Well-written "Nash for MVP" article by Skip Bayless

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

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]

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]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

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]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

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]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

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]

Originally Posted by MFFL

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MFFL

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]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

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]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

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]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

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]

Originally Posted by MFFL

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]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

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]

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]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dirno2000

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]

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]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

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]

Originally Posted by MFFL

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]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

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]

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]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

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]

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]

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.