exactly, Steve Nash's superb play over the last couple of years has a lot more to do with him being in a completely different system in Phoenix (that obviously suits him a lot more) as oppose to what Dallas was running.
It's not like Steve Nash woke up and decided to play like an MVP for the of it
True.
I think Nash would have developed along well with Dirk and the cast that Dallas has now.
Yeah, you guys keep on thinking that letting the best PG in the last 50 years go was a good idea.
Nash would have done it for you, no doubt.
DD
For whatever the reason, I think it was proven that Nellie/Nash/Dirk wasn't going to be the best in the league. I can't imagine Nash playing in Avery's system. Nash is better with a big finisher like Amare, anyway and Dirk has proven that he doesn't need Nash.
Im glad it happened, two great teams to watch instead of one.
So Nash is better than Isiah, Magic, Oscar Robertson and John Stockton? Really?
Who's guarding Tim Duncan on that team? The Mavs would've never beaten the Spurs with the same team they had.
Can people stop talking about us letting steve nash go? We were a couple of questionable calls away from winning a championship. http://youtube.com/watch?v=fydhtOSlfW0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5y8nI1PPYOk
If the Mavs had resigned Steve Nash, they would not have been getting the player that won two MVP awards in Phoenix. Nash ran the Suns offense by getting Marion and Amare easy layups and dunks in transition. In Dallas, he would've continued to play pick and pop and the two-man game with Dirk and the other jumpshooters on the roster. Phoenix and D'Antoni's offense has been a much better fit for Nash's skills than Dallas ever was. It's the same lazy assumptions about how the Bulls made a huge mistake by getting rid of Tyson Chandler. Of course Chandler has more of an offensive impact and looks so much better when his point guard is Chris Paul instead of Kirk Hinrich. Look at how much better Dampier looks with Kidd as opposed to Jason Terry and Devin Harris. Nor have the Suns ultimately been able to overcome Nash's poor defense in the playoffs.
Erick Dampier was signed with Nash's salary slot. He is obscenely overpaid, but it was the right principle, getting size and defense in the middle. Would you rather have Steve Nash or Erick Dampier guarding Tim Duncan or Shaq? How do you explain the Mavs losing Nash and getting better?
This is also overlooking that the fact that if Nash had stayed, Nellie would have as well, and the Mavs would've continued to come up short against San Antonio in the playoffs every year. He quit on the team when his mancrush went to the desert to play for the Suns. It worked out for Nash and it worked out for the Mavericks. I have yet to hear anybody explain how a team with Dirk, Nash and Shawn Bradley at center would've gone on to win a le, since that team wouldn't be able to get stops in the playoffs.
Nash's MVP awards are kind of a joke. He had a better claim to the second one when he kept the Suns together during the Amare-less year, but the dude cannot keep his man in front of him. He certainly deserved to be in the conversation of MVP talk, but there were others more deserving.
What hurt the most about losing Nash is not that they left a championship or two on the floor by allowing him to walk, which they didn't, but that they had no control over his destination and he strengthened a fellow conference team into an elite rival.
Oh, more ignorant bull from the know-it-all Rocket Fan .
This guy should be taken about as seriously as SpursDynasty, expecially after a post like this.
Nash isn't better than Mark Price in his prime. He's been on a team that scores 130 points a game against the Grizzlies and Hawks in the regular season and literally gets physically ousted out of the playoffs every year. Maybe Shaq solves that problem but Nash has become ridiculously overrated.
Dallas has as good a shot as Phoenix come playoff time. And Dallas has no shot.
Another "know-it-all" Mav fan. You should be taken as seriously as SpursDynasty with this post.
So Phoenix and its atrocious defense is going to beat LA, San Antonio, Utah, New Orleans, Boston or Detroit should they face them.
I can see Phoenix beating New Orleans, but I'm on the line with Utah and LA.
I think the Suns can and will beat any team besides the ones I listed. Don't know how they won't run into one of them in the playoffs.
The teams I don't want to face as as follows, and probably in order...
Detroit
New Orleans
Los Angeles
Golden State
After those three teams, I think the Suns have a coinflip's chance or better vs. teams like Utah, San Antonio, Boston... and are very likely to beat team's like Houston, Dallas, Denver and Cleveland or Orlando, should either luck into a Finals appearance.
I think he meant to say 15, but since they sound so close in one's head, typed 50...
As for whether or not the Mavericks with Nash/Dirk/Nellie had run their course, I think this is a gross over statement. In 2002-03 they were possibly one Dirk ankle injury away from getting to the Finals, where they likely would have defeated the Nets. Had Cuban not gone ape and acquired both Jamison and Walker that next offseason, completely screwing up the previous team's chemistry, then it's quite possible they'd have remained just as competative that 2003-04 season, instead of failing miserably, then having a fire sale, ousting Nash in favor of Dampier, Walker in favor of Terry and Jamison in favor of Stackhouse, Laettner and the #5 overall (Harris).
But, let's just say they still made the trades on the 2003 offseason, still failed, then still made every move in the 2004 offseason, save for signing Dampier over Nash.
Now, instead of needing Harris at #5, they can select a big man, likely Biedrins, though Jefferson went late lottery as well. They could still have traded a future 1st for that 2004 Denver 1st, but instead of taking Podkolzine, they could have selected Anderson Varejao.
They'd still likely have landed Diop, as they were the only team interested.
PG: Nash... Terry
SG: Stackhouse... Terry
SF: Howard... veteran filler
PF: Dirk... Varejao, Laettner
C: Biedrins... Diop
Sure, Nash's defense would have still been suspect, but with Diop, Biedrins and Varejao, you have three active and athletic big men to roam the middle and contest shots. They'd have been a very good rebounding team and, with the right veteran role players (like a Buckner or Griffin), they'd have been a very tough out as their shooting would be better than currently, with not much else actually being worse.
Maybe they don't win a le. Maybe they don't even make the Finals. But point is we just don't know what twists and turns would have been taken had they resigned Nash, therefore we can't say for certain that it wouldn't have worked.
So Nash is better than Gary Payton, Mark Price, Baron Davis, Chris Paul, Deron Williams and John Stockton?I think he meant to say 15, but since they sound so close in one's head, typed 50...
.
They were never going to beat the Spurs with that nucleus.
Cuban doesn't initiate player personnel decisions. And what was "ape " about that? They bought low and sold high on Van Exel, he never again did anything in this league, and Walker had two seasons left on his deal. That's why they got him - his expiring contract was valuable and they wanted to get out from under the horrendous contract they had given the Raefist.Had Cuban not gone ape and acquired both Jamison and Walker that next offseason,
The only chemistry that was screwed up was between Cuban and Nellie, over a dispute on Dirk playing in the 03 Conference Finals.completely screwing up the previous team's chemistry,
,Now, instead of needing Harris at #5
Harris and Nash were both Mavericks for two weeks. Harris was specifically acquired to be Nash's understudy and spell him for 15 minutes a game. They wanted to keep Nash, but they were not going to pay big, big bucks for somebody who had broken down in the playoffs every year and who they only planned to play 30 minutes a game. There's no taking Biedrins over Harris because that was never the plan.
There were no plans to acquire Terry until Nash left and they needed a veteran guard, since they didn't want to immediately turn the reigns over to Harris as a rookie.PG: Nash... Terry
Michael Finley and his pre-amnesty contract weren't going anywhere.SG: Stackhouse... Terry
Huh?SF: Howard... veteran filler
PF: Dirk... Varejao, Laettner
C: Biedrins... Diop
Which is a big reason why Phoenix goes home every yearSure, Nash's defense would have still been suspect,
We'd have only one of those guys, and he never played more than 15 minutes a game because of his stamina and durability. He never played in Cleveland, and he weighed about 80 pounds more in Cleveland than he did in Dallas. He could never play big minutes consistently, and the other two were never going to be Mavericks.but with Diop, Biedrins and Varejao, you have three active and athletic big men to roam the middle and contest shots.
No, they wouldn't have.Maybe they don't win a le.
No, they wouldn't have.Maybe they don't even make the Finals.
So why are we speculating about implausibilities here?But point is we just don't know what twists and turns would have been taken had they resigned Nash,
We can say with relative certainty, at least those of us familiar with the roster at the time, what was going on in the front office, what kind of team we already had here in Dallas, how Nash played with the personnel he was surrounded with here as opposed to Phoenix, that Dallas DID NOT leave a le on the floor by letting him walk to Phoenix. Again, how does a lineup of Dirk, Nash, Finley and Shawn Bradley stop anybody? We'd already seen that play out. What hurt the worst about it was that he signed with a fellow West team and strengthened them into a contender, as opposed to signing with an Eastern team.therefore we can't say for certain that it wouldn't have worked.
Avery Johnson for coach of the year!!
Kidd for MVP!! Whoo hooo NBA "I'm Lovin it"
lol, Houston Rockets.
Fin... I'll agree it was a longshot. In the long run, I actually liked their team pre-Harris trade. It had already defeated that Spurs nucleus and had made the Finals, where they really should have won. In fact, I liked their team very much. Diop and Harris made them much better defensively. But we've already gone over this.
I agree that had they kept Nash, it would have been a longshot, but had they, there were many options to take advantage of and that roster I gave isn't such a stretch since most of the trades happened anyways and since Biedrins is playing very well under Nellie now.
I guess I just take issue to speaking in absolutes where nothing is certain since said scenerios never played themselves out. I get on Suns fans for claiming a le is guaranteed, or was guaranteed had only... I think we both agree that their first post-Nash plan was a very good one, and one that should have, and still could have worked had they only let it. Maybe your not yet of the same opinion regarding Kidd, and I'm probably a little too caught up on "what ifs" to see why you state in absolutes, but Overall I think we're prtty close on both the Suns and Mavs.
And, in theory the trades for Walker and Jamison were good. Maybe had they done one or the other, things would have worked out better. But I watched plenty of that seasons Mavs - though not as much as you, I'm guessing - and do feel they had way too many players who need the ball in their hands to be effective. That's why they bombed... that, and the absolutely zero defense. On paper, selling high on Van Exel and getting Jamison was good. On paper, getting rid of LaFrentz's contract for a productive player with a much shorter contract was good. But each together and with that team just failed. Whether it was Cuban or Nellie or whomever your GM is, that doesn't matter... it was just too many similar players for one team to succeed with. Whether or not is was an overreaction to losing, I may have overstated. I don't know. Cuban is good for a big trade every year or two.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote