PDA

View Full Version : Two Seasons and Fading?


rabbitproof
11-18-2006, 12:06 AM
Not so much that he missed a game but at the severity of it - the guy can't even sit down in a plane ride? Certainly does not help he has to play professional basketball for the next few months.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2666590

capitalcity
11-18-2006, 12:20 AM
10,500,000
11,375,000
12,250,000
*13,125,000

Cuban did good.

nashtymavsfan13
11-18-2006, 12:20 AM
:(

Drbio
11-18-2006, 12:40 AM
I'm only surprised that it took this long to begin. I figured it would happen last year.

Flacolaco
11-18-2006, 01:03 AM
It's so mean to say this....

but this really puts me in that "told you so" kind of mood.

just a mood.

dude1394
11-18-2006, 01:14 AM
DAMN...he's on my fantasy team....dang.

fluid.forty.one
11-18-2006, 02:04 AM
I'm only surprised that it took this long to begin. I figured it would happen last year.

Me too.

Xylus
11-18-2006, 03:01 AM
He's going to have flare-ups like this from time to time, that's just the nature of his condition. Doubt he'll miss too many games this year.

EricaLubarsky
11-18-2006, 05:37 PM
Nash is the most overrated part of that team and terrible MVP choice. The team wins because they all know how to execute and have the athleticism and mismatches.

wmbwinn
11-18-2006, 05:59 PM
As I think you all know, Nash has had this problem/condition for most if not all of his career. He'll bounce back like he always does. He is actually a good example of how to deal with chronic low back pain. He is always stretching and you will see him lay on his back on the side of the court. He finds positions of comfort and stretches. He has a high pain threshold. He'll play.
Naturally, I don't know the full extent of his injury. I have noticed that when he is hurting that he tends to prefer to lay on his back or stand up. Both of those positions suggest that this back pain is discogenic (coming from the lumbar disks, degenerative changes). I have no clue if he has radiculopathy ("pinched nerve") but patients who do prefer to stand rather than to sit and they prefer to be on their back instead of on their side with the hips/knees flexed.

Anyway, I wouldn't gloat or worry either one. He'll keep playing.

Flacolaco
11-18-2006, 10:52 PM
and once again tonight....the Suns score 117 points and lose a game.

How do you score 117 points (without your MVP) and lose a game?

Have fun phoenix. have fun with your Nellie ball and your awesome offense.

EricaLubarsky
11-18-2006, 11:36 PM
If Nash had played, he would have single-handedly kept the Jazz to 89pts

chumdawg
11-19-2006, 01:14 AM
It's not uncommon for teams to play less than optimally when they are missing their best player.

Drbio
11-19-2006, 01:18 AM
It's not uncommon for teams to play less than optimally when they are missing their best player.

Pretty strange thing to say about a team that just scored 117 points.

chumdawg
11-19-2006, 01:27 AM
Pretty strange thing to say about a team that just scored 117 points.Not at all, when they lost.

Thespiralgoeson
11-19-2006, 08:09 AM
Nash is the most overrated part of that team and terrible MVP choice. The team wins because they all know how to execute and have the athleticism and mismatches.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to EricaLubarsky again."

purplefrog
11-19-2006, 11:28 AM
10,500,000
11,375,000
12,250,000
*13,125,000

Cuban did good.

Bingo! I love Steve Nash, but this is why Cuban decided to let him go (long-term contract for big bucks and an uncertain physical condition). It will be interesting to see how his body holds up come playoff time (if the Suns make it to the playoffs.... haha). All that said, I still miss him. :(

DevinHarriswillstart
11-19-2006, 12:35 PM
If Nash had played, he would have single-handedly kept the Jazz to 89pts

Whats funny is Bill Walton said the same thing.

chumdawg
11-19-2006, 01:25 PM
Talk about What Have You Done For Me Lately. A guy comes in and catapults your franchise from the dregs of the lottery to the top of the conference, sends you to the Conference Finals in his first year, wins not one but TWO MVP's in his first two years there, and someone has the audacity to point out his future contract?

I'm here to tell you, if Steve Nash retired today his contract would still be a BARGAIN.

The good news for Phoenix fans and fans of the NBA in general--excepting petty, bitchy Mavericks fans and Cuban nutsuckers--is that Nash isn't going to retire today, and no he isn't immediately fading.

FINtastic
11-19-2006, 01:47 PM
I'm here to tell you, if Steve Nash retired today his contract would still be a BARGAIN.

I'm pretty sure there are at least 29 GMs in the NBA that would disagree with that statement. If his career ended today, that contract would be a disaster for any GM to deal with. But since it won't end today, there's no real point in hashing out that argument. However, the point is that injuries do look like they are becoming more of an issue in Nash's career from here on out.

And that makes this situation get a little interesting...

rabbitproof
11-19-2006, 02:09 PM
I'm pretty sure there are at least 29 GMs in the NBA that would disagree with that statement. If his career ended today, that contract would be a disaster for any GM to deal with. But since it won't end today, there's no real point in hashing out that argument. However, the point is that injuries do look like they are becoming more of an issue in Nash's career from here on out.

And that makes this situation get a little interesting...

29? Did a couple Isiah Thomas clones get promoted?

chumdawg
11-19-2006, 06:45 PM
I'm pretty sure there are at least 29 GMs in the NBA that would disagree with that statement. If his career ended today, that contract would be a disaster for any GM to deal with. But since it won't end today, there's no real point in hashing out that argument. However, the point is that injuries do look like they are becoming more of an issue in Nash's career from here on out.

And that makes this situation get a little interesting...Come again? There are more than a few GM's who would love nothing more than to fill their arenas for a few years and make it deep into the playoffs--at ANY price.

I respectfully disagree.

Thespiralgoeson
11-19-2006, 07:34 PM
Talk about What Have You Done For Me Lately. A guy comes in and catapults your franchise from the dregs of the lottery to the top of the conference, sends you to the Conference Finals in his first year, wins not one but TWO MVP's in his first two years there, and someone has the audacity to point out his future contract?

I'm here to tell you, if Steve Nash retired today his contract would still be a BARGAIN.

The good news for Phoenix fans and fans of the NBA in general--excepting petty, bitchy Mavericks fans and Cuban nutsuckers--is that Nash isn't going to retire today, and no he isn't immediately fading.

Chum, I'm not a Cuban nutsucker, nor am I a petty, bitchy Mavericks fan, and I sure as hell don't appreciate being called one. But I don't think Steve Nash's contract is a "bargain" anymore than Erick Dampier's is. Maybe that's because I don't think he should've had one MVP, let alone two, but that's me. Bottom line, the Steve Nash-less Mavericks went to the finals last year, and that's more than I can say for the Suns, or the Nash Era Mavs. And I still don't buy this notion that the Mavs somehow sacrificed a championship or multiple championships by losing Nash. Okay so we keep Nash... We still don't get past the Spurs in 04-05, and have a great deal of trouble believing Nash would've made the difference between winning and losing in the finals last year. You can say whatever you want about it, but it's just speculation- the kind that's so subjective it really comes down to whether you like Nash or not.

chumdawg
11-19-2006, 07:44 PM
I don't think Steve Nash's contract is a "bargain" anymore than Erick Dampier's is. Sorry, I stopped reading right there. I tried to dredge on, but it was more work than I wanted to perform

I won't even begin to listen to you until you recgnize the greatness that is the two-time MVP.

mqywaaah
11-19-2006, 08:26 PM
:(

FINtastic
11-19-2006, 10:44 PM
Come again? There are more than a few GM's who would love nothing more than to fill their arenas for a few years and make it deep into the playoffs--at ANY price.

I respectfully disagree.

And at the price of roughly 13 mil for the next 3 years that gave you no return on your investment? Especially considering that money could have been spent to secure the services of a player currently filling it up for Atlanta who is much younger, and I think more than a few GMs would take the 5 years of steady return for the money than 2 years of great return followed by 3 of nothing. Phoenix sacrificed its future to win now with Nash. If that now turns out to be really short (2 years in our hypothetical), I think they would end up regretting that decision.

GP
11-20-2006, 12:42 AM
This thread needs to go into the premature ejaculation category. I really, really don't understand why Mavs fans want to hate Steve Nash so much. Cuban had the opportunity to sign the guy but he didn't. You can't blame Nash for that. Cuban could have extended that contract at any time during the previous year and Nash would have bit on it. Hoping that Nash suffers a career ending injury just so that you can think Cuban was right is both inane and cruel. Did Phoenix overpay? You bet they did. However, in the pantheon of sports contracts what Nash is owed is basically nothing. Anyone ever heard of Chan Ho Park or Alfonso Soriano. Soriano just agreed to terms with the Cubs for a 136 million dollar contract at 17 mil per year. Really, 39 mil isn't jack shit to these professional teams. They aren't financially accountable at all. Just asking but how much money does Cuban have invested in Nash's replacement? Seems like the price of doing business to me.

dude1394
11-20-2006, 08:24 AM
In a lot of instances you are confusing hate with a discussion of a cold-blooded gm move. If you think that steve will break down in 2 years (like many have) then this provides proof that you were correct and that the mavs did the smart thing not re-signing him to a long-term contract. Others disagree.

You really shouldn't take it so personally.

mary
11-20-2006, 08:52 AM
However, in the pantheon of sports contracts what Nash is owed is basically nothing.

In the pantheon of sports where there is a spending salary cap and a luxury tax, let me assure you, what Steve Nash is owed is anything BUT nothing.

Anyone ever heard of Chan Ho Park or Alfonso Soriano. Soriano just agreed to terms with the Cubs for a 136 million dollar contract at 17 mil per year. Really, 39 mil isn't jack shit to these professional teams.

For the reason stated above, any financial comparisons between MLB and NBA are invalid.

Thespiralgoeson
11-20-2006, 09:09 AM
Sorry, I stopped reading right there. I tried to dredge on, but it was more work than I wanted to perform

I won't even begin to listen to you until you recgnize the greatness that is the two-time MVP.

Okay, screw you too. Two-time MVP... Sure, whoopdy-f*ckin doo. Oh yeah, except for the first was debatable to say the absolute least, and that last year's was absolute, complete, utter, undeniable, unquestionable, unf*ckingFATHOMABLE bullshit.

capitalcity
11-20-2006, 09:17 AM
Steve Cash is teh suck.

untitled
11-20-2006, 11:55 AM
As a fan of soccer, basketball, hockey, and football (i.e. TEAM sports), may I just say- who gives a flying f**k about MVPs? Last time I checked there were zero "Nash MVP" banners hanging in Phoenix since NBA teams only raise banners for, ya know, actually winning something in the playoffs.

I couldn't care less about MVPs, unless it's a FINALS MVP handed out during a Mavs TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP ceremony.

FreshJive
11-20-2006, 11:55 AM
Forbes seems to think it was a worthy investment.

Making a trip to Vegas? See if you can get Suns owner Robert Sarver to tag along. His investment group bought the Suns when they were coming off a season where they won only 29 games and finished 27 games behind the Lakers in their division. With a new NHL arena having just opened outside Phoenix and a new football stadium on the way, competition for fans and corporate dollars was going to be tough without a winning team. Enter Steve Nash who came to the Suns in Sarver's first big move as owner. The Suns went on to compile the best record in the NBA. Attendance rose 8% and the team hosted eight lucrative home playoff games helping the Suns earn the highest operating profit in the NBA last season, $40 million.

Flacolaco
11-20-2006, 12:02 PM
I don't know why, and I feel a little bad about it, but this thread makes me happy.

FINtastic
11-20-2006, 12:05 PM
Forbes seems to think it was a worthy investment.

Making a trip to Vegas? See if you can get Suns owner Robert Sarver to tag along. His investment group bought the Suns when they were coming off a season where they won only 29 games and finished 27 games behind the Lakers in their division. With a new NHL arena having just opened outside Phoenix and a new football stadium on the way, competition for fans and corporate dollars was going to be tough without a winning team. Enter Steve Nash who came to the Suns in Sarver's first big move as owner. The Suns went on to compile the best record in the NBA. Attendance rose 8% and the team hosted eight lucrative home playoff games helping the Suns earn the highest operating profit in the NBA last season, $40 million.

There's no doubt that the first two years (when you look at them completely by themselves) were a great investment for the Phoenix franchise. But that isn't the issue being discussed here...

mary
11-20-2006, 12:30 PM
Do they get a "NBA's Highest Profit" banner?

Does this mean Amare's contract was a good investment too?

They extended his contract, they went to the playoffs, they made more money. Makes sense, right?

Five-ofan
11-20-2006, 04:25 PM
And at the price of roughly 13 mil for the next 3 years that gave you no return on your investment? Especially considering that money could have been spent to secure the services of a player currently filling it up for Atlanta who is much younger, and I think more than a few GMs would take the 5 years of steady return for the money than 2 years of great return followed by 3 of nothing. Phoenix sacrificed its future to win now with Nash. If that now turns out to be really short (2 years in our hypothetical), I think they would end up regretting that decision.
I would take that player filling it up in atlanta over Nash right now even if he is healthy, JJ is a better player... Moving right along, Chum you seem to say "scoreboard" alot in this argument, well guess what, there is no scoreboard. If anything the mavs could say scoreboard since they beat the suns last year in the playoffs and have been better without nash than either they were with him or than phoenix has been with him... Yes he has 2 mvps he had no business winning. 2 MVPs and 4.49 will get you a venti caramel Frappucino at Starbucks...

chumdawg
11-20-2006, 05:04 PM
You're wrong about that. Two MVP's will get some endorsement deals you otherwise wouldn't have. Please don't be dismissive of the award's value.

Five-ofan
11-20-2006, 05:21 PM
You're wrong about that. Two MVP's will get some endorsement deals you otherwise wouldn't have. Please don't be dismissive of the award's value.
I wouldnt have been dismissive of its value if the voters hadnt been so dismissive of its tradition by giving us the most undeserving mvp in history 2 years ago and then giving it to an even more undeserving candidate the next year...

chumdawg
11-20-2006, 05:43 PM
You are certainly welcome to your opinion.

WayOutWest
11-20-2006, 06:51 PM
Part of the problem is people confusing the MVP award with the non-existant best player award. Clearly Nash has never been, nor will he ever be, the best player in the league, but he was clearly the MVP of the league when he won his first, the second award was up for debate but no shame in giving it to Nash.

While nothing compares to a title, unfortunately the NBA is a buisness and Nash more than earned his ENTIRE contract in just two years with the Suns. There is alot of value to the bottom line in marketable players, espeically when they win awards or titles.

Five-ofan
11-20-2006, 06:53 PM
Part of the problem is people confusing the MVP award with the non-existant best player award. Clearly Nash has never been, nor will he ever be, the best player in the league, but he was clearly the MVP of the league when he won his first, the second award was up for debate but no shame in giving it to Nash.

While nothing compares to a title, unfortunately the NBA is a buisness and Nash more than earned his ENTIRE contract in just two years with the Suns. There is alot of value to the bottom line in marketable players, espeically when they win awards or titles.
He was CLEARLY the mvp of the nba? Really? So leading a VASTLY more talented team to 4 more wins made him more valuable than dirk? Really?

Amare-pre surgery
Shawn Marion
Joe Johnson

Those are all VASTLY better than anyone not named dirk on the mavs that year. Do you understand what a monumental difference that is? And it led to 4 more wins... Yep, he was clearly the mvp....

Five-ofan
11-20-2006, 06:56 PM
What steve nash is, is the beneficiary of a league that went to scoring pgs and forgot how much better a true pg can make your offense look. In the earlier years, pgs were EXPECTED to be able to run an offense and pass. Now everyone acts like nash is a once in a lifetime player largely because of the fact that people dont play that way anymore. Now he has brought it back into vogue to an extent and I expect to see more true pgs...

dude1394
11-20-2006, 07:11 PM
To say that steve is one of if not the best point guard in the history of the NBA by the two MVPs cheapens it pretty good for me.

FreshJive
11-20-2006, 09:44 PM
There's no doubt that the first two years (when you look at them completely by themselves) were a great investment for the Phoenix franchise. But that isn't the issue being discussed here...

I disagree with the premise that they have sacrificed the team's future. It's only three years. They've already extended thier young players with some of the money that Nash's success has brought to the team. Joe Johnson wasn't a financial decision. He told Phoenix that he didn't want to return, and asked them not to match.

FreshJive
11-20-2006, 09:57 PM
Do they get a "NBA's Highest Profit" banner?

Does this mean Amare's contract was a good investment too?

They extended his contract, they went to the playoffs, they made more money. Makes sense, right?

Nash has already produced MVP seasons for 40% of his contract.

Flacolaco
11-20-2006, 10:29 PM
Phoenix is down 14 right now in the 2nd to Golden State

Nellie ball vs. Nellie ball.

FINtastic
11-20-2006, 11:29 PM
I disagree with the premise that they have sacrificed the team's future. It's only three years. They've already extended thier young players with some of the money that Nash's success has brought to the team. Joe Johnson wasn't a financial decision. He told Phoenix that he didn't want to return, and asked them not to match.

Oh it was very much a financial decision. Why do you think Phoenix was putzing around when it came time to resign him? Because they had tied up so much money and Nash, Marion, and Amare and didn't have the money to give Joe Johnson 70 million for 5 years. Eventually Joe Johnson got tired of Phoenix playing games with him and wanted out. When he demanded out of the situation, it gave Phoenix an easy out. Instead of saying we don't want to spend money on our players (which was the case), they could just say they were acquiescing to their player's wish. If Nash wasn't on board, I think Phoenix wouldn't have wasted much time in signing Johnson and the situation wouldn't have deteriorated to the point it did.

FINtastic
11-20-2006, 11:48 PM
Nash has already produced MVP seasons for 40% of his contract.

Well, he won MVP during 40% of his contract. It's still pretty debatable whether he actually produced MVP seasons.

EricaLubarsky
11-20-2006, 11:54 PM
nice night tonight hitting the gamewinning 3

chumdawg
11-20-2006, 11:55 PM
Chalk up yet another game-winner in Nash's ledger. Imagine what he could do if he weren't fading.

EricaLubarsky
11-20-2006, 11:58 PM
meh, he was always killer early in the season. I think its darn premature to say that missing a game or two is signs of fading.

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 12:01 AM
Eh, I don't know. His leading his team along, clearly on one leg, might just be enough to fool the voters into giving him another MVP award.

If a guy is that gutty (Kirk Gibson-esque), he deserves to be recognized.

FINtastic
11-21-2006, 12:05 AM
I didn't get to watch, but who was the one that was (supposed to be) guarding Monta Ellis? Was that Nash?

nashtymavsfan13
11-21-2006, 12:06 AM
Fading?

19 points 15 assists and the game winning three doesn't seem like fading to me....

nashtymavsfan13
11-21-2006, 12:06 AM
I didn't get to watch, but who was the one that was (supposed to be) guarding Monta Ellis? Was that Nash?

Ellis has been good all season, and he's getting plenty of chances, especially with BD out.

FINtastic
11-21-2006, 12:07 AM
I haven't watched a ton of Suns games lately, but I'm not too encouraged by Amare's recent box scores. It kind of looks like he is getting healthy again...

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 12:08 AM
Fading?

19 points 15 assists and the game winning three doesn't seem like fading to me....Tell it to the people who think the Mavs are better off without him. He could score 50, with 30 assists, and they would find a reason.

nashtymavsfan13
11-21-2006, 12:13 AM
Tell it to the people who think the Mavs are better off without him. He could score 50, with 30 assists, and they would find a reason.

Yeah, unfortunatley. I don't see how we are better off without him, is it possible to be better off without a 2 time MVP who's a team player? Sheesh.

Thespiralgoeson
11-21-2006, 12:47 AM
We can argue all day about how, but the Mavs DID get better from the 03-04 season to the 04-05 season... That's just the way it is... If you want to say they got better in spite of losing him, fine. But they're clearly not doomed without him either. Great player? Of course. Teams usually don't get better when a two-time MVP leaves.

dirno2000
11-21-2006, 12:48 AM
Yeah, unfortunatley. I don't see how we are better off without him, is it possible to be better off without a 2 time MVP who's a team player? Sheesh.

Depends on who you replace him with.

nashtymavsfan13
11-21-2006, 12:50 AM
We can argue all day about how, but the Mavs DID get better from the 03-04 season to the 04-05 season... That's just the way it is... If you want to say they got better in spite of losing him, fine. But they're clearly not doomed without him either. Great player? Of course. Teams usually don't get better when a two-time MVP leaves.

Yes, they got better in spite of losing him, and would be better with him. They aren't doomed without him, but they would be better. And yes, he's a great player and the reason we got better was because of the other moves we made.

dirno2000
11-21-2006, 12:50 AM
We can argue all day about how, but the Mavs DID get better from the 03-04 season to the 04-05 season... That's just the way it is... If you want to say they got better in spite of losing him, fine. But they're clearly not doomed without him either. Great player? Of course. Teams usually don't get better when a two-time MVP leaves.

That's why using the term 2 time MVP to describe Nash is misleading. When you think 2 time MVP you think Jordan, Bird, Magic. In other words you think dominant force. Nash more of a system player.

nashtymavsfan13
11-21-2006, 12:53 AM
Depends on who you replace him with.

Not really imo. Really the only guy he might have replaced would be Terry. I like Terry a lot, but Nash is clearly better. We could have traded Walker for someone else then, and we might have still gotten Terry, who knows. I just think the Mavs would clearly be a better team with him, I really see no way they wouldn't be because it's not like he'd be replacing Dirk or Jho.

Thespiralgoeson
11-21-2006, 12:53 AM
Yeah, unfortunatley. I don't see how we are better off without him, is it possible to be better off without a 2 time MVP who's a team player? Sheesh.

As a opposed to a 2-time MVP who's not a team player???

Besides, the "2-time MVP" bit just doesn't mean anything anymore, Nash winning MVP again last year was just a f*cking travesty. Biggest crock of shit EVER! Being the MVP now means about as much as winning a Grammy.

nashtymavsfan13
11-21-2006, 12:58 AM
As a opposed to a 2-time MVP who's not a team player???

Besides, the "2-time MVP" bit just doesn't mean anything anymore, Nash winning MVP again last year was just a f*cking travesty. Biggest crock of shit EVER! Being the MVP now means about as much as winning a Grammy.

I included the part about the team player because it is possible to bring in a 2 time MVP that isn't a team player, hurts the team chemistry, and in turns makes the team worse. Nash is not the type of player that hurts team chemistry, he helps it. Even if you don't think the 2 MVP's are justified are if you feel they don't mean anything, he is still a darn good player and I see no way that we wouldn't be a better team with him imho.

I'm not saying I think the 06-07 Mavs are not a good team, or that I don't like them. I love this team and am as big a Mavs fan as they come. Nash isn't even my favorite player anymore (he's second to Dirk) but it just bugs me that people just dismiss what players like Nash and Finley have done for this team and this franchise. I hate how just because they leave it means that almost everyone shifts their feelings towards them. They lose all sense of loyalty and respect for great Mavericks, even if they are former ones.

dirno2000
11-21-2006, 01:01 AM
Not really imo. Really the only guy he might have replaced would be Terry. I like Terry a lot, but Nash is clearly better. We could have traded Walker for someone else then, and we might have still gotten Terry, who knows. I just think the Mavs would clearly be a better team with him, I really see no way they wouldn't be because it's not like he'd be replacing Dirk or Jho.

Well if Nash is still here then Damp probably isn't. And no matter what you think of him, his signing was huge because it signaled a philosophical shift in the way this team was constructed and the way they were going to play. We were no longer going to concede the paint while trying to beat you on the perimeter.

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 01:08 AM
Did it ever strike some of you guys that perhaps YOUR definition of MVP is a little skewed?

Did it ever?

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 01:09 AM
Well if Nash is still here then Damp probably isn't. And no matter what you think of him, his signing was huge because it signaled a philosophical shift in the way this team was constructed and the way they were going to play. We were no longer going to concede the paint while trying to beat you on the perimeter.And two years into this experiment we had a guy who couldn't even get off the bench against certain opponents.

Nice try, but try again.

dirno2000
11-21-2006, 01:23 AM
And two years into this experiment we had a guy who couldn't even get off the bench against certain opponents.

Nice try, but try again.

He couldn't get off the bench against one opponent that runs plays a gimmicky style of basketball. Surely you're not suggesting that this means that playing true centers doesn't work?

And when you talk about the philosophical shift, you also have to include the Diop signing. The old Don Nelson Mavericks would have never signed (or played) a guy like Diop...and he played in the PXH series.

So this "experiment", as you put it, took the Mavs from a novelty to a serious contender.

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 01:25 AM
What I mean is: so much for your huge philosophical shift. When push came to shove, the philosophy went out the window.

Five-ofan
11-21-2006, 01:26 AM
Did it ever strike some of you guys that perhaps YOUR definition of MVP is a little skewed?

Did it ever?
Did it ever strike you that changing the criteria for mvp afte roughly 50 years of tradition is a bit ridiculous?

dirno2000
11-21-2006, 01:29 AM
What I mean is: so much for your huge philosophical shift. When push came to shove, the philosophy went out the window.
Push came to shove in the Spurs series and in the Finals too. Now we choked and lost to a lesser team in the finals but because of the philosophical shift, we had the personnel to hold Shaq in check.

And you're still ignoring the fact the Diop was part of the shift and he was huge in the PXH series.

nashtymavsfan13
11-21-2006, 01:30 AM
Well if Nash is still here then Damp probably isn't. And no matter what you think of him, his signing was huge because it signaled a philosophical shift in the way this team was constructed and the way they were going to play. We were no longer going to concede the paint while trying to beat you on the perimeter.

The reason the team's mentality changed was because of Avery, not Damp. Avery would have still come in stressing defense even if we didn't have Damp. Diop/Benga is not that much worse than Damp.

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 01:30 AM
Did it ever strike you that changing the criteria for mvp afte roughly 50 years of tradition is a bit ridiculous?No, it never occurred to me that that was what happened.

dirno2000
11-21-2006, 01:33 AM
The reason the team's mentality changed was because of Avery, not Damp. Avery would have still come in stressing defense even if we didn't have Damp. Diop/Benga is not that much worse than Damp.

If Nash was here Nellie, not Avery would be coaching the team and we wouldn't have signed Diop. I say this because as soon as he got to GS, Nellie cut a Diop-like player in Adonyl Foyle.

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 01:33 AM
Push came to shove in the Spurs series and in the Finals too. Now we choked and lost to a lesser team in the finals but because of the philosophical shift, we had the personnel to hold Shaq in check.

And you're still ignoring the fact the Diop was part of the shift and he was huge in the PXH series.We were beaten by Miami because we tried to play a "traditional" game, and they were way better than us at that game.

It goes back to the same thing it always was, when Nellie was coaching here. You don't beat Shaq at his own game. You go around him.

We weren't able to go around him.

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 01:36 AM
If Nash was here Nellie, not Avery would be coaching the team and we wouldn't have signed Diop. I say this because as soon as he got to GS, Nellie cut a Diop-like player in Adonyl Foyle.Bullshit. He has not cut Foyle. Would he like to buy his contract out? Yes? Does Foyle offer anything on the court? No.

Five-ofan
11-21-2006, 01:37 AM
No, it never occurred to me that that was what happened.
It clearly did...

dirno2000
11-21-2006, 01:39 AM
We were beaten by Miami because we tried to play a "traditional" game, and they were way better than us at that game.

We weren't able to go around him.

We lost to Miami because players who made big shot all year stopped making big shots.

It goes back to the same thing it always was, when Nellie was coaching here. You don't beat Shaq at his own game. You go around him.

Yea, I remember. Have Raef jack up 3's...that's the way to beat Shaq.

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 01:40 AM
Yea, I remember. Have Raef jack up 3's...that's the way to beat Shaq.And run Dirk at him was a genius solution?

dirno2000
11-21-2006, 01:42 AM
Bullshit. He has not cut Foyle. Would he like to buy his contract out? Yes?

Splitting hairs

Does Foyle offer anything on the court? No.

He plays defense and rebounds.

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 01:43 AM
Not better than Biedrins does.

nashtymavsfan13
11-21-2006, 01:46 AM
If Nash was here Nellie, not Avery would be coaching the team and we wouldn't have signed Diop. I say this because as soon as he got to GS, Nellie cut a Diop-like player in Adonyl Foyle.

That's mere speculation, I think Cuban was ready for a new coach and Avery would still have been coach and we would have still signed Diop imho.

nashtymavsfan13
11-21-2006, 01:47 AM
He plays defense and rebounds.

Seriously, listen to yourself, arguing for Foyle?!

Foyle does nothing, he's terrible. He can play decent D, but that's it. He gives you nothing on the offensive end and at the very best, he's average at rebounding I'd say more like below average for his size.

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 01:53 AM
You know who Foyle plays center for? A bad team, that's who.

FINtastic
11-21-2006, 02:05 AM
We were beaten by Miami because we tried to play a "traditional" game, and they were way better than us at that game.

It goes back to the same thing it always was, when Nellie was coaching here. You don't beat Shaq at his own game. You go around him.

We weren't able to go around him.

Damp held Shaq in check about as well as you can ask a defender to do, and it's pretty obvious that we certainly weren't beaten because of anything Shaq did. Changing the strategy on how we defended/attacked Shaq wouldn't have really affected the series.

FINtastic
11-21-2006, 02:07 AM
By the way, I don't want to bag on Nellie here because I like him, but how many times did Nellie's strategy successfully slay Shaq?

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 02:12 AM
By the way, I don't want to bag on Nellie here because I like him, but how many times did Nellie's strategy successfully slay Shaq?I remember Antoine Walker stymieing Shaq in December of 2003. It was the first time we beat them out there since the first Bush was president.

FINtastic
11-21-2006, 02:14 AM
I remember Antoine Walker stymieing Shaq in December of 2003. It was the first time we beat them out there since the first Bush was president.

That just proves my point. Nellie couldn't beat Shaq in LA until his last full season as head coach. Hell, he even had a 27 point lead going into the 4th quarter one year and couldn't get it done.

chumdawg
11-21-2006, 02:17 AM
It was 26, and it wasn't the fourth quarter.

FINtastic
11-21-2006, 02:19 AM
http://espn.go.com/classic/s/instant_classic_mavericks_lakers.html

I really didn't want to open old wounds here but according to this link, it says 27 to start the fourth quarter.

fluid.forty.one
11-21-2006, 02:23 AM
http://espn.go.com/classic/s/instant_classic_mavericks_lakers.html

I really didn't want to open old wounds here but according to this link, it says 27 to start the fourth quarter.


"Michael Finley missed a 3-pointer with one second remaining for the Mavs"

This made me laugh.

Tokey41
11-21-2006, 02:49 AM
Great performance against the Warriors tonight but it doesn't mean a thing to a Maverick fan. I highly doubt we would have improved if he was still here at this point, and i'm glad the way things turned out in the end. I don't think theres any denying that our roster would have looked a hell of a lot different if Nash had stayed though, no Terry, no Harris, no Diop, no Damp... so in other words most of our core would be dratsically altered. What would we have? Possibly still Walker and Jamison, ugh. You can't assume a team that is WAY different than what we currently have would have made it to the finals let alone beat Miami. And if you think Nash, Dirk, and Jho would get it done without a supporting cast that at the very least rivals that one think again.

But the reason I really dont mind Nash leaving is that if he was still here Dirk would still be criticized for relying on him too much to be a star, and the guy still doesn't get his respect even after making it to the finals. It drove me insane then, and it still bothers me a little that the common basketball fan is that dumb.

FINtastic
11-21-2006, 02:53 AM
The Jamison for Stackhouse and the 5th pick (which turned into Devin) deal technically happened before Nash left.

alexamenos
11-21-2006, 10:49 AM
I don't think theres any denying that our roster would have looked a hell of a lot different if Nash had stayed though, no Terry, no Harris, no Diop, no Damp... so in other words most of our core would be dratsically altered. What would we have? Possibly still Walker and Jamison, ugh. You can't assume a team that is WAY different than what we currently have would have made it to the finals let alone beat Miami. And if you think Nash, Dirk, and Jho would get it done without a supporting cast that at the very least rivals that one think again.

great point, tokey....

we certainly wouldn't have terry, and almost as certainly we wouldn't have damp (not having damp, based on the first 10 games of this season, would be a bad thing btw)....hell, we'd probably still have Nelson rather than Johnson--nellie-love aside--I'll take last year's coach of the year.

So...it ain't just a question of how good would this team be with Steve Nash, but instead it's a question of who would this team be?

I think that all the lamenting over Steve Nash and Mike Finley is silly.

cheers