Nash's agent calls Shaq a "hiccup"

[DPG21920]

I think getting a big man that could defend the paint and not be an offensive liability was who they should've gone after...A Camby or Chandler type. , the reason they played the Spurs so tough in 07 was because Kurt Thomas did a good job of defending Duncan and consistently hit that mid-range jumper without bogging down their offense.

The problem with Shaq is that he still wants to be The Man. He talked a good game about blending in with Phoenix and being a complementary player...I don't pay near as much attention to the Suns as DOK or dsf, but it seemed watching from afar that he wanted the offense to run through him in the 08/09 season. I kinda agree with da_suns_fan that bringing him in means a short shelf life before he has a corrosive effect on team chemistry. He helped the Heat win a le but they were glad to be rid of him at the end of his days in Miami, and not just bc they were getting rid of his contract.

See that line of thinking I do not get. When you are making a trade of that magnitude, you only think about winning a le. Yes Shaq had some of that baggage and it was a risk, but if it clicked, it was one of the very few trades that could have resulted in winning a chip. The style did not work and they needed to be creative and change it.

Getting a Camby/Chandler...might have been a better fit, but no matter what, the ceiling on that trade would never equal a le, so why do it?

[Findog]

See that line of thinking I do not get. When you are making a trade of that magnitude, you only think about winning a le. Yes Shaq had some of that baggage and it was a risk, but if it clicked, it was one of the very few trades that could have resulted in winning a chip. The style did not work and they needed to be creative and change it.

Getting a Camby/Chandler...might have been a better fit, but no matter what, the ceiling on that trade would never equal a le, so why do it?

I've never been a big fan of Amare's game...he is an unreal talent, but it was my opinion back in 2007 that he'd never amount to anything more than what he already is...a guy who just can't put it all together. Won't play defense, won't sacrifice touches or other aspects of his game to make his team stronger, etc. I don't think he's a bad guy per se, but he strikes me as the kind of guy who isn't too upset one way or the other if Phoenix loses but he scores 40...but if they win and he only scores 12, he'd be pissed.

I always thought if a le was what they were after, they should've dangled Amare as the trade bait. He would've fetched more, they'd still have Marion to cross match on defense for Nash, guard multiple positions and continue to be a one-man fast break...and Amare could yield the parts they needed to win a le (more D in the middle). With Nash at the time, he could've turned Erick ing Dampier into a double-double machine.* My contention is Amare is the piece they should've used to shore up their weaknesses, not Marion. Marion on the Suns was such a perfect fit. And I think getting rid of Amare would've solved a lot of his unhappiness issues in Phoenix.

* I'm just using Damp as an example of Nash's ability to work magic with the most woefully inept offensive players. I am by no means suggesting they should've traded Amare for Damp.

[Xylus]

I think the SSOL teams were fatally flawed...despite good individual defenders like Bell, Diaw and Marion, they routinely gave up 50%+ shooting nights.

Their opponents' FG% was mid-level, not really that much worse than the best teams of any given year. The Suns' problem was always defensive rebounding, and an inability to guard Tim Duncan. SSOL didn't routinely give up 50%+ shooting nights, they routinely gave up 50 rebounds.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

I think getting a big man that could defend the paint and not be an offensive liability was who they should've gone after...A Camby or Chandler type. The problem with Shaq is that he still wants to be The Man. He talked a good game about blending in with Phoenix and being a complementary player...I don't pay near as much attention to the Suns as DOK or dsf, but it seemed watching from afar that he wanted the offense to run through him in the 08/09 season. I kinda agree with da_suns_fan that bringing him in means a short shelf life before he has a corrosive effect on team chemistry. He helped the Heat win a le but they were glad to be rid of him at the end of his days in Miami, and not just bc they were getting rid of his contract.

The "Shaq whining about his touches killed the team" thing is a convenient story the media could cook up justifying a Shaq trade because of how much Shaq complained in the past. Culburn369 might not seem like the most informational poster but he knows what he's talking about when he says the media and the Suns own a little piece of each other and you have to earn a spot in their little circle. Every year the Suns and the media come up with a scapegoat to shove down everyone's throat. In 2007, it was the Amare suspensions. 2008, it was D'antoni because he partially was to blame and he had said some really stupid things setting himself up. 2009, it was Shaq because his past breakups with teams made him a convenient target for the media.

I challenge anyone to find me a quote from this past season where Shaq demanded more touches. Shaq was a great teammate last season, he was the one pranking around with Lou Amundson and going up to hug Goran Dragic everytime Dragic did something good. You never saw Nash hanging around with the younger players trying to loosen them up when they're trying to adjust to the NBA, Shaq was the one doing all of that. He actually did quite the opposite calling Robin Lopez "overrated" and saying "this is by far the toughest season I've ever had," and on way more than one occasion expressing his desire to bolt Phoenix and head to NY.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Getting a Camby/Chandler...might have been a better fit, but no matter what, the ceiling on that trade would never equal a le, so why do it?

Sons I wish everyone had this mentality.

[Findog]

I think one other benefit of trading Amare is that it would've allowed Diaw to blossom. Don't get me wrong, I think Diaw is a bit of a pussy, but he played very well for Phoenix in 2006 and he seemed like a much different player in Charlotte. It just seems like he couldn't adjust to Amare being back on the team and find a role.

[DPG21920]

That is a legit argument, but I think Marion was more of a malcontent. Not to mention, if you think you can make a move to contend/keep building for the future, trading Marion makes more sense than Amare.

[Xylus]

People often forget that Amare wasn't the only big man we lost before the 2006 playoffs. Kurt Thomas, who had anchored a pretty solid defense for an offensive-minded team, got injured about 20 games before the playoffs started and didn't make a full return. That left Boris Diaw and Tim Freaking Thomas as our primary bigs. Had Kurt Thomas been healthy that postseason, we might have beaten Dallas and Miami.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

I think one other benefit of trading Amare is that it would've allowed Diaw to blossom. Don't get me wrong, I think Diaw is a bit of a pussy, but he played very well for Phoenix in 2006 and he seemed like a much different player in Charlotte. It just seems like he couldn't adjust to Amare being back on the team and find a role.

One reason is he couldn't adjust the other was because he had no desire to. Right after Diaw signed his long term contract he showed up to training camp fat as can be and whether he could or couldn't adjust to Amare has nothing to do with his habit of passing out of wide open layups or deciding to hoist up 20 footers when he's got a clear path. As you mentioned, he's a puss.

Yeah I know he played well in Charlotte while he was motivated to make Phoenix eat CROW and motivated to show everyone he's better than Amare (which he isn't), but lets see how he plays a year from now once he's got the fans convinced he's a hard worker.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

People often forget that Amare wasn't the only big man we lost before the 2006 playoffs. Kurt Thomas, who had anchored a pretty solid defense for an offensive-minded team, got injured about 20 games before the playoffs started and didn't make a full return. That left Boris Diaw and Tim Freaking Thomas as our primary bigs. Had Kurt Thomas been healthy that postseason, we might have beaten Dallas and Miami.

He doesn't help us against Dallas that much matchup wise, but if he was healthy they don't need 7 games to beat the Lakers and the Clippers, which means Raja Bell's calf doesn't get torn game 1 of the WCF because his legs would have gotten to rest.

Also, if Phoenix gets by Dallas, they for sure beat Miami. Miami matched up horribly with the SSOL Suns.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Are Suns fans still trying to argue that their teams weren't godawful on defense? They're like the Holocaust Deniers of NBA fandom.

As wrong as it sounds, Xylus' post was right. The opponent FG% from 2005-2007 was middle of the pack, but the defense was still horrible when you factor in the offensive rebounds given up.

[Findog]

The only time the Suns were "average" on defense was 2005-2007. Average doesn't cut it, le-wise, even if you're the best offensive team in the league.

[Guajalote]

DoK, I always thought the Diaw/Bell trade was the death blow for the Suns. Up to that point, it seemed to me with Barbosa coming off the bench, Amare doing his thing, Bell causing fits with his D, and Nash doing his thing, the Suns were at their best. Once those two got traded, as a Spurs fan, I seemed to be able to relax a lot more going into a Suns game or series.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

DoK, I always thought the Diaw/Bell trade was the death blow for the Suns.

I really wish I could pinpoint one particular "deathblow" to the team, but there isn't any. They were 13-10 at the time of that trade and Bell was doing anything but lock people up on D leading up to that trade. Diaw was still lazy fat Diaw. The Suns were headed South way before that trade.

[TheMACHINE]

Of course the re ed band wagon Laker fan Machine isn't gonna respond to my post since he knows it's true.

Whatever floats your flip flopping boat. I bet you were all up on Nash's nuts when the Suns were doing great. Dont tell me about bandwagoning. You're the one known as the flip flopper on this board. Im actually looking forward to the Suns doing good this year to watch you start the "nash is goat" threads.

Just so you dont start crying, I guess its only coincidence that the Suns fell apart after Shaq came...since Shaq isnt known for leaving teams in a mess right.

Que the "I wasnt a nash fan when the Suns were on top of the league" bull .

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Whatever floats your flip flopping boat. I bet you were all up on Nash's nuts when the Suns were doing great. Dont tell me about bandwagoning. You're the one known as the flip flopper on this board. Im actually looking forward to the Suns doing good this year to watch you start the "nash is goat" threads.

Just so you dont start crying, I guess its only coincidence that the Suns fell apart after Shaq came...since Shaq isnt known for leaving teams in a mess right.

Que the "I wasnt a nash fans when the Suns were on top of the league" bull .

since you and Allanon call me a flip flopper I'm therefore the flip flopper of this board.....

And yeah, I loved Nash when the Suns were good. I'm sure you loved Shaq from 2000-2002. The past is the past. What Nash did in 2006 doesn't make what he did in 2009 ok. Are you saying that since Nash used to be good I should be OK with the Suns throwing away the next 5 seasons?

And I'd love to hear about how the Suns are going to be good when they couldn't make the playoffs last year. If you think trading Shaq for nothing helps them then you're even a more re ed fatass than I thought you were.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Just so you dont start crying, I guess its only coincidence that the Suns fell apart after Shaq came

They had fallen apart already, anyone with an IQ above 80 looking at it from an unbiased perspective would know that. Refer to my post showing the games big men were having against them before the Shaq trade, and then tell me a team with that interior defense was capable of winning it all.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

If you were a fan prior to the Gasol trade, you'd remember the 2007 Christmas game where Bynum completely lit the Suns up.

[TheMACHINE]

They had fallen apart already, anyone with an IQ above 80 looking at it from an unbiased perspective would know that. Refer to my post showing the games big men were having against them before the Shaq trade, and then tell me a team with that interior defense was capable of winning it all.

and your an idiot to think that anything can happen if they hold a good seed in the playoffs. You're also a re to think that Shaq in the suns didnt change the system. The Suns were a couple suspensions short of making the Finals. You can bash Nash all you want, but to think that Shaq being with the Suns has nothing to do with thier downfall is ignorant.

[La Peace]

That he did Doc, that he did.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

and your an idiot to think that anything can happen if they hold a good seed in the playoffs. You're also a re to think that Shaq in the suns didnt change the system. The Suns were a couple suspensions short of making the Finals. You can bash Nash all you want, but to think that Shaq being with the Suns has nothing to do with thier downfall is ignorant.

"Anything can happen" is ludicrous.

It's convenient of you to ignore this stat when I repeatedly post it, but the Suns were 4-12 against the other 8 good teams in the West at the time of the Shaq trade. A team with that record against the team's they'll be playing in the playoffs won't win a championship, and you're re ed if you think it could.

And yes, trading for Shaq had something to do with their downfall because it wound up being a trade that didn't work. I never denied that.

[La Peace]

As a Laker fan who watched Shaq and those Suns play a lot through the years, here was what my honest thought process was before and after the Shaq trade.

Before: "Yes we have Gasol, we are definitely better than the Suns now."

After: "Wow that risky, we can probably still beat them, but if they can make it work we are in for a dog fight."

And that, to me, is the only reason why that trade was made, in the event that it worked, they would be in a better position than before. And as a fan thats all I would want from my team, to take a shot at winning.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

The Suns were a couple suspensions short of making the Finals.

You're comparing a team with Kurt Thomas to a team w/o Kurt Thomas. If the Suns don't have KT in that series, they get swept.

[TheMACHINE]

"Anything can happen" is ludicrous.

It's convenient of you to ignore this stat when I repeatedly post it, but the Suns were 4-12 against the other 8 good teams in the West at the time of the Shaq trade. A team with that record against the team's they'll be playing in the playoffs won't win a championship, and you're re ed if you think it could.

And yes, trading for Shaq had something to do with their downfall because it wound up being a trade that didn't work. I never denied that.

Lebron was able to get to the ECF with bad record againts top teams....fine...i wont blame you for the Suns Franchise mistake, but IMO it was a dumbass move regardless. You might like that move, but you were the number 1 seed, and risked changing the whole system that got you there for an aging big man with a fat contract who couldnt do crap in his last year with Miami. Cleveland will suffer the same fate, but they will lose Lebron as well.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

You can bash Nash all you want, but to think that Shaq being with the Suns has nothing to do with thier downfall is ignorant.

Acting like you know more about the Suns than someone who knows their 2nd biggest owner, has watched more or less every game since 2000, and has way too much on his hands to read about what went on is about as ignorant as it gets when my guess is you watched at most 10 Suns games last year and probably didn't read a single article about them.