legit. I thought that team was a sheep in wolve's clothing, and that it would never get past the San Antonios and Sacramentos of the league unless some very dramatic changes were made. I also believed that that team's window was closing, just like Sacramento's window was closing.

Basically what I'm saying is, the "anti-nash" faction consists of the folks who believe that the Mavericks as they are currently constructed are a significantly better team than they were in 03. I'm one of these people.

Also, the "pro-Nash" faction these days seems to be the national media, and as such is synonymous with the Anti-Dirk faction, and so I think the resentment factor also comes into play.

MFFL
04-25-2006, 02:22 AM
I am so, SO loathe to resort to the dude-esque retort of "scoreboard," but hey, the guy we thought wasn't worth another million a year

I don't think it was the "million a year" but the 5th year of $12M that killed the deal.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 02:26 AM
Aikman was 24 (25 maybe?) in 1991. Nash was 30 when he was a free agent. THIRTY.

Pick a better analogy.

And I agree that you should try to hang onto your better players. But Nash left us. Let me repeat that - NASH LEFT US! He didn't give Cuban even 24 hours to talk to Nellie and Donnie. Nash chose the money.Nash has already proven that he has several years of high-caliber play in front of him. In his first two years of his new contract, he has down nothing less than win an MVP and probably finish in the top three of the MVP voting the second year. I'm serious, I do not like to say "scoreboard." But in times like this, how can you stop? Here you are, trying to say that Nash doesn't fit here, and here is Nash, winning one MVP and getting close to (if not winning) another. I just don't know what to say for you. I feel like I am spotting several points to someone in a card game. For some reason, you have chosen to take on the underdog.

I don't give a shit aboiut the time involved, unless I do. The Mavs should have been on the guy's doorstep, signing him up before the Suns could get to him.

Trust me, this will prove to be a black eye on the Mavs franchise.

Why do some of you seem to think that Steve Nash is a forgettable and replaceable player?

Thespiralgoeson
04-25-2006, 02:34 AM
Spiral, I like you, so I am going to refrain from any venom, but do you realize what you are saying?

Cuban MADE AN OFFER to Nash on the dawn of free agency. He WANTED Nash. And, over MONEY, he did NOT get the player he WANTED.

I hate to use caps like that, but how else will you understand. Cuban wanted Nash, and he didn't get Nash. And the ONLY think standing in the way was money.

SO HE COULD GET ERICK DAMPIER!!!!!!!!!!

He let Nash go so he could commit to Dampier! It wasn't to fatten his wallet. The player he wanted was Dampier, and he got him!

Now, if you want to say: Wow, look how well Cuban responded after he on the Nash negotiations, that's okay with me! That's certainly where I am now.

If you want to give him a pass for his God-awful GM'ing in the summer of '04, perhaps because he explaained himself to you in his blog, I'm cool with that. But recognize it for what it is.

He wanted Nash to be his point guard, for several years. When he learned that Nash wouldn't be, he worried about his first-round draft pick being unprotected.

Has he recovered decently? Yes, he has. But please, don't give the idiot credit for his bonehead decision.

Well, I'm still not convinced that we'd be better than we are now had he re-signed Nash, because as far as I can tell that would have come at the cost of rebuilding the team in Avery Johnson's image; the image I feel is the one that can take us to the championship. As far as I'm concerned, if Steve Nash were still here, we'd still be a jumpshooting team with no presence in the middle and we'd still have a snowball's chance in hell against the Spurs. Maybe the problems would've been fixed last offseason, I don't know, but either way another year would've been sacrificed.

So no, I don't see it as "god-awful" GM-ing. I see it as very, very tough decision that in the end probably wasn't the right one. But chum, nothing you say... NOTHING will convince me that re-signing Steve Nash was the obvious choice. No ammount of remeniscing about the glory days of 2003, or pointing out Phoenix's subsequent success, or Erick-Dampier bashing will convince me that anyone on this earth thought that Steve Nash was capable of being the league MVP.

And as far as I can see, the team got better, so no, I won't call it god-awful GMing and I certainly won't call it .

If seeing this team for what it is and giving credit where credit is due is nutsucking, then I'll proudly suck Mark Cuban's nuts. Just give me a little salt, and a glass of water to wash it down.

chumdawg
04-25-2006, 02:58 AM
Spiral, I can't include you in it, because I like you too much, but anyone who thinks the Mavericks are better off without an MVP than with an MVP deserves to have their head examined.

It would be somewhat like the Bulls being better off without Jordan, the Jazz being better off without Malone, the Lakers being better off without Magic.

In short, no sane person would make that claim. Win Dirk as he will, it doesn't mean that Nash was not a competitor.

Thespiralgoeson
04-25-2006, 03:43 AM
Spiral, I can't include you in it, because I like you too much, but anyone who thinks the Mavericks are better off without an MVP than with an MVP deserves to have their head examined.

It would be somewhat like the Bulls being better off without Jordan, the Jazz being better off without Malone, the Lakers being better off without Magic.

In short, no sane person would make that claim. Win Dirk as he will, it doesn't mean that Nash was not a competitor.

And in turn, I think anyone who sincerely believes that Steve Nash belongs in the same category as Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, or Karl Malone deserves to have their head examined as well.

It's not at all that I think Nash wouldn't fit into our current "system" or that Jason Terry even close to the player that Nash is. It's what would the rest of the roster look like if Nash had been re-signed. There are so many variables to that equation, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

If another center of equal or close to Dampier's level could've been acquired at a cheaper price, then sure. I remember Donnie saying that the Mavs originally intended for Harris to be Nash's backup, so assuming that deal would've gone through as well, then sure, we'd be better.

A roster that lookes something like

Nash/Harris
Finley/Daniels
Howard/Stackhouse
Dirk/KVH
Damp/Bradley

Yes, that's a roster I would've loved to have seen last year. But I can't believe that keeping Nash would not have come at the cost of not acquiring Dampier, and also, with Nash's brand new contract on the books, would Cuban have been willing to take on more contracts like Stackhouse' or Van Horn's? More importantly, would we have been able to aqcuire a servicable starting center? That was my biggest fear. If the roster looked like

Nash/Harris
Finley/Daniels
Howard/name your spare
Dirk/Hendu
name your spare/Bradley

If our lineup looks anything like that, then I'm sorry, but I think we are indeed better without the MVP. IMO, a year still would've been sacrificed and we wouldn't be any closer to a title.

And furthermore, let's just say Cuban was willing or able to commit that kind of money to both Nash and Damp, or any center for that matter. What happens when Josh Howard becomes a free agent? Hell, what happens when Dirk becomes a free agent?

Our cap situation would be as bad or worse than the Knicks, sure we'd have a lot more to show for it, but Cuban's fear that things could go very bad for us weren't unfounded at all.

In this situation you've got two guys over 30 making max dollars or close to it, all the while you have to worry about whether or not you can afford to keep your franchise player and your young up and coming star.

And lastly, one must not forget that the biggest fear, the main reason Nash wasn't re-signed was the idea that his body would wear down as the season went on and that his skills would decline. So far this has obviously not been the case at all, but Cuban had no way of knowing that.

Again, there are so many variables to that equation, there's absolutely no way of telling what ultimately would've happened to the team. Maybe we'd win a championship... But then again, maybe our window would close the way it closed on the Knicks, Pacers, Blazers, and Kings of old. Granted, none of them had a player like Dirk, but then we get back to the possibility that we might not be able to re-sign Dirk. And then we're really f*cked.

Lastly, just to clear things up about my feelings about Mark Cuban, I'll say one more time that I never have and never will ride, suck, hug, or do anything else of such nature to his testicles. As far as I'm concerned, Cuban got himself into this mess by throwing his money around like an idiot getting us ridiculously over the salary cap to begin with. The dude handed out big contracts like they were candy. If the man hadn't paid players like Raef LaFrentz, Eddie Najera, Even Eschmeyer etc so much more than what they were worth, re-signing Nash never would've been an issue in the first place.

Also, Erick Dampier should've been a Maverick before that ever happened in the first place. I still can't figure out why Dampier wasn't included in the Jamison/NVE deal, or better yet, why we didn't just get Damp straight up INSTEAD of Jamison. Imagine if in 03-04 we'd have had Dampier as our starting center (playing for a contract no less). But no, we had to suffer through the likes of Danny Fortson, Mamadou N'daiye, Scott Williams, and of course Antoine Walker.

It's another discussion for another thread, but I just want it to be known that I don't have some kind of blind love for Mark Cuban. He's made plenty of bone-headed decisions. I just don't feel that letting Nash walk was nearly as boneheaded as you do.

sixeightmkw
04-25-2006, 08:52 AM
Nash can't even touch the jock of Jordan, Majic, Bird, etc...And this team is WAY better off without Nash than with him. That is just a fact of life.

Five-ofan
04-25-2006, 10:37 AM
Basically your arguments about nash having a better per the year before he went to the suns again leads to the fact that he had no business winning the mvp.